1 Monday, 17 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good afternoon to everyone in and around this courtroom.
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I was informed that you'd like to address the
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Very
13 briefly, about one minute, to say the following: The situation is far
14 from being simple, but we're going to deal with this now because as I
15 understand, one part of the motion concerning the withdrawal is before the
16 Bureau. I believe that we are now asked to formulate again this request
17 before you and not before the Appeals Chamber because I believe that the
18 President of the Trial Chamber I directly informed the Appeals Chamber
19 that was about this.
20 Our motion for withdrawal still holds. You remember that you
21 asked us to support it with case law or with literature, so we have two
22 possibilities: Either we can provide what we provided to the Appeals
23 Chamber and you can give us your decision within a relatively short time;
24 or you are going to ask us to integrate this into a new document that we
25 would file before your Chamber with a copy of what we provided to the
1 Appeals Chamber. I would like your clarification on this only on the
2 motion itself for suspension.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... not quite
4 clear to me. Do -- my understanding of the decision of the Appeals
5 Chamber is that the matter is now pending before the Bureau rather than
6 for the Trial Chamber.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. As far as
8 this is concerned, and as far as the request for suspension is concerned -
9 I believe I said this, but this has to be dealt with quickly because we
10 are near the end of our case - I believe that as far as the request for
11 the suspension is concerned, it shouldn't be made before the Appeals
12 Chamber but before your Chamber, and it is on this issue that I want your
13 explanation and clarification. I don't know if I'm wrong. Would you be
14 happy to be provided with what we gave to the Appeals Chamber, or would
15 you like a new document? That's how we were instructed by the Appeals
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think you filed a copy just to inform the Trial
18 Chamber from what you filed to the Appeals Chamber, and you're referring
19 to, as far as I remember, the French Code of Criminal Procedure and some
20 other systems. We'll deal with --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not only.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- this after the break. Perhaps we better look it
23 and --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace.
1 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. There are some other
2 matters as well that at some stage I'd seek to raise. I wonder if at the
3 conclusion of this witness's testimony would be convenient to the Trial
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are still -- let me just ask
6 Madam Registrar.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I ask for one second of your patience.
9 Perhaps I meanwhile could ask you, Mr. Ierace, when do you expect
10 that the still-pending translations of the suggested rebuttal evidence
11 will be available?
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I can't say for certain, but it's
13 quite possible that the outstanding translations will be available later
14 on today. I'm told that the translation of Mr. Zecevic's material is
15 expected later this afternoon.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Even if only parts would be ready, could you
17 please provide them already to all portions that are available.
18 MR. IERACE: Yes. Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. IERACE: And perhaps I'm venturing too much into matters to
21 raise later, but the maps, the further maps from Mr. From have been held
22 up as a result of a technical problem in the OTP. But I can get into more
23 detail about that later.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, according to our calculations, the
2 Defence took approximately their two hours. But I do understand that, I
3 think, in some 10 to 15 minutes you could conclude this. Is that correct?
4 Because we're now at 1 hour and 58 minutes.
5 Then, Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would that be convenient to raise
8 matters at the end of the witness's testimony?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that would be fine, attend of the witness's --
10 so I would expect another 15 minutes for the Defence, so that would bring
11 us to a quarter to 3.00. We'll have then one hour before the first break.
12 MR. IERACE: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Prosecution then -- so it will be just before,
14 just after the next break -- the second break.
15 MR. IERACE: Yes. Thank you.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that
17 the registrar has a bunch of documents, including the one called --
18 numbered 1928 that should be shown to the witness.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Radovanovic.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm glad that you were able to stay until today. And
23 the Defence will have some more questions for you.
24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
25 May I remind you. Perhaps you would have understand it also
1 without saying, but you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've
2 given at the beginning of your testimony.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. Doctor, you will be shown a number of documents, in fact, Exhibit
11 1928. And I would like you to go through them very quickly, just to tell
12 me whether you recognise them or not, yes or no.
13 A. Yes, I recognise them.
14 Q. We'll come back to these documents shortly.
15 Before that, I'd like to ask you a question: In your career, did
16 you have occasion to examine --
17 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Exhibit 1928.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --
19 MR. STAMP: Is a batch of various documents, apparently not one
20 discrete document. As a matter of fact, I think the Defence calls
21 reference to them as a bundle of documents. So perhaps we could ask what
22 is meant by the witness saying "I recognise them." All of them or some of
23 them or a particular set?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you
25 please make sure that out of the --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, I would like to do it,
2 but in the absence of the witness because I don't want her to be
3 influenced and I don't want this to be counted in the time allowed to the
4 Defence for questioning. So I would kindly ask that the witness be
5 escorted out of the courtroom.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I do not fully understand you. You asked her to --
7 whether she recognised a bundle of documents. The only request would be
8 whether you would be more specific so that we know what she does recognise
9 and what he doesn't recognise, since it's a series of documents, as far as
10 I understand.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. But they are
12 interlinked, and this is what I'm interested in, this link between them.
13 And I am happy to answer.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... not you to
15 answer but the witness to answer. It's -- we have lots of pages referring
16 to what seems to be other documents, and I would like to -- just to be --
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I just asked one question of
18 this witness, whether she recognises them, and she said yes. Now the
19 Prosecution intervened and we have a problem. Maybe we could ask the
20 witness to identify them.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Let me just ask you: When you say "I
22 recognise this document," what do you recognise? What is the document? I
23 mean, what does it consist of? Could you please tell us.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I recognise the document, although I
25 don't know each individual case. I got this document to review and it
1 contains reports with sources indicated for various cases of sniping, in
2 terms of who submitted the information, et cetera. I can't say that I
3 know each case in particular. I leafed through the document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know certain cases, but not all of
7 JUDGE ORIE: You say "I recognise this bundle as the bundle of
8 documents concerning sniping incidents that has been handed out to me by
9 the Defence."
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 Q. Witness, without focussing on this for the moment, did you have
13 occasion to work on statistics which involve either household accidents or
14 professional accidents or, for instance, traffic accidents?
15 A. Yes, within the statistics of mortality we have violent deaths and
16 violent deaths involve that.
17 Q. Thank you. During your work on such accidents, what do we know
18 about the place of accident? Is it mentioned? Is it known? Is it
19 indicated? What do we know about that?
20 A. Yes, the place of accident is mentioned, and it is one of the
21 parameters for the statistics of mortality.
22 Q. Thank you. I would like you to focus on the first of these
23 elements, namely the list of persons killed and injured for civilians in
24 relation to sniping accidents. For instance, 00986277 and the following
25 ones, and I would like to give me your first comment, in terms of
1 statistics, that is, the number of pieces of information we have on the
2 place of accident.
3 A. Well, my first page is 792 -- my first page ends with 0277 --
4 Q. No, we are talking about --
5 A. Yes, yes. Here it is before me. I apologise.
6 Q. And there should be several pages in this document. Do you see
7 the number?
8 A. Yes, I see the number, but it's very illegible. Yes, I can see
9 the number. Yes, this is better.
10 Q. What can you tell us, madam, about this list? How many incidents
11 are there where the place of accident is unknown? For instance, we have
12 an accident with an injury or killing, presumably by sniping, and there is
13 no indication of the place.
14 A. Yes, there are cases of that kind. For instance, we have one
15 dated 10th September 1992 and the incident is indicated without any
16 indication of the place. Also the same date, involving the wounding of
17 several persons, without indication of place. Furthermore, the 11th and
18 the 12th September incidents, no indication of place of accident.
19 Q. I'll stop you, Doctor. You should comment only on the statistical
20 aspect. Does this type of presentation of facts seem to you normal or
21 abnormal based on what you know on the principles of compilation of
22 statistical data for such reports?
23 A. It doesn't seem normal because official entities should certainly
24 have information on specific incidents.
25 Q. Thank you. Would you kindly go three pages further on the
1 document to your right.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And we are going to take,
3 Mr. Usher, the page that is dated 24th of September. Do we have it on the
4 screen? Thank you very much.
5 Q. And we have the name in item 3, we have one person injured at
6 Sedrenik, can you see that? And the name is Muhic.
7 A. Yes, I can see it, Vehbija Muhic.
8 Q. Then date is -- the date is 27th September 1992. Madam, will you
9 now take the list that you worked with the moment ago and will you please
10 look at the date of 27th September 1992 and tell us what is written under
11 the name of Muhic in the column titled "Place." And when you find this
12 page --
13 A. Place unknown. Name, Vehbija Muhic. Born 1959. Evidence.
14 Excerpt from --
15 Q. How can you comment on this contradiction in terms?
16 A. That's absurd. If you have evidence, if you have excerpts from
17 documentation, people who are authorised to fill in this form, it may be
18 the case of a deliberate omission, and I wouldn't like to go into the
19 reasons why.
20 Q. Thank you. In the same batch that you have in front of you, you
21 have a document in the Serbian language titled "U Slucaju Smrti," and the
22 number is 0098784 --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel please repeat the number.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll repeat the number for
25 you, 00985724.
1 Q. Maybe the usher could help you to find it.
2 A. Yes, please.
3 Q. I can show it to you so that you can see what it looks like. It's
4 a certificate.
5 As we are trying to find the document, we shall look at the second
6 one, the second batch of documents under the number 1927, with the help of
7 Mr. Usher.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I do not find any translation of
9 the documents you have presented at this very moment. Is that ...
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Which one, Mr. President?
11 Which one are you talking about?
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... the 27th of
13 September, where it said that no place was known, whereas in the list it's
14 called "Sedrenik" as far as I remember. But I might not have followed
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. President, but
17 the witness read the text in toto and it was translated for the
18 transcript. The lady has written -- has read the sentence in question,
19 and it is in the transcript because it was translated -- I do not think
20 that we need any particular translation of it because it was interpreted.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] To indicate the contradiction
23 that we find there. But you want me to repeat it, Mr. President, this
24 is -- this is the list produced in September 1992, and we find the same
25 date that was just mentioned, that is, the date of --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So I take it then the entry -- the first two lines
2 starting with mjesto nepesnato [phoen], that was read, and then the name.
3 Is that how I have to understand it?
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] On the 27th of September, and
7 that is --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's clear now to me. But I do take it then
9 that the rest of the document we'll receive no translation.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Everything was read out,
11 everything was read out by the witness.
12 Q. Now I'd like to go back to the other document, which is 1927,
13 Madam, which you have in front of you.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And with the help of the
15 usher, we shall also produce the necessary translations.
16 Q. Madam, I'd like you to concentrate on the first page, number 00 in
17 the end and then page 5, which is the page 01 and therefore follows
18 immediately after it, the previous one. And on that page 5 we have some
19 figures which are of interest to us, and that is 73 to 77. Have you found
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. I'd like you to read out to us, please - this is just one
23 example - so will you please read to us what we have under 75.
24 MR. STAMP: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STAMP: Could I be helped with trying to locate the page that
2 we are talking about.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's the -- the pages are -- they were not in
4 the correct order, but I rearranged them and I think it's the ERN number
5 ending at 2901. That's the typed-out list. Have you found it? It's just
6 behind the first page of the Exhibit 1927.
7 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 75. Yes, please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sadin Bogilovic, 14 September
10 1992, born in 1969, 10.15 hours armed conflict, several wounds, isolated
11 injury, bullet both legs, and then there is the text in Latin. Do you
12 want me to read that too? Vul sclopetarium reg. genus dex. I am not
13 quite sure I am really familiar with Latin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
15 Q. That will be fine. Thank you. Indeed. Thank you, witness. Now,
16 simply I'm looking at what is in the English transcript.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We do not have in the English
18 transcript, Mr. President -- we don't have it there, but I believe I heard
19 the witness and one of the booths speak about exchange of fire or
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, armed conflict.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. I heard the French
23 booth. It said "armed conflict," and that was not in the English
25 Q. My question is, madam: This expression, "armed conflict," do we
1 find it also in every one of the three cases between 73 and 79?
2 A. We do.
3 Q. Thank you. Witness, would you now go back to the very first page
4 with the number 900 -- I didn't say 905 --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you for the B/C/S
6 booth. I said 900.
