Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38216

 1                           Tuesday, 25 August 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             We'll wait for the witness to enter the courtroom.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.  Before we continue,

15     I'd like to remind you --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by

18     the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your

19     testimony.  Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination-in-chief.

20             Please proceed.

21                           WITNESS:  SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23                           Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

24        Q.   Good morning, Professor.

25        A.   Good morning.

Page 38217

 1        Q.   I'd like to take up at 1D5335 in e-court.  While we wait for

 2     that, I can introduce it as the original Milosevic case report prepared

 3     by Dr. Tabeau which she updated for purposes of preparing P2798 on the

 4     same topic in the Mladic case.  And once we get that document, I'd be

 5     looking for page 8 in Serbian, page 7 in English.  And it should be ...

 6     it should be the third paragraph visible from the top in the Serbian and

 7     in English -- now we're getting ...

 8             Is this the... yes.  Okay.

 9             And it's the last two lines in the English that we look at, or

10     actually the second-to-last line, where Dr. Tabeau says:  "Note that our

11     definitions of internally displaced persons and refugees are statistical,

12     not legal."

13             Professor, are you able to assist us in understanding Dr. Tabeau

14     by telling us what, if any, definition exists in statistics for

15     internally displaced persons and refugees?

16        A.   In statistics, there is no definition of refugees and internally

17     displaced persons.  This is a definition made up by the Prosecution

18     expert who does not define it.  She doesn't say, By the statistical

19     definition, I mean this and that.

20             Concerning refugees and internally displaced persons, we usually

21     use the UN definition.  If an author, writing a paper, wants to provide

22     his own definition, then he cannot call it statistical definition because

23     there is no statistical definition.  There is no universal statistical

24     definition but the author, of course, has the right to use the definition

25     that he wants.  However, he has to explain it so that we can see whether

Page 38218

 1     it coincides with what is normally used in science.

 2        Q.   Now, if we can turn to the report of Dr. Tabeau for the Mladic

 3     case, which is P2798.  And while we wait for that, Professor, do you have

 4     any observations or conclusions as to the manner in which Dr. Tabeau has

 5     analysed migrations of what she has referred to as refugees and

 6     internally displaced persons in this report?

 7        A.   It's a way that is exclusively applied according to the

 8     methodology that they created.  It has nothing to do with scientific

 9     methodology.  It is the way in which they adapted to themselves the

10     research in order to get the results they needed.

11             Dr. Tabeau, among other things, holds the position that what they

12     were doing, although I objected to it and possibly other experts, she

13     holds the position that nothing needs to be changed.  They cited reasons

14     like it took them so long to correct the material, et cetera.  That is no

15     valid justification.

16        Q.   Professor, you said yesterday that Dr. Tabeau used administrative

17     divisions, territorial divisions, created after the war and this was at

18     transcript page 38166 onwards.  What is the effect of Dr. Tabeau basing

19     her results on administrative divisions in territory created after the

20     war?

21        A.   Well, in that way, you show results that appear much more

22     dramatic than if you showed them at the level of the administrative and

23     territorial division from 1991.  The fact is that Bosnia and Herzegovina

24     was divided administratively and territorially in a different way, and

25     Dr. Tabeau was entitled to apply that new division, but only if she

Page 38219

 1     explained why she deviates from the division, the territorial division,

 2     at the time of the indictment.  If there is a reason, and if that reason

 3     is important and valid in the opinion of Dr. Tabeau, then she could have

 4     said, We will be doing everything in accordance with the new

 5     administrative division because that provides for a better

 6     representation, it's easier to get the results, et cetera.

 7             It was certainly not easier in terms of time because all the

 8     censuses were done according to the old administrative division.  So you

 9     had to adjust even censuses to the new administrative division, grouping

10     settlements and territories in line with the new division.  I don't know

11     what Dr. Tabeau thought.  Maybe she thought that she -- if she applied

12     the new administrative division, some results would be more clearly

13     represented and the changes would appear much more important.  If you

14     view these changes at the level of Bosnia-Herzegovina without that

15     administrative and territorial division, they don't have that crucial

16     importance.  There is no crucial difference in these migrations that were

17     completely wrongly calculated, by the way.

18             What's interesting in her application of that administrative

19     division is that I don't know how important it is if you compare it to

20     the territory that Dr. Tabeau calls the Mladic territory, and she defines

21     it as holding 26 municipalities.  She never made a distinction by saying,

22     for instance, the Mladic territory compared to the total territory of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina shows this and that.  Or the Mladic territory relative

24     to the BH Federation shows such and such changes.  She just presents

25     certain results without explaining.

Page 38220

 1             I'm not denying her right to apply the new administrative

 2     division but it would be intellectually honest to explain why she

 3     believes that this administrative division is better than applying the

 4     old one.

 5        Q.   If we can turn to page 27 in English and it will be page 30 in

 6     the Serbian, I believe we'll arrive at Table 1 of this report, P2798?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, could I ask one additional

 8     question.

 9             You said in that way you show results that appear much more

10     dramatic than if you showed them at the level of the administrative

11     territorial division from 1991.

12             Could you explain or have you calculated the outcome which is

13     dramatically more?  Could you tell us, is it 1 per cent, 10 per cent?

14     What's the outcome if do you it in the way you suggest?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if I were looking at a

16     particular table, it would help me to explain what I meant.

17             If you say that the changes to the ethnic structure at the level

18     of Bosnia appears such and such, for instance, there were 40 per cent

19     Bosniaks and 45 per cent Serbs --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me interrupt you for a second.  You said it

21     would give a dramatically different outcome.  Could you tell us what your

22     outcome is which dramatically differs from Dr. Tabeau's outcome and where

23     could you illustrate that?  Not in general terms, not in the abstract but

24     just to say this is what she did, that's her outcome, this is how it

25     should have been done.  And you see the outcome is dramatically

Page 38221

 1     different.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have to have a table in

 3     front of me.  I'm trying to explain what it looks like.

 4             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The table of Dr. Tabeau.  I don't

 6     mind, any table.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, choose whatever or let Mr. Ivetic choose

 8     whatever which gives such a dramatic different outcome.  I mean, you're

 9     stating it in general terms [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... so that

11     I can show where the difference lies.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I leave it entirely up to you and to

13     Mr. Ivetic to show it.  In the terms as I asked you to do.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I can tell that you in the report of

15     the professor at page 57 of the English, there's Figure number 4 which we

16     be will getting to later in the examination.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If you say we'll come to that, then I'll wait.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. IVETIC:  If we can -- there we go.  Now we have both

20     languages on the screen.

21        Q.   Professor, here we have the table of Dr. Tabeau talking about

22     citizens, total number of citizens by nationality.

23             And, first of all, looking at the percentages shown by

24     Dr. Tabeau, are these percentages true demographic indicators?

25        A.   I can't see very well but in the first one, where it says

Page 38222

 1     population in 1991, Dr. Tabeau shows -- I think this is 40.1 per cent

 2     Serbs.  There were -- I can't see very well -  40.9 per cent Muslims.

 3             Now I see perfectly well.

 4             So the first three columns where it says:  Population in 1991 and

 5     then it says:  All nationalities million and something.  Serbs 416.000,

 6     and that makes up 41.1 per cent of the total population.  Muslims

 7     414.000, and that makes 40.9 per cent of the total population.  And it

 8     goes on by ethnicity.

 9             These are the shares of individual ethnicities in the total

10     population for the Mladic territory that Dr. Tabeau calculated or

11     assessed in a very bad way.  I will accept it as it is, and I did not go

12     into elaborate explanations.  But this assessment, this estimate, where

13     she explains that the census on the Mladic territory, the population, was

14     assessed by her, by taking all the population aged 18 and up, and saying

15     that this population is comparable to the voters.  That is the population

16     that she found in the voting lists and in 1995, she established them as

17     the population in the Mladic territory.

18             What's missing here?  In this census, there is a million or so

19     population for these two -- 22 municipalities.  That was the situation in

20     1991.  These results, this outcome of the census -- this outcome of the

21     census is certainly correct.  However, one must bear in mind that the

22     population derived from Dr. Tabeau from the voting lists reflects voters

23     who voluntarily registered in 1997.  So in this category, age 18 and up,

24     there is a number of dead persons who died between 1991 and 1997.

25             Let me stop at that and not mention anything else.

Page 38223

 1             Dr. Tabeau, if she wanted to make a proper comparison, because

 2     among the voters she has only living people, she should have tried to

 3     cleanse the census from 1991 and subtract all those who died between 1991

 4     and 1997, at least from natural causes.  I know this is not an easy job,

 5     but I know also that Dr. Tabeau has the document commissioned by the

 6     Tribunal reflecting the statistics of Republika Srpska and the statistics

 7     of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it also shows the mortality

 8     calculated by all standard rules.  Dr. Brunborg even estimates that this

 9     document that in statistics is called DEM3 is excellent.  In particular,

10     for Republika Srpska.  So she has a source containing over 160.000 people

11     recorded as dead between 1991 and 1995.  Out of those 160.000 people,

12     about 66.000 died of natural causes.

13             So only for the period 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 --

14     sorry.  Between 1992 and 1995 inclusive, around 60.000 people died of

15     natural causes, the rest are violent deaths.  In a way -- not in a way.

16     These numbers are inflated.  I know it's a very big job.  But if

17     thousands of names and surnames were corrected over the years, it would

18     have been only fair, since she has the information, it would have been

19     fair for the doctor to include a footnote saying, The estimate of this

20     population number is not correct because it includes all the dead --

21     deaths from April 1991 to 1997 inclusive.  But we don't know even how

22     many people died in 1996, 1997 and 1998, although we have statistical

23     data.  The figure would then be much higher than 140.000.

24             The next thing you would have to show me the population for 1997.

25     You just have to move the table a little.  Here it is.  In this column,

Page 38224

 1     where it says:  Sample of population from 1997 -- maybe it's a matter of

 2     translation; I don't know.

 3             An expert cannot give a sample of the population.  He can say

 4     estimate, but this is not an estimate.  He can say population obtained by

 5     matching.  But never mind.  Let's accept it as it is.

 6             Earlier on she called it estimate.  This sample of the population

 7     from 1997 represents the result obtained by matching the electoral list

 8     with the census.  In her reports, experts claim that they had matched

 9     electoral lists with the census and got 80 per cent of all the people.  I

10     think this is overreaching because Dr. Brunborg shows that out of 2.7

11     million voters, according to some matching keys that are relatively

12     acceptable, a million and a half people were matched.  A million and a

13     half out of 2.7 million is not 70 per cent -- 80 per cent.  It means that

14     the rest were matched according to some criteria that only they know.

15     Dr. Brunborg doesn't show them or shows them only partially.

16             So, if what she obtained by matching - Dr. Tabeau - then she

17     should have said out of which number.  If, in the Mladic territory, there

18     are, for instance, 500.000 population, she could have matched 256.000.

19     We don't know.  Only Dr. Tabeau knows how many total population there

20     were.  Only Dr. Tabeau knows which percentage of the total this number

21     is.  We have to take it at their word and believe that 80 per cent were

22     matched in -- in all ethnic communities.  That's what I believe is

23     intellectually dishonest.  You should say, I have registered voters in

24     the Mladic territory, so many.  I matched so many.

25             All these errors, I would be able to tolerate even if they were

Page 38225

 1     not honestly shown.  However, what is absolutely inadmissible in

 2     statistics is the manipulation of this parameter.  You will see plus 25.3

 3     per cent.  --

 4        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... if we could move the table a

 5     little bit to the right in both versions so that both percentages can be

 6     seen.  I think it will assist us in what the professor is talking about.

 7             Professor, we have now -- that's fine.  If we can do the same in

 8     English.  We have now for the first entry, 41.1 per cent, and then we

 9     have 51.4 per cent, and we have reflected that it is an increase of plus

10     25.3 per cent.

11             Could you please continue your answer, taking into account now

12     these percentages that we see in front of us.

13        A.   Yes.  In all of her conclusions, Dr. Tabeau, in her report

14     states, the number of Serbs in the Mladic territory has increased by 25.3

15     per cent, the number of Muslims decreased by 8 per cent.  Everything you

16     see in the last column of this table, these relative figures, this is a

17     sort of manipulation because Dr. Tabeau failed to show the difference

18     between the participation of Serbs in 1991 of whom there were 41.1

19     per cent and the participation of Serbs she arrived at according to the

20     voters' list which is 51.4 per cent.  The difference between these two

21     figures is not 25.3 per cent.  It is 10 per cent.

