1 Tuesday, 7 July 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
10 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted to raise a
13 preliminary matter.
14 Ms. D'Ascoli.
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours, that's correct. Thank you.
16 And good morning, Your Honours.
17 Your Honours, on Thursday, the 2nd of July, 2015, the
18 Trial Chamber asked us to identify any evidence that the Prosecution
19 intends to lead which might be outside of the scope of the decision on
20 the motion to reopen. I'm about to do so; that is, to identify some
21 Jakarina Kosa-related evidence which was not initially encompassed by
22 Dr. Tabeau's expert report and annexes. These documents that I will be
23 introducing set out Dr. Tabeau's analysis of ICMP DNA identification
24 material regarding the individuals -- the identified individuals exhumed
25 from the Jakarina Kosa mass grave who are not reassociated to the
1 Tomasica mass grave.
2 Now, I've spoken to Mr. Ivetic this morning and agreed that
3 because of the nature of these issues this would be best addressed as a
4 preliminary matter. This document also reflects information related to
5 place and date of disappearances and are marked with 65 ter 32714, 32738,
6 and 32739, which I will be introducing with the witness.
7 The Prosecution provided these data to the Defence as soon as it
8 was received in advance of the testimonies of Dr. Parsons and Dr. Clark,
9 both of whom were also cross-examined about Jakarina Kosa. And while --
10 the Prosecution submits that these documents are relevant, probative, and
11 reliable, and consequently appropriate for admission into evidence.
12 Also in light of the direct link between Tomasica and
13 Jakarina Kosa, you know, the relevance of this document is -- is clear,
14 and we submit that for these reasons this document should be admitted
15 into evidence.
16 Now, Your Honours, also with regard to the objections and rulings
17 of last Thursday with regard to the evidence that the Prosecution was
18 allowed to lead, we also understand that these documents, these new
19 documents on Jakarina Kosa, are the only instance in which the
20 Prosecution might lead evidence -- is leading evidence which may be
21 outside the scope of the decision on the motion to reopen as we
22 understood your previous ruling related to the evidence presented so far
23 with Dr. Tabeau concerning -- well, we understand your previous ruling
24 reflecting the fact that the evidence was permissible in light of the
25 relief requested by the Prosecutor, and we understand the -- we
1 understood the limitation being referred to only one of the conclusions
2 that the witness made at I believe it's page 45 her report where she --
3 you know, her conclusions about the fate of the Tomasica-related
4 identified missing -- missing persons was, of course, was her opinion,
5 she was expressing a probability, and the Chamber reassured that this
6 would be not be considered as an established fact.
7 And so I also wanted to place -- also I wanted to place, you
8 know, the discussion of these three additional documents within the
9 context of also the objections and the rulings of last week, and I
10 understand from that Mr. Ivetic that with regard to these three
11 documents, the Defence wouldn't have specific objections about.
12 I see --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. That's for three documents. I'm a
15 little confused by what we've just heard now, that the conclusions at
16 page 45 of the report are the witness's opinion and that the Chamber
17 would not consider it as an established fact.
18 I believe Your Honours' ruling was that you would not consider it
19 at all because, of course, as an expert witness an opinion is -- calling
20 something an opinion is dangerous for an expert witness. I think we
21 established that she could not support that opinion as being established
22 and that we were not going to consider that part of her testimony at all,
23 so I'm a little confused now by someone saying it's an opinion. I never
24 once thought it wasn't an opinion. The expert report is presented as an
25 expert opinion and we objected to that part and we received the ruling of
1 the Chamber on that part.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour. Our understanding was that the
3 ruling was related to the way the Chamber will consider this conclusion,
4 and the Chamber reassured that this was not going to be considered an as
5 established fact but our understanding was that -- wasn't that this --
6 this portion would be stricken from the -- from the record. From the
7 evidence that Dr. Tabeau presented so far.
8 MR. IVETIC: I can say on the Defence we had the opposite view,
9 that we thought that Your Honours had excluded that portion of her report
10 from consideration.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: I believe, Your Honours, like -- you stated this
12 point at least in two or three occasions, meaning that these -- that that
13 part will not be considered an established fact, but that was the extent
14 of the ruling that we understood, and it was repeated at least three
15 times on the record.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers the matter to be mainly
18 semantics. We said a probability is not an established fact. As short
19 as that. And that still is the position of the Chamber. Now, there's no
20 reason to strike anything from the record. We just explained how the
21 Chamber understood what a probability is, which is not something that has
22 been established as a fact.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: That apparently is the matter that kept the parties
25 apart. I don't think that the Chamber needs to give any further ruling
1 on the matter as matters stand now.
2 I thank the parts for their submissions.
3 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, then, is that -- is that
4 conclusion by Madam Tabeau in her report an expert opinion that I now
5 need to rebut in my Defence case that goes beyond Tomasica? That's, I
6 think, the crux of the question. So I think Your Honours do need to
7 clarify your ruling. I would ask that you do.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you mean to say that you have to establish that
9 it's not a probability?
10 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours. If Your Honours rule that
11 something is an opinion of an expert witness, then that is something the
12 Defence has to rebut. Since Dr. Tabeau is not here as a fact witness, if
13 she has a conclusion that is her opinion, I need to know whether this
14 Chamber considers it an expert opinion I need to rebut or whether it's
15 something I don't need to address in my cross. Given that when I
16 objected to it three times, you left me with the impression that we were
17 not going to consider it, and now I don't know whether you're going
18 consider it or not.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. I remember Mr. Ivetic's
20 objections as being related to the fact he was concerned that that
21 portion would be considered an established fact. So that was the extent
22 of his objection. And Your Honours gave -- Your Honours, the ruling on
23 all this would be considered, that is, not as an established fact. But
24 that was the extent of his objection, as I see it on the record.
25 MR. IVETIC: That's now how I remember my own objection, but I
1 stand by what's in the transcript and the fact that I would not have
2 needed to have object if it was just a matter of what we quantify that --
3 [Overlapping speakers] ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... could I read to you what
5 you said, Mr. Ivetic.
6 You refer to her words, and those were:
7 "'... thus, these persons likely died in the same events.'"
8 I then said:
9 "Likely died. That's not a fact."
10 You then said:
11 "Well, as -- my goal is make sure that no one can misread it as a
12 fact and conclude otherwise."
13 This observation, this expression of likelihood, which I think is
14 also not directly based on -- I think any factual basis for any opinion
15 that would go further is missing. I think that's what Ms. Tabeau
16 explained to us. And your goal, Mr. Ivetic, to make sure that no one can
17 misread it as a fact, I think that goal is achieved, and that's what you
18 said. And you said that:
19 "... we cannot rely upon her report, that might resolve the
20 issue. But we need to make sure that a majority of Judges agree."
21 And I think on what you were seeking that it was not a fact, even
22 Judge Moloto confirmed that, you would have heard him, and this Chamber
23 considers an expression of likelihood not to be a fact of what is
24 presented as likely.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I add one sentence. The word "opinion" was
1 not used at all during that discussion. In the entire transcript of that
2 day, the word "opinion" was not used.
3 MR. IVETIC: That is correct. The Prosecution used the word
4 "opinion" today, which is why I rose because it's the first time we're
5 introducing the word opinion, that someone is quantifying that as an
6 opinion which is what raises my concern because now all of a sudden it's
7 being presented as an expert opinion, whereas yesterday we're talking
8 about whether it was an established fact or not.
9 So I think we're -- the Prosecution is trying to broaden what we
10 discussed yesterday -- what we discussed on Thursday, which was the
11 established fact, and now it's being presented as opinion which creates
12 add knew dilemma because an expert presenting an opinion is something
13 that the Defence needs to rebut because that's something that the Chamber
14 can rely upon. So now I think we need a new ruling based upon now this
15 re-quantification by the Prosecution of as it opinion.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep matters clear. We should clearly
17 distinguish between likelihood and between a fact. The Chamber has
18 clearly expressed that it doesn't take what was written in the report for
19 a fact.
20 Now, if you want to start a battle with Ms. D'Ascoli on how
21 likely or not likely it is, I think for that likelihood there is not much
22 factual basis, and it's not presented as a likelihood established by the
23 expertise of Ms. Tabeau but just kind of an interpretation on a personal
24 basis. And in cross-examination, of course, you could further explore
1 Mr. Ivetic, you were seeking the opinion of the three Judges, and
2 you got it. Therefore, at this moment there's no further need for a
3 ruling, and you may further explore the basis for what Ms. Tabeau said
4 was likely in cross-examination.
5 And the Chamber again stresses that what is considered to be
6 likely in this respect is not considered as a fact and the likelihood is
7 not supported by a -- by anything more than what Ms. Tabeau told us.
8 That is, I think -- but I leave it to that.
9 Having dealt with this, any further matter, Ms. D'Ascoli.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, Your Honours. We're ready to continue.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
12 But meanwhile, I'll also read a very short decision.
13 On the 30th of June of this year, the Defence has filed two
14 urgent motions seeking the addition of documents to its Rule 65 ter
15 exhibit list. One seeking the addition of 12 documents for use with
16 witness with Simo Tusevljak and another seeking the addition of 21
17 documents for use with Witness Milutin Misic.
18 On 1st and the 2nd of July, respectively, the Prosecution stated
19 that it did not object to the motions, and this can be found at
20 transcript pages 36574 and 36694. The Chamber finds that the documents
21 at issue are prima facie relevant and probative and that it's in the
22 interest of justice for these documents to be added to the Defence's
23 exhibit lists, and for these reasons the Chamber grants both motions.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
1 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, may I remind you that you're still bound
3 by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli will now continue her
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
11 Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli: [Continued]
12 Q. And good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. Could I please have P7453, marked for identification, on the
15 screens please.
16 Dr. Tabeau, while this is coming up, we concluded last week with
17 slide 16 of your presentation summarising some of your findings. I will
18 now continue with the discussion of your evidence through the same
20 And if we can please have page 17 -- sorry, page 18, which is
21 slide 17 on the screen.
22 A. Excuse me, I have no transcript on the screen. If perhaps ...
23 the usher can assist me with that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you'd like that have it.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think I will. I have it now. Thank you
1 very much.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I think there's no problem in having the
3 witness have the transcript before her.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI:
6 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we see table 22 which is at page 29 of your report,
7 and this table illustrates the integrated causes of death for each
8 individual case. Now, can you first explain what "integrated" mean in
9 this case, integrated causes of death?
10 A. I worked with several sources reporting on their causes of death
11 of the victims. The most important source were the reports produced by
12 John Clark and two other pathologists with whom he worked on the issue.
13 His reports on causes of death covered the victims that were exhumed in
14 the fall of 2013 from Tomasica mine but didn't include the victims from
15 earlier exhumations in Tomasica in 2004 and 2006. And also, his reports
16 didn't include causes of death for the Jakarina Kosa victims.
17 So in addition to Clark's reports, I also studied the documents,
18 causes of death documents for the victims of 2004 and 2006 excavations in
19 Tomasica and those from Jakarina Kosa. These were mainly autopsy reports
20 that were available as part of the documents here of the collections of
21 the Office of the Prosecutor.
22 The "integrated," in this context, means that all these sources
23 have been combined, as many documents as possible reporting on the causes
24 were included in the integration, and only for 14 cases no cause of death
25 reports were found. All other victims were covered. Yes.
1 Q. And this table presents the results of all of these sources
2 integrated; correct?
3 A. Yes, this is the result of the integration. Even though many
4 documents were available, there is a considerable number of cases - 86 -
5 for which cause of death remains unascertained or just not reported in
6 the documents. The main reason for this is the fact that a large number
7 of victims were moved from Tomasica to Jakarina Kosa and bodies were
8 extremely fragmented and mixed, so many identifications were issued based
9 on body part analysis, and in such cases cause of death could not be
10 determined. Other than that, the picture that is presented in Table 22
11 is very similar to the results that Clark produced in his report and it
12 is rightly so as the main source for the majority of cases I studied is
13 his report on post-mortem investigation.
14 Q. Dr. Tabeau, did you also consult the autopsy reports compiled by
15 the Bosnian pathologist who worked with Mr. Clark on the -- after the
16 post-mortem examinations of the human remains exhumed in Tomasica, 2013 I
18 A. Yes, I had at my disposal all of the documents, proof of death
19 documents as we called them generally, provided to the Office of the
20 Prosecutor by the State Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These
21 documents included autopsies, DNA match reports, documents determining
22 the identity of individuals, a number of investigative reports. In
23 total, there were about 600 such documents. I paralleled my analysis
24 based on Clark's data, other sources. I systematically consulted the
25 proof of death documents from the Bosnian state prosecutor's office.
1 I -- in particular, autopsies were important in the context of cause of
2 death analysis. We received, as far as I remember, about 97 autopsies
3 until the present time, which is not all but a considerable portion of
4 the autopsies, and I compared these autopsies, cross-referenced them with
5 the causes of death from my analysis and Clark's analysis. There is a
6 table in my report, I think, 21, or - sorry, I have to check this -
7 which reports on the result of this comparison --
8 Q. And Dr. Tabeau, while you're double-checking the correct
9 reference, I understand that Annex 3 is the place where we would find the
10 list of all of these documents, and it's simply giving a reference -- is
11 simply presenting the reference sources for the causes of death?
12 A. Yes. In particular, the recently -- resubmitted, reorganised
13 annex 3, which lists all the documents according to alphabetical list of
14 victims' names, so it is easy searchable and all the documents available
15 are listed next to each other.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, for the record Dr. Tabeau is
17 referring to reorganised version of Annex 3 that we have that she has
18 produced according to an alphabetical record and that we have disclosed
19 to the Defence, but that will not be part of her annexes.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau --
21 A. Sorry, I have now the reference, if I may.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. It is table 20, page 28 of the English version of the report,
24 which is the comparison of causes of death as Clark reported them and
25 other sources I used versus the causes of death from the autopsies
1 provided by the BH prosecutor office.
