1 Wednesday, 4 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the case number is: IT-02-60-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Yes, Mr. Waespi.
10 MR. WAESPI: Good afternoon, Your Honours, Mr. President. Just in
11 relation to the next witness, Dean Manning, I don't know how long the
12 examination -- cross-examination will last of the present witness. And
13 Mr. Manning is here, but he's also feeling unwell today. So if you could
14 indicate that we will start with him tomorrow rather than he has to wait
15 until perhaps he will be on late this afternoon, that will be very
16 helpful. But he is here willing and ready to testify today.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
18 Mr. Karnavas, will you please tell me how long your
19 cross-examination will last.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I believe we will be able to finish with this
21 witness today. That's the big general answer --
22 JUDGE LIU: No, no --
23 MR. KARNAVAS: One session or two sessions. I think we may need
24 to go into the second session. I'm hoping that we won't, but it all
25 depends on, you know, how much interplay we have with the witness here.
1 With respect to Mr. Manning, I understand about his health. I certainly
2 understand, you know, the stress one goes -- undergoes in testifying. I
3 certainly don't want Mr. Manning here if he's not feeling well. I did
4 discuss this matter yesterday with my colleagues on the Prosecution side.
5 And I certainly have no objections to Mr. Manning testifying tomorrow --
6 starting tomorrow.
7 As for the cross of Mr. Manning, because that's probably your next
8 question I anticipate, I would suspect that it's very, very minimum.
9 We're not talking a session. We're talking literally a very short period
10 of time. So I don't suspect that we're going to need Mr. Manning beyond
11 Friday, assuming that they take a full day on direct, which I'm told, that
12 they will have for Mr. Manning. I've spoken with my colleagues from the
13 Jokic team, and I don't believe that they have that much questioning to do
14 with Mr. Manning. But they would be in a better position to respond to
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 Mr. Stojanovic.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. We
19 have prepared to examine Mr. Brunborg today. We have four topics or four
20 issues to focus on and ask for explanation or clarification from the
21 witness. We do not believe that this would take longer than 20 minutes.
22 So as far as we're concerned, Mr. Manning can come tomorrow to testify
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
25 So we have decided we will break after the cross-examination and
1 the re-examination of this witness for today. And then tomorrow morning
2 in Courtroom I, we'll hear Mr. Dean Manning. It is so decided.
3 And, Mr. Waespi, do you know or do you happen to know how long
4 your direct examination to Mr. Dean Manning will last?
5 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. It will take the full day, three
6 court sessions.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We have reserved Monday for the whole day
8 for the courtroom, so that if we could not finish Mr. Dean Manning's
9 testimony, we could possibly sit next Monday.
10 Well, could we have the witness, please.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
13 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
14 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest last night?
15 THE WITNESS: Very well, thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
20 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG [Resumed]
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
22 Q. Sir, good afternoon.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. I believe we left off yesterday as we were trying to determine
25 a -- your definition of Srebrenica. And at one point you pointed to a map
1 that was in one of your articles, but which was not located in one of your
2 reports. Do you recall that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, to your knowledge did the Office of the Prosecution or did
5 you ever compile a list of what constituted Srebrenica, and by that I mean
6 aside from the municipality, the settlements that should be included in
7 what we would call Srebrenica?
8 A. I was given a list of all places of disappearance that was
9 relevant for the estimate of the number of missing persons from after the
10 fall of the enclave.
11 Excuse me, may I turn this off, this screen? Okay. Now, it's
12 off. But now I see myself, may I turn myself off? Okay. Thank you.
13 Mr. Karnavas, I do not see really that it is necessary to define
14 Srebrenica as such. We have Srebrenica town, we have the municipality of
15 Srebrenica, and I was asked to estimate the number of people who went
16 missing after the fall of the enclave, defined by the date, after the 11th
17 of July, 1995, and as defined by the places where people were reported as
19 Q. Okay. So from your answer what I get is: As far as you were
20 concerned, given your particular mandate, you didn't think that that was a
21 relevant issue?
22 A. Defining Srebrenica as such?
23 Q. Right.
24 A. Well, I knew -- I had of course a list of all localities, or
25 naselja as they're called, in Srebrenica.
1 Q. Okay. So may I --
2 A. In the municipality of Srebrenica, if I may.
3 Q. And may I ask: Where did that list come from?
4 A. That came from the former Yugoslavia. There was a list and it
5 came from the census and it came from all kinds of statistic publications
6 listing all localities in Bosnia.
7 Q. Okay. So if I were to ask you then when you come up with this
8 percentage or numerical figure of the estimated persons who are missing
9 from Srebrenica, does that list contain everyone who was within those
10 settlements in addition to the town of Srebrenica, or are you including
11 other places as well. Or don't you know?
12 A. I'm including all of the municipality of Srebrenica.
13 Q. Okay. So I take it -- well, first before we get -- let me ask
14 this question now. I take it that you must have used this particular
15 book. And I'm showing you a book that's titled "National Structure of
16 Settlements, Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina" --
17 A. I am familiar with that book.
18 Q. You are familiar?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In fact, I know for a fact that it's in Ewa Tabeau's office, in
21 fact, and so you must have looked at this.
22 A. I also have my own copy.
23 Q. Okay. And in your own copy it would have all the settlements
24 within Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica, and what have you?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. There's also some other data in this particular book.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And so the data, in fact, in this particular book, which
4 incidentally, speaking about this book, just so we all know, and I have --
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I can introduce just the title page, Your Honour,
6 for identification purposes, since I am referring to. I'm not -- I don't
7 intend to proffer the entire book, but this would be marked as D111/1 for
9 Q. Now, this particular book basically is a compilation of the
10 statistics generated from the census of 1991, is it not?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And this was published in Zagreb, which is in Croatia. Correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. In 1995?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And this is, shall we say, a cleaned up version of certain
17 information that was part of the overall census of 1991. Correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Now, along with this particular book, there are other volumes
20 which have more specific information, which we will discuss. Are you
21 familiar with the other volumes?
22 A. Some of them.
23 Q. Okay. Now, in this particular volume we are able to trace, for
24 instance, with respect to the municipality of Srebrenica as an example,
25 all of the settlements that belong or are encompassed within Srebrenica.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. There is also a numerical breakdown of the inhabitants of
4 Srebrenica and its settlements. Correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. We have the number of inhabitants for each place individually.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We have an overall number. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We have also references to previous years, to prior census data?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. We also have a numerical breakdown of the number of -- depending
14 on the ethnic background, Croat, Serb, Muslim. Correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So if we were to look at this book that was published in 1995,
17 based on the statistics gathered in the 1991 census, we would be able to
18 see as of 1991 what the general makeup of Srebrenica in each settlement
19 was. Correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. So from there we would have a number from which to work with at
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, the other books which contain other information would also
25 contain, for instance, the age groups. Correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now would agree with me, would you not -- I'll try to speak
3 slower, too. You would agree with me, would you not, that the basis of
4 the census of 1991, as in previous censuses that had taken place in
5 Bosnia -- in the former Yugoslavia, was not to have an accurate listing of
6 all the names of individuals living in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That was not
7 the primary basis for the census. Correct?
8 A. That's correct. It was primarily a statistical exercise.
9 Q. Okay. And by statistical exercise, what we're talking about, they
10 were looking primarily for some very certain data such as, first of all,
11 number of overall inhabitants in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Broken down into regions, municipalities, and settlements.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. They were looking at -- of course we talked about the numerical,
17 plus from that we could derive the percentage of the various ethnic groups
18 living in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The number of households?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The number of members of -- in each household?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And I believe there was some other data that might have been
25 relevant or was relevant to the economic status, social status, that sort
1 of stuff. Correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And because that was the primary basis for the census, the actual
4 name of the individual and the personal identification numbers subscribed
5 or given to each person in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not necessarily a vital
6 statistic for this particular census?
7 A. Well, the names are included because -- to get an idea of the
8 members of each household and for checking purposes. There is often a
9 post-enumeration survey when an enumerator goes back -- a supervisor goes
10 back and checks that they enumerated it correctly. And in that case it's
11 useful to have the names of the household. Also to avoid that, an
12 enumerator picks up the same household twice. It's very useful to have
13 the name.
14 Q. Primarily the census was more concerned with the name of the head
15 of the household and not necessarily all of the members of the household?
16 A. Well, they were more or less on equal status.
17 Q. Now, we now, at least based in part from your own observations,
18 that there were a lot of missing personal identification numbers.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. There are two sets of numbers. The first seven. Right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And from what I'm told, those are the most critical numbers. And
24 then there are six other numbers as well. Correct?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. And those numbers were considered personal in nature to such a
2 degree that they were not required to give them?
3 A. I don't know if it was -- your -- that's probably correct.
4 Whether they were required or not to tell the enumerators the number, I
5 don't know. I think the census was voluntary. I'm not sure about that,
6 the voluntariness of the census. I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't
7 think it was, actually. There are different laws in different countries
8 about the voluntariness of participating in the census.
9 Q. Okay. So as you were conducting this study, I take it you did not
10 explore -- maybe it was not an issue, and I'm not suggesting that it is an
11 issue, but you did not explore whether this census was a compulsory
12 census, where everybody had to at least give certain information, versus a
13 voluntary census?
14 A. No. In most countries it is compulsory. But I did not check
15 their legislation. There was a special census act, I believe.
16 Q. Okay. And there was a special law on census in 1991 that was
17 passed also, as I understand?
18 A. Yes, that's what I mean.
19 Q. Right. But if you were to that at least with respect to the
20 personal identification number, providing that particular information was
21 not compulsory, would you take exception with that?
22 A. That may very well be.
23 Q. Which may also account why there's a fairly large percentage of
24 unaccounted numbers. Correct?
25 A. Correct. Now, if I may --
1 Q. Yes, of course.
2 A. The identification number did not play an important role in our
3 studies, in our analysis, because for the very reason you are pointing at,
4 it was missing for so many people. We also learned that there were many
5 women, old women, who reported their husband's ID number, for example. So
6 it's not totally reliable, and for that reason we did not rely on it.
7 Moreover, the date of birth, as you mentioned, is included in the "maticni
8 broj," the unique number, but it was also recorded separately. So we
9 could compare those two pieces of information to see how reliable the
10 unique number, the ID number, was.
11 Q. Absolutely. That's why you would need both numbers, to make sure
12 that the date of birth that was written in was identical to the
13 seven-digit number. Correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Now, would -- given that you had this particular
16 information from the census, do you think this might have been relevant
17 and useful had you been tasked - I think we talked about this yesterday -
18 had you been tasked with coming up with some figures as to the overall
19 impact on the age group in the area of Srebrenica by, for instance,
20 looking at the 1991 census information that we have, the age group, and
21 then perhaps looking at the information that you gathered later on?
22 A. Well, I certainly looked at that book a lot and the data on the
23 number of people in each locality and the municipality, certainly. The
24 problem was that in July 1995, at the beginning of July, we did not know
25 how many people who remained, of those that were enumerated and recorded
1 in that book, how many people were still in Srebrenica and how many people
2 came from other parts of Bosnia and how many people were killed or
3 migrated out or in. And so ideally we should have had a census on the 1st
4 of July, the 10th of July 1991. Fine that would have been the deal. So
5 we had to deal with the second best.