22             But what did she do?  She introduced a non-demographic parameter

23     as a demographic one and said, Well, if you understand it, fine; if you

24     don't, that's fine as well.  She said the following.  The changes of

25     percentages -- I apologise.  I keep making the same mistake.

Page 38226

 1             She said the change of percentages in this ethnic group between

 2     1991 and 1997.  What does that mean?  It means that the percentage of

 3     51 per cent was 25.3 per cent bigger than the percentage of 41.1.  Pardon

 4     me, she didn't need to show the changes of percentages but the changes of

 5     shares in the overall ethnic structure.

 6             What she is showing is not the way that would make clear to

 7     everyone as to what had happened.  She has her Ph.D. in the demography of

 8     mathematics and, of course, it can be useful in some of her papers or

 9     some forecasts and so forth, but to present such information to the

10     Tribunal is something I believe to be very unprofessional, and I consider

11     it manipulation.

12        Q.   And so --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question.

14             You said it's not 25.3 per cent; it's 10 per cent.  She says that

15     she presents the change in the percentage.

16             Now, the percentage went up by 25 percent, and the overall

17     percentage was 10 per cent higher.  10 per cent on 40 per cent is 25

18     percent.  I mean, it's just a way of -- it's not -- you say it's wrong.

19     I mean, it's just what you wished to present.  If you say, Well, I would

20     have wished she presented something else.  But to say it should be 10

21     per cent and not 25 percent entirely depends on what you are presenting.

22     Isn't it?  I mean, there can hardly be any dispute that 51.4 is 25

23     percent more than 41.1.  And she explains what she presents and by saying

24     what she does is wrong, you mainly emphasise that you would have wished

25     that she had presented something else.  Would you agree with that?

Page 38227

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I'm saying this:  In

 2     demographic studies, things are not presented that way, especially not so

 3     if it involves such demographic studies that should be clear to everyone.

 4     To discuss the change of percentage in her conclusion, she asserts that

 5     the participation of the Serbian population, the share of the Serbian

 6     population in the Mladic territory, changed by 25.3 per cent upwards.

 7     She didn't say that the percentage of the share increased.  If Dr. Tabeau

 8     wanted to present it this way, she could not have arrived at that

 9     particular conclusion.  In her conclusions, as you can see, she states

10     that the share of Serbs is increased by 25.3, the participation of the

11     share of Muslims is so much less and so on and so forth.  She doesn't say

12     that the percentage of Serbs in the overall shares changed for this and

13     that much.  So she doesn't explain it fairly or honestly.

14             As I said, I'm not saying she cannot rely on this and perhaps in

15     some studies one may well do so, but I have not had occasion to see such

16     a study.  But when you are interpreting it, when are you drawing a

17     conclusion you cannot say that the share changed by 25 percent.  You say

18     the percentage of the share changed by 25 percent and then it's clear to

19     everyone.

20             Please look at the conclusions drawn by Mrs. Tabeau.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't that exactly what she says at the top of the

22     column where she says:  1991 to 1997 change (percentage) in percentages?

23     So she is telling us that the percentage -- percentual change is the

24     percentages is 25 per cent.  And I still -- I mean, you may consider that

25     it's wiser to present something else but here it is a percentual change

Page 38228

 1     percentages and that seems to me to be the right number because 41.1 plus

 2     25 percent makes 51 per cent.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then she should state

 4     so in her conclusion.  And in her conclusion, she does not.

 5             You, or anyone else for that matter, when reading the report will

 6     definitely not go back to check if she is mentioning the change of

 7     percentages.  The conclusion should therefore be as such.  The percentage

 8     of the share of Serbs in the share in 1991 compared to the share in 1997

 9     changed by 25 percent, but that is not the formulation of her conclusion

10     and in the overall context we do not get that picture.  She doesn't

11     discuss the change of percentage but the change of share.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I am afraid that I have to disappoint you that

13     when reading the report that we definitely would not go back to check

14     what she was mentioning, because that's what we do.

15             Please proceed.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I just put one additional question for a

17     clarification.

18             Several times now used the term "Mladic territory," and you

19     introduced that term in page -- on page 4, line 19.  You said:  The

20     territory that Dr. Tabeau calls the Mladic territory.

21             Can we please move both tables to the left.  Further, further,

22     further.

23             If you look here, it's slightly different:  Mladic case area,

24     instead of Mladic territory.  Would you agree that "Mladic territory" is

25     not used, at least not in this table by Ms. Tabeau?

Page 38229

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my parlance when I say "the

 2     territory or area," it amounts to the same.  I didn't mean to say that it

 3     was his area.  It is the area covered by the Mladic case, i.e., the

 4     territory referred to in the Mladic case.  It's a synonym.  Perhaps I

 5     didn't choose the words too carefully but, to me, it is the same.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the Mladic case area is

 8     perfectly fine.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  But you introduced it as if Dr. Tabeau used

10     the term "Mladic territory," and "Mladic territory" and "Mladic case

11     area" is slightly different and I think it's -- if you want to present

12     your opinion perfectly correct then you should use your language

13     perfectly correct.  Thank you.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  When I say "the

15     Mladic territory," it's synonymous with the term "area."  I apologize.

16     Dr. Tabeau's definition is perfectly fine; Mladic case area.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... you omitted

18     the word "case."

19             This is the problem.

20             Mr. Ivetic, please continue.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can turn to the next page and Dr. Tabeau's

23     Table 2.

24        Q.   And, Professor, I would again ask you in relation to this table

25     if you would have any additional comments or things that you had wished

Page 38230

 1     to point out.

 2        A.   I would need the table to be enlarged, please.  I can't see.

 3     Perhaps a little bit more so I can see.

 4             I can only see 1997.  Perhaps now I could explain what I wanted

 5     to say when Judge Orie asked me what would be the difference if she

 6     divided between Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH.

 7             I can't see the table very well.  Could I have it all on the

 8     screen?

 9             If you look at the total figures for the Mladic case area, you

10     will see the changes in total, irrespective of the old or new

11     administrative division.  When you look at this Mladic case area, you see

12     that Dr. Tabeau divided it between the RS and the FBiH and then can you

13     see much more drastic changes per ethnicity then they actually amount to

14     in the overall figure.  This is what I meant when I said that Dr. Tabeau

15     applied the new administrative division because then the figures appear

16     much more bombastic, as I said.  According to the new division, the

17     figures appear such but according to the old division the figures appear

18     as they are here.  Now whether this is the true situation according to

19     the new administrative division is something we don't know, because the

20     way these figures were arrived at, by matching, occurred without the

21     figure of how many millions or hundreds of thousands of people were

22     excluded because they were not matched so as to account for these

23     differences.  This is what I believed to be, in a way, Dr. Tabeau's wish

24     to accentuate certain things without providing a proper administration on

25     why she relied on the new administrative division rather than the old

Page 38231

 1     one.  If she wanted to stress that, she should have introduced a footnote

 2     to explain.  She had to go through all of her sources by applying the new

 3     administrative division because the census was conducted according to the

 4     old one.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now you say it's bombastic and at the same time you

 6     say we do not know exactly because Dr. Tabeau has not explained it.  If

 7     it has not been explained, how could you draw the conclusion that it's

 8     bombastic?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I have the table back, please,

10     the whole of it.  Not this one.  The one per ethnicity.

11             MR. IVETIC:  That would be the prior page.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have that in English as well.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but if we look in e-court then, of course, we

15     could have, as it is now, it is now presented in e-court on the English

16     public view, then you see that now we have the same.

17             Please proceed.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why do I believe it to be the case?

19     If you look at the Mladic case area, for example, in 1997 what was the

20     share of Serbs in the overall number of Serbs located by Dr. Tabeau, and

21     you see that the figure is 51.4 per cent.  When she relies on the Mladic

22     case area, in order to divide it between Republika Srpska and the

23     Federation of BiH, the figure you arrive at is 90 per cent as opposed to

24     4.5, and then she mentions which municipalities are in the Federation and

25     which are in the Republika Srpska.

Page 38232

 1             I have this position:  If some of the municipalities were not

 2     divided before 1991 and now, all of a sudden, they are, if we don't know

 3     if some settlements were left out, then if we have the example of a

 4     divided municipality, it doesn't mean anything to say that the population

 5     went this way or that.  They were simply divided.  Some of them remained,

 6     while others were entered administratively into a new unit.  So that is

 7     why I say that there should have been an explanation why Dr. Tabeau

 8     believed that relying on the new administrative division was better than

 9     using the administrative division that was in place at the time of events

10     of which Mr. Mladic stands accused.  If these charges refer to certain

11     years when the -- the old division was in place, why use the new one?

12     I'm not making a big deal of this.  I'm just asking why.

13             My conclusion need not necessarily be correct, but it is not

14     correct because there was no honest explanation as to why she used the

15     new division.  She doesn't explain whether in these divided settlements

16     she managed to account `for all of the population or whether some of it

17     was dropped out.  How many municipalities out of the total number of

18     municipalities in the Mladic case area are now in the RS although one can

19     calculate that on the basis of this table.  In any case, I believe that

20     would have been an honest explanation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you considered the possibility that Dr. Tabeau

22     used the Mladic case area as the basis for her findings in order to get

23     rid of any administrative changes but, rather, focuses on geographic

24     changes, that is, village by village, town by town, so as to not distort

25     the picture through these administrative changes?

Page 38233

 1             Have you considered that she may have done so?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Tabeau said plainly that she

 3     would provide data according to the new administrative division, and she

 4     had explained that in her previous reports such as the one in the

 5     Milosevic case.  So there was nothing for me to ponder.  In the Samac

 6     report and Odzak report she also used the new division.  In the Slobodan

 7     Milosevic report she used the new division.  In that report, she even

 8     states that we left out a certain number of settlements because of the

 9     division of municipalities but there were very few.  I won't even go into

10     what kind of figure that is.  So from the start Dr. Tabeau relied on this

11     idea of the new division.  I am not against that, but I want an

12     explanation.  It would have been intellectually honest for her to explain

13     why.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You say that she excluded only a small number of

15     settlements or -- have you verified whether that reflects the change in

16     the administrative structure?  I mean, apparently - and that's how I

17     understand your answer - that she has considered, to some extent, I don't

18     know to what extent, and I'm inviting you to tell us whether it was

19     complete or not, that she has considered that the administrative changes

20     may have led to shifting one settlement to another administrative entity,

21     and, therefore, has apparently corrected for the administrative changes.

22             Do you know how complete that correction has been?  Have you

23     verified that, whether it was -- because you're criticizing it, which is

24     fine.  But have you then identified in what respect she has not adjusted

25     and to what extent she has corrected the administrative changes by

Page 38234

 1     focussing on geographical - that is, by settlement, or by town - the

 2     area.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's not what I say.

 4     Dr. Tabeau, in the Milosevic report, stated that there were some minor

 5     problems - I'm paraphrasing - of course, I can try and locate it and

 6     quote it precisely.  There were minor problems because the new

 7     administrative division divided some settlements, not only

 8     municipalities, but that a small number of settlements and small amounts

 9     of population were left out.  I don't know what that figure is.  I didn't

10     check that.  It didn't occur to me to do that.  I trust Dr. Tabeau, that

11     it was the case, that there were problems because there were divisions of

12     settlements.  But when she said "small changes," I was wondering what the

13     figure is?  Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?  Millions?  That's

14     not what I say.  That's what Dr. Tabeau stated.  And if I may add one

15     more thing.  Administrative territory division is a political matter.  It

16     has got nothing to do with any geographic divisions.  Dr. Tabeau did not

17     take into account any geographical divisions.  She relied on the existing

18     new administrative territorial division, and she is certainly aware of

19     the old division because the entire 1991 census was done according to the

20     old administrative division.  The difference between the new and old

21     administrative territorial division is the Dayton line which divided

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina into two entities.  It occurred as it did, dividing

23     certain municipalities, and when you do that, it means dividing certain

24     settlements as well.

25             This is what I was talking about.  I didn't try to control

Page 38235

 1     whether the administrative division according to the Dayton Accords was

 2     correct and whether Dr. Tabeau applied the correct principles.  She

 3     didn't come up with that.  She simply took it from the situation in

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina which exists now because the statistics done now, is

 5     done according to the new administrative division after the war.  I was

 6     just wondering why she was making things more complicated for herself.

 7     In a way, she had to translate a number of sources done according to the

 8     old division into this new division, and it was key, key to prove that

 9     these people actually existed and that they were alive in 1991.  It was

10     very important for them to use it in order to extrapolate the number of

11     refugees and IDPs.  It was also crucial to have it so that from the

12     census itself, they could take the figures pertaining to the ethnic

13     makeup.

