Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15182

 1                           Friday, 26 July 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             The Chamber was informed that both parties had a preliminary

11     matter or even more to raise.

12             Mr. McCloskey.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.

14             Just to let you know that these videos, D245 and 246, that we

15     received from the Defence yesterday, we've looked at them and can't

16     really make out enough of them to be able to stipulate to anything, but

17     perhaps some more coffee and more discussions we might be able to deal

18     with that.

19             But right now, we would still be objecting.

20             And on your question yesterday regarding the position on the

21     Defence's request to certify the ruling on the five days.  The

22     Prosecution take no position on that and if --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No response.  Therefore, then the Chamber will

24     decide on the motion seeking a certificate for an appeal.

25             We hope to hear, then, from the parties immediately after the

Page 15183

 1     recess about D245 and D246.

 2             Mr. Lukic, any matter you would like to raise.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 4             Just briefly.  We missed one deadline on the 16th of July this

 5     year in regard of the 27th 92 bis motion.  On the same day we had to file

 6     24th and 25th 92 bis motions, and somehow we missed one, so --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  -- we kindly ask for an additional seven days from

 9     today.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Seven days.

11             Any objection by the Prosecution?

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  No, absolutely.  We occasionally miss a deadline

13     ourselves.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The request is granted.  You have seven additional

16     days to count from today?  Yes.  So not from the original deadline, the

17     16th, but as of today, which is the 26th plus seven.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Any other matter?

20             If not, could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

21             The -- is there an estimate about the time the Defence would need

22     for their further cross-examination.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I still am at about an hour to

24     potentially an hour and ten minutes.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 15184

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think if we look at the estimates, one hour

 2     and ten minutes would the -- would be the ultimate moment.

 3             Good morning, Mr. Brunborg.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, sir.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Brunborg, I would like to remind you that you're

 6     still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of

 7     your testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

 8     but the truth.

 9             Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.

10             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12                           WITNESS:  HELGE BRUNBORG [Resumed]

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

14        Q.   Good morning, sir.

15        A.   Good morning, sir.

16        Q.   I'd like to ask you in relation to the work that you did in

17     generating the list of missing persons relative to Srebrenica, did you

18     take any steps to verify either the ICRC or PHR lists with any existing

19     official registers of births and registers of death that were kept by the

20     official authorities?

21        A.   No.  Because -- no.  Yes and no.  There's no electronic birth or

22     death register for Bosnia.  So that wouldn't have been possible.  We did

23     check with the census 1991 which is the most solid source of population

24     data for a country like Bosnia.  As I explained yesterday, the two

25     entities started assembling an electronic database in the -- several

Page 15185

 1     years later on the initiative of the Tribunal, and these data were then

 2     compared with the ICRC list without finding any.  They had very few --

 3     they had very few data on Srebrenica-related deaths.

 4        Q.   And you've mentioned the 1991 census.  Am I correct that the

 5     census-taking activities of the state census organs in 1991 continued

 6     right up to the outbreak of the war, I believe, until 31 March 1991?

 7        A.   The data were collected in April 1991 for all of the republics of

 8     the former Yugoslavia, and referring to the so-called census date of 31st

 9     of March.

10        Q.   And, thus, the results of this 1991 census had not been subjected

11     to the types of verification and correction procedures which normally

12     would be conducted for -- for censuses.  Is that also correct?

13        A.   That's correct.  I'm not -- I'm not sure exactly what they did,

14     but we discovered after we received the census file -- excuse me, that

15     there were numerous errors in spelling of names and probably other

16     mistakes as well.  So you are correct, it had not gone through that

17     regular checking and, say, correction on names, but names are not

18     statistically interesting anyway, so they might not have done it.

19             What is done in many countries is that after the main census has

20     been taken, there is a post-enumeration survey with -- is taken then of,

21     say, 1 per cent of the population, so one per cent of the enumerators are

22     interviewed again, and then the data from the sample survey and the full

23     census are compared to check the quality of the data.

24             This was not done.  I don't know if it was planned or dropped

25     because much the war.

Page 15186

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And in your review of the ICRC list against the 1991

 2     census, am I correct that you found up to 13 per cent of the names on the

 3     ICRC list that did not seem to exist on the 1991 census; that is, they

 4     could not be located under that biographical data?

 5        A.   That's what we wrote in our report, yes.  But that doesn't mean

 6     that those people were not enumerated in 1991.  The reason we did not

 7     find those 13 per cent could be due to false in the spelling of the names

 8     that we had not discovered and corrected, lacking or wrong date of birth,

 9     et cetera.  It could also be that some of the missing were not enumerated

10     in 1991 because they lived in other republics or abroad.

11             Anyway, I think we found 87 per cent which is an extremely high

12     percentage, so we are very pleased that we found this high proportion.

13        Q.   Do you recall what proportion of the PHR list were you able to

14     identify positively and match to persons listed in the 1991 census?

15        A.   We did not do specific match of the PHR with the 1991 census.

16     The PHR list was integrated with the ICRC list in what we call the OTP

17     lists of missing and dead persons, which were produced in the year 2000,

18     2005, and 2009.  And they were less than 200 additional persons in the

19     PHR which were not in the various ICRC lists.  So it was a small

20     additional number.  We did not see any sense in making a special

21     comparison.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now I'd like to look at something contained in

23     one of your earlier reports.