6 Q. Okay. Just as a matter of precision, there's no record that I can
7 find, at least in your documents here, that there was any reference or
8 comparisons made to see, you know, what age group was actually determined
9 on the basis of the 1991 census, especially based on an official version
10 versus what you were able to find later on, and perhaps listing why you
11 looked at it but then decided to either disregard it or not give it much
13 A. We didn't need it, because I had the whole census, the individual
14 data, so I could calculate my own age distribution. And this is shown in
15 the addendum number 2 of my report -- my addendum report.
16 Q. All right. But I take it, if I understand you correctly, because
17 this is an official list, as you well know, versus whatever you looked at,
18 I don't know. You said you looked at the 1991 census and you commented
19 that there were a lot of errors. I believe you used the particular word a
20 "plethora." That was the word. It was kind of interesting. I thought
21 that was quite an exquisite choice of adjectives to use, a plethora of
22 errors that you found. So obviously you would have wanted to look at this
23 version which is the official version, i.e., the cleaned version, to make
24 some comparisons. Would you not agree with me that at least that would
25 have been -- this would have been the more accurate one. Correct?
1 A. I'm not sure, because this was published in 1995. The tables were
2 produced in Sarajevo, by people there, and because of the war it was
3 printed in Zagreb. But after 1995, there was -- some corrections were
4 made in the census. There were temporary absent household members and
5 temporary present, and they did the cleaning up of that and some other
6 errors, which formed the basis for the list -- census list that was given
7 to OSCE in connection with the elections. So that may not be and is not
8 necessarily the most correct version of the representation of the census
10 Q. Even though it's from the state bureau of statistics?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the other volumes that contain other information, did
13 you use the same logic in simply dismissing or not relying on that
14 information, or did you rely on it, if you recall?
15 A. We used those other volumes when we needed to. But let me remind
16 you that errors in a spelling of a name has no influence at all in the
17 number of people in a locality or municipality.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. Or on the age distribution or on the sex distribution because as I
20 said -- recorded separately, neither does an error in the "maticni broj."
21 Q. Okay. All right. Well, the reason I'm asking all of these
22 questions, because yesterday we talked about certain sources that might
23 have been available to you, such as refugee lists, either in Croatia or
24 Serbia or the RS, Bosnia-Herzegovina, that were at your -- within your
25 grasp and reach and for whatever reason you didn't look at them, at least
1 for no other reason to see for the people who have migrated, where
2 refugees may be, to see whether any of the people on the missing list
3 might be on other lists. So do you recall that conversation we had
5 A. Yes. But then I said that I did not manage to get hold of the
6 refugee lists. I learned about them and made several attempts to get the
7 lists but did not succeed at that time. Later my successor, Ewa Tabeau,
8 acquired those lists.
9 Q. Okay. But you left -- you left in 19 - what is it - 1998?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. You produced a report in 2000. Correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You testified in the Krstic case in 2000?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You produced in between -- well, you produced an addendum in 2003.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. In between 2000 and 2003, you wrote one article in 2001, which we
19 haven't gotten to yet, and one article in 2002. Correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And now as I understand it, you have been assisting or working
22 with an updated version currently being prepared by the demographic team
23 within the OTP. Correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. All right. You just indicated that this information came into the
1 hands of your successor, Ewa Tabeau. Would you tell us whether this came
2 into her possession prior to 2000 or after 2000.
3 A. I do not know, because my task was to look at the number of
4 missing and dead people, not on the number of refugees in this connection.
5 I looked at the number of refugees, displaced persons, in other
6 connections, but not with regard to Srebrenica where I focused on the
7 missing and dead people.
8 Q. Well, let me go back to my question. Yesterday we discussed
9 whether you looked at these other sources of material that was available
10 to see whether you could -- whether that would assist you in having a more
11 reliable, firmer, final analysis of the data that was available to you.
12 Okay. You indicated you didn't know about it. Fair enough. Now you tell
13 us at some point you learned of it. Somebody else, a colleague, is using
14 it. I'm asking you if you know when that information became available;
15 you tell us you don't know.
16 My question is: Should you not have looked at that information,
17 assuming it came in prior to 2000, at least to see whether your analysis
18 was accurate for the preparation of the 2000 report, if for no other
19 reason to see that there are no duplicates. Somebody claims to be living
20 at a refugee while at the same time you have him on the list.
21 A. I'm pretty sure that it did not arrive in 2000, perhaps 2001, as
22 Ewa Tabeau started to work for the Tribunal at the -- in the fall of 2000
23 as far as I remember.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. So she could not have acquired it before.
1 Q. All right. Certainly well before you wrote your addendum to your
2 2000 report, which was 2003. Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. So if it wasn't available for your 2000 report, the
5 addendum - and as I understand, an addendum is a supplement, an updated
6 version of the previous report, perhaps even including some corrections as
7 a result of new information, new analysis, new methodology, whatever - the
8 addendum should have included that information, if you had thought it was
9 necessary. Correct?
10 A. Not quite, I'm afraid. In this case the addendum highlighted a
11 few special issues. It did not include an updated list of missing
12 persons; that is work in progress. This was the draft material that was
13 given to you on Monday night. And it -- so there is no updated list of
14 missing and dead persons yet, a final list. So in this case my addendum
15 was just highlighting a few pieces of information, additional information,
16 and issues that I knew about -- that I had learned about.
17 Q. Fair enough to say that the addendum would not have been
18 overburdened, that's what you used yesterday, that term, overburdened by
19 at least making some reference that we have this additional information,
20 we haven't factored it yet, but nonetheless we have this list of refugees
21 which we intend to check and double-check against our list to ensure that
22 the list is continually updated and complete. That could have been
23 included in -- certainly so that somebody like me who would have been
24 interested in double-checking all of this would read it and know, I see,
25 they're doing something about it.
1 A. Well, as I said, there was no additional list in the addendum, but
2 I'm sure that my -- Ewa Tabeau will consider your proposal, which is an
3 excellent idea.
4 Q. Okay. Now, speaking of Ewa Tabeau - I've never met the young
5 lady - I didn't have a chance to read her entire draft carefully and
6 analytically, but I was kind of curious at the very last page, on page
7 23 -- do you have it by any chance, the draft -- I guess we could -- I
8 need --
9 MR. KARNAVAS: If we could refer to this as D112 for
10 identification purposes. We can put the last page on the ELMO.
11 THE WITNESS: Page 23?
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. Page 23.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Madam Usher, for your assistance.
15 Q. And again, I understand it's merely a draft, but nonetheless
16 drafts are welcomed by the Defence.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
18 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I'm not sure whether Your Honours have
19 this report, because as I stated to the Defence counsel, this was only for
20 disclosure purposes. The Prosecution did not rely on this material. We
21 don't tender it as an exhibit. It was merely disclosure purposes, because
22 that was material which Dr. Brunborg had a look at prior to his testimony.
23 So we felt it was important that the Defence has seen it. But that's why
24 only the Defence has received a copy of this draft but not the Trial
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, we don't know what's the purpose for the Defence
2 counsel to use this material, but in the cross-examination the party doing
3 the cross could use whatever materials as they could get, so long as the
4 questions are related to the subject matter of this case. But we'll see
5 how Mr. Karnavas presents his case.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
7 Q. Sir, you're familiar with this draft. Correct?
8 A. Part of it, but I haven't studied all of it in detail, I must say.
9 Q. All right. No need to get defensive already. But on the very
10 first page, it does have your name there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. So that gave me some confidence this morning as I was
13 reading it that I could probably ask you a few questions about it, since
14 it has your name -- obviously they wouldn't use your name without your
15 permission? Right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Okay. Okay, now if we look at the very last page, and I
18 understand it's merely a draft, but it goes back to one of my earlier
19 questions. Yesterday I had asked whether there was a definition of
20 Srebrenica. And I pointed in your report, in your first report, where you
21 did not have a definition as far as Srebrenica was concerned, but you did
22 have a definition of terms for Srebrenica victims, which is a little bit
23 different, as you would agree with me.
24 Focusing your attention to page 23 of this draft, which is marked
25 for identification purposes as D112, looking at the second paragraph on
1 page 23, you say -- it says here: "The same logic lies behind the
2 category 'residence: Srebrenica area,' used for all victims whose place
3 of residence in 1991 was in one of the municipalities in the Srebrenica
4 region, but no specific place of disappearance or killing, such as 'at
5 home' et cetera was given in the original source."
6 So here in this particular draft, at least when we're talking
7 about residence and a reference is made to Srebrenica area, we know - or
8 perhaps we don't know, that's the question that we're going to be
9 discussing - that the drafters of this particular report refer to the
10 Srebrenica region, the municipalities in the Srebrenica region. Now, we
11 just concluded discussing -- at least what you told us, that when you
12 prepared your initial list, you relied on the official list of the
13 settlements within the Srebrenica municipality, and you did the same thing
14 for Vlasenica, for Bratunac, et cetera, et cetera. In this draft we're
15 talking about a Srebrenica region, and perhaps you can assist us here.
16 What is meant and what are the geographical boundaries by Srebrenica
17 region? Because officially, at least in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is no
18 such thing.
19 A. This, I believe, is a technical term used in this appendix or this
20 draft report, and it refers to as one of the municipalities in Srebrenica
21 region, including the municipality of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, Zepa,
22 and I think Han Pijesak. I'm not quite sure. But here it's probably
23 listed earlier in the draft.
24 Q. Okay. Maybe you could find it. I mean, I -- but --
25 A. On the previous page.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. On page 22.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. There are the opstinas of disappearance, but these are opstinas of
5 disappearance, not of residence. Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, Rogatica
6 Vlasenica, Kalesija, Kladanj, Bijeljina.
7 Q. Well, this was some additional information that was obtained, this
8 opstina of disappearance?
9 A. Well, if you know the place of disappearance, then -- and you know
10 where the place is, then you automatically have the municipality of
12 Q. All right. But work with me here for a second, and this is not a
13 trick question, this is for the record that we all need to know. When you
14 say here that the municipalities in the Srebrenica region used for all
15 victims whose place of residence was in one of the municipalities in the
16 Srebrenica region, is it your understanding that when we're talking about
17 residence, Srebrenica area, we are talking about all of these places,
18 Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, Rogatica, Vlasenica - and then you go -
19 Bijeljina, is that all within what you would consider the Srebrenica
20 region for the purposes of identifying residence of the Srebrenica area?
21 A. May I please, it is -- this is work in progress, it was a draft.
22 And I was not prepared -- I'm not prepared to discuss this. I don't --
23 haven't even read the last page. Because it got to me very late.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. So if you will excuse me.