14             So how was it that it was simpler to rely on the new division

15     instead of reconciling the figures between old and new.  The more simple

16     thing would be to rely on the old division because their key source, the

17     census, was based on it.  When matching, she did not offer any further

18     explanations in terms of how it was done.  They used a total number of

19     people instead of the territorial division.  If she wanted to calculate

20     the ethnic makeup, the ethnic structure, one needs to bear in mind that

21     no voter is assigned to an ethnic group in the voter list.  It simply

22     doesn't exist in the voting lists.  For Dr. Tabeau to pin-point who is a

23     Serb, Muslim or anyone of any other ethnicity, she simply matched the

24     voters' lists with the census and if she came across a

25     Svetlana Radovanovic who declared herself to be a Serb, if she has a

Page 38236

 1     voter by that name, she concludes that the voter is Serb.

 2             The census was the basis for any kind of matching.  That was my

 3     reasoning.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then one short question.  You say she corrected the

 5     new administrative -- the administrative changes, she corrected for that.

 6     And she said these were minor corrections.  And you say, if I understand

 7     you, well, I don't know whether these were minor or that there should

 8     have been major corrections, I am unable to verify what she did.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not saying that

10     Dr. Tabeau made corrections.  Dr. Tabeau can get a new administrative

11     territorial division.  Bosnia-Herzegovina is carrying out a new

12     administrative territorial division.  That is done at state level.  It is

13     political, so she received information about the new administrative

14     territorial division in which she sees that there are many divided

15     municipalities and divided settlements.  If Dr. Tabeau wants to deal with

16     the population, she talks to the statistics people in Sarajevo and she

17     says, I have a divided settlement.  Never mind what the name is.

18     According to Dayton, now it's called Novo Ljubovija, New Ljubovija, and

19     there's another one Stara Ljubovija, Old Ljubovija.  How can I know what

20     the new number of inhabitants is and what is the old number?  The

21     statistics office has information on the basis of which they can get data

22     about the part that is now a new settlement or a new municipality and

23     what the situation was in 1991.  It wasn't done by Dr. Tabeau.  Perhaps

24     she addressed them to ask for this but this is something that Dr. Tabeau

25     cannot do without these offices but you have to understand that these

Page 38237

 1     lines are not ideal.  Dr. Tabeau is just saying that in the new

 2     administrative territorial division a certain number of settlements has

 3     been left out -- no, sorry, number of inhabitants and that's a small

 4     number.  If the doctor knows -- it's not that she did the calculations

 5     herself, it's probably the statistics people.  And then you say yes, two

 6     per cent of the inhabitants have been left out for the municipality, say,

 7     Odzak because the settlement was divided and we could not, in the census,

 8     determine whether they wept left or right.  So it's not Dr. Tabeau that

 9     she -- that made the new divisions.  She applied the decisions that had

10     been made.

11             Now I'm just asking the following.  If she applied this why

12     doesn't she put it in a footnote and why doesn't she say, yes, this is a

13     better division than the old one.  Simple because she has sources,

14     sources that are the old administrative divisions.  That's a key source

15     and I've already said that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File.

17             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, the witness earlier expressed an interest

18     in perhaps referring to the text that Dr. Tabeau had, and if it's of

19     assistance I believe that what she's referring to is P2788, English

20     e-court page 6 and B/C/S page 5.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Ivetic.  I think

22     it's time for a break.  It's sometimes a bit lost when reference is made

23     to reports when we do not know exactly if these reports are in evidence

24     before us, yes or no, and to the extent you're able to assist us, that

25     would be appreciated.

Page 38238

 1             We take a break, and, Ms. Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back

 2     in 20 minutes.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at five minutes to 11.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  While waiting for the witness to enter the

 8     courtroom, I'd like to put a few scheduling matters on the record.

 9             The first:  Having indicated to the parties on the 9th of July,

10     that the Chamber was considering a change in the sitting schedule for the

11     week beginning the 14th of September, the following is now placed on the

12     record:  The Chamber will not sit on Monday, the 14th of September, and

13     will start hearings at the normal time on Tuesday, the 15th of September.

14     The Chamber will also sit on Friday, the 18th of September, at the normal

15     time.

16             Second:  In the interests of clarity, the 24th of September is a

17     UN holiday, and the Chamber has considered but finally decided that it

18     will not compensate for the loss of that day by sitting on Friday, the

19     25th of September.  So we'll not sit on that Friday.

20             Finally:  It's placed on the record that the week beginning the

21     12th of October will be a non-sitting week.

22             This doesn't raise any questions, I hope.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:

Page 38239

 1        Q.   Professor, what is defined -- what or who are defined as economic

 2     migrations?

 3        A.   Well, economic migrations are all those migrations that take

 4     place for economic reasons in search for a better life, a job, et cetera,

 5     people go to work somewhere.

 6        Q.   In the 1991 census in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was that term utilized?

 7        A.   In the 1991 census, information was collected about people who

 8     left Yugoslavia in order to work abroad.  It went without saying that

 9     these migrations were economic because simply from 1971, when this

10     information was first collected, there were these organised offices for

11     finding jobs for people abroad, most often in Europe.  So there were

12     organised departures to Germany, France, Sweden, et cetera, people were

13     being sent to work there because these countries were looking for a

14     particular structure of people.

15             In the census of 1971, it was the first time that this

16     information was collected and it went that way with all the following

17     censuses.

18             In 1991, the last census in the territory of Yugoslavia was

19     completed, and this category was referred to as citizens temporarily

20     working abroad.

21        Q.   Now if we could take a look at 1D5335, that is, again, the

22     original Milosevic report upon which this report for the Mladic case that

23     is in evidence is based, and if we can turn to page 6 in both the English

24     and the Serbian, and it will be the first full paragraph in the English

25     and it will be the second full paragraph in the Serbian.

Page 38240

 1             Dr. Tabeau says as follows:  "The inclusion of the population

 2     abroad could also have impact on the numbers of out-of-country voters

 3     (OCV) whom we report as refugees in 1997 to 1998 (see Annex B4).  Some 87

 4     per cent of OCV from Bosnia-Herzegovina left the country after the census

 5     (the so-called post-census emigration) and did not return home until 1997

 6     to 1998.  The remaining 13 per cent resided abroad in 1991 (the

 7     pre-census emigration) and remained there after the census in March 1991.

 8     If there was no war in Bosnia-Herzegovina the pre-census emigres would

 9     perhaps have returned but they registered to vote in 1997/1998 still as

10     out-of-country.  We therefore believe that all out-of-country voters may

11     and should be considered as refugees."

12             Professor, what do you have to say here as to the instructions of

13     Ms. Tabeau that all out-of-country voters, including those who had

14     resided out of the country before the census, should be considered

15     refugees for purposes of the demographic work that is being shown in

16     these reports?

17        A.   Well, no one ever referred to people who left Yugoslavia before

18     1991 to work abroad as refugees.  They were never treated as such.  These

19     were citizens of Yugoslavia, who, for economic reasons, went abroad to

20     work.  If Dr. Tabeau came to the conclusion that these citizens may and

21     should be considered as refugees, people who left, ten or 20 or 30 years

22     ago, that she should be treated as refugees with the explanation that

23     they could have returned, then, really, she'd have to provide some kind

24     of solution to say whether she interviewed these people somehow, whether

25     there is anything written down to that effect, are there any decisions

Page 38241

 1     that people would have want to return precisely then but they could not

 2     have because there was a war going on.

 3             There's another thing that's of interest here and that is that

 4     Dr. Tabeau says that 87 per cent of the voters are outside the country,

 5     people who left during the war, that is, again, I have to take her word

 6     for it.  She does not provide a footnote anywhere saying, In voter

 7     registers there were 100.000 people, 5 people, 7 people, who registered

 8     as persons who wished to vote from abroad.  And it is interesting to note

 9     that the pre-census economic migration would not return.  That is

10     Ms. Tabeau's position and I don't know on the basis of what, on the basis

11     of which information, on the basis of what kind of figures she presented

12     that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you assist me in saying where Dr. Tabeau says

14     that they left during the war?  I see that she says they left the country

15     after the census.  Which, in my view, as not the same as during the war.

16     It could be in 1991 to 1992, certain areas.  There was no war yet, and if

17     we considered the war to have ended approximately in December 1995, then

18     there's still two years.

19             So where does she say so?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right, Your Honour.  But she

21     says 87 per cent and I don't know where she got the source for the

22     figure, the 87 per cent.

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's a

24     different matter and it's not what I asked you.

25             Please proceed.

Page 38242

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have a question on that very 87 per cent.

 2             You're saying -- the way you explain Dr. Tabeau's report, you

 3     say, at line 18 of page 25, "There's another thing that's of interest

 4     here and that is that Dr. Tabeau says that 87 per cent of the voters are

 5     outside the country."

 6             I don't read that to be what Dr. Tabeau says.  Dr. Tabeau talks

 7     of 87 per cent of the people who are already out of the country, not 87

 8     per cent of the voters.  Point number one.

 9             Point number two:  You just defined a few minutes ago for

10     Mr. Ivetic that people -- economic refugees are people who have left for

11     economic reasons but you say -- you criticise Dr. Tabeau for considering

12     these people where the last sentence as:  "We therefore believe that all

13     of out-of-country voters may and should be considered as refugees."

14             She's not characterising these people as refugees from the war.

15     They may very well be economic refugees as you have just defined.  Is

16     that possibly -- is that possible?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're understanding each other

18     correctly, Dr. Tabeau says that had there not been a war in

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the pre-census emigres, well, the census was in 1991,

20     so everybody who left before 1991 perhaps would have returned.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That does not make the person a war refugee

22     because that's not the reason he left.  He left before the war for

23     economic reasons.  But refugee still in terms of your definition of

24     economic refugees.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

Page 38243

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But they're not necessarily war refugees.  Do you

 2     agree on that?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pre-census emigres, they are not

 6     war refugees, no.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's just what I was saying.  So we agree on

 8     that.  Thank you so much.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Since we are dealing with definitions I would

10     like to talk you back to the beginning of today's hearing, on page 2,

11     lines 20 and 21.  You said:  "... concerning refugees and internally

12     displaced persons, we usually use the UN definition."

13             Can you explain the UN definition of "refugees and internally

14     displaced persons"?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can paraphrase because I cannot

16     quote it verbatim but I could bring it, if you wish.

17             Refugees are all peoples whose lives are threatened in different

18     ways and who had to leave their country.  That is to say, they had to

19     leave the country.  Whereas displaced persons are all persons who within

20     the same territory, again, for a variety of reasons, had to move within

21     the same territory.  Internally displaced persons do not have to be

22     displaced only because of a war.  For example, maybe a dam was being

23     built on a river and an entire settlement had to be sunk and then these

24     people had to be internally displaced.  They had to be relocated to a

25     different area of the same country.  All the displaced persons from

Page 38244

 1     Kosovo-Metohija are treated in Serbia as internally displaced persons,

 2     not refugees, simply because it is a single state.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what is the difference between this

 4     definition and that of Ms. Tabeau?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau does not provide a

 6     single definition.  She says we use statistical definitions and she

 7     doesn't explain any of that.  And then she considers under this

 8     statistical definition that all refugees -- or, rather, that all economic

 9     migrants can be counted as refugees because perhaps they'd return.

10     That's what Ms. Tabeau says.  They may and should be considered as

11     refugees.

12             Now what Ms. Tabeau considers to be an internally displaced

13     person, that's a different story.  If you're willing to hear me out, I

14     can explain that too.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think we have that in the report.

16             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Now, Professor, you have a couple of times used the term "broader

19     context" in talking about these reports.  Can you tell us what you --

20     what you consider when you use that term?

21        A.   Well, the term "broader context" is used by Prosecution experts.

22     They don't explain it.  I think I spoke about that yesterday, a bit.

23     They don't say what it is.  They use sources of information or data that

24     have nothing to do with the years to which the indictment pertains.  For

25     example, they used the census of 1991 and the voters' registers of 1997.

Page 38245

 1     That is broader context for them.  It's not only two sources of data that

 2     can be used as broader context and two years only.  If they're using

 3     this, they have to explain why and it cannot pertain only to data sources

 4     that do not coincide with those years that are indispensable for her to

 5     make analysis.  She says for such and such a period, regardless of the

 6     report and the indictee involved we have no information and that is why

 7     we're going to use 1991 and 1997 as far as ethnic changes are concerned.

