Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38298

 1                           Wednesday, 26 August 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in around this courtroom.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted to raise a

11     preliminary matter.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

13             This is in respect of the matter that the Trial Chamber reminded

14     the Prosecution the other day had not been resolved with respect to MFI

15     745, and the Trial Chamber requested a response by the 27th of August.

16             By way of quick backdrop, this document, MFI 745, was tendered

17     through Witness Vlaski and, at the time, the Prosecution asked the

18     Defence about its provenance.  The Defence did not have such information

19     at the time and advised the Chamber that the document should be MFI'd

20     pending further information.

21             On -- in May of this year, the Defence advised the Prosecution

22     that the document was provided to Vlaski by the Serbian security service;

23     that was the further information we were provided.  Now, we note in

24     respect of that information that the document bears no facial indicators

25     of Serbian DB origin, such as a header or a stamp of the type that appear

Page 38299

 1     in other documents of allegedly similar provenance.

 2             We also note that had we been advised at the time of the Mr.

 3     Vlaski's assertion that he received it from the Serbian DB, we would have

 4     asked the witness about the circumstances of that alleged transfer as

 5     well as his relationship to the DB.

 6             While we consider that these factors clearly bear on any weight

 7     that can be attributed to the document, we do not, in the interests of

 8     comity, oppose the admission of the document on this occasion.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

10             No other preliminaries.

11             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that

17     you're still bound by the solemn declaration, Ms. Radovanovic, you gave

18     at the beginning of your testimony.

19             Mr. File will now continue his cross-examination.

20             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good morning to everyone.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

22                           WITNESS:  SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]

23                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

24                           Cross-examination by Mr. File: [Continued]

25        Q.   When we left off yesterday, we were discussing whether you had

Page 38300

 1     written a scientific journal article that had been accepted for

 2     publication after an international peer-review process.  You had

 3     indicated that you had one from a journal of the Russian Academy of

 4     Science but could not recall the precise title or the year of the

 5     publication.  Thank you for subsequently providing the details of this

 6     publication which my office received yesterday afternoon.

 7             If we could have 65 ter number 33044, we'll see the document that

 8     we received.  If we could please go to e-court page 2.

 9             At the top, it says NGO Srebrenica historical project, the

10     Netherlands.  And then you have the publication title which is:

11     International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:  Activity, results,

12     impact.

13             And then it says:  "Proceedings of the international scholarly

14     symposium at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, April 22 to 23,

15     2009, in collaboration with the Centre for the Study of the Contemporary

16     Balkan Crisis of the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy

17     of Sciences.

18             At the bottom it is indicated it was published in Belgrade and

19     Moscow in 2010.

20             Could we go to e-court page 4, please.  If you look at the

21     masthead for the people managing this publication, the editor-in-chief is

22     an individual named Stephen Karganovic and the scholarly advisors are

23     Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, and Dr. Edward Herman.  Are you familiar with these

24     individuals personally?

25        A.   As for Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, I know him by reputation only.  I've

Page 38301

 1     never met him.  As for Dr. Edward Herman, I don't know him.

 2        Q.   And Stephen Karganovic?

 3        A.   I do know him, but I only met him when -- actually, I met him

 4     before he invited me to the symposium once here in The Hague and then his

 5     invitation followed to his international gathering.  It was much later.

 6     At some point much later than the time when I met him here.

 7        Q.   Just to clarify, when was the first time you met him?

 8        A.   I met him for the first time when I arrived here concerning the

 9     Popovic case.  At the time, he worked for or collaborated with

10     attorney-at-law, John Ostojic, and that's when I was able to meet him.

11        Q.   Did you --

12        A.   -- perhaps I went to Counsel Ostojic's office here to discuss

13     matters and I met Stephen Karganovic.

14        Q.   So he was the one who invited you to present a paper at this

15     conference?

16        A.   He asked me if I was willing to come and I received an official

17     invitation from the Slavic studies centre of the Russian Academy of

18     Sciences he simply gave me a phone call to inquire whether I was willing

19     to participate and contribute to this or that topic.  The official

20     invitation was received from the Russian Academy of Science, its

21     institute for Slavic studies.

22        Q.   Okay.  Could we go to e-court page 6, please.

23             Now at the top of the page you can see your paper in the table of

24     contents.  The title of the paper you presented there was:  Demographic

25     Expert Reports of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor as a Specific Model

Page 38302

 1     of Targeted Statistical Constructs and Manipulations.

 2             That was the title of your paper and the presentation at the

 3     conference; right?

 4        A.   I'm not sure I understood it yet the way it was interpreted.  My

 5     article was entitled demographic expertise of the ICTY Office of the

 6     Prosecutor as a specific method or model of targeted statistical

 7     constructs and manipulations.

 8        Q.   Okay.  You can see other papers presented that are listed on this

 9     page, including topics like the third one down from the top about:

10     Violation of Vojislav Seselj's procedural rights at the ICTY.

11     And at the bottom, you can see one titled:  How The Hague tribunal

12     ignores facts and evidence.

13             Were you present at the conference to hear those papers

14     presented?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So just to be perfectly clear:  You physically went to the

17     Russian Academy of Science in Moscow and attended the conference there in

18     April of 2009?

19        A.   Yes.  And I also presented my paper and was present while the

20     other authors presented theirs.

21        Q.   So you were a conference participant?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, did you remember attending this event when I asked you about

24     your publications yesterday and you mentioned the Russian Academy of

25     Science but said you couldn't remember the exact title or year?

Page 38303

 1        A.   You didn't ask me if I attended the conference or not.  You asked

 2     me whether I published something.

 3        Q.   Right.  Well, did you not consider it important to mention what

 4     you could remember about the facts or context in which you prepared and

 5     delivered this paper?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Object to the question.  That wasn't asked by

 7     counsel yesterday so asking for a witness to make comments on things that

 8     were not asked is really badgering the witness and is not in line with

 9     presenting the evidence that was presented yesterday.  I would

10     strenuously object to this line of questioning.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  The witness was asked

12     whether she considered something yesterday which is a question of fact.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. FILE:

15        Q.   You can answer the question.

16        A.   Mr. Prosecutor asked me if I published anything in foreign

17     journals, and I said yes, in the proceedings of the Russian Academy of

18     Sciences although I was unable to recall the precise title or year.

19             Then Judge Orie requested that I inquire, and then the discussion

20     followed because the Internet did not occur to me since I'm not well

21     versed in those terms when it comes to technology.