7 Q. I'd like you to tell us if under -- in the column "sniper" we see
8 the same name as the one that you mentioned between 73 and the following,
9 that is, 78, 79, et cetera.
10 A. Yes, we do, the second one.
11 Q. Thank you. And there, madam, statistically speaking, do we find
12 coherence here? What can you tell us about that? I'm talking about
13 sniping and armed conflict.
14 A. You have to be more precise, because I don't understand your
16 Q. Yes. Statically speaking, we have tables which attempt to
17 establish the civilian victims of snipers and we have names which we see
18 on page 900 and then -- and when we look at those same names on another
19 list, we see that they were victims of an armed conflict. Do you think
20 that we are dealing here with a problem of definition, or what can you
21 tell us in this regard?
22 A. I think there is a problem concerning the definition here. Now, I
23 could tell you what the official statistics does, unlike this. This is
24 simply, does not agree with what the official statistics does.
25 Q. Thank you. Will you explain it to us, but very quickly, please.
1 A. The official statistics collects evidence about death, regardless
2 of the manner in which those deaths occurred. And this evidence must be
3 written out by a person who is called out, either a coroner or doctors in
4 a hospital, if the person has been brought to the hospital. So there are
5 diagnoses which the doctor must write accurately and he does that, the way
6 that you do it in medicine. And those diagnoses, rather, or those notices
7 of death, and without that there can be no statistics, and that is the
8 statistics -- and that is the expert who goes into causes of that only and
9 it is that which is then the basis for further work.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you. We are discussing now a
12 document. That document is not yet in evidence, is it, page 2901, or is
13 it? Has this been produced before? I see you nodding.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then before we discuss the document and what it says,
16 that it's a list which tries to establish something, wouldn't it be wise
17 to find out what the document is? I've got no idea, to be quite honest.
18 So if you would please ask -- or perhaps I'll ask the witness.
19 Could you please tell us, when you are commenting on the
20 statistical meaning of this document -- well, let's say the numbers 73 and
21 75 onwards -- what is this document? Could you tell us?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document represents excerpts
23 from official records of the Institute for Emergency Aid in Sarajevo and
24 then it lists the names and dates of incidents, persons, and a brief
25 description of the time when an incident happened, where the person was
1 injured, what were the circumstances of it possibly, and a short diagnosis
2 in Latin. And I call it a diagnosis in Latin because I suppose -- I'm not
3 really that fluent in Latin to know whether this is it, but this is in
4 Latin, so I assume it was written by doctors.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document please be put on the ELMO,
6 Your Honours, because the interpreters do not have it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And there is also a stamp --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes. What
10 does the stamp read? And may I first ask you, before you read the stamp,
11 one question: On the other document, 1928, we saw an abbreviation ZHMP,
12 which was translated as emergency health institute. Is that the same as
13 this institute, and could you please read the stamp for us.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say. I suppose so. I
15 think that that is the name of the institution.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Can you read it? I have some difficulties
17 in -- but I see "Sarajevo" both in Cyrillic and --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is really barely legible,
19 and I can't say. Perhaps if I had a magnifying glass or something. My
20 eyes, I'm afraid, are not up to this.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know whether it has been produced during the
22 war, after the war? You say these are excerpts from the -- could you tell
23 us, has this been made during the war on the basis of what documents, or
24 could you tell us something about -- if you don't know, it's no problem,
25 but I'd like just to try to find out what is known about the document we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 are --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes. Then
4 please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
6 JUDGE ORIE: It seem that is Judge Nieto-Navia has a question.
7 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you please ask the
8 witness to read again number 75, because the English interpretation was
9 not complete. And I would like if she can read that very slowly so the
10 interpreters can catch everything. Thank you.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I should be happy to do that,
12 Your Honour. But before that, Your Honour, could we ask the witness to
13 read what we see at the bottom of the very first document, because that
14 will tell us what is the list that follows.
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Only number 75.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Would you like this? Very
18 Q. Very well. Madam, will you read again number 75.
19 A. Bogilovic Sadin, 14th September 1992. 1969 at 10.15 armed
20 conflict, a number of wounds, isolated injury, bullet, both legs. And
21 then follows the Latin text. V or 5 point sclopetarium reg. genus dex et
22 rega femoris sin [phoen].
23 Q. Right, witness. I heard you tell us after 1969 and you said in
24 your language "letter G." What does that mean? What does "G" stand for?
25 A. Yes, it means year, that is, the year of birth. Born 1969.
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour,
3 Judge Nieto-Navia, are you satisfied with this?
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before you asked the witness to read the first page,
6 the last line as you intended to do, could you also ask the witness what
7 is the relation between this first page and the other pages, because it
8 seems to be quite a difference in --
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Gladly.
12 To my mind, there is not much to it. If we look at the ERN numbers, the
13 first page has number 900 at the end and then the next one is 901 at the
14 end, and therefore the Prosecution - since these are Prosecution's
15 number - they received this document in this format and four pages are
16 missing but perhaps it is a technical problem but it has no significance.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please inquire whether there is significance or
18 whether they received it in this order or whether they numbered it in this
19 order, I do not know. The only thing I noticed is that this first page
20 has a totally different type machine used. So I wonder what the relation
21 is between these documents because we see some names are the same. So
22 they certainly are in whatever relation with certain events, I take it,
23 since they show dates that are -- seem to be the same, the 14th of
24 September, they show names that are the same. But I do not know what is
25 the exact relation between that first page showing to some extent the same
1 data as on the other page, and I'd like you to ask the witness whether she
2 knows what the relation is.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May we read the last two lines
6 of the document marked 900, and perhaps things will be clearer after that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues]
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Witness, will you please read to us the three lines from the word
10 "Dokaz," evidence?
11 A. "Evidence, excerpt from the record from the protocol of the
12 institute for emergency medical aid in Sarajevo to the name of wounded
14 Q. And you haven't read out to us the words Str 2.
15 A. I apologise. Str 2 means page 2.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, and the pages that we saw and on
17 which we have a list of names, do you think they're related, they're a
18 follow-up on that first page?
19 A. Yes. Because names from 73 to 79 can be identified with the names
20 that are on page 1. Let me just check it once again. But I think that
21 that is the case. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you very much, witness. I'd now like us to proceed, and
23 moving on this with document we shall stop on page number ERN 00985639.
24 The page is in the -- halfway through the document. Shall I repeat it
25 once again? 00985639. Have you found it?
1 A. No, I haven't found it.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] For the usher, the pages --
3 the page numbers are in the centre to the right, and it is January 1994.
4 Mr. President, perhaps --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is it part --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Because we have several of
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. They are numbered. Could you indicate what number you
10 have in mind.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It is -- it belongs in
12 the same list, and it is called "Wounded men." But I have six more
13 copies, and I can give them directly to the usher. Perhaps it will be
14 easier then. And we also have the necessary translations which we can
15 also submit for the interpreters.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, could you please accept the document
17 from -- could we have a copy of the translation as well then.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'd like the witness to look
19 at number 3 to 9, numbers 3 to 9.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have two more
22 copies, for those who want them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to find the document in the original
24 bundle, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, so that we --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it follows an
1 Exhibit 638, and it is called "Snipers." But the time is January 1994.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We finally were able to --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indicated the date, January
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ... part of one of
8 the exhibits that we have been --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You -- it's approximately -- Mr. Stamp, it's
10 approximately, I would say, just on face value, the twentieth page
11 approximately, and it follows a page similar as to the front page but then
12 with the 8th of January 1994 as the --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Q. Witness, I'd like you to read to us what it says next to Nevan
16 A. Nevan Andric, and then I think it says 0801, 1963 at 20.10 hours.
17 Accidentally several wounds combined injury, bullet stomach, V transclopet
19 Q. I would like you to ask you to look at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the
20 times of their woundings and the definition of their wounds.
21 A. 5, it says at ten past 8.00, 20.10 hours, accidentally combined
22 bullet pelvis. 6, at 20.10 hours, accidentally one wounded combined
23 injury bullet stomach. 7, at 20.10, accidentally several wounds combined
24 injury. Bullet hit stomach or abdomen. 8, 20.10 hours, accidentally
25 several wounds, multiple injury, bullet R leg. 9, 20.10 hours,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 accidentally one wound.
2 Q. Thank you. Once again, can you comment from the statistical point
3 of view only. We are talking here about the compilation of sniping
4 incidents -- incidents. What can you tell us with regard to the time when
5 these incidents happened? They all happened at ten past 8.00 and the
6 definition "accident," could we hear your professional comment on that.
7 A. Yes. It said that. Yes, it says that those were all accidental.
8 Q. Thank you. But your comment?
9 A. Well, my comment, well, it means that it happened by chance,
10 something that -- that it was just a mishap, that -- I don't really
11 understand what you want me to do. Do you want me to translate the word
12 "accident"? Is that what you want me to say? Well, it happened as an
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the usher, could we go
16 back slightly and could we find document 0098229854. We are still talking
17 about the compilation of sniping cases. And we have the translations,
18 which we can produce. It is a document, a one-page document, usher, which
19 begins --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please tell us approximately how many pages
21 we should move forward so --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Fifth page. The fifth page,
23 the fifth page from the beginning of the bundle. It's a document that
24 begins with a handwritten note reading "EV" and then a number, 6802 --
25 sorry, 61012. Thank you. That's it.
1 Q. Witness, I would like to ask you to read the penultimate
2 paragraph, which begins with the words "according to the statement --
3 according to his statement."
4 A. "According to the statement of his wife who was present on site,
5 Sandrik Taljanovic, the bullet came from the direction of the field and
6 hit the building, ricochetting and then hitting --" I can't see what
7 follows very well -- "and then hitting Ismet." That's what it probably
8 says. "Ismet," yes.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. And we are going to pass to bullet 3360,
10 which is approximately the beginning of the second third, and it's a
11 document that looks like this.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm showing it to the usher.
13 And the ERN number ends with 9115.
14 MR. STAMP: Might I just inquire. Is this the same bundle, 1927?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
16 But to save time, usher, I suggest that you walk up to me and
17 distribute this document to everyone because we have translations here.
18 Thank you. We are going to hand out this to everyone, including the lady
19 witness. Simply, because we have translations, Your Honour.
20 Q. Madam, in order to identify this document we are showing you now,
21 in relation to the incident that you just read about, can you identify it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You can withdraw this document now. We are now going to focus on
24 the list that I just indicated and that the usher had already found. Here
25 it is.
1 Madam, did you have occasion to study this list? Do you remember
3 A. Yes. But right now I can't see anything. Can I take it in my
4 hands, because I can't say anything on the screen?
5 Q. Since we all have it and it's identified, I believe that yes,
6 Madam, you can take it. Please.
7 Right. Ma'am, have you studied, on the basis of this document,
8 the figures for the injured and dead involving sniping compared to the
9 table we saw in Ewa Tabeau's report?
10 A. The difference between the figures in this document and the Tabeau
11 report is that the Tabeau report gives a figure three times higher for
12 people killed and four times higher for those injured. I can look it up
13 if you allow me, and I'll tell you exactly what the difference is.
14 MR. STAMP: Could we just clarify the answer and the question,
15 because I think the question refers to people and in the reports there's a
16 reference to civilians or soldiers.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Yes. Madam, when you say that the figures are higher, are you
20 comparing comparable things? In other words, are you concentrating on
21 civilians, on soldiers, or on both? Have you understood the question,
23 A. Yes, I have. Just give me one minute. Mrs. Tabeau gives a figure
24 of -- let me see the table. Just a second. Here is the sum total. It
25 gives a sum total, and it says 699 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Could you --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Table 3. You can also use table 1.
3 Tables 1 and 3 are identical. Mrs. Tabeau gives a total figure. She
4 gives a sum total and says 699 killed and 3.111 injured from sniping. But
5 when she breaks them down by types of death, she indicates both civilians
6 and soldiers. For instance, you can see this on page 68, table 37 in the
7 Tabeau report. It says "civilians, firearms, sniper rifle, civilian
8 soldiers and status unknown." Altogether the figure indicated is 699.