 8     And then that is broader context.

 9             I cannot say, because Dr. Tabeau uses terms "ethnic cleansing"

10     and some others, this or that, whether that falls within this broader

11     context.  But she does not define it anywhere.  Then it would be clearer

12     had see defined it.  On the basis of what she writes, it only refers to

13     sources of data considerably earlier, considerably later, certain years

14     considerably earlier or later, what she could get.  And it's not the

15     years for which the report was being written.

16        Q.   If we could take a look together at 1D5340.  This will again be

17     the publication by Dr. Tabeau:  Conflict in Numbers.  And we'll need page

18     16 in English, page 13 in Serbian.  That will be on the bottom of page of

19     in English and the second-to-last paragraph in the Serbian.

20             And in English, it's starting with the second line in the last

21     paragraph, the sentence that starts:  "Secondly," and it goes:

22             "Secondly and perhaps more importantly, probative standards at

23     ICTY in relation to genocide" --

24        A.   I'm sorry, I haven't got that.

25        Q.   I apologise.  If we can have --

Page 38246

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you tell us exactly where in the English.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  In the last paragraph, we see on the bottom it's the

 3     second line and starts:  "Secondly."

 4             It should be page 13 in the Serbian and it will be the

 5     second-to-last paragraph in the Serbian version.  I see we have again the

 6     English version.  So we need the Serbian version.  That's the problem.

 7     And if we could zoom in it will be the second-to-last paragraph in the

 8     Serbian version and in the second line of that paragraph and it at the

 9     very end of that second line where it starts [B/C/S spoken].

10        A.   Thank you.  I've found it.

11        Q.   "Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, probative standards at

12     ICTY in relation to genocide and other crimes against humanity have been

13     high.  These crimes are not random events; there was a collective policy

14     of extermination behind them.  The systematic and planned nature of the

15     crimes requires that proving them must be based on presenting

16     documentation and analysis that go far beyond the crime itself.  Showing

17     the broader context and longer duration than in conventional cases is 'a

18     must' at the Tribunals, such as ICTY."

19             Professor, as a demographer, do you have any comment as to

20     Dr. Tabeau's words here that we've just read?

21        A.   Well, this first part, if Ms. Tabeau already knows that this is

22     systematic destruction, et cetera, she had to put a footnote there and

23     say, How come?  Where did she see that?  On the basis of which documents

24     did she conclude that, right?

25             As for the second part, invoking a broader context, she says that

Page 38247

 1     that became a must, in The Hague Tribunal.  Again, I'm saying that there

 2     is an explanation missing, a footnotes missing, who is it that made this

 3     a must?  Is it the Office of the Prosecutor?  Is it the International

 4     Tribunal as such in general terms or do experts believe that this is a

 5     must?  And if it is a must, they should say why it is a must.  Why a

 6     broader context is a must.

 7        Q.   Professor, depending on who gave the objective that it must show

 8     a broader context, would that affect the reports that would be generated?

 9        A.   Well, if something is an imperative, then it certainly has to

10     affect things.

11        Q.   I'd like to look at 1D5334, and this will be the report of

12     Dr. Tabeau for the Bosanski Samac and Odzak case that you had mentioned

13     earlier on.  And it will be page 1 in the Serbian and page 11 in the

14     English.  And, again, we seem to have the Serbian and the English flipped

15     on the monitor.  And the first part says:  "This report summarizes

16     changes in the ethnic composition of two municipalities in the

17     northeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosanski Samac and Odzak, between

18     1991 and 1997.  Our goal is to provide reliable demographic statistics

19     and allow for an assessment of the type and scale of the changes.  In our

20     study, we analyse two data sources:  The 1991 population census and 1997

21     voters' register, and use standard statistical and demographic methods."

22             Now, I'll stop right there and I'll ask you:  In terms of the

23     reference using standard statistical and demographic methods, do you

24     agree what is represented here as to that report, first of all, and then

25     the reports that were used in this case, for the Mladic case?

Page 38248

 1        A.   The standard statistical method for matching is not used by them.

 2     They use a modified method for matching, and we saw that yesterday.  If

 3     you are not using standard statistical methods, then you cannot obtain

 4     standard statistical measures, and even less so if you have sources

 5     containing so many errors can you achieve a result that makes it possible

 6     to arrive at reliable statistical data.

 7             What kind of reliability can we talk about if the voters'

 8     register does not contain information about ethnicity in 100 per cent of

 9     cases?  Prosecution experts get it by searching for it during matching.

10     If somebody matches, then this is a Serb, a Croat, or a Muslim.  And we

11     already have seen how the matching was done.

12             So you are taking over a datum from somewhere and it would be

13     okay if it's taken over by -- in a standard way.  You can say I have 100

14     voters and I have managed to match 50 but that is not said anywhere.

15     This is neither a standard measure nor a standard statistical result.

16        Q.   And just to be clear, Professor, do those criticisms relate only

17     to the Samac report, or do they also relate to the reports that were

18     entered into evidence for the Mladic case?

19        A.   The reports submitted in the Mladic case and all the reports that

20     I've had occasion to read and were done in this way.  I referred only to

21     certain reports in the bibliography for the Mladic case.

22        Q.   Now, if we turn to page 29 in Serbian on -- that we have on the

23     screen and page 33 in English and it will be the first paragraph under

24     3.3:  Final conclusions [sic].

25             "Summing up, two clear examples of ethnic cleansing have been

Page 38249

 1     shown in this report:  Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from the

 2     Serb Samac and from the Serb Odzak (Vukosavlje).  Before the war in both

 3     these areas Croats and Muslims represented a considerable fraction of the

 4     actual population."

 5             Professor, is it appropriate for a demographer to set forth such

 6     a conclusion in your opinion?

 7        A.   No.  In this case, the Court can make a decision whether ethnic

 8     cleansing was involved or not.  A demographer has to show the change in

 9     ethnic structure and he can make a conclusion that it's changed

10     significantly or less significantly.  He should certainly not say that it

11     is a clear example of ethnic cleansing.

12             An expert makes judgements on the situations that he reviews and

13     then he presents the results and leaves it to the trier of fact to decide

14     whether it is ethnic cleansing or not.  There is no documentation here to

15     justify such a conclusion.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Radovanovic, can you help me to understand

17     what you are saying.  You said, you talked about ethnic cleansing.  Where

18     do we find the word "ethnic cleansing" in the text that was read to us.

19             MR. IVETIC:  First line, middle of the sentence, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I missed that.

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   Professor, I'll ask you to repeat the last part of your answer

23     because I'm not sure that the translation came in -- let me ask the

24     question; maybe it will be quicker.

25             Is ethnic cleansing a word what is defined and normally used in

Page 38250

 1     the field of demography?

 2        A.   That concept is not defined in demography.  When demographers do

 3     something, they take over the definition of ethnic cleansing from the

 4     United Nations.  There is no demographic definition of ethnic cleansing

 5     which doesn't mean, of course, that demographers writing certain papers

 6     do not mention ethnic cleansing.  But when they do, they always define

 7     what they understand by ethnic cleansing.  Demography as a science does

 8     not have a definition for ethnic cleansing.  If authors and scientists

 9     deal with that, then they take over definitions from the United Nations

10     or from wherever they please, but then they include it in a footnote,

11     saying, By ethnic cleansing, we mean this, this, and that.

12        Q.   Now, I'd like to look at 1D5340 again.  And this time it will be

13     page 25, bleeding onto page 26 in the Serbian and page 24, bleeding over

14     to page 25 in the English, starting at the bottom of the page and this

15     is, again:  Conflict in Numbers by Dr. Tabeau.  And it relates to

16     something that you testified about earlier when talking generally.

17             And if ... it is the sixth line from the bottom in the English --

18        A.   Just a moment.  Could you make this a bit larger.  I can't see

19     anything.

20        Q.   And it will be in the middle of the ... I think the seventh line

21     from the bottom in the Serbian where Dr. Tabeau says:  "Noteworthy, all

22     reports on the BH ethnic composition, and IDPs and refugees were made in

23     the framework of one and the same project run at the OTP between 1998 and

24     2003.  The project was meant for use in the Slobodan Milosevic trial but

25     we made all calculations for all municipalities in the country; we even

Page 38251

 1     wrote a computer programme" --

 2        A.   I don't have it anymore.

 3        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... if we can go to the next

 4     page in the Serbian.  And if we could zoom in.

 5        A.   It's all right now.

 6        Q.   I'm continuing:  "We even wrote a computer programme that

 7     automatically generated the text explaining statistics.  So, I was

 8     possible to re-run our calculations and to make identical reports for any

 9     area in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In this" --

10             MR. IVETIC:  And we need to turn the page in English.

11        Q.   "In this way, several reports were presented in a number of

12     cases.  The Defence occasionally complained about us repeating our

13     approach.  However, we made it our principle to keep things unchanged in

14     all projects on IDPs, refugees, and ethnic composition, as we believe the

15     incredible effort we made to complete this work was worth it."

16             Do you have a comment as to what Dr. Tabeau has said here?

17        A.   Well, if they completed everything in the period between 1997,

18     1998 and 2003 and computerised everything and if, for certain sections, I

19     just need to press a button for the programme to release information

20     about certain municipalities, then they completed it all by 2003.  Since

21     there were critiques and objections, they still decided not to change

22     anything because a huge amount of work and effort had been invested.  A

23     huge amount of work an effort is not a good criterion if something needs

24     to be corrected or improved.  If they all finished everything by 2003,

25     and since then I've heard of new methods that are better or found

Page 38252

 1     information that my method was bad, incorrect, then I would obviously

 2     need to change it, if they finished everything in 2003, then I don't

 3     understand why they stayed on, why they didn't just go home.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But in this statement here, it is being said that

 5     the complaint was not because the methods used were wrong but the

 6     complaint was that they were repeating themselves.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Previous translation continues] ... If I'm

 9     repeating myself but I'm correct, do I have to change my ways?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, you are not right.

11     When she says here that they are repeating themselves, they are referring

12     to that model.  We have created one model and we applied it to

13     everything.  She doesn't refer to, for instance, objections made by other

14     experts and with every report you take --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Previous translation continues] ... I hear what

16     you say.  You're criticising the fact that she is not changing her model

17     because she invested a lot of time there it.  And I'm saying that the

18     criticism that I see on this document of for not changing the model is

19     because she repeats herself.  Not because she is wrong as you suggested

20     that if you use a wrong model and you must change it.  That's the only

21     question I'm asking.

22             You are introducing a different reason for the objection.  You

23     are saying because what you did was wrong.  But in the paper -- in this

24     document, they say because she is repeating herself.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was written by

Page 38253

 1     Dr. Tabeau.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That word is hers.  Would she

 4     believe that she would criticise herself?

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then are you rewriting the report for her.  You're

 6     saying that the reason they are objecting was because she did something

 7     wrong.  You are not sticking to what she is saying that they were

 8     repeating themselves.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not changing the content.  The

10     counsel was asking me for a comment on this passage in the text.  I am

11     saying that it's absurd for someone who has had occasion to hear that he

12     is making errors, that his method is wrong, that his sources are not good

13     to continue doing the same thing.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Precisely why I'm asking you this question.

15             She is not saying here that she was told her methods were wrong.

16     She's saying she is was told that she is repeating herself.  Now are you

17     introducing that her methods were wrong.  She's saying this criticism

18     that I'm repeating myself, I -- I didn't change because I put a lot of

19     effort into it the -- I'm not being criticised on the basis that what I'm

20     saying is wrong.  I'm being criticised on the basis that I'm repeating

21     myself.

22             Now, the question of wrong things is being introduced by you, not

23     by this statement.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I'm understanding

25     you right.  If Dr. Tabeau is writing this article, she will choose the

Page 38254

 1     word that suits her, not the critique addressed to her earlier.  Would

 2     you really believe that she would ever write the Defence has criticised

 3     me because I applied a bad method, that my sources were bad, et cetera?

 4     The Defence never objected because she was repeating herself but because

 5     the method applied was the one created in 2003 where you press a button

 6     and you get information on a municipality.  Every report is done in the

 7     same way, it only refers to different cases.  In every report the same

 8     sources are used, the same non-demographic measures are used.

 9     Statistical definitions that don't exist are used, and all that repeats

10     itself.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are saying, in fact, that she is hiding the

12     fact she's being criticised for being wrong and therefore not going to

13     call herself wrong she uses the word "repeat."  So you are rewriting this

14     document for her.  Thank you so much.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I could try to clarify a bit further because

16     there may be some difference of understanding.