2 Q. And, Dr. Tabeau, with regard to your annexes, I understand that
3 part B of Annex 1 to your report is the place where you present the
4 information on causes of death linked to each of the identified
5 individuals; correct?
6 A. Yes, it is correct. Annex 1 is the major annex. It has two
7 parts. Part 1 is disappearance and identification information. And the
8 second part, you called it Part B, gives cause of death, the integrated
9 causes of death from my analysis.
10 Q. Yes. And I'm summarising the content of that part of the annex
11 for the Chamber and for the record, because we won't have time to go into
12 all of the annexes, and therefore I just wanted to say that that part
13 lists alphabetically the names of each of the identified individual and
14 provides for each of them the information related to the integrated
15 causes of death, and you confirm that this is correct?
16 A. Yes, it is correct.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to the next slide. Slide 18.
19 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you also compared the list of identified victims from
20 Tomasica with the victim list in the Mr. Mladic indictment; correct?
21 A. Yes, it is correct.
22 Q. And your results are here presented in Table 42, which we find at
23 page 43 of your report. And this table is now on the slide. Can you
24 please briefly illustrate your results that are summarised in Table 42.
25 A. This table has a simple structure. It reports on the 123 victims
1 that were confirmed, that I was able to confirm in the so-called POD
2 annex, which is basically a list of victims from the Scheduled Incidents
3 in the fourth indictment, Mladic indictment. These victims are
4 tabulated, shown here, according to the Scheduled Incident. Much of this
5 table comes from the indictment. It is the incident, for example, A6.1,
6 then the scope of the incident, then the municipality, concrete locality
7 of the incident, date of the incidents, and in the very last column there
8 is the number 3 for the A6.1, which means that three victims from the
9 Tomasica mine were found among the victims of A6.1.
10 Q. Yes. And so we see that the two Scheduled Incidents with the
11 highest numbers --
12 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. Can we have the B/C/S zoomed in so
13 that my client can actually read it? It's a little bit tiny on the
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Kindly pause between
16 questions and answers. Thank you.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI:
18 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I was asking whether -- so we see from the table that
19 the two highest incidents -- the two incidents with the highest number of
20 Tomasica identified victims are A6.6 and B13.1; correct?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you go on, Madam D'Ascoli, Mr. Ivetic has
22 requested that the B/C/S either be zoomed in for his client to see. I
23 don't see it being zoomed in.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It was, but I'm afraid that the problem lies in the
25 layout of the B/C/S version, where a lot of room is reserved for spaces.
1 Whereas, in the English version, the columns have been narrowed according
2 with the text found in it.
3 If there are any specific portions, Mr. Ivetic, you or Mr. Mladic
4 would like to have a closer look at, don't hesitate to ask it to be
5 zoomed in.
6 Meanwhile, you may proceed.
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, maybe if now after having zoomed on the
8 left-hand side of the table we can do the same with the right-hand side
9 so that both sides of the table in B/C/S can be better visible. That
10 would probably solve the problem.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, can you see it but you can't relate it any
12 further. That, of course, is the problem. But if there would be a major
13 problem, and we'll find out from Mr. Ivetic, then even a print-out could
14 be made for those purposes.
15 Meanwhile, please proceed.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which columns are necessary at the moment?
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: I was basically commenting on the number of
18 victims, which is the last column on the right-hand side of the table.
19 But this should be read in conjunction with the very first one which
20 indicates the incident for which we see the highest number of people. So
21 unfortunately we will have to move from left to right and zoom in in the
23 Q. Maybe, Dr. Tabeau, you can tell us what -- about the two
24 incidents with the highest number of victims, Tomasica-identified
25 victims, so that Mr. Mladic will hear your words and your explanation
1 rather than having to look at the table. Thank you.
2 A. I want to note that this table is also available from the report,
3 B/C/S translation, it is Table 42. So if the report is available, it can
4 also be seen there.
5 The two incidents that are shown to have the highest numbers of
6 victims is A6.6. These are killings of a number of men in several
7 places, in Biscani predominantly, and in a number of hamlets; for
8 example, Hegici, Mrkalji, Ravine.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic should refrain from seeking in any way to
10 communicate with the public gallery and is advised to turn his face to --
11 to whomever. It's here where it happens, Mr. Mladic, not anywhere else.
12 So if would you turn to the Chamber, to the witness, that would be
13 appreciated, and the Chamber will not allow any communication with the
14 public gallery.
15 Please proceed.
16 THE WITNESS: The incident, A6.6, refers to killing men in
17 several places - Biscani, hamlets of Hegici, Mrkalji, Ravine, Duratovici,
18 Kalici, Lagici, and Cemernica - on or about 20th of July, 1992. There
19 were 75 victims that I was able to confirm on the list of victims from
20 this particular incident.
21 The incident B13.1 relates to killing of approximately 150 people
22 in room 3 at Keraterm camp on or about 24th and 25th of July, 1992.
23 There were 28 victims confirmed as falling under this incident.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI:
25 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, I understand it is Annex 4 to your report, which
1 lists alphabetically these 123 individuals providing for each of them
2 information regarding their date of birth, place and date of
3 disappearance, and the Scheduled Incidents of the Mladic indictment in
4 which their names appear; correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. And again, I've summarised that because we won't have time to go
7 into all of the details of your annexes and, in particular, Annex 4.
8 Now, Dr. Tabeau, I want to move to some examples from your
9 annexes, only part A of Annex 1, and then we will be returning to the
10 remaining four slides of your presentation after that.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: So if I can please have now on the screens
12 65 ter 31098. Actually, this is marked for identification with number
13 P7451. And I would ask that this not to be broadcasted, please. If we
14 can please go to page 10 of the English and 11 of the B/C/S.
15 Dr. Tabeau, while this is coming up, the names of the victims in
16 this document should not be stated aloud in open session as the document
17 is not being displayed to the public.
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. And before we look at some examples, could you please briefly
20 explain the information that we can find in Part A of Annex 1. Briefly
21 because I will then ask you to move to walk us through the heading of the
22 annex with concrete examples, so just to summarise what it is that we
23 find in this part A of Annex 1.
24 A. This is a list of Tomasica victims. For every victim date of
25 birth is reported, disappearance information of the victim - that is,
1 place and date of disappearance - and then there are items like protocol
2 number, case ID, ICMP ID, site name, site co-ordinates, et cetera. These
3 are writings coming from the ICMP DNA match notifications that inform
4 about the identification details of the victims.
5 Q. Okay. And so let's move to a specific example. And if we can --
6 if can you focus on number 162 on this page, and I have to remind you
7 again not to mention the name or place of disappearance of this
8 individual while commenting about this case. 162.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: If we can zoom in to start with the left-hand side
10 of the table, zooming on number 162.
11 Q. So, first of all, Dr. Tabeau, the ID. So this is number 162, but
12 we see --
13 A. Yes --
14 Q. -- that the numbers in this column, the numbers before and after
15 are not in a successive numeric order. So can you explain that.
16 A. This reference number, victim number, is the number associated
17 with each victim as reported in the ICMP list from June 2014, the list of
18 identifications. It was a list that reported jointly on the main cases
19 and reassociations. The Annex 1 exclusively reports on the main cases.
20 Reassociations have been separated, taken out from the list. This is
21 because the whole report I made focuses on individuals, on persons, and
22 not on DNA match reports available in total. So therefore, we see that
23 the first victim has the number 152, next one 154. So 153 obviously is
24 gone because it was a reassociation, an associated match report.
25 Q. And we do find the reassociation cases in annex 2; correct?
1 A. Yes, it's correct.
2 Q. Now, the column case names. Of course, these are -- this
3 indicates the victim names, and I take it the name in bracket is the
4 father's names of the identified individuals; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, okay, date of birth is self-explanatory. Where did you take
7 the date of birth information from?
8 A. The date of birth is reported after the ICMP, so it's the
9 original data sent to us by them.
10 Q. Now, we see, and I'm looking at number 162, that this individual
11 was 65 years old when he meant missing; correct?
12 A. Yes, correct.
13 Q. Then -- okay. The column related to date and place of
14 disappearance are ICRC-based. Is what the ICRC acronym was in the
15 bracket in the heading of the column indicates; correct?
11 Page 36773 redacted.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
21 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Your two hours will be over shortly before we take the break.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. And I'd ask if I could be ten
23 minutes over just to introduce the new material. I had asked this relief
24 last Thursday and I would be still within the nine hours that we asked,
25 actually well below the limit.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would try to finish before the break
2 and perhaps we would make -- take the break five minutes later that --
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, that is agreeable. Thank you.
6 Q. We can move out of this document and back into the --
7 Dr. Tabeau, I will continue now with your presentation but first
8 I want to introduce the new material.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: So can I please have 65 ter 32714 on the screens,
10 and again not to be broadcasted.
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, what information did you have on the total number of
12 identifications made on the remains exhumed from Jakarina Kosa?
13 A. The total number of identifications was representing, as far as I
14 remember, 318 individuals. That is the number that is -- represents
15 different individuals. There were a considerable of reassociations. I
16 also determined more than 500, but jointly, main cases, and
17 reassociations represented, as I said, 318 different individuals.
18 Q. And did you recently analyse ICMP material related to the human
19 remains exhumed from the Jakarina Kosa grave-site?
20 A. Yes. I used the records, ICMP records, that I downloaded from
21 the ICMP service myself. The OTP has access to this service and
22 permission to go there and extract information, which did I for the
23 Jakarina Kosa victims.
24 Q. And is this document on the screen a document that -- do you
25 recognise this document?
1 A. Yes, this is the list of main cases from Jakarina Kosa.
2 Q. Was this compiled by you?
3 A. Yes, I compiled this document.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now have -- I will ask that these documents
5 be marked for identification at the end of the -- the enumeration of the
6 three of them.
7 So can I now have 65 ter --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you wanted to be marked for
9 identification --
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, but maybe it's quicker if we mark for
11 identification these three documents all together after I have them --
12 introduced them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, then.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. Next document is 65 ter 32739, please. And,
15 again, not to be broadcasted.
16 Q. Again, Dr. Tabeau, I will ask you if you can very briefly
17 explain -- well, say whether you recognise the document and explain what
18 information it provides.
19 A. It is a list, as far as I can see -- the letters are very small.
20 If they could be enlarged, please.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Maybe we can zoom in on the -- on the --
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: On the left-hand side of the document. I don't
24 have sound in the microphone anymore.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is a sample of cases from Jakarina Kosa.
1 This sample represents cases that do not overlap with Tomasica cases.
2 There were 211 such individuals as I determined, and this spreadsheet
3 contains information about 211 non-Tomasica victims from Jakarina Kosa --
4 [Technical difficulty]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently there is some audio problem which is not
6 shared by everyone in this courtroom. Let's try it again and see whether
7 it still is a problem. It doesn't work.
8 MR. TIEGER: It looks like it's back on line.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can hear you properly.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly do not tap the microphone. Thank you.
12 Kindly do not tap the microphone. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, you are invited not to tap the
14 microphone. But since your earphones do not work you may not receive
15 that information.
16 If it doesn't work -- it still doesn't work, Ms. D'Ascoli.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we take the break first and that
19 you would have your ten additional minutes after the break and that
20 everything will be tested first.
21 But we'd first like Mr. Mladic to be escorted out of the
22 courtroom before we take that break. Yes, and we can turn the curtains
23 down. We have -- take a break of 20 minutes.
24 [The accused withdrew]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, could we just check whether your audio
6 is functioning again.
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, it is. And my microphone as well.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 I think the net time remaining is approximately 12 minutes.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we have on the screen 65 ter 32739. Can I just ask
15 you to confirm that this is a document you produced --
16 A. Yes, this is the list I produced. It is the 211 cases, DNA match
17 reports for non-Tomasica victims from Jakarina Kosa.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, our screens are dark on this side.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, our screens as well. Could we get --
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Our screens as well.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And having looked at it, your explanation of what it
22 is remains the same, Ms. Tabeau?
23 MS. D'ASCOLI:
24 Q. Ms. Tabeau, could you please put on the record your answer.
25 A. It is a list I made of 200 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think you explained what it was supposed to
2 be and now we see it on our screens, that it's really what you see at
3 this moment?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Finally, can I please have 65 ter 32738 on the
9 screens. Again, not to be broadcasted.
10 Q. Dr. Tabeau, did you produce this document?
11 A. Yes, it is the document on Jakarina Kosa victims I produced
13 Q. And this gives information on -- this provides basic statistics
14 on the Jakarina Kosa identified individuals, according to the same
15 methodology you used for your Tomasica report; correct?
16 A. Yes, it is correct. The two first tables --
17 Q. Yes, we will discussing that with the presentation. Thank you.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, at this point I will just ask that
19 these three documents be marked for identification pending
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: 65 ter 32714, under seal.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would receive number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P7454, under seal, MFI, Your
1 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification, under seal.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Then 65 ter 32738. This doesn't need to be under
3 seal, actually.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P7455, MFI, under seal.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli told us that there is no need to have
7 it under seal.
8 P7455 is marked for identification.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: And finally, 65 ter 32739. This should be under
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P7456, MFI, under seal, Your
14 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification, under seal.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 Can I please have P7453, marked for identification, on the
18 screens. And if we can move directly to slide 19 in both languages,
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I will be now just discussing briefly with you the
21 last three slides of your presentation that summarise your analysis on
22 the Jakarina Kosa identified individuals.
