1 Thursday, 12 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
6 IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours. And good morning to
10 members of the Defence. My name is Di Fazio. I appear this morning with
11 Mr. Hannis and Mr. Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For
13 the Defence team of Mr. Mico Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic and
14 Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
16 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And if there is nothing that we need
18 address -- I see the witness is on his way back to the stand.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, Professor Pasalic. Before Mr. --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
22 JUDGE HALL: -- Di Fazio - I'm sorry - resumes his
23 cross-examination, I remind you that you're still on your oath.
24 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Could we have page 3 of Dr. -- Professor Pasalic's report up on
2 the screen, please.
3 That's page 3 in the English. It's paragraph -- it's essentially
4 paragraph 9, so it should be the same or just about the same in the
5 B/C/S. Thanks.
6 WITNESS: STEVO PASALIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
9 Q. I just want to look at this introduction again, just briefly, if
10 we could. These three charts that you provided for Zavidovici, Kljuc,
11 and Sanski Most contrast the years 1991 and 2009; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And from there, you -- looking at those three charts, you then go
14 on to say that from these examples we can conclude that the migrations
15 and changes occurred in -- from the pre- to post-war period and the
16 reasons were the four reasons set out; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So we've got period of 18 years between 1991 and 2009, and would
19 you agree with me that that's 18 years of factors working on the
20 population in those three municipalities, and -- whatever those factors
21 might be, economic, political, war-related factors, and so on?
22 It has to be 18 years of factors at work. Factors continue to
23 work, don't they? And it's 1991 to 2009.
24 A. Yes. These are different factors. However, they were present
25 during the war and after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And they had a
1 direct or indirect affect on overall demographic trends. That is what I
2 wish to show by way of these examples, how these demographic processes
3 had not stopped after the end of the war.
4 Q. I understand that. No problem. We understand each other. We've
5 got, however, 18 years' worth of factors at work here, haven't we?
6 Because they're the two snap-shots that you've got, 1991 and 2009.
7 It just has to be that, doesn't it? Don't you agree? I see you
8 nodding. I'll take that as agreement.
9 Did you consider --
10 A. I have a problem with following this. I'm silent because I have
11 a problem with hearing what you're saying and then I hear my own voice.
12 Is seems to be all right now.
13 So, if we look at a longer period of time, we can get to relevant
14 conclusions about demographic changes that are affected by these
15 different factors, both those that were dominant in war, as well as those
16 that prevailed after the war.
17 What I particularly pointed out was the economic factor, that is,
18 the basic reason for the immigration of the population from
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period up to 1991. As I already said, the
20 annual average was between 13- and 17.000; that was the negative
21 migration balance. During the war, of course, it was --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Professor Pasalic --
23 A. And then it continued after the war.
24 Q. Professor Pasalic, I don't want to go into the reasons, okay?
25 All I want to -- for migration. All I want to establish, and I thought,
1 would have thought, it would be absolutely self-evident, is that you've
2 got 18 years of factors operating on emigration. If you look at your
3 charts, 1991 to 2009, and whatever the reason was, and I'm not interested
4 in what the reasons were, but whatever the reasons were, they're all
5 operating during that period of time, apart from the war-related factors.
7 A. I wished to present in an illustrative manner that these three
8 municipalities, two of which are involved in this case, and the majority
9 population, in this case the Bosniak population, was moving out of the
10 these municipalities and local communes for certain reasons. I believe
11 that the dominant reasons were economic. So the objective was to prove
12 that it was economic and other reasons that were always a motivation for
13 the population to be oriented towards migration. It is not only on
14 account of coercion or something like that.
15 Q. Okay. Thanks for that. Anyway, you looked at 1991 and 2009.
16 Did you ever consider trying to look at the picture in those three
17 municipalities or, indeed, any other selection of municipalities in a
18 closer time-frame; for example, between 1991 and 1997 or 1998?
19 A. I would be very pleased to look at that. However, I pointed out
20 that Bosnia-Herzegovina has not had a population census since 1991. And,
21 for example, information did not exist for 1997 and 1998. Data was only
22 based on estimates that are not based on reliable sources. It is only
23 from 1996 onwards that the federal institute for statistics and the
24 institute for statistics of Republika Srpska gave their initial estimates
25 on the population of individual municipalities, all of them.
1 I did not present the data here, but the data clearly indicated
2 for this entire area that there were less inhabitants of all ethnic
3 affiliations. However, the process continued. The population has
4 constantly been on the decline. There are other factors involved too,
5 and we are studying them through demographic transition; a lower birth
6 rate, and that can be added to --
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not interested in what
8 your further studies are. I'm just asking you -- it's a simple question.
9 I'll put a simple question to you: It's more desirable, isn't it, when
10 trying to examine the reasons for movement of populations during a war to
11 have a shorter span that you look at, perhaps 1991 and the end of the
12 war, or 1996, or 1997, or 1998, rather than the year 2009? If you could
13 achieve that, that would be more desirable. Wouldn't you agree?
14 A. Well, I have to give some clarification here.
15 In demography, as a rule, nothing meaningful happens over a short
16 span of time, and it is difficult to draw conclusions on certain
17 demographic processes for shorter periods of time. But I do agree that
18 for certain needs we could have made a review of demographic processes
19 for a few years. But that could not reflect a rule in these demographic
21 So in this case I decided that it would be an 18-year period, or,
22 rather, the last year of the census and the last year of the estimated
23 population in the mentioned municipalities.
24 Q. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. The -- two of the
25 municipalities that you formed the basis of your conclusions there, in
1 paragraph 9, are Kljuc and Sanski Most. In 2009, they were split
2 municipalities, namely, they'd been split as between the Republika Srpska
3 and the Federation. That's correct, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. The area of Sanski Most is Ostra Luka, now
5 Republika Srpska, and then there's Ribnik. These are small
6 municipalities with small populations, respectively.
7 Q. I can't tell, the reader can't tell, from looking at this chart
8 whether you counted both sections of Sanski Most and Kljuc. Did you do
9 that or not? In other words, did you count everyone in
10 Federation Sanski Most and everyone in RS Sanski Most?
11 A. If you look at these tables, if you look at the column of 1991,
12 it looks at the municipalities in their integral version, together. And
13 then there is the federal information -- the information of the federal
14 institute of statistics. However, Ostra -- where they're separated.
15 Ostra Luka and Ribnik do not significantly affect this tendency of a
16 sharp decrease in the population of these two municipalities.
17 Especially --
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... no --
19 A. -- because what was highlighted was the Bosniak population as
21 Q. I'll return to my question. Did you count both parts of
22 Sanski Most that had been split, the Federation part and the
23 Republika Srpska part? The same applies to Kljuc. Did you or did you
24 not do that?
25 A. I shall repeat. 1991, yes. Because that is what is in the
1 statistics involved. 2009, no. Not all -- not both parts are there.
2 It's only Sanski Most and Kljuc that now belongs to the Federation.
3 Q. Well, you're not comparing the same area, are you? I mean,
4 you're not comparing the same area, geographic area, in 1991 as you are
5 in 2009. And that simply makes these statistics useless, doesn't it?
6 A. That is not right. Because we cannot arbitrarily divide
7 territories up in relation to official sources. However, in our
8 analyses, we can indicate which share is accounted for by some
9 settlements that are singed out of these municipalities. I said clearly
10 that these are two rural settlements that do not significantly affect the
11 overall population figures. And also that does not disrupt the processes
12 that I presented in these tables here and that is that there is a
13 decrease in the number of all the ethnic groups that populate these
14 municipalities. That is the core of the matter.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if there was no -- no
16 consequence that flowed from that, what -- why didn't you simply say that
17 and mention in here, in your report, so that the reader could understand
18 that you hadn't counted part of what used to be Sanski Most and part of
19 what used to be Kljuc in 1991, and then explain that it had a no
20 consequence? That would have been the correct way of presenting this
21 material, wouldn't it? Assuming what you say is correct anyway.
22 A. Yes. But I didn't have to do that on the assumption that whoever
23 understands these professional figures understands the territorial
24 division of Bosnia-Herzegovina according to the census of 1991 and then
25 after the end of the war in 1995.
1 I could have done that, but I did not do it in this case, and I
2 don't think that's wrong because the processes are clearly evident from
3 the figures provided here.
4 Q. You've read that the -- what I'll loosely call the Tabeau
5 reports, the Milosevic report, the case-specific report for IDPs and
6 refugees for this case, which was essentially taken from the Milosevic
7 report, and the third one, the victims of war report, all authored by,
8 mostly, Ewa Tabeau. You've read all those, haven't you?
9 A. Yes. I've read that. However, this is very voluminous material.
10 It's difficult to go into all the details. As a rule, one does not
11 remember figures. They are used for detailed analysis.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. But I think that I understand the essence, which is the most
14 important of all.
15 Q. Yeah. I'm not actually even going into figures. If you've read
16 them, you will remember, won't you, that in those reports, or at least in
17 the IDP reports, the Milosevic report, and the case-specific report
18 prepared for this case, the author want to great pains, great pains, to
19 ensure that split municipalities were counted properly following the
20 Dayton Agreement when comparing the OSCE voters statistics with the 1991
21 census statistics?
22 You remember that? You remember that from your reading of those
24 A. Yes, I remember that. But I do have a comment in that regard.
25 Q. And would you agree that that is far preferable than to simply
1 not mentioning it at all, as you did with your tables for Kljuc and
2 Sanski Most at paragraph 9?
3 A. I agree that it is a good thing that the divided municipalities
4 were mentioned, but I looked at the essence. Data on the total
5 population born up until 1980 was miscalculated. I illustrated that
6 yesterday using the example of one municipality, but I can give you other
7 examples as well. This is one of the significant shortcomings in
8 Ms. Tabeau's report.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not talking about
10 Bijeljina. We'll get to Bijeljina later today. And I'm asking about the
11 desirability of making it clear in reports that when you compare
12 municipalities that have been split as a result of the Dayton Agreement,
13 you've got to take into account figures for the split municipalities.
14 A. I've already said that that is not a bad thing. It can be
15 useful. But the question is what the essence of this research is.
16 I proceed from the premise that it is important to look at the
17 substance, not the form. I think the substance are the data obtained
18 through Ms. Tabeau's work, regardless of whether the municipalities are
19 divided or not. That is the essence, as far as I'm concerned. This was
20 miscalculated and therefore the results of the operation are wrong.
21 Q. You -- you think that it's better to look at the substance rather
22 than the form when it comes to demographic studies. I'd like to -- could
23 you explain to the Trial Chamber what exactly you mean by that?
24 A. I proceed from what Freud said, Life is essence, not form.
25 Substance, not form. And I apply that in everyday life and also in my
1 work and scholarly research.
2 The substance, the essence, is demographic trends, the number of
3 persons or ethnic groups in certain local communities, municipalities,
4 regions, in terms of a certain process that this applies to. If this was
5 done in an unacceptable way or in a less acceptable way, then that may
6 lead us to the wrong conclusions, or, rather, we can get a distorted
7 picture about a particular phenomenon or process. That would essentially
8 mean what I make a distinction between when I say form and substance.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you for that explanation.
10 Let's turn to the issue of reasons for population movements. And
11 in paragraph 9 you set out the four factors. And yesterday you touched
12 upon -- well, you discussed this in your evidence and the Trial Chamber
13 asked you numbers of questions about reasons for movement. I'm not going
14 to -- to ask about the reasons themselves, but what I would like to ask
15 you is this: You've done no research or referred to research done by
16 others that directly asks individuals why they moved in the -- in the --
17 in the -- in Bosnia?
18 A. I did carry out this research myself, in the period between 1992
19 and 1996, using standardised forms within the state institute for
20 investigating war crimes. I mentioned that on my very first day here.