17             You are reading the report as saying whatever criticism there

18     will be, I'll never change my mind.  What she says is, I want to be

19     consistent in my presentation.  We have developed tools for that, and the

20     fact that it may look repetitious is for me not a reason to change

21     anything.  Whereas you are criticizing her for something which she

22     apparently, but correct me if I'm wrong, did not say.  That is, whatever

23     criticism comes, even if correct, even if it's criticism about standards,

24     et cetera, et cetera, I'll never change my mind.

25             That's what you're commenting on, and that's -- from what we see

Page 38255

 1     is not what she says.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  With all due respect, Your Honour, now you've

 3     changed Ms. Tabeau's words and now you're not using her words either.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm paraphrasing but I do that to illustrate what

 5     may happen into court.  And if you say but -- let me say the following.

 6     The examples given come approximately down to whatever the criticism is.

 7     Of course, that's not the words used by the witness.  That's my

 8     interpretation of what the witness said in order to clarify what's

 9     apparently is an issue which is in dispute.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:

12        Q.   Professor, let me ask you this way.  This book by Dr. Tabeau was

13     published, I believe, in 2009.  In the, I believe, five prior cases that

14     you appeared as an expert for, what type of complaints did you make about

15     Dr. Tabeau's work.  Were they based upon repetition or something else?

16        A.   Something else.  With every report, I concentrated on

17     methodology, and in every report, as I've been saying now, I'm saying

18     that the methodology they apply is not scientific methodology.  The

19     reports they present to the Court are not based on scientific

20     professional methodology, nor can they provide adequate data.  With every

21     report, I dealt only with methodology and showed that this methodology

22     does not hold up.  It's not scientific.  It's unique.  And it's applied

23     only here at this Tribunal.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just to clarify, Mr. Ivetic, this sentence on top

25     of the document, doesn't deal with witnesses but with the Defence and

Page 38256

 1     their complaints.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed.

 3             MR. IVETIC:

 4        Q.   Now, if we could turn to page 23 in English, and it's the last

 5     part of the second-to-last paragraph; and in Serbian, it's page 24, and

 6     it's the end of the first paragraph on the page.  And it will start the

 7     last line of that second-to-last paragraph in English and it will be the

 8     last line of the paragraph referenced in -- in Serbian.  And it says:

 9     "Like it or not, it has been a remarkable achievement of this small group

10     to make this kind of contribution to the field of demography of war in

11     general and to the ICTY expert testimonies on demographics, in

12     particular."

13             Now, fist, I'd like to ask you:  What is this demography of war

14     that she is talking about?

15        A.   Demography is a science which has its various disciplines, like

16     many other sciences.  War demography is as a discipline of demography is

17     not something I've ever heard of.  I first heard Dr. Brunborg refer to it

18     by saying that he will make an initiative for the introduction of war

19     demography.  Whether it was really introduced and whether that is

20     accepted or not, I don't know.  But I've never heard of a concept called

21     "war demography," just as I believe that there is no war demographers,

22     another term that I've heard.

23             You are either a demographer or not a demographer, and you deal

24     with various areas.  Nobody specialised to such an accident that they

25     call themselves a birth-rate demographer or a historical demographer.  I

Page 38257

 1     myself taught ethno-demography.  You may choose one or another area and

 2     dedicate yourself to it but I've never heard of terms "war demography"

 3     and "war demographer," and I don't know at least that it's accepted as

 4     something that exists in the world.  And when I say exists, I mean I

 5     haven't heard of the existence of a scientific discipline called war

 6     demography as a part of the science of demography.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Radovanovic --

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I -- oh.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where do I find that there is something like a

10     discipline of war demography?  Where does Ms. Tabeau say that?  And that

11     it is a scientific discipline.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nowhere.  And I'm saying it doesn't

13     exist.  I've never heard it.  Maybe Dr. Tabeau heard of it.  But this

14     demography that she's dealing with here --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  I asked you -- you explained at length that

16     discipline of war demography doesn't exist.  Why didn't you explain that

17     with reference to this sentence.  I didn't find anything about that.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, it is there.  Field of demography of

19     war.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

21             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... Your

23     Honour, here it is.  "Great contribution" --

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Don't interrupt me.  I know the difference

25     between a field and scientific discipline and what was the other term?

Page 38258

 1     Discipline of war demography.  I'm not talking about field.  I'm talking

 2     about the words used by the witness.  And I would like to know where we

 3     can find that in the text read out by Mr. Ivetic.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can't find the word the

 5     "discipline."  You can find the word "field of war demography."  Last

 6     line here.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  That clarifies the matter,

 8     what you are talking about.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.  If we could turn to page 25 in English

11     and page 28 in Serbian, it will be the second-to-last paragraph in

12     English; and it will be the middle of the second-to-last paragraph in the

13     Serbian.  And it's the middle of the paragraph in both languages and it's

14     the phrase that starts:  "Whenever a demographic expert report is

15     admitted, the likely consequence is" --

16        A.   I can't find that, I'm sorry.

17        Q.   It will be on page 28, the second-to-last paragraph.

18        A.   I found it.

19        Q.   "Whenever a demographic expert report is admitted, the likely

20     consequence is that the report has impact on the judgement."

21             What would you like to bring to our attention in relation to

22     Dr. Tabeau's observation here?

23        A.   If she wrote something like that, she was probably aware of it.

24        Q.   Now I'd like to move to a different topic.  Dr. Brunborg when he

25     testified here at transcript page 15168 to 15169, talked about a topic,

Page 38259

 1     and I'd like to read for you so you get the translation of the testimony.

 2     Then I'll have some questions about it:

 3             "Q.  Okay.  Now as part of your mandate and your task that you

 4     received from the Office of the Prosecutor, were you asked to pay

 5     attention to the status of persons so as to differentiate between those

 6     registered as soldiers and those that were not?

 7             "A.  No, I was not.

 8             "Q.  Was any part of your tasking or mandate concerned with

 9     differentiating whether persons had gone missing as part of the column of

10     Bosnian Muslim males that left Srebrenica and went through the woods to

11     try and break through to Tuzla?

12             "A.  No, I was not.  But I would like to add, as to the first

13     part of the question, attention to the status of persons being soldiers

14     that we, after I left, my colleagues acquired lists on, from the Bosnian

15     army who had gone, been killed, and -- and this list was merged with the

16     list of missing, and 70 per cent of those who are reported as missing

17     were also listed by the army as having been killed, but the army did not

18     list any place of disappearance or cause of, or cause of death or place

19     of death, whether it was in combat or not, they listed death, date of

20     death, but that appeared to be -- the quality of that information

21     appeared to be poor."

22             Okay.  Now I think the translation has ended.  Now, so from that

23     testimony of Dr. Brunborg focussed on the fact that the lists from the

24     army did not list cause or place of death, did the sources that

25     Dr. Tabeau and Dr. Brunborg relied upon, the other sources, did those

Page 38260

 1     sources always provide place and cause of death.

 2        A.   No source, save for the last one, being the International

 3     Commission for Missing Persons, they were the only ones to cite the place

 4     of death.  No other source, as far as I know, did not list the cause of

 5     death.  How far, I have to point out yet again that I don't know

 6     everything that's in the database of the Demographic Unit because I only

 7     know -- or, actually, I only saw certain sources of information.

 8     However, when it comes to the sources used in the drafting of reports,

 9     with the exception of the international centre for identifying missing

10     person, no other source listed the cause or place of death.

11        Q.   Now, Professor, did you ever have occasion to perform your own

12     analysis on the Prosecution list of victims from Srebrenica to ascertain

13     if it included soldiers who did not die in July of 1995?

14        A.   Yes.  In 2007 or 2008, I visited the Demographic Unit, and I did

15     that for the first time using the ABiH list and the list of victims used

16     by the OTP.  I carried out a matching process, according to all of the

17     applicable rules.

18             First, I realised that there were soldiers on the list.  Up until

19     that point, in no report about Srebrenica was there any mention that

20     there were soldiers.  On the contrary, Dr. Brunborg, in his 2003 report,

21     claims that they are non-fighters.  So that was the first time that it

22     was discovered that there are soldiers on their lists.  And in 2009 in

23     this report, they say that they were 70 per cent.

24             I forgot the second part of the question.  I apologise.

25             Yes, yes.  In comparing the information contained on the army

Page 38261

 1     list and the list drafted by the OTP experts, there were soldiers

 2     considered as killed by the ABiH before July 1995, having been killed in

 3     1992, 1993, 1994, or early in 1995; before July.  Of course, I provided

 4     that information to the counsel, and they must have forwarded it.

 5             That is minimum proof, if I may say so, because it relies on a

 6     single source of information which testifies to the fact that on the OTP

 7     expert list, there are people who did not die in July 1995.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I think we're at the time for the break,

 9     Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is time for a break.

11             Yes, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.  You may follow the

12     usher.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, it is a while ago that the Registrar

15     informed me that the net time had you used was three hours and 31

16     minutes.  And that's already a while ago.  Can you give us any indication

17     as to --

18             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I have exactly 15 questions left.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  How many did you have overall?

20             MR. IVETIC:  Overall, I had 135.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's at least -- we're now talking about

22     some 12 percent of the time.

23             Try to -- I can't say stay within your time assessment because

24     you're far beyond that at this moment, but try to be as efficient as

25     possible.

Page 38262

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I will.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, Judge Fluegge draws my attention to page

 7     45, and it just disappeared from my screen.  Let's see.  Line 16.  Could

 8     you please give it some -- could you give it some thought on whether --

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To explain it.  Is that correct killed by the

10     ABiH or should it be killed by the VRS?  Perhaps you can clarify with the

11     witness.

12             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  Which page I'm 44 --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  45, line --

14             MR. IVETIC:  45.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  45, line 16.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  That were considered killed by the ABiH list.

17     That are registered as killed I --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Think that's the --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Considered by the ABiH killed rather than by whom

21     they were killed.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If that is a common understanding of what the

24     witness said, I don't think there's any need to clarify with the witness.

25     Once the witness has put her earphones on.

Page 38263

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   Professor, I'd like to look at Exhibit D344 in e-court.  And if

 6     it assist you, I have a copy of that in hard copy in the Serbian

 7     language -- oh, never mind.  It won't help.  The Serbian doesn't have the

 8     graphs.

 9             And, first of all, did you have occasion to review this

10     memorandum during your preparations?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And taking into account the date of the same, what does this

13     appear to relate to?

14        A.   It has to do with a Defence request and some data need to

15     verified in terms of whether there were soldiers on the OTP lists or not.

16     They explain that they ran their checks, they explain their approach, and

17     they explain that they established that there were some 70 per cent of

18     them, if I'm not mistaken.

19        Q.   And if we can look at Table number 2 -- table -- Annex 2, which

20     is on page 5 in English, and page 5 in the Serbian.

21             It should be the next page in the Serbian.  Page 6 in Serbian, I

22     apologise.

23             So that, Professor, can you see the heading --

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just a moment.  Is it correct to broadcast this

25     list?

Page 38264

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Instruction has been given not to broadcast it.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 4        Q.   And, Professor, you see the title on the Serbian translation but

 5     the graph or the table is the same for both languages there is no

 6     translation of the table.  Having had a chance to look at this, do you

 7     have any comments about what is the significance of the information that

 8     is provided herein?

 9        A.   I don't have the table only.  There's something on the left-hand

10     side, and I can't see the table properly.

11             Could the table be enlarged, please.

12             So, in 2008, the Demographic Unit reacted to a Defence request,

13     confirming that there were soldiers on their list and that they matched

14     some 70.1 per cent of overall cases.  There were also 228 cases of

15     soldiers for whom the ABiH claimed had been killed before 1995 and yet

16     they were on the list as Srebrenica victims.

17             In this reply, they state that they looked into those 220-plus

18     cases and that, in the meantime, they requested clarifications from the

19     ABiH.  They also state that in some 137 cases or so, they received

20     confirmation that the date was incorrect and that it was corrected.

21             They also state that in a certain number of cases, the ABiH did

22     not state whether they were killed or not.  In another 38 cases, no reply

23     was received, and they were still awaiting one.

24             This document is characteristic in putting the sign of equation

25     between the ABiH list and the list of the international centre of persons

Page 38265

 1     on the one mapped, and, on the other hand, that it only presents a table.

 2     I think it would have been intellectually honest, in terms of all the

 3     answers they received from the ABiH, which must have been received as

 4     some kind of confirmation or certificates, then those -- for those

 5     certificates attached so that we can see how corrections were made.  This

 6     was also not the first set of corrections made by the ABiH.  In some

 7     previous cases, I also had occasion to see that the ABiH did correct some

 8     data upon the request of OTP experts.  All I can say is that I am

 9     surprised because if it occurred before, it would have been logical to

10     ask the ABiH to revise their lists, rather than whenever you come across

11     something, you send it back to the ABiH to have it corrected or not.  The

12     fact that they rely on the ICRC lists points to that fact.  They keep

13     saying that these are revised lists.  The ICRC lists contains those who

14     were missing and now with the addition of those for whom certain proof of

15     death was received.  Apparently they had an agreement in place with the

16     ABiH not to revise the lists from 2001 in order for the ABiH to send a

17     final list of sorts.