22             I was simply not asked whether I participated in anything or

23     presented anything, and that is how I managed to acquire this

24     information.  I'm grateful for those who reminded me to do so.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You're not attacked in any way, so there's no need

Page 38304

 1     to defend yourself.  It's just a question, whether you have considered

 2     that.  Apparently, because you thought it was not related to the

 3     question, you did not consider that.  Is that well understood?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.  I wasn't

 5     defending myself.  I was merely responding to the question the way I

 6     understood it.  Nobody asked me if I participated anywhere.  I was asked

 7     whether I published anywhere.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have not answered my question to you, but

 9     I deduce that you didn't think this information to be directly related to

10     the question that was put to you.

11             Please proceed, Mr. File.

12             MR. FILE:

13        Q.   So this publication is a book that is a collection of papers

14     presented at the conference; right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So the paper that appears here that you wrote was not

17     internationally peer-reviewed in the sense that did you not submit it to

18     a scientific journal so that it would be reviewed anonymously by

19     demographers or statisticians in order to determine whether to accept it

20     in the journal.  You were invited to present this paper by

21     Mr. Karganovic?

22        A.   I was personally invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences.  As

23     for Mr. Karganovic he only inquired preliminarily whether I wanted to

24     take part or not.  He wasn't the one to decide whether I would be

25     invited.

Page 38305

 1        Q.   Ma'am --

 2        A.   -- following his inquiry, I submitted my report, my paper.

 3             As for what you say that following the event I could have given

 4     my paper to a journal to have it reviewed by those you consider

 5     competent, well, if a paper is published anywhere and then if you offer

 6     it in the same form to someone else, it's a no-go because it had been

 7     published previously.

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

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And please do not take this to be

10     any kind of defence on my part but I just wanted to add something else.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would limit yourself to answer the question

12     because are you dealing with a lot of matters which are not, at least we

13     understand not to be part of the question.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. FILE:

16        Q.   Let's try it one more time.  The paper that appears here that you

17     wrote, that was published in this book, was not internationally

18     peer-reviewed in the sense that you did not submit it through a

19     peer-review process for it to be published here?

20             MR. IVETIC:  Object as to the form of question.  Mixing and

21     matching two different things.  He starts off talking about international

22     peer review.  I would like to have a citation for international peer

23     review as being a rule for expert evidence that's required.  I'm familiar

24     with peer review which is what all the literature on the topic talks

25     about.

Page 38306

 1             The second part of his question switches from international peer

 2     review and starts talking about peer review.  In that manner, that

 3     question is confusing and inappropriate.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to keep matters short.

 5             The contribution to the conference as published was not peer

 6     reviewed before it was presented or published; is that correctly

 7     understood?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not correctly understood.

 9             You can see here who reviewed it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that prior to publication that others looked at

11     it and gave their comment in order to either give the green light or --

12     to perhaps give the green light for publication?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  Reviews are always done prior

14     to publication.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. File.

16             MR. FILE:

17        Q.   Who reviewed this prior to publication?

18        A.   For the most part, papers that are being reviewed are coded.  In

19     other words, no one is duty-bound to tell you who the reviewers are.

20     However, once the proceedings are published, then usually the reviewers

21     are mentioned.

22        Q.   Dr. Radovanovic, what you're saying cannot possibly be correct.

23     Given that this book is a collection of papers that were presented at a

24     conference.  It's not a journal of statistics, it's not a journal of

25     demography, it's a conference and this is a collection of papers that

Page 38307

 1     were the proceedings; right?

 2        A.   But at an internal conference.  When international conferences

 3     are being organised then, according to the rules, we need to know who the

 4     organisers are, who are the reviewers for the papers, what sections

 5     individual authors will take part in.  No international conference can be

 6     set up ad hoc.  There are procedures.

 7             Have a look at any kind of documentation concerning an

 8     international conference and its proceedings subsequently and can you

 9     figure it out.  In order for me to explain it all, it would take time.

10     But, in short, an international conference cannot be organised ad hoc,

11     especially if it involves people from different countries.  No one

12     applies because they like to do so per se.  People have to apply and

13     then, in the organising committee of the conference, there are people who

14     divide papers per section and by content.  They say, This is a go; that

15     is a no-go; this will go to that section; that will go to the others.  I

16     don't have the list of people who were --

17        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... you just said people had to

18     apply.  But you didn't have to apply.  You were invited; right?

19        A.   What do you mean I didn't have to apply?  Mr. Karganovic said,

20     There will be a conference in Moscow at this and that place.  Do you want

21     to participate?  I said I do.  Then I received a letter from the

22     institute of Slavonic studies of the Academy of Sciences where they say

23     that they intend to organise a conference on that topic and to take place

24     on this and that date.  They asked also if I was willing to contribute

25     through a paper, and I said yes.  Then you need to send the title and a

Page 38308

 1     summary.  After a while, they ask you for your full paper.  I followed

 2     the procedure.  Following it all, I was invited to attend the conference

 3     to present my paper.  I could have sent my paper without presenting it,

 4     but I consented to being there.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, let's move on.

 7             MR. FILE:  Yes.

 8        Q.   Are you aware that one of the scholarly advisors for this

 9     publication, Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, appeared in this trial as a Defence

10     witness?

11        A.   No.  But I do know that Dr. Kecmanovic --

12        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

13        A.   -- was in some other --

14        Q.   I want to ask you about the paper that you presented there and

15     published in this collection of articles.  It contained themes that were

16     very similar to what you have presented in your expert report in this

17     case; right?

18        A.   You can see that it involves demographic expert reports by the

19     OTP.  I have to stick to the topic.  I can't discuss any other

20     demographic expert reports other than those of the OTP.  It referred to

21     those expert reports which had been published up to that moment in 2009.

22        Q.   So I take it your answer is, yes, it did cover the same

23     [Microphone not activated]?