1 Q. I will. But if I could just ask you one question. I'm not trying
2 to embarrass you or try to put you on the spot. But would you not agree
3 with us that that definition is a rather inconsistent definition, given
4 what we find in the official statistics book, you know, from the bureau of
6 A. Well, that's a completely different purpose. That is an
7 municipal -- a municipality is a municipal area. It has an elected
8 council and everything. It has localities, or naselja. Now we talked
9 about -- when you talk about where people lived before the fall of the
10 enclave of Srebrenica, where they disappeared, that is a completely
11 different issue. If you look at Table 1 in my addendum, you will see
12 where the missing men came from. They came from Srebrenica, Bratunac,
13 Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak, and other municipalities.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. And we know this because we matched the missing men with their
16 residence in 1991. So this is a pragmatic definition. It's not
17 [indiscernible], logical, geographical or anything. But obviously these
18 municipalities are not far from Srebrenica. So -- and why do they come
19 from other municipalities than Srebrenica? Because they took refuge for
20 some reason or not in the municipality of Srebrenica or the town before
21 11th of July.
22 Q. Okay. Well, first you would agree with me that trying to identify
23 the places of where these people came from, you know, these missing
24 persons as opposed to a region might be an important question for us to
25 determine here in court?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, before I get to how you arrived at your numbers, do
3 you know whether there was a difference in stating the place of residence
4 when the census was done versus when the information was collected by the
5 ICRC or the PHR?
6 A. As far as I remember, they did not ask about place of residence,
7 did they? I don't recall.
8 Q. Well, what about place of birth?
9 A. Place of birth is another thing.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. And of course place of birth is not the same as place of
12 residence. People may have moved.
13 Q. Well, the 1991 census, do you know how people listed their place
14 of birth versus how it was --
15 A. Did they ask for place of birth or municipality or birth? I think
16 they asked for place of birth.
17 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that in that part of the world that
18 when the census was done the place of birth, a mother would put down or
19 would be put down where of -- the place of the mother's permanent
21 A. That is correct. That is what is usually done. It's done in
22 Norway, too.
23 Q. So even if, say, the child is born in Belgrade in a hospital, they
24 would put down if they were from Bratunac, Bratunac as opposed to
25 Belgrade. Correct?
1 A. That is according to vital statistic principles.
2 Q. Right. But if you were to ask folks in that region that question,
3 you were to ask a mother, she would give you not her place of birth, but
4 rather the actual place where the birth took place, in other words they
5 would say Belgrade and not Bratunac?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, do you think that information might skew some of your
8 statistics that you relied on from the 1991 census when we're trying to
9 define where the people's residency was or where they came from?
10 A. Not really. Because, as I said, we obtained the place of
11 residence through matching census data and missing persons data. So it --
12 we were not really very much concerned about place of birth. Moreover, we
13 looked at place of birth in difficult cases to see that the place of birth
14 was not really very far away -- or no, the place of residence was not far
15 away. But place of birth did not play a significant role. And moreover,
16 usually a place of birth is in a nearby hospital, a hospital not very far
17 from the place of residence.
18 Q. Okay. All right. Now, the statistics that you have, as I
19 understand it and we're just going to go over this very briefly again,
20 when you were compiling the list, the initial list, when you went through
21 the ICRC list and the PHR list, at some point -- well, the first go around
22 you had -- there was some perfect matches or some matches. Correct?
23 A. Certainly.
24 Q. Okay. Now, can you tell us the percentage of that. Was it -- how
25 many were actually a 100 per cent perfect match, if you know?
1 A. I don't recall, but we have that in our log.
2 Q. Okay. Was it a high percentage or a low percentage?
3 A. Depending on the perspective.
4 Q. Okay. Well, I'm it's for your perspective, anything over -- was
5 it over above 50 or below 50?
6 A. I think it was below 50. Somewhere between 20 and 40 probably. .
7 Q. Now -- and then you indicated the next step that you took was to
8 widen -- to take a wider approach?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And the example that you gave was to use the first initial, last
11 name. Correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then -- and I believe you indicated that the reason you did
14 that was because you wanted to be on the conservative side?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now --
17 A. Let me say that if we found a match that was then equally last
18 name and first initial, it was not accepted as such unless other
19 information also was consistent. So if the name was first name, the
20 initial was the same, then it was spelling, two letters were interchanged.
21 Q. Well, there's no need to try to get ahead of my cross-examination.
22 I understand.
23 A. I don't know your line of examination.
24 Q. Okay. Good. If you just listen to my questions, we're going to
25 get along fine. And I -- whenever you need to explain, explain away.
2 Now, why didn't you, for instance, use another approach, if I may
3 suggest one, at least if not this time, for the next time, why not say,
4 okay, after you had all these perfect matches, then go back and, for
5 instance, try to widen the spectrum by first choosing the first three or
6 four letters of the name, plus last name, run it up to the computer to see
7 how many come up, either for Bosnia-Herzegovina or for Eastern Bosnia.
8 Then -- so you probably would come up with a certain number. Then widen
9 the search a little bit more by first initial, last name, you probably
10 would come up with a much larger number, of course. And then finally,
11 first initial, first name, first initial, last name. And then you would
12 have a much wider range. And then you can begin a process of elimination
13 now that you have looked at basically the universe of choices available to
14 you. And of course the first thing that you would do is shorten it to the
15 particular area, which would be Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica,
16 whatever -- however you wanted to do it. Would that not -- taking that
17 approach, would you not say that though it's much more cumbersome, much
18 more time-consuming, much more labour-intensive, would you not say that
19 through that approach you would have a much more, for lack of a better
20 term, reliable outcome, rather than your approach where a certain amount
21 of fuzziness, if I may borrow your term, needed to be used in order to
22 correct some of the errors or omissions?
23 A. I fail to see that that would be the case. Fuzziness is not my
24 term; it's used in statistics and mathematics. And the results would have
25 been the same, more or less.
1 Q. Well -- okay. If I may -- and I didn't mean to interrupt you, but
2 if I could get a word in, although you're probably saying when are you
3 going to get a word in. Right?
4 In doing that process you would have been able to also mark down
5 and keep track of the percentages, the number of people you came up with
6 and the percentage, so at each stage we would have, for instance, all of
7 this data. And then when you arrive at the last figure, we would be able
8 to look at that figure and you would be able to reason exactly how you got
9 to that figure, as opposed to what you did, and I'm not necessarily saying
10 that it was an incorrect process, but I would say perhaps you took some
11 shortcuts, that because of the limited nature of the pool that you were
12 looking at, a certain degree of fuzziness, subjectivity, was required in
13 order to make the matches occur?
14 A. I'm sure that we could have followed your approach. The end
15 results would have been exactly the same. If you -- whether you do all
16 the exact matches first and then mark them, and actually you don't have to
17 consider them anymore, or do it the other way around, it shouldn't make
18 any difference.
19 Q. Okay. You would agree with me that my approach is a much more
20 comprehensive approach?
21 A. Comprehensive, yes, perhaps. I don't really see much difference.
22 Q. When I ask you now, can you tell me: When you came up with that
23 general figure of the matches, of 5.000 I believe or 6.000 between -- I
24 think it was 5.000 between PHR list and the ICRC list, was that a perfect,
25 perfect match, or was that a match with some fuzziness?
1 A. We used fuzzy criteria to find potential matches, and then we
2 checked whether this fuzziness could be explained. We wouldn't accept any
4 Q. Okay. But how much fuzziness, if we could give a percentage,
5 ultimately was used? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 30 per cent?
6 A. It's impossible to tell. But at every -- any stage we counted the
7 number of new matches. So whether -- let me give an example. If the year
8 of birth was 1951 in one case and 1950 in the other case, we would accept
9 that if everything else was the same or almost the same, identical.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. But if the father's name, if available, was different, then of
12 course we would not accept 1950/1951 as a correct match.
13 Q. And as I understand it, then after you made this comparison, then
14 you were able to come to a percentage of 87 per cent, I believe, between
15 the ICRC -- or the master list and the voting -- the census list of 1991.
17 A. For the 87 per cent of missing persons.
18 Q. You say that was 87 per cent?
19 A. 87 per cent, yes.
20 Q. That's assuming, that's assuming, that the information, both from
21 the master list and the 1991 list, is accurate?
22 A. No. It's -- assume that they are accurate or almost accurate or
23 are similar. As I said before, names are misspelled, like LJ was
24 sometimes interpreted as Q. So we checked such cases.
25 Q. All right. The assumption must be made, however, that these
1 are -- this is accurate data in order, you know -- plus or minus
2 something, you know, some error, but accurate data in order for you to
3 come up with this 87 per cent. Correct?
4 A. That 87 per cent was based on the number of not matches where we
5 were very certain that we were -- that the records from each source were
6 representing the same person, because the names were absolutely identical
7 or almost identical, year of birth was exactly, date of birth exactly the
8 same or almost the same. And every other items were similar and so on.
9 So there would be very little doubt that these were correct matches. On
10 the other hand, we excluded a number of cases where we suspected that
11 these two records probably represent the same person, but we cannot be
12 sure. So to be on the safe side, let's drop them into the box of the 13
13 per cent.
14 Q. Okay. All right. But the 87 per cent -- I guess I'm trying to
15 really get a handle on this, are these all perfect matches, or do they
16 include some guesstimation on your part?
17 A. I wouldn't call it guesstimation. That is much to lose. It is
18 concerned -- it's based on hard principles and a lot of exact matches, a
19 lot of information -- exact information, but with some adjustment mainly
20 because of errors in the data.
21 Q. Okay. And could you give me a percentage, could you give me a
22 percentage of how many -- what's the percentage from the 87 per cent that
23 are not exact?
24 A. I don't know. We have included -- we can look at our log.
25 Q. Okay. And then based on that 87 per cent you did a breakdown?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And determined, you know, based on the information that you had,
3 what was from Srebrenica, who was from Vlasenica, and what have you.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, when you looked at that information, were you referring to
7 the settlements from this official log or something similar, or was it the
8 general Srebrenica area?
9 A. Well, we referred to the municipality, the number which was given
10 in the census for each person.
11 Q. Okay. So if it said Srebrenica, they went in the Srebrenica box?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And then after that is when you did some further
14 adjustments, correct, because you had that 13 per cent that didn't match?
15 A. That's true.
16 Q. Okay. And so for the 13 per cent, as I understand it, you used --
17 A. We prorated, if I may tell you the word you are looking for.
18 Q. Thank you. I was looking for the right term. Okay. You prorate
19 it, and then you came up and said, okay, from this 13 per cent we can add
20 X amount to Srebrenica, X amount to Vlasenica, and so on. Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you felt that that was a comfortable way of doing it because
23 in your mind, and as I understand it's perfectly okay, when you have a
24 fairly large number, such as 87 per cent, assuming that's correct - an
25 assumption I'm not willing to take - but assuming it's correct, then you
1 can go ahead and prorate and to -- with a certain degree of exactitude be
2 right on the money? Correct?
3 A. That's correct. That's standard procedure.
4 Q. That's standard procedure. All right. And that's how you came up
5 with the overall figure.
6 A. May I say that the 56 per cent of people who lived in Srebrenica
7 of those missing persons is the same whether you look at 87 per cent or
8 little -- 100 per cent. It was 56 per cent. Of those 87 per cent, we
9 matched. When we prorate we still get 56 per cent. Because we just
10 distribute equally. It does not affect the proportion who came from
11 different municipalities at all.