21 So it is within that institution that I used certain instruments in my
22 research, like questionnaires and polls, and I filled them out for each
23 and every person that I talked to. This involves several thousand
24 persons over the span of those several years. Of course, I used the
25 results of other researchers as well, but not their individual forms. On
1 the basis of individual forms, you then put together a mosaic or, rather,
2 a picture of what had happened. That is what happened here as well. On
3 the basis of thousands of polls and interviews, we put together a mosaic
4 of what happened in a particular area. That is one of the methodological
5 approaches involved, not the only one, though.
6 Q. Thank you. What I'm asking you about is reasons for movement.
7 Did this mosaic that you referred to specify the reason an individual
8 moved? I mean, for example, because they didn't like shelling or were
9 fearful of war conditions, or because they'd been driven out at the point
10 of a bayonet, or because they decided they'd like to move to a town where
11 their uncle lived, or any of the thousands of reasons that might affect
12 movement; did you record all these reasons when you did your work in 1992
13 to 1995? And if so, where did you record them and why weren't they
14 presented here in your report?
15 A. Yes, precisely. Questionnaires and polls contained several
16 questions, including questions about the reasons why persons left their
17 places of residence. But, you see, these are individual questionnaires
18 that were stored in the archives of the documentation centre. And on the
19 basis of these individual questionnaires, we compiled reports or certain
20 conclusions, as in this report. This report is just a picture of all the
21 individual trends involved that is then blended together on the basis of
22 different factors. This is a direct questioning of persons on the ground
23 by way of interviews and polls. We cannot find that in any statistics.
24 That is why we believe that this is a source document, noteworthy,
25 because it registered for each and every individual what they had been
1 through. However, it is impossible to attach thousands of questionnaires
2 to such a report. The conclusions presented in this report are the
3 result derived from all those questionnaires. I did not think it was of
4 key importance to give examples of individual statements, although I was
5 prepared to do so.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. I can interpret one such statement, if you wish.
8 Q. No. You say it is impossible to attach thousands of
9 questionnaires to such a report. But what you could have done, if you
10 have this material - and I -- I'm not suggesting for one moment that I
11 agree with you - but assuming you do, assuming you do have information
12 about the records or the statements of people as to the reasons why they
13 moved, couldn't you have analysed your material from 1992 to 1995 and
14 presented the results rather than bringing the questionnaires here? No
15 one -- that wouldn't have been necessary, would it?
16 A. Well, if you look at my report carefully, that is practically
17 contained in all of those ten regions that I mentioned in my research
18 from 1992 to 1995. When any one of these regions is mentioned, then some
19 general characteristics are provided, then data as to how many persons
20 had moved out of certain areas. That is quite sufficient for a report
21 like this, to draw a relevant conclusion that certain factors of a
22 coercive nature, we can put it that way, affected these intensive
23 demographic trends. However, for some other purposes, certain other
24 attachments can be attached. However, that would require a different
25 form, because this information is stored in archives and would -- it
1 would require quite a bit of time to get to all that material. I do not
2 keep this at my own home because these are official data stored in an
3 official institution. However, that is what has been interpreted here.
4 Q. You -- you understand, don't you, that -- let me rephrase that.
5 Do you agree with me that the whole purpose of examining
6 statistics relating to population movements, the whole purpose in the
7 Tabeau reports for examining statistics for the population movements in
8 the indictment municipalities and deaths in 1992 in the indictment
9 municipalities, was to try and give this Trial Chamber some idea of what
10 happened in the indictment municipalities? You -- in terms of migration
11 and deaths. So that, from that, they can draw whatever inference they
12 want as to the reasons for those movements and deaths.
13 Would you agree with that?
14 A. I think I must explain.
15 Statistics does not analyse these movements. It only provides
16 numerical data. And the analysis is up to other disciplines. Statistics
17 only provides numbers. And I said yesterday that a number can say
18 whatever the one willing to play with it wants to. Ms. Tabeau's
19 report -- or, rather, in her report, apart from a host of statistical
20 data, I haven't noticed any deeper-going analysis about causal processes
21 when it comes to demography, demographic processes. I think that would
22 have been desirable, and that's why I tried to point it out in my work.
23 Q. Thank you very much, Professor Pasalic. We agree entirely. In
24 fact, I'd go further than you. I would put to you, I would suggest to
25 you, that there's nothing in any of the -- in the two, the Milosevic
1 report and the case-specific report relating to population movements,
2 authored by Tabeau that deals with the reasons for movement. You agree
3 with that? Nowhere. She doesn't put forth reasons why people moved.
4 You agree, don't you? Unlike you.
5 A. Well, yes. I believe that a number, an isolated number, is not
6 telling unless it's analysed.
7 Numbers do not speak to us unless an analysis ensues out of which
8 we can draw conclusions. That's what I stick to.
9 Q. Look, I'm not asking you about what numbers say to us. I'm
10 asking you a simple question. You agree with me, don't you, that
11 Ewa Tabeau in the two reports, the Milosevic and the case-specific report
12 for this case, she never touched upon reasons why people moved. She just
13 showed where people were living in 1991 and where they were in 1997,
14 based on the OSCE voters registers. That's all she did; right?
15 A. Well, yes. It was made that way, and I've already put forward a
16 remark that it wasn't done correctly.
17 Q. You, on the other hand, claim to have this material that does
18 provide reasons for movement, the research that you did in 1992 to 1995,
19 why people moved or, in particular, why Serbs moved.
20 So why didn't you analyse that, draw up your statistics, present
21 them in your report, and come here and tell this Trial Chamber the
22 reasons why people moved?
23 A. Well, I was of the opinion that the reasons are contained in
24 these four integrated factors: political; economic; demographic, due to
25 birth dates and mortality; as well as socio-psychological. That is some
1 objective and subjective reasons. Stating each of these reasons
2 individually would have required much more time. And in this case, I
3 didn't have as much time.
4 Q. All right. You -- in the Milosevic report, having read it,
5 you'll know that the only -- the only study that Tabeau did of reasons
6 for movement, if -- if -- let me withdraw that question.
7 The only time that the Tabeau reports ever provide any suggestion
8 as to reason for movements is the comparison that the author did of her
9 Demographic Unit figures on final conclusions of IDPs,
10 internally displaced persons in the indictment municipalities, with UNHCR
11 and Bosnian government database numbers on refugees and internally
12 displaced persons. Do you remember that part of the report? That's from
13 the Milosevic report, I -- I should say.
14 A. Well, yes. I read it. I remember that she used the data for
15 1991, when the last census was, of course, and the most recent data, but
16 not government data because there is no Government of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina - she probably means the Council of Ministers - and
18 the data from UNHCR that registered things in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
19 surrounding countries. But I also noticed that there are terminological
20 mistakes. She mentioned the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but she
21 probably means the Council of Ministers.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: And can we get up on the screen page 47 of P1627.
23 That's the Milosevic report. P1627. And in English -- sorry, in B/C/S,
24 I think it's at page 52. It's section 3.5.
25 I think Professor Pasalic should have the B/C/S ... or -- it's
1 coming. Sorry.
2 Q. You see -- you can see in the first paragraph that the purpose of
3 the study was to compare the Demographic Unit, the DU, that's
4 Demographic Unit, statistics from the voters registers with the
5 UNHCR statistics that they finalised in 2000. That's basically the --
6 called the DDPR Database. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in the next paragraph, you see that she compared absolute
9 numbers, and by that I think we can safely assume we're talking about
10 individuals, absolute numbers from the two sources and proved that the
11 minimum numbers produced by the Demographic Unit for 1997/1998 based on
12 the voters registers are generally lower for Muslims and Serbs than the
13 official DDPR statistics for the year 2000. Do you see that?
14 A. Well, I have the text in front of me. I can see it. But there
15 are many figures here. I don't know which paragraph you were reading
17 Q. Sorry, my apologies. Second paragraph.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Third paragraph, you see that the database that she -- she
20 compared her statistics with is the official registration system of
21 internally displaced persons and refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 established by the UNHCR and the government. And produces official
23 statistics for municipalities, settlements, and other areas. Do you see
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So that -- does that remind you of the exercise that she
2 conducted basically, which was: Compare her statistics with official
3 Bosnian government and UNHCR statistics on IDPs?
4 A. That was probably the methodological principle applied by
5 Ms. Tabeau. We can conclude as much.
6 Q. Thanks. And I think she comments that the comparison led to the
7 conclusion that the Demographic Unit figures were basically conservative.
8 Do you see that?
9 A. I see the last paragraph, if you're referring to that. But I
10 don't see anything in there except for some statements with regard to
11 these movements.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. If that is what you mean. The last paragraph that starts with
14 the database was established by UNHCR ... et cetera.
15 Q. All right. Perhaps we can speed this up by just turning over the
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we go to the next page, please, and show
18 Table 10.
19 Q. Okay. You see on the left-hand column are the OSCE figures;
20 they're the figures produced by the Demographic Unit of the OTP, overall
21 numbers. And the UNHCR government figures. And there's a lot in this
22 section dealing with various checks and -- and -- and deficiencies and
23 problems that she had to deal with in order to effectively compare the
24 figures. But that's the end result there, in Table 10. Do you see it?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And so for the Milosevic case area, the Demographic Unit came up
2 with 88.756 Serbs against 96.871 Serbs. Do you see that comparison? And
3 the overall figures --
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... sorry. And the overall
6 figures at the bottom are slightly more conservative. Total of IDPs at
7 the bottom is slightly more conservative than the UNHCR figures. Do you
8 see that?
9 A. That's how it is here.
10 Q. Okay.
11 Now, the UNHCR registers refugees and IDPs, doesn't it, and it
12 did so in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the years following the war?
13 A. Yes. I could notice that in the sources that I used in my work.
14 Q. Okay. And the -- in order to get yourself registered as an IDP
15 if you're a Serb or if you're a Muslim or Croat in Bosnia, or a refugee,
16 you have to provide an explanation of what happened to you, such that you
17 qualify as a refugee or an internally displaced person for UNHCR
18 purposes; correct?
19 A. I suppose that they had defined criteria for all persons to be
20 registered as internally displaced. Or as refugees, if they left
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina for third countries.
22 Q. And on a practical level, they had to do that in order to give a
23 person some -- whatever benefits they can acquire as -- as a refugee,
24 payments and registers of where they came from and assist them to return
25 to their areas and so on?
1 A. Yes. Those would be the reasons for collecting this data.
2 Because here we're talking about collecting data. In statistics, there
3 is the collection of data. It's ordering and analysing and publicising.
4 This is the period of collecting data. Whether they are collected in the
5 best possible manner is something we can't go into.
6 Q. Okay. So in terms of reasons for movement, that's a pretty good
7 comparison to make, isn't it, for Ms. Tabeau? Because her figures
8 broadly match up with the figures held by the UNHCR as to IDPs. And the
9 UNHCR is in a good position to know reasons for movement, isn't it?
10 A. Well, I said that they did collect data. But I must be very
11 honest and say that this methodology wasn't available to me, nor was I
12 familiar with that. Nor do I know how accurate this data is.
13 Here's why: It is obvious that some persons manipulated their
14 registration and they tried to register at various places. It was very
15 difficult to eliminate that. And the same thing happened with
16 voters register. One and the same person could vote at several places,
17 and then that gives a distorted image. It is questionable to what extent
18 this register can be considered a relevant document for drawing
19 conclusions. I have some reservations with regard to that.
20 Q. Okay. But apart from cases of individual fraud, it's -- it's --
21 it's a sensible approach, wouldn't you agree? If you say, Well, my
22 conclusion is X number of IDPs from the indictment municipalities, based
23 on simple fact of movement; then go and compare those numbers with UNHCR
24 who does claim to know who really is a refugee and an internally
25 displaced person; if they're the same, it would tend to point to the
1 conclusion that the numbers measured by Ewa Tabeau were, in fact, numbers
2 of internally displaced persons and refugees?