24        A.   Then I must have misunderstood your question.  I apologise.

25        Q.   I asked you if it contained the same or similar themes as what

Page 38309

 1     you've presented in your expert report in this case.

 2        A.   There were no similar or same topics.  There may have been

 3     similar criticisms levied as presented here as well.  But it has to do

 4     with Srebrenica and the expert reports.  I don't recall off the cuff

 5     which expert reports they are that I took into account though.

 6        Q.   Could we please have 65 ter number 33050.

 7             This is going to be the conclusion to this publication that

 8     contains the conference recommendations.  For this, we're going to look

 9     at e-court page 3 and B/C/S page 7.

10             MR. FILE:  Page 3 in the English, please.

11        Q.   In the first paragraph, under conference recommendations, this is

12     at the bottom of the page in B/C/S and the top of the page in English, it

13     says:  "Conference participants embraced the conclusion that ICTY should

14     be shut down immediately and that all its activity must be subjected to

15     serious review.  In addition to crude violations of international law and

16     ICTY's own rules of procedure, the principle of rebus sic stantibus is in

17     itself sufficient to effect the Tribunal's immediate abolition."

18             Now if we skip down two paragraphs it says as follows:

19             "The responsibility of Judges and other Tribunal personnel for

20     violations of international law and of the Tribunal's own rules of

21     procedure should be raised and actively pursued.

22             "The issue of Srebrenica and the so-called genocide of Muslim

23     civilians and military personnel must be subjected to comprehensive and

24     exhaustive analysis in light of new facts and of all disposable evidence.

25             "Particular attention must be given to the case of General R.

Page 38310

 1     Krstic, where ICTY, acting without any justification, classified events

 2     in Srebrenica in July of 1995 as genocide."

 3             Those were some of the conference recommendations of the

 4     conference where you were a participant; correct?

 5        A.   I don't know what they have to do with me.  These are obviously

 6     recommendations but I didn't participate in the drafting of these

 7     conclusions and I never signed this.  I told you, every conference has

 8     certain persons who do certain things.  Nobody offered those conclusions

 9     to me there and now whether they were drawn there, I don't know.  I never

10     signed any one of these conclusions.  I signed my paper.

11             Now, what somebody is going to conclude on that basis, well, no

12     one ever asked me any such thing.  I really have nothing to do with any

13     of that.  Just like I don't know what people here are going to conclude

14     about me.  That has nothing to do with me.  I have nothing to do with

15     that.

16        Q.   I just want to return to how you addressed this yesterday

17     afternoon.  At T38290, I asked you whether it was still true that:  "Have

18     you not published any articles in scientific journals that were the

19     subject of international peer review before publication."

20             Your answer was:  "No, it's not correct.  I just didn't write

21     this again.  In the meantime, I published in a journal of the Russian

22     Academy of Science.  I suppose you would treat that as international."

23             Now, Dr. Radovanovic, no reasonable scientist would consider this

24     a scientific journal.  There was no peer-review process and this has

25     nothing to do with your field of demography and statistics.  This is a

Page 38311

 1     book whose sole purpose is to denounce this Tribunal, and I put to you

 2     when you answered my question yesterday you did so untruthfully.  That's

 3     right, isn't it?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Objection, compound question.  Misstates the

 5     evidence and misstates the question that was asked.  If you're going to

 6     cite to the question, read the question.  You're starting in the middle

 7     of your question, counsel.  If you're going to read the question, the

 8     question says:  "Is your answer in the Prlic case still correct?"

 9             She said what she said.  She testified today about how the paper

10     was submitted, therefore you are misstating the evidence and you're

11     asking a compound question that requires 15 different answers.

12             MR. FILE:  It's not the case, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is granted.

14             Ms. Radovanovic yesterday testified about an article she

15     published and you're now taking here to the conclusions of a conference

16     of which the witness now testified that she was not involved in drawing

17     those conclusions.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. FILE:

20        Q.   Dr. Radovanovic, when I asked you yesterday whether you had

21     published articles in scientific journals that were the subject of

22     international peer review before publication, did you consider this

23     document a scientific journal?

24        A.   Do I consider the document to be a scientific journal?  I don't

25     understand what you're asking me.

Page 38312

 1        Q.   This book that we're talking about here, do you consider it a

 2     scientific journal?

 3        A.   Well, you know, that's a lot, isn't it?  I'm not competent to say

 4     whether something is a scientific journal or not.  I cannot do that on my

 5     own.  There is a procedure involved that says whether something is a

 6     scientific journal or not.  I cannot be the judge of that.  I cannot

 7     judge whether a journal is scientific but I absolutely assert that it was

 8     an international conference and that a certain number of scholars took

 9     part in it from different fields.  If you have a review by international

10     experts or some experts that you considered to be competent and if they

11     wrote that this is not an international journal, I will accept that.  I

12     do not consider myself to be that competent for everything, so that I

13     could assess whether each and every paper here is scientific or not.  I

14     believe that the conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with me and it's

15     certainly not science, but --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We could not understand

17     the last part of the sentence.  Could the witness please stay a bit away

18     from the microphone.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the last part of the last

20     sentence, and could you stay slightly away from the microphone.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the conclusion that

22     was presented here is not a scientific conclusion because I don't know

23     whether it was drawn from some other scientific papers that are

24     mentioned.  I really do not know about procedural law.  Many papers were

25     not from my field, and I cannot say whether they are scientific or

Page 38313

 1     scholarly papers or not.  I can see who the authors I can see what these

 2     do otherwise but I really do not consider myself to be --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I invited you to repeat the last part of

 4     the last sentence, but you started a new answer.

 5             Mr. File, you should move on.

 6             MR. FILE:

 7        Q.   If we can turn to your report in this case.  On page 3 in both

 8     versions, you have a heading entitled, "Reports analysed" and there you

 9     list 21 documents that you analysed as part of this project.

10             MR. IVETIC:  That's D1211, MFI, I think for Your Honour's

11     assistance.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could we have it on our screens.

13             MR. IVETIC:  I think it's 1211.

14             MR. FILE:  That's correct.

15             If we could have page 3 of both versions.

16        Q.   You can see there's a heading entitled, "Reports analysed."  And

17     there you list 21 documents that you analysed as part of this project.