23 While the document is coming up on the screen, did you follow the
24 same methodology and uses the same sources as you earlier explained to
25 the Court for this Jakarina Kosa analysis? And I just need a brief
1 answer, please.
2 A. Yes, the same methodology, the same sources, except for ICMP
3 records that I downloaded myself.
4 Q. Thank you. We now have slide 19 on the screens and this
5 refers -- when it says page 1 Jakarina Kosa basic statistics, this refers
6 to the document that has just been marked for identification with number
7 P7455. This is your document, your summary of the basic statistic on
8 Jakarina Kosa; correct? It is take from there?
9 A. Yes, it is correct.
10 Q. Can you briefly summarise the findings that we see in this table.
11 A. First table summarizes the overall numbers of victims for
12 Jakarina Kosa. The number I mentioned earlier today, 318, is the number
13 in the last row of this table. It is a sum of two numbers from the
14 table. The first one in the first row, which is 310, and that is the
15 overall number of named Jakarina Kosa victims. That's represented by the
16 main cases. This number, therefore, represents unique different
17 individuals; and the second number is in the second-last row, which is 8.
18 And this is the overall number of not-yet named but unique DNA profiles.
19 The so-called uniques that should be taken together with the first one.
20 So the overall total is 318 different individuals buried in
21 Jakarina Kosa.
22 Of these individuals, 99 are overlapping with Tomasica. In my
23 report, it is 98. I worked with an update of ICMP data from June 2014 to
24 obtain the 98. Now I used a one-year-later data of the ICMP and
25 confirmed instead of 98, 99 cases split between Tomasica and
1 Jakarina Kosa.
2 Q. Now of the 211 identified individuals that were solely exhumed
3 from Jakarina Kosa not connected to Tomasica cases, you calculated how
4 many of these individuals appear in the proof of death annex that was
5 previously introduced during your testimony in November 2013. And for
6 the record, this is P2797. I see that this number is 61 in the lower
7 table; correct?
8 A. Yes, it is correct. It is 61.
9 Q. And for the breakdown of this information, I will go to the -- I
10 will ask to go to the next slide, number 20.
11 And, Dr. Tabeau, if you're looking specifically at the 61
12 Jakarina Kosa victims that appeared in the earlier proof of death annex,
13 P2797, can you tell us briefly which incidents are these victims mainly
14 linked to?
15 A. These are five incidents, among them the two ones I already
16 discussed previously. It is A6.6 and B13.1. But starting from the first
17 row of this table, we see victims under incident A6.1, the second one is
18 A6.4, then A6.6, B13.1, and the last B13.2.
19 Q. And --
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if I'm following correctly these are
21 persons not related to Tomasica for which information was already
22 available in November of 2013 when the witness testified. And now for
23 the first time we're hearing them linking the bodies to indictment
24 charges. I respectfully submit again that the Prosecutor is going
25 outwith the scope of the reopening and is attempting to rehabilitate
1 their case in the midst of the Defence case after having rested the same.
2 And I would want that on the record.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Any response, Ms. D'Ascoli?
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. These victims were already
6 identified in the proof of death annex, and the information on them --
7 and the information that was available at the time, it is already on the
8 record. Ms. Tabeau has added the -- the linkage with the -- with the
9 exhumed cases, and -- well, sorry. I'm saying that this linkage was
10 already there, so it's just now part of an analysis --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Link --
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: -- between the exhumation place being
13 Jakarina Kosa.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I think what Mr. Ivetic argues is that you
15 are adding now something for victims - that is, you linked them to the
16 incident - whereas, first of all, this is not directly related to
17 Tomasica because these were persons whose remains were found exclusively
18 in Jakarina Kosa. And second, that you're now adding something by
19 linking those of which you say we knew about them already to specific
20 incidents in the fourth indictment.
21 That's the issue. Could you please respond to that.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours.
23 This information was provided and we asked Dr. Tabeau to produce
24 this information in response to the Defence challenges during the
25 reopening to the figures for the bodies exhumed from -- from
1 Jakarina Kosa, and I'm prepared to detail these challenges, if that would
2 assist the Chamber.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you said you'd like to have it on the
5 record. Would you like to have a ruling on it? Not that the Chamber is
6 going to give it right away but that at least we'll consider whether this
7 stays within the limits as outlined in our reopening decision.
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. We're on the same page. I
9 assumed you would need some time on this, but I do want a ruling. I do
10 consider my statement as an objection to this evidence being led during
11 this reopening.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, Your Honours --
13 JUDGE ORIE: We will not stop at this moment Ms. D'Ascoli right
14 away, but we'll consider whether this Chamber will take into account the
15 evidence as presented now in view of your objections, but we prefer to
16 carefully analyse again exactly what we're looking at and where the
17 limits are in view of our reopening decision.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I continue. Just to stress that the direct
21 link between the two sides was mentioned, expressed in paragraph 30 of
22 our motion to reopen.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- yes, that's one of the things we'll
24 consider when analysing the situation.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. I will then continue and move to the final
1 slides which provides the overall number of identified individual across
2 the two sites.
3 Q. And, Dr. Tabeau, I will briefly ask you to comment on slide 20.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 21.
5 THE WITNESS: This slide has a statement that victims from
6 Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa belong together, and further there is a little
7 table that shows the number of victims from Tomasica, 385. Further,
8 Jakarina Kosa victims not in Tomasica lists 211, that is the cases I just
9 discussed. Further, there is 8 cases, the so-called uniques from
10 Jakarina Kosa which gives, together, an overall total of victims in
11 Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa, 604.
12 This table and this overall total, the statement on this slide
13 have the reasons in several findings that I have made for Jakarina Kosa
14 victims. Among the 211 victims, 103 had exactly the same places of
15 disappearance and dates of disappearance as Tomasica victims. It's a
16 very considerable portion of them, number of them, having the same
17 disappearance details. Further, I analysed their ethnic composition. I
18 analysed sex distribution, age distribution, places of disappearance,
19 their residence in 1991, and I saw the same or highly similar results as
20 the ones for victims exhumed from Tomasica.
21 So that the foundation for me making these statements on this
23 Q. And we do find the details of all of this information that you
24 just discussed in your document on the basic statistics from
25 Jakarina Kosa; correct?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. And the document is now marked for identification with P7455.
3 Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, Your Honours, that concludes my direct
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 Of course, the issue between the parties at this moment is
8 whether they belong together because of the similarities in the
9 population or whether they do not belong together because the bodies were
10 found in and the bodily remains were found in Jakarina Kosa only and not
11 in Tomasica. That apparently is the issue which we'll have to consider.
12 Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic.
13 Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
14 Mr. Ivetic.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
16 Q. Good day, Dr. Tabeau.
17 A. Hello.
18 Q. It's been sometime since our last meeting in cross-examination,
19 so I wish to remind you again to focus precisely on my questions so that
20 we may efficiently move as quickly as possible.
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. I'd like to have just a few questions about your CV, so if we can
23 call up P7448 [Realtime transcript read in error "P7488"]. Perhaps while
24 we wait for that, I'm sure it will come to no surprise to you that your
25 CV shows that since the last time you were in court with us you're again
1 employed directly by the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal since
2 March of 2014. My question is this in a full-time or part-time capacity?
3 A. It is a full-time capacity.
4 Q. And what --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt. You called P7448.
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is given here as "7488."
8 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, I may have misspoken.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, you didn't misspeak.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. And, madam, in terms of your full-time employment with the Office
12 of the Prosecutor, what type of contract is it in terms of the level and
13 the number of years?
14 A. It is the same level contract as I had previously, and my
15 contract ends by December 31st of this year.
16 Q. Okay. And since March of 2014, has all your work at the Office
17 of the Prosecutor been solely related to studying the evidence as to the
18 Tomasica mass grave and the Jakarina Kosa bodies related to Tomasica?
19 A. Certainly not solely. I have been performing research into
20 victimisation in the Mladic case but also working on other things. It is
21 simply the same type of responsibilities as I used to have in the past.
22 Q. Okay. Do you have an approximation as the percentage of your
23 time spent on Tomasica or perhaps in terms of number of total hours that
24 you've spent on the demographic evidence relating to Tomasica since
25 March of 2014?
1 A. It was that I was spending a considerable amounts of time after I
2 came in March until, say, end of June 2014, because it was the time when
3 the evidence was collected and pieces were sent from Bosnia to the Office
4 of the Prosecutor now and then, and it was still a matter of integrating
5 the pieces, updating the lists I was making. So redoing these things all
6 over and over again. But once I finished the report, I simply stopped
7 working on Tomasica, and it was only recently that I started again
8 analysing things, re-reading the report, looking at Jakarina Kosa
9 records, so it is not that I was working all the time since March 2014 on
10 Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa.
11 Q. And, Doctor, did you perform any work relating to Tomasica before
12 March 2014 when you returned to full-time employment at the Office of the
14 A. Well, when I was employed first time - that is, between the year
15 2000 and 2011 - I had short episodes of work on the victims reported
16 missing from Prijedor and more broadly Autonomous Region of Krajina. I
17 made, I think, two reports on that in -- around the year of 2002, 2003, I
18 believe. But not that I completed projects exclusively on Tomasica at
19 that time.
20 Q. Okay. Now, this time around in your written report I did not see
21 any credits for any co-authors. Did you, in fact, work alone on this
22 report related to Tomasica or did you have any assistants?
23 A. I worked alone on this report and didn't any assistants.
24 Q. Did you have occasion to follow any of the media coverage as to
1 A. Well, I am not following systematically media reports, because I
2 had, in the past, opportunities to see much bias in these reports. So it
3 is not a source from which I learn and which I take it and use in my
5 Q. Okay. Now if we can turn to your report, which I believe is
6 P7449, relating to Tomasica. And if we could turn to the -- for now,
7 page 1 in both languages. And this is the contents of your report.
8 Doctor, last time you were here we talked about over 70 criteria,
9 or you called them I think keys, which you used when matching names with
10 the various databases. This report on Tomasica that is before us does
11 not seem to identify how many keys were used in the Tomasica report, does
13 A. It is not so that I provide with every report an overview of
14 matching criteria I have used for matching various lists with each other.
15 So this particular report does not contain such a list. The list you
16 have mentioned was made available as part of the 2009 integrated
17 Srebrenica report, provided as example an explanation of how the matching
18 is done. I still stand by this list and by the criteria. But in every
19 project I use some of these criteria as they are in this table and some
20 additional criteria formulated in line with the logic of that table.
21 Q. That's entirely what I expected, Doctor, and that's why I asked
22 you to precisely tell us how many matching criteria or keys were used for
23 the Tomasica report and what precisely those keys were.
24 A. You would have to be more specific about your question. If you
25 say matching of the Tomasica list, then have you to tell me with what
1 source, and then I can explain more specifically what was the criteria
2 based about. Still, I will not give you the concrete criteria because I
3 don't have them at hand.
4 Q. Do the concrete criteria exist somewhere in your office?
5 A. If you mean in a form of the list, like the list of 70, then my
6 answer is no, they don't. Other than that, I can provide you with the
7 logic of my matching for any two sources that you will mentioned [sic].
8 Q. Well, Doctor, you've provided us with a report listing multiple
9 sources, and you've provided us your opinions of matches obtained, and
10 I'm interested in finding out what methodology that you utilised. Would
11 you agree with me that knowing what keys were used is essential to
12 understanding your methodology?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, isn't it true that the witness offers to
14 explain what keys she used in any match she established, so therefore the
15 information is offered to you. It's just a matter of asking the right
17 Ms. Tabeau, if I understand your testimony well.
18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Then let re-ask the question that I started with.
21 Q. Can you tell us precisely how many matching criteria were used
22 for each of the sources and what precisely those keys were for each of
23 the sources that you analysed for purposes of the Tomasica report?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau earlier said that you have to specify
25 which match you had in mind and that she can then, if I understand her
1 well, reconstruct exactly what criteria she used, what key she used in
2 that specific match.
3 So if you would to begin with start with one of the matches, then
4 we could see whether it works or not.
5 MR. IVETIC: Let me do it this way then.
6 Q. Dr. Tabeau, would you be in a position to prepare and provide a
7 listing based upon your recollection of what keys you use in matching the
8 various names with the varies databases for all of the matches that are
9 contained in the Tomasica report?
10 A. Well, all the matches, it is indeed a lot of work, but I
11 certainly am willing to -- to accommodate your request. It will be a lot
12 of additional work for me, so reconstructing the matching process and
13 listing the criteria will take time, so if I am to do that, then I --
14 please must be offered some additional time do so.
15 Q. I definitely did not intend for you to do it in the courtroom.
16 My question is, though, isn't it correct that a list of keys is generally
17 in your field created before one provides the work of checking to match
18 and that therefore there should be a list of keys that were tried - not
19 necessarily find a match on each key, but all the lists that were in your
20 universe that you were examining; am I correct?
21 A. I think --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just going to say that I thought you
23 answered this yes question earlier, that it's not necessarily so in every
24 case that you have a list of matching.
25 THE WITNESS: That is exactly what I said. Now, if I would be to
1 provide the list of criteria, I have to go through the matching process
2 again and reconstruct the criteria.
3 But I think that Mr. Ivetic sees the process of matching in a
4 very formal way in the sense that one starts with a formal list of
5 criteria and then goes through the entire list to end with a result at
6 the end.
7 As a matter of fact, a very long list of criteria, say 70, might
8 be finished after five first steps because the records simply match very
9 well and then there is no need even to go through the rest of the list.
10 So the matching process is basically cross-referencing of two related
11 lists or two lists expected to be related to each other, and mainly by
12 comparison of the names on the two lists and dates of birth, other
13 information on the lists, one draws conclusions about the similarity of
14 potentially related cases.