12 Q. All right. But of course, of the 40.000 -- or the number of
13 people who were there living in Srebrenica, we don't know first the exact
14 number. Correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And certainly you're not prepared to state that of all the people
17 that were living in that area, many of whom were, you know, left through
18 the woods, the exodus, some died, others were transferred to Tuzla, okay,
19 you're not prepared to say that that 56 per cent also represents the whole
20 of that community, whoever was living in Srebrenica at the time?
21 A. No. No. It's -- as you know, almost all these people were men,
22 so it is probably not a bad estimate of the distribution of the men in
23 Srebrenica before -- in July 1995, before the fall. But we can't be sure,
24 of course.
25 Q. Okay. Now -- okay. If I could have one moment.
1 Now, I want to switch to another topic.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: And I would prefer at this point to take a short
3 break, Your Honour, only because I'm having some problems with my one
4 foot. And I promise to be rather efficient in the next session. And I
5 don't think I will need the -- you know, more than half an hour or 45
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think it's almost time for the break. Let's
8 resume at five minutes to 4.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 3.22 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 3.57 p.m.
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
13 Q. Sir, I thought we could sort of wrap up the issue of sources and
14 data with some final questions here. Now, if I look at your article that
15 you published in 2001, which is called Contribution of Statistical
16 Analysis for the Investigations of the International Tribunal, dated 18,
17 2000 -- it doesn't have a date. 18, 2001. And for identification
18 purposes, it will be D113.
19 Do you have it handy there by any chance?
20 A. I have got it, sir.
21 Q. Okay. You did author this article, did you not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it says here that it was with the permission -- with
24 permission from IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. What does that
1 A. IOS, that is the publisher.
2 Q. All right. I take it, as in the article we talked about
3 yesterday, that is dated 2002, July 10, which was marked for
4 identification purposes as D110, you sought permission from ICTY to write
5 about this or --
6 A. Certainly.
7 Q. Okay. And I take it they looked at it, perhaps might have even
8 commented on it. But in any event you got the green light to go ahead and
9 have it published. Right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, if I could direct your attention to page 228, and it
12 has an ERN number of 01121254. You will find the number of the page on
13 the left-hand -- upper left-hand. Okay. If we could look at just very
14 briefly the last paragraph before you get into section 2. You state here:
15 "Lack of data is the most serious problem when estimating the number of
16 victims in a war, especially the number of deaths. Identifying and
17 acquiring such data are important tasks. Moreover, the quality of the
18 data, when available, varies tremendously and much time has to be spent
19 checking and revising the data."
20 Now, do you recall writing that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And I take it that's your position?
23 A. I think it was well said.
24 Q. Okay. And I also note, if we could go to page 232, with the ER
25 number of 01121258 you state here, right after subsection C where it talks
1 about genocide, you state: "Thus, it is an important task for a
2 demographer to identify, acquire, validate and improve relevant data.
3 Much time has to be spent contacting national and international
4 governmental and nongovernmental institutions and organisations."
5 And I take it that you still maintain that that is a correct
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Yet -- now, if I could -- we did discuss that there were
9 some perhaps omissions -- and I'm not saying intentional, but there were
10 some omissions on your part to look at or collect or analyse certain data
11 or sources. We talked about it yesterday; we talked about it briefly
12 earlier. But now, if I could focus your attention to your report dated 12
13 February, 2000, which has been marked for identification purposes as P725.
14 And if we could look at page 2, sort of the second paragraph, you state
15 here: "Several organisations collected data on persons missing after the
16 fall of Srebrenica, including the International Committee of the Red
17 Cross, ICRC, and Physicians for Human Rights, PHR."
18 My question at this point in time, in light of what you previously
19 stated in your articles, that you need to identify and acquire all of the
20 data: Could you please tell us, what are those several other
21 organisations that collected data on persons missing after the fall of
22 Srebrenica that you are aware of, or were aware of.
23 A. I am aware of one organisation called Muslims Against Genocide.
24 Q. Okay. And as I understand it, that organisation -- some of the
25 data from that organisation is being incorporated into the draft report
1 that we just looked at that is being authored by a host of people,
2 including Ewa Tabeau and yourself as well. Correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And I believe -- I don't recall the identification number on this
5 one, but I believe it was D112. We're not going to go into that, but were
6 you aware of that organisation at the time that you compiled your -- you
7 did your 2000 report?
8 A. Yes. I think I became aware of that organisation at the end of
10 Q. Okay. Can you please give us an explanation as to why there is no
11 reference to that organisation or why you do not use any of the data in
12 that organisation -- from that organisation, yet it would appear from
13 glancing at the draft, 2004 draft, that your successor has to some extent
14 looked into their data?
15 A. At the time when I became aware of it, that organisation had
16 focused mainly on Sarajevo and not on much work on Srebrenica yet. That
17 was the main reason why I did not use it.
18 Q. Okay. All right. Now, at some point they did begin to focus on
19 Srebrenica. Correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that was prior to 2003. Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Yet, in your addendum, again there is no reference that there is
24 this additional data that is being collected, albeit by an NGO, a local
25 NGO, but there's no reference in your report anywhere?
1 A. Sir, as I mentioned in the previous session, my addendum did not
2 include an updated list. That is work in progress. I just wanted to
3 highlight a few special aspects that would come forward.
4 Q. But I take it when you prepared your addendum, not only you made
5 no references to it, but you failed in any way to incorporate that
6 information or to perhaps even ask the OTP to look into it to see how that
7 might influence either in a positive or a negative fashion your previous
8 report. Correct?
9 A. I discussed with OTP how it could be used, yes.
10 Q. Okay. Now, the addendum, as I understand it given the date of it,
11 it would appear that it was made in preparation for your testimony here.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Okay. Because initially you were on the master list of witnesses
15 for the Prosecution, and we are grateful that you are here testifying. So
16 it would appear that you knew or should have known that you would have
17 been questioned regarding all of the available data related to Srebrenica,
18 the victims of Srebrenica, and so on and so forth. Correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yet when you prepared this addendum, you failed, as we have
21 indicated, to mention this additional data, but also to factor it in.
23 A. Correct, because it was work in progress.
24 Q. Okay. Well, where in it -- where in this report pray tell does it
25 note that there is -- there is this data available by this organisation
1 that is being considered by OTP through their demographic team, the
2 results of which are unavailable at that time. Is there any place in your
3 addendum where you make reference to that?
4 A. No, there is not, because I didn't consider it my responsibility
5 to point out all possible data sources in that addendum.
6 Q. Okay. Well, yesterday, sir - and correct me if I'm wrong - you
7 told us that you were a data junkie --
8 A. No, I said data freak.
9 Q. Or data freak. Okay. Well, I think either one I'll accept. All
10 right. And I hope that you don't take it in the wrong way but --
11 A. Junkies are addicted, aren't they?
12 Q. I was going to mention the distinction, but thank you for pointing
13 that out. And it is a major distinction. So -- but nonetheless, you
14 would agree with me that given your description, a data freak would be one
15 that in many ways who is sensitive to and enjoys looking at data.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay. Much the same fashion, as I indicated, I have with
20 Now, given your predilection for data, don't you think it would
21 have been helpful for us or for anyone reading your report, for you to
22 have listed the organisations that were collecting data on persons missing
23 after the fall of Srebrenica. So at least if you were not interested in
24 that data, in spite of your -- you being a data freak, others might want
25 to look at that data, at least for the sake of seeing whether there is
1 something there that might in any way either support or take away from
2 some of the conclusions that you have reached in your reports.
3 A. Well, my successor, Ewa Tabeau, has mentioned my -- and other
4 related sources in a number of articles and expert reports. But as I
5 said, I did not consider it my task to mention all the possible data
6 sources in that addendum.
7 Q. Okay. Well, believe it or not, what I'm referring to is the first
8 report of 12 February, 2002. This is where you say: "Several
9 organisations collected data."
10 It's on page 2.
11 A. That was 2000 -- and --
12 Q. 2000, 2000, report. Okay. Second page, you know, first paragraph
13 from the top where you say: "Several organisations collected."
14 Can you list the several organisations outside the two that you
15 have listed, and outside the one that you have already told us. Because
16 you said "several." So are you aware of only these three, or are there
17 more? And if so, who are they?
18 A. Well, they were -- what do you call? It's an institute of war
19 crimes, something -- I don't remember -- recall the exact name in Sarajevo
20 headed by Professor Cekic [phoen], something. There was also the now
21 defunct -- another organisation collecting data on war crimes and victims.
22 There are the women of Srebrenica, the mothers of Srebrenica, who else?
23 Probably several others, too.
24 Q. Okay. And given -- I take it, I take it, if you were to go back
25 to your notes or your files, somewhere we would be able to find this
1 master list of organisations that you were aware of at the time that you
2 were collecting this data, analysing it, processing, writing reports.
3 Somewhere you must have the list, correct, or is it just from the top of
4 your head hearing anecdotally that there are organisations collecting
6 A. No, it's not anecdotally. I heard about organisations. I
7 inquired about what kind of data did they have. Would they make it -- the
8 data accessible to us? What was it worth getting? Was it different from
9 what we had already. So I made several contacts. Some were futile; they
10 led to nothing. I asked again and again. The now defunct organisation
11 which I don't remember the name of was visiting three or four times with
12 no success.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. If I abstract -- make a summary of my travel reports from the
15 missions to Bosnia, I could list all the organisations that I visited.
16 Q. Needless to say, we don't have that listing in your report?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Okay. And needless to say, we don't have any explanations as to
19 why you chose to totally disregard this data. Correct?
20 A. At that time when I wrote this report, those were the only data
21 available; that's the reason.
22 Q. Wait a second. Hold it, hold it. Are you saying that the only
23 data available was the ICRC and the PHR? Is that what you're telling me?
24 A. Well, a rudimentary [indiscernible] data were also available.
25 Because as I said these Muslims -- again, genocide had just started on
1 Sarajevo, but not completed. So I did not find it worthwhile to use
2 the -- their data.
3 Q. Again, let me go back to what you stated and let me remind you
4 that you have a Ph.D. from one of the finest universities in America, now
5 the University of Michigan, where English is spoken. So I assume that
6 you're extremely careful and precise when you use, you know, the Queen's
7 language. And you state: "Several organisations collected data on
8 persons missing after the fall of Srebrenica, including ..."
9 So from this, when I read it, I can conclude that organisations
10 are out there collecting data. Okay. So aside from the three, you were
11 aware of at that time when you were writing this report in 2000 that there
12 was this data out there being collected specifically concerning the events
13 of Srebrenica. Correct?
14 A. No, not specifically. I did not focus specifically on Srebrenica.
15 Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it. Some of which was specifically related
16 to Srebrenica?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Okay. Now, certainly you've told us about one organisation, the
19 name of which you don't know, that is currently defunct and was
20 uncooperative or perhaps their data was not particularly enlightening.