9 And on the very next page you see only civilians, 253; sniping fire, 253.
10 So tables A37 and A38 in the Tabeau report.
11 In the next line she gives us a figure of soldiers dead from
12 sniping. The figure is 466. If we are talking about this ratio --
13 MR. STAMP: Now, having regard to that --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STAMP: -- perhaps counsel's question about the comparison
16 between the figures for a document which refers to civilians, an unknown
17 document which refers to civilians in comparison to the figures for
18 Ms. Tabeau's civilians be compared.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But before we do that, could I just ask you: You are
20 now comparing, if I do understand you well, page 68 of the report of
21 Ms. Tabeau with a list that was just on the ELMO which gives a, if I do
22 understand you well, the list which -- let me just try and see.
23 Could perhaps, would you please put the list -- yes, that one.
24 Could it please zoom in. Yes. Could it please be moved a bit upwards, a
25 bit upwards. Yes, please a bit more. Yes.
1 Are you comparing this list with the Tabeau figures where you
2 reach the conclusion that Tabeau gives figures far too high? Is that
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is just one small part, the tip
5 of the iceberg. And I'm comparing this with the entire document that I
6 had at my disposal.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if you are comparing this document, which
8 is now on the ELMO, with the table of page 68, do you know what time the
9 table on page 68 covers?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The table on the page 68 in Tabeau
11 report. It refers to the period from 1992 to 1994, namely October 1992 --
12 sorry, September 1992 to the 10th of August, 1994.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And did you compare these lists in total, or did you
14 limit yourself when you saw this last document to the time indicated by
15 Ms. Tabeau? Did you start counting on the 10th of September, or was it
16 the -- yes, the 10th of September or -- because I see a lot of earlier
17 dates in this list. It starts, at least, with earlier dates. I see,
18 apart from some number -- up till number 8 it bears no date at all and
19 then number 9 starts with the 2nd of April; number 10, the 3rd of April;
20 number 11, also in April. How did you count? Did you count them all, or
21 did you count them starting from the 10th of September?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I have a document dated 10th
23 September 1992 to the 10th of August, 1994. This document is part of that
24 document. And based on this document, which is dated as it is and which I
25 got from the Defence, I made my calculation, only for that period which
1 was under investigation in the Tabeau report.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's the document which is on the ELMO at
3 this very moment?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, it's so illegible that I
5 can't tell you on the basis of what I see on the screen whether it is that
6 document or not.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could we please zoom in and go a bit more to the top
8 so that you can see -- so please zoom in a bit more and then go to the top
9 of that document. Is this the document you're referring to?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the first page, I cannot
11 conclude either way. But my document begins with the date of 10th of
12 September, 1992, and it's also titled "Overview of identified civilians
13 who were killed or wounded in the period from June -- or from 6,"
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is the document the witness is now
16 referring to, is that part of the bundle that has been given to the
17 Chamber? And then would you please tell us where we can find it.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know what the witness
19 has in her hand, but it's not impossible that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's not impossible that she
22 has a summary that contains dates taken out of the document we just
23 examined a moment ago.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... recently. So
25 that could you -- would you be willing to give it to us so that we can see
1 what you are looking at and what you are comparing? If you'd give it to
2 the usher, we'll have a look at it, I'll show it to the parties as well.
3 Yes. If I'm not wrong, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think the witness had
4 document 1928 in her hands. At least, it looks very similar.
5 MR. STAMP: I think --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. STAMP: The document that is being referred to my the witness
8 is a document -- is the two preceding pages before the first page of 1928.
9 So it's not among the bundle, but she might have been shown one of those
10 or both of those pages.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that -- yes, it may be returned. It
12 seems to be --
13 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you get another 10 minutes to take care that
14 the chaos that exists at this moment will be resolved and then we'll have
15 a break. And you took one hour now, and you are -- it becomes rather
16 incomprehensible if we do not know what the documents are about, if
17 it's -- your questions are to some extent unclear, the answers are to some
18 extent perhaps as a result also unclear. Would you please try to create
19 some clarity until the break and then the Prosecution will have an
20 opportunity to cross-examine the witness -- if there's any other --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Right. Mr. President, I'm
22 going to try to shed some light.
23 Q. All right, witness, in other words simply speaking, what is your
24 expert opinion regarding the Tabeau report and the figures you had
25 occasion to study, whatever the documents that have been shown to you?
1 Just tell us what you can to clarify the -- your position on the documents
2 submitted by the Prosecution.
3 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ... just too
4 vague, and it comes back to the last objection --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it seems as if Mr. Piletta-Zanin tries to
6 elicit some final conclusion. I do not -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I just said
7 that vague questions give vague answers. But let's see whether the
8 witness is able to answer a question. Let's see what the next question
9 is. Please proceed.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that Mrs. Tabeau based her
11 report on completely inaccurate, inadequate, and biased sources, whereas
12 she could have used much more reliable sources. I would not like to go
13 into an explanation of why I believe the sources she used are unreliable,
14 but as far as I can judge and from what was accessible to me, more
15 reliable sources existed. These sources are not of such quality that they
16 could be accepted without any dilemma, but at least they were verified by
17 people who knew what they were doing. They were no amateurs. They were
18 supported by certain institutions and procedures that could improve the
19 quality of processing and sourcing of data. Of course in these sources we
20 have only indications about the killed, no data about the injured. For
21 instance, the source which is the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And as
22 far as other sources are concerned, they are incomplete, they don't
23 indicate the place of incident. And I have to underline that all that was
24 accessible to me was the analysis made by Mrs. Tabeau and her associates
25 and the overview of this document that I just commented on.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In your opinion, is there a contradiction in terms in the Tabeau
3 report? And if yes, then what is that contradiction? If the question not
4 clear enough, I'll rephrase it.
5 A. There are many contradictions within that report. I will mention
6 only one, but I can give you a broader comment if you like. Mrs. Tabeau
7 first says that her sources were good and then when she tackles a certain
8 democratic aspects [As interpreted], she comments that the sources are not
9 so good. For instance, she has a number of sources such as the Bakija
10 Funeral Parlour and the Muslims Against Genocide Association for certain
11 items, but she always quotes one source without comparing them between
12 them. There are other contradictions which I believe an expert cannot
13 afford, should not allow herself. For instance, her total estimated
14 numbers are based on unreliable arguments, and therefore later when she
15 develops vital coefficients, she's unable to assess the structure of the
16 population. There are many other contradictions in the report. I don't
17 know how far you want me to go.
18 It is my deep conviction that it is also contradictory to accept a
19 job without any definitions and to make definitions yourself. I believe
20 that before processing the census certain things that don't belong here
21 should have been defined and excluded or she should have given
22 explanations why she included them. She also included in her report, for
23 instance, four to five thousand people who don't belong there according to
24 the census.
25 Furthermore, Tabeau does not give an explanation of what is an
1 internal and what is an external definition of "soldier" and "civilian."
2 She says also that the statistical area covered by the census is defined
3 by the concept of local communes, saying at the same time that it all
4 happened in 2001. We have to bear in mind the census was carried out in
5 1994. If you reconstructed the area where the census was done seven years
6 earlier - and I don't want to comment on how qualified the people were who
7 did it - and you didn't have proper data, you only had local experts and
8 no help from statistics either, Tabeau only says that we bridged certain
9 problems. I believe the bridging was done very badly because after all
10 there is statistical data. In other words, this is all contradictory
11 because the sources are not reliable and not good.
12 Q. My last question: We are going to examine in these documents - I
13 think it will be very clear - there are many references to the place where
14 the form is not filled. In other words, it says "place unknown."
15 Technically speaking, according to your professional experience, this
16 number of unknowns, which is rather high, does it have a direct impact on
17 the conclusions of the Tabeau report? And if so, why?
18 A. Absolutely --
19 MR. STAMP: Well, before that, the question was an impermissible
20 comment about what is rather high or not.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What was the comment? What
23 was the comment that I made that was improper?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said that the number of unknowns are rather
25 high. Whether it's high or not is -- that's the comment you made.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very well. We
2 have all seen these documents just a moment ago and we saw that there are
3 many cases where it says "unknown, unknown, unknown, unknown." Everything
4 is relative in this life. And if we look at the list that we submitted to
5 you, it is striking how many place unknown indications there are.
6 JUDGE ORIE: According to what has been discussed before, the
7 place is not filled in, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Is that ...?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it's unknown --
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Can I --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... you could ask
12 the same question exactly without such comment. You are suggesting
13 something. Yes. So would you please try to --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] All right. But I thought I
15 heard the witness saying that there were many such cases, and therefore I
16 was asking her -- when I was asking her about household accidents, work
17 accidents, traffic accidents, and she said, speaking of that, that there
18 is a high figure for unknowns in that list. That's something that
19 preceded from her answer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please put the question in such a way that -- you
21 have given already so much comment until now. Let's just listen to what
22 the witness wants to tell us about.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 Q. Madam, is there a high number of unknowns in this list, or is this
25 number not high? And I'm talking now about list 6277.
1 A. There is a high number of unknowns, both in the list and in the
2 results and tables given in the Tabeau report. I only counted the list,
3 whereas I carefully studied the report and its tables. I will speak of
4 something indicated in table 3 concerning the number of killed and
5 injured. When she breaks down the incidents by municipalities, that is,
6 the area that we should be looking at, Mrs. Tabeau says that Sarajevo is
7 undefined, it is an unknown place, in other words. We see that there is
8 over 10 per cent of unknown places in her report, including Sarajevo. And
9 she indicates this after a very time-consuming correction that used such
10 broad criteria, had no prescribed rules, statistical or otherwise, that
11 she was free to decide for herself where one place belongs, in which
12 municipality. So in such loose rules of the game you have supposed
13 experts who allow themselves to decide where a certain place belongs, in
14 which populated area, and the result is such a great number of undefined
15 places, taking into account all of that, the quality is really poor. This
16 is one of the indicators of really poor quality.
17 Q. Here is my following question, madam: Regarding the definition of
18 the sniper problem, the sniper issue, specifically speaking the presence
19 of a certain X number of incidents of that kind, does that impact on the
20 Tabeau report that there is an X number of unknowns?
21 A. Yes, I suppose so, because certain things are taken arbitrarily.
22 Nothing is undefined -- in fact, I don't understand what you're asking me.
23 Mrs. Tabeau took into account only the 1994 census and she didn't take
24 into account this other list. I don't know if she knew that it existed.
25 Q. I have to stop you here, madam. I was not talking about the
1 census. I was only saying that in the list that we just saw a moment ago
2 the victims, presumably killed by sniper, include an X number of unknowns.
3 This X number of unknowns, is it of such nature that it could impact or
4 influence the results, the conclusions of the report?
5 A. Possibly, but only because Mrs. Tabeau did not take it into
6 account at all.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. It's time for a break.
10 We'll continue at 4.15. We'll adjourn until then.
11 And you'll then be examined by counsel for the Prosecution.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you asked for clarification in
15 respect of paragraph 9 of the decision of the Appeals Chamber, which reads
16 "That application should be made directly to that section of the Trial
17 Chamber." So, therefore, the Trial Chamber expects the Defence to make an
18 application so that the Prosecution then can respond, and we'll then
19 further consider the matter.
20 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. But my question was,
22 therefore: So it is you to whom I should submit that? Did I understand
23 you properly?
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Right. Just that we
1 understand it really, and that is how we understood it. But my question
2 was as follows: Would you -- if I make once again this application, will
3 the Chamber accept that we had a great deal of things to do and that we
4 have already made an appeal so it is -- so can we make further progress
5 now in this regard?
6 JUDGE ORIE: A new application should be filed just in respect --
7 you filed now an application that this section will be ordered to suspend.
8 That's not -- that's not the basis on which we can proceed. So I take it
9 that you'll then file a -- and it should not be long, but a brief request
10 that this Chamber -- the section of the Chamber suspends the proceedings.
11 And then Prosecution will have an opportunity to answer to that.
12 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, you may proceed.
15 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp:
17 Q. Good afternoon, madam.
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. Do you speak or read English?