15 If there is an identity of reporting on the two lists of a given
16 person, then a match can be easily declared. If there are slight
17 differences in the spelling of names or in the dates of birth, then one
18 has to decide whether the differences are acceptable and a match can be
19 declared or a match cannot be declared. In some cases --
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. Doctor --
22 A. If --
23 Q. Doctor, I think you've gone beyond the question that I asked you,
24 and I'd like to ask a follow-up.
25 Would you agree with me by not including the number nor type of
1 keys that you relied upon for purposes of your matching in the report, it
2 makes it rather difficult for another specialist in your field to assess
3 and opine as to the accuracy of your report?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Just a minute. Before we continue, although I think
5 that the record is not precise, that the last intervention by the Bench
6 was done by Judge Moloto, and I understood his remark as seeking
7 verification of one of the previous answers as given by Ms. Tabeau, and
8 therefore I considered her to respond to that implicit request for
9 verification of a good understanding of the testimony.
10 And, Mr. Ivetic, I think it was not up to you at that moment to
11 stop the witness and to say that she went beyond your question because
12 she was responding to an intervention by Judge Moloto.
13 If you would like to finish that, Ms. Tabeau, you may resume from
14 where you said: "In some cases," where Mr. Ivetic intervened.
15 And then after that, Mr. Ivetic, I take it that Ms. Tabeau will
16 further consider whether she has answered your question or that you'll
17 further consider whether she has answered your question put to her before
18 the intervention of Judge Moloto.
19 Ms. Tabeau, if you'd like to resume, if there's anything to be
20 added, then you're free to do so.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I wanted to add that in a small number of cases, no match is
23 possible through an automated procedure, and then what I do in the end I
24 just search manually for certain names of victims in related sources. I
25 do it one by one. I do it because certain sources contain deformations
1 of names, like there are no spaces between first name and father's name
2 and family name, so there is no way I can find a person through an
3 automated procedure. I have to do it differently on an individual basis.
4 So, in the end my matching might be limited to searching for
5 records of a small group of individuals which brings me some results, but
6 some are just not reported and remain unmatched.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If I could ask one additional question.
8 If you have several keys, I do understand that logic requires
9 that you seek for positive -- the keys positively matching?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that's one. And you said, if I have some, then
12 it would already allow for a conclusion. But I do understand also that
13 part of the matching process could be to exclude that there are any
15 Now, you've told us about -- that after some of these
16 corresponding facts that you could draw a conclusion that there's a
17 match. Let's just -- just for my understanding, let's assume the date of
18 birth is the same, the name of the person is the same, the name of the
19 father is the same, the place where they lived is the same. Now, that
20 all strongly suggests that we're talking about the same persons. At the
21 same time, if the DNA, for example, does not match, then there must be
22 perhaps a very unlikely explanation or there must be a mistake somewhere
23 in the system.
24 Could you tell us something about the remaining keys perhaps
25 falsifying what you thought to be a positive match on the basis of those
1 other keys.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. It is correct that I basically
3 concentrate on comparing the personal information about the victims, that
4 would be the names - first, father's, family - and the date of birth and
5 the place of residence in cases of which I want to learn more. If this
6 is identical or largely the same in two sources, then I declare a match.
7 DNA is only reported in one source. This is the ICMP list of
8 identifications. The matching of the persons listed by the ICMP is still
9 based on the comparison of personal information of victims; but, of
10 course, when making matching for the victims from Prijedor, I wouldn't go
11 and look for a match in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina because these
12 people were living in Prijedor, in this area, so there must be a
13 consistency of the personal information but also the residence. So it
14 has to come together consistently. Must corroborate each other, you
15 know, each piece of information. And once a match is declared, then
16 there is the DNA report and a site report, you know, where the person was
17 exhumed from, et cetera, et cetera.
18 So no matching is done starting from the DNA and the site
19 information without a list because that's not possible simply.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Because it's not linked to any identified person.
21 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But perhaps the DNA was a bad example. Are there
23 any other keys that could finally contradict and then, let's forget about
24 the DNA, but if you have persons with the same name, same date of birth,
25 same place of living, then of course that's still not for the full 100
1 per cent makes them the same persons, and there's still a possibility,
2 although perhaps statistically a very small possibility, that these are
3 not the same persons.
4 THE WITNESS: This is why I do the matching with the entire
5 census, 1991 population census, to see how many individuals with exact
6 same names and very similar dates of birth are reported there and from
7 which areas, from which parts of Bosnia. So just to exclude the false
8 positives of which I know they couldn't be falling under the project I am
9 working on. So it is called blocking. There is a formal procedure in
10 matching in theory and practice, that by excluding the false positives
11 and focusing on blocks of related information one can assure high quality
12 of the matching process results.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And then we're talking in terms of probability of
14 99.99 per cent or is that the kind of -- the basis for your conclusions,
15 but perhaps I'm entering the area of statistics where I should --
16 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't go for giving Your Honours a formal
17 probability as the ICMP does in the case of their matching process. I
18 don't think I can provide such a number, especially that the lists that I
19 have been matching represent different situations. They have now
20 different numbers of records, so I don't think I would be then able to
21 calculate probability straight away, say. It would be a challenge to me.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I see that. At the same time, of course, if you say
23 it could be -- fall below 80 per cent, then, of course, it might be of
24 some concern to us. If it falls below -- what region approximately are
25 we working in this respect?
1 THE WITNESS: I think the matching rate with the census for the
2 Tomasica list was 92 per cent, which is not below 80 per cent. I think
3 it is a high per cent. And it is not 99.9999, as we have in the ICMP
4 matching procedures, but it is very well above 90 per cent. It is 92
5 per cent.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I -- both my colleague and I interrupted
7 you in your last question. I don't know whether you're satisfied with
8 the answer yet or whether you'd seek further explanations from the
9 witness, so I give it in your hands again.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Doctor, I'd like to ask you again: Would you agree that by not
12 including the number nor type of keys used in your matching it makes it
13 very difficult for your report to be checked by another specialist in
14 your area of expertise.
15 A. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that.
16 Q. Okay. If we can move on and look at page 7 in the English and
17 page 8 in the B/C/S. In the B/C/S, it will be the second paragraph from
18 the bottom; and in the English, it's the second paragraph up from the
19 subheading 2.6, and here you say, Doctor:
20 "Cause of death information by Dr. Clark has been invaluable in
21 producing proof of death for Tomasica victims."
22 Doctor, would you have to defer to Dr. Clark as to cause of
23 death, or do you think there is some other source more reliable than
24 Dr. Clark as to cause of death for these persons found in Tomasica?
25 A. I think that what I said in the report, that Clark's information
1 about causes of death is invaluable, I still stand by this statement. I
2 also used other sources for cause of deaths as you know, because I
3 mentioned this today. Jakarina Kosa autopsies. I also used some
4 autopsies from 2004 and 2006 excavations in Tomasica. But, me, as a
5 demographer and statisticians, I'm not the person to determine the cause
6 of death, so it has to be in the hands of other specialists,
7 pathologists; in this case, as Dr. Clark himself.
8 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you feel that you have been fair and impartial in
9 the preparation of your report including the use of Dr. Clark's expert
10 opinions about cause of death?
11 A. Well, as I said, my role was to take the existing sources of
12 information, also about causes of death, and integrate this information
13 with the victim records of the Tomasica victims, which I did. I did read
14 the report of Dr. Clark, of course. I had gone through his annexes and I
15 find this material very useful, and I included it as very relevant to the
16 analysis of causes of death.
17 I think that I was impartial because, as I am saying, this is not
18 me who determined the causes. I am just presenting the causes. And in
19 the end, I believe it is the autopsies in which pathologists will take
20 another look at related causes of death and draw conclusions about the
21 causes of death of individuals, is the ultimate source, I think, to look
22 at. Yet, there is a table in my report in which I compared the autopsies
23 for about 60-something individuals. I compared the reports from the
24 autopsies by pathologists with the information as I integrated it from
25 the sources that I had at my disposal, and I found no major or even very
1 many discrepancies. It is all highly consistent, the two perspectives.
2 Q. Okay. I'd like to call up 1D5782, and I'll be looking for
3 page 78 of that document. This will be the transcript from Dr. Clark's
4 testimony in this courtroom last week. Again, page 78, which should
5 correlate to page 36651 of the transcript, and I would like to focus on
6 lines 10 through 14, which you can read and I'll read into the record.
7 It starts off:
8 "Q. I would like to put one last question regarding this topic by
9 way of a conclusion.
10 "Is it correct that, as a scientist, you cannot exclude the
11 possibility that any or some of the people were killed in combat?
12 "A. Yes, I can't -- I can't exclude that."
13 Is this finding by Dr. Clark highly consistent with your results
14 in doing your work as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica.
15 A. Sir, I didn't any -- I didn't study any sources based on which I
16 could say that someone died in combat or in non-combat situation. I
17 actually draw no conclusions about that. So whatever Mr. Clark said in
18 his testimony, it is his opinion, but I cannot make any statements at
19 this moment on that.
20 Q. Well, madam, in fact --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I think it would be fair to this witness to
22 tell her that Dr. Clark took, as a matter of fact, the same position.
23 That he wouldn't know whether people died in combat and for that he
24 couldn't exclude that. I do understand your answer to be in this respect
25 the same, that your research was not focused on whether people died in
1 combat or not and that therefore you can't exclude anything because you
2 haven't studied it. Is that well understood?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course. There is not any foundation for me
4 to exclude or include or --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. And that was, as a matter of fact, Mr. Ivetic,
6 was the gist of the evidence given by Dr. Clark as well.
7 Let's proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Are you then renouncing your conclusion on page 47 of your report
10 that says:
11 "All in all, a significant evidence was presented in this report
12 which supports the conclusion that all Tomasica victims died violent
13 deaths in extremely dramatic circumstances of a broader campaign of
14 ethnic cleansing in the Prijedor municipality and as part of the ARK
15 ethnic cleansing campaign."
16 A. I think this statement, first of all, has to do with the fact
17 that Tomasica victims were all buried in an unmarked mine, that many
18 bodies were removed to another site, bodies were fragmented so
19 dramatically that even I could see the circumstances of how this process
20 was looking like at some point. So the signs of injuries in their bodies
21 as reported by Clark but also by other sources, Jakarina Kosa autopsies,
22 other autopsies, 2004/2006 autopsies, all this leaves no doubt that these
23 were violent deaths. But --
24 Q. But how do you differentiate between violent deaths in combat and
25 the violent deaths in ethnic cleansing, the word you used in your report,
2 A. The ethnic cleansing is supported by other findings in my report.
3 I'm referring to the part of the report that shows the results of the
4 analysis of missing persons from the Prijedor municipality and Tomasica
5 victims in this context, and also missing persons from the ARK. There
6 are very clear findings there showing that non-Serbs were targeted,
7 especially the Muslims who disappeared in very large numbers in --
8 contradictory to other ethnic groups, that men actually disappeared in
9 the first place in large numbers, and men at military age, say, between,
10 say, 18 and 65 or something like that. So it is a picture that is
11 actually quite indicative of an ethnic cleansing process, I think.
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, having just testified under oath that did you not
13 consider and therefore cannot exclude combat, how can you then exclude
14 combat as a means of death that would be different than ethnic cleansing,
15 the word you used in your report?
16 A. As I said, I didn't exclude combat. I didn't draw any
17 conclusions about the combat.
18 Q. Then do you feel that your conclusions as to ethnic cleansing are
19 complete since you did not take into account the potential impact or role
20 of combat as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica?
21 A. I think that the report I made is not about the ethnic cleansing
22 in the first place. It is about the victims from Tomasica in the first
23 place --
24 Q. Doctor, I beg to differ. The conclusion I just read is the
25 penultimate conclusion of your report. I put it to you that it is the
1 basis of your report and it is the key part of your report. If you do
2 not want us to rely upon that conclusion, please say so.
3 A. Well, to me I see a clear picture of ethnic cleansing based on
4 the records I studied, based on the records of missing persons, from the
5 Prijedor municipality - in particular from the Prijedor municipality and
6 from the ARK area as such. The fact that that many victims went missing
7 on a few days in July, the 20th, 23, 4th, and 5th, these are huge
9 Q. So, Doctor, are you then taking back what you said a few moments
10 ago, that ethnic cleansing is not the subject of your report?
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: I think the witness has answered this question
14 several times -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. IVETIC: I don't think she has at all.
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mr. Ivetic, I would appreciate if you
17 do not interrupt each other.
18 I leave it to the witness whether she thinks that she has
19 answered the question and whether she has been given sufficient
20 opportunity to explain her answer.
21 The question was, Ms. Tabeau, whether you're taking back what you
22 said a few moments ago, that ethnic cleansing was not the subject of your
24 Do you think that you have sufficiently answered that question or
25 would you like to add anything to it?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I discuss the ethnic cleansing in my report as
2 the context for the Tomasica victims. It is unavoidable to mention the
3 words "ethnic cleansing" as in my view the deaths, the killings of the
4 Tomasica victims were part of the ethnic cleansing.
5 And, of course, there is some results, quite some results in my
6 report that support ethnic cleansing considerably. I am speaking of
7 ethnic cleansing from my own experience. It is not the first time that I
8 have been working on the 92 victims, Tomasica victims, also victims from
9 the ARK and Prijedor municipality. I studied other sources of
10 information and made other reports. From my experience and from the work
11 I have done in the past as well, there is quite some support in this
12 report in this work for the ethnic cleansing.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Well, Doctor, I'm really confused. Because you say now in my
15 view the death, the killing of the Tomasica victims were part of the
16 ethnic cleansing. Other hand, Dr. Clark says at transcript page 36684
17 that he cannot even exclude the possibility that all persons exhumed from
18 Tomasica were the result of combat, and yet you have told us you did not
19 consider combat. You did not look at combat. You did not exclude
20 combat. So how can you sit here today and say to a degree of scientific
21 certainty that all the deaths are related to ethnic cleansing having not
22 even considered combat which Dr. Clark, your main source, who you said is
23 invaluable for cause of death, said that he can't exclude? Explain that
24 for me.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. When Mr. Ivetic says, I'll take the
3 transcript, you're now saying that all persons exhumed from Tomasica were
4 the result of combat -- no, were the result of ethnic cleansing --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: I remember what he said but I don't see it in the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic will certainly be willing to give us
9 exactly the --
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- page and line reference where the witness would
12 have said --
13 MR. IVETIC: Line 19, page 49. The witness's own words.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. But the witness own words, reading the whole
15 sentence, is:
16 "It is unavoidable to mention the words 'ethnic cleansing' as in
17 my view the deaths, the killings of the Tomasica victims were part of the
18 ethnic cleansing."