3 A. From the statistical or mathematical point of view, that is all
4 right. But from the practical point of view, I preserve the right to
5 have my reservations because of fraud and mistakes made when calculating
6 these figures. That is the difference.
7 The approach itself is not wrong with -- if everything was done
8 with good intention, and I don't doubt that, but I doubt the validity of
9 the results. And that is not difficult to corroborate by analysing
10 voters registers where one person appears in several registers.
11 I'm not talking about individual events, but a rather widespread
12 occurrence at the time.
13 Q. Okay. All right. Let's leave this topic now.
14 Part of your report is the -- are the annexes, and Annexes A1 to
15 A10 of your report are 71 pages long. And they are basically the fruit
16 of your 1992-1995 researches; correct?
17 A. Yes. This is the summary of my research on the ground. That is
18 my empirical research. I used standardised forms such as questionnaires,
19 polls, and interviews. Apart from that, I used the 1991 census as a
20 source, which, at that time, was the most relevant source for some data.
21 By combining these approaches, I arrived at the results I presented in
23 Q. Before we go into this in any more depth, I just want to know
24 this: Is the material in these annexes, Annexes A, A1 to A10, are they
25 important for your theory of territorial ethnic homogenisation, your
1 position of territorial ethnic homogenisation?
2 A. This material, as well as the material of other authors, that is,
3 Tabeau and the Research and Documentation Centre of Mr. Tokaca, all show
4 the importance of the process of the ethnic territorial homogenisation
5 for various reasons, which we can discuss, of course.
6 Q. Nowhere in your report could I see, could I find, any section
7 telling us how to use them or what they establish. Did I miss something,
8 or am I correct? Because I couldn't see anything in there. There's your
9 report and then there's the annexes.
10 A. If I understood your question correctly, that it's unclear how
11 they should be used, I explained yesterday how the table is to be read
12 and how the data should be understood. I can only repeat that.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I --
14 A. The purpose -- well, if that's not clear.
15 Q. Yeah. I certainly -- heard your evidence yesterday. No problem.
16 But why didn't you include that in your report? It would have made it a
17 lot easier for the reader, wouldn't it, to tell us what the meaning of
18 Annexes A, and also B for that matter, how to approach them, how to read
19 them, what their purpose is, and how precisely they assist conclusions
20 that you make in your report?
21 A. I could have done that, of course. But I've already told you
22 that I had limited time at my disposal for drafting this report. I
23 believe that these figures and these tables are very clear for drawing
24 conclusions from them. And I could have explained in a more
25 comprehensive elaboration to make it clearer to the wider audience, but
1 the expert audience understands the report as it stands.
2 Let me explain. These data were collected and processed 15 or
3 16 years ago, that is, in 1996. And these are the original data in these
4 tables. If I were to make new analyses now, I would probably recompose
5 them and adapt them to some new processes that are underway now.
6 Q. Professor Pasalic, I don't know where you get -- why you move on
7 to a discussion of new analyses. My question was really very, very
8 simple: Is there any particular reason why you didn't help the reader by
9 including in your report how Tables A1 to A10 should be used, how they
10 should be read, what they are there for, what conclusions in your report
11 they support? That's all. Nothing more than that. Is there any
12 particular reason why you didn't include such explanations?
13 A. There is no reason but the shortage of time. I've already said
14 that. Or possibly also considered it unnecessary because I supposed
15 everybody would understand.
16 Q. Well, you'd forgive the reader, wouldn't you, from looking at
17 Annex B and thinking that those figures in -- sorry. Yes, in Annex B, in
18 thinking that those figures relate to people rather than households. We
19 didn't find out until yesterday that those statistics aren't people,
20 they're households. You could have given us that sort of information,
21 couldn't you? Make it a little -- just a little bit easier? After all,
22 demographics is not an easy topic, is it?
23 A. I agree. I could have pointed that out in a footnote and
24 provided a brief explanation. That's probably a technical omission.
25 Q. Okay. Well, let's leave that and move on to the annexes
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we get page --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I just intervene here because I raised this
4 question with Professor Pasalic yesterday.
5 And I think you said, Professor, that actually you were in
6 possession of the number of persons, rather than the number of households
7 which you have exhibited here.
8 Are you able to provide these figures to the Chamber?
9 And the reason I'm asking, of course, is that it would make your
10 studies more comparable to other similar studies which we have seen.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that I have that
12 information here in my material, and I will be able to provide you with
13 that, the number of refugees and displaced persons, and, on the other
14 hand, the number of households. If you will allow me a moment, I will
15 try to find it here in my material so that I can give you the
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Professor, I suggest you find those figures
19 during the next break, which is in 15 minutes. Then you will have
20 20 minutes to sort it out.
21 Thank you very much.
22 Back to you, Mr. Di Fazio.
23 MR. DI FAZIO:
24 Q. Didn't you say yesterday we can work out the figures on
25 individuals; all we do is multiply a household by four. That's right,
1 isn't it? That's what you said yesterday. That's the way to find out
2 the figures, figures of individuals?
3 A. Yes. I said at that moment, if it was unclear how many persons
4 were involved, on average, it is multiplied by four, because that is the
5 average number of household members according to the census in 1991.
6 However, those are not official data. I do have official data though.
7 So I can give you that so that we have the exact number of refugees and
8 displaced persons, because that is from the list of refugees and
9 displaced persons compiled in 1996. And that is the official material we
10 use in our work.
11 Q. So four is an average; is that right? Is that -- you use the
12 average of four people per family, multiply the number of families, and,
13 presto, you have the final figures of individuals; do I understand you
15 A. Yes, that's the average. But I repeat: In statistics, that is
16 the greatest deception of all. Of course, I'm saying that by way of a
17 joke. That is an average, of course, but there are deviations from one
18 local community to another, depending on the density, the age of the
19 population, the gender structure of the population, et cetera.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just give me a moment, please.
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. All right. We'll maybe return to this later.
24 Anyway, can we look at -- sorry.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we look at page 19 of the annex, please.
2 Page 19 in Annex -- that's annex A3 of Professor Pasalic's report.
3 Page 19 in -- I think for e-court purposes it's English page 98 and
4 B/C/S page 96, but I'm not sure about that. It's the figures for Pale.
5 No, I'm sorry, I don't think that's the right one. It's page --
6 page 19 of Professor Pasalic's annexes. Oh, yes, it's there now, sorry.
7 Thanks. My apologies.
8 Q. The -- you can see your figures now, Professor? And we're
9 looking at Pale.
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Okay. So for Pale, we've got two -- two settlements, Praca and
12 Renovica; is that right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. And the figure of 16.310, is that the total, all people in the
15 municipality, based in -- from 1991?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. And the figures in the first three columns - total population,
18 total population of Serbs greater than 50 per cent, total population of
19 Serbs under 50 per cent - they're all figures obtained from the census?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And the next three columns, that's all the result of your
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If you look at burned or destroyed settlements for Pale, we've --
25 the correct way to read it is one destroyed settlement's a place called
1 Praca, but Renovica wasn't destroyed; correct?
2 A. Yes. It's only the population that left Renovica. There were
3 few of them anyway, at least at that point in time when I was conducting
4 my research.
5 Q. But it -- these statistics don't show the extent of the
6 destruction, of course. So it could be the entire settlement or it could
7 be a barn.
8 A. Statistics don't show that. However, if a settlement was
9 basically destroyed, then that information is entered here. However, if
10 it is just a house or an auxiliary building that was destroyed, of course
11 that is not recorded as the entire settlement.
12 However, I provided explanations to that effect. Where only part
13 of a settlement was destroyed, then we state that in parentheses. That
14 is not what happened in this case, but you may have noted it in other
15 cases. Also, it depended on what ethnic group populated part of the
16 settlement involved or all of it.
17 Q. Yes, indeed. And it doesn't tell you when the destruction or
18 partial destruction occurred or who caused the destruction or partial
19 destruction either, does it?
20 A. Well, it's impossible to state all of that in these tables. I've
21 already explained that. On the basis of the patterns -- or, rather, in
22 the forms in which all of this information was collected, all of that is
23 stated. Even after the Dayton Agreement there was destruction of various
24 settlements, and that was recorded. That would have to be a pile of
25 documents that would have to be attached to this document. I did not
1 think that that was relevant, that we had to give the dates and times
2 involved in detail. I believed that this is the key information
3 reflecting the processes taking place in the area. Who did it is quite
4 obvious. This is the persecution of the Serb population.
5 Q. Okay. But the information that I was talking about, namely,
6 exactly how much destruction occurred or when the destruction occurred or
7 who caused the destruction, was available to you from your 1992 to 1995
9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. Did you not have enough time to put that information into this --
11 these tables, to analyse the information you had and then produce the
12 statistics and introduce the statistics into your tables?
13 A. In this case, it meant a shortage of time. However, I didn't
14 really think it was all that necessary to go into such minute details.
15 There is information available; I collected it myself on the ground, so I
16 can interpret this information at any point in time. Of course, 15 or
17 20 years later I cannot recall each and every date, but I can work on the
18 basis of annual reports.
19 Q. And the same considerations apply to execution sites, there, as
20 well, don't they? No information as to when the execution occurred, how
21 many people were killed, who was killed, who killed them?
22 A. All of this information exists in the forms that I filled out and
23 collected. I repeat: On the basis of these individual forms, I then
24 completed the picture as to everything that had happened in the area. I
25 translated that into certain symbols used in tables. I explained
1 yesterday that this cross, that is, a symbol for places where persons
2 suffered, is actually a symbol of places where more than five persons
3 were killed. That is an interpretation that was provided by legal
4 people, and we even gave symbols for the places where we know the exact
5 number of victims.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Is this an appropriate moment, if Your Honours
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I suppose it is.
9 So we will continue in 20 minutes.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. Professor Pasalic, Annex A, all the Annex As, only deal with
16 Serbs, don't they?
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, could I just kick in a short
18 question to the witness before we leave Annex A3, if that was your
20 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, I'm going to stay with the annexes
21 generally, but, of course, I'm -- it doesn't bother me.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well.
23 Very quickly then. Professor Pasalic, in the table that we just
24 saw before the break regarding Pale, you mentioned that Serbs were
25 expelled from both of the two settlements that are included in this
1 table; namely, Praca and Renovica.
2 My question is: Do you know how many people, how many Serbs,
3 were expelled from these two settlements? Was it all of the 1100 people
4 or was it just a smaller number? Are you able to provide that additional
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is contained in
7 columns 2 and 3. 520 for Praca and 34 for Renovica. The total number is
8 554 inhabitants of Serb ethnicity.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Professor, you may have misunderstood my
10 question. In column 5, you indicate that Serbs were expelled from both
11 settlements. And my question to you is: How many Serbs were expelled
12 from these two settlements? Was it all of the 1102 people who were
13 expelled or was it a smaller number?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that you haven't understood
15 me. 1018 inhabitants is the total population of Praca, including 520
16 Serbs. The rest are of other ethnic backgrounds.
17 Renovica had 84 inhabitants, 34 of which were Serbs. So Serbs,
18 520 in Praca and 34 in Renovica. They were expelled, all of them, making
19 up a total of 554. The rest were not because they had different ethnic
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. And please forgive me for not
22 having understood it. It was not completely clear.
23 So when -- in these tables, when you indicate that Serbs have
24 been expelled from the settlements or the villages, then we are to
25 conclude that it was all of the Serbs who lived there who were expelled,
1 in all settlements; is that correct?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. Unless I
3 pointed out somewhere that it has to do with parts of the population that
4 was expelled. However, if there is no special note, that means everyone.
5 Usually that is what happened. For the most part it would be one ethnic
6 group that would be expelled.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. Professor Pasalic, just let's look at precisely what we've just
10 been answering, because I think some further clarity could be put in
12 The first three columns for Pale, I'm not talking about the town,
13 but where it contains the figures 1018, 520, and then a blank. Do you
14 see that? They're taken from the census figures. They are census
15 figures, are they not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... right. Right. Okay.