18     Would you agree that you reviewed these documents carefully?

19        A.   I would agree that I reviewed these documents carefully.

20        Q.   Okay.  I'm going to ask you about some of the tables that you

21     included in your report.

22             If we could please go to English page 47, B/C/S page 46, and this

23     is not for broadcast.

24             As this comes up you're going to see that this is Table 5 where

25     you've listed 34 individuals together with their date and place of

Page 38314

 1     disappearance and their grave-site.  The source for the information in

 2     this table is listed as the 2009 OTP list.

 3             After this table in your report, you express scepticism about the

 4     fact that they are listed as having been located in grave-sites in Serbia

 5     or "unknown," and you say in that paragraph just beneath the table:  "All

 6     the above persons are on the Prosecution's list as Srebrenica victims

 7     because they are registered as missing in July and August in the places

 8     that the expert links with Srebrenica.  If these people [sic] really went

 9     missing in July and August and were last seen alive in the registered

10     places of disappearance, does it mean that they were taken to Serbia and

11     killed there, and who killed and buried them there?  Where and what are

12     these unknown graves where Srebrenica victims were buried?"

13             Now in the introduction to your report that we were just looking

14     at, one of the documents you listed as having reviewed was the July 2013

15     research note called "Integration of the 2013 ICMP update with the 2009

16     OTP list of Srebrenica victims"; correct?

17             And, for the record, we're talking about P2794.  We're talking --

18        A.   Could you please tell me what number it is, what you mentioned

19     just now in the literature there?  I'm unable to follow.

20        Q.   It's number 20 at the bottom of page 4.  We're talking about

21     page 4 of your report --

22        A.   Yes, yes, I see it.  I do see it.

23             Dr. Ewa Tabeau:  "The integration of the 2013 ICMP update with

24     the 2009 OTP list of Srebrenica victims."  Yes, I reviewed it very

25     carefully.  Of course, I could not --

Page 38315

 1        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 2        A.   -- go to the list itself and check it, but that is in the list

 3     submitted by Dr. Brunborg.  And, down there, it says very properly what

 4     the source is.

 5        Q.   Can we go to P2794, page 7, please.

 6             You see at the bottom of the page it says:  "Attachment:  Excel

 7     file:  Integration of 2013 ICMP update on Srebrenica and Zepa."

 8             And then it describes what is included there.  Is it your

 9     testimony that you didn't look at that?

10        A.   That's not correct.  This integrated one has to be sent as a new

11     one and you cannot tell me here you are, a list from 2009 and then I'm

12     going to tell you that something I put together in 2013, some things I

13     threw out and other things I did not and you have to tell me what it is.

14     If you made an integrated list in 2013, then it has to be corrected and

15     it has to be corrected in the list of Srebrenica victims.  I can trust

16     Dr. Tabeau, but I do not see this correction in the list of Srebrenica

17     victims and I don't know whether some day in the future again, it's going

18     to be the list from 2009 and whether there is a list from 2013.  That is

19     to say, if you are updating something, you do not updating it by

20     mentioning what you did in one part.

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

22        A.   But this list that you present, that is being updated.  What is

23     being thrown out of there, what is being kept and --

24        Q.   My question was very simple.  I was just asking you if you

25     reviewed this excel file when you were preparing your report.

Page 38316

 1        A.   I reviewed everything I had.  I reviewed the list of cases but I

 2     repeat once again --

 3             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, the

 4     question was not whether you reviewed everything you had but whether you

 5     reviewed this document.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I read and reviewed the expert

 7     report, I reviewed this as well.  It's cases that were found at such and

 8     such places but these cases were not put into the general list.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I understand that you reviewed this document

10     as well.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. FILE:

13        Q.   So if we can go back to the list we were looking at, Table 5,

14     which is English page 47 ... oh, in D1211, MFI.  English page 47; B/C/S

15     page 46.  Again, not for broadcast.

16             So where it says at the bottom of this table that the source is

17     the 2009 OTP list and there's no reference to the 2013 update, it's

18     correct to understand that the information you excerpted from the 2009

19     list here has not been checked or does not incorporate 2013 updates;

20     right?

21        A.   No.  I am not denying that they updated this in 2013, that they

22     found some cases that they want to delete from the list that they

23     published in 2009.  However, in this list of 2009, they did not delete

24     that.  Now do they have a new list in which they deleted that?  That I

25     don't know.  But it hasn't been attached.

Page 38317

 1             So I am referring to the original list of victims.  For me to

 2     delete cases that Dr. Tabeau refers to, no way.  There must be a list

 3     from 2013 that was updated.  Therefore, it cannot contain 7.600.  Never

 4     mind.  But when you say updated list of cases then --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Witness, I do understand that any corrections

 6     that are not included in a new consolidated list that you consider that

 7     you don't have to mention those corrections and you are not bound to

 8     include it in your considerations.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I must say, I'm confused.  I'm looking

10     at the annex to 2794 and I fail to see any of the names from this list so

11     I'm confused by counsel's question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That is perhaps the next question whether there was

13     any reason to -- but we're still one step before that.

14             There's no consolidated list, you are telling us, and, therefore,

15     you relied on the 2009 and have not included the 2013 update in your


17             Is that well understood?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, well understood.  You

19     understood that well.

20             MR. FILE:

21        Q.   I also just want to confirm that you did not look at the report

22     of former OTP investigator Dusan Janc entitled:  Update to the summary of

23     forensic evidence, exhumation of the graves and surface remains,

24     recoveries related to Srebrenica, June 2013, which is in evidence in this

25     case as P1987.  You did not review that report; correct?

Page 38318

 1        A.   That report has to be reviewed by your experts.  I could, but I

 2     don't have to do it.  I can -- if your experts mention something -- no

 3     well, any way.  I did not review it --

 4             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, that's an

 5     answer to the question and whether you were bound to do it [Overlapping

 6     speakers] ...

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I did

 8     not.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Because the other question is a different one.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. FILE:  Could we please have 65 ter 33042 not for broadcast,

12     please.