24             If we can call up 65 ter number 4510.  And it is page 6 in the

25     English, page 7 in the B/C/S.  And I'd like to look at the second

Page 15187

 1     paragraph from the top in the English.

 2             And, sir, here, you are talking and you say:

 3             "The survival of some people may not have been reported to ICRC,

 4     for example, because they did [sic] not want their survivorship to be

 5     disclosed."

 6             Now I'd like to know here, are you referring to the persons who

 7     had been listed as missing or dead and who actually had survived when you

 8     say "they did not want their survivorship to be disclosed."

 9        A.   That's correct.  And it's a hypothetical thesis that there may

10     have been some people who did not report their survival to ICRC in spite

11     of their being on the missing list, but we have not come across any such

12     examples.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, in relation to the start of the -- of the hostilities

14     in July of 1995, the attack on Srebrenica is said to have begun the 6th

15     of July, 1995, and lasted until 11 July 1995.  Do you know the exact

16     number of casualties on the side of the Bosnian Muslim defenders of

17     Srebrenica that would have died during this time-period of 6 July to

18     11 July 1995 in any fighting that was under way?

19        A.   No, I have not been given that information.  Moreover, I don't

20     know if those being killed in that period were reported as missing or

21     not.

22        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to look at 1D1153 with you in e-court.  And the

23     same should not be broadcast to the public as it contains identifying

24     information from ICMP.

25             And while we wait for that to come up, sir, I can tell you this

Page 15188

 1     is a chart that resulted from the work of a Defence demographer,

 2     Ms. Svetlana Radovanovic.  First of all, am I correct that you are

 3     familiar with this individual Ms. Radovanovic?

 4        A.   Yes, I met her here in court.

 5        Q.   And now looking at the document, first of all, I can tell you

 6     that the right side of the table concerns identifications by ICMP

 7     pursuant to DNA analysis and indicates for those what mass grave in the

 8     Srebrenica area they were exhumed from.  The middle column that says

 9     "spisak armije BiH" reflects the unverified information from the armija

10     of BiH, as I understand it, of their records of when these men, their

11     soldiers, would have become deceased or gone missing and, of course, the

12     left side of the column is the information I believe from one of the

13     lists that that you and your colleagues would have prepared for the

14     persons on your missing list, and there is the column that indicate the

15     information that you had about the suspected date of death of these

16     individuals.

17             And, as you can see, the men on this list, at least, all have

18     dates reported by the army records as being predating 11 July 1995,

19     sometimes even a few years before.  And I believe this -- this -- this is

20     the result of efforts done in 2008, so it's definitely material that

21     would not have been in your possession when you were doing your initial

22     reports.

23             But I want to ask you, if this information is verified - and I

24     believe this document has 125-odd individuals for whom this information

25     is available - but would -- if this information is verified, would that

Page 15189

 1     raise questions in your mind about the reliability of the information

 2     that you had from the various sources that you used to put the men in

 3     your report as having been missing following the fall of Srebrenica?

 4        A.   Let me first say that this was presented in the trial against

 5     Blagojevic, I believe, which was then in 2001 or -2 or something.  I

 6     don't quite remember.  There were -- we received lists from the Bosnian

 7     army about the number of people who had been army soldiers who had been

 8     killed, and we then -- the Tribunal then asked the Ministry of Defence in

 9     Sarajevo to check inconsistent dates as here when the dates of missing

10     persons were found to be before 11th of July.  And the date was changed

11     and corrected by the Ministry of Defence, I believe, in 127 cases.  This

12     can be found in the 2009 report.  Because it turned out that the -- the

13     army records regarding the date of death was rather sloppy.  So there was

14     also no information on the place of death.

15             So I, of course, do not know that particular name, but we need --

16     I would need to check whether that name -- that date remains standing or

17     whether it was changed by the Ministry of Defence.  There were, I think,

18     there were 38 outstanding cases that were also requested -- the OTP

19     requested the Ministry of Defence to look into.  I do not know whether we

20     had any response to that request.

21        Q.   Thank you, sir.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  To just make it short, do I understand that most of

23     the data provided turned out to be inaccurate.

24             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, sir.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So to some extent the verification which was at the

Page 15190

 1     beginning of the question of Mr. Ivetic had been done to some extent and

 2     showed that in many cases the data were not verified and were not

 3     accurate?

 4             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, sir.  If you like, I could check

 5     this closer in the break in the year 2009 report.  Or now.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you would do it in the break and give us --

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  -- further details --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  -- such as whether it's -- the date of death,

11     whether that, for example, was corrected or not.

12             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And also whether it then, after the correction, was

14     then within the time-frame of July 1995 or at any earlier date because if

15     the 10th of January of 1994 is a wrong date, it could still be -- the 1st

16     of January of that year or what Mr. Ivetic is interested in, to see

17     whether it -- the -- the verified date of death is outside the scope of

18     the July events in 1995.

19             Further, Mr. Ivetic, I see a large number of persons having been

20     reported to be dead on the 10th of January, 1994.  I do not know whether

21     there is any event related to that.  That's maybe an interesting

22     question.

23             MR. IVETIC:  I agree, Your Honour, and that's why I've always

24     said unverified because I think there does need to be more follow-up done

25     on that.