19 A. Yes, I've already said that.
20 Q. Yep, you have. You have indeed, thank you.
21 The next three - burned or destroyed, settlements from which
22 expelled, execution sites - that's all based on your figures; correct?
23 A. Yes. That are based on standardised forms containing a series of
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... okay.
1 A. These are archives that are stored in a particular place, of
3 Q. And before the break, you agreed with me, didn't you, that your
4 figures don't explain, where you say that, for example, people are
5 expelled, how many people were expelled?
6 A. Well, I think that I've explained that. In individual documents
7 or, rather, questionnaires or polls, that is contained there, and it is
8 supplemented in my reports --
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
10 A. -- as this one is, and the printed book.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
12 A. That is just a particular magnitude provided in general figures,
13 because it would require a great deal of material if we were to attach
14 all of that. And that is usually not done in scholarly work. This is an
15 archive that one usually refers to and that one represents in a
16 particular paper.
17 Q. All right. Thank you. And we're been through that earlier this
18 morning, haven't we?
19 So in that particular example for Praca and Renovica, if you look
20 at the column, the second-to-last column, settlements from which Serbs
21 were expelled, in the English translation there are two blanks, that
22 means they're positive. In fact, in your report you say there's two
23 symbols and that means yes, Serbs were expelled from those two -- two --
24 two places, Praca and Renovica. Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
2 A. I think that this is a purely technical material. That it was
3 impossible to use the same symbols when the English translation was being
4 done. I think that Mr. Cvijetic explained that yesterday.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... he did --
6 A. It is a purely technical problem.
7 Q. He did, indeed. So there's nothing to indicate, just from the
8 fact that Serbs were expelled, that 520 people from Praca and 34 people,
9 rather, Serbs, from Renovica were the numbers that were expelled. All
10 you can say is that people were expelled, Serbs were expelled from those
11 two particular villages in the municipality of Pale. Because to get the
12 numbers, we have to go back to your information that you obtained in 1992
13 to 1995 because that's where it's all buried; right? Those figures of
14 520 and 34, they're just census figures of Serbs who were living there at
15 the time, in 1991.
16 A. Let me explain. What we present here are data from my book in
17 which they were referred to. In such publications, it is impossible, and
18 it's not right either, to provide each and every detail that concerns
19 every person that was expelled from a particular settlement. However, I
20 repeat: That is why archives exist about each and every individual case.
21 In this case, it would have required thousands of pages attached
22 to this publication. If we were to follow that logic, then we could ask
23 for such data to be attached to Ms. Tabeau's report because I do not see
24 information about each and every victim referred to in her report. So
25 that is the way we should look at it.
1 Q. Okay. And you've mentioned that several times this morning. But
2 my assessment is correct: In the section -- the column, settlements from
3 which Serbs were expelled, there are no numbers. That's buried back in
4 your material, you say. All that that column shows is that some Serbs,
5 unknown number, on an unknown date were forced out of those two places by
6 unknown perpetrators; right?
7 A. No.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
9 continues] ... excuse me, Your Honours, but we have already received an
10 answer in response to Judge Harhoff's question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I give an answer now?
12 MR. DI FAZIO:
13 Q. No. Let's move on, please, to a question that I -- I wanted to
14 start off with, and that's this: The study, of course, only relates to
15 Serbs, Annex A; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Yesterday in your evidence, sir, Mr. Cvijetic was asking you
18 questions about chain reactions. And you said this:
19 "As I have already pointed out," this at page 20526. "As I have
20 already pointed out, it is necessary to emphasise the complexity of all
21 the processes and movements in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including the whole
22 population. As we know, the population comprises of the three ethnic
23 groups, three constituent peoples, as well as members of other peoples.
24 If we study all this in a comprehensive way, we obtain a realistic and a
25 comprehensive picture of all the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including
1 the demographic aspect that we are discussing today."
2 So if we take what you said yesterday, your entire Annex A which
3 only deals with Serbs must fail to do -- to provide what you call the
4 realistic and comprehensive picture of movements in Bosnia; correct?
5 A. It is my responsibility to explain that.
6 The question is a proper one, why I only deal with demographic
7 processes involving only one ethnic group. I think that I've already
8 explained that. During the war, that was -- there were restrictions.
9 You could not study processes throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. You could
10 only do it in areas where you could move about. So I was in an area
11 where I could study demographic processes involving the Serb population.
12 After the war, after a certain amount of time, the conditions
13 became right for such research as well. However, Ms. Tabeau's research,
14 as well as that of the IDC from Sarajevo, had already been rather all
15 encompassing, so I believe that anything I would have done would have
16 been duplication. I thought that all of this put together would have
17 provided a more realistic and more comprehensive picture. That is where
18 I see the significance of my own research, although it did not include
19 all the demographic processes because that was impossible.
20 Finally, I did not have the capacity to do that, to study a span
21 of ten years. This is a lot of work, and to this day practically no one
22 succeeded in doing that. However, if there are more of us involved, then
23 we can give a more comprehensive picture and also a more realistic and
24 impartial one, as is required in science.
25 That is my observation.
1 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. I thought you were about to ask a follow-up
2 question, because there's a question that occurs to me arising out of his
3 answer, and I don't ...
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Please, would Your Honour ...
5 JUDGE HALL: Professor, having regard to the limitations that
6 you've just articulated, what, then, may I ask, was the purpose of your
7 doing the study at the time you did it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said that I was
9 engaged to do research by the state documentation centre for war crimes
10 research, the research of war crimes done against the Serbian People.
11 And I'm convinced of the significance of this research, although it
12 didn't cover the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which wasn't
13 possible. So that now, in the post-war period, we may be able to get a
14 comprehensive view of the demographic movements, including the works and
15 research done by a number of authors and institutions.
16 I believe that this is the basic purpose of my research. Because
17 we could ask the question: If the centre had not done this research,
18 would we, today, have data about a part of the population or an ethnic
19 group that go into this level of detail for the period of 1992 through
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, sir.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. And while we're on this topic: You'd agree, from having read
24 Ewa Tabeau's three basic records, Milosevic, the case-specific report,
25 and war victims, those three, that throughout her reports, studies, an
1 outstanding feature is the fact that there are comparison tables and
2 analyses of all three ethnic groups from the indictment municipalities.
3 You agree with that -- and you can -- proposition?
4 A. Yes, I noticed that there are such data.
5 Q. And I put to you that regardless of whatever difficulties you may
6 have had in obtaining materials, study materials, on the basis of your
7 own words, your study is fatally flawed because of the failure to study
8 the other two ethnic groups.
9 A. It would, of course, have been much better if I had been in a
10 position -- speaking from hindsight, if I could have studied all ethnic
11 groups. Then I would have had a comprehensive study for all of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But it was impossible at the time.
13 I can reply with a question: Why didn't any scientist from the
14 Federation do such research covering all of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
15 including all ethnic groups? Nobody did because it was practically
16 impossible. We had these mechanisms and research to engage in such
17 research for object or subjective reasons. But I considered this a step
18 forward in the research of events in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time the
19 events were happening. There is no better research. It could have been
20 better if we had better mechanisms and work conditions. That is fairly
22 Q. And I must remain with Annex A, but I want -- let me rephrase
24 Yesterday, and I think again today, you've mentioned that -- that
25 your study, which produced Annex A, had consisted of five years of
1 research using standardised instruments, direct interviews -- direct
2 research, sorry - interviews, polls, and personal insight. And that's
3 what you said yesterday at transcript 20552.
4 Why didn't you include your methodology in your report?
5 A. I didn't give a detailed description of my methodology in the
6 report, but it is clear from the character of this work that this is
7 empirical research, original, scientific research on the ground, which,
8 in the classification of scientific research, is considered the most
9 relevant research.
10 Q. Okay. But wouldn't you agree with me that if it is empirical,
11 scientific, original research that the methods that you used to collect
12 these statistics are possibly the most important thing to make clear in
13 your -- in your report? In fact, it's basically just commonplace, isn't
14 it, for statistical studies to -- to set out the methodology used?
15 A. Of course it depends for what purpose you draft a report. Then
16 you can describe the methodology and the methods. Because these are two
17 different things. One thing is the methodology; the other thing are the
18 methods. I didn't do so here because I considered it obvious from the
19 results and from the information that the methods I applied were
20 geographical maps, questionnaires, polls, inductive and deductive
21 methods. I don't have to list them all.
22 I didn't consider it necessary to list them in detail here, but
23 I'm ready to explain which methodology and which scientific methods I
24 used in this work. I must point out that what we're talking about in
25 this annex was literally taken over from my printed publication. This is
1 explained in the footnote. I didn't modify anything that was publicised
2 in my monograph. I could have done so for the wider audience, but for
3 the purposes of this report, I assumed that everybody who read it would
4 understand what it is about.
5 Q. And would understand what your methodology was in collating the
6 statistics, even though there's not one word in your report about your
7 methodology, they would understand that, too, from simply reading it; is
8 that what you're saying?
9 A. Yes. But a selected audience. For the wider audience, it would
10 not be as obvious.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... all right --
12 A. My methodological approach was that of scientific research on the
13 ground. And the scientific methods are the ones I mentioned. For the
14 wider audience to understand the technical terms and terminology, because
15 this is mostly dealt with at institutions of higher education, were the
16 students who attend certain courses. For example, I teach the
17 methodology of scientific research for social sciences at the
18 post-graduate level. I do -- I teach at the University of East Sarajevo.
19 So I don't believe that this is necessary.
20 Q. Okay. Let's leave methodological research and go to one last
21 aspect of Annex A. Can you --
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I'd like to have up on the screen the tables for
23 Novi Grad and Novo Sarajevo.
24 Q. And you will see that it's in page 14 of the report.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: And I understand, for e-court purposes, in English
1 it's page 98, and in B/C/S it's page 96. And it's part of A3.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. We've got it there. Thanks very much.
4 Q. I hope you've got -- I can't read the Cyrillic, of course. I
5 hope you've got Novi Grad and Novo Sarajevo in front of you. I see you
6 nodding, so, yep. Good.
7 We've already -- we know what these figures mean because we've
8 touched upon Pale earlier.
9 So Novi Grad, as part of the settlement that you looked at for
10 Novi Grad, the municipality of Novi Grad is one settlement called "part
11 of Sarajevo"; and in the municipality of Novo Sarajevo, you looked at
12 another settlement within that municipality, and that's also called "part
13 of Sarajevo."
14 So they're just two settlements, two of several settlements, in
15 both municipalities; right?
16 A. I can try to explain this.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you don't mind --
18 A. The territorial organisation --
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you don't mind,
20 Professor Pasalic, I don't want an explanation. I just want to proceed
21 through this as quickly as we can.
22 Could you just tell me if I'm right or not right: Novi Grad has
23 a settlement called "part of Sarajevo"; Novo Sarajevo has a settlement
24 called "part of Sarajevo." Both of those two settlements are just one of
25 several settlements in both municipalities; right?
1 A. I couldn't give you a yes or no answer. Novi Grad is a
2 municipality that's part of the city of Sarajevo.
3 Novi Grad [as interpreted] is another. Parts of these settlements are
4 territories where -- from which Serbs were expelled or settlements of
5 which parts were destroyed and burned. It's not part of the settlement,
6 but it was an area of the settlement where they were most concentrated.
7 It -- these -- these are the areas where the population density
8 is highest. So Sarajevo is more demanding from the point of view of
9 research than other places.