13        Q.   These are the 34 individual that appear in Table 5 of your

14     report.  We've expanded your table, we've kept the names in the same

15     order that you used, but we included additional information that can be

16     found in the 2013 update.  All of the information on this table is

17     already in evidence in this case either in P1901, the 2009 list, where it

18     indicates on the screen ICRC, or P2795, which is the 2013 integration

19     where it indicates on the screen ICMP in the top columns, on the top row

20     I mean.

21             Just as a side note, I would also note in this chart we kept your

22     original spellings of the names from Table 5 although you made two

23     typographical errors when recording the names, these are noted in the

24     first two footnotes on page 2, but it was possible with a visual

25     inspection to determine which records you were talking about.

Page 38319

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, we have now heard 12 --

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have that, what you have

 3     been speaking just now.  I don't have that on my screen.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

 5             You've given comment now for some ten lines.  If you would put a

 6     question to the witness that would be appreciated.

 7             MR. FILE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             If we could look at the top of the list on page one under Serbian

 9     sites --

10        Q.   Here you can see the first 16 individuals listed in your chart;

11     correct?

12        A.   I don't know.  I don't have Serb locations anywhere in the

13     heading.  I don't know if we're looking at the same table.

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16             Is that the table we're looking at.  I mean, it doesn't say

17     Serbian sites anywhere.

18             MR. IVETIC:  That was not to be broadcast.

19             MR. FILE:

20        Q.   We're going to try to avoid using the names in these records.  If

21     you would, please.

22        A.   I do apologise.  I do apologise.  I do apologise.

23        Q.   Could you -- you have your report in front of you in hard copy

24     form.  If you --

25        A.   Yes, I do.  Just tell me which page.

Page 38320

 1        Q.   Page 46.

 2        A.   I have the report.

 3        Q.   You'll see that the first 16 people listed in that table in your

 4     report are also the first 16 people listed in this table; right?

 5        A.   Well, I can take your word for it.  I can do all the counting

 6     now, all 16 and check, but I believe it when you say that that's the way

 7     it is.

 8        Q.   And if you look on the screen in front of you, towards the middle

 9     it says:  Site name.  And for those 16 individuals you see the same site

10     names in Serbia that are in your table, Table 5; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I would like to you look at the name of the person listed at

13     record 8 without saying it, as well as his ICMP case ID and the site

14     name, and I'd like you to find that record on the table in your report.

15     In the -- on the paper report in front of you, if you can find the

16     corresponding name.

17        A.   I've found number 8, if that's what you mean.  Yes, found it.

18        Q.   Now, I want you to keep track of this information for record 8

19     because I'm going to show you as an example how to trace the basis for an

20     assertion that someone like this is a Srebrenica victim and then I will

21     ask you a question about it; is that understood?

22        A.   I think so.

23             MR. FILE:  I'm aware we're getting close to the time for the

24     break, Your Honour.  I'm wondering if we could go into private session

25     briefly to confirm that we're talking about the same person and then it

Page 38321

 1     might be a good time for a break.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 3                           [Private session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

15             We'll take a break first.  We'd like to see you back in 20

16     minutes.  You may follow the usher.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I put on the record that D1211, which was MFI'd,

23     should have been MFI'd under seal and has this status from now on.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Radovanovic, we'll now continue, but may I urge

Page 38322

 1     you to respond to the questions rather than to what you think may be on

 2     the mind of Mr. File, right or wrong, but we're interested in your

 3     answers to his questions.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             Could we please have P1987.

 7        Q.   As this comes up, this is the 2013 report of former ICTY OTP

 8     investigator, Dusan Janc, and if we could go to page 38 of the English

 9     and page 42 of the B/C/S, please.

10             For context, this is Annex A of the report which provides a

11     summary of each Srebrenica grave.  In the middle of the page under

12     "Serbian related," you see that Mr. Janc writes:

13             "There are several individuals on Srebrenica missing list whose

14     remains have been found in Serbia.  According to the ICMP ... and

15     documentation provided by the authorities of the Republic of Serbia, the

16     mortal remains of these individuals were found in different locations

17     along the Drina or Sava riverbank."

18             Just below, we see a chart of three Serbia-related locations;

19     Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and Beograd.

20             Those are the same three names of graves in Serbia, listed in

21     Table 5 of your report; correct?

22        A.   They're probably the same, Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and Belgrade,

23     plus the unknown locations.

24        Q.   Okay, I'm focussing only on the Serbian ones now, not the unknown

25     ones.  Under the column for code in the Sremska Mitrovica row, you can

Page 38323

 1     see the ICMP case ID for the person I asked you to keep in mind earlier,

 2     record 8 on your list; right?

 3        A.   I believe so.  I did not memorize the code, but I absolutely

 4     believe that is the same person.

 5             MR. FILE:  Could we have 65 ter 33043, please.  Also this one is

 6     not for broadcast.

 7        Q.   Now, in the previous document, we saw Mr. Janc referring to

 8     document provided by the Serbian authorities.  On page one of this

 9     document it says time and place of finding a corpse.  If you look in the

10     upper left-hand corner, do you see the same cases ID at the top for the

11     person who is record 8 on your list?

12        A.   I'm not disputing that.  I'm only asking how do they know it's

13     related to Srebrenica.  All I see here is that the institute for

14     identification, according to their --

15        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

16        A.   Identification methods which is DNA cannot know the time and

17     location.  But you claim that the doctor to whom you are referring claims

18     this is Srebrenica related.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, that wasn't the question.  The question was

20     a different one -- yes.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Orie, may I ask

22     you something?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it's not very usual, and I don't know whether

24     I want to respond to whatever you want to say.  But I urged you to answer

25     the questions as put by Mr. File.  The question was not on what basis

Page 38324

 1     someone would have related this corpse to Srebrenica.  That may be an

 2     issue for this Chamber, and then we'll deal with that.  It's not, at this

 3     moment, within the purview of your cross-examination.

 4             If there's anything apart from that you'd like to ask me, you

 5     have an opportunity to do so; but please keep in mind what I said.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe it's not clear to me, but

 7     allow me to ask the question and then you will tell me if it is all right

 8     or not.

 9             I do not dispute whether a certain person is on the list.  That's

10     clear.  I have one other question:  On which basis is it maintained that

11     this person is related to Srebrenica?  The Prosecutor can show me simply

12     that there is an explanation here for the relation with Srebrenica.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The Prosecution doesn't have to show that to you.