Page 15191

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, although part of it apparently has been done --

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- already.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  That is -- yeah.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   Now, let me switch gears slightly -- and we can remove this

 8     document now so we don't have to worry about the broadcasting of the

 9     same.  The UNHCR, did you try to gain access to their records and

10     information as to refugees to try and improve your work on the reports

11     that you did?

12        A.   Yes, we did.  But the UNHCR is very protective about their data,

13     so we did not get any data on individuals from UNHCR.  I was not even

14     allowed to visit their office in Sarajevo because of -- they wanted to be

15     absolutely certain, sure about their neutrality.

16        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, am I correct that you also personally urged

17     and tried to get the office of high representative and other officials in

18     Bosnia and Herzegovina to organise conduct an appropriate census not only

19     for Srebrenica but for the rest of the two entities?

20        A.   That's true, sir.  I wrote that in my report that it would be

21     very useful to have a new full census of Bosnia since the previous one

22     was in 1991.  When I was active in this work, this was already almost ten

23     years ago, I'm now -- it is more than 20 years ago, but now there are

24     specific plans for a new census, I understand.

25        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now I'd like to look at 1D1166 with you.  And if

Page 15192

 1     we can have page 52 in e-court.  That should correlate to transcript page

 2     7013 of the Popovic proceedings.

 3             And if we look at the part from line 7 through 25, and there's a

 4     couple of sources identified there.  I guess I'll just read it.  It will

 5     be perhaps the quickest way.

 6             "Q.  All right.  Well I guess" --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't have the right page on the screen.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  If we can -- if we can scroll down I

 9     can see where --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it's the wrong page.  This is 11 --

11             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers]

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- 227.

13             MR. IVETIC:  That's going be to the wrong transcript.

14        Q.   Anyway, let me rephrase the questions like this, sir.  Am I

15     correct that as part of your work you also did not refer to work done on

16     the 1991 census by either the Sarajevo or the Banja Luka authorities?

17     They both did work and, I think, up to -- well, at least 2003 to try and

18     create some additional information about the census.  Was that part of

19     your review?

20        A.   We did, of course, look at the work done in the federal institute

21     in Sarajevo, and I also met with representatives of the statistical

22     office in Banja Luka.  But I did not become aware of any further work

23     that they did that would have any influence on our work on Srebrenica.

24        Q.   Thank you.  If we can now call up 1D1163 and page 45 of that

25     document.  And that should correlate to transcript page 7110.  I see

Page 15193

 1     we're on the same page.  And if we could zoom in on the bottom two lines

 2     and this will bleed on to the following page.

 3             I'd like to go through some testimony that you gave in that case

 4     in relation to --

 5        A.   Excuse me, which case was that?

 6        Q.   That was the Blagojevic case.  And then I'll have some follow-up

 7     questions for you so if could you please follow along and keep in kind

 8     whether in fact the testimony as recorded appears to comport with your

 9     recollections and knowledge.  So beginning at line 24:

10             "Q. Could you tell us:  How did you arrive at this conclusion

11     that all of the men, you know, as you indicate: 'All the [sic] men are

12     included in the estimate of missing persons, but hardly any of them --

13     any of the men were combatants.'

14             How did you arrive at that.

15             "A. Because I learned through reading, talking to people, seeing

16     videos that that was the case, that there were few combatants at the time

17     they were killed.  I know there were armed people who were taken

18     prisoners on their way when they crossed the road at Nova Kasaba, for

19     instance, and later executed.  The number of men who were actually

20     combatants, I don't know.  But hardly any, perhaps that is a bit too

21     strong.

22             "Q. Okay.  Well, I wouldn't say 'strong' I would say inaccurate.

23     Would you fight me on that one?

24             "A. I agree.  I could agree that that is inaccurate.  On the

25     other hand, a large number of men were not combatants in that group.

Page 15194

 1             "Q. You talked about the age bracket of 16 to 60 as being

 2     combatants.  Correct?

 3             "A. Yes.

 4             "Q. Okay.  And based on your figures, it would appear that the

 5     range of men that went missing are within that range, more or less?

 6             "A. Yes."

 7             And I'd like to ask you, sir, first of all, the section that

 8     we've read, does it comport to your recollection as accurately depicting

 9     your knowledge and the way you would answer these questions today?

10        A.   Today I think I learned more.  I don't think I would say hardly

11     any.  But also in the Blagojevic trial, I said perhaps that is a bit too

12     strong and I stand by that.  It was a bit too strong or inaccurate.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   But nobody knows how many people were actually killed while

15     fighting on their way through the forest.

16        Q.   My question for you in relation to this selection that we've read

17     is that, first of all, you talk about videos that you looked at, and I

18     want to know what was the purpose in relation to your demographic review

19     of viewing these videos that you have made reference to.

20        A.   It was to gain general background knowledge about the situation

21     in Srebrenica on the 11 July 1995 and later.  Since, at that time, I had

22     never been there, I didn't know the -- what the scenery was like, was it

23     very steep or hilly or -- it was useful to get an impression of what was

24     going on.

25        Q.   Were these videos items which the Office of the Prosecutor

Page 15195

 1     selected for you to review?