18             Another interesting thing is that the OTP experts believe that

19     the persons on the list of the international committee for identifying

20     missing persons who are considered dead, the OTP investigators believed

21     that they were positively killed in 1995.  It is a well known fact that

22     this committee, which engages in identifying exhumed mortal remains, they

23     do so through DNA analysis.  DNA analysis is not a method on the basis of

24     which one can prove when and where somebody died.  By DNA analysis, you

25     simply ascertain that this person has this or that name.

Page 38266

 1             I listened to Dr. Thomas Parsons' testimony who for a while was

 2     one of the directors of that committee, and he absolutely confirmed that

 3     one cannot use DNA analysis to ascertain the place and date of death.  I

 4     am not disputing that these people were exhumed, but I don't know when

 5     they were killed.  The experts don't know that, who carry out autopsies.

 6     They can only say, as forensic pathologists, where those people were

 7     found, in which graves.

 8             Therefore, I don't know how the OTP experts used that to prove

 9     that these people were killed in 1995.  On the basis of what?  I could

10     understand if they only concluded that they were simply dead.

11        Q.   Now, if we could return to the matching keys for a second and for

12     that, we need P1900, page 86 in Serbian and 81 in the English, I think.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  While waiting for that.

14             Witness, you said:  "Apparently they had a agreement in place

15     with the ABiH not to revise the lists in order for the ABiH to send a

16     final list of sorts."

17             What's the basis for telling us that apparently there was

18     agreement?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not what I intended to say.

20     It may have been misinterpreted.  What I said was --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  One second before you continue.  By saying perhaps

22     you were misinterpreted, you're more or less hinting at our interpreters

23     to be blamed for it and not for you using the language as it was

24     translated to us.  Do you want it to be verified?  Because we are able to

25     do so.  Then we listen -- not we.  But, again, the B/C/S will be listened

Page 38267

 1     at, and then we'll establish whether or not you correctly or incorrectly

 2     hinted at our interpreters who made a mistake rather than, perhaps, you

 3     yourself.

 4             Is that what you wish us to do, then we'll gladly do it.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I do not doubt

 6     the interpreters.  I said that they could have agreed, and I'm not saying

 7     that an interpreter did that on purpose.  Or the interpreter.

 8             The OTP experts received these databases from the army and the

 9     appropriate Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and they could only

10     receive them if they had inquired into their existence.  Nobody sent

11     those voluntarily.  Those databases exist as of 2001 in the

12     Demographic Unit of the OTP.  I apologise.  Let me complete my answer so

13     as to avoid any confusion.

14             If they are there and if there had been cases whereby requests

15     were made to verify some information from the databases, if I matched the

16     year from the database and then there's a correction made to a case, then

17     it must mean that the army did revise or could have revised their lists.

18     In that case, the OTP experts could have asked for the revised list,

19     rather than go individually --

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... it's all theory.

21     What could have happened.  Whereas, you suggested in your answer -- or

22     even by saying they could have done this, that is hinting at what they

23     apparently failed to do and that's how I understand your observation in

24     the context of your answer.  But apparently is not what you intended to

25     say, I do understand, so, therefore, we can proceed.

Page 38268

 1             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:

 3        Q.   Now we have the keys used by the Prosecution before us.

 4     Dr. Brunborg when he testified about the use of these keys, he said the

 5     following at transcript page 15203, line 2 through 15204, line 2:

 6             "However, we did not accept these matches without consulting and

 7     comparing other pieces of information like place of birth and date of

 8     birth was there, of course, about you place of birth and other available

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

10     concerned the same persons and so we did that, trying -- trying to be

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

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

13     matching and try out different things.  In some countries, like my own

14     Norway, we only use one criteria for matching data from various sources,

15     and that is the personal identification number, but that number in the

16     former Yugoslavia was not used by everybody, and there was -- there were

17     many errors in the lists that we had available where that number was, so

18     we had to use other -- we had to use name and other kinds of information.

19     In modern matching techniques there are now, I've learned methods that

20     apply probabilities to matches.  We don't.  When I started doing this

21     work, I wasn't aware of this methodology, and also in -- in legal cases,

22     you cannot really rely on probabilities because you need to be absolutely

23     certain.  I don't think the Court would have been satisfied with, say,

24     with there's an 80 per cent probability that this person is the same in

25     the ICRC lists and in the census, for example, so that's why we used all

Page 38269

 1     this different criteria.  I see criterion 22 resulted in 2078 matches,

 2     whereas the two previous criterias did not result in any.  And the last

 3     criteria on number 71 resulted in one person, as far as I remember, so

 4     this is a perfectly valid methodology that, as I, let me repeat, that we

 5     always compared and checked whether the matches that came up in less than

 6     ideal, with less -- with less than ideal criteria were highly likely."

 7             Now, Professor, I'd ask you to comment upon this fuzzy method of

 8     matching that Dr. Brunborg is talking about.  Does it provide a

 9     probability that the person has been matched, or is it an absolute

10     certainty that the person has been correctly matched, in your opinion?

11        A.   If this fuzzy matching method is being used, then one has to say

12     where it's being used.  Dr. Brunborg had to do that.  For example, in

13     enormous research involving millions perhaps that can be used.  But you

14     are giving information at aggregate level.  When you give data, you do

15     not give it at an individual level.

16             If I understood that correctly Dr. Brunborg says in his country,

17     one, just one criterion, and it's numerical.  He first heard of some

18     methods when he came here, he says due to the problems that he has with

19     data sources concerning --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, would

21     you mind to answer the question, whether it's about probabilities or

22     about certainty?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I don't know where

24     it's used, and most probably it is probability.

25             Probability that something matched, coincided.

Page 38270

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   In reference to these keys that we on the screen, would you

 3     describe any part of these keys as being probabilities rather than

 4     absolute certainties?

 5        A.   I claim that even the first criteria that I would accept is high

 6     probability, not 100 per cent uncertainty because you have the name,

 7     father's name, surname, and place of birth, municipality of birth, and

 8     now in the English translation, there's also the municipality of death,

 9     not to give any comment on that now.

10             Now, if you take a small number, statistically small, that is, if

11     you run it in 4.3 million names, surnames, years, dates, with a large

12     number of errors that are primarily reflected in the names and surnames,

13     then if you get matches in terms of date of birth and place of birth, it

14     is highly likely that it is the same person.  For example, if it says

15     Svetlana Radonovic, somewhere, rather than Radovanovic.  Now in

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina, for instance, how many persons are this with the same

17     name, the same surname, the same father's name, the same date of birth,

18     and place of birth, I don't know.  I don't think that it is significant,

19     a significant figure from a statistical point of view among 4 million

20     people.  However, I think that the first criterion is high probability.

21     But that is also probability.  It is not anything absolute, In order to

22     be able to claim absolutely that it is a particular person.

23        Q.   Just one correction, you may have just done it but in lines 19

24     through 20 of temporary transcript page 55, the English translation --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We are not there yet.

Page 38271

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I'm sorry, page 54.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  The English translation of your - first paragraph -

 4     answer states as follows:  "I claim that even the first criteria that I

 5     would accept is how probability, not 100 per cent uncertainty."

 6             And in relation to that first part of your answer, could you

 7     comment or correct what we have received.

 8        A.   It is high probability.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That is [Overlapping speakers] ... that is what

10     the witness said.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, but your attention was asked for what

12     then followed, I take it, you then recorded as having said:  Not 100

13     per cent uncertainty.  Did you say or did you intend to say not 100

14     per cent certainty?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainty.  Certainty.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Now you've already mentioned, I believe, that the -- lack of

19     using mortality rates by the Prosecution experts.  Dr. Tabeau, at

20     transcript page 19401 said that she actually did make reference to

21     mortality rates in one report as to Sarajevo.  And I'd like to look at

22     that with you and that is 65 ter number 11855, and it will be page 38 in

23     both the Serbian and the English.  And it's the report for the Galic case

24     and it will be Table number 15.

25             And I'd like to ask you:  What is your observation of how

Page 38272

 1     Dr. Tabeau incorporated mortality rates, in relation to this one instance

 2     where she said that she did use mortality rates?

 3        A.   These are mortality rates for 1991 and for 1990.  They are

 4     provided for certain municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and they are

 5     presented in terms of populations of 100.000.  Death rates in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and anywhere are usually registered in terms of

 7     thousands of inhabitants.  Now, what does this mean?  What do these rates

 8     mean?  They show the frequency of death and if we say that the rate of

 9     death is, say, ten "promil" that means that for every 1.000 inhabitants

10     of a town or a country, et cetera, ten inhabitants die.  The entire

11     statistics of Bosnia-Herzegovina including this presents general death

12     rates in "promil," so it is 1.000 inhabitants that are taken into

13     account.  Dr. Tabeau here uses 100.000.  I really don't know why.  But

14     when you do it this way, with 100.000 you can see certain absurdities.

15     For instance, look at the municipality of Vogosca.  It's the last

16     municipality in this list.  In 1991, it had 24.647 inhabitants.  When

17     will Vogosca have 100.000 inhabitants that so that 1.123 persons will die

18     per 100.000.  I doubt that that that would happen in this millennium

19     unless gold and diamonds are found there.  So --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ...

21     Ms. Radovanovic, this is just mathematics.  It doesn't say anywhere that

22     in Vogosca you would have 100.000.  It's just about percentages, isn't

23     it?  Does it make any say that there are not 100.000 people in Vogosca

24     for this purposes?  Are you serious about that?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not percentages.

Page 38273

 1     That's the problem.  The death rate shows the frequency of dying and if

 2     it is expressed in terms of 100.000 inhabitants then are you showing the

 3     frequency of dying -- how many people were -- will die within 100.000

 4     inhabitants?  Vogosca doesn't that have that many inhabitants, never will

 5     have that many inhabitants.  Now the entire statistics of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina expressed it in the following way.  It is the death

 7     rate in terms of 1.000 and then you can say per 1.000 inhabitants in

 8     Vogosca, 11 or 12 persons die.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But isn't it true that you just move the comma two

10     the left and that you have the same number?  About the death rate?

11             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  About the death rate?

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot hear the

14     witness.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... You say it's

16     the --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is calculated in the following

18     way.  The number of deceased is divided by the number of inhabitants and

19     you multiply all of that by 1.000 or 100.000.  That is how this death

20     rate is calculated.  It would not be 112.  It would be 11.2 had the

21     figure of 1.000 inhabitants been used.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you moved the comma two to the left and

23     then have you the same outcome?  I mean, what we're talking about, that

24     in a certain year, and let's just take 1991, 135 people died on a

25     population of 24.000.  That is simply, approximately a death rate of

Page 38274

 1     five, isn't it, on thousand?  You divide 135 by 24 and you're at a death

 2     rate for 1.000.  If you take 100.000, it's multiplied by 100.  It's the

 3     same in accordance to -- to what you -- how do you find the death rate.

 4     Do you calculate it for 100.000 or do you calculate it for 1.000?  And

 5     the outcome will be just hundred times bigger or smaller.

 6             Isn't that the simple mathematics which you're criticizing here?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that it is presented in a

 8     way that would leave a stronger impression.  When you're a demographer

 9     this is how you read it, that in Vogosca in 1990 and 1991, 1.123 persons

10     died per 100.000 inhabitants and that's how each and every demographer

11     would read this.  And then that is absurd, if Vogosca doesn't have that

12     kind of population to begin with.  However from a technical point of view

13     for you to be able to calculate it this way and that way, that's fine.

14     Both death rates can be dealt with that way.  100.000, 1.000, I repeat.

15     All of Bosnia-Herzegovina expressed its statistics per thousand.  But if

16     you would now just present the death rates for Vogosca you would see that

17     1.123 persons die per 100.000 inhabitants.  That is how this death rate

18     is read.

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Move it left or right.

21             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes.  We read it

22     as it is presented by the expert.

23             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   If we can return to your report, D1211, marked for identification

Page 38275

 1     and page 56 in the Serbian, page 57 in the English, and your Figure 4,

 2     which I believe you should still have the hard copy of from yesterday.

 3     And I'd ask to you explain for us what you are demonstrating in this

 4     figure in your report that we now have before us.