21 But other organisations, such as the one with respect to the Srebrenica
22 mothers, surely you're not suggesting that they would not have been
23 interested in providing you with the information that they had, such as
24 the name of their loved ones, place of birth, where they were last seen,
25 all of that. Surely that information could have been gathered from you
1 and your team. Correct?
2 A. I met with them and asked to have lists, comprehensive lists of
3 victims or missing persons. While they said they had some, but they did
4 not have any comprehensive lists, as far as I remember.
5 Q. All right. But nonetheless there you were trying to put these
6 lists together, trying to come up with a master list --
7 A. I was not trying to get a master list of organisations; I was
8 trying to get a master list of missing and dead people.
9 Q. Precisely. And perhaps these other organisations might have been
10 able to provide you with data that you could have incorporated into your
11 study. Correct?
12 A. Perhaps and some has been acquired later.
13 Q. Again, I want to remind you where you indicate that:
14 "Identifying and acquiring such data are important tasks. Moreover, the
15 quality of the data, when available," and you go on, "varies tremendously
16 as much time -- and much time has to be spent checking and revising the
18 This is from your article that I just read, which is marked for
19 identification as D111. Now, could it be, sir, that -- or D113, I'm
20 sorry. Could it be that perhaps you didn't have the time or the
21 inclination to spend looking at that data and incorporating that data,
22 that that's why you chose to disregard it?
23 A. The resources and time were certainly an aspect, but it was also
24 quality aspect, that evaluating those data sources, the ICRC and the
25 Physicians for Human Rights missing data lists, taught me that these are
1 very promising -- very comprehensive large data files of good quality.
2 And I was also acquiring and evaluating and assessing the census data and
3 lists of voters, et cetera.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And I also worked many other areas in Srebrenica.
6 Q. I beg your pardon. Say that again.
7 A. No, Srebrenica was not the only focus of my work. I said other
8 responsibilities also.
9 Q. Okay. I thought I was very careful yesterday to try to elicit
10 your mandate. And we began by stating the first, you were seconded for
11 approximately six months, and your general task was to look for missing
12 people or to compile a list of missing people for the whole country of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But then at some point your mission was narrowed by
14 the Office of the Prosecution, because after all it was only you and one
15 assistant initially. And your mandate was to focus, to focus, on
16 Srebrenica. Correct?
17 A. Not quite.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. May I specify?
20 Q. Go ahead, please.
21 A. My original mandate was to look at the population movements, so
22 demographic effects of the conflict in Bosnia, including both missing
23 persons, deaths, refugees, displaced persons, ethnic cleansing. It was a
24 very wide mandate. Now, after a while -- and I was -- did not have an
25 assistant at the beginning; I was alone. This was a, I would say a -- not
1 a trial, not in the legal sense, but it was an experiment, because this
2 was the first time a demographer was employed at the War Crimes Tribunal,
3 so they wanted to see what can we get out of this. And then over the next
4 year or so, one project was singled out as being very interesting and
5 important, and that was Srebrenica. But I also worked on other projects
6 like Prijedor.
7 Q. Okay. So I certainly hope that this has not been an experiment of
8 an endeavour on your part, that is, this work regarding Srebrenica.
9 A. May I ask what you mean.
10 Q. Well, you said "experiment," that was your term. Because, if I
11 may add, if I may add, this is not the first time that atrocities ever
12 occurred someplace, okay, and demography has been used elsewhere, for
13 instance, as you mentioned yesterday, with what happened to the Jewish
14 people in, you know, during World War II, what the Turks did to the
15 Armenians, what's going on in Chechnya, East Timor, Cambodia, I can go
16 down the list. So demography has been used in one way or another, along
17 with statisticians, to show the trauma or atrocities has on populations.
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. Okay. And there are other reasons that have been used, such as
21 where, you know, ecological reasons, where natives, you know, have been
22 affected as well because of the change of the environment. Correct? So
23 the use of demography in this field is not something unique.
24 A. What I meant was that it was the first time the -- that the ICTY
25 had a demographer, a professional demographer, a population statistician
1 on its staff.
2 Q. All right.
3 A. That was a trial, it was not a permanent position; it was an ad
4 hoc position for a year. And it resulted in a permanent position and a
5 staff of -- which at the most was -- consisted of five or six people.
6 Q. All right. And -- now, you said one of your tasks initially was
7 to assess the effects on the population. I believe that was one of the
8 terms you used.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. So I would suspect that with regard to Srebrenica, that
11 would have been something that you must have been interested in, the
12 effects on the community of Srebrenica. Correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Now, we've indicated in your report, your two reports,
15 other than statistics, we don't have much, other than certain percentages.
17 A. That's true.
18 Q. Now, yesterday I believe I asked, perhaps I did not, whether it
19 would have been useful for you to have looked at the -- compared the 1991
20 census list with the voter registration list to look at the age structure
21 so we could have some sort of an indicator. I believe I asked that. Did
22 I ask that question?
23 A. I guess so. I don't remember my answer, but I don't think that
24 would be very useful, because the voter list consists only of people over
25 the age of 18. And it's just a sample of the population because everybody
1 did not register to vote. So it doesn't tell us a lot about the age
2 structure of the population.
3 Q. Okay. All right. But in light of the fact that it is a voluntary
4 basis that people register to vote and we have this census, okay, that
5 means if we did the comparison to look at -- or to make a demographic
6 impact assessment study, the figures would be on the conservative side,
7 because it wouldn't -- by your own omission, not everybody who was
8 qualified to vote might have registered. Correct? But nonetheless, we
9 would have at least a certain demographical impact assessment. Correct?
10 A. I looked at that. And it -- originally I thought when I acquired
11 the pre-war census and the post-war source, as the voters' register, I
12 thought, wow, this is great. Now we have the population before the
13 conflict and after the conflict. The difference is victims, consists of
14 victims. But the proportion of those who registered to vote was too low
15 for that. It varied between, say, 60, 70, 80 per cent. And there were
16 many -- those 10 to 30 per cent who did not register, very few of them
17 were killed or were victims. Most of them did not register because they
18 did not feel like for some reason or not, or they were not able to, but
19 not because they were killed. So the voters' register was far too
20 incomplete to be used as a post-war source on the population. A post-war
21 census could have been used, but as you know, as I told you yesterday,
22 there hasn't been and census yet.
23 Q. All right. Thank you for that explanation.
24 Now, you told us you looked at it, you did this, and these are the
25 reasons why you decided not to go any further because the census should be
1 done. Wonderful stuff. Question is: Where is that in your report, that
2 you actually went to the trouble and did all of that and made those
3 findings or reached those conclusions, because if we're trying to look at
4 your work to see whether it was objective and complete, one would expect
5 that as a scientist you would begin to list all the options and then rule
6 out the possibilities as you go down the list. So then when we reach your
7 final conclusion, we have some idea on what you looked at, what you
8 considered, what you decided to disregard, what you thought was
9 irrelevant, what you found was relevant, and then from that we can see how
10 you reached your conclusion. So where is it in your report?
11 A. The report focused on the missing and the dead from Srebrenica.
12 The population age structure after the war is not very relevant for that,
13 because there was no good source. But in the addendum Table 2, you will
14 have the effects on the age groups for men -- find your age groups of men
15 from 11 to 15 to 86 to 90 years of age. And there I've estimated the
16 proportion of each age group of Muslim men, enumerated in 1991, who went
17 missing from Srebrenica in 1995. So there the age structure has been --
18 the regional effects on the age structure has been directly looked at.
19 Q. Sir, what I'm pointing out here is that you're telling us certain
20 things in court now for which we have to accept your word - and I'm not
21 saying that you haven't done all of these things, but what I am saying
22 is: If you approach this in a scientific manner, you're collecting data,
23 you're trying to reach some results, don't you think that for the finders
24 of the fact, the Honourable Members of our Trial Chamber, as well as for
25 the Defence, although we play a small role, don't you think that we should
1 have available to us all of the sources that you looked at, all of the
2 sources that were available, all of the conclusions that you reached, and
3 not something put on 12 pages where you discriminated what should be in
4 and what should be out because you did not want to overburden the report?
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Waespi.
6 MR. WAESPI: Thanks, Mr. President. I think the witness also --
7 already a couple of times what the scope of his report was and what he was
8 tasked to do.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 Mr. Karnavas, we also believe so. There is no need to repeat the
11 same question again and again.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: I was just wondering whether it would be -- if he
13 had an opinion as to whether the Honourable Members of this Trial Chamber
14 would like to have this information. But if I've made my point, I'll move
15 on, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please move on.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
18 Q. Now, while we're still on this report -- this article that you
19 made -- and before I go -- move on, just two quick matters. If we go
20 back -- if we go to page 232. Again, I'm referring to D113. And we look
21 at -- my attention was caught at this one sentence, and it's
22 approximately -- it's in the paragraph right above subheading number 5.
23 It's in the middle of that paragraph, and you state -- you write: "For
24 the events following the fall of Srebrenica in 1995, for example, all men
25 are included in the estimates of the number of missing persons, but hardly
1 any of the men were combatants at the time when they were killed."
2 Now, do you recall writing that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And yesterday we discussed that there are some estimations
5 that some 15.000 people went to Tuzla on this exodus as we called it with
6 another estimation of approximately 5.000 being armed combatants --
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
8 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I don't mean to interrupt, but just to draw your
9 attention. I objected yesterday that the reason Dr. Brunborg was called
10 to testify in cross-examination only as to his report. And now we are at
11 the end of I think the 45 minutes you have given to Mr. Karnavas today.
12 And now we are going back again to his articles, rather than the reports,
13 and we are rehashing of what Mr. Karnavas admits has been discussed
14 already yesterday.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas --
16 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may answer --
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, certainly we have the same questions concerning
18 this sentence. You just try to slim your question. Ask what's the reason
19 for the witness to say so. That's very simple.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. I thought I was narrowing the
21 question by -- but --
22 JUDGE LIU: We know your point already.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. All right.
24 Q. Could you tell us: How did you arrive at this conclusion that all
25 of the men, you know, as you indicate: "All men are included in the
1 estimate of missing persons, but hardly any of them -- any of the men were
3 How did you arrive at that?
4 A. Because I learned through reading, talking to people, seeing
5 videos that that was the case, that there were few combatants at the time
6 they were killed. I know there were armed people who were taken prisoners
7 on their way when they crossed the road at Nova Kasaba, for instance, and
8 later executed. The number of men who were actually combatants, I don't
9 know. But hardly any, perhaps that is a bit too strong.
10 Q. Okay. Well, I wouldn't say "strong," I would say inaccurate.
11 Would you fight me on that one?
12 A. I agree. I could agree that that is inaccurate. On the other
13 hand, a large number of men were not combatants in that group.
14 Q. You talked about the age bracket of 16 to 60 as being combatants.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And based on your figures, it would appear that the range
18 of men that went missing are within that range, more or less?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. Although there were surprisingly many who were outside that range.
22 Q. All right. Now, certainly this conclusion or this statement here
23 is not part of demographics, is it?