10 Q. Okay. Perhaps we can cut through this. Let's get the 1995
11 published-by-Croatia census material from the 1991 BiH census. Sorry
12 that was inelegantly put.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I'd like to have 65 ter 1561 put up on the screen,
15 Q. And while that's coming up: Professor, you have next to you, or
16 you brought with you, the 1991 Bosnia-Herzegovina census published by the
17 Croatian authorities in Zagreb next to you on the desk, don't you?
18 A. Not today, because I showed it yesterday. But I can see what we
19 have on the screens. I didn't consider it necessary to bring it today.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. But I'm willing to comment.
22 Q. Thank you. And you brought it for reference purposes, didn't
24 A. As a source of data, of course.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we get up page 36 of this document.
1 Yes, 36. Unfortunately, we have to -- the -- the material spreads across
2 two pages, but we can try and quickly see how it's set out.
3 Q. At the bottom, you see Novi Grad; right?
4 A. Yes. But I don't see the year 1991. It's on the following page.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... it sure is. It sure is.
6 Just let me take you through it, and I think we can get through this
7 fast, all right?
8 The figures that you see at the bottom, in fact, are 1948, 1953,
9 1961, 1971 figures, but if you go -- but you can see there that in
10 Novi Grad there are three settlements: Bojnik, Ricica, and Sarajevo Dio;
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we have page 37.
14 Q. And the material in this goes horizontally across the pages,
15 doesn't it?
16 A. Yes. The following page contains the data for 1991. These are
17 the relevant data in our example.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Is it possible to put two pages up there so we can
19 see -- makes it easier; page 36 on the left hand, and page 37 on the
21 Q. Okay. The figure on page 37, that's the total, isn't it? The
22 word used is "ukupno," u-k-u-p-n-o. And that's total, isn't it, 136.616?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then we have totals for Muslims -- sorry, for Croats,
25 Muslims -- Muslims, and Serbs in the whole of Novi Grad; right?
1 A. Yes. Yugoslavs and others.
2 Q. And if we look at these census figures, for Serbs we see that in
3 the whole of Novi Grad, in the whole of Novi Grad, that's Novi Grad
4 consisting of Bojnik, Ricica, and Sarajevo Dio, there are 37.591 Serbs.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And if you look at your table of Novi Grad, you say there are
7 50.000 Serbs in just one of those settlements, the settlement you call
8 part of Sarajevo.
9 A. Well, yes. That's why I say "part."
10 Some Serbs remained in that settlement. They weren't expelled.
11 It was populated by them, and it was controlled by other formations. It
12 was difficult to delineate in such a very densely populated city. These
13 were very complex matters, so it was difficult to be very precise.
14 Q. With respect, it's not complicated in the slightest, is it? The
15 census figures show that in the entire municipality of Novi Grad, the
16 entire municipality, there were 37.591 Serbs as at 1991. You say
17 50.000 Serbs in your -- in your table. That's a mighty discrepancy,
18 isn't it?
19 A. Excuse me, but we must clarify this.
20 I state 50.000, not 15.000; do you agree?
21 Q. Yes, we agree.
22 A. Where did this -- these 50.000 come from? Why aren't they
23 37.000? I disregard the categories Yugoslavs and others. According to
24 our estimates, the greatest percentage of these were of Serb ethnicity,
25 and they were expelled together with the Serb population. I must admit
1 that this is an estimate.
2 There are no more Yugoslavs, no such category in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And we proportionally divided them up between the
4 three ethnic groups. Traditionally, the highest percentage of Serbs
5 declared themselves as Yugoslavs, those who had a strong historic
6 nostalgia for that state that was called Yugoslavia from 1918 on. But I
7 agree, it was an estimate.
8 Q. Yes. So that's people who call themselves Serbs in the census
9 and then people who called themselves Yugoslavs who were really, in fact,
10 Serbs, according to you. And you added those two figures and you came up
11 to a nice round figure of 50.000. That's what you did, isn't it?
12 A. The figure is round because it's an estimate. And without a
13 census, it was difficult to obtain an exact figure, which probably
14 wouldn't have been as round.
15 So it's an estimate that most of these
16 15.000-odd [as interpreted] Yugoslavs are, in fact, Serbs. According to
17 our estimates, that was obvious in Sarajevo, when it comes to these
19 Q. Did it ever occur to you to put this into your tables? You know,
20 this 50.000 Serbs who were in -- in these -- in Novi Grad were, in fact,
21 people who declared themselves to be Serbs and people who declared
22 themselves to be Yugoslav but who, as we all know, in fact, are Serbs.
23 Did it ever occur to you to make that clear in your statistics?
24 A. I give a clearer explanation in the textual part. This is merely
25 a table, a bare statistical figure. But in my monograph, I explain the
1 proportion based on which we estimated the affiliations of the group
2 called Yugoslavs. Whether that estimate is objective or subjective is,
3 of course, open to discussion.
4 Q. What monograph? Where -- where in your report do you talk about
5 the affiliations of Yugoslavs? Where in your report is there the
6 slightest word that we can safely treat Yugoslavs as Serbs?
7 A. I wrote two monographs about wartime demographic processes in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. One is the suffering of Serbs and Serb settlements
9 from 1997, and the other is an amended edition titled "The Anthropogenic
10 Reality of Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina." These are the two monographs
11 that are directly linked to these demographic processes, and the data can
12 be found there.
13 In this particular report, I didn't point this out, apart from
14 the footnotes in the annexes, because the annexes in this report are
15 basically scanned and it was impossible to amend them, and you see that
16 they are in Cyrillic script because they are scanned. That's how it was
17 done technically with my associates.
18 Q. Okay. The -- you cite at the end of each of your annexes, from
19 A1 to A10, the ethnic -- there's a source, being the ethnic composition
20 of the BH population 1991 census, Belgrade, 1992. Couldn't you have just
21 simply added the two figures that we see at page 37, Yugoslavs and Serbs,
22 and put them together and come up with a precise number, rather than
23 50.000? I mean, you do cite the census.
24 A. No, I couldn't add them up because we didn't attribute all the
25 Yugoslavs to the Serb group. It's our estimate that most Yugoslavs were
1 actually Serbs who declared themselves Yugoslavs, and I explained why.
2 It would been biased if I had simply added the Yugoslavs to the Serbs,
4 Q. Okay. Could we --
5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'd like to tender the
6 first page of that -- the Croatian-produced census figures for
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina into evidence and these pages, in particular
8 pages 36 and 37.
9 JUDGE HALL: Is there an objection?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm trying to
11 remember whether with the works of Ewa Tabeau possibly this was also
12 admitted into evidence, so as to avoid duplication.
13 Perhaps my learned friend can help me here. I believe that with
14 the works, this very census to which both Ms. Tabeau and our expert
15 witness are referring was also admitted into evidence.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think it was, no. I don't think it was.
17 I'm pretty safe in ...
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] What should be looked at is
21 whether the entire book was an annex.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't think -- I'm certain it wasn't. I -- I've
23 not been able to find it anywhere. And if Your Honours please, I'm
24 more -- I'm happy for the book, the whole book, to go in if you wish, if
25 you think that's preferable or if Mr. Cvijetic thinks that's preferable.
1 I'm trying to confine the amount of material that we have in the system,
2 so to speak. But I'm happy for it all to go in.
3 JUDGE HALL: We would admit the tables, not the whole book.
4 So that -- that would be admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2321, Your Honours.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: And can we just now --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, just one moment, please.
8 Professor, if -- so you are putting together the figures of Serbs
9 and people who declared themselves Yugoslavs, or the greatest part of it.
10 People who declared themselves Yugoslavs, they declare themselves not to
11 be anything -- anything else, I suppose.
12 So doesn't that -- to be able to do that, doesn't that -- don't
13 you need a definition of Serb ethnicity? And doesn't that depend on what
14 definition you give of Serb ethnicity?
15 So I would ask: What is your definition of Serb ethnicity that
16 enables you to include Yugoslavs into that category?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly, Serb
18 ethnicity is defined on the basis of how one declared oneself at the last
19 census in 1991. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, this category
20 practically disappeared, that is to say, persons who declared themselves
21 as Yugoslavs. It is proven that in neighbouring states they declared
22 themselves in a different way, no longer as Yugoslavs.
23 So let us make a comparison. In 1991, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
24 in Serbia and in Croatia and in Slovenia and in all former Yugoslav
25 republics, they declared themselves as Yugoslavs. The following censuses
1 no longer contained that category of the population, those who declared
2 themselves as Yugoslavs. It was logical, at least on a temporary basis,
3 until the census we resort to estimates as to where that population group
4 should go into. I tried to explain why we put most of them into the
5 category of the Serb population, and I, indeed, believe that that is the
6 case, knowing practical matters on the ground, where people lived, and
7 what they declared themselves as after everything that had happened in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That can be shown by some other indicators as well:
9 Like, refugees and displaced persons; they declared themselves as Serbs.
10 That is evident from the 1996 census of displaced persons as refugees.
11 Most of them are Yugoslavs -- or, rather --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction: Serbs.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because most of those who had
14 declared themselves as Yugoslavs then declared themselves as Serbs.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Professor, can I just follow up on the question
18 just put to you by Judge Delvoie by asking you if I have understood this
19 table correctly in assuming that from Novi Grad and Novo Sarajevo all of
20 Serbs who lived in these areas before the war were expelled from those
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As stated here, at the
23 beginning of the war and further on, Sarajevo was a divided city,
24 according to territorial units. In some parts, it was either one or the
25 other ethnic group that prevailed. I mean Serbs and Muslims, because
1 there was a negligible number of Croats before the outbreak of the war in
2 Sarajevo anyway.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
4 MR. DI FAZIO:
5 Q. Let's proceed to Annex B, please. Professor, what I'm not clear
6 about is if this -- these -- the numbers in Annex B relate to Serb
7 households only or whether they encompass all three ethnic groups.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Professor, I was just wondering about the answer
10 that you just gave me, when you asserted that all of the Serbs registered
11 in Novo Sarajevo and Novi Grad before the war were expelled during the
12 war, that is to say, all together, 90.000 people from these two areas in
13 the city of Sarajevo.
14 Where do you have -- or where did you find the evidence that all
15 of these people actually were expelled?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, during expulsions in
17 the territories where I conducted my research, we dealt with these
18 persons directly by way of polls and questionnaires.
19 Secondly, we had official data as to where they had temporarily
20 moved after being displaced from that territory.
21 For example, for example, the municipality of Pale, which had a
22 population of 16.000 according to the 1991 census, now there is a
23 population of almost 30.000. For example. We -- we registered that
24 population in 1996 in all of those municipalities where they moved, and
25 we came to these figures. However, we cannot always say that it was all
1 of them. At least there is a statistical margin of error, that there was
2 a significant minority of individuals who remained for a variety of
3 reasons, mixed marriages, other family reasons, and so on. So this
4 should not be taken literally, that all of them, to the very last one,
5 had left a particular area.
6 So basically the stronghold is the 1996 official statistics
7 related to refugees and displaced persons.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MR. DI FAZIO:
11 Q. Just to follow up on the line of questioning, and going back to
12 Annex A, at page 19, in fact it's just underneath the section that we
13 were dealing with for Pale. I don't think we need to bring it up on the
14 screen, I can just read it out to you.
15 You comment:
16 "With the signing of the Dayton Accords, most of
17 Serbian Sarajevo, Vogosca, Ilijas, Hadzici, Olovo, Sarajevo city zone
18 went to the BH Federation, and the Serbian population had to move out of
19 these areas which increases significantly the numbers of Serbs expelled
20 from this territory."
21 That's from your own report.
22 Were those people included in these figures? The people who
23 moved after Dayton, the Serbs who moved after Dayton.
24 A. If you read my monograph carefully, then you see that I
25 distinguish between these two categories. Serbs expelled until Dayton;
1 and then Serbs from Sarajevo after Dayton.
2 So the total is the final figure that was 830.000 [Realtime
3 translation read in error "80.000"] displaced persons from the 1996
4 statistics. I could not have been as precise as a census process. I
5 consider this census of displaced persons and refugees to be a very
6 accurate instrument.