14     They just put the question to you.  And to the extent that question needs

15     further attention, the Chamber will pay attention to it.

16             Please proceed, Mr. File.

17             MR. FILE:

18        Q.   As can you see at the top of this document, it says, "NN or

19     unidentified male body was found on 19 July 1995 in the Sava river near

20     the village of Bosut."

21             Under the description of the body, it reads:  "The body is in an

22     advanced stage of decay, both of the outer tissue and the internal organs

23     and the parts of the brains are missing."

24             Further down, under autopsy, it reads:  "It is noted that the

25     death was violent.  According to the pathologist's estimate the body

Page 38325

 1     stayed in the water for about eight days."

 2             Now if the body was found on 19 July and had been in the water

 3     for about eight days, that would take you back to 11 July 1995; correct?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, don't ask for the obvious.

 5             MR. FILE:

 6        Q.   If we could go do page 2 of the English and page 8 of the B/C/S,

 7     please.

 8             I'd like to turn your attention to the second paragraph, which

 9     reads:  "At the back of the head was found a perforated skin and skull

10     defect continuing as a canal caused by a metal projectile fired from the

11     small arm [sic], which is most probably a direct cause of death of an

12     unidentified person."

13             Do you see that written there?

14        A.   I do.

15        Q.   And if we can turn to page 11 of the B/C/S and page 3 of English,

16     please, here we see a criminal report filed on 25 September 1995 in

17     Sremska Mitrovica.

18             Turning to the next page in the English under description of the

19     offence, please, it reads:  "An unidentified perpetrator fired one bullet

20     from an unknown fire-arms at the NN victim, inflicted gun-shot wound to

21     his head and in that way took his life and then threw him into the Sava

22     river.

23             "On 19 July 1995 at the institute of forensic medicine in

24     Novi Sad, an autopsy was carried out by pathologist, Dr. Simic, and at

25     that time it was established that the death was violent and it was caused

Page 38326

 1     by gun-shot wound at the back of NN victim's head."

 2             Do you see that written there as well?

 3        A.   I do.

 4        Q.   Could we please look at pages 3 to 4 of the B/C/S original side

 5     by side because we don't have a translation for these pages.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you repeat the page number.

 7             MR. FILE:  3 and 4, please.

 8        Q.   As you can see, these are photographs of the body as it was found

 9     on the riverbank.

10             If we could please just zoom in on the bottom photograph on B/C/S

11     page 4.  We've not yet gotten this page translated, so could you please

12     read aloud the text written below that photograph.

13        A.   If I can.  It says:  "Damage to the bone, bad."

14             If I can make it out because it's a very difficult handwriting.

15             "Damage to the bones of the corpse."

16             "Of the corpse."

17        Q.   Finally, could we please turn to page 5 -- page 5 in the

18     original.  This one is also not translated.

19             Here we see the ICMP DNA report for this individual dated 25

20     May 2006 --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It should not be broadcast.

22             MR. FILE:  That's correct.  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   Can you see the case ID in the upper left-hand corner that links

24     this to the prior criminal investigation reports?

25        A.   I see this is a DNA report confirming that it was, indeed, that

Page 38327

 1     person we discussed earlier, and nothing more.

 2        Q.   So my question to you is:  Having seen this information, would

 3     you reconsider the scepticism expressed in your report as to whether

 4     remains found in Serbia can be associated with Srebrenica other than

 5     their date of disappearance?

 6        A.   Well, I would not have any proof that would indicate that, apart

 7     from the date of disappearance, and we know that dates of disappearance

 8     are very questionable and they contain many errors.

 9             Apart from the date of disappearance, there is no other fact or

10     factual evidence that it is a person who was killed as a result of the

11     events in Srebrenica.

12        Q.   So am I right in understanding that you do not credit the ICRC

13     report of a missing person as an indication of the circumstances of this

14     person's death?

15             MR. IVETIC:  I object, that changes now the question.  We've not

16     seen the ICRC report.  So if you're going to pose a new question, phrase

17     it as a new question, not as a continuation of the previous question but

18     as something different.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You're invited to rephrase your question, Mr. File.

20             MR. FILE:

21        Q.   At the very beginning of discussing this subject, we saw a list

22     of individuals who came from the OTP list of missing based on reporting

23     by individual's loved ones, including this person, and so what I'm asking

24     you is does that fact not factor into your conclusion as to available

25     evidence of the circumstances of this person's disappearance.

Page 38328

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I would object.  We have looked at multiple lists.

 2     Can he specify the list.  The one I remember was created by the OTP.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File.

 4             MR. FILE:  We can talk about either P1901 which is the OTP list

 5     that presents the information as to where the missing persons report came

 6     from.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  You said either, about, and you mentioned one.  I

 8     expect two sources.

 9             MR. FILE:  Pardon me.  The other source would the 2013

10     integration report which contains the same information.

11             MR. IVETIC:  And which one identifies the source of that

12     information as being loved ones?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You say there may not have had a certain

14     relationship as being a loved one?

15             MR. IVETIC:  I'm saying the question as phrased --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Assumes facts not in evidence.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Someone reports the person as missing --

19             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

20             MR. FILE:  That's fine.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And you think it very relevant to criticise that

22     they are concluded to be loved ones but they may not be.

23             MR. IVETIC:  I think it's confusing the issue when we're talking

24     about this information that's not on the list.  We have the particular

25     list and we are basing data that's on the list, that's one thing.  If

Page 38329

 1     we're adding things that are not in evidence, we're not getting --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think Mr. File has corrected his wording, loved

 3     ones, but the person who reported a person as having disappeared or went

 4     missing.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before you do, Mr. File, a few minutes ago you

 7     referred to an ICRC report which you asked the witness whether she

 8     doesn't consider that as a source.  Are you moving away from the ICRC

 9     list now?  Or are you -- are you -- now that you're talking about other

10     lists --

11             MR. FILE:  No, Your Honour.  The OTP list is a combination of the

12     ICRC list and PHR list.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you for that explanation.

14             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, I --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you put the question to the witness again

16     now, and keeping in mind all the comments that were made on your

17     question.