19 This is not accurately characterised by Mr. Ivetic when he then
20 turns to say that Ms. Tabeau said that all of the victims of the Tomasica
21 exhumed victims were victims of ethnic cleansing.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, would you please rephrase your question
23 and when referring to what the witness said be -- to quote her literally.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just add before Mr. Ivetic talks, I
25 think where Mr. Ivetic refers to all persons he is talking about
1 Dr. Clark, not Madam Tabeau.
2 MR. IVETIC: That's correct. And that was at transcript page
3 73 -- 36684. But let's see if can I clear this up.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: But that again is not a conclusion. Dr. Clark
5 just said he could not exclude, but it is not presented in the form of a
6 certainty or the conclusion that the witness made.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's clear, that Dr. Clark, in this
8 respect, did not draw any conclusions because he had not studied the
9 matter, and therefore he could not exclude that 1 per cent or 100
10 per cent of the victims had died in combat.
11 MR. IVETIC: And that's the crux of my question to Dr. Tabeau.
12 How can she conclude that they were the result of ethnic cleansing.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, they --
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: She did not exclude that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
16 MR. IVETIC: Let me ask her.
17 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you believe --
18 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, they -- we should clearly distinguish
19 between whether we are talking about all of the victims as referred to in
20 at least the later questions to Dr. Clark, or to any other group or
21 number of persons.
22 Would you please rephrase your question clearly and with great
23 precision Mr. Ivetic, and then we'll hear the answer from the witness.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you believe that all the bodies exhumed from
1 Tomasica were the result of ethnic cleansing?
2 A. Sir, I can only tell what kind of causes of death were reported
3 for them on sources like Clark's report and other documents related to
4 the causes of death. I didn't study any events like combat or other
5 events that led to their deaths. What I tried to do is I tried to define
6 where and when the events were taking place, and in order to learn more
7 about these events, you would need additional sources and additional
8 expertise. Yet at the same time from the analysis, my demographic
9 analysis of disappearance data, I still stand by the conclusion that
10 there was ethnic cleansing in these territories at that time. Yet,
11 again, I cannot tell how every single victim died, whether it was a part
12 of the ethnic cleansing campaign or any other event.
13 I can tell you that these were the facts: There was ethnic
14 cleansing, because it is clear from the disappearance information of the
15 victims buried in Tomasica, buried in Jakarina Kosa, the victims who
16 disappeared from Prijedor, the victims who disappeared from ARK. This is
17 a very strong indication of the ethnic cleansing in these territories at
18 that time.
19 Q. If may just ask one more question before the break. You
20 mentioned, let me quote you precisely, that you "can only tell what kind
21 of causes of death were reported for them on sources like Clark's report
22 and other documents related to the causes of death."
23 Madam, will you agree with me that neither Dr. Clark's report nor
24 the other autopsy reports listed ethnic cleansing as a cause of death for
25 any of the Tomasica exhumed bodies. That is a word you inserted into the
1 analysis; isn't that correct?
2 A. The thing is that Dr. Clark didn't report ethnic cleansing but he
3 did report short distance gun-shots, execution style gun-shots in the
4 heads, back of the heads, et cetera, et cetera. So that confirms my
5 conclusion, as well as his conclusion, that these deaths were violent.
6 Whether the events were part of the ethnic cleansing campaign, yes, I
7 think they were, because that is what I see from the disappearance
8 information of the victims. This is supportive and indicative, highly
9 indicative of an ethnic cleansing campaign in these territories in this
11 Q. Doctor --
12 A. But further neither Dr. Clark nor me could tell you more about
13 the events themselves.
14 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I respectfully ask you to answer my question. Did
15 Dr. Clark or the other autopsies you look at use the word "ethnic
16 cleansing" as cause of death or is that something you yourself inserted
17 into your analysis?
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has answered that question.
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, that was my point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The thing is that Dr. Clark didn't report ethnic
22 cleansing but -- and then the witness started explaining that she used
23 data among those Dr. Clark reports as to the causes of death but also
24 other information which led her to conclude that the information she
25 received both from Dr. Clark and from other sources fit into what the
1 witness understands to be ethnic cleansing -- an ethnic cleansing
3 So the witness has answered in the beginning the question, but if
4 you would like to put any follow-up question, then.
5 MR. IVETIC: Just one more before the break.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One more before the break. Okay.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Madam, you mentioned violent deaths. Do you consider deaths in
9 the course of combat to be violent or non-violent in nature, as you
10 understand that word as you've used it?
11 A. Oh, well, I think if we speak of combat, well, these are violent
12 deaths, of course, but of a different type than if people are killed not
13 being combatants and not being engaged in combat.
14 Q. And would you agree --
15 JUDGE ORIE: You said.
16 MR. IVETIC: I'll wait until after the break. Go ahead.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll take the break first. But as we did
18 before, the Chamber would prefer that Mr. Mladic is escorted out of the
19 courtroom first.
20 We -- then we'll resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
21 Mr. Mladic, you are to leave the courtroom first. No speaking
22 aloud. Mr. Mladic, you should leave the courtroom first. You'll be
23 escorted by security.
24 [The accused withdrew]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you think differentiating between combat-related
10 deaths and those from ethnic cleansing is irrelevant for purposes of your
12 A. I never said it is irrelevant for the purposes of my report, but
13 I was just not able to study sources that would be telling me about the
14 combat and non-combat incidents.
15 Q. Given that you concede combat is also a violent death, different
16 than people killed as non-combatants or killed not in combat, will you
17 agree that there exists a possibility that some or all Tomasica bodies
18 may equally be from combat as they may be from what you've called ethnic
20 A. I cannot exclude this option.
21 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that where a pathologist lists
22 cause of death as being unknown or unascertained, then you as a
23 demographer do not have an actual cause of death for that individual?
24 A. Yes, there is no cause of death reported.
25 Q. Can you give us any statistical data about what percentage of the
1 Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa bodies had unascertained or unknown causes of
2 death listed by the forensic pathologist?
3 A. I think we just saw this table earlier today. This is Table 22,
4 as far as I remember.
5 Q. Was that for both Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa?
6 A. This is for Tomasica victims. 22 is for Tomasica victims.
7 Q. So could you then answer my question: What percentage of all the
8 bodies from Jakarina Kosa and Tomasica would you say the autopsy reports
9 listed unascertained or unknown causes of death?
10 A. For both of them jointly, I cannot. Also not for Jakarina Kosa,
11 because I did not have all the reports for all the victims studied. I
12 just looked for the reports for the victims overlapping between Tomasica
13 and Jakarina Kosa.
14 Q. Would you consider individuals with an unascertainable cause of
15 death, would they, in your opinion, be victims of ethnic cleansing as is
16 listed in your report?
17 A. Well, as I spoke about ethnic cleansing, I was having in mind the
18 information about the disappearance of victims in combination with the
19 information about the violent nature of their deaths. And, of course,
20 for Jakarina Kosa, we don't have the information about causes of death
21 for all the victims.
22 Q. So let's focus on the 22 victim, as you call them, I call them
23 bodies, from Tomasica for which there were unascertained causes of death.
24 Do you include those in your conclusion of Tomasica victims being the
25 result of an ethnic cleansing campaign?
1 A. I think the 22 is a wrong number, sir. There were many more
2 victims from Tomasica with unascertained causes of death. In Table 22,
3 it is 86 victims mentioned with unascertained cause of death. Whether
4 they are part of the ethnic cleansing, well, sir, as I mentioned, what I
5 concluded in my report is that all victims from Tomasica died of violent
6 deaths, and it is disregarding whether the cause of death was well
7 determined or unascertained. There is a very good reason for the fact
8 that such a large number of causes of death remain unascertained, this
9 reason is the moving of the bodies, a large number of the bodies, from
10 Tomasica to Jakarina Kosa.
11 So in many instances, individuals were identified through the DNA
12 matching process on the basis of the analysis of a bone sample, a small
13 part of the entire body, and in these cases causes of death could not be
14 determined and remain unascertained.
15 And --
16 Q. So -- go ahead.
17 A. So that is the reason that cause of death is unavailable. But
18 there is evidence about splitting of the bodies. This is the analysis of
19 reassociations that I presented in my report. And the mere fact of
20 moving the bodies in large numbers from one site to another, and
21 fragmented bodies, and a huge number of reassociations, tells about --
22 that these were not just victims buried in a regular cemetery with the
23 names listed on -- on the -- on the graves.
24 Q. So if we can summarise full circle, according to you the 86
25 bodies with unascertained causes of death from Tomasica would still be
1 included in the group that you say on page 47 as all Tomasica victims who
2 died violent deaths in --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, Mr. Ivetic, at page 56, from line 5, you
4 asked the question:
5 "Okay. Would you agree with me that where a pathologists lists
6 cause of death as being unknown or unascertained, then you as a
7 demographer do not have an actual cause of death for that individual?"
8 The answer was:
9 "Yes, there is no cause of death reported."
10 Now you're asking the same question in a slightly different
11 formulation. So obviously if she has -- she -- there's no cause of
12 death, then she can't include them either as combat victims or as
13 cleansing victims.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I agree with you. But I don't think
15 that's what she just said. I think she is including them as being ethnic
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: No -- but -- let's let her answer.
18 MR. IVETIC: And that's why I want to know the answer. Are these
19 86 persons persons for whom she has concluded that they were victims of
20 ethnic cleansing.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: But isn't it logical from that prior answer that
22 they couldn't be because they are, as she says, yes, there is no cause of
23 death reported.
24 MR. IVETIC: If Dr. Tabeau confirms that for those 86 persons
25 they couldn't be victims of ethnic cleansing, I'll move on, but I don't
1 think she will.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, I confirm that I said in my report, and I
3 would like to quote from my report, it is page 47, the last paragraph of
4 the report:
5 "All in all, a significant evidence was presented in this report
6 which supports the conclusion that all Tomasica victims died violent
7 deaths in extremely dramatic circumstances of a broader campaign of the
8 ethnic cleansing in the Prijedor municipality and as part of the ARK
9 ethnic cleansing campaign."
10 So my statement here is about the violent nature of these deaths,
11 and I'm saying all victims died violent deaths in dramatic circumstances.
12 It is not only about causes of death. The conclusion about the dramatic
13 circumstances is -- has its foundation in the fact how they were buried.
14 It is not just a regular grave that they were buried in. It is an old
15 mine, Tomasica, or Jakarina Kosa, where the bodies were dropped, and for
16 whatever reason, but obviously a significant reason, at some point a
17 large number of bodies were moved and split.
18 The image of these split bodies is not nothing. It is a further
19 continuation of the -- of the violent nature that already was there when
20 the bodies were buried in an unmarked grave without their names listed
21 and without even knowing by people that bodies are buried there.
22 So I stand by this statement: All victims died violent deaths,
23 disregarding the fact that for 86 of them the cause of death remains
24 unascertained. And these 86 are body parts, fragments, legs, hands,
25 pieces of bodies found separately in a different location than the rest
1 of the body. That is the violent character of these deaths.
2 So it has nothing to do with the ascertained causes of death as
3 such. There are good reasons for this, that we don't have the causes of
4 death, and I'm sure if we go to Jakarina Kosa, we will see even more
5 unascertained causes of death for these victims.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But, Ms. Tabeau, the fact that the body or the body
7 parts were found in graves which were of a massive nature rather than
8 individual graves, not necessarily - at least theoretically - means that
9 all of them died from violent causes. I mean, you couldn't exclude for
10 the possibility that someone got a stroke when seeing, for example, that
11 others were shot in the head and were sharing the same fate to end up in
12 such a grave. Purely theoretically, perhaps, but I'm just exploring
13 exactly where the demographic expertise allows for such -- such
14 conclusions as you just expressed, that all of them died a violent death
15 or whether, at least theoretically, there's still a possibility that they
16 did not.
17 THE WITNESS: Of course this kind of a stroke is a possibility.
18 I cannot exclude this kind of causes of death --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Or combat.
20 THE WITNESS: Or combat is another one. I absolutely agree with
22 JUDGE ORIE: Still being a violent death but not in the context
23 as you describe it here.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. But generally, as I see these victims, how
25 they were buried and how many of them had -- were determined causes of
1 death, which were all of violent nature - there were determined causes,
2 we are talking about gun-shots of all kinds, doesn't seem these were
3 gun-shots acquired in combat from the fact -- you know, I didn't write
4 it. Clark wrote it that is fact. I rely on somebody's else opinion in
5 that. But it seems that these were short distance, violent shots that
6 killed these people. Of course, we have 86 cases. 86 individuals for
7 whom there are no causes of deaths.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore you could not exclude for any or even
9 all of those that they would have died not from a violent cause, although
10 you would consider it not very likely to have happened. Is that?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is exactly the case, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The gravamen of Mr. Ivetic's argument is not on
13 violence. It's on the kind of violence that you describe. He says how
14 do you distinguish between violence from ethnic cleansing and violence
15 from combat?