7 So in response to your question: Yes, they were added to the
8 Serbs who had left before Dayton.
9 Q. So the --
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a correction. It says
11 "80.000," and I think that the professor said --
12 Say, once again, what was it that you said instead of 80.000?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The total number of Serbs who were
14 refugees and displaced persons was 830.000 [Realtime translation read in
15 error "83.000"]. That is obvious from the statistics concerned.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could you say it once again
17 because again it is not recorded appropriately.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The total number of displaced
19 Serbs [Realtime transcript read in error "persons"] before and after
20 Dayton is 830.000.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't see why the interpreters
22 don't want to record the number. I don't see what's wrong.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We've given the right
24 number every time.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: May I proceed, Your Honour?
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
3 Q. Time pressures, Professor, so I'd like to move on to Annex B,
4 please, and I'd like to look at page --
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, Mr. Di Fazio, just in order to -- to
6 clarify what the witness said, I think, even in his second answer, the
7 witness did say, and this is page 49, line 13, that he said the total
8 number of displaced "Serbs" before and after Dayton is 830.000, just to
9 be sure that it's recorded correctly. Thanks.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Q. Okay. Look at Annex B, please. It's at the very beginning of
12 Annex B. It's in page 74 of the annex. I'm sorry, I don't have the
13 B/C/S with me.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If the Court could assist in getting that up as
15 well. It basically deals with municipalities of present residence, and
16 the first one is Banja Luka.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If you need the page references in
19 the electronic version, I can provide them for you. I can help.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: I can't read Cyrillic, but I think we're there,
21 aren't we? We have the B/C/S equivalents for Banja Luka.
22 Q. Okay. These are -- you've -- you already explained it yesterday.
23 This is -- on this page, we see the figures for Banja Luka. But there's
24 a total written there, 132.298. That is a total for each of the
25 municipalities. So Banja Luka, which is just underneath, you can see,
1 22.572, plus all the other municipalities through Annex B. Correct?
2 A. Yes, yes. Yes. These are households. 132.000 goes for all of
3 Republika Srpska. And then there's a further differentiation in terms of
4 municipalities from Banja Luka and further on. However, this has to do
5 with the number of households, and I have prepared the figures concerning
6 the number of inhabitants who were involved in the process of becoming
7 refugees and displaced persons.
8 Q. Okay. And ... forgive me, I can't remember what you said. Do
9 these -- are these Serb-only households, or do they encompass all three
11 A. As you can see from this table, there is no differentiation
12 according to ethnic affiliation. Quite simply, we record in the census
13 all the inhabitants who moved into the area of Republika Srpska from
14 their previous place of residence. However, for the most part, of
15 course, these are ethnic Serbs from the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 We can draw that conclusion on the basis of the number of Serbs who moved
17 in from the Federation. However, it is quite certain that there are
18 small numbers of members of other ethnic groups, either on account of
19 mixed marriages or other factors that were present in the
20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. Okay. So your households in Annex B, probably mainly Serb, but
22 could include Croat or Muslim households, but we've got no idea of what
23 the numbers actually are.
24 A. We know the figures, but we don't know of any differentiation
25 according to ethnic group. I repeat: It is a negligible number of
1 members of the Croat, Muslim, and other peoples. We can say quite freely
2 that the absolutely dominant population that was moving out of the
3 Federation was the Serb population. We can see from this information and
4 other information, also from the other republics that are states today,
5 outside Bosnia-Herzegovina. I think that was clearly stated.
6 Q. Well, I'm sorry, I'm -- I'm not -- still not clear. I'm talking
7 about all of the -- all of the figures that you include in Annex B, okay?
8 For each municipality. Not just Banja Luka, okay? Talking generally
9 about Annex B. We can't tell -- sorry. Does it deal in its entirety
10 with mainly Serbs and negligible numbers of Croats and Muslims?
11 A. Well, because it was primarily Serbs who had come from different
12 areas. They came to all these different municipalities in the territory
13 of Republika Srpska. Let us be quite clear on that.
14 Q. I see. And basically what it shows is households that have
15 moved. Because you've got a household of -- municipality of present
16 residence for the household, and municipality of former residence for the
17 household. So what these figures presumably seek to show is households
18 that moved?
19 A. Yes, that is clear from the heading of the table. So the
20 municipality where they resided previously and the municipality that they
21 moved into at the time of the census, which is called the present-day
22 municipality or residence. That is why I repeat, for practical reasons,
23 in order to regulate the status of these households, it has to do with
24 all the members of the households, although there is information about
25 all the persons who moved out and all other matters related to their
1 structure. If necessary, I can present all that information here.
2 Q. No, that won't be necessary. Can -- these figures are taken from
3 the book of Marjana [sic] Spiric who wrote a book called "Population of
4 Republika Srpska" from the -- and she's from the Faculty of Economics and
5 the Faculty of Maths and Natural Sciences in Banja Luka; right? And I
6 know where she got her data from, so there's no need to tell us about
7 that. But you got the data that's in here from her book. I'm not asking
8 you about where she got her data from.
9 A. I think that we clarified the matter yesterday. All right.
10 You're not interested, but they used information from the census, and I
11 used data from their books as secondary sources because this information
12 was taken from the list of displaced persons and refugees in 1996 as a
13 primary source. And at that point in time, those were the most relevant
14 books that dealt with this subject matter.
15 Also, this came from the professors who were the most relevant.
16 Professor Marjanac was my teacher and professor.
17 Q. Did you check her figures from the book, the figures that are
18 reproduced here?
19 A. Yes. 132.280 households is the equivalent of --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpret did not catch the other number.
21 A. -- 50.5 per cent of them are women, and 49.5 per cent are men.
22 And, of course, there is ample data that I can provide in addition to
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment please, Professor.
25 That is because of the rush, you always rush through all of this, the
1 number of inhabitants was not recorded. There was the equivalent of the
2 number of households. That would also be a response to Judge Harhoff's
3 question, so would you say that slowly so that it can be recorded
4 properly. And do look at the transcript that you see on your left-hand
5 side, and you can see that there is a number missing and then perhaps you
6 should do something about it.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I repeat. The total
8 number of displaced persons and refugees as households is 132.298. And
9 that is the equivalent of 419.879 individuals, categorised according to
10 gender and age groups.
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. And you're referring to her book, as we speak. You've got it
13 open in front of you. Is that right?
14 A. Yes. That is my monograph. But it refers to the source,
15 Marjanac, this book that I also have before me. I have a copy of that
16 book before me. I have both sources in front of me. I used data from
17 the book Zdravko Marjanac or, rather, his paper on displaced, expelled
18 persons and refugees. This is below my table. But, of course, you
19 cannot see it now. However, you do have that book attached.
20 Q. And the -- Annex B is divided up in two parts. The second part,
21 what you've done is to use the same figures but reverse the presentation
22 so that instead of showing the municipality of present residence, it
23 shows municipality of former residence first and then municipality of
24 present residence?
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I just put in a small question once again.
1 Professor Pasalic, in the page which we are currently having on
2 the screen, which shows a table of number of households that moved from
3 various municipalities to the municipality of Banja Luka, then in the
4 third column, on the top, you have Banja Luka appearing there with a
5 number of 287 households that moved from Banja Luka to Banja Luka.
6 How is that to be understood?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I explained that yesterday,
8 and I thought it was clear.
9 Within the boundaries of the municipality of Banja Luka, the
10 population moved for a variety of reasons. That is to say, from a
11 particular settlement, say, Zmijanje, they moved into the city of
12 Banja Luka. We clarified that yesterday. I don't think there was
13 anything unclear.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I think that that was in response
15 to His Honour Judge Delvoie's question.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise. I may have missed that. Thank you
17 very much.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Is it time, Your Honours? I think it might be.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, just spot on.
20 So we resume in 20 minutes.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 MR. DI FAZIO: May I proceed, Your Honours?
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks.
3 Q. Annex B is divided into two sections. The first part shows
4 municipality of present residence and then -- and then -- and the number
5 of people in that present municipality, and then the municipalities where
6 they came from. And it's just reversed in the second part of Annex B.
7 A. Yes, so that's how it's presented in the tables.
8 Q. Okay. I -- it may not be necessary to bring it up on the screen,
9 but included in all of these statistics in the first part of Annex B are
10 people who came from outside of Bosnia, from Slovenia, from Zadar, from
11 Serbia, Zagreb, Macedonia, and so on. Is that right?
12 A. Yes. It can be seen in the tables that these are data collected
13 in the census, and they are interpreted this way.
14 Q. And was it your idea to, for the second part of Annex B, to be a
15 reversal of presentation, or was it the authors' idea to have a reversal
16 of presentation; namely, municipality of earlier residence and then
17 municipality of current residence?
18 A. It wasn't my idea. I took it over from the authors mentioned, in
19 its original form.
20 Q. So you haven't had a chance to -- well, let me withdraw that.
21 You didn't check the figures yourself?
22 A. No, there is no need. Because they are based on the census.
23 We're talking about official date from official institutions. I don't
24 consider myself competent to verify them, because what could I change
25 there anyway?
1 Q. I -- okay. For the -- this reversal, and yesterday you called
2 it, I think, inversion, or a countertendency. Do you remember saying
4 A. Yes. Because these are the headings of the tables. Flows and
5 counter-flows of migrational movements.
6 Q. I thought the inversion was the reversal of presentation of the
7 same material, simply flipping it backwards. Instead of showing current
8 residence -- present residence first and then municipality of former
9 residence, it was shown by municipality of former residence first and
10 then followed by municipality of present residence.
11 You know what I mean.
12 A. If I can explain, the municipality of current residence is
13 Banja Luka. And then it is stated from which municipalities of former
14 residence these people moved to Banja Luka.
15 And the second part says municipality of former residence,
16 Banja Luka, and then we see to which municipalities some households moved
17 from Banja Luka. These are not the same households. They are different.
18 And, of course, the figures are different, naturally.
19 Q. No, they're not. If you look at page 111, where we start from
20 the reversal, municipality of earlier residence followed by municipality
21 of current residence, you got the same figure, 132.298. Do you see that?
22 Exactly the same figure. That's exactly the same total. So you're
24 A. I was speaking about different numbers for individual
25 municipalities. But, of course, these are contained in the total of
2 We agree that this is the total. But by municipalities,
3 22.000-something moved into Banja Luka --
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
5 A. -- and a different number moved out of Banja Luka. Whereas, the
6 total number of households is 132.298.
7 Q. Professor --
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, could the professor
9 just repeat the last part of his answer concerning Banja Luka because it
10 was not recorded.
11 You mentioned different numbers. Please tell us which different
12 numbers these are.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I repeat. The numbers are
14 different. From their earlier residence, 22.572 households moved into
15 Banja Luka. And -- and from Banja Luka, significantly fewer moved out.
16 We cannot see the exact number, but it's about 400 households.
17 However, both numbers are included in the total of the refugees
18 and displaced persons, which is 132.298.
19 MR. DI FAZIO:
20 Q. Okay. I -- I -- I'm sorry to persist, I just want the answer to
21 a really simple question. It's really simple. And I ask you, Professor,
22 to listen carefully, and I'll put it to you again.
23 The first part of Annex B shows municipality of present residence
24 total and then where those households came from, okay? And if you add up
25 each and every municipality, using that method of presentation, you come
1 up to -- what's written here is a figure of 132.298; page 74.
2 Now, from everything that you've said and from the document
3 itself, it's obvious that Annex B flips around its presentation. Now we
4 start to look at municipality of earlier residence, the total in that
5 municipality, and then the municipality of the current residence. And
6 the figure is exactly the same, 132.298. And you can see that at
7 page 111 of Annex B. Exactly the same figures. Correct? And I'm sure
8 can you answer that with a yes or a no. I'm sure you can.