 2        A.   No.  I -- the one I saw, perhaps the only one, was the

 3     BBC Panorama and I learned about this -- these videos in various contexts

 4     and asked -- and knew the OTP had copies, and I asked if I could see

 5     them.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now I want to talk about another source of information

 7     which you identify in your reports as having reviewed.  The Bosnian

 8     Commission for Missing Persons.  First of all, am I correct that we are

 9     talking about the organisation which was headed by a Mr. Amor Macovic?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And in relation to this secondary source of information, how did

12     you rate the confidence level of the information that you received from

13     them?

14        A.   As I said yesterday, we don't have information on the precise

15     confidence level in a statistical sense, so I cannot -- I could not rate

16     that.

17             But the kind -- I don't remember what kind of information we

18     received from Mr. Macovic, if we received any at all.  I don't think

19     there was any information that we used directly in creating the OTP list

20     of missing.

21        Q.   Did you perhaps use his information or verify or double-check

22     information that was already existing on your OTP list of missing?

23        A.   Sorry, I don't recall because -- and if he had received any, we

24     would have, of course, double-checked.  But I'm not sure we received any

25     data on individuals I mean, and now I recall meeting Mr. Macovic and

Page 15196

 1     asking for data on individuals on the deaths but I am -- I don't recall

 2     receiving any.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough then.  Then I'd like to move to another item.

 4     Back when we were looking at your CV yesterday, there was a reference in

 5     there to your having chaired a review committee for some work done by a

 6     Patrick Ball, and there's a reference in some of your reports to relying

 7     on a method employed by Ball and others.  Are we talking about the same

 8     Patrick Ball in both instances?

 9        A.   I think so.

10        Q.   And is Patrick Ball someone who is likewise engaged by the Office

11     of the Prosecutor to perform demographic and statistical expertise at the

12     Tribunal?

13        A.   I don't think he has ever been employed here, but he has

14     testified on some occasions about refugee flows out of Kosovo.

15        Q.   And if we could take a look specifically at 65 ter number 5308,

16     this would, I believe, be your 2003 addendum report, and if we can have

17     page 5 in both versions up on the screen.  And I'd like to go through

18     with you on -- there is the reference in number 3 that reads as follows:

19             "Fully 5.712, or 76 per cent, of the missing persons were found

20     on both lists of missing persons, i.e., the ICRC and PHR lists.  This

21     information can be used to estimate the likely total number of people who

22     went missing, whether reported or not, using a method called the

23     capture-tag-recapture technique or multiple systems estimation (Sekar and

24     Deming 1949; Marks Seltzer and Krotki 1974; Bishop Fienberg and Holland

25     1975).  This method has been used widely in population statistics but it

Page 15197

 1     has also been used to make estimates for other species such as fish."

 2             And now the footnote here in number 3 for this method being used

 3     widely in population statistics refers to a recent example which we can

 4     see at the on the bottom -- yes, it's visible on the bottom of the

 5     screen.  A recent example included Ball et al 2002 which was presented as

 6     evidence in the trial against Slobodan Milosevic.

 7             Sir, is this a reference to the work that we were just discussing

 8     of Mr. Patrick Ball in relation to the Kosovo case?

 9        A.   I believe so.  But since I don't have that report with me I

10     cannot be absolutely certain.

11        Q.   Now, has Mr. Ball's work been widely accepted in the demographic

12     and statistics communities as being an appropriate application of the

13     multiple systems estimation or capture-tag-recapture technique as it

14     relates to population statistics?

15        A.   Yes, Mr. Ball is a extant statistician.  He has worked on

16     humanitarian analysis work both in Latin America and on Kosovo and his

17     work is highly regarded [realtime transcript read in error "recorded"].

18        Q.   And, sir, how significant is Mr. Ball's work to the overall

19     findings of your report or at least this addendum in particular that

20     cites to it?

21        A.   We did -- he did not work on the same -- on Bosnia.  So I would

22     say the findings are -- his findings do not relate to my work on Bosnia.

23     But if you refer to the methodology which he made me aware of but which

24     was, when known -- had been used many times in many countries, what I

25     found -- found using this capture recapture method, I did only marginal

Page 15198

 1     -- marginally.  It did not contribute very much to the total number and

 2     we never used the new estimate for anything.  I think one of the reasons

 3     why it was only a marginal improvement or an adding up of numbers was

 4     that the two samples were not independent of the two populations.  The

 5     PHR list and ICRC lists were not created independently which is a basic

 6     assumption in this literature.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at page 15, line 24, I think

 8     I heard the witness say that the work of Ball he referred to is highly

 9     "regarded" --

10             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- rather than "recorded."

12             MR. IVETIC:  I -- I tend to agree.  I think that was what was

13     said.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And the witness does not contradict it.

15             Let's proceed.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

17        Q.   Now, sir, I'd like to just briefly review with you two findings

18     of the Milutinovic Trial Chamber as to Mr. Ball and his work from the

19     Trial Judgement in that case to get your comment on that.  If we can have

20     1D1172 in e-court and I'm told page 14 in both versions.  Both languages.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, the witness has told us that he hasn't

22     used the technique or the system by Mr. Ball.  So, therefore, I wonder

23     what the relevance is of going through perhaps comments or even not

24     accepting that work which was not used by this witness.