18             MR. FILE:

19        Q.   Witness, on the basis that this individual was reported missing

20     and is on the OTP list, does that factor into your conclusion that there

21     is no other evidence linking this case to Srebrenica?

22        A.   In the report of the ICRC and the report you mentioned here, the

23     only evidence is the date.  I do not see any other evidence because DNA

24     does not prove when and where somebody died.  DNA proves identity.

25        Q.   I think this will be a lot more simple if we return to

Page 38330

 1     65 ter 33042.

 2             Before I do that, I would tender 65 ter 33043, which is the

 3     documentation we just looked at.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I think it should be MFI'd as we don't have a

 5     translation of the whole thing.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  There's no complete translation --

 7             MR. FILE:  Agreed.  Agreed.  MFI'd, under seal, please.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, what number would be attached?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 33043 receives exhibit number

10     P7513, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Is marked for identification, under seal.

12             MR. FILE:  So if we could return to 33042; also not to be

13     broadcast, please.

14        Q.   Now, if you look again at record 8, you see there's another piece

15     of information that comes from the ICRC.  In addition to the date of

16     disappearance, it's also the place of disappearance.  And it says:

17     "Potocari-Srebrenica."

18             Would you consider that as a factor in your evaluation?

19        A.   That information may be a factor in the estimate, but you know

20     that your experts claim that many places are missing, that there are

21     errors in the names and surnames, but I think it is acceptable.  I don't

22     know if corrections were made to the ICRC list, but I think that piece of

23     information could be taken into account, but we could also take into

24     account who is providing the information.  That's the place where the

25     person was last seen alive.  It's not the place of disappearance.

Page 38331

 1        Q.   I'd like to turn your attention to the bottom part of this list

 2     which starts at record 17.

 3             If you could look at those names.  On this page, you can see --

 4     the numbers are 17 through 21.  And if you compare that with your Table 5

 5     in your report, on page 46 of your report, you will see that those five

 6     names -- the first five names in your table which have a site name as

 7     unknown; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And can we go to the second page of this.

10        A.   I'm sorry, I just have one thing to say.  It's not my table.

11     It's the table I took from Dr. Brunborg.  I did not make a single table

12     alone.

13        Q.   And for clarification, when I say "your table," I mean a table in

14     your report.

15             If you look at this list, which is the remainder from records 22

16     to 34, this is also the remainder of Table 5 in your report with site

17     names designated as unknown in your report; correct?

18        A.   In the table you're talking about, these are not sites.  These

19     are graves.  Table number 5 that I took from Dr. Brunborg says graves,

20     not sites.  And then it enumerates graves in Mitrovica, Belgrade, and

21     unknown graves.

22        Q.   Are you aware that where it says "site name" that that

23     corresponds to grave-sites?

24        A.   Grave-sites and graves are completely different concepts, but I'm

25     not saying that it's not possible to use them interchangeably.  In the

Page 38332

 1     material that I refer to as my source, it says graves, not grave-sites.

 2             In the materials that you are showing me now, it says place of

 3     disappearance.  Your expert defines the place of disappearance as the

 4     place where somebody was last seen alive.

 5        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 6        A.   However, that is not necessarily --

 7        Q.   We're not talking about place of disappearance.

 8        A.   Well, you are confusing me.  Location, site, place of

 9     disappearance.  I'm just trying to be detailed in my answers, to

10     translate what I'm reading.

11        Q.   Is it your contention that the ICMP list of recovered

12     DNA-identified individuals contains both a site name and a grave-site for

13     each record?

14        A.   I don't understand what you're asking me.  Are you asking me in

15     relation to the table which is on the screen now?  Is that the question?

16     Or are you asking me a general question?

17        Q.   Let's try to keep it simple.  In your --

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. File, if I may, it looks like there's a

19     confusion between place of disappearance which is right at the end, the

20     last column and site name, ICMP, which is somewhere in the middle.

21             Can you explain to the witness which of these two you're talking

22     about?

23             MR. FILE:  Yes.

24        Q.   For clarification, if you look at the top row, which is grey, in

25     the middle you see a column that says, "site name, ICMP," and below it,

Page 38333

 1     you have words like Srebrenica, Kamenica, Bratunac, et cetera.

 2             And at the right-hand side of the screen --

 3        A.   Very well.

 4        Q.   -- it says, "place of disappearance, ICRC".  And below that, it

 5     says Potocari, Srebrenica, et cetera.

 6             And what I'm putting to you is that the ICMP site name column in

 7     the middle of the page corresponds to the column for grave-site in

 8     Table 5 of your report.

 9        A.   No, it doesn't.  In my report, in the tables provided by

10     Dr. Brunborg, we find grave-site.  These people, according to the ICMP,

11     disappeared from the locations of Srebrenica, Kamenica, Liplja and so on

12     and so forth.  I do not dispute the fact that they may have disappeared

13     at those locations.  I'm simply saying that Dr. Brunborg lists

14     grave-sites linking those to date and place of disappearance, as well as

15     the site name provided by the ICMP, but he never explained that.  If he

16     concluded that the date plus place of disappearance plus ICMP information

17     equals evidence that people were found in graves that are not at all in

18     Srebrenica or Bosnia, then I would be able to understand, but he doesn't

19     say that.  In his list, he specifies the lists of Srebrenica victims and

20     the grave-sites where the victims were found.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   And --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, let me stop you for a second.

24             Do I understand that the column with the heading, "site name,

25     ICMP," refers not to the site of the grave what those persons were found?

Page 38334

 1     Is that your understanding of this table?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not my understanding.  That

 3     is the case.  The grave-sites may be at those locations, but they have

 4     completely different names or designations.  There is no Srebrenica

 5     grave-site.  But the ICMP did some things and they grouped some locations

 6     into municipalities or towns that they may belong to.  Not all the

 7     grave-sites are in the territory of Srebrenica municipality.

 8             What we see here -- I apologise.  What we see are not the

 9     designations of grave-sites but of locations.  I do not dispute that

10     perhaps there are some grave-sites in those locations though.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. File.

12             MR. FILE:

13        Q.   So, Dr. Radovanovic, I feel like we're talking about a

14     distinction without a difference here.  What I'm going to put to you is

15     that now that ICMP has identified site names for all of these individuals

16     with the exception of record 28 that you have listed with unknown

17     grave-sites in Table 5, that that has resolved this question of whether

18     their location of recovery is unknown.