24 A. Which statement?
25 Q. Well, the one you just made --
1 A. And --
2 Q. Well, you said you heard, somebody told you, you watched some
3 films, you read some books. And so now you're making a statement in an
4 article that you're publishing, which as you indicated was well received
5 within your scientific community and which you are using to at least
6 verify your work. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Now, you've just admitted that this is inaccurate. My
9 question is: This analysis or this conclusion or this statement, is that
10 part of the science of demography, yes or no?
11 A. Armed conflict is not in this sense part of demography.
12 Demography uses other kinds of information.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. And I believe one of the sources that I was told by the OTP, that
15 there were few armed men in that group.
16 Q. Well, if you heard it from the OTP, that must be reliable, that
17 must be a source?
18 A. Not necessarily, but corroborated by other sources.
19 Q. Okay. And that statement seems to contradict what you state
20 earlier in this article on page 230, again referring to D113, where you
21 state, and I'll read: "To estimate the number of war-related deaths, for
22 example, we would need to have good records on the cause of death.
23 Moreover, even if cause of death were well recorded, we would usually not
24 know whether a person was an indirect victim of the war, as a person may
25 have died of a nonviolent cause, such as pneumonia, due to lack of
1 heating, nutrition, or proper medical treatment," and then you go on.
2 "The major components of population change are births, deaths, and
3 migrations. The statistics are too deficient to estimate the number of
4 births during the war, not to mention the number of births affected by the
5 war directly or indirectly." And then you go on.
6 And then in the next paragraph just to point one other -- to
7 highlight one other point: "For deaths, the available estimates are even
8 more uncertain."
9 And in fact, if we look at your footnote, you show where
10 President Izetbegovic had claimed more than 200.000 people being killed,
11 where UNHCR, a representative of UNHCR claimed that it was between 20 and
12 30.000. Now, does this statement that you say here -- that you have here,
13 does it not contradict your earlier statement? Do you see any
15 A. Not really. Those examples are examples of, I would say, other
16 statistics. They are based on aggregates, statistics, and hearsay. The
17 estimate by the United Nations High Commissioner is probably not the
18 number killed, although the newspaper articles say that, but the number of
19 missing persons.
20 Q. Now, what I was referring to where you were mentioning the
21 difficulty in making an assessment as to who was killed directly as a
22 result of the war, versus somebody who died because of malnutrition,
23 pneumonia, stepping on a land mine, collateral damage, and so forth.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Now, before we finish this report, I want to direct your
2 attention to the last paragraph on page 237. It's in the conclusion,
3 concluding remarks. And perhaps as I read this, you may be thinking about
4 why I ask so many questions about the availability of data and your
5 failure to include all your methodologies and all your work in your
6 report. Okay.
7 Last paragraph, last --
8 A. Which exhibit, please.
9 Q. P -- D113. We're still on the same article of 2001.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. Okay. You state here in part of your conclusion: "It is not
12 always easy to work as a single demographer in a large institution
13 dominated by police investigators and lawyers." I would agree with you on
14 that one. "Naturally a court is only interested in facts that can be used
15 for the," and you quote,"prosecution of persons responsible for serious
16 violations of international humanitarian law."
17 Then you go on: "More academic issues arouse little interest.
18 Demographers are trained to be very critical towards data and methods and
19 to present and discuss their weaknesses. In a report presented to a
20 court, such issues should not play such a major role in the presentation,
21 such as to overshadow the major findings."
22 Do you recall writing this part in your report?
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, just this simple question. I mean, he
25 said several times he drafted the -- this article, and now the first
1 question he's asked. I know it's common law that first you lay the
2 foundation. But I would like to raise another point --
3 MR. KARNAVAS: What's the objection, Your Honour. If there's an
4 objection, I would like to hear it.
5 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I'm going to address this issue, as I said
6 before, that we are now almost to the end and we start again with this
7 article. I would like to mention that the Defence is required to put
8 their case to the witness so he has a chance to rebut the allegations of
9 the Defence. I have not heard in I don't know how many hours we have been
10 sitting here whether the figure Dr. Brunborg came up is wrong, whether the
11 expert - and I understand there will be a Defence expert - has a different
12 opinion about that. I think that's what the Defence counsel should put to
13 the expert witness. Otherwise we have to recall Dr. Brunborg afterwards
14 so he can rebut whatever the Defence expert says. I think that would be
15 the duty of the Defence and not to rehash these articles and ask him
16 questions whether he wrote a sentence of a published article.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond, Your Honour, very briefly --
18 JUDGE LIU: No. There is no need for you to respond at this
19 stage. And it is true that, Mr. Karnavas, you don't have to confirm that
20 this witness has already written this article or not. It is a fact that
21 everything is there. And as for this particular issue, I believe that the
22 question put forward by Mr. Karnavas, in my view, somehow is related to
23 the report. Because here we mentioned the report presented to the Court.
24 But I haven't heard a question yet.
25 So, Mr. Karnavas, would you please try to streamline your question
1 and up to the point.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Sir, can you please explain to us why you feel that you don't have
4 to put in your report - if I understand what you write here correctly -
5 the weaknesses of the data collection process, and why is it that you feel
6 that these issues should not play a major role and so the Court could just
7 focus on your major finding, which I would assume is the bottom line
9 A. I said here that it should not play such a major role, as to
10 overshadow major findings. I did not say it should not play a role at
11 all. And I learned this through my experience at ICTY that you often have
12 to simplify. And to put it briefly, I have to make the findings and the
13 methods and the data description so simple that even lawyers can
14 understand it, if you excuse me.
15 Q. Well, I could not agree with you more. I believe in simplicity.
16 But don't you think lawyers perhaps would understand your work more if you
17 were to lay out all of the facts, all of the data, all of the things that
18 you've done, what you did consider, what you didn't consider, and let the
19 reader, the lawyer, the finders of facts reach a determination as to
20 whether the major finding in your report is true, accurate, and complete?
21 A. Sir, I believe that's what I've done in this report. I mentioned
22 all the data sources used when we focused on the number of dead and
23 missing in Srebrenica. All the data sources are there. And we discussed
24 the major problems and weaknesses. We mentioned openly where data are
25 faulty and our methods to do so something about that. Nothing has been
2 Q. Well, excuse me. Not -- maybe not hidden, but not revealed?
3 A. That's true. But we could not mention every simple detail. We
4 have hundreds of pages on logs and documentation on our work.
5 Q. But you would agree with me that you did not reveal in your report
6 all the sources that were available out there and the reasons why you
7 chose not to look at those sources. Right?
8 A. I wrote about the sources. No, I did not mention all the sources.
9 I mentioned the sources I used, which, in my view, were the best sources
10 and those available at that time.
11 Q. All right. Now, I want to get to your next article, 2002, and I
12 have to ask you a few questions. And I will be putting my case --
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
14 MR. WAESPI: Can I ask the relevancy in cross-examining again now
15 on the next article.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, there must be some relevance --
17 MR. KARNAVAS: There is a relevance, Your Honour. There is a --
18 well, first, I should say that I alerted on Monday afternoon when
19 Mr. Waespi dropped this bombshell that he had all this new information, I
20 told him to alert the gentleman that I would be going into his articles,
21 so this is not news to them.
22 Secondly, as you well know, Your Honour, all of my questions have
23 a point. Perhaps it's not evident initially, but at some point it becomes
24 evident. I want -- normally, I either go through reports one at a time or
25 chapters. I'm at the point where right now where we're getting to the --
1 towards end. I want to demonstrate certain things to the Court, because
2 my case, as Mr. Waespi has indicated, which in my opinion is that the work
3 that this gentleman has done is less than perfect. As to whether the
4 figures are accurate, it's unclear at that point. We don't have all this
5 information, I don't have the resources to double check it. I will
6 perhaps make a presentation at some point what is required of me to
7 actually look at all of his data.
8 But I think I'm entitled, Your Honour, I'm entitled to challenge
9 his work, and also part of the Prosecution's indictment is genocide. And
10 this gentleman here, as we will see in his report, has commented on that.
11 And that's what my point is. It's not for the sake of embarrassing the
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
14 MR. WAESPI: If I might add. There is a big difference between
15 the articles and the report. And if counsel would read the reports and
16 look into the word, simply the word "genocide," he would find there is no
17 mentioning of genocide in the report. The articles say something
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, it goes to his state of mind, it goes
20 to a state of mind in how he approaches this. And if we could hear some
21 questions it might assist us. Perhaps Mr. Waespi hasn't read the articles
22 very carefully. But when I read them, I gotta tell ya, I had a chilling
23 effect on me.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, you have to understand that this
25 witness is a demographic expert; he's not an expert in the legal field.
1 So the genocide could be used as a legal form or could be used by other
2 people in, we may say, the layman, he has different interpretations. So I
3 also think this question we have already visited it yesterday. I hope we
4 could let this witness after this sitting and Mr. Stojanovic also has some
5 questions to ask. So I hope you could wind up your cross-examination as
6 soon as possible.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm trying, Your Honour. I'm trying; I'm trying.
8 Q. Sir, you have written in this article that most often the parties
9 of a conflict have an interest in either exaggerating or playing down the
10 magnitude of the atrocities. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that would also go, as I understand it, in playing with the
13 figures, some parties want the figures high, other parties want the
14 figures low. Correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you working with the Prosecution party, can we not conclude
17 from your reading this, that perhaps you might have wanted the figures to
18 be as high as possible?
19 A. Absolutely not.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. Because I was so conservative that trying to be -- that the
22 figure -- the final results were as solid and as high quality as possible.
23 If I had done this as more of an academic exercise, the figures would have
24 been higher.
25 Q. Okay. All right. Now, if we go to where you state in your
1 article page 2: Prosecuting Genocide.
2 A. Excuse me, which exhibit?
3 Q. I'm looking at what has been marked for identification as D110,
4 "Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica".
5 A. Okay. Page?
6 Q. Page 2 at the bottom. I'm going to read the paragraph and then
7 I'm going to ask you to comment on it. Not the whole paragraph, but part
8 of it. Towards the bottom of page 2 you say: "In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
9 most heterogenous of the republics of the former Yugoslavia, the
10 demographic struggle for power became vivid following the process leading
11 to independence in 1992. In 1991, the Bosnian population consisted of 44
12 per cent Bosnian Muslim, 31 per cent Serbs, and 17 per cent Croats. The
13 relatively stronger growth of the Muslim population in the 1980s caused
14 concern among Serbs of being 'outnumbered' and was used as an argument for
15 a cessation by the Serb areas by Bosnian Serb areas such as Radovan
16 Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Krajisnik," and then you cite an article which is
17 your student, Urdal, 2001.
18 Then you go on to say: "These ethno-nationalist leaders use such
19 tools of 'demographic engineering,' as targeted in arbitrary killings,
20 rapes, destruction of houses and expulsion to create ethnically homogenous
21 areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
22 Now, one reading this paragraph, might they get the impression
23 that perhaps you're somewhat subjective, since this does not deal with
25 A. This article is written in a wider concept, trying to put the
1 demography in a wider concept. And let me remind you that the article was
2 written after this work was done. It was also written after the --
3 General Krstic was found guilty of genocide, so we could base our findings
4 on that.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. Or our conclusions and description on that verdict and the -- lots
7 of other information, demographic and non-demographic.