25             MR. IVETIC:  You may be right.  Let me rephrase the question that

Page 15199

 1     I was going to ask.

 2        Q.   And just ask you, sir, you say that he is highly -- that Mr. Ball

 3     is highly regarded in the community.  Are you aware that he was

 4     disregarded and explicitly the Chamber found not to rely upon him in the

 5     Milutinovic case?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That -- again, the same problem is that if this

 7     witness did not rely on any of his work, then who criticised him, whether

 8     it was the Trial Chamber or whomever seems to lose most if not all of its

 9     relevance.

10             MR. IVETIC:  I accept that, Your Honour, and I'll move on.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

12             MR. IVETIC:

13        Q.   I would like to ask you about the group entitled MAG, or Muslims

14     Against Genocide, which I think you also cite in your subsequent -- your

15     later reports, I should say, as a source that was looked at.

16             First of all, sir, do you have knowledge of the methodology used

17     by this group in gathering information for the Bosnian book of the dead?

18        A.   Yes, sir, I do.  I visited them in Sarajevo at least once and saw

19     how they worked and how they collected information.

20        Q.   Now, can you tell us, then, in terms of how they collected

21     information, would they have collected information from similar sources,

22     i.e., from relatives, that the PHR and the ICRC lists also did, according

23     to their methodology?

24        A.   I think they also used -- they used all kinds of public

25     information.  They didn't have access to any non-public information as

Page 15200

 1     far as I know.  But in addition to, that they used all kinds of newspaper

 2     reports, interviews from families, neighbours, and others, so they used

 3     everything they came across and probably of varying quality.  And I think

 4     they had problems comparing the information from various sources about

 5     the same person.  And they didn't -- not have a systematic way of doing

 6     that.  I -- as far as I recall, they kept only the -- the most reliable

 7     piece of information but the source of the information for each person

 8     was unclear, if they had several sources.

 9        Q.   Do you know if the work of that group took any efforts to

10     differentiate between missing combatants and missing civilians?

11        A.   I do not recall, sir.

12        Q.   If we can look just briefly at one of your reports, number 5309,

13     in e-court.  And page 3 in both languages.  And if we could focus on the

14     middle of the page, the matching rate for MAG and it's recorded here if

15     I'm reading this correctly, and that's what I want to ask you is, am I

16     reading this correctly to say that 76 per cent of the records from the

17     Muslims Against Genocide database could be matched to the 1991 census?

18        A.   That's what this says in the report, so ...

19        Q.   Okay.  So that is the correct reading of that?

20        A.   I think so, yes.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, stepping back from these other organisations that you

22     either got information from or tried to get information from, I want to

23     talk now a little bit about your work.  And is it correct that you

24     developed 71 rules or criteria keys to try to link missing persons with

25     the census?

Page 15201

 1        A.   Yes, and perhaps more.  And a list of these criteria is given

 2     in -- in the 2009 report.  I think it may be useful to look at that, if I

 3     can find it in -- yes, on page 81 in the English version of the 2009

 4     report.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And you say it's perhaps more.  Okay, I understood now.

 6             Would you agree that each of these keys, whether 71 or more,

 7     represents a relaxing of what would be called the unique key; that is,

 8     the combination of the following information: Name, last name, father's

 9     name, date of birth, and place of birth?

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Excuse me, would it be possible to have that on

11     the board so we can relate to what the factors are as addressed by the

12     witness.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Have what on the board?  My question?

14             MR. McCLOSKEY:  The -- just the list --

15             MR. IVETIC:  Oh.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  -- on page 88 of the factors.

17             THE WITNESS:  Page 81 .

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Page 81.

19             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.  If we can have the --

20             THE WITNESS:  The English version.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.  I'm looking to find the number of the 2009

22     report.  I believe that's ... is that the integrated report?  There were

23     several 2009 reports.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  11270.  Sorry, I think it's 11 --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I find it's --

Page 15202

 1             MR. IVETIC:  269 is what I've got.

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  -- 269.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  269 is the right number.  Integrated report,

 4     65 ter 11269.  In the English version, the 71 items can be found on pages

 5     81 and 82.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   And, now, sir, I'll -- I'll -- to be fair I will repeat the

 8     question for you.  Would you agree that each of these 71 criteria or keys

 9     represents a relaxing of the so-called unique key which would be a

10     combination of the following information: Name, last name, father's name,

11     date of birth, and place of birth?

12        A.   I don't think I would use that terminology that, but it's okay.

13     But if you look at the screen, you will see that when we do use the --

14     the following criteria: First name, father's name, last name, date of

15     birth, place of death, then we get the -- we got 3.325 matches, which is

16     almost half of the -- on the total list.  But then since there's so many

17     misprints and missing data in all the lists we looked at, we, as you

18     said, relaxed information.  We used only in the initial of the first name

19     and otherwise similar to the first matching criterion and we got 257.

20     And that it could be that the name that was recorded in one of the lists,

21     say, ICRC list, the first name, sort of a nickname was used or that there

22     was a misprint in the nickname.  So that's how it did not -- that match

23     did not come up in the first round.

24             However, we did not accept these matches without consulting and

25     comparing other pieces of information like place of birth -- and date of

Page 15203

 1     birth was there, of course, but place of birth and other available

 2     information to see if he -- if it was likely that these 255 matches

 3     concerned the same persons.  And so we did that, trying -- trying to be

 4     imaginative and tried different criteria.  This is a methodology called

 5     fuzzy matching.  If you don't have exact data, we need to do fuzzy

 6     matching and try out different things.