16 Now, he agrees with you that this was -- this may have been a
17 violent death. He quarrels with ethnic cleansing. That's the gravamen
18 of his argument, as I understand it.
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I understand this as well. And from
20 the analysis I made in my report and in previous reports and other
21 studies, I see the evidence of ethnic cleansing. The way people were
22 reported missing, who, the ethnicity, sex patterns, the huge displacement
23 of the population of the same character. I had myself a report in this
24 case in which I discuss the patterns in internal displacement and
25 refugees, so all this is supportive of ethnic cleansing, and I see it as
1 a demographer because I have evidence of it. I'm not a military analyst.
2 I cannot correlate information about combat actions in the same area in
3 the same period with the patterns I see in the disappearance.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think I understand why you come to that
5 conclusion. I don't know whether Mr. Ivetic wants to carry on.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Well, let's look at another part of the report. If we can return
8 to P7449 in e-court, and I believe, according to my notes, it will be
9 page 6 in both languages. And in English, it's the last part of the
10 first paragraph, and in B/C/S it will be the bottom of the page. And I
11 now quote:
12 "POD is -- is more a label than an actual data item. It
13 indicates Prijedor for almost all victims but not specific places of
14 disappearance within the Prijedor municipality."
15 First of all, just to be clear, are you here talking about ICMP's
16 records as to the Tomasica bodies?
17 A. Yes, sir. I do.
18 Q. And so in your opinion, the place of disappearance data from ICMP
19 is not reliable. Is that really what you are saying here?
20 A. Well, first of all, I want to stress that I am not in the
21 position to assess the reliability of the ICMP reporting on the
22 disappearance other than by comparing the places of disappearance
23 reported by ICMP with the places reported by ICRC, for example, other
24 sources, and Prijedor is just a general term that ICMP is using for all
25 the individuals, all except I think for two or something, and it is used
1 in the -- in the sense of the Prijedor municipality, which is very
2 general as a report of disappearance, whereas ICRC and Prijedor Book of
3 Missing are much more specific with regard to the places.
4 So -- but they are not contradictory in the sense that all small
5 villages that ICRC reports or Prijedor Book of Missing reports are within
6 the Prijedor municipality.
7 But going back to your question, whether I consider ICMP
8 reporting of the disappearance information reliable, I think they just
9 don't focus on this information. They have it because they collect it as
10 part of the blood collection process, and then if we want to have it
11 requested, "we" I mean the Office of the Prosecutor, they will provide it
12 without having any value or reliability assessment attached. In
13 Srebrenica cases, for example, all Srebrenica --
14 Q. I don't want to ask about Srebrenica. We have that evidence.
15 I'd like to stick to Tomasica, which is what we were told we were doing
17 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness wants to explain by comparison other
18 situations, she's allowed to do so.
19 THE WITNESS: So in Srebrenica cases, the ICMP allocated the term
20 either as "the forest" or "Potocari" and no more places at all. It was
21 either the forest or Potocari. And the date of disappearance for every
22 victim, Srebrenica victim, was 11th of July. So it was more like a
23 flagging of victims as related to Srebrenica than providing the actual
24 information about the -- the concrete circumstances, that means dates and
25 places of disappearance.
1 And here the situation is quite similar for Tomasica victims.
2 They used this label Prijedor for -- for the disappearance, place of
3 disappearance. With the dates of disappearance, they are much more
4 specific. So they come into dates and report the different dates of
5 disappearance. But again, it is just as they have it at hand without any
6 assessment procedure or corrections, improvement attempts. They just
7 report it as available from the family members who donated blood.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that you have, as such, no doubt
9 about whether they disappeared in the Prijedor municipality and that that
10 information, therefore, is -- you have no reason to think it's unreliable
11 but it lacks precision which -- a precision which perhaps would allow for
12 a further analysis which is impossible if we only know that they
13 disappeared in the Prijedor municipality?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that is very correct. I have one
15 section in the report in which I actually compare the ICMP reporting with
16 the ICRC reporting and the reporting by the Prijedor Book of Missing of
17 both place and dates of disappearance, and the three are highly
18 consistent except that Prijedor lacks the detail that I need for the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Wouldn't it be accepted practice in the field of demography to
23 assign a grade or reliability factor to a particular source that is being
24 used and to report the same in your demographic report?
25 A. Yes, Mr. Ivetic. Absolutely.
1 Q. And so could you please help me then why are you unable to
2 provide such a grade or reliability factor for the data from ICMP,
3 demographically speaking?
4 A. Yes, for the simple reason that I don't rely on this source.
5 When I discuss the disappearance information of the victims, I use mainly
6 the ICRC records in combination with the records from the Book of
7 Missing, Prijedor Book of Missing, and I am not using basically the ICMP
8 disappearance information.
9 Q. Are you in a position to report a grade or reliability factor for
10 these other sources that you did rely upon?
11 A. Well, it depends on what you want me to provide. If you want a
12 number, a single number, then I don't have such a number. But I do have
13 an opinion about the reliability of both ICRC and the Prijedor Book of
14 Missing. I have been working with ICRC, in particular, for many years,
15 and several times I studied the reliability of this list and assessed the
16 list as very reliable, as a matter of fact, although not free of certain
17 deficiencies like gaps in the data or incorrect dates of birth, for
18 example, victims. These kind of issues are there, of course.
19 Q. Okay. You've told us about the ICRC list. What about the other
20 sources you use? Can you give us an assessment in demographic terms of
21 the quality or reliability factor of the other sources you use for the
22 Tomasica report?
23 A. The most important source is, of course, the ICMP list of DNA
24 match notifications, and I certainly have a very high opinion about the
25 ICMP records, and this is a reliable list that I have no reasons to
2 ICMP have been used -- again, many times I have used the ICMP
3 lists many times in various cases. I unfortunately have to mention
4 Srebrenica again, Mr. Ivetic, as it was the most substantial case in
5 which these records were used, but also in other cases. I used the
6 Prijedor Book of Missing which is a sources made locally in the Prijedor
7 municipality. This source is less reliable than the ICRC list, yet it
8 highly overlaps with the ICRC list; however, there are many more
9 deficiencies in the Prijedor Book of Missing like missing pieces of
10 information or errors in the date of birth.
11 I studied also the 1991 census, which I assessed several times
12 also during other projects presented in this case about which I testified
13 in November 2013. I used the integrated mortality database which was a
14 source for cross-referencing the records of the missing and checking
15 whether the reporting of the disappearance is consistently reported there
16 as well and to exclude the possibility that someone has survived
17 Tomasica, but they didn't, or were confirmed dead.
18 What else I used?
19 Q. What reliability factor? You told what you use, I believe, in
20 your report. I'm asking for a reliability factor for, for instance, the
21 1991 census and the integrated mortality database which you just
22 mentioned? Could you please answer that question.
23 A. Well, I again cannot give you a single number on the scale from
24 one to ten, for example, because I don't have such a scale. But as I'm
25 saying, census, for example, 1991 census, even though it has its
1 problems, it's a very useful source for checking -- improving the
2 validity of the reporting by other sources. Well, we as the
3 demographic unit invested a lot of time and effort to eliminate mistakes
4 from the census and improve the reporting of the names in the census. It
5 took us several years until we established a version that could be
6 reliably used in our work, and honestly I believe it is a very reliable
7 source of information, very reliable source of information that proved to
8 be helping me to make decisions about many things, like, you know,
9 matching on the first place, consistency of lists, places of residence,
10 places of disappearance, ethnicity, age, many, many, many, many aspects
11 that I studied in my reports. Integrated database is a very large
12 database that is a complication of several sources --
13 Q. How reliable is it, ma'am?
14 A. In my eyes, very reliable.
15 Q. Okay. Now if we could please turn to page 13 of your Tomasica
16 report in English, and it will be page 16 in the B/C/S, and I want to
17 look at table number 4.
18 Now, if I've done my arithmetic correctly, I think we have 327
19 total Tomasica remains of males that fall between the ages of 15 years to
20 64 years. Would you agree with me that this represents over 91 per cent
21 of all the remains of males?
22 A. Well, I don't have the specific figures in front of my eyes, but
23 this sounds very correct to me. There may be slight differences, but,
24 yeah, that is what it says, actually, in my report in the paragraph just
25 above the table.
1 Q. Okay. If we can turn to 1D1235, while we wait for it, I can
2 introduce it as a decree with the force of law of defence of the RBiH
3 Presidency promulgated 20 May 1992. And if we can have Article 51 of the
4 same, found on page 3 of the B/C/S, page 18 of the English. And it says
6 "All citizens between 15 and 60 (men) or 55 (women) have the
7 right and obligation to train for defence if fit to attend training."
8 First of all, Dr. Tabeau, did you have occasion to review this
9 document or any document like it?
10 A. No, sir.
11 Q. Okay. Would you agree that this means that a significant portion
12 of the 91 per cent of the remains that were males between the ages of 14
13 and 60 were within the age group with an obligation to defend their
14 country and to report for training?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, is there any dispute about this?
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: About the content of this document? No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No? About -- the question whether there's any
19 dispute about this legislation means that a significant portion of the
20 91 per cent of the remains were males within the age group with an
21 obligation to defend their country and to report for training.
22 Mr. Ivetic, I'm just wondering why we need a witness to say this.
23 If the law says between 15 and 64, and if we have a table, then our own
24 logic would give the answer, isn't it?
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. But neither you nor I prepared
1 this report. Dr. Tabeau did. And I'm asking about what she took into
2 account when she did her report and how reliable it is for us to make
3 determinations from the same.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, she told us that she didn't look at that
5 legislation and then you followed up to ask for the obvious.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Now, I'd like to take a look at 1D5477. And
8 I can introduce it as follows: This was used as an exhibit in the Tadic
9 case, and for some reason page 2 is the English of the title. And after
10 we see the title -- so if we can have page 1 on the right, page 2 on the
11 left, we'll have both languages of the title of this document. And it
12 says: "List of Mobilisation."
13 And now if we can turn to page 3, we'll see a list of names.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 3 which language?
15 MR. IVETIC: It's all one language, Your Honours -- pardon me,
16 it's not all one language. It's all one document with multiple
17 languages. However, the lists of names have not been translated or were
18 not translated when this was used in a prior case.
19 Q. My first question to you, madam: We see here the words TO BiH
20 and Sto Kozarac. In your years of work at the OTP, would you agree with
21 me that the abbreviations TO often refer to the entity known as the
22 Territorial Defence?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And by the way, was this a document that you may have looked at
25 for purposes of your Tomasica review?
1 A. No, sir.
2 Q. Would you agree with me Kozarac is a region contained in Prijedor
4 JUDGE ORIE: Any dispute about where Kozarac is?
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
8 Q. Now, the Defence has not had time to do an exhaustive demographic
9 search, but we did find a total of 18 persons listed as exhumed from
10 Tomasica whose names match one or more names on this mobilisation list of
11 the Territorial Defence of the BiH from Kozarac in Prijedor. Does that
12 result surprise you?
13 A. Well, I am surprised that you compare just the first name and
14 surname, you know. In this case, what kind of comparison is this? If
15 you would have compared more information, like including father's name
16 and date of birth at least, then you could have obtained first a much
17 more reliable result and much fewer matches.
18 Well, it is still and will remain just a mobilisation list which
19 doesn't say anything about whether they died as combatants, in combat, or
21 Q. And I don't recall asking about that. I asked if you were
23 JUDGE ORIE: What would the witness be surprised of, Mr. Ivetic?
24 MR. IVETIC: The results. That there were matches, potential
25 matches between the names of Tomasica victims and --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you're -- the first surprise the witness
2 mentioned was that you used this data for comparison purposes. And then
3 indeed she went on to say which is apparently not part of what you
4 consider to be surprises.
5 Perhaps if you put specific questions to the witness, we might
6 move on in a more efficient way.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Well, madam, as a demographer if you were presented with this
9 list looking on the right-hand side, would you agree with me that the
10 only type of matching I could have done with this list was with the names
11 since that's all that's listed in there?
12 A. Sir, I can match a telephone book with the victims list from
13 Tomasica, but what is the meaning of that? So the matching process must
14 remain meaningful. First it has to be meaningful and then it has to be
15 possible. So in this case, I don't see it meaningful and I don't see it
16 really taking you where you want to be because the information on the
17 list is extremely limited. That is all I'm saying.
18 Q. Would you agree with me without access to your keys, your results
19 are just as meaningless?
20 A. It's not about the keys. It is about the content of this list.
21 It is about the information available. It is about what you can match
22 with other lists --
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. -- at your disposal.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that other sources beyond this one
1 document should be checked to find out if these and other names of
2 Tomasica bodies may have been engaged as members of an armed force prior
3 to their death?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean engaged in the factual terms of -- I
5 mean --
6 MR. IVETIC: Mobilised.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mobilised.
8 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So you would not exclude those who were, though
10 mobilised, would be at home or at work or -- the one doesn't exclude the
11 other, is it?
12 MR. IVETIC: Yes. And I'm not talking about combat. I'm just
13 talking about being mobilised as members of an armed force.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you said "engaged."
15 MR. IVETIC: As an armed force. That's --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And then I tried to further specify so as to assist
17 the witness in answering the question as understood by you as the
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But I would kindly ask Mr. Ivetic to help. Is it
20 a list of mobilised or to be mobilised people?