8 Q. Okay. Then you go on to say: "Is crucial question is thus," this
9 is on the third paragraph, same page, page 3. "A crucial question is
10 thus: How many victims must be established to convict someone of
12 Now, when I read that, the first thing that popped into my head
13 was: Is this a numbers game as far as you're concerned?
14 A. No, not really, but I thought when we wrote this that this may be
15 of interest to a court, which may consider at some point whether it is a
16 numbers game. Is there a certain number of people or a proportion of a
17 population that have to be killed to be considered a genocide. This has
18 been an issue.
19 Q. Okay. All right. Then further down, next paragraph, the last
20 sentence, you say: "Of all the atrocities committed during the war, the
21 attempt to eradicate the male Muslim population, following the capture of
22 Srebrenica, represents the gravest and most obvious example of genocide
23 during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and has been characterised as the
24 worst massacre in Europe since World War II," and then you cite two books,
25 two authors, and I believe at least one of them is a reporter.
1 Now, is that your opinion, that there was an attempt to eradicate
2 the male population in Srebrenica? Was that your finding as a
3 demographer? And if that is the case, I would like to know where it is in
4 your report that you came to that conclusion and how did you come to that
6 A. This was the view of the Court in -- with regard to the Krstic
8 Q. Okay. To your understanding.
9 A. That was my understanding there. As Mr. Waespi said, there is
10 nothing in our 2000 report on genocide; the word is not mentioned. But
11 this was written after the verdict in that trial.
12 Q. Okay. But that must be your shared opinion, because I don't see
13 any footnotes where you accredit, where you quote -- or any qualifying
14 language saying: The Court found that there was an attempt -- on this
15 particular paragraph right here. We're going to get to the other ones,
16 don't worry.
17 A. The last sentence of the article says: "In the ICTY trial against
18 General Krstic, the Court ruled in accordance with this view. "
19 Q. I understand, sir. I'm asking for this particular quote, or this
20 sentence. Because you quote two books. Okay? And these are not legal
21 findings. These are just books that were drafted or written by historians
22 or journalists and yet now you're saying this is what was the Krstic
23 judgement. And my question is: Why didn't you quote or why didn't you at
24 least credit the Krstic judgement? Because from reading this, it would
25 appear that what -- that these are your held views. And might I add, sir,
1 that this was written in between your first report and your addendum.
2 A. If you read the sentence carefully, it makes reference to these
3 two books, and it was their opinion that this was one of the worst
4 massacres in Europe since World War II. I remember especially Rhode's
5 [phoen] book. He wrote that.
6 Q. I don't disagree with that aspect. What I find somewhat troubling
7 is where you're stating that: "There was this attempt to eradicate the
8 male population following the capture of Srebrenica."
9 Here you seem to be stating "illegal conclusion," in a paper. You
10 as a demographer. You who are still working for the Office of the
11 Prosecution, as we know, because you're still listed as one of the authors
12 on the draft for this particular study. And so my question is: How can
13 you sit here today saying that you are objective and that your analysis
14 should be taken at face value, when at the same time you're writing
15 articles where you're exposing yourself as someone who has made -- who has
16 a certain predisposition?
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
18 MR. WAESPI: I think he answered the question already. It's
19 obvious the two books he quoted and he also said that he had the Krstic
20 judgement in mind.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think you made your point very
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll go on. I just had
24 one last question on this area, and I would appreciate if Mr. Waespi would
25 indulge me in asking this one question, which is found on page 9 of the
1 same exhibit, which is D110 for identification purposes.
2 Q. It's found in the middle of the page where it says: "Missing my
3 municipality of residence and age." Page 9. And you state: "Ideally we
4 would have liked to know the proportion of people killed of all who
5 resided in the enclave at the time it fell."
6 Now, this is where I'm interested in. And then you state: "It
7 could show that the atrocities were of a genocidal character."
8 When I read that, that again popped up, because an objective
9 scientist, such as yourself, should have chosen perhaps words such as
10 "might have shown, might have been helpful to determine, might have been
11 useful to the trier of fact" to decide whether genocide occurred or
12 whether this atrocity, this madness, constituted genocide. But here you
13 seem to have concluded that this could show. And again, in reading this,
14 I cannot help but think that perhaps you are less than objective and
15 perhaps even may have -- perhaps at a subliminal level an anti-Serb bias.
16 A. In my view and understanding of the English language - it's not my
17 mother tongue, as you know - "could show" is about the same as "might
18 show". It's a hypothetical. It's not an absolute statement; it's a
19 hypothetical statement. And that atrocities were of a genocidal
20 character. It doesn't say genocide, it says genocidal character. So
21 there's a lot of vagueness in that sentence; it's not an absolute
23 Q. Okay. Finally I just want to ask you a question with respect to
24 this. You said that there is this new emerging area called demography of
1 A. Of conflict and violence.
2 Q. Conflict and -- yes. Now, aren't we really talking about taking
3 the study or the science of statistics and demography and applying them to
4 wars as opposed to natural disasters or other human disasters. Isn't that
5 what we're talking about?
6 A. That's correct. That's one of the areas, but also as I mentioned
7 yesterday, there are also other aspects of that emerging area.
8 Q. All right. Then -- and finally, because Mr. Waespi is -- claims
9 that I have not put my case to you, although I thought I had done so,
10 perhaps not in an overt manner as he would like it to be. But would it be
11 fair to say, sir, that now that we've had this discussion, thought
12 provoking as it might have been, that upon reflection you could -- you
13 would admit that there was data out there that might have been helpful and
14 you didn't collect it. Correct?
15 A. I was in the process of collecting, and I made attempts. I
16 collected lots of data that were of a good quality. And my successor
17 collected more data, and the work continues.
18 Q. And with respect to the impact that these atrocities have had to
19 this particular community and to the people living in this particular
20 community, the fabric of the community, if we could, that perhaps had you
21 been given that mandate, which you've indicated that wasn't part of your
22 mandate, but had you been given that mandate, you might have done more
23 work or looked at more data in order to come up with perhaps some other
24 conclusion -- some conclusions?
25 A. I don't quite understand what you are talking about. But looking
1 at the population of Srebrenica after the war is not really relevant. I
2 was only concerned with looking at the effects of the pre-war Srebrenica
3 population and used the relevant data sources for that.
4 Q. Well, I think we can agree that during the war and while this was
5 happening, it had a significant impact. Right?
6 A. Of course.
7 Q. But if we're going to look into the future as to what this event
8 back in 1995, what impact it had for future generations or even five
9 years, or ten years later on, then you would have to look at other data,
10 which you didn't look at. And I'm not saying that you had to, because it
11 wasn't your mandate. But if we were going to do that, you would have to
12 look at some additional data?
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. And that wasn't part of your mandate?
15 A. Of course.
16 Q. And that's why you never looked at that data?
17 A. Of course.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
19 Q. I want to thank you very much, sir. I think it's been most
20 engaging and hopefully stimulating enough for you to take some ideas back
21 to Israel and Palestine.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, your cross-examination, please.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Brunborg. I will try to have
1 certain aspects of your report clarified. So just to be fully precise, I
2 will refer to your report P725 where you say that according to your
3 analysis the number of missing persons is 7.445 [as interpreted], and that
4 is a conservative estimate and should be considered as a minimum number of
5 missing. Is that right?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Following that, you concluded that in support of your conclusion,
8 a number of 7.399 can be considered as one corroborating your figure,
9 because that was the figure used by the ICRC. So my question is as
10 follows: In view of the methodology used by you, how do you explain this
11 difference of 76 missing persons? So you used the figure of 7.475, and
12 the latest information of the ICRC uses the number of 7.399. So we have a
13 difference of 76 persons.
14 A. Thank you for your question. The reason is that we used other
15 data sources as well. So the -- especially the Physicians for Human
16 Rights, which increased the number. Also, when we -- we used two ICRC
17 lists. We found a few duplicates. And when we merged all these together,
18 as you said, it increased the total number to 76 -- or actually, to 7.490,
19 but there were certain -- for reasons given in the paper to be on the safe
20 side, we excluded 9 plus 6, that is 15 cases.
21 Q. Pursuant to the footnote that you have here, footnote number 28,
22 it stands that the ICRC figure, 7.399 persons, also contains information
23 on persons who went missing from Srebrenica before the fall of the
24 enclave, and I repeat, before the fall of the enclave, and contains
25 information on names of persons whose disappearance is linked to the fall
1 of the enclave, however, who were reported as going missing quite far away
2 from Srebrenica. Do you remember this information?
3 A. Yes. We tried to -- we excluded all cases where the date was
4 wrong or where people went -- whether the date was before July 11th, 1995,
5 or whether people went missing at places far away.
6 Q. If the ICRC in their figure of 7.399 also counted these cases, and
7 today you told us that you have excluded such cases, doesn't it seem to
8 you that it would be logical to expect a difference greater than 76
9 missing persons?
10 A. I think we did a more thorough check of the data than, if I may
11 say so, than ICRC did. We checked for duplicates. We did a more thorough
12 check of that -- all the places of disappearance were related to the fall
13 of Srebrenica, whether a difference of slightly less than 100 is large or
14 small, I do not know. It shows that the ICRC data is quite good,
15 actually. But we had more strict criteria than they had. But it was,
16 nevertheless, quite complete.
17 Q. Can we conclude that your strict criteria, as you have just called
18 them, are first of all a comparative analysis comparative to the one in
19 possession of the PHR, or did you use -- or are there any other arguments
20 to support this claim of yours?
21 A. If you would look at Table 1 on page 7 in the 2000 report, you
22 will see that there were 5 -- on the ICRC list and PHR list were 5.712.
23 On the ICRC list only 1.586. That makes 7.298, which is 101 less than the
24 ICRC number that you quoted, 7.399. In addition, we had access to
25 information that the ICRC did not have at that time, I believe, which is
1 the voters' list, 1997 and 1998, which were used to check that missing
2 people were -- that there were no survivors who registered to vote. And
3 we also checked difficult cases where the data were incomplete with the
4 1991 census.
5 Q. Let me just see if I can understand this. So your data is based
6 on two reports of the ICRC, the report of PHR, the 1991 census, and
7 voters' list from 1997 and 1998. Is that right?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Can I conclude that you had no other subsequent data or arguments
10 used in order to reach this figure of 7.475?
11 A. That's correct. The only thing is the information from ICRC, that
12 6 persons were found to be alive. So we subtracted that number.
13 Q. And just in order to make it clear, after you subtracted these 6
14 and those 9 before, you came to the figure of 7.475, according to your
15 records. Is that right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Thank you. Now I will try to go back to something that you have
18 mentioned in this exhibit, which is this data here that approximately 1900
19 bodies that have -- out of 1900 bodies that have been exhumed so far, only
20 some have been identified. We already have some information on
21 exhumation, and the witness who will come tomorrow gives a figure that is
22 higher than 1900. But tell us, please: Is it true that 70 persons from
23 the list of the missing persons have been exhumed and identified?