 7             In some countries, like my own in Norway, we only use one

 8     criteria for matching data from various sources and that is the personal

 9     identification number.  But that number in the former Yugoslavia was not

10     used by everybody and there was -- there were many errors in the lists

11     that we had available where that number was, so we had to use other -- we

12     had to use name and other kinds of information.

13             In modern matching techniques there are now, I've learned,

14     methods that apply probabilities to matches.  We don't -- when I started

15     doing this work I wasn't aware of this methodology and also in -- in

16     legal cases you cannot really rely on probabilities because you need to

17     be absolutely certain.  I don't think the Court would have been satisfied

18     with -- say with there's an 80 per cent probability that this person is

19     the same in the ICRC lists and in the census, for example.  So that's why

20     we used all this different criteria, I see criterion 22 resulted in 2.078

21     matches, whereas the two previous criterias did not result in any, and

22     the last criterion number, 71, resulted in one person, as far as I

23     remember.

24             So this is a perfectly valid methodology, but as I -- let me

25     repeat that we always compared and checked whether the matches that came

Page 15204

 1     up in less than ideal -- with less than ideal criteria were highly

 2     likely.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Brunborg, please check on the transcript

 4     before you.  Line 17 of the current page.  I'm not sure if the number and

 5     the other terms are correct.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I -- yeah.  I didn't say "Krajina" at all.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you please repeat what you said.

 8             THE WITNESS:  "That's why we used all ..."

 9             MR. IVETIC:  "Criteria," maybe.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] item 22 --

11             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, it was I think criterion.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- could you -- oh, sorry.

13             THE WITNESS:  It was criterion number 22 resulted in 2.078

14     matches.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Sir.  Is it correct that whereas you use these 71 rules for the

19     census, in the case of the voters list if there was incomplete data, the

20     possibility of a match was restricted by imposing an additional condition

21     such as a matching location, et cetera?

22        A.   Excuse me, could you repeat?  As a matching location or --

23        Q.   Yeah.

24        A.   Location of what?

25        Q.   Of -- of -- matching location of either death or disappearance.

Page 15205

 1        A.   There's no -- in the voters list?

 2        Q.   I apologise.  Location of the residents or birth?

 3        A.   Yes, I believe so.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And ...

 5        A.   While you are thinking, sir --

 6        Q.   Yes.

 7        A.   -- let me add that there was much less information in the voters

 8     list than in the census, so we did not have so much information at our

 9     disposal.

10        Q.   Would you agree that the process of using these 71 rules, in

11     essence, or using this method has no significant limitations that is to

12     say it is possible that anyone, however poor the information on their

13     identity may be, can be found in the census by basically just using this

14     type of fuzzy searching until you reach a positive result for --

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  That -- there's no foundation in that

16     statement given that he's already talked about 13 per cent of people that

17     were not matched in this census, so it makes no sense.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the witness would be perfectly able to

19     answer the question.  If you want to re-read it, you find it on your

20     screen at this moment.

21             The question is --

22             THE WITNESS:  Well --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- whether this system does not allow to always find

24     a match.  That's, in short, Mr. Ivetic, I think, what you are telling us.

25             THE WITNESS:  You mean, Mr. Ivetic, to always finding a true

Page 15206

 1     match or are you indicating that this method could also result in false

 2     matches?

 3             MR. IVETIC:

 4        Q.   The latter.

 5        A.   There's always a probability that the match is false but we

 6     develop methods to avoid false matches.  And as was indicated by the

 7     President and by Mr. McCloskey, then the -- we did find 87 per cent

 8     match -- matches in the census.  The 13 remaining matches -- 13 per cent,

 9     that we did not match, could be due to faulty data and lack of data.  If

10     we had been less conservative, we could have probably increased that 87

11     per cent to a higher number, but to be on the safe and cautious side we

12     did not proceed any further.  So we would have to do more sort of manual

13     work, visual work, very extremely time-consuming, to receive a higher

14     matching per cent.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could I seek clarification of your

16     question.

17             Are you suggesting in the question that using these 71 criteria

18     becoming vague here and there, that finally you could match Mr. Brunborg

19     to be the same as Mr. McCloskey.  Is that more or less, of course, with

20     some exaggeration, what you are suggesting?

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             MR. IVETIC:  I would say with some exaggeration, yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But two totally different persons.  Not a name

25     spelt slightly differently but just different names, different dates of

Page 15207

 1     birth, et cetera, but if you choose the right criterion that you would

 2     find most likely a match anyhow how different the available information

 3     would be.

 4             That is --

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  -- what I -- could you please comment on my layman's

 7     understanding of the question, which was confirmed by Mr. Ivetic as --

 8     with some exaggeration to be what he asked you.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I think, sir, that your understanding is very good.

10     If there were completely different names with all the names - surname,

11     first name, father's name - beginning with different letters, for

12     example, we would never have a match between a person on the missing list

13     and the census list.  There has to be some similarity.  And, in addition,

14     some background information on, say, place of birth.  If we didn't have

15     that, if the place of birth was widely different, then an association or

16     possible match was dropped.  We did find many possible matches but they

17     were dropped after closer inspection.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you mean to say that even if you find

19     similarities but at the same time you find contradicting information on

20     the two persons, that you would drop them and not even further consider

21     them to match?