20 A. Not particularly well.
21 Q. In the curriculum vitae which you attached to your statement, you
22 indicated that you completed the Faculty of Philosophy in 1975. Did you
23 complete it with a degree or did you not?
24 A. Yes, I had a degree of graduate ethnologist.
25 Q. And ten years later you did your -- well, you completed your
1 masters degree. And in 1999, you did a Ph.D. thesis and to your credit
2 became chief of the department three years after you had defended your
3 Ph.D. thesis.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Have you published any work outside of Yugoslavia?
6 A. I believe that one or two of my papers were translated outside.
7 Do you want me to answer that three years later I became the head of the
8 department? Does that have any significance or not? I mean, I didn't
9 understand whether it was a question or just a statement.
10 Q. Okay. Now, in the period of time between your degrees, you have
11 worked consistently in the area of population census methodology; is that
13 A. Yes. My first job was with the statistics institute. I worked 18
14 years there. And part of that, I was the head of the department for
15 population statistics. I participated in three censuses. In 1971 I
16 regulated that in Serbia. I was a member of all the expert groups for the
17 former Yugoslavia, for the census of '91. Then I was a consultant in 2002
18 for Serbia. And in 1981 I was a member of the expert team for
19 methodology, that is, the organisation that dealt with the methodology of
20 conducting the population census.
21 Q. So is it correct that all your training and scholarship during
22 your career has had to do with research into the methodology of population
23 censuses and the results of these censuses?
24 A. No, that is not the only thing that I did. I did many other
25 things. But I am highly conversant with the census methodology,
1 especially at the time when I worked at the statistics institute, because
2 that was my job.
3 Q. Well, is it correct that your field of expertise is in the area of
4 population censuses?
5 A. I think that it is much broader than that. It is the census
6 statistics, or rather, population statistics and demography. I teach
7 demography, and my Ph.D. is also in demography. But all this, of course,
8 is closely related to the population statistics because the -- because the
9 statistical methods -- population statistical methods are very important
10 in demographic studies.
11 Q. Very well. Demography, then, is a field within the -- which there
12 might be different areas of expertise. For example, you have persons with
13 the expertise in census demography and you might have persons with
14 expertise in other areas of demography. Is that so?
15 A. It is. But there is no such thing as census demography. There is
16 population statistics, which is used in demography.
17 Q. Well, are you aware of a field of expertise within demography
18 involved in deriving statistics in situations of complex humanitarian
20 A. Yes, I think I am. But you have to be more specific. When you
21 say "are you aware," if somebody is aware of the population statistics and
22 demography and if it has to do primarily with statistical data, because
23 demography is a multi-disciplinary science, it encompasses many things,
24 and the population statistics is something else. It is a method -- it is
25 a statistical method which you apply in demography.
1 Q. Well, do you -- you said you're aware of the field of expertise
2 involving the methodology used in complex humanitarian emergencies. What
3 are the methods used in demography as applied to complex humanitarian
5 A. Please define "complex humanitarian emergency situation."
6 MR. STAMP: May I do that with the help of a document. If the
7 usher could assist me.
8 Q. This is an extract from a presentation on the roundtable on the
9 demography of forced migration, mortality and population. Are you aware
10 of that roundtable?
11 A. You have to tell me where, because I can't read it here. I can't
12 see where and when was it held.
13 Q. The -- are you aware that the roundtable is an ongoing project by
14 demographers who specialise in the areas of investigating complex issue
15 humanitarian emergencies?
16 A. You didn't tell me where it was held and when, and where is that
17 roundtable? Like, this, I can't recognise anything. I am currently
18 involved in a project in Serbia addressing the same subject.
19 Q. What I'm --
20 A. And it's not this one.
21 Q. What I'm indicating and what I'm asking, ma'am, is whether or not
22 you're aware that the roundtable is the collection -- an ongoing
23 collection of a body of work from specialists involved in a particular
24 area of demography, referred to as statistics for complex humanitarian
25 emergencies? Are you aware of that; yes or no?
1 A. I still don't know who organised -- who is its organiser, where it
2 happens. I am looking at this page, and I don't know what this is about.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could come back, Ms. Radovanovic, to one
4 of the earlier questions. The question was whether you were aware of -- I
5 think there was a reference to complex humanitarian emergency, and then
6 you said what do you mean by that? And then Mr. Stamp said, I'll tell you
7 but I'll use a document for that. And this document, as I read it, says,
8 "The term complex humanitarian emergency is widely used to describe a
9 particular type of disaster, a situation in which a large civilian
10 population is affected by a combination of civil or international war or a
11 gross attempt to restructure the state or society, such as genocide,
12 leading to a large-scale population displacement with accompanying
13 deterioration of living conditions, such as food, potable water, shelter,
14 and sanitation, creating the potential for a significant increase in
15 mortality, typically during some limited period of time but sometimes
16 lasting much longer."
17 The question we started with was whether you are aware of any
18 specialism which specifically deals with this subject in demography.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've heard about it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honours, interpreter's comment: The
22 witness does not seem to be aware that there's a translation of this
24 JUDGE ORIE: There is -- if you would like to reread it, the next
25 pages give a translation of what I just read to you, that is, the first
1 paragraph of the last page of this document.
2 So the answer was that you heard of it, and I take it that you
3 have now had an opportunity to read it.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About this type of research, yes.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. And if I may read the last sentence of that first paragraph:
7 "Examples of complex humanitarian emergencies in even more recent years
8 include wars, ethnic cleansing, forced migration, and genocide occurring
9 in place as varied as Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and
10 East Timor."
11 Would you consider the circumstances that obtained between 1992
12 and 1994 in Sarajevo to be a situation of complex humanitarian emergency?
13 A. Yes, you could put it that way, even though I am not fully
14 familiar with all that. But looking at it as a whole, yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'd like Mr. Stamp to make his
18 question more specific. What does he mean by "Sarajevo"? Does he include
19 Nedzarici? Does he include Ilijas? And so on and so forth.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question was clear enough.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
22 And the witness had no difficulties in understanding it, and we're
23 just talking at this moment about a situation.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. In fact, madam, you yourself said that you know not of any
2 situation where a census was taken during any war. Do you know -- or let
3 me rephrase that. Is one of the purposes of a population census to
4 measure human casualties even in normal times, or is the measurement of
5 human casualties, for example, road traffic accidents, et cetera, even in
6 normal times the result of the ongoing registration by official sources of
7 vital events, births, deaths, et cetera?
8 A. The purpose of a population census may also be to include human
9 casualties, and so on and so forth. It depends on establishing the
10 objectives of the population, depending on the interest of the society
11 conducting the population census. So whether the census in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2003 or 5 or 7 will have as one of its objectives
13 the registration of the victims of casualties, that will be the decision
14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, if they consider it to be of their interest. A
15 census is an all-embracing activity, the population census, so that such
16 an objective may be included. So far in the territory of the former
17 Yugoslavia I am not aware that regular population censuses, that is,
18 household censuses, had such an objective included. I am not aware. In
19 1964, maybe 1965 --
20 Q. So you'd agree with me that generally speaking, as far as
21 Yugoslavia is concerned, censuses are really -- the objective of censuses
22 is to measure the socioeconomic conditions of the living and the
23 measurement of deaths and casualties is a result of the ongoing
24 registration of vital events by official channels?
25 A. If I understand your question, you said that the objectives of the
1 Yugoslav censuses were not to also take a record of all the victims.
2 Well, it depends. There was a census of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which
3 pursued that objective. But as of World War II onward, no, that was not
4 one of the objectives. They simply had the statistics -- the statistics
5 regarding deaths, regardless of what kind of death, that is done through
6 vital statistics, which are independent of population censuses. As for --
7 Q. So having regard to these two agreed points, that you would not
8 really have a census in circumstances of a war of a complex humanitarian
9 emergency, and you'd not really -- or generally speaking use a census to
10 measure things like deaths or casualties, on what basis do you call the
11 point of Ewa Tabeau, et al. a census and you'd base your examination and
12 on an analysis of it from the point of view of it being a census?
13 A. Well, it is Ms. Tabeau who does that. In her analysis, at least
14 in the Serbian translation, she calls it the household census 1994
15 conducted in Sarajevo from so and so and then she says 1st of January, so
16 on and so forth. I did not call it a Serb population census. It wasn't
17 mine. I just took over that from the report that I had before me. The
18 word "census" is used in the expert opinion.
19 Q. Can you find one example of that?
20 A. Here. Of course I can.
21 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ...
22 A. The report in the Serbian translation - and I won't be able to
23 quote the page number in English - here, for instance, table 1 says,
24 "Overview of summarised statistical data from the census of households in
25 Sarajevo 1994." Then chapter 1 goes as follows -- sorry, chapter 3:
1 "Census of households, that is, the household survey on the free
2 territory of Sarajevo in 1994 (HSS 1994)." And then, speaking of tables I
3 can go one by one.
4 Q. What is the word --
5 A. Are called from the PDS census.
6 Q. What is the word you see there for a census?
7 A. Where here? The entire chapter is titled --
8 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is saying in Serbian "census of
9 households, census of households in the free territory of the city of
11 A. And then in -- then below, PDS.
12 Q. What chapter?
13 A. That's chapter 3. But if we start from the beginning, if you want
14 me to proceed that way -- chapter 1, we can start from the summary, if you
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, could we try to get a clarification
17 perhaps from the interpreters on the word used in the B/C/S and in
18 English. I don't know whether there's any difference of view, because
19 the -- do we know -- I haven't got in front of me the B/C/S version of Ewa
20 Tabeau's report. Could you please when you say the word "census" as it is
21 translated to us, what is it in B/C/S? What is it in your own language?
22 Could you pronounce it in your own language so that we receive the word,
23 not translated, through the interpreters.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Popis" in the Serbian language is
25 the same as "census" in English or in Latin.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask the interpreters, apart from the
2 explanation given by the witness, how would you translate the word "popis"
3 as far as I understand it to be.
4 THE INTERPRETER: "Census."
5 JUDGE ORIE: "Census." Would the word census be something
6 different from the word we find in English, which is survey, the household
7 survey? How would you translate in this context the word "survey" into
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what "survey" means. I
10 know what census means because of the Roman census.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. But I'm now asking the
12 interpreters to tell us how they would translate the word "survey" and
13 specifically whether they would translate it or -- using the word "popis"?
14 And I see that some work is done.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, this is from the B/C/S booth.
16 The word that I would use for "survey" in backwards would be either
17 "pregled" or "istrazivanje", which is similar as "research" but "pregled"
18 would be a better choice.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I hear from our interpreters that they would
20 choose the word "pregled" to translate the English word which says
21 "survey." It seems that at least there is a linguistic problem. I don't
22 know whether it's the only problem or whether there are more problems, but
23 perhaps we should keep this in mind when we continue.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. So in the heading of section 3, what word do you see there,
2 "popis" or "pregled"?
3 A. In every chapter it says "popis". Not in a single chapter, not in
4 a single part of this text is the Serbian word "pregled" used. But if you
5 would allow me, I would like to comment on the word "pregled," or survey,
6 in order to disagree with it. In view of the volume that is in question
7 here, in view of the way in which everything is explained here -- of
8 course I'm not an expert in the Serbian language, I cannot claim with
9 absolute certainty that the word "pregled" is closer to "survey" than the
10 word "popis" or "census." But in view of the mass scale involved, I
11 believe that "census" is closer to the actual notion. "Survey" is
12 something that implies a much shorter period or excerpts taken. I could
13 argue with it. At least, I believe it is arguable. But if you consider
14 the word "survey" in the translation of "pregled" to be more adequate, I
15 am prepared to agree with it.
16 Q. Do you see section 2. Could you have a look at section 2 of the
17 report of Tabeau et al.
18 A. I do.
19 Q. And could you have a look at the second paragraph of that section.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you see in the second sentence of that paragraph the words "our
22 major source," or do you see the second sentence beginning with "our major
23 source, the household survey on the free territory of Sarajevo"?
24 A. Second paragraph begins in my text as follows: "Our principal
25 objectives are to provide reliable statistics on population losses," and
1 so on and so forth, and to compare them with the pre-war mortality ratios.