21 MR. IVETIC: Well, it's a long document, Your Honours. And for
22 many of the lists -- it's different lists from different areas, and some
23 of the lists have signatures of individuals next to their names, so in
24 that sense I would assume, but my assumption doesn't mean that it's
25 actually the case, but I would assume if they signed the list next to
1 their name that they accepted to be mobilised into that force. But
2 that's not what I want to ask Ms. Tabeau, but that does address I think
3 the gist of your comment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's now get back to the question. Perhaps you
5 repeat it, Mr. Ivetic, so that the witness now having understood some of
6 the issues involved in the question itself can answer and let's see
7 whether she can answer the question.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Would you agree with me that other sources beyond this one
10 document should be checked to find out if these and other names of
11 Tomasica victims may be matched with persons who were mobilised as
12 members of an armed force prior to their deaths.
13 A. Well, the lists of mobilised persons, I don't feel they take me
14 anywhere as I said already, you know, because if my purpose would be to
15 distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, I would have to go and
16 study the circumstances of the deaths in terms other than the causes of
17 death that are available here for the Tomasica victims, and I'm afraid I
18 didn't have such sources at my disposal. I could have marked individuals
19 on the Tomasica list as being army members or not, but it would still
20 don't give me the answer about dying in combat or dying not in combat.
21 Q. Now you've told us that you followed the same methodology as in
22 your Srebrenica report, but you will recall for purposes of your
23 Srebrenica report you yourself wrote several Request for Assistance to
24 the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina to determine if members --
25 persons on that list were members of their armed forces. Even following
1 the methodology, did you do that at all for these Tomasica listed
3 A. I didn't do that for Tomasica victims, but I could do that and I
4 can still provide a list very easily if you wish so, but it still doesn't
5 answer the question about dieing in combat and dying not in combat. In
6 Srebrenica cases, as you yourself remember, a distinction was made
7 between persons listed on the -- in the army records and not. Yet the
8 essential part of the victims' analysis are the exhumation records, are
9 the sites, whether they were mass graves, and what the on-site
10 investigation tells about the links of the sites with certain incidents
11 that led to deaths of individuals buried in the sites.
12 So you could be listed, what I'm trying to say, as a soldier on
13 an army list or mobilisation list, but it doesn't tell you about how the
14 person really died.
15 Q. Do you think it would not be interesting information for purposes
16 of testing conclusions of other people as to how and when they died?
17 A. First of all, I was tasked to provide an analysis that would tell
18 about the number of victims buried in Tomasica. That is what I did.
19 Certainly I could have done more, many more things. I can myself think
20 of several excellent ideas to expand on in the very same report. I was
21 also tasked to investigate the context of how these people disappeared,
22 which I did. And this is all I was tasked with and I was not crossing
23 these mandates, if I may call it like that.
24 Q. Now just so I can understand your answer at line 19, page 73, you
1 "I didn't do that for Tomasica victims, but I could do that and I
2 can still provide a list very easily..."
3 Am I to understand that you do have information and a list as to
4 members of the army that are to be found in the Tomasica list or
5 please -- help me explain what you just said?
6 A. I could provide it easily but doesn't mean that I do have it and
7 I looked into it and I studied it.
8 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
9 A. I do have it as part of the system of the population databases
10 which I used for this report. So if there is an order from -- from this
11 Court for me to do so, I can of course provide such a list which still is
12 beyond the tasks that were -- that I was told to do for this report.
13 Q. Okay. If we can return to your report, and I apologise, I think
14 that is P7449, and if we could turn to page 23 in the English and page 28
15 in the B/C/S. In the English, it will be the second paragraph from the
16 top; on the B/C/S, it will be the third paragraph from the bottom.
17 And I quote now:
18 "It is indeed possible, extensively and comprehensively possible,
19 to prove that both many whole bodies and many fragmented body parts,
20 those from Tomasica, as well as those from Jakarina Kosa, were subject of
21 shooting from machine or sometimes handguns ..."
22 Dr. Tabeau, you earlier used the word "execution" in describing
23 what you believed happened to these individuals. Is this one of the
24 bases upon which you concluded that these bodies were the result of
1 A. Well, what you just read is, indeed, a quote from my report which
2 I made based on my studying the report of Clark and his report of causes
3 of death. So that's the foundation for it.
4 Q. Okay. Did you happen in your work to get a copy or consider
5 Bruno Franjic's ballistics report of disputed cartridges and bullet
6 rounds found in the Tomasica grave and removed from bodies of victims
7 during autopsy?
8 A. I didn't study this report and I didn't use any evidence from
9 that report in my work.
10 Q. Okay. Would you be surprised, Dr. Tabeau, to find out that
11 Mr. Franjic was unable to conclusively identify any of the bullets from
12 Tomasica as having come from a machine-gun?
13 A. Well, my answer must be I don't know simply because I'm not
14 familiar with his report and his evidence.
15 Q. Okay. Now I want to take a look at Dr. Clark's report; P7433,
16 page 8 in the English, page 10 in the B/C/S?
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, while this is coming up, could I
18 also ask Mr. Ivetic for a reference to the parts of Mr. Franjic report
19 that he cited to or referred to.
20 MR. IVETIC: The entire report.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, no, no. The line or page reference for the
22 conclusion that you read to Dr. Tabeau.
23 MR. IVETIC: Every conclusion in the report could not conclude --
24 could not conclude machine-guns. In court when I suggested machine-guns,
25 Mr. Franjic disputed and said, no, no, they could not have come from
1 machine-guns. I can get it for you at the next break.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you very much.
3 MR. IVETIC: I think we now, have at least one half of the ...
4 Is this Dr. Clark's report? It does not look like it to me.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Ivetic, could you kindly repeat the number.
6 MR. IVETIC: 7433 is the number I have written down.
7 THE REGISTRAR: 7433 is the curriculum vitae of
8 Mr. Bruno Franjic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Dr. Clark's report is marked with the number
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look and see whether -- what appears is
13 his report.
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes. If we could turn to page 8 in the English,
15 page 10 in the B/C/S.
16 Q. And in here, we have from Dr. Clark that most injuries were from
17 high-velocity weapons.
18 And if we turn to page 13 in the English, page 16 in the B/C/S,
19 and it's the first line in the English, and Dr. Clark concludes:
20 "The vast majority of gun-shot injuries seen in the Tomasica
21 cases appear to have been caused by bullets fired from high-velocity
22 rifles," with a definite or suggestive use of handguns in 23 instances.
23 Dr. Tabeau, would you agree that Dr. Clark in his report never
24 mentioned machine-guns. That's something that you inserted into the
1 A. You forget about the two long lists that go together with this
2 report. In order to say yes or no, I would have to search through this
3 list and come back with the answer whether the word "machine" was used in
4 these annexes. It must have come from somewhere.
5 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Dr. Clark uses "high-velocity rifle."
6 I put it to you that word is not found in your report. Why?
7 A. I don't know.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're not suggesting that Ms. Tabeau must use the
9 language of some other people?
10 MR. IVETIC: If she claims she is relying upon their conclusions
11 to draw conclusions of her own, I think she does have to accurately quote
12 the terminology of other people and understand what that terminology
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: When she said "machine-gun," was she quoting?
15 MR. IVETIC: She just said she was relying upon Dr. Clark.
16 That's where my confusion lies.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not quoting.
18 MR. IVETIC: Relying upon.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's -- what the witness said is that she
20 would like to inspect the annexes so as to find out whether her quote
21 "machine-guns" find its basis there. Now that Dr. Clark uses the
22 expression "high-velocity rifles," I think it was, or "high-velocity
23 weapons," that doesn't affect that, and I do not know whether this
24 witness would not agree with that or contradict that because Dr. Clark
25 says a large majority, which leaves a minority over, and I do not know
1 whether at this moment we're looking at the minority cases which are left
2 or whether we are talking about the overall majority conclusions. Let's
3 keep that very --
4 MR. IVETIC: I am keeping that in mind, but Dr. Tabeau's words
5 are it is indeed possible, extensively and comprehensively possible, to
6 prove that both many whole bodies and many fragmented body parts, so
7 she's definitely talking many, not the minority. Am I correct, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask the witness.
10 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the simple answer is I'm happy to
11 search through these annexes of Mr. Clark and see whether the term was
12 used and in how many instances. It is also possible, as I am not an
13 expert in ballistics, that I mix-up terms and misinterpreted something,
14 but before I agree I did I would like to run this search.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. I have no problem with you running that search on your own time,
17 but we have to keep going with questions.
18 MR. IVETIC: So perhaps, Your Honours, I don't know if at the
19 next break the report could be provided to the witness by VWS. I've no
20 problem with her --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If the annexes could be provided to the witness
22 during the break, which we'll start now as a matter of fact.
23 THE WITNESS: I am afraid that I have to go back to my office to
24 search electronically, very quickly. I can be assisted in doing that
25 with somebody.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It depends on whether any of the parties has
2 problems with you seeking assistance and going back to your office which
3 is, if I understand well, located within the OTP premises.
4 I leave it to Mr. Ivetic at this moment to express whether or not
5 he has any objection to that.
6 MR. IVETIC: If she remains in the presence of the Court usher, I
7 don't see a problem with that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You want the court usher to accompany her.
9 MR. IVETIC: Would that be the procedure for a witness who is on
10 the stand, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know whether that's -- Ms. D'Ascoli.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, we wouldn't have any objection to
14 JUDGE ORIE: No objection whatsoever.
15 If the Registry has no objection that the court usher accompanies
16 Ms. Tabeau to her office and looks into her computer, I take it that the
17 usher is not in a position to check exactly what Ms. Tabeau is doing on
18 her computer but we leave it to that.
19 MR. IVETIC: Okay. The usher is just to ensure no one else talks
20 to Dr. Tabeau. That's what I understand it as. It's just so that no
21 one else interferes with the witness. That's normal.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier Ms. Tabeau you said that you would need the
23 assistance of another person. Can you do it without that other person so
24 that --
25 THE WITNESS: With the assistance of usher I meant, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The assistance of the usher.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that somebody is just keeping an eye on me to
3 be sure that I don't do anything --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Wrong.
5 THE WITNESS: -- wrong. That is exactly what it is.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would 20 minutes be approximately enough to search
9 for the machine-guns in the annexes?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, absolutely.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at a quarter to
13 2.00. And Ms. Tabeau will be accompanied by the usher. But could the
14 witness first leave the courtroom. She's in a hurry.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 1.21 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, while we wait for Dr. Tabeau I can
19 give my colleagues on the other side the citations from Mr. Franjic's
20 report to look at. It's Exhibit P7435, pages 102 through 111, and
21 Exhibit P7434, pages 47 to 50 where he does all the opinions as to the
22 cartridges, and I think everyone will agree he's not able to conclusively
23 identify a machine-gun for any of them. And at transcript page 36501 to
24 36502 he took issue from me even suggesting a machine-gun based upon
25 different characteristics on the cartridges.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And could you remind the number of cartridges which
3 he compared was approximately what? Was that less than the number of
4 bodies or main cases that were found or was it more?
5 MR. IVETIC: I think he examined something in the realm of 18
6 cartridges and some rounds of which most of the rounds he was not able to
7 perform an analysis of, but I don't have -- I don't have the -- recall
8 for the actual numbers, but I would suspect to be less than the bodies.
9 That's my general impression.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, thank you, Mr. Ivetic. Your Honours, we will
12 check those references because our recollection is that the witness
13 didn't rule out completely the possibility, but thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You check that.
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, yes. Thank you.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, I take it you had a safe trip to your
18 office and a safe trip back again. Could you report on anything you may
19 have found during this break.
20 THE WITNESS: So I searched through both annexes Clark provided
21 for three terms, "machine," separately "gun," then separately "velocity"
22 in any context in any part of the phrases on several data items.
23 "Machine," the word "machine" does not appear there. The word "gun"
24 appears in the context of handgun shots in a number of cases but not in a
25 large number of cases. The "velocity" appears in the context of
1 high-velocity and it appears in very many cases. Actually, 283 cases the
2 word "high-velocity" has been used.
3 Well, going back to my statement in the report and using the term
4 "machine-gun," I certainly misinterpreted the word "high-velocity" for
5 machine-gun. I'm not an expert in ballistics, and I wouldn't be able to
6 explain all the differences between these two, so it is my reading of
7 high-velocity gun-shots.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You have interpreted high-velocity as the frequency
9 of shots being fired rather than the speed of the projectile. Is that --
10 THE WITNESS: That is what I most likely did, yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
12 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
13 Q. Now, a little bit earlier you in response to my questions talked
14 about the tasking that you received for this report. From whom did
15 you -- pardon me. Did you receive your tasking from the Office of the
16 Prosecutor orally or in writing?
17 A. Orally.
18 Q. From whom did receive your assignments and/or tasking from the
19 Prosecutor's Office?
20 A. It was Camille Bibles, previously the Senior Trial Attorney on
21 the Mladic case.
22 Q. Okay. Now, I want to talk about something you said last week.
23 But before we do, I would like to talk about your slideshow presentation
24 that we saw in court these last few days.
25 Why did you wait until a day or two before your testimony to
1 complete and disclose the same to the Defence?
2 A. Well, perhaps, first of all, I finished it the day before the
3 testimony, and, actually, I insisted to have a presentation of this type
4 as I find it helps not only me but everybody else in the courtroom to go
5 through it, whereas, well, the idea was not very easily accommodated by
6 the attorneys who were taking me in court.
7 Q. Okay. Did you know that the Defence was granted one month of
8 time to prepare for the Tomasica reopening?