22             THE WITNESS:  Exactly, sir.  If I may mention one interesting

23     example is the example of twins, which are born on the same date, same

24     place, same father's name, same family name, often similar first names,

25     and so if you had one person in the missing list looking almost the same

Page 15208

 1     as a pair of twins, we would not -- we could not conclude which of the

 2     twins that person -- that matched the missing person, so it was dropped.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   Thank you, sir.  You've answered all the questions that I had for

 6     you today.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think at the same time that it's time for a break.

 9             Mr. Brunborg, we'd like to see you back after 20 minutes.

10             Mr. McCloskey.

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I do not have any re-direct, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I will ask my colleagues whether they have any

13     further questions.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Since --

16                           Questioned by the Court:

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Only one follow-up to a discussion we had

18     yesterday.

19             The voters list after the war, you told us that you'd checked

20     that list as well and that some people on the missing list were on the

21     voters list.  Do you know anything about participation of people on the

22     voters list who, in effect, did take part in the -- in the voting, in the

23     elections?

24        A.   No.  Let me see ... I -- I learned that there was a big

25     difference in the -- amongst the ethnic groups.  I think we looked at it

Page 15209

 1     and found that the Muslims had much higher voting percentage than the

 2     Serbs and the Croats.

 3             Does that partly answer your --

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No.  I --

 5        A.   -- question?

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No.  I was --

 7        A.   Yeah.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- aiming at a different thing.

 9        A.   Yeah.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You -- you had your list of missing persons.

11        A.   Yeah.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And if I understood you correctly --

13        A.   Yeah.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- you looked into the list of voters at the

15     first elections after the war.  Did you -- and --

16        A.   I understand, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- you couldn't exclude that those were in fact

18     missing persons?

19        A.   Yeah.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Have you checked if they took part -- if any of

21     them --

22        A.   Yeah.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- if any of them took part in the election?

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.  Now I understand your question.

25     Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Page 15210

 1             We did not have information on the actual voting.  We only had

 2     information on those who registered to vote, and of those nine people who

 3     registered to vote and at the same time as being on the missing list, the

 4     cause of that, we don't know.  It could be cheating, it could be faulty

 5     registration, some errors.  We later learned that two of those nine were

 6     actually found to be dead.  So for those two there was obviously a

 7     mistake, intentional or not, in the registration of voting.  It would

 8     have been very interesting to know who actually voted as you asked about,

 9     but unfortunately we did not have that information.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, before we conclude your examination,

12     Mr. Brunborg, you offered to give us further information about the

13     inaccuracies, I think, you had established in the data of the BiH army, I

14     think it was.  People who have -- were reported to have died well before

15     July 1995.

16             Now, if it would take you a few minutes, then we'd just take the

17     break and take your time.  If you say, I have it almost immediately

18     available, then we would consider not to take the break and then conclude

19     for the day.

20             THE WITNESS:  Let's try to do it right away.

21             On the page 97 on our 2009 report, which is -- I learned is

22     11269, there's a list -- the beginning of the list of the 220 cases --

23     perhaps we could have it up on the screen.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's Table 6.4(1).

25             THE WITNESS:  6.4(2).

Page 15211

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Page 97 in the English version.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, yes.  Page numbering in -- yes.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it should not be broadcast.  Or is it a

 5     public document.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Perhaps it could be broadcast to me.  Yeah.  Thank

 7     you.

 8             The name that was mentioned by Defence counsel was Mr. Bajic who

 9     was believed to be dead, reported by the army to die on the 10th of

10     January, 1994.  On page 97, I don't see any Bajic.  So it could be that

11     that name -- it's probably occurring further down.  Since most of the 127

12     of those 120 cases, at least 127 were then confirmed to have the wrong

13     date of death, it is quite likely that the same would be the case for

14     Mr. Bajic.  But I cannot tell for sure.

15             We'll see that there are -- I can see that there are some other

16     people who reported to have died on the 10th of January, 1994, say,

17     Omerovic at the -- close to the bottom -- and --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm sorry to interrupt.  If we are -- could you in

21     one way or another refer to the persons without giving their names

22     because that's the reason.

23             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Sorry.  So the three names at the bottom of

24     the page are -- have always -- all been reported as dying on the 10th of

25     January, 1994.  And several other names.

Page 15212

 1             So that was -- whether it was a big battle on that day or whether

 2     the army chose to use that date for some reason, I don't know.  We would

 3     need to check with their response from the army.  But as I said, many

 4     were changed, and there were 127 corrections.  But of -- significantly,

 5     of the 220 names, 140 were found in Srebrenica-related grave-sites by

 6     ICMP.  So I think that concludes that we are not quite certain but every

 7     indication is that many of these dates were wrong.  From the army.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless these persons, having died years before, were

 9     transported to the graves and then put there, which, I do understand is

10     part of the Defence case.

11             THE WITNESS:  That's possible.  I -- to me, as a layman in this,

12     I would say that sounds unlikely but not impossible.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We hear you as an expert so ...

14             Mr. Ivetic.

15             MR. IVETIC:  One follow-up question on this document --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, we are going beyond the one hour,

17     but we have -- I would say a realistic expectation to conclude in five

18     minutes and --

19             MR. IVETIC:  Absolutely.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And looking at Mr. Mladic, whether he wants to take

21     the break or to continue for that five minutes.