 5        A.   This shows the results that are obtained if you use a relatively

 6     reliable criterion for matching or if you use the methods of the OTP

 7     experts.  In 2007 or 2008, I can't remember exactly, I matched the

 8     Prosecution list where the Srebrenica victims are, the people they

 9     consider to be the victims, according to the criterion name, father's

10     name, surname, not date of birth, but year of birth, and these are the

11     results that I obtained.  So that's the criterion that says name,

12     father's name, surname, and year of birth.  These are the results

13     obtained.  So I'm just showing that the number of criteria was smaller.

14     Or more reliable.  Or perhaps what -- or, rather, had it been that way,

15     it would have been different.  Had there been fewer but more reliable

16     criteria, then different matching results would be obtained.

17        Q.   And now if we could turn to page 58 in the English and page 57 in

18     the Serbian and your table number 9, could you walk us through what you

19     are demonstrating here.

20        A.   All of this information is taken from expert reports that have to

21     do with Srebrenica.  Prosecution expert reports.  And this is the way in

22     which certain percentages and shares were supposed to be calculated as it

23     is done in a methodologically correct way.  I took the total number of

24     male population in 1991 in the area that they considered to be

25     Srebrenica.  That is to say, these five municipalities and then I said

Page 38276

 1     what the Prosecution findings were and what -- oh, sorry, I profoundly

 2     apologise to the interpreters.

 3             Now, what are the findings of the OTP experts?  Missing persons.

 4     Then I looked at the findings of the international centre for

 5     identification, and then I took the information from the Red Cross and I

 6     calculated the percentages in relation to all of that.  And you see these

 7     percentages fall within this range.  And then I looked at missing

 8     persons.  And I calculated the percentages.  These percentages are

 9     calculated in this way without any kind of invention.  You have the dead,

10     you have the population figures, that is the only way in which you can do

11     this calculation.  You cannot calculate this on the basis of age from

12     1995, because you do not have the number of inhabitants in 1995.  And it

13     makes no sense to calculate it on the basis of age from 1991 because

14     these are apples and oranges.

15             In addition to that, in order to get to any kind of percentage

16     share in terms of municipalities for 1995 and in order to assess the

17     population, the number of inhabitants in addition to the fact that you

18     don't have enough data, you don't have the same population to deal with.

19     The population that was there in 1991 in Srebrenica is not the same

20     population that lived in Srebrenica in 1995.  There's a series of

21     documents that people moved out before 1995, that people moved in from

22     neighbouring municipalities during the entire period from 1992 when this

23     was a free zone.  So this population, even if you had the exact figures -

24     and also I came across some information among experts saying that it is

25     considered to be 40.000.  I'm not challenging that.  But within these

Page 38277

 1     40.000 there is a part only of the inhabitants that lived in Srebrenica

 2     in 1991 but then there are also those who came from Bratunac, Zvornik,

 3     Vlasenica, Visegrad and so on and so forth.  So it is not only -- it is

 4     no longer the same population.  So to calculate anything in terms of age,

 5     et cetera, for Srebrenica and to assess how many inhabitants of

 6     Srebrenica there were in Srebrenica, then no one can do that.  It can

 7     only be done at an aggregate level.  This aggregate level is

 8     methodologically correct, and you can say there were this many in 1991,

 9     this many in 1995, went missing, died, et cetera, from the total

10     population of 1991.  And this is the total number of victims from

11     different areas.  It is that percentage.  That's it.  And this is how it

12     is done.

13        Q.   And if we can turn to the next page you have also a table number

14     10.  Is there anything that you need to add to anything that you just

15     talked about in relation to that table as to what it demonstrates?

16        A.   As regarding the population and since they're referring to a

17     broader context, et cetera, et cetera, I thought it was intellectually

18     honest to present it so that these victims, these people are not people

19     who came from we don't know where, and from which entity.  They are part

20     of the entity of Eastern Bosnia and in order to show the ratio, how much

21     this is in terms of Eastern Bosnia, I presented these shares, these

22     percentages.  And I said what this is like in terms of Srebrenica, what

23     they considered to be Srebrenica, having separated only the male

24     population from the total population figure.  And, please, having taken

25     into account the results provided by the OTP.

Page 38278

 1             In that case, these are the ratios obtained in relation to

 2     Eastern Bosnia, what it is like in -- compared to the total population,

 3     the male population, and what they considered to be Srebrenica when they

 4     say how many victims there are and when they make a list of victims.

 5     This is what it looks like in terms of the total population from 1991,

 6     and this is what it looks like in terms of the male population from 1991.

 7        Q.   And what impact on the vitality of the population would these

 8     figures have?

 9        A.   With all due respect, with the most profound respect to each and

10     every victim, from a demographical point of view these are not indicators

11     that could significantly affect the vitality of the Muslim population of

12     Eastern Bosnia, Bosnia in general, and these municipalities around

13     Srebrenica.  In my view, migrations have had a far more adverse effect.

14     Migrations that took place after the war as well.  Migrations have a

15     significant effect.

16             During all research, before the war as well, migrations took away

17     a lot more young people, fertile people, who left and the persons who

18     were left there were persons who were done with the reproduction cycle.

19     To this day, I believe that migration -- as far as migrations are

20     concerned, they have to this day, a far more adverse affect than these

21     mortality effects.

22        Q.   One last document to look at --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question about this document.

24             You gave the proportion, the percentage, with one number after

25     the comma.  Isn't it methodologically right that if it's more than 10.75

Page 38279

 1     that you make it 10.8 and if it's less than 10.75, you make it 10.7.

 2             Would that be correct?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my country, all information of

 4     this kind is provided with one decimal point.  I don't think that another

 5     one would mean anything different.  Now, is it 10.7 per cent or is it

 6     10.70 per cent ... if you allow me, I can say --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If it would be 10.79, if you reduce to one digit

 8     after the comma would it be 10.7 or would it be 10.8?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 10.8 or 10.75.  It can be checked.

10     When I work and if I get 10.75, I round it off to 10.8.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We didn't hear the other

12     set of figures.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So it is not 0.000 percentage of

14     something that would affect something else.  So this is how I work.  This

15     is how I have worked ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see that.

17             Yes, then have you an opportunity to correct the 10.79 into 10.8.

18     Because that's the outcome, 10.79, if you divide the one by the other.

19             Please proceed.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what I do when I work on

21     these percentages.  You can check that.  I automatically turn them into

22     that.  I do not give two digits after the decimal point.  You --

23             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... let me stop

24     there.  I did verify it.  And it was 10.79.  And you told us that you

25     would automatically then make it 10.8, whereas, you made it 10.7.

Page 38280

 1             Please proceed.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I shall check.  I do apologise if I

 3     did that.  For the most part, I don't do it that way but I will check.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  The interpreters didn't hear part of your answer but

 5     I don't know how to go back to it to recreate it now, having gone beyond

 6     that.  I note the transcript --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not insist and all the parties can make the

 8     division and see what the outcome is, and the witness apparently said

 9     that if she made a mistake that she apologises for it and let's move on.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  If we can call up 1D5350.

11        Q.   And if it assists I do have a hard copy of this document for the

12     witness, since we will be looking at a table later on.

13             Looking at what we have on the screen, Professor, can you tell me

14     what kind of publication this is?

15        A.   This is an official statistical publication of the statistical

16     agency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17        Q.   And if we could look at table number 2 which starts on page 3,

18     and ... I note that the last part is cut off so if we could have page 4

19     on the right-hand side since the table has both English and B/C/S.  If we

20     can have page 4, that will be the continuation of this part that has been

21     cut off on the right-hand side in the printing of the publication.

22             And now looking at Table 2, could you explain for us what this

23     data represented here tells us about -- about the populations in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25        A.   This is information about vital events, the number of births and

Page 38281

 1     the number of deaths from which information about the natural movements

 2     of the population is derived.

 3             As you can see, it begins with 1996.  There is no information

 4     about the years of war.  And you can see that the natural population

 5     growth is positive until 2004.  It decreases but it's positive all the

 6     time.  And I stress that we are talking about the population of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina in total, not broken down by ethnicity.

 8             So this population growth was positive, which is good, because it

 9     means that natural renovation of the population continues.  The war did

10     not lead to a horrible decline and a negative birth rate.  Negative

11     birth-rate means that more people die than are born.  And I wanted to

12     show that in terms of vitality for Bosnia-Herzegovina - this is up to

13     2004 - there is no problem as long as the birth-rate remains positive.

14     Drastically, it does decline from 1996 to 2004, but apart from deaths,

15     there is also the effect of migrations, and in the case of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina, migrations have been very important as a factor in

17     the decline of the population growth.  And I see, coming back to the

18     question of His Honour Judge Orie, that I, indeed, made a mistake with

19     that decimal digit.  I apologise for not using two decimal digits.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You could have used one, but you should have

21     properly used it.  That was the issue.

22             Can I ask you one short question before we take a break.  Does

23     the vitality after the war tell us anything about the birth-rate during

24     the war?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We only have birth-rates after the

Page 38282

 1     war here and I cannot claim what happened during the war.  But if this is

 2     after the rate [as interpreted] -- these are relatively high birth rates.

 3     In Western European countries you have much lower birth rates and higher

 4     mortality rates.  These are relatively satisfactory birth-rates compared

 5     to any developed Western European country.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I have not -- well, the reason why I was asking

 7     is that you said the war did not lead to horrible decline and a negative

 8     birth-rate.  That -- you have demonstrated that for the period after the

 9     war, which I could imagine has got something to do with overcoming the

10     war increases vitality, I do not know but that's something I could think

11     of.  But whether the vitality was affected during the war, therefore,

12     could not be demonstrated by these figures.  Is that correctly

13     understood?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

15             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the objective here was not

17     to --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I do not know.  I just asked this question in

19     relation to one of your answers.

20             We'll take a break.  We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

21             Mr. Ivetic, I don't know where you are on the 15 but you really

22     should complete --

23             MR. IVETIC:  One question.  I just want to tender this document

24     and one question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps put that question now.

Page 38283

 1             Witness, could you --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, sorry, sorry.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic has only one question so we decided not

 4     take the break but, first, to hear your answer to that question.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  If we could first tender this document before we

 7     lose it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D5350 receives exhibit number D1213,

10     Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Last question, Mr. Ivetic.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

15        Q.   Now, Dr. Tabeau testified at this trial at transcript page

16     19.396, line 20 and onwards as follows.  I will read it so you get the

17     translation:

18             "Q.  So let's take them one by one.  Do you believe that the use

19     of the term 'massacre' in a demographic report is appropriate?

20             "A.  Yes.  The word of 'massacre' is used in the second-last

21     paragraph.  It is used in the 2009 Srebrenica report.  That is related to

22     about 8.000 individuals who went missing during the fall of Srebrenica

23     and subsequently a large number of them were exhumed from mass and other

24     graves in the territory of Srebrenica and neighbouring municipalities.

25     And subsequently a large number of them were identified through DNA

Page 38284

 1     analysis and, in this way, the circle closed.  I think this is very good

 2     reason, in my eyes, to call Srebrenica and victims of the fall of

 3     Srebrenica a massacre."

 4             Now, I'd like to ask your professional opinion as a demographer,

 5     if Dr. Tabeau is acting within the scope of the field of demography in

 6     using this type of analysis for massacre.

 7        A.   No.  Dr. Tabeau -- I don't know whether she knows this or not,

 8     and according to which definition she uses the word "massacre," but I'm

 9     sure that all the violent deaths, and their list of names contains only

10     violent deaths, I suppose, divides into murders, suicides and accidents.

11             Dr. Tabeau, looking at that list and picking a certain name,

12     doesn't know whether that person was killed in combat, whether they

13     committed suicide or was killed in an accident.  She doesn't even know if

14     any natural death is involved.  So if she doesn't know anything about

15     that and cannot get information, how can see say that it is a massacre?

16     The person who died in combat or suicide or a person killed by stepping

17     on a land-mine was certainly not massacred.  I don't know what, in her

18     book, is a "massacre," but I suppose that it has to be a mass execution.

19             Dr. Tabeau does not even know how many people were executed, nor

20     did the sources she had at her disposal and she used -- no, not the ones

21     she had at her disposal because I don't know what she had.  But she

22     cannot even draw conclusions about people who were killed in executions,

23     just like she cannot derive a conclusion as to how many people in total

24     were killed in other ways, but there are some data in the demographics

25     office, that there were accidents, that there were people killed in

Page 38285

 1     combat, that there were cases other than killings.  I don't know how many

 2     such cases there were, but they certainly existed.  And if they existed,

 3     then I don't understand Dr. Tabeau, when she explains that the whole

 4     circle is completed when a person was found in a mass grave, I cannot

 5     accept that conclusion.