2 I can't see what you are --
3 Q. Very well. Could you just read on --
4 A. -- mentioning.
5 Q. Could you read on, please.
6 A. Here. "All this can be done as the sources used -- as the sources
7 used for this report are extensive. Our major source, the household
8 survey --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's comment: The word in Serbian
10 again is "census".
11 A. -- on the free territory of Sarajevo in 1994 is a questionnaire,
12 is a census-like population survey in the area within front lines in
13 Sarajevo at mid-1994. Thus, it was expected to cover the entire
14 population living in this area at the time the survey --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Again, the word used is "census"?
16 A. -- was conducted.
17 Q. So madam, that section that deals with the sources of the reports
18 and that part that you read in particular would have put you on guard that
19 the report of Ewa Tabeau was not strict a censor -- a census but was a
20 census-like survey. And as you are well aware, you would not have a
21 census during a war.
22 A. I beg to differ, for the simple reason that even censuses are
23 conducted through the use of questionnaires. In other words, the method
24 used in the majority of countries, including Yugoslavia, the former
25 Yugoslavia, is the questionnaire. You take a questionnaire and you go on
1 to carry a census. So maybe Ewa Tabeau thought she was making a survey,
2 but you seem to be saying that --
3 Q. When you saw the word "like population survey," what did you
4 understand those words to mean?
5 A. I never saw the word "census-like survey." It says "census"
6 everywhere. I never came across the words "census-like" and all the
7 questionnaires were made up in that way.
8 Q. I thought you just read from the section in the report which deals
9 with the survey that it describes a household survey of the free territory
10 of Sarajevo.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, could we please ask the witness to read
12 again slowly the sentence starting with "our major source, the household
13 survey on the free --" could you please read that sentence slowly. And
14 may I ask the specific attention of the interpreters for the second part
15 of the sentence.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Our major source, the census of
17 households in the free territories of the city of Sarajevo in 1994 was --
18 is a census-like population poll in the area within front lines in
19 Sarajevo in mid-1994. Therefore, it was expected that it would cover the
20 entire population living in this area at the time the census was
22 JUDGE ORIE: You said that you never saw the word "census-like
23 population survey."
24 Could we please ask the interpreters what in the original
25 language -- because there might be a translation problem again. You
1 translated it as a "census-like population survey." What does it say in
2 the original B/C/S wording just read so that we can identify if there's a
3 linguistic problem? Could I ask the booth to -- especially the B/C/S
4 booth to tell us what the original wordings were.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, the original -- in the original,
6 there are three words, Nalik Na Popis, which means "census-like."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. In respect to the body of world in the field of demography
10 concerned with complex humanitarian emergencies, what sources have been
11 suggested as appropriate for measurement and assessment of casualties and
12 democratic -- I beg your pardon, demographic factors?
13 A. I don't understand the question.
14 Q. Do you know of network sampling? Could you explain that to us,
15 and snowball sampling.
16 A. In what sense? I know, for instance, about the network sampling
17 of populated areas in Serbia. Are you interested in that?
18 Q. I'm interested in the application of those two types of sampling
19 to demographics in complex humanitarian emergencies. Are you aware of the
20 use of that type of work in that situation.
21 A. Yes, I have heard about that, but that has nothing to do with this
22 analysis, with this report that was given to me to examine.
23 Q. Wouldn't you say it's -- well, what is network sampling? And
24 wouldn't you say that this survey was an example of network sampling with
25 some element of snowball sampling? Or do you know? Were those terms
1 designated in the field of the demographics of complex humanitarian
3 A. I wouldn't say that this report is an example of such network
4 sampling for the simple reason that it was conceived in a completely
5 different way. And then on we could argue about the sample taken.
6 Q. Very well.
7 A. And whether it is adequate to the method --
8 Q. In the area of complex humanitarian emergencies, what is network
10 A. Well, that again depends on who is doing what, what type -- what
11 team of experts is going where with what mission, whether it is using a
12 sample provided it or making its own sample. So there is no generally
13 accepted prescribed way to proceed. That is decided ad hoc from situation
14 to situation, from expert to expert, with the desire to do the best job
16 Q. So you would not be prepared to give us a definition of network
17 sampling in so far as it is applied in complex humanitarian emergencies.
18 A. No, sir, I could not give you a definition, nor do I believe that
19 there is a universal definition so that everyone dealing with demographics
20 or population statistics know it. It is just one of the ways to go about
21 a certain task in the area of demography or statistics.
22 Q. Very well.
23 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, and with the
24 assistance of the usher, could the witness be shown a document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
1 THE REGISTRAR: This will be P3775.
2 MR. STAMP: It's a document entitled "Demographic assessment
3 techniques in complex humanitarian emergencies." And it is the summary of
4 work presented by experts in that field.
5 Q. And at page 2 - and there's a translation of that at the back. I
6 beg your pardon, page 3.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Radovanovic, may I ask you not to make any
8 markings on the copies you receive unless specifically asked to mark it.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. It is indicated that at least three major organisations have
13 published guidelines on how to conduct initial demographic assessments,
14 Medecins sans Frontieres, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
15 and the Sphere Project. Each of these sets of guidelines vary slightly
16 but their purpose is the same, to help field workers obtain a base-line
17 estimate of the total population and its vital characteristics."
18 Are you okay with the guidelines and methodologies for estimating
19 the populations in areas subject to complex humanitarian emergencies?
20 A. I am familiar with the methodology of population assessment not in
21 humanitarian organisations though. But that's precisely what I'm talking
22 about. This is a convention on how to proceed about certain tasks, so
23 that experts in the field could adhere to it, which doesn't mean that
24 experts who adhere to it should be using bad sources. So I have nothing
25 to do -- I have nothing against the technique. It is a matter of
1 convention. We say "this is the situation as it is and this is how we'll
2 do the job," but an expert has to be able to decide whether the
3 information used is good and reliable or it is bad and provides a
4 completely distorted picture of what we are trying to ascertain. So I
5 have absolutely nothing against this as a technique to be used in complex
6 humanitarian emergencies. What is important is that the experts make sure
7 that this assessment is based on correct data, data which does not give a
8 distorted picture.
9 Q. Let's look, if you will, at some of the techniques referred to by
10 the experts in the demography of complex humanitarian emergencies. And
11 I'd like to read a part from page 11. "Human rights abuses, violations of
12 international standards of human rights, such as kidnapping, rape,
13 torture, and genocide, are traditionally documented through testimonies
14 and clinical or forensic evidence. Now, these methods are being used in
15 combination epidemiological and demographic models. Cluster sampling is
16 not appropriate for measuring mortality in cases of human rights abuses
17 because they are not random event. Some non-probability sampling
18 techniques that might work in these situations include network sampling,
19 in which more than one individual can report on another individual in the
20 survey, multiplicity, or snowball sampling, which uses a process of chain
21 referral by members of the population of interest, an adaptive sampling
22 which is a technique often used for studying disease patterns among
23 wildlife in which if a diseased animal is discovered, then additional
24 animals are sampled in the same area." Would you agree with me that the
25 experts recommend network sampling which is -- in which more than one
1 individual can report on the victim -- on another individual who is a
3 A. I understand. I understand what you're saying. Experts do
4 recommend that it may be so. But experts do not recommend that such a
5 sample can be transposed onto the entire population. If you have a
6 sample, it has to be of such a quality that it gives a picture of the
7 overall phenomenon. In this report, we should be dealing with, we are
8 dealing with a sample that does not provide a good picture, a faithful
9 picture of the overall phenomenon and the method used varies from report
10 to report. Of course, even if one person reported a victim, it should be
11 enough, but it all depends on where, at which level, with what objective.
12 This is a very idiosyncratic, very specific analysis that deals with
13 people who are killed or wounded. It generally applies to --
14 Q. Very well.
15 A. -- a massive population that has not even been nearly defined.
16 Q. We can agree that it is a very specific area of expertise, but
17 would you agree with me that persons experienced and accomplished in this
18 area, this field of demographics, can use a variety of sources, even
19 sources from so-called perpetrators, and once they are aware of the
20 limitations of the sources they can come to conclusions in respect to the
21 rates of casualties during a complex humanitarian emergency?
22 A. I agree that experts can do that. But first they have to assess
23 to what degree, how much sense it makes. I have to elaborate on this. If
24 you want me to use a sample, for instance, in this courtroom based on this
25 recommendation by your experts, I can say that people over the age of 60
1 are tried, people are tried if they come from Bosnia and Herzegovina,
2 people are tried if they are generals, people are tried if they are
3 graduates of military schools. So if you use this recommendation, you are
4 still not guaranteed to get a faithful picture. An expert is duty-bound
5 to make an assessment and say I'll accept this method or I will not accept
6 this method. If you are dealing with statistical analysis and
7 demographics --
8 Q. What I'm enquiring, madam, is your level of knowledge and
9 expertise in a particular field of demography. So we just want to discuss
10 certain areas of methodology. And if you don't know about something, you
11 can say so.
12 A. I know. I just don't understand why you are asking me this,
13 because this analysis, this report is not grounded in what you are talking
14 about. In fact, more precisely, the way it is written, the way these
15 phenomena are treated, doesn't seem to be indicative of this. Maybe you
16 can use one statement, maybe one sample is used. I believe an expert has
17 to be very cautious, has to make an assessment.
18 Q. Madam --
19 A. Cannot allow himself to make the conclusions as are given in this
21 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ...
22 A. Would you then repeat the question, please.
23 Q. Would you agree with me - and I will read the last sentence of
24 the -- of page 12 of this document before I ask --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please do that slowly, Mr. Stamp.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. "Depending on the ultimate use of the data, precision and
3 reliability may be more or less important. For example, data precision is
4 generally very important in legal cases, such as human rights tribunals."
5 Madam, is it because of your lack of familiarity with this area of
6 demographics why you frequently criticise the report of Tabeau et al. as
7 using redundant statistics?
8 A. No. I am not sure that -- no, you do not know whether I know that
9 or not. I am telling you they know what this is about.
10 Q. Very well.
11 A. And I'm not criticising Mrs. Ewa Tabeau. What I am criticising is
12 sources and the way in which it was done. It has nothing to do with
13 Mrs. Tabeau, because she just happens to head that team and I am involved
14 in this kind of work.
15 Q. Thank you. You've answered.
16 Would you agree with me that in using the methodologies of the
17 demographics of complex humanitarian emergencies for human rights
18 tribunals or truth commissions the requirement would be to conduct the
19 study and the research in such a way as to present the minimum numbers
20 possible as Tabeau et al. have indicated they did?
21 A. No, I don't agree with you. I think you are confusing two things.
22 One thing are demographic methods, the methodology used in demographics,
23 and I can talk about that. The other thing are sources of data that you
24 use so that by applying those methods and with the help of the statistical
25 method you could arrive at explanation of certain things. In other words,
1 I do not agree with you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I think it would certainly assist the
3 Chamber if we do not stay too much on the abstract theoretical level. I
4 mean, if you asked the witness whether she considers herself an expert and
5 that's part of your questions, you could not easily expect her to say no,
6 I'm not an expert at all. And that's more or less the line of questioning
7 at this moment, and I don't think -- let's try to get out of the two
8 abstract levels.
9 MR. STAMP: Very well.
10 Q. Let's -- madam, you heard what the President said. Let's get to
11 something a little more practical. In your report at page 2 of the
12 English version you said that "The estimation of human casualties with
13 application of the method for determination of an unknown volume of animal
14 population, one can produce the greatest possible confusion in the
15 perception of and conclusion in the significance of relevant statistical
17 And further on at page 50, you said, "The applied method of
18 occupation, that is a capture-recapture technique was not sufficiently
19 explained and we do not know that in the demographic research it had ever
20 been applied before." You do not know that in demographic research
21 capture-recapture -- I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Stamp, I'm sorry but I don't have page 50
23 in this report.
24 MR. STAMP: Can I just check.
25 [Microphone not activated]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: I'm so sorry, Your Honour. It's the last paragraph of
3 page 43.