22             You can consult.  Meanwhile.  We'll stop immediately.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah, if he so chooses.

24        Q.   Dr. Brunborg, if you can look with me at -- and I'm going to go

25     by the ICMP protocol number, it's the column that's the second from the

Page 15213

 1     right, and just past the half -- mid-point of the screen, we have the

 2     number 3238-03.  It's a body that was recovered in Cerska and under

 3     clarification requests that it says, "Yes, but there is no corrected date

 4     of death and the date of death remains 10/01/1994."  Would that indicate

 5     that the further inquiry from the armija BiH confirmed that the

 6     originally reported date of 10/01/1994 is still the date that they

 7     confirmed for this particular individual?

 8        A.   Yes.  But we need to consult their response to the OTP from the

 9     request.  But I'm glad that you now made me aware of the changes which

10     were, say, at the bottom, the two -- the three, 10th of January, 1994,

11     deaths have been changed to 12th of July, which I -- I oversaw that.  And

12     that is the case for many of the others.  So the information is lacking

13     here.

14        Q.   Agreed.  And if we look at the four on the bottom for whom the

15     dates have been changed, I can -- this is in B/C/S but it says next to at

16     least three of them "Put Srebrenica-Tuzla," which would mean, of course,

17     the road from Srebrenica to Tuzla.  Looking at this information we

18     cannot, therefore, exclude that these persons would have died in combat

19     on the road from Srebrenica to Tuzla; is that accurate?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness has always said that he doesn't know who

21     died in combat or not.

22             MR. IVETIC:  I know.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  He only commented on a wrong date.  Therefore, that

24     has been clarified.

25             Now, if you think you can answer that question where you said

Page 15214

 1     many times before that you couldn't, please tell us why you can and then

 2     give the answer.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  I have no further comments on that.

 4     I -- agree with you.  I don't have any information on combat deaths.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I'm done.  Thank you again, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Thank you again, Mr. Brunborg.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you again, Your Honour, for your indulgence.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then these questions by the Defence have

 9     triggered no -- and by the Bench have trigger no need for further

10     questions.

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  No, I just have the -- the report and the missing

12     list that's offered into evidence now.  The report was 11269 and the list

13     was 11270.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

15             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.  I thought there was one more document

16     you used though.  Let me just double-check, if I can.  While I'm on my

17     feet.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  While you're checking, I'll ask Madam Registrar to

19     assign the numbers.

20             11269, Madam Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives number P1900, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  P1900 is admitted into evidence.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  And 11270 --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  -- receives P1901, Your Honours.

Page 15215

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence under that number, but

 2     I take it under seal.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I believe so.

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Under seal, therefore.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  And I have one more document that I had marked that

 7     you had used which was 65 ter 25879.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And -- yes, that is included -- that -- I just

 9     pulled that from the report and just --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It combines, as a matter of fact, two

11     diagrams, I think, and then in the third the same information is combined

12     but the two diagrams -- at the same time, Mr. McCloskey, I think the

13     third version is added.  The third.

14             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Correct.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And since questions have been asked about that

16     third - how do you call that?

17             MR. IVETIC:  Tables chart.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Table chart.  Then perhaps it would be better for a

19     better understanding by those following up, if there are any, to have

20     that in evidence as well.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I think so.  That should be 25879 and the other

22     tame is 25878, both in the report but as you say referred to this way.

23     So, yes, it's best to have it in.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  It keeps on saying 25789 instead of 25879.

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 15216

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, 25879.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives number P1902, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 4             And the other one was 25878.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives number P1903, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  P1903 is admitted into evidence.

 7             Any other matters?

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If you'd bear one minute with me.

10             The Chamber, Mr. McCloskey, received today a filing under the

11     name "Defence Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Prosecution Motion to

12     Admit Evidence from the Bar Table, Excerpts from Mladic Audiotapes," and

13     the Defence respectfully requests that the Trial Chamber grant an

14     enlargement of an additional 14 days for the Defence to respond to the

15     Prosecution's motion.  And I think the response was due ...

16             MR. IVETIC:  Yesterday, I believe, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yesterday.

18             So two questions:  First, do you have any problems that the

19     request was -- no, it was filed -- yes, today.  It's -- the date filed

20     says 25th.  Was it filed on the 25th?  It was filed on the 25th.  So

21     within the time-limits.  Any problem in giving the Defence 14 more days

22     to respond to your motion?

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I was informed about this.  No objection.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then in the absence of any objections, the Chamber

25     grants the motion, the title of which I read out a minute ago, an

Page 15217

 1     enlargement of time of an additional 14 days for the Defence to respond

 2     to that motion.  Hereby granted orally.

 3             Any other matter?

 4             Then, Mr. Brunborg, I would like to thank you very much for

 5     coming to The Hague and for answering all the questions.  You are

 6     excused, and I wish you a safe return home again.

 7                           [The witness withdrew]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  There are no other matters to be raised, which means

 9     that we'll adjourn until Monday, the 19th of August, 2013, in this same

10     courtroom, III, at 9.30 in the morning.  And I wish everyone, although

11     under different circumstances, a good rest to the extent we are able to

12     rest during the three weeks to come, and hope to see you back in good

13     health on the 19th of August.

14             We stand adjourned.

15                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.51 a.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of August,

17                           2013, at 9.30 a.m.