24 A. At the time when I wrote this report with my colleagues, that was
25 information available to us. I have been told that there was -- and in
1 the draft report provided to Mr. Karnavas on Monday night, that now there
2 have been many more exhumations, that more than 1.000 identified exhumed
3 bodies have been done. And in fact, preliminary analysis show that almost
4 all of these more than 1.000 identified bodies are found in the list of
5 missing persons.
6 Q. I'm asking this because we are looking into the ethnic composition
7 of missing persons and the ethnic composition of exhumed bodies. You gave
8 information to the effect that out of 7.475 missing persons, 500 --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stojanovic please repeat the figures.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, please repeat your figures.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
12 Q. So I am now referring to the Prosecution Exhibit P725 in which
13 you, Mr. Brunborg, stated that out of 7.481 missing persons, 5.555 are
14 Bosniaks and only one is a Serb. Do you remember this information?
15 A. That's correct. In the -- because in the PHR list, there is --
16 was ethnicity and on our total list of missing persons, there was only one
17 who was listed as being a non-Muslim.
18 Q. This information pertains to persons who were listed under
19 Srebrenica region or the enclave of Srebrenica. Is that right?
20 A. Yeah, for missing persons who went missing in the events related
21 to the fall of the enclave in July 1995. We have later matched with the
22 census where ethnicity is given. And we found then only a handful of
23 non-Muslims, among the approximately 6.500 people who were matched with
25 Q. Does that mean that practically at the time of the fall of
1 Srebrenica or while the combat was going on, in that Srebrenica region
2 there were no Serb males?
3 A. I have no knowledge about that. I only know that among those --
4 the victims, the missing persons, there was only one Serb. The
5 composition of the population in Srebrenica before the fall of the
6 enclave, I do not have any information about.
7 Q. In that respect, I would like to focus in more detail on this. I
8 remember you saying yesterday that you don't know the exact figure of the
9 residents at the time of the fall of the enclave. However, you mentioned
10 sources which said that there were about 40.000 residents there. Is that
12 A. Rumours said there were not -- there were 40.000 people, not
13 residents, because resident is in demography and population statistics a
14 more precise definition. It means that that is the usual place where
15 people live. If people are in a place as refugees on a temporary basis,
16 they are not considered residents. But, I have also heard that there were
17 40.000 in the Srebrenica enclave before -- on the 11 -- 10 or 11 July,
19 Q. Based on demographic criteria, out of those 40.000 people, how
20 many do you think should have been male?
21 A. In a normal situation, non-conflict situation, slightly less than
22 half of a population is male. In a war situation, it could vary a lot.
23 So I do not know about that, the situation in Srebrenica in July 1995.
24 There could be more males than in a normal population or there could also
25 be less for various reasons.
1 Q. Can you confirm the accuracy of the information mentioned in the
2 indictment to the effect that about 15.000 men left the enclave on that
3 day, the 11th of July, 1995, and heading towards Tuzla?
4 A. That's also a number I have seen. I have no knowledge about the
5 reliability of that figure. I don't know who estimated it and how
6 reliable it is. I think it is related to the length of the line of men
7 who walked and so on. But I don't know how accurate it is.
8 Q. Would that figure fit with the criteria that you've mentioned just
9 a minute ago, according to which in a group of 40.000 people,
10 approximately just under half should be men?
11 A. It could be. It's not inconsistent. If approximately half of
12 40.000 were men and 15.000 went through the forest, that leaves 5.000 men,
13 approximately, and that is not too different from the number of people
14 believed to be executed. So, no, no, it's not entirely inconsistent.
15 Q. Yes, precisely so. And I will now conclude with this question:
16 You were unable to tell us, which is completely normal, what number of
17 people was killed due to combat, going through the forest, self-inflicted
18 wounds, going through minefields, or how many people died due to natural
19 causes. Is that right?
20 A. That's correct. I was not asked to assess that or to estimate
22 Q. I understood that your task was - I noted this down here - among
23 other things to identify the -- to establish the identity of the victims
24 in Srebrenica and to include in your report only those victims about whose
25 identity you were sure. Is that right?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Can you now after this analysis say whether you were able to
3 establish the identity of the victims in Srebrenica and to what extent out
4 of the entire number of missing persons?
5 A. Yes. I think I was able to establish the identity of a large
6 number. Exhibit -- one of the exhibits is Exhibit Number P729 which is
7 ICTY report entitled Srebrenica Missing Persons Reported Missing after the
8 Takeover of the Srebrenica Enclave, lists the name of 7.481 persons.
9 However, there are obviously people who we did not manage to get enough
10 information about to be able to identify them.
11 Q. I apologise. The interpreters are asking you to repeat the figure
12 because they were unable to catch it. So we are interested in the figure.
13 A. The number of names in the list in Exhibit P729 is 7.481.
14 Q. Can you please tell us: According to the 1991 census, how many
15 male Muslims there were in the territory of Srebrenica municipality?
16 A. I'm sorry, I don't recall. But Mr. Karnavas could tell me because
17 he has the census publication, although that lists only the total
18 population actually. It lists the total population of Muslims, but not by
19 sex, I believe. So we have the expert demographer, Mr. Karnavas, who will
20 now check the data.
21 Q. Let us try, Mr. Brunborg, to use a different methodology. In
22 Table 4 you give us the list of males based on their residence, place of
23 residence, and you tell us that in the Srebrenica municipality 55.8 or
24 approximately 56 per cent of men went missing. And you say that a total
25 figure is 146 [as interpreted]. So by using retroanalysis, can we come to
1 the figure of men residing in Srebrenica municipality?
2 A. Are you now talking -- still talking about the 2000 report or the
4 Q. I was referring to the report and the table given by you in your
5 article. D110.
6 A. Which article is that? That is Accounting for Genocide?
7 Q. It's a table shown here as Table Number 4.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.
9 Perhaps this is a good time to correct the transcript. Line 23 reads that
10 the total figure is 146. It should be 4.146. This is what is listed in
11 the table. Thank you.
12 Q. So, Mr. Brunborg, according to this table, could you please tell
13 us what was the number of Muslim males living in Srebrenica municipality.
14 A. You are referring to Table 4 in the article -- my article in
15 European journal of population, 2003, I believe, where we have estimated
16 the proportion of men in various age groups that went missing. I do
17 not -- I'm sorry, I do not recall right now the population of male Muslims
18 in Srebrenica 1991, but I've got that in my files.
19 Q. In that case let us say, for the purposes of conclusion, you say
20 we believe that the huge extent of this tragedy, which covered more than
21 one-third of all males in Srebrenica, based on the pre-war numbers,
22 satisfies the criteria and so on. We have mentioned this before. Based
23 on what do you conclude that one-third of all Muslim males in Srebrenica,
24 based on a pre-war figure, perished?
25 A. Because the list of missing persons, which consisted almost
1 entirely of men, of Muslim men, was matched with the census, that is the
2 pre-war population. And of those, approximately one-third are on the
3 missing list. Now it is another discussion to what extent these are dead
4 and not just missing. But I think I have discussed that elsewhere and
5 concluded that most likely all or almost all for any practical purpose
6 they are dead. So these are individual data. It is exactly the same men
7 on the list of missing persons as those that were enumerated in the 1991
8 census. So we know they lived there in 1991. They also most likely
9 were -- they in Srebrenica July 1995, since they were later listed as
10 missing in the same area.
11 Q. I understand that this is your conclusion, based on this precise
12 information. It is not a fact that they were certainly killed.
13 A. That is true. But all available evidence indicates that the
14 missing men were dead -- are now dead.
15 Q. Out of this number, you cannot say how many men were killed in
16 fighting, how many in trying to break through toward Tuzla, how many from
17 self-inflicted wounds or through other collateral damage. Is this
19 A. That's true. That was not part of my mandate, to look at the
20 causes of date and the circumstances under which they died.
21 Q. If we have information that 28.000 pre-war inhabitants of
22 Srebrenica were Bosniaks and you say that about half, that is, 14.000, of
23 these were men, were male, does the number of 4.146 amount to a third,
24 according to you, or less?
25 A. It is not too far from a third, I think. I would have to work it
1 out, but it's approximately that.
2 Q. If my calculations are correct, if we multiply 4.000 by 3, we get
3 1.000 -- 12.000 or approximately 14.000, but you say that this tragedy
4 encompassed more than a third. You don't say less than a third or more
5 than a fourth; you say more than a third. Simple mathematics shows that
6 this is not so.
7 A. Well, in the Table 4 in the article, the number is 33.7 per cent,
8 which is slightly more than a third. But we need to know the total number
9 of male Muslims in 1991 to check that figure. And I used that number, of
10 course, but I do not have that with me now. Usually -- I say that
11 approximately half of the population of a natural population is male -- or
12 I should say a little less than a half. Since women live longer, it's
13 usually less than a half.
14 Q. Again, if the information we have is correct that there were
15 27.672 persons of Muslim nationality, according to the census of 1991,
16 this would again amount to less than a third, would it not?
17 A. Not really. I think it's entirely consistent with the population
18 of male Muslims being slightly less -- somewhat less than half of that,
19 say if it is 13.000 and a third of 13.000 is 4.200. So it's consistent,
20 but we need more accurate data to calculate the percentage accurately.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all, Your Honours. Thank
22 you. I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
24 Any re-direct, Mr. Waespi?
25 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 Well, at this stage are there any documents to tender through this
3 witness? Mr. Waespi?
4 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. Given the fact that the reports
5 have been admitted already, we still have Prosecution Exhibit P727, that's
6 the CV, the updated CV, of Dr. Brunborg. Then the other related exhibits
7 from the Krstic case, the first one being P728, that's the OSCE [phoen]
8 list; P729, that's the ICTY list; P730, that's the first chart; P731,
9 second chart; P732, another chart; P733, another chart; P734, another one;
10 P735, the last chart; and finally P736, but that's already been admitted,
11 again by your decision of 7th November, last year, the transcript of
12 Dr. Brunborg in the Krstic case.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
14 Any objections, Mr. Karnavas?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 Mr. Stojanovic?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
20 And these documents tendered by the Prosecution are admitted into
22 Are there any documents the Defence would like to tender through
23 this witness? Mr. Karnavas?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. Given that we had some lengthy
25 discussions, I think for the purposes of having a complete record for your
1 assessment, given that they are relevant of course, I would ask that D110,
2 which is the one article written by the gentleman in I believe it was July
3 10, 2002, titled: "Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in
4 Srebrenica"; and the other article which is -- marked for identification
5 as D113/1, and that was 2001 titled: "The Contribution of Statistical
6 Analysis to the Investigation of the International Criminal Tribunals," we
7 would like both of those exhibits admitted, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Any objections, Mr. Waespi?
10 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
12 I believe these two documents, D110 and D113, are admitted into
14 Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any documents to tender through this
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
18 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
19 your evidence. I think we benefited a lot through your testimony. And
20 the usher will show you out of the room, and we wish you a pleasant
21 journey back home.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU: And at the same time, we believe that the hearing for
24 today is adjourned. We'll see all of your tomorrow morning at 9.00 in
25 Courtroom I. So the hearing is adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.40 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of
3 February, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.