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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
1 focussing on geographical - that is, by settlement, or by town - the
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
1 Q. Professor, what is defined -- what or who are defined as economic
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 --
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
23 So that, Professor, can you see the heading --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment. Is it correct to broadcast this
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
25 A. This is information about vital events, the number of births and
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 the position where I have been employed, stating the latest title that I
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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]
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.
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.