9 A. I can't see these figures now. But I can say that the total
10 number of displaced households and refugee households is 132.298. That's
11 the final figure according to the 1996 census. The data cannot differ
12 from this number. Only, different methodologies were used to break them
13 down by municipality and the status or -- of the previous residence. But
14 the total is always the same. It must be the same. 132.298.
15 Q. Professor, I just want to put a proposition to you, because I'm
16 afraid we just don't have enough time to go into this in the sort of
17 detail I had envisaged. I put to you that this is the situation with
18 your Annex B: The figure of 132.298 is the total of households for all
19 municipalities in the first part of Annex B, but that includes -- and it
20 shows municipalities of former residences as well; and, therefore, that
21 part of the annex includes people who came in out of Bosnia.
22 The second part, where the presentation is reversed, only
23 includes Bosnian municipalities. Only includes Bosnian municipalities.
24 It doesn't include, where it says "municipality of earlier residence,"
25 for example, Macedonia, or Zagreb. It doesn't include those people. So
1 the reversal in Annex B is not actually a reversal because part of it's
3 And I put to you that if you add up all of the municipalities in
4 the second part of Annex B, you come to a total of 76.836 households, not
5 132.298, as is mentioned there. And that's all I want to say about Annex
7 I know you can't do the maths, but do you agree with the basic
8 method of -- that I suggest should be used in looking at Annex B?
9 A. I noticed that municipalities and settlements outside of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina are also mentioned, if we look at my report. But I
11 agree that possibly technical errors were made when adding them up. I
12 can see Otocac, Pag, Pakrac, Pag, Petrinja, Pazin, and so on. You may
13 have been able to see that in the second part of this annexed table.
14 Q. All right. That's enough about Annex B for now.
15 Let's move on to another issue, and that is sources.
16 You had a lot to say about the census from 1991 in your report.
17 You -- you say that it was never verified. The processed data was never
18 published. And you, in particular, you -- you comment on the absurdity
19 of Croatia publishing the results. And this is at paragraph 215 of your
21 MR. DI FAZIO: In English, it's page 58; and in B/C/S it's page
22 58. Could We have that up on the screen.
23 Q. Now, this -- okay. Thank you. Good.
24 Now this paragraph, 215, comes in your part of your report which
25 is a commentary on the Prosecution's expert report by Ewa Tabeau et al.
1 And then appears paragraph 215. And you say there that the 1995 State
2 Bureau of Statistics printed this publication which was absurd. "The
3 result of a population census to be printed and published in another
5 If it's absurd, why did you bring it and use it as a reference
6 here in court?
7 A. I've already said that it is absurd but not incorrect. It is
8 absurd to carry out a census in one country and then to have those data
9 published by a different country. That's the absurdity from that point
10 of view.
11 As for the accuracy of the figures, they are not being brought
12 into question. However, I would like to direct you to Annex 214 where
13 Nora Selimovic, an official from the Statistics Bureau of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, confirmed my data that the 1991 data were never --
15 census were never verified. I quoted her in paragraph 217, and that is
16 from Ms. Tabeau's report.
17 Should I read that out? The quotation ...
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry, would Your Honours just give me one small
19 moment, please.
20 Q. Thanks. I'm with you now.
21 Yes, you can see that in paragraph 217, your quote. Of course,
22 that comment is taken out of context, isn't it? Because, first of all,
23 Nora Selimovic is, in that part of the report, talking about controls
24 of the -- and logical controls in the census, and she was there talking
25 about the data that concerned dwellings and agricultural farms not being
1 published because it hadn't passed the phase of logical control.
2 So it was only data that dealt with dwellings and agricultural
3 farms. In fact, you make that clear in your own report; right?
4 A. No. I really wish to describe that in an unambiguous way.
5 Paragraph 216 says that it was only in 1998 that the Federal Bureau of
6 Statistics printed the statistical yearbook presenting all the data from
7 the 1991 population census in BH.
8 As for Ms. Tabeau's report, it uses the age structure of the
9 population to calculate certain data in respect of the persons born
10 before 1980. They could not have had that from the census of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina from the publications that were published after 1991.
12 It was only in 1998 that this yearbook appeared, and that is what
13 Nora Selimovic speaks of. And, of course, also the census of households
14 and so on.
15 What is relevant here is what -- what refers to the population,
16 its structure. That was not published until 1998, and that is stated
17 clearly. Because that census had never been verified. It is verified by
18 the National Assembly or, rather the Assembly of the then
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is the essence. It was never verified. And
20 that is clearly acknowledged here by an official from the statistics
21 bureau, and I just quoted that.
22 Q. If you read paragraphs 214 through to 217, they're essentially a
23 criticism of the use of the 1991 population census data basically
24 because, you say, it's never been verified. And we'll get into that
1 But -- and then in paragraph 217, you quote Nora Selimovic, who
2 wrote that part of the Milosevic report, to corroborate your assertions.
3 And you put that quote in that you can see, starting:
4 "With the aggression in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, the
5 processing of the census data ceased ..."
6 And going on to end:
7 "... the data on dwellings and agricultural farms were not
8 published because this material never passed the phase of logical
10 So you read the report, didn't you, and you plucked that quote
11 from what Ms. Selimovic had written into her report to -- to establish --
12 to corroborate your criticisms of the census; correct?
13 A. It is absolute that we have reservations in our research when
14 using data from the 1991 census because it was not fully published.
15 Apart from that, a census being so comprehensive has to be
16 ultimately verified in order to attain its final form. Although we use
17 it, it never attained its official form. I used it and I corroborated it
18 by quotes from the official of the statistics bureau of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I think that that is proper because the results
20 of that census were not published until 1998.
21 Further on, I think that information about farms was not
22 published either because that had not gone through a logical check, so
23 the conclusion is that the 1991 census has not fully been processed.
24 That is why we refer to the previous census that had met all the
25 requirements concerning census verification, and that was from 1981.
1 However, that is something that happened a long time ago, so the
2 information is no longer truly relevant.
3 Q. When you took that quote from the Milosevic report of
4 Ms. Selimovic, did you read three paragraphs down from where it appears,
5 where she says, "The official data published on the population has passed
6 all control phases including the control for duplicates that was
7 conducted on the level of each municipality"?
8 Did you read that?
9 A. It is possible that I have read it. Of course, new knowledge
10 annuls the old, but I assert that census information from 1991 has only
11 partly been published, and that is the number and the age structure. And
12 that is done a month after the actual data-taking. All the other data is
13 compiled and processed for a number of years. Because of the war
14 situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that was impossible all the way up
15 until 1998. Whatever Nora Selimovic, this official, wrote, the facts are
16 as I have put them to you. If she has this verification to show, then I
17 am prepared to withdraw what I said.
18 Q. All of this discussion concerning the use of the census by
19 Ms. Tabeau and its reliability as a source is somewhat besides the point
20 for this reason, isn't it? Ms. Tabeau used raw data that she obtained
21 from the census, from the exercise of the census being conducted, to
22 compile her statistics. She didn't just go to the census publications
23 and pluck it from there. You understand that, don't you? And by "raw
24 data," I mean individual-level data: name of a person, personal
25 identification number, where they live. That's the raw data that was
1 obtained by the census takers as they knocked on people's doors and
2 filled out their questionnaires. And that's the data that she used. You
3 understand that, don't you?
4 A. I noticed in her report that it had do to with such data and
5 their comparisons. However, I still keep this reservation for 1997 and
6 1998 and the way in which this estimate was obtained. I explained that
7 using some examples yesterday. We can repeat it today as well. I have
8 no doubt that she had an opportunity to receive individual data,
9 questionnaires of individuals, although that is protected information in
10 our part of the world, I could not receive it in any way. This is
11 strictly confidential. It is not made public.
12 Q. Are you saying that you were denied the access to the same
13 materials used by Ewa Tabeau for her studies, that you couldn't get
14 access to it?
15 A. No. I cannot have access to individual questionnaires that the
16 population filled out during the census. That is an operation that goes
17 on for 15 days when people go from door to door. Because the data is
18 protected by law for each and every person individually. I am not going
19 into the way in which Ms. Tabeau obtained that data.
20 Q. I'm not interested in going into the way she obtained the data,
21 nor am I interested in the legal protections. And I fully understand
22 that data about persons, individuals, is confidential. I'm not asking
23 you about any of those issues whatsoever.
24 I'll repeat the question: Are you saying that you couldn't have
25 gained access to the same date that she used? And I suggest you could
1 have by saying to the -- those who told you to prepare this report, I
2 need to see the same data that she used to prepare her reports. Simple
3 as that.
4 A. Well, it is possible that on that occasion I could have asked for
5 that, but, you see, I would have needed ten years, which is the amount of
6 time that Ms. Tabeau used. And I am working, for, say, 100 hours. I
7 used information about the census and I used other information apart from
8 the census, just as Ms. Tabeau did.
9 Q. All right. But one thing's for sure: All of your criticisms
10 about the census, whether they be true or not, are really irrelevant,
11 aren't they, because you haven't looked at the data that she used, the
12 raw data that was obtained from the census?
13 A. Well, it is not relevant whether I looked at it or not. I
14 provided a critical review here, in terms of how somebody else did it.
15 In this case, it was Ms. Tabeau. That is why I think that the data is
16 irrelevant because it is not complete from the point of view of the
17 census. I don't know whether anyone can assure me that she had each and
18 every questionnaire and each and every document of 4.400.000 persons. If
19 that was the case, it would have been a job that would have entailed
20 years and years. However, the fact is that on the basis of this
21 information, some other results were calculated, which, to my mind, and
22 according to my calculation here, were wrong. And these are the
23 so-called qualitative features of the population that were not published
24 and processed officially, in terms of the age structure of the
25 population, especially in that part of Ms. Tabeau's part -- report that
1 deals with the population born before 1980. And I challenge that part of
2 her report. I'm saying it's not reliable.
3 Q. Okay. Look, other sources of data that were criticised by you
4 include the voters registers, the OSCE voters registers. You say they
5 had many deficiencies. And I'm looking at paragraph 219 here.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: So perhaps we can get that up on the page.
7 Q. All right. You deal with it there quickly in two paragraphs, 219
8 and 220.
9 You say that they've got deficiencies, they're not suitable, and
10 you say that it's a sample. And your main criticism seems to be that
11 it's a sample of the post-war population and, therefore, not reliable.
12 Do you see all that?
13 A. Yes. In paragraph 219, I commented on the unreliability of these
14 voters registers, and then I quoted Ms. Tabeau's report.
15 So I'm quoting from her report. She says the registration to
16 vote was voluntary, which implies that the register is only a sample of
17 the post-war population "... excluding those who did not register to vote
18 because they were not interested, ill, too young, or too old ..."
19 I agree that for those reasons these voters registers are not
20 fully valid, and I also add here that there were duplicates of names on
21 voters' registers in different places of residence. All of that together
22 leads me to the conclusion that this voters register cannot be valid for
23 drawing very important conclusions that are made in the report of Tabeau
24 and others.
25 So this is justified criticism. However, it is possible that she
1 did not have a better mechanism that was available. However, it has to
2 be criticised rightly because the accuracy of these data can be brought
3 into question, and, after all, she recognised that herself, she admitted
4 that herself.
5 Q. Okay. All right. So the basic criticism is twofold: The data
6 itself is no good because it's got duplicates; and secondly, because it's
7 only voters who registered to vote, it's a sample only and, therefore, is
8 not of much use in -- in analysing migration movements. The whole sample
9 of her study is to small. People who registered to vote, compared with
10 those same people in 1991.
11 A. What is pointed out here is sufficient, namely that registering
12 to vote was voluntarily. And voluntarily means the opposite of
13 mandatory. So one thing is -- was what was collected as data in the 1991
14 census, and another, what was registered in this process. Of course, you
15 must be -- must have your reservations and your doubts about data
16 collected in this manner, the more so since the author herself admits
18 Q. You read what she wrote about the size of the sample that was
19 obtained after she'd extracted the voters register, the statistics from
20 the voters register. And that -- did you -- did you read that part --
21 part of the Milosevic report?