4 Q. Madam --
5 A. Do you want me to answer your question?
6 Q. No. I was just referring you to a part of your report in which
7 you said that, to quote, "We were not aware of it being used in
8 demographic research." Are you aware that in respect to the demographic
9 analysis for human rights purposes of complex humanitarian emergencies the
10 capture-recapture methodology has been used in a variety of countries,
11 Vietnam, Guatemala, even in Kosovo, as it has been used by Tabeau et al.?
12 Are you aware that it has been used or is your statement in your report
13 that you are not aware of it correct?
14 A. I know that I've heard about the method -- or rather, that
15 Mrs. Tabeau did not proceed in a manner which is normally used in the
16 scientific world. She does mention certain methods and says that they are
17 in use, but she doesn't say where.
18 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... You wrote in your report
19 that you do not know of the methodology of capture-recapture being used in
20 demographic research. I'm asking you if you still maintain that you do
21 not know of it being used in demographic research. Is what you wrote in
22 your report still your state of mind? That's all I'm asking.
23 A. I have to see what I wrote in my report. If you will excuse me.
24 Can you tell where is that. What are you --
25 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... of your report, first
2 A. I said the following: "If we agree that one can apply -- I mean,
3 this method, that one can apply this method in a specific demographic
4 study, then we cannot agree with the quality of the sample used because
5 this method requires two independent and impartial samples and requires
6 that these samples be large. Now, we can discuss what is a large and what
7 is a small sample. So I agree, I didn't say I didn't know. I merely said
8 that the manner in which it was done to my mind was not correct.
9 Q. Just answer me one thing: Did you say in the first sentence of
10 the last paragraph of your report "We do not know that in the demographic
11 research it had ever been applied before"? Did you indicate that? The
12 first sentence of the last paragraph. It's a simple yes or no.
13 A. The applied method of capture was not sufficiently clearly
14 explained and we do not know that in the demographic research it has ever
15 been applied before. That is what I said. But I agreed with the method
16 as such.
17 Q. Very well. Well, madam --
18 A. And sorry, the lady was duty-bound to comply with the scientific
19 and other literature so that I could educate myself and know what she's
20 talking about.
21 Q. Do you mean --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please refrain from such comments unasked
23 for. The only question to you at this moment was whether you'd stick to
24 your observation that you do not know that in the demographic research
25 this method had ever been applied before. That was the question. And we
1 never asked Mrs. Tabeau to comment on the way -- how you performed it. If
2 there are any specific observations you'd like to make, you will get an
3 opportunity to do so at the end. But please first answer to the
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. But I take it from your answer, madam, that you needed to be
7 educated in how the capture-recapture method is applied to demographic
8 research in complex humanitarian situations. The document I showed you
9 last, if I may just read a part of page 12. "Patrick Ball of the American
10 Association for the Advancement of Science presented some of his work on
11 measuring human rights abuses in a variety of settings. One effective
12 method is called capture-recapture, in which one member of the sample is
13 selected, "returned" to the population, and if the same person is selected
14 again, she or he is 'tagged.' Originally developed for use in counting
15 populations of animals or fish, for human rights research the method uses
16 administrative data that were kept by the perpetrators. Because more than
17 one witness may report a killing, some killings may go unreported, and
18 there are often several sources of testimonies, multiple lists of killings
19 are often available and must be used to estimate the actual number of
20 murders. According to the theory behind the capture-recapture method, the
21 level of overlap, or the number of killings reported by two independent
22 lists, makes it possible for investigators to estimate the number of
23 killings that occurred in the total population including those killings
24 that were not recorded in either list. The method was used in Guatemala
25 following the civil war in that country (1954-1996)." And it indicates
1 what the calculation was.
2 But more importantly, at the beginning of the next paragraph - and
3 I'm referring you now to the use of the capture-recapture method which has
4 been used before as testimony in court - "Ball and his colleagues also
5 conducted a study during the recent war in Kosevo (1999) using lists from
6 three different organisations."
7 THE INTERPRETER: Can you slow down, please.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. "Ball and his colleagues also conducted a study during the recent
10 war in Kosovo using lists from three different organisations." Are you
11 aware of that study?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. So you were aware of the capture-recapture method being applied to
14 the field of demographics in complex humanitarian situations. You were
15 aware of that, were you?
16 A. I've heard about the method. I am not aware that it was applied
17 in the Balkans. To demographic complex emergencies, I didn't know that
18 that was the common practice. Yes, I know about the method. I know what
19 it is. But I do not think it is applicable. The rules of humanitarian
20 organisations, so on and so forth, I fully respect them, I do not begrudge
21 Mrs. Tabeau the use of that method. I am not discarding it. I accept the
22 method. That I didn't hear that it was a part of some Balkan or Bosnian
23 studies, that is another matter. But what I am saying, that such a method
24 requires two independent sources, a particular sample, a specific size of
25 the sample, and that is what we can discuss. And I am saying that a
1 sample was not a representative one. But I absolutely do not hold it
2 against Mrs. Tabeau for using that method, especially since she uses this
3 for population estimates. But the problem is that the basis, that the
4 starting point is wrong. That is that the sources we are using to arrive
5 at something are not good.
6 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... You said you have heard
7 about the method and I am not aware that it was applied in the Balkans.
8 Isn't a particular area of your work as a demographer a study of ethnic
9 differences in Kosovo and the statistics in respect of the population in
10 Kosovo and Metohija?
11 A. Yes. Yes. Kosovo, the population of Kosovo and Metohija was the
12 subject of my doctoral thesis, but I used official verified sources of
13 information such as population censuses. I also a conducted polls,
14 certain questionnaires. I did not use this method. I had no need to use
15 it because there are exact data. I was making no guesses.
16 Q. Have a look quickly, if you will, at a third document. This is
17 research done in the capture-recapture methodology in respect of political
18 killings in Kosovo. Are you aware that the research has been used in
19 human rights cases, or at least one human rights case, madam?
20 A. I'll accept what you are saying.
21 Q. That's a question. Are you aware? And the answer is either yes
22 or no. Either you know or you do not.
23 A. If you tell me whether the method was used as assessment, I
24 haven't heard of that. I don't know.
25 Q. Very well. Madam, since you don't know about it, then I'll take
1 you through it. But I'd just like you to look at the bibliography at the
2 back of this paper that you have been presented with. Just browse through
3 it briefly and tell me if you'd agree with me that the capture-recapture
4 method is a standard methodology used by specialists, demographic
5 specialists in the field of complex humanitarian emergencies, by
6 epidemiologists and victimologists. Have a look another the document,
7 please, the bibliography of the document.
8 MR. STAMP: Please, usher, could you --
9 Q. You are not looking at it, ma'am. Could you please look.
10 A. I will disagree with you when you say that it is a standard
11 method. I am not saying that it cannot be used. I'll find you a number
12 of demographers who do not use it. Once again, I have nothing against the
13 method. It is used for estimates. And I'm not disputing -- I'm not
14 questioning the method. I'm not even questioning the estimates which were
15 arrived at on the basis of that method. What I am questioning are the
16 sources used to arrive at a sample. The methods are fine, the estimates
17 are fine, but the sample is wrong. And if the sample is wrong, then your
18 estimates cannot be right either.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Radovanovic, may I ask your attention for the
20 following: There seems to develop itself a debate where -- which started
21 where questions were put to you on a specific line of your report where
22 you say that you are not aware of a certain method to be used in
23 demographic research. Mr. Stamp is putting to you some material which in
24 his view would demonstrate that there is literature that indicates that
25 such a method was used in demographic research, and slowly it seems that
1 you're shifting to another subject, which is whether this system should
2 have been used in this research done by Ewa Tabeau. Let's try to clearly
3 separate the issues at stake. So, for example, if you say I can show you
4 a lot of researchers who do not use the method, if one says that it's
5 frequently used, then of course there is others who do not use it. But it
6 was not the question whether all researchers used it, but we started at --
7 that you were not aware of the use of the method and we slowly developed
8 to the question whether all used them and then we moved to another item,
9 that is, whether it was properly used under the circumstances. I'd like
10 to invite you to listen carefully to the questions and try, together with
11 Mr. Stamp, not to mix up different issues.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
14 Q. Now, madam, I would like to ask -- let me withdraw that comment.
15 You, madam, at various passages in your report to make some
16 specific criticisms of a number -- of numbers, do you understand that for
17 the purpose of -- well, for a variety of purposes, one being transparency,
18 when a report is done in respect to casualties that occurred during a
19 complex humanitarian emergency, the report includes a variety of
20 characteristics of a sample or samples that were used for the report?
21 A. I understand that. But here we are dealing with samples which
22 need to be in the report and those which need not be in the report.
23 Q. Very well. Very well.
24 A. And --
25 Q. We want to move through as quickly as possible.
1 You say that the report of Tabeau et al. dealt with undefined
2 parts of Sarajevo. Is it not clear right through the report that it is
3 dealing with a part of Sarajevo within the confrontation line, sometimes
4 called the free territory that was under the control of the government of
5 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Isn't that clear to you from
6 reading the report?
7 A. No, because this report does not address a space. It says "within
8 Sarajevo," and then it says "smaller parts of six municipalities." Then
9 it says "the free territory." And when I read the report, I do not know
10 where are the military, where are the political boundaries. I know that
11 this area is not defined in a way in which you could poll the population
12 without incurring a major risk, be it for a census or for a large sample
13 or whatever. So statistically speaking, that space has not been defined.
14 Q. Perhaps it might not have been confined in the context of official
15 census statistics, but within the context of a complex humanitarian
16 emergency can you understand or do you understand that the report
17 purported to deal with the area within the confrontation lines of
18 Sarajevo? Can you understand that?
19 A. I can understand it, but I disagree. Within the certain area, the
20 report said that it statistically it takes over 89 local communities. So
21 in one case we have statistical -- statistical method used and in another
22 no. When it says over 89 local communities, that is not a statistical
23 value. But your expert said we statistically defined it so and so.
24 Q. I'd like to have a look at some of the figures that you used or
25 that you specifically criticised. You said at page 10 of your report -
1 and that's the English version - perhaps I could assist you in finding
2 where it is in the Serbian text. That is at the end of a long paragraph
3 which is the second paragraph of section 2.1.1. "As data from the same
4 source and from the same space that is, PDS 1994 several different
5 magnitudes are given --"
6 A. I'm not getting the interpretation. I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any problem, Ms. Pilipovic, with the
8 interpretation at this very moment? Yes. Is there any --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Ms. Pilipovic's microphone is off.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Your microphone is still --
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I am getting the
12 interpretation but not the general.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You are not receiving the translation. Could we
14 please check that there are --
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now it's all right, Your Honour. I
16 didn't get only the end of Mr. Stamp read out. All the rest I had and I
17 could follow. It was only the end of Mr. Stamp's question.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Question, yes.
19 Could you please repeat the question so that both General Galic
20 and of course the witness could hear your question, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. At the end of the second paragraph of section 2.1.1 of your
23 report, you said, "Furthermore, a confusion of terminology, territory, and
24 time is being used for the purpose of imposing false images of the events
25 which are being explained in the report. Just as data from the same
1 source and for the same space, that is, PDS 1994, several different
2 magnitudes are given. For example, persons killed inside the front lines
3 in Sarajevo can amount to 3.798, 3.225, 3.689, but also to 7.879 and 6.055
4 or 2.963." And you quote those figures in order to indicate that it was
5 for the purpose of imposing false images.
6 Let's start with the figure 3.225. You said that you came to that
7 figure by subtracting the number of what is written as Sarajevo and
8 specified municipality in table 2.
9 A. No. This number, 3.225, was arrived at using tables 1 and 3,
10 which are identical, and you can see when the breakdown is made by
11 municipalities within the city of Sarajevo, you see an indication that
12 Sarajevo is undefined. If we have inside it persons both killed and
13 wounded in an undefined Sarajevo, I believe they don't belong there. And
14 by inference, they cannot be included in the sum total, and that's how the
15 sum total was increased. That's --
16 Q. You are referring to the figure 573 in the part of table 1 that is
17 subtitled "Opstina of event."