 6        Q.   Thank You, Professor --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic is not supposed to speak aloud.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   Thank you, Professor, for answering my questions.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours, for your indulgence.

11     That's the end of my direct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Radovanovic, we'll take a break and we'd like to

13     see you back in 20 minutes, when you'll be cross-examined.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud.

16             We'll take a break and we'll resume at quarter to 2.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 1.48 p.m.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could the witness be escorted into the

21     courtroom.

22             Meanwhile, I'll deal with a short preliminary matter.

23             That is, about the replacement of P3468.  On the 18th of

24     August of this year, the Chamber invited the Prosecution to verify the

25     English translation of P3468.  On the 19th of August, the Prosecution

Page 38286

 1     advised the Chamber and the Defence, via an e-mail that a revised English

 2     translation had be replaced with doc ID 0425-8552-A-ET.  On the same day

 3     the Defence responded stating that it did not object and the Chamber

 4     hereby instructs the Registry to replace the current translation of P3468

 5     with the revised translation.

 6             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, just for a clarification I've been told

 7     that the doc ID which begins with 0245 in the transcript should actually

 8     read 0425.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that's what I read, but I'm not certain

10     about it.  But I agree that it should be 0425-8552-A-ET.

11                           [The witness takes the stand]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Radovanovic, you'll now be cross-examined by

13     Mr. File.  You find him to your right.  Mr. File is counsel for the

14     Prosecution.

15             Mr. File, you may proceed.

16             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17                           Cross-examination by Mr. File:

18        Q.   Good afternoon, madam.

19        A.   Good day.

20        Q.   If we could please have D1210, we're going to start talk a little

21     bit by your background and preparation for your testimony in this case.

22             Are you able to read and write as well as speak and understand

23     the English language?

24        A.   No.  My English is poor, in terms of speaking or any other skill.

25        Q.   On your CV which we're looking at now, it says that from 1992 to

Page 38287

 1     1999, you were an expert associate in the institute of humanities centre

 2     of demographic research.  Is that a Belgrade-based institution?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And then from 1999 to 2014, you were an associate professor at

 5     the university college of geography in Belgrade.  I note that yesterday

 6     at T38133, you verbally updated this part of your CV to reflect your

 7     retirement; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now the academic rank of associate professor in Serbia is denoted

10     in Serbian as [B/C/S spoken]; right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And there was also a lower academic rank in Serbia called docent

13     or senior lecturer; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And isn't it true that contrary to what you've just told us and

16     what's written on your CV, you only became associate professor in 2005;

17     and before that, starting in 1999 you were a docent or senior lecturer?

18        A.   Yes.  I only don't know as opposed to what.

19        Q.   Well, to be clear, the CV that you've presented to this Chamber

20     and that you affirmed yesterday as complete and accurate, as well as your

21     testimony today has overstated your qualifications for the period from

22     1999 to 2005; right?

23        A.   I would not agree with you.  This is about work experience, and I

24     have been at the university from 1999 to 2013 and I put in the latest

25     title.  It doesn't mean that I am an associate professor from 1999.  It's

Page 38288

 1     the position where I have been employed, stating the latest title that I

 2     have.

 3        Q.   So it's your position that a biography or a CV should only

 4     include the most recent position that you've held at any given

 5     institution.

 6        A.   No.  The question here was about work experience, where I have

 7     worked and where I worked earlier, and in which position.  Senior

 8     lecturer and associate professor are teaching positions.  They differ

 9     only inasmuch as you start in a teaching position as a senior lecturer,

10     and then, after you meet certain qualifications, such as papers and

11     other, you get the next level, or you have to be reelected, et cetera.

12     Maybe I should have written 1999 to 2005 senior lecturer, to be more

13     precise.

14             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... let's move on.

15     I think the facts are clear.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. FILE:  Could we please have 65 ter 33019, please.

18        Q.   Now, when this comes up, you will see that this is your CV from

19     the last time that you testified before this Tribunal which was back

20     in -- in November 2008 in the Prlic case.

21             At the bottom of page 1, you see a category heading:  Selection

22     of published scientific works followed by a list of 17 documents that you

23     authored or co-authored between 1990 and 2007.

24        A.   I don't have that on my screen.

25        Q.   Do you see at the bottom of the page, there's a heading that

Page 38289

 1     says:  Selection of published --

 2        A.   I see that, yes.

 3        Q.   Now during your testimony in that case, you stated that the works

 4     you listed on this CV were the ones that had been published in journals.

 5     That was correct; right?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  It's customary to get a transcript reference if

 7     referring to a transcript from other cases.

 8             MR. FILE:

 9        Q.   That would be from the Prlic case T34994, lines 21 to 23, from

10     the 25th of November, 2008.

11        A.   Yes, in professional and scientific journals.

12        Q.   And then you were asked whether any of those works had been the

13     subject of international peer review and your response was:  "No, they

14     were not subject of international peer review because all the journals

15     that I listed are published in Serbia in journals that are significant,

16     scientifically significant at national level, so they did not undergo

17     international peer review but they were reviewed by relevant scholars in

18     the area where I live."

19             That was correct as well; right?

20        A.   Does the word "reviewed" mean that somebody wrote a review of my

21     paper or viewed it on the Internet?  If you mean the writing a review,

22     reviews of my work were written by our national experts.

23        Q.   We're talking about international peer review before publication

24     takes place.  The process of selecting a publication.  That was the

25     context of the questions in the Prlic case.

Page 38290

 1        A.   When a paper is published in our journals, they are reviewed by

 2     our national experts.  My paper was reviewed by national experts.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to cut matters short, was that after

 4     publication or before publication?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before.  Not a single paper can be

 6     published anywhere before receiving a review required for publishing.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 8             MR. FILE:

 9        Q.   Now if we can return to your current CV for this case, D1210,

10     you'll see if we go to page 2 in both versions, you'll see that your

11     publications have disappeared and have been replaced with a the statement

12     under the heading:  Research work that says you published over 70

13     scientific and expert works and studies in demography, ethnography and

14     population statistics.

15             So my first question is:  Is your answer from the Prlic case

16     still correct today in other words is it still true that you have not

17     published any articles in scientific journals that were the subject of

18     international peer review before publication?

19        A.   No, it's not correct.  I just didn't write this again.  In the

20     meantime, I published in a journal of the Russian Academy of Science.  I

21     suppose you would treat that as international.

22        Q.   And what's the citation for that?

23        A.   I don't understand the question.  It's the citation for what?

24     Why didn't I state it?

25        Q.   Could you provide the title and the date and the exact journal

Page 38291

 1     name.

 2        A.   Yes, I can.  But I cannot do it off the cuff.  I don't want to

 3     make a small mistake and then appear as not speaking the truth.  I can

 4     provide the exact name of the journal to the Court later.  I can leave it

 5     with the Defence counsel and he will pass is on to you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You're supposed not to further have contact with

 7     Defence counsel.  So there are two options.  The one is that you write it

 8     down and give it to the Victims and Witness Section which I think would

 9     be preferable and the Victims and Witness Section would then give to the

10     parties and to the Bench so that Mr. File has an opportunity to check.

11             So could do you that preferably as soon as possible this

12     afternoon?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am unable to do that

14     in afternoon.  I don't have the journal with me so as to be able to

15     exactly reference the title of the journal and of the article and of the

16     year.  I can do that at some later point.  I can also forward the details

17     of a book I have published in the meantime.  I don't know what the view

18     of the OTP would be on that.  It was commissioned by the European Union

19     and the Serbian ministry.

20             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's fine.

21     Give whatever additional information you have.  But I urge you to do it

22     this afternoon because the communications these days are such, I take it

23     that through the Internet or in any other way it must not be that

24     difficult to find the publication and where it was published and when it

25     was published.  I often forget about my own publications but I usually

Page 38292

 1     find them rather quickly again.

 2             So you are invited to do your utmost best to provide that

 3     information this afternoon.  At the same time, of course, the parties

 4     could do as a search as well -- and if you find anything, please --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I live in a single

 6     household.  I have no one to ask to pick up this or that book to give me

 7     the details.  There's no one that can I ask that to do in my apartment.

 8     Perhaps I can speak to the faculty, since I retired in the meantime but

 9     I'm no longer on their list.  That is the problem.  The Internet is not a

10     problem.  I just don't know how I would be able to do it today over the

11     Internet.

12             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who contact to enter

14     my apartment and locate the publication.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  But most journals have published the content of

16     their volumes on the Internet.  That's at least what is my experience.

17     So would you try to do your utmost best and whether it's the faculty or

18     someone else --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can do that.  It didn't occur to

20     me.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I'll ask the Victims and Witness Section

22     to get in touch with you so as to -- to finalize that and you provide the

23     information to them.

24             Please proceed, Mr. File.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 38293

 1             MR. FILE:

 2        Q.   Final question about your CV.  You have a category titled:

 3     "Other professional activities" on this page that we're looking at where

 4     you describe being a member of various professional bodies and having

 5     been a witness here and in Sarajevo.  And this list of professional

 6     bodies includes all of the professional organisations that you are a

 7     member of or have ever been a member of; right?

 8        A.   Members of which I was.  I'm still a member of some.

 9        Q.   And are all of those organisations based either in Serbia or the

10     Republika Srpska in Bosnia?

11        A.   Yes, they are all either in the Republic of Serbia or in

12     Republika Srpska, but the European Centre for Peace and Development is

13     also located or, rather, it has a branch office in Belgrade.  Its

14     headquarters are not in Belgrade.  Just part of the organisation is

15     there.  It functions under the auspices of the UN.

16        Q.   Just a few broader preliminary questions.  As a university -

17     we're done with this document, by the way - as a university associate

18     professor in demography until 2014, do you try to stay informed about

19     what colleagues at other universities around the world are researching

20     and writing about, for example, by reading articles that are published in

21     prominent international peer-reviewed journals in your field?

22        A.   Of course.  Both as the senior lecturer and the associate

23     professor or when I was outside the teaching profession.  All articles or

24     papers that I hear of which are within my sphere of interest is something

25     that I review.  If they are in English, I asked for them to be

Page 38294

 1     translated, and I do read them all.

 2        Q.   Yesterday at transcript page 38138, you said:  "I provide

 3     footnotes for everything that I refer to."

 4             Now just to clarify that, do you agree that when writing a

 5     scientific article or expert report for a court case, it is important to

 6     give citations that support claims that are made in the article or

 7     report?

 8        A.   I quote.  I do not provide footnotes without a direct quote.  I

 9     agree that other people need to be quoted and referenced in the

10     footnotes.  I never drew my own conclusions about somebody else's words.

11     I specifically quote the part I'm interested in.

12        Q.   Does that mean that if you make a claim in an article or an

13     expert report that you write and it's not directly quoting a specific

14     source that you might not put a footnote with a citation to that source?

15        A.   I cannot assert that it has never happened, but I do my utmost

16     for it not to happen.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, I need three minutes in private session.

18     Therefore, I'd like to invite you to stop a bit earlier.

19             MR. FILE:  Before --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. FILE:  Before we do, may I tender 65 ter 33019 which was the

22     CV from 2008 that we discussed.

23             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.  But I note most of the documents on

24     the list are not available to the Defence in e-court so we can please fix

25     that so I can look at them, that would be much appreciated.

Page 38295

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Are they not uploaded, Mr. File?

 2             MR. FILE:  Everything should have been released.  That's the

 3     information I have.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That's apparently what Ms. Stewart confirms by

 5     nodding.  I take it that the parties will resolve this matter before 9.30

 6     tomorrow morning.

 7             MR. FILE:  Sooner than that.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  May I remind you that it would be highly

 9     appreciated, Ms. Radovanovic, if you provide the titles and any

10     additional information and give it to the Victims and Witness Section.

11     They will certainly also assist you in getting access to the Internet if

12     you need that.

13             Apart from that, I would like to instruct you as I did yesterday

14     you should not speak or communicate in whatever way apart from for the

15     purposes we just discussed, with anyone about your testimony, whether

16     already given or still to be given, and we'd like to see you back

17     tomorrow morning at 9.30.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We briefly move into private session.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 38296

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [Open session]

22             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

24             Madam Registrar, could you please assign an exhibit number to the

25     2008 CV which was 65 ter 33019.

Page 38297

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  It receives exhibit number P7512, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  P7512 is admitted into evidence.

 3             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the

 4     26th of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 26th day of

 7                           August, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.