22 A. I read those reports, but of course I don't remember everything.
23 We would have to go back to those reports and analyse them.
24 Q. Well, let's see if we can do that in -- very quickly.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we have page 219 up, please.
1 Q. And I'd ask that you listen to my question.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, I don't know what the B/C/S is for 219.
3 Sorry, I do have it. It's B/C/S page 59; and the English, it's
4 page 59.
5 Not paragraph 219, page 219 of the Milosevic report. I'm sorry.
6 Which is P1627.
7 E-court page 222, I'm told. And page 235 in B/C/S.
8 Perhaps we don't need to proceed with that. I'll deal with this
9 issue in this way because I'd like to move on, if we could.
10 Q. In the Milosevic report, Ewa Tabeau refers to the records that
11 she got out of the OSCE voters registers. And from that she says that
12 she got a joint database of 2.674.506 records. And out of that 2.6
13 million, she matched 2.13 million -- 2. - yes, we've got it up
14 now - yeah, 2.13 million - yes, we've got it up on the screen now -
15 2.13 million with the 1991 census, and that's a matching rate of some
16 79 per cent. And I think you can see that in the B/C/S. And then she
17 talks about problems that she encountered and how she dealt with them.
18 And then she says in the -- further down that the total
19 population of the country is 4.3 million. And the 1995 World Population
20 Prospects gave another figure. But then she goes on to say:
21 "It's clear that the 2.13 million voters constitute a large and
22 reliable sample of the 18-plus population. Its size is big enough to
23 prevent errors related to persons not registering to vote."
24 She dealt there in some detail with the complaint that you make
25 in your report at paragraph 219. Did you not consider looking at that
1 part of her report, the Milosevic report, and attacking what she says
2 there, rather than simply saying, Sample is not big enough?
3 A. I could have looked at this too, but it was sufficient to show it
4 explicitly using that example.
5 I can also state some objective complaints here. Who is it that
6 found out that Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1995, had 3.54 million inhabitants
7 while the war was still raging? And there is also a forecast for the
8 world population until 1998. We didn't have any idea of the development
9 of the total population. This is very unreliable. I don't doubt the
10 matching of this number of inhabitants. She's using unreliable data to
11 derive conclusions from, estimated data, without stating a foundation for
12 these estimates.
13 If we're to confirm that Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 had 3 million
14 inhabitants, could anybody prove that wrong? Or this figure here,
15 3.4 million. I consider everything put forward here rather unreliable.
16 I respect the efforts made by whoever calculated this. But I said
17 yesterday that this isn't only about mathematics and statistics; these
18 are serious processes and live people. It was impossible to arrive at
19 these results mathematically or statistically. If that had been so easy,
20 we wouldn't have waited for a population census
21 20 years [as interpreted]. Even today, in peacetime, we don't know the
22 population of Bosnia-Herzegovina. How could we have known in 1995 that
23 there were 3.54 million? To my mind, this is somewhat absurd. That is
24 why I'm criticizing these data.
25 If I could have offered accurate results, I would have done so.
1 But I have pointed out this as a problem which still lingers in Bosnia.
2 We don't know the population. We don't know its structure. And these
3 are the most important indicators for all development programmes and
4 other programmes, and this is still burdening us even today, in
6 Q. Thanks, Professor. It's for some relief.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I understand, at 1.30, that matters
8 need to be discussed, unrelated matters. Or at least I was told by
9 Defence counsel that they would like to address you at 1.30 on some
10 issues relating to next week. I hope I haven't got that wrong.
11 JUDGE HALL: I confess, I hadn't heard that. But is that the
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. Yes, we have agreed that we
14 need to address the Trial Chamber about the certain developments.
15 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours -- oh.
17 I still haven't finished, and I think I've still got a bit more
18 time left to me. Would now be an appropriate time for me to stop this?
19 Because I'm moving into an area that's not strictly related to numbers,
20 although I will have to return briefly to numbers at one later point.
21 JUDGE HALL: So upon the resumption tomorrow, how much longer do
22 you think you would be?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I think I'll probably be about another three
24 quarters of an hour, possibly an hour tomorrow.
25 JUDGE HALL: I see.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: And re-direct, I suppose, would take an equivalent
4 amount of time tomorrow. But we'll see.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, certainly no more
6 than half an hour, possibly less.
7 JUDGE HALL: Professor Pasalic, we are not about to rise for the
8 day, but as you would have heard from the exchange between counsel and
9 the Bench, there are, as happens from time to time, certain procedural
10 matters which the Court must deal with before it rises. So you are now
11 going to be excused for the day, but the Court will not be rising at this
12 point, so the usher will see you out. Thank you.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, it was my understanding that this
15 would -- this is going to be a joint submission by my friends from the
16 Office of the Prosecutor, but they obviously gave me the floor.
17 This is the situation we wanted Your Honours to be aware of: The
18 day before yesterday we received the documents requested by Ms. Korner
19 from Witness Bjelosevic. Among other documents, for the first time, I
20 must admit, and it wasn't -- I wasn't aware of that fact, is that -- that
21 there exists a diary of Mr. Bjelosevic from 1991 and 1992.
22 I reviewed the diary yesterday and in the course of this morning,
23 and I don't see any problem with -- with that document, nor the other
24 documents. If the witness confirms that is his diary, there is obviously
25 nothing for us to -- to say about that. However, I understand that the
1 Office of the Prosecutor is experiencing a difficulty because of the
2 diaries are written, of course, in Serbian, and they need to translate
3 them. We discussed yesterday, and I gave what I could, my suggestions,
4 to the dates which I think are relevant and the parts of the diary
5 that -- that seem -- that seem to me to be relevant for this case and for
6 the cross-examination of -- of Office of the Prosecutor of the witness
7 Bjelosevic, as, of course, I can anticipate at this point.
8 Now, we have agreed also that we will file a joint request to the
9 CLSS to speed up the -- the -- the translation of -- of these documents.
10 This is, -- Your Honours, the entries are perhaps one -- one page or a
11 page and a half, two pages maximum long, and it's written by hand. So,
12 therefore, it shouldn't be such an enormous burden for CLSS to at least
13 draft translate these documents.
14 My latest information - and I believe Mr. Hannis is here, he can
15 confirm that. My latest information is that the Office of the
16 Prosecutor -- well, unfortunate situation is that Ms. Korner is -- is --
17 was yesterday interviewing one of the -- the Defence witnesses and is
18 only due to return to The Hague today, this afternoon. Now -- but what I
19 understand the situation to be is that Ms. Korner would like to start the
20 cross-examination and perhaps, in the course of the week, because her
21 cross-examination of Witness Bjelosevic is anticipated to last four or
22 five days even, that in the course of the week the translations will be
23 available for her to cross-examine the witness, on the -- on the contents
24 of the diary of the -- of -- of Mr. Bjelosevic.
25 Now, Mr. Hannis will, I hope, confirm what I just said. This is
1 the latest information that I -- that I have from the Office of the
3 Your Honours will remember that I -- that I inquired the day
4 before yesterday about the date of return of Witness Bjelosevic, and the
5 suggestion by the Trial Chamber was that he returns on Monday. Now we
6 are --
7 JUDGE HALL: On Monday with a view to resuming on Tuesday.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Now we are in a better position to assess now
9 the situation, and I would like -- I would like an advice from the
10 Trial Chamber whether the situation is -- stays at the same, that the
11 Witness Bjelosevic returns on Monday morning, because I have to inform
12 the VWS about the schedule.
13 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, these diaries which, as I understand it, are
14 new, the pages which you have indicated may be relevant, in other words,
15 we aren't dealing with a diary about walks in the woods or visits to the
16 seashore, the question is, having regard to experience with backup
17 log-jams from time to time in CLSS, do I - and it probably is a question
18 I should pose to Mr. Hannis - but do I understand you correctly that the
19 OTP would wish to have this material translated before they embark on
20 their cross-examination? I'm not unmindful of what you said, that they
21 could start in the hope that the translations would come on in the course
22 of the week. But having regard to our past experience in this matter,
23 I'm wondering whether -- and here the OTP can pitch in as to whether they
24 would wish to begin if they aren't sure that they would have this
1 How many page -- is there an agreement as to how many relevant
2 pages we're talking about?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, of course, I gave my assessment
4 of the relevant dates that need to be. In my opinion, it's 20, 25 pages
5 altogether. But it's a small diary, so the pages are actually half of
6 the normal page. And it's written by hand, so it's relatively short.
7 MR. HANNIS: Let me advise you of the information I have from
8 Ms. Pidwell who's been speaking with Ms. Korner and been dealing with our
9 language assistant who's been looking at the documents.
10 It's my understanding the diaries -- I think there are three
11 separate diaries totalling about 280 pages, handwritten pages. The
12 initial assessment, I guess, by our analyst is that we might need
13 something in the neighbourhood of 35 to 50 of those entries. Now, I
14 don't know if an entry is one page, one paragraph, one sentence; I'm not
15 sure what that is. But 35 to 50 handwritten entries. In addition to the
16 diaries, though, we received in this collection of the documents
17 something in the neighbourhood about 250 documents related to it.
18 Now, our initial view of that is that we only need about 20 of
19 those to be translated. In spite of all that, at the moment it appears
20 that Ms. Korner would be ready and willing to start cross-examination on
21 Tuesday, assuming, hopefully, that based on an urgent request to CLSS we
22 can get a quick translation of those portions, the 35 to 50 diary entries
23 and the 20 smallish documents, within a fairly short turnaround. She
24 would like to start on Tuesday and then if it comes to pass that she
25 hasn't been able, during our out-of-court time, to get those
1 translations, review them, assess them, and figure out when to examine
2 them, that there may be a request from the OTP on Wednesday or Thursday
3 next week to have an additional day of recess or something to deal with
5 JUDGE HALL: So the position is that we proceed, as anticipated,
6 on Tuesday, and we will -- at some point in mid-week there would be an
7 assessment or reassessment of the -- this new material and we see where
8 we go from there. But practically speaking, there's nothing further that
9 we can or need do at this stage.
10 Is -- do I summarise the position correctly?
11 MR. HANNIS: I think that's correct, Your Honour. The only thing
12 that would change that from our side would be if we learn from CLSS later
13 today, they say, We can't do these translations for another ten days.
14 That might change the position. But other than that, I think that's
15 where we are.
16 JUDGE HALL: And, of course, today being Thursday, if you should
17 discover this before we rise tomorrow, you would alert us as to where we
18 are. Thank you.
19 Was there anything else?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, in light of these circumstances, this
21 these diary is pretty relevant for my part of cross-examination related
22 to the topic which I raised during the cross-examination with
23 Witness Bjelosevic. So I would kindly ask Trial Chamber to allow me
24 30 minutes for additional cross-examination directly related to this
1 JUDGE HALL: Of course, Mr. Krgovic.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, could you remind me as to whether this
4 witness is one where the Prosecution, in fact, started it's
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, that is correct, Your Honour. That is my
7 recollection as well.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
9 MR. HANNIS: In light of what Mr. Krgovic said, though, however,
10 I don't know what Ms. Korner's position would be. If it were me, I would
11 say, Well, I want him to do his cross-examination first before I continue
12 any further.
13 JUDGE HALL: I was about to say that in the absence of any
14 rule to the contrary, that's the obvious course.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: I don't have any problem. But we still need
16 translation of this diary for my cross-examination. That's all.
17 MR. HANNIS: Well, Mr. Krgovic can read Serbian. He doesn't need
18 the translation.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, that's all we can do for now. We'll see
21 what the position is in the -- between tomorrow and Monday.
22 Thank you.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.37 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day
25 of May, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.