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Now, madam, the report of Tabeau et al. explicitly indicates that
20 where place of event was unknown, it was excluded, whether it was possible
21 or not that it could have been within Sarajevo. And at page 28 of the
22 English version of the report - and that is section 5.1 - of the report of
23 Tabeau et al. in a paragraph beginning "Regarding the statistics for
24 opstina unspecified --" you explained. "Regarding the places of events,
25 respondents usually reported names of local communities within the survey
1 area or common names of particular locations within Sarajevo. We also saw
2 names of municipalities different than the Sarajevo six or even countries
3 other than Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some places were non-specific, such as
4 airport, Pista, apartment, hospital, Kasina [phoen], Marsal Tito, et
5 cetera. We developed a system of quotes for the reported place names in
6 which every place was recorded into a local community. In place --"
7 THE INTERPRETER: Will you slow down, please, Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP: I'm sorry.
9 Q. "If a place was located outside the front lines, the code of a
10 municipality in Bosnia or country code was assigned. If a place could not
11 be identified in terms of a local community but we knew that it was
12 located within the front lines, one of the non-specific codes was used,
13 opstina within front lines or opstina other or opstina unspecified."
14 Madam, that explanation in the report, if, for example, one is to
15 apply it, are there places, streets for example, that might be certainly
16 within the front lines of Sarajevo in its entirety but overlapping more
17 than one municipality, like Marsal Tito Street or downtown Sarajevo might
18 encompass both Stari Grad and Centar, but isn't it possible that one could
19 be certain that those places were within the front lines?
20 A. I find it hard to believe, because it reads on as follows: "A
21 team of our Bosnian colleagues coming from Sarajevo or its surroundings
22 assigned particular places to local communes. We also used maps of local
23 communes, issued by the local authorities in Sarajevo. In this way, we
24 were able to propose a classification of places that were available at the
25 level of local communes. The federal -- the state institute for
1 statistics in Sarajevo provided us with a bridging system for linking
2 local communes with municipalities. Thus it became possible to group
3 events by municipalities."
4 Q. Very well.
5 A. It is a different matter and we can now argue or not argue --
6 Q. Madam --
7 A. This means that assistance existed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd -- if you'd please let the witness finish
9 the answer.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And then we'll have a break.
12 Yes, please finish your answer.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my personal view that what the
14 Prosecutor just suggested is highly unlikely, and this term "undefined
15 Sarajevo" does not mean this. If it were to mean what is suggested, there
16 should be a footnote saying that Sarajevo could not be defined because
17 certain places, certain parts or streets were not easy to identify. But
18 this refers to areas that we are looking at.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until ten minutes past 6.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.54 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] My colleague had to leave for
1 reasons of health.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I hope it's not serious, Ms. Pilipovic. If you see
3 him later, then you could pass to him our wishes that he feels better
5 Mr. Stamp, you may proceed.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. Witness, in respect of the last question I asked, and
8 that was in reference to the category opstina unspecified, which were
9 counted within the figures for persons -- for casualties within Sarajevo,
10 and I gave you two examples, situations where, for example, somebody might
11 mention a street, which certainly is within downtown Sarajevo or within
12 Sarajevo and that is within the confrontation lines but it may overlap
13 one, two, or three municipalities or, for example, downtown Sarajevo, if
14 that's the answer, which may also encompass more than one municipality
15 within Sarajevo. And your answer was that you find it hard to believe and
16 it's highly unlikely, and that is after I referred you to the explanation
17 in the report of Tabeau et al. for that category.
18 As an expert, if you are in doubt about something, wouldn't the
19 right thing to do be to check the individual records and did you make an
20 effort to check those individual records which were served on the Defence?
21 A. My only source was the report drawn up by Mrs. Tabeau. Checking
22 up individual records was something that I had no opportunity to do. I
23 had absolutely no insight into the raw material, so to speak. And my
24 doubts are derived from the fact that I know the terrain, I know Sarajevo,
25 and I know that there are no streets which cover more than one
1 municipality. So I was unable to check is the answer to your question,
2 but I firmly believe that this was impossible. And if I may add, from the
3 report of Mrs. Tabeau, you simply cannot check that.
4 Q. Madam, that is not an answer to my question. But let me check to
5 see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that there's no street
6 in Sarajevo that was within the confrontation line, that ran -- or that
7 overlapped more than one municipality? You know that to be a fact?
8 A. No, I'm not saying that. I believe that there are no such cases,
9 although I can't guarantee that 100 per cent. Besides, I believe that the
10 experts who were helping Mrs. Tabeau and whom she quotes here know this
11 very well, and they can quote street names.
12 Q. Madam --
13 A. In addition, street names in Sarajevo have changed a lot. At the
14 moment when this is done, which is year 2001 --
15 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you again to listen to the question, to
16 answer to the question, and if any further information is needed, you'll
17 be asked for it. Yes?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
19 MR. STAMP:
20 Q. Am I to understand that you would not concede or agree that, for
21 example, the answer downtown Sarajevo may cover more than one local
23 A. I don't understand the question. You mean the municipality
25 Q. Well, downtown Sarajevo may cover both Centar and Stari Grad;
1 wouldn't you agree with that?
2 A. Will you define "centre." There is Centar as a municipality and
3 there is centre, as downtown. We call Centar the area where, for
4 instance, the theatre is located. What is your definition of Centar? Do
5 you mean the Centar of the city or ...?
6 Q. May I ask it this way: If someone has asked about an event and
7 the person responded that the event occurred in downtown Sarajevo, what
8 local community -- or municipality would that be within Sarajevo?
9 A. I don't know that. But if I heard something like that, I would
10 think of Bascarsija.
11 Q. But it is possible that it could be in more than one
12 municipality -- may I rephrase that. It could be in one or another
14 A. Again, I don't understand the question. It's possible that
15 it's -- that the event takes place in several municipalities.
16 Q. Now, were you aware -- or are you aware that in the statistics or
17 the statistic techniques to be used in complex humanitarian emergencies
18 you have to, in the matching process and in the rigorous processing of the
19 data, you have to check the reports individually?
20 A. I suppose so. If reports are available to you, then you have to
21 check them. If they are not available to you --
22 Q. When -- at any time, before you wrote your report, while you were
23 writing it, after you wrote it, did you become aware that all of the data
24 used by Tabeau et al. had been given to the Defence?
25 A. No. All I got was Mrs. Tabeau's report.
1 Q. Did you ask for the data, since you're aware that one should check
2 the data individually for complex humanitarian emergency demographic
4 A. I don't understand the question. Did I ask the Defence team to
5 give me access to the raw material --
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. -- so that I can check all the data?
8 Q. Yes. Did you ask. Check, for example, the Sarajevo unspecified
9 that you say you're uncertain about or you don't believe but you can't be
10 sure. Did you ask for the data so you could check it?
11 A. I never tried to check the data. I believed the Tabeau report. I
12 only disagreed with the way it was done. I didn't think that Mrs. Tabeau
13 and her associates went about it the right way. They used sources which
14 were not good, which were not defined, not complete --
15 Q. Madam --
16 A. -- biased. And I didn't think it was my task to check whether
17 Mrs. Tabeau defined a local commune properly or not.
18 Q. You didn't think it was your task to check whether Mrs. Tabeau
19 defined a local commune properly or not? Is that your answer?
20 A. No. I saw from this Tabeau report --
21 Q. Did you say that, madam? Just simply, I want to understand what
22 you just said. Did you just say that you didn't think it was your task to
23 check whether Mrs. Tabeau defined a local commune properly or not? Did
24 you say that?
25 A. I said that, but you didn't mention the local commune. You
1 mentioned the background material. As far as local communes are
2 concerned, I saw from the report that this was not verified and this was
3 not good.
4 Q. In your report at page 10 you also -- you gave the figure for a
5 variety of characteristics of the sample and you say that these figures
6 conflict. Again, this is the end of the second paragraph of section 2.1.1
7 of your report, and this is at page 10 of the English report.
8 A. You mean the end where the table is?
9 Q. Section 2.1.1 of your report, the end of the second paragraph of
10 that report, where you say, "Furthermore, a confusion of terminology,
11 territory, and time is being used for purpose of imposing false images of
12 the events which are being explained in the report. Thus as data from the
13 same source and for the same space, that is, PDS 1994, several different
14 magnitudes are given. For example, persons killed inside the front line
15 in Sarajevo can amount to 3798, 3225, 3689, tables 1 and 6, but also 7879
16 and 6055 of table 2 or 2963, table 18."
17 The number 3689, where did you find it in the report of Tabeau et
19 A. Table 6. Table 6 shows persons killed within the front lines in
20 Sarajevo, 9 September 1992 to the 10th of August, 1994. The total sum for
21 this table is incorrect. For this first sum, broken down by manner of
22 death, such as firearms, shelling, ending with firearms unspecified, this
23 sum is 3.689. If you add to this those who directly fell victim in the
24 war, 189, plus 229 for another value, plus accidental deaths, 82, plus
25 unspecified and unknown, 184, you get a sum total of 3.600 -- a sum total
1 of 4.099.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
3 A. So this number indicates the number of deaths by firearms broken
4 down by the type of weapon. I indicated this because I thought this
5 includes certain things that don't belong here, such as accidental deaths,
6 and other casualties or unspecified --
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Without going into the mathematics, let me ask you: You're
9 counting the figures in italics as well?
10 A. I don't understand. What italics? I don't have any italics in my
11 text, so I don't know what you have in mind.
12 Q. Oh, well, the figures --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could we perhaps first have a look at the B/C/S
14 version of the -- so that it could -- it might be possible to easily
15 clarify the issue.
16 Could you provide us with the -- or no, I think I have the -- I
17 haven't got the B/C/S version. Would you be willing to give us the
18 translation that you used? Have you got it there? Yes.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. STAMP: May I have a look?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I can tell you, I checked whether any
22 italics appear in the table, and they do appear. I didn't check every
23 item but -- as they appear in the original.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Then it means that I
25 don't know what italics are. This here?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Italics are -- I don't know how to translate it.
2 MR. STAMP: Cursive.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So that is not an upright position but just --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies. I didn't understand
5 the with word that was used.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the question remains whether you added all
7 of the numbers or whether you excluded those in italics.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I added up all the figures. I
9 didn't exclude any of those which are in italics. But if I may, there
10 should be a footnote that something that is in italics has not been
11 included in the sum total, and that is why I didn't think that one was
12 supposed to subtract anything from it. The table needs to be clear so
13 that everybody can know what it is about.
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Very well. You added everything. If -- and this is a
16 suggestion -- if you just added the solid numbers given, then there would
17 be no discrepancy. The italics, madam, refer to a breakdown of certain
18 causes. If you add them, you will see that they sum up to the figure
19 above, which is not in italics.
20 Very well. You also said that -- well ...
21 A. Then if I may say so, such a table without an instruction how to
22 use it - because the statistics prescribes very accurately how you have to
23 do it - and if that was not done, then this is a kind of manipulation
24 because there must have been a note as to what the sum total represents.
25 Q. And I take it you could not look at the table and figure this out
1 for yourself.
2 A. I don't understand. Yes, I could have, but I didn't understand
3 it. If one leaves aside the italics, because nowhere in the text or the
4 table does it say what it means. There are certain rules to this
5 particular profession and they must be obeyed, and it says "indicate what
6 belongs where."
7 Q. Madam, you -- as you gave the figure 7879 as one of the variant
8 numbers, can you see from table 2 and the explanations -- or isn't it
9 clear to you from looking at table 2 of the Tabeau et al. report that 7879
10 refer to all the killings that came up or that were a result of all of the
11 survey in all areas and at all dates? Are you aware of that?
12 A. This table again was not made according to the standards applied
13 to statistical tables. It looks very dilettantish.
14 Q. Madam, I'm not asking you for your opinions, about whether it is
15 dilettantish or not, and what are the standards, I'm asking you simply,
16 can you see that the reference to 7879 refers to the total number of
17 events in the survey of persons killed in all areas, at all dates,
18 including unknown areas and unknown dates? Are you aware of that; yes or
20 A. No, you cannot see it here because all is not defined. If we had
21 all defined and we had the definition of what it is supposed to mean, then
22 I would have known that. In this way, as it is presented here, I can only
23 make guesses.