9 A. Well, I'm not watching the court proceedings every day but I know
10 there is a limit. And if you say you had one month, it was probably the
12 Q. Now, if we go back to that which I want to ask you about, and it
13 was at transcript page 36745 where you were asked by Judge Orie as
14 follows, and this was -- pardon me, this was in relation to slide 14 of
15 your preparation by the way:
16 "JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you wouldn't know. So when you said the
17 number for Keraterm, Omarska, Trnopolje are not complete, they may be
18 complete, they may not be complete. Is that --
19 "THE WITNESS: That is my understanding too. They may be but
20 more likely incomplete."
21 The question I have for you Dr. Tabeau: What is the demographic
22 bases on which you conclude that these numbers for these locations more
23 likely are incomplete when Judge Orie is correct and you agree with him
24 that the two are equally valid options -- that there are two equally
25 valid options that exist?
1 A. Well, strictly speaking Judge Orie is, of course, right. They
2 might be complete, they might be incomplete. I don't know that.
3 However, from the -- my experience as I read the reports on the missing
4 persons, I see that what is reported there is the location, people, the
5 victims were last seen, last seen. Further, some people could have gone
6 to camps like Keraterm or Omarska and they saw certain relatives for the
7 last time there, but most people reported, rather, the places where they
8 lived, the small villages where they saw their relatives for the last
9 time. So I believe that in order to provide correct numbers of
10 individuals who were, in fact, last seen, really, could have been last
11 seen, really, in the camps, it be would higher numbers.
12 Q. Now let me ask you this: In relation to the camps and into the
13 events in Prijedor, do you believe in the Prosecution's case as to what
14 happened to ethnic Muslims and ethnic Croats?
15 A. What is the question? I don't understand the question really.
16 Q. Do you believe that the Prosecution case is right? Do you
17 believe in the Prosecution's case, their theory as to what happened to
18 people that in Prijedor including in these three locations, Keraterm
19 Omarska, and Trnopolje?
20 A. Well, I don't know what the Prosecution thinks of these camps,
21 but I know what I have shown in the report, so what I know is in the
22 report. There were people reported disappeared from the camps. And I
23 provided you with these numbers, and these are in my opinion minimum
25 Q. Did you in your work at the Office of the Prosecutor either in
1 this stint or the original stint have a role in advising the Office of
2 the Prosecution as to how to phrase their case as to Prijedor?
3 A. No, I didn't have --
4 Q. Okay --
5 A. -- this say, no.
6 Q. Did you have access to and review the Prosecution witness
7 testimony or statements as to Prijedor, Omarska, Keraterm, and/or
8 Trnopolje while doing your work?
9 A. No, I didn't.
10 Q. Okay. I'm trying to skip through some of my questions.
11 By the way, if we can back to the I think it was seven sources
12 that you consulted for your Tomasica report. How many of these sources
13 do you consider as a demographer contained reliable confirmation of the
14 death of individuals?
15 A. Well, I think that the source that is -- that offers a
16 confirmation of the deaths and -- of the individuals is the ICMP DNA
17 match reports that simply confirm that these people who at some point
18 were reported missing were buried in Tomasica and identified as the
19 actual deaths. Of course, on the top of it or in addition to this we
20 have the 600 approximately documents from the BH prosecutor office that
21 directly also go into the death details of these individuals.
22 So the rest would be the missing persons records and of course
23 Clark's records of the post-mortem investigation was definitely
24 confirmed, the deaths of these people, although there are no names there
25 associated with the cases.
1 So it would be ICMP, Clark, the BH prosecutor's documents that
2 confirm the deaths. On the top of it, there is the disappearance
4 Q. Okay. Now, if we could turn to 1D5784.
5 While we wait for that, I'll tell you this is an excerpt from the
6 UN statistics division demographic year book showing historic data from
7 1948 to 1997 for various countries. Did you consult such data or such a
8 source for purposes of any of your demographic work for the Office of the
10 A. Well, I can't read it because letters are very -- extremely
11 small, but it would be probably the deaths, records of the dead people,
12 right, by age and then sex and urban and rural divide, et cetera,
13 et cetera.
14 The thing is, Mr. Ivetic, that these are known deaths, not the
15 missing persons record.
16 Q. I agree. I'm simply asking did you review these?
17 A. No, I didn't, because I wouldn't find the Tomasica victims in
18 aggregate statistics or known deaths.
19 Q. Here, we have data 1989 and 1990 for Bosnia-Herzegovina showing
20 for both years approximately 30.000 in deaths. Now would you agree with
21 me based upon the years covered by these figures, that these 30.000
22 approximate deaths per year had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing or
23 the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. Well, it is probably depending on the year. It is a long number
25 of years that are shown here in this slide, but the -- United Nations
1 division in New York certainly provides statistics in normal times, not
2 in the time of war. So it is not what they can compile, the deaths and
3 missing persons in the time of war. Whether it was 30.000 a year or
4 slightly more, I don't know exactly and we don't see it on the slide.
5 Q. And --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We do see something. I think the total number for
7 1989, as far as I can see, is a little bit over 30.000.
8 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that's for Bosnia-Herzegovina, apparently. And
10 then 1990 is 29.000, a little bit over that. And the question by
11 Mr. Ivetic was whether this is related to the war circumstances?
12 Mr. Ivetic, is there a suggestion in your question that in 1989
13 and 1990 there was already a war ongoing?
14 MR. IVETIC: No, I was asking for Dr. Tabeau to be on the same
15 page as me and confirm that these are not war-related because they
16 predate the war.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. So if you have any reason to change that
18 understanding, Ms. Tabeau -- then apparently not.
19 THE WITNESS: No, no.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
22 Q. Now, would you agree in peacetime, or normal time I think you
23 called it just a few moments ago, cause of death can be due to old age,
24 accident, and ordinary criminal homicide that is not related to war?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Are you asking for the obvious, Mr. Ivetic? Do we
1 need an expert to tell us that people can die from natural causes? Do we
2 need an expert to tell us that people can die from old age or from
3 criminal homicide? Next question, please.
4 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
5 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, 30.000 persons a year times the four years of
6 the war between 1992 and 1995 by my math would project an approximation
7 of 120.000 people who would have died of causes unrelated to the war
8 during those years. Demographically speaking am I write?
9 A. Yes, of course.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. It's just a simple extrapolation.
12 MR. IVETIC: If I can tender this document as the next Defence
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you if elderly people would die from
15 natural causes, is there a possibility - and I'm asking you - that they
16 would not die from those natural causes but would die as a result of war?
17 They may have died otherwise for by other purposes. So when you said,
18 yes, of course, is there anything you'd like to add?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, of course, well, it is -- this kind of
20 projection for four years ahead, the years that were war years in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that does not make any sense, of course, at all.
22 First of all, people who would have died in normal time of old age,
23 accidents, criminal violence, would have died of war-related causes,
25 JUDGE ORIE: Some of them [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 THE WITNESS: Some of them, not all of them. Of course, some of
2 them. So there would be a total different pattern of dying in this
3 period, so making an extrapolation of 30.000 over four years of war is
4 not the way to come up with a number of deaths in the war time.
5 So there will be both types of deaths. There will be deaths of
6 old age, diseases, accidents, and criminal violence, but there will be
7 also other deaths, war-related deaths of both civilians and soldiers
8 that would change the pattern of dying during the war time completely.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So when you said "yes, of course" in view of the
10 question, you meant to say something different?
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Because the simple extrapolation cannot be made in
13 a -- in a way that makes sense because people might have still died from
14 natural causes or old age, whereas others may have been caught by a
15 bullet in combat situations.
16 THE WITNESS: Of course. That is what I meant. So extrapolation
17 is a process that is based on certain assumptions, and one can
18 extrapolate, of course, but the meaning of such an extrapolation is
19 simply zero.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the question, therefore, the question was
21 that if 30.000 people in a non-war situation would die from natural
22 causes or from criminal activities, whether you would expect between 1992
23 and 1994, in four years, 120.000 people would have died, of course, is
24 unrelated to the war. There is not a clear yes to that.
25 THE WITNESS: Of course, the 120 could have been expected for
1 normal time. If there were no war, one could think of extrapolating and
2 using the regular assumptions. If -- I don't know, demographer would
3 probably extrapolate or most likely extrapolate like that, but that is
4 all what I meant.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But the question included what would be the
6 situation during four years of war.
7 THE WITNESS: I missed that. I missed that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: I think I tendered the document.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: No objections, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D1091, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
14 MR. IVETIC: If we could just quickly look at 1D5783.
15 Q. This again from the United Nations statistical department, the
16 demography handbook published in 2006, and in this excerpt if we turn to
17 page 10, I think here we'll see data for various European encounters from
18 2002 through 2006. And if we zoom in, hopefully we'll Bosnia near the
19 top of the list. And for Bosnia for these years, we see the deaths
20 include death rates and we see 30.000 up, up, all the way up until 34.000
21 for one year.
22 And first of all, madam, given this pattern both before and after
23 the war of approximately 30.000 deaths due to a variety of causes not
24 related to the war, can we conclude that a significant number of persons
25 died during the war of causes not related to the war?
1 A. I think, sir, what can you conclude about the war if the war is
2 not part of this slide that we have on our screen and wasn't part of the
3 previous slide? So these are two slides that are unrelated. In the
4 meantime, the population size have changed. It was 4.4 million of
5 individuals in Bosnia. Then at some point it was 3.5 million. So there
6 was census not that long ago that shows the changes in the population
8 In the meantime, the age structure of the population changed as
9 well, as all populations, also the Bosnian population ages, so from a
10 smaller population we still can end with 30.000 deaths a year
11 of [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 Q. No, I didn't mention an amount. Just so you understand my
13 question, are you now telling us that you exclude the possibility that
14 there were a certain number or a certain percentage of the population
15 during the war years that died of natural causes?
16 A. Well, I never said I exclude.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Some people die of natural causes also in the war time, of
20 Q. And we don't know that number, do we?
21 A. No, not exactly. We know some of these numbers but not exact
23 Q. Okay. Now if we return -- first of all, let's tender this as
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: No objection, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D1092, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. If we can return to your report, P7449, and look at page 30 in
6 English and the corresponding page will be 38 in the B/C/S.
7 Now, here is the beginning of your section dealing with Prijedor
8 and the ARK. And here you analyse, according to the bullet points: How
9 many missing persons were there from Prijedor in 1992, who went missing
10 from Prijedor, what's their age, sex, ethnicity, what major disappearance
11 events can be seen in the records of the missing from Prijedor.
12 Would you agree with me that for all four of these questions in
13 this report you, and when I say "you" I mean your office at the Office of
14 the Prosecutor, had in its possession the data and information at your
15 disposal long before the Tomasica evidence came into light and long
16 before the reopening was sought.
17 A. Well, the sources, ICRC list and Prijedor Book of Missing, were
18 indeed in possession of the OTP for a long time, and analysis of Prijedor
19 missing were made in the past. I mentioned today in this court that I
20 made some studies on this in the past. What was done now was a
21 reassessment of the missing from Prijedor and the ARK region, including
22 the latest version of the ICRC list in the reassessment and producing the
23 statistics as I mentioned in the bullet points.
24 Q. Indeed, Doctor. Two of your reports deal with municipalities in
25 Prijedor - they're P2798 and P2796 in evidence - but would you agree with
1 me that this type of analysis linking Prijedor missing persons to
2 incidents from the indictment was never performed in those reports even
3 though you had that data in your possession as to non-Tomasica victims
4 long before the Prosecution rested its case in 2013?
5 A. It was indeed the case that in the past the proof of death
6 analysis wasn't done the same way as it is done these days. I think that
7 my personal experience and also the experience of my former unit has
8 grown over the years, and the focus recently has been much more the POD
9 analysis, proof of death analysis. So what can I say? It is just where
10 we ended, and, yeah, that is what I had done in other cases recently was
11 also now down for Tomasica.
12 Q. So would you agree with me this Tomasica report was intended to
13 supplement and fill a hole that had been left in your reports as to
14 Prijedor that we talked about in November of 2013?
15 A. I don't think it was intended. It was my decision to make this
16 report the way I made it. I thought it really very important to made it
17 in this way. I didn't have any intention of, you know, supplementing or
18 not supplementing. I was thinking of what is needed and what I thought
19 was important to do in this case.
20 Q. Okay.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, could I ask you the following. Looking
22 at the items Mr. Ivetic did put to you, was it at the time possible to
23 link missing persons to persons that would have deceased, especially in
24 relation to those persons identified after the -- after revealing the
25 Tomasica mass grave?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Previously we didn't have the
2 identifications of the Tomasica victims, so this type of analysis was
3 simply not possible sooner than I made it for Tomasica.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Did you have identifications for Jakarina Kosa?
8 A. For Jakarina Kosa, yes, there were identifications. Yes.
9 Q. So you could have done this analysis earlier for Jakarina Kosa in
11 A. I think that many of the Jakarina Kosa identifications are
12 included in the POD annex that I made earlier in November 2013 I
13 testified about -- [Overlapping speakers] ... yeah.
14 Q. I agree. And none of them are linked to incidents from the
15 indictment; isn't that correct? You waited until now to do that.
16 A. I think what is --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honour, that is not correct. Like, the POD
19 annex speak to --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you're now giving an answer apparently.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You can object to a question but you can't give what
23 you consider to be the right answer.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Okay. Then I object to the question as not
25 correctly characterising the content of P2797.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, to the extent possible, but it's always
2 a bit problematic if we're talking about the negative, what was not done,
3 but if -- but perhaps we should leave that until tomorrow.
4 If you could phrase your question again tomorrow clearly
5 indicating from where it becomes clear that a certain link was not
6 considered or established by the witness in a previous report.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, I again instruct you that you should not
9 speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony, either given or
10 still to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30
11 in this same courtroom.
12 You may now follow the usher.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
16 the 8th of July, 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of July,
19 2015, at 9.30 a.m.