24 Q. But if you made a guess, madam, shouldn't you have indicated in
25 your report that you are guessing that these numbers conflict instead of
1 saying that the differences that you see indicate a dishonest motive,
2 which is what you have said in your report? If you don't know something
3 and you can only guess, why in your report do you put it down to a
4 dishonest motive?
5 A. No, I didn't put it that way, sir. I said that this was
6 manipulation and that something was being shown that should not make part
7 of this report. This is called human losses during the siege of Sarajevo
8 from September 1992 until the 10th of August, 1994.
9 Q. Just a yes or no answer. Let's move on quickly. And it seems --
10 very simply: Did you ask and did you get an opportunity to view or review
11 the evidence of Ewa Tabeau in this court?
12 A. It was read to me in December or January. And to be quite honest,
13 I don't remember, but I am quite willing to answer if you have any
14 questions in that regard.
15 Q. Well, do you recall that in her evidence she explained, further
16 than what is in her report, the meanings of these figures? Do you recall
18 A. I remember the question. And if I am correct, Mrs. Tabeau says
19 that includes those who were not in Sarajevo, who were killed wherever,
20 and said that it was 4500 to 5.000 people.
21 Q. I'm not sure if I understand your answer. Are you saying that
22 having read the report of Tabeau et al. and listened -- or reviewed her
23 testimony, you understand that the various figures refer to different
24 characteristics of the sample survey? Is that what you're saying?
25 A. No. I think to my mind a simple explanation was that Mrs. Tabeau
1 was manipulating, because she mentioned samples which are simply
2 inadequate in this particular case. I could see no reason why she did
4 Q. Please, we have time constraints. So you don't understand that
5 these figures refer to different characteristics of the sample. You don't
6 understand that.
7 A. They do not refer to different characteristics of samples. They
8 refer to the absolutely same period of time and the same census.
9 Q. Very well.
10 A. Except that the first figures --
11 Q. You also --
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, but may
13 the witness be allowed to finish the answer to avoid any further problems.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As long as the answers are to the questions,
15 she's allowed to finish them. When she's answering beyond what is asked,
16 then she may be interrupted, unless there's a specific reason that there's
17 something very important to explain. Then you'll have an opportunity to
18 do that.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
20 MR. STAMP:
21 Q. Are you aware that the next figure you gave, 6055, refer to the
22 total number of persons killed in the indictment area during the
23 indictment period and also at unknown dates? So that's a separate
24 characteristic of a sample. Do you understand that?
25 A. No. It does not refer --
1 Q. Very well.
2 A. I understand that, but it doesn't refer to what you are saying.
3 The figure of 6.055 cases covers the period between the 1st of January,
4 1992 to the 9th of -- no, to the 30th of September, 1994. The case --
5 Q. Very well.
6 A. -- applies to the third column --
7 Q. Very well, madam. I didn't refer to table 2.
8 Having reviewed the evidence of Ewa Tabeau, did you become aware
9 that at the request of the Court she provided a further breakdown and
10 clarification of table 2, which was an addendum to her report? Did you
11 become aware of that?
12 A. Yes. I was given an addendum speaking of possible duplicates.
13 Q. Were you given an addendum -- madam, listen to the questions I'm
14 asking. Were you given an addendum which treated and elaborated upon
15 table 2 of her report?
16 A. If you mean a separate annex other than what was read in the
17 transcript, then no, I did not get that.
18 Q. So perhaps you do not understand -- and you also give the number
19 2963 as a conflicting number. Are you aware that in the report at table
20 47 this is distinctly designated as HSS-94 based total number of persons
21 killed in the indictment and indictment area and linked to the 1991
23 A. You are talking about 2.963?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. I have that in table 18. I don't have table 47. And I believe
1 you said table 47.
2 Q. I think I said page 47. But it's --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said table 47 but you meant to refer to
4 table 18 on page 47.
5 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
6 A. Yes, page 47, and table 18. I see them, and I referred to them. I
7 know that these are associated recorders, regardless of what I think about
8 that. Fine.
9 Q. What I want to know is does it -- did you not understand that the
10 number 2963 referred to the HSS-based total number of persons killed in
11 the indictment period in the indictment area which was linked to the 1991
13 A. I understood that that figure was linked with 1991 census, but it
14 does not apply to all.
15 Q. Very well. You knew that this figure was linked to the 1991
16 census and yet you say that it is an attempt to impose a false image and
17 you do so by comparing it to the figure 3798, which is the only number in
18 the entire report that she has given for the HSS-based total number of
19 persons killed in the indictment period and indictment area in table 1.
20 Knowing that she was referring to a separate characteristic of a sample,
21 linked records, is it proper to make an allegation of that nature?
22 A. Yes, sir, because it is well nigh impossible to link up the
23 records of the 1991 census and the 1994 census. And I will show it to
24 you, if you allow me. If we take two different --
25 Q. That is not the question. You use two figures and you compare
1 them and say that she gives different figures for the same thing and
2 therefore she is being dishonest, yet you now agree with me that you knew
3 that she was not using the figure 2963 for the figure 3798, which is a
4 total number of persons killed in the indictment period and indictment
5 area. Is that a proper way to proceed?
6 A. I'm saying that the data from the same source and for the same
7 area give different figures, and I then use figures to show the
8 differences without going into why they're different at this particular
9 moment. So regardless of whether one is talking about a total or linked
10 or --
11 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... You said also in your
12 report - and this is at page 11 of the English text in the paragraph --
13 the third paragraph of section 2.1 -- sorry, section 2.1.1 - "It concluded
14 that the total number of events in the PDS 1994 amounts to 37.057."
15 A. I can't find it in the Serbian version. Can you please help me.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Previous interpretation continues]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, could you assist the witness.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. It is written that "It is concluded that the total number of
20 events in the PDS 1994 amounts to 37.057 but that from this total number
21 20.151 events were in the area and in the period covered by this report.
22 Without venturing here into the quality of the data, the question is
23 raised as to how it is possible in the same area and in the same period
24 that the same result is not established."
25 Madam, the question is: At the time of writing your report, were
1 you not aware that the two figures referred to two distinct sample
2 characteristics, that is, 37.057 referred to all the records of events,
3 that is, killings and woundings, natural deaths, whereas 20.151 referred
4 to those records which were within the indictment period and indictment
5 area? Simply put, weren't you aware that these two figures referred to
6 two different characteristics of the sample?
7 A. They are not different characteristics of the sample. The sample
8 is the same and its characteristics are the same. It is said that the sum
9 figure includes both what it should and what it shouldn't, and the second
10 figure covers the period relevant for the indictment.
11 Q. Let me ask you this: Don't you understand and did you understand
12 when you wrote your report that one figure referred to a whole, the
13 complete total, and another figure is referring to something which is a
14 part, a breakdown, of that total? Did you understand that?
15 A. I didn't have to understand that because what you are saying is
16 not true. These are two different periods. So one figure refers to the
17 total, overall census of the 1st of January, and the second, what is
18 supposed to be covered here, that is, from the 10th -- I've forgotten.
19 I'll tell you. It's from the 10th of September, 1992 to the 10th of
20 August, 1994. Then your expert says - and I'm quoting - "All phenomena
21 which happened outside the period of siege or the area under siege and
22 phenomena relevant for the siege were excluded from the sample referring
23 to Galic." So this figure which we have here, 20.151, has to do with the
24 Galic case. Figure 32.703 covers the whole census as of the 1st of
25 January. I don't know why it is shown. But we are not dealing with two
1 completely different samples. We have one in the same sample from which a
2 part has been taken out, but not only this part is being shown but all the
3 other parts which strictly speaking do not belong here.
4 Q. To move on to something else, so I could move quickly, I'm just
5 going to suggest to you that the conflicts in figures that you referred to
6 at page 31 of your report, in your table 1 - and that is at section 3.1 of
7 your report - all reflect the fact that you have failed to understand that
8 in the demographics in respect to complex humanitarian emergencies you
9 need to record the various different sample characteristics and that these
10 are not conflicting figures, they are figures for different phenomena,
11 except, I should add, the figure you gave of 4081, which is again an
12 example of double-counting or counting the numbers in italics.
13 A. This only shows -- this is only proof of how statistical data is
14 manipulated. And in demography, at least in serious demography, that is
15 not done. If you have a source of data which is called the expert opinion
16 and which does not obey all the rules which are of importance for the
17 profession and explanation what italics mean and what they do not, then it
18 is manipulation. Besides, further proof of manipulation is that several
19 samples are shown not as -- not compared, because we do not find
20 comparative data here, not a single one. There are several samples, and
21 they cover both those which refers to the Galic case and things that do
22 not refer to the Galic case. I could have understood it had any
23 comparison been made, some parts. But no, here we have only figures
24 quoted which are in the comparative sense or of any other sense are of no
25 relevance at all to the Galic case and then I see it as manipulation
1 because one has to find one's way through without explanation, one has to
2 accept those figures, and these are not through different samples. I
3 repeat it. They are three say, identical samples of different sizes. One
4 has 20.000, another with 37, and the third one 39. So they are not
5 different sample. It is the same sample but different sizes of the
6 sample, the same source of information, and the same period for the
7 overall census from which we then derive the sample that should be
8 applicable to the Galic case. So we do not have here three different
9 samples and there's no comparison anywhere to be found.
10 Q. Madam, it is clear from what you've just said that you do not
11 understand the reason for identifying various sample characteristics,
12 different characteristics of a same sample in the demographics used in
13 complex humanitarian emergencies. So I'll ask you: Can you explain to us
14 why in this particular situation would it be important to link the figures
15 to the 1991 census? And I ask you that in respect, A, to the
16 capture-recapture methodology and, B, in respect to determining a rate of
17 events. Why in a demographic analysis is it important to link the survey
18 records to the census?
19 A. It is done so as to identify the population, that is, to confirm
20 that that is the population from a particular area. That is all what this
21 is about. And then possibly if there is a particular data missing, if you
22 identify the person from the census so that you can check a particular
23 information. It is not a matter how you do that. But the matching is a
24 well-known practice. I do not think that anything here was properly
25 identified. And if you are willing to listen to me, then I'll explain
2 Q. I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we should further listen to you tomorrow,
4 because it's 7.00 and we have to finish. Unfortunately, we are not able
5 to finish. Could you be available tomorrow in the afternoon? And we will
6 certainly finish tomorrow. I'll tell you, we will. Dr. Radovanovic,
7 would that be possible?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for being available tomorrow.
10 Mr. Stamp, I take it that it was a suitable time, because it's
11 three minutes past 7.00, to break.
12 Ms. Radovanovic, I instruct you again not to speak with anyone
13 about the testimony you have given in this court and you're still about to
14 give in this court. And we'd like to see you back tomorrow at quarter
15 past 2.00 in the same courtroom.
16 Meanwhile, I would like to inform the parties that we expect to
17 have a Status Conference or at least a hearing next Wednesday on the
18 rebuttal evidence suggested by the Prosecution. So especially for the
19 Defence, to have an opportunity to clarify its position in respect of the
20 propositions made by the Prosecution.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe I understood that you
24 said next Wednesday. I think the interpretation was wrong. But if we're
25 talking about Wednesday, I'd like to know at what time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It will certainly be in the afternoon, but it
2 also depends -- but may I first ask you, Mr. Usher, to escort
3 Mrs. Radovanovic out of the courtroom because she might not be that
4 interested in our procedural issues. Thank you very much.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: A precise time is not available, but I suggest that
7 we'll have it -- need it to be confirmed that we start either at the usual
8 time, at quarter past 2.00, or at 3.00. But perhaps we better start at
9 quarter past 2.00. But the final time will be confirmed tomorrow. And
10 meanwhile, if necessary, you could always ask Madam Registrar, because she
11 will be aware of it by tomorrow morning.
12 Yes. Then we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, quarter past
13 2.00, same courtroom.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
15 at 7.07 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
16 the 18th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m..