19             Is that how you understand it?

20        A.   I don't understand.  I would have to read the report in more

21     detail and analyse it in order to agree or disagree.  If it is the case

22     as you put it, then your expert must have provided a footnote and say,

23     This is what happened according to this or that report or finding.  But

24     not inserting a footnote, the expert is confusing, not only me but the

25     reader in general.  If the expert borrowed it from another report then

Page 38335

 1     they have to reference it precisely.  Off the top of my head I really

 2     can't decide.  I would need to read the report as well.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't have to decide anything, Witness.

 4             The simple question was whether, on the basis of new information,

 5     right or wrong, with a footnote or without a footnote, that the unknown

 6     grave-sites have now been put as known grave-sites, although you may

 7     challenge that it's not with sufficient precision, et cetera, but the

 8     unknown is now replaced by known.

 9             Would you agree with that?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.  I don't have

11     complete data.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  No, you don't have to prove anything.

13     You just see unknown and in the other table it says what now the known

14     site is.

15             Let's move on.

16             MR. FILE:  Just one more question, if I may, Your Honour.

17        Q.   You just testified that you would have to read the report in more

18     detail and analyse it.  But earlier you testified that you chose not to

19     include information from the 2013 report.  That information was already

20     there in the Excel spreadsheet for you to find; right?

21             MR. IVETIC:  Objection to the question.  Misstates the evidence

22     that this is not in the Excel spreadsheet you're talking about.  The

23     spreadsheet you're talking about had entries for I believe [Overlapping

24     speakers] ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... would you specify which

Page 38336

 1     Excel sheet you had on your mind, Mr. File.

 2             MR. FILE:  I'm referring to P2795.  These are the three annexes

 3     to the 2013 ICMP Srebrenica update expert report, dated 21 July 2013.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Have you shown it at all this morning?

 5             MR. FILE:  Pardon me.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Have you shown this 2795 this morning?  I've seen

 7     2794.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  This has not been used yet today, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you then introduce it in a proper way,

11     Mr. File.

12             MR. FILE:  We'll come back to that because we may have to switch

13     to Sanction later to look at that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, then.

15             MR. FILE:

16        Q.   Just one last question.  Are you aware that the Drina river flows

17     into the Sava river and into Serbia?

18        A.   I am familiar with that.

19        Q.   And so you're aware that the Sava river is down river from the

20     Zvornik area?

21        A.   I am aware.

22        Q.   Okay.  We're going to talk about Table 2 in your report.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, could you assist me in telling exactly --

24     there was a place mentioned in the report of where the body was found on

25     the riverbank.  Could you assist me in telling exactly what name that

Page 38337

 1     was.

 2             MR. FILE:  Yes, Your Honour it was in the Sava river near the

 3     village of Bosut.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Bosut.  That's what I was asking for.

 5             Ms. Radovanovic, do you know what Bosut is?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Is that downstream or upstream from

 8     approximately where --

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Downstream.  Downstream.

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

11             I take it that you expected me to say upstream or downstream from

12     approximately the area in which Srebrenica is located.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I lost you there.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes well, upstream or downstream requires a place

15     from where you start looking.  Basel is upstream from Rotterdam, but

16     Hoek van Holland is downstream of Rotterdam.  So, you answered the

17     question and I took it that you expected me to ask you whether it would

18     be upstream or downstream from approximately where the river flows close

19     to Srebrenica.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  And that doesn't change your answer, I

22     take it?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... please proceed.

25             MR. FILE:  Could we please return to D1211, MFI; English and

Page 38338

 1     B/C/S page 36.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Remember, it's under seal.

 3             MR. FILE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Now, in your report, for context, one of your criticisms of the

 5     OTP list appears that it has missing people on it who have dates of death

 6     recorded in other sources, like the ABiH list, or the DEM2 list from

 7     local authorities in Bosnia, that predate the July 1995 executions in

 8     Srebrenica.  On this page you write:  "The databases that the Prosecution

 9     has had for years but never used confirm that some of these missing

10     persons on the Prosecution's list appear only for the purposes of

11     maintaining the total number as high as possible.  For example, only a

12     cursory check of the database of the BH army and DEM2T reveals that the

13     Prosecution" --

14        A.   I'm sorry, I can't follow.  I can't see where you're quoting

15     from.  On my page the text begins "for almost a decade now," and there is

16     a table.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File is reading from the last portion of the

18     text before Table 2.

19             You found it?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is the beginning of the

21     sentence?

22             MR. FILE:

23        Q.   It starts from:  "The databases that the Prosecution has had for

24     years."

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Last five lines before the title of the table.

Page 38339

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Now I see it.  Some of

 2     these missing persons, et cetera, I found it.

 3             MR. FILE:

 4        Q.   The last sentence I was reading says -- well, let's just start

 5     again.

 6             "The databases that the Prosecution has had for years but never

 7     used confirm that some of these 'missing persons' on the Prosecution's

 8     list appear only for the purposes of maintaining the total number as high

 9     as possible.  For example, only a cursory check of the database of the BH

10     army and DEM2T reveals that the Prosecution is still 'searching' for

11     missing persons who died before Srebrenica events."

12             Then you have Table 2, which is on the next page in English - not

13     for broadcast as well - and in that table you list 31 names of missing

14     individuals on the OTP list who fit this description you gave of dates of

15     death recorded in other sources that pre-date July 1995; correct?

16        A.   Correct.

17        Q.   And at the bottom of this list, you also indicate that your

18     source is the 2009 OTP list.  So I take it you have not updated this list

19     or checked to see whether any modifications would need to be made in

20     light of the 2013 ICMP integration; right?

21        A.   I cannot update a list.  It is done by your experts.  Perhaps I

22     can get a table, saying this and that person has been found.  Does it

23     mean that I have to go back to 2009 to delete them?  No.  Everything that

24     they discover in any year on top of what is in the list is up to them to

25     update, not up to me.  Excuse me, I have to say this.  As a source of

Page 38340

 1     information --

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you are

 3     more or less repeating what you said earlier, that if an original list,

 4     if there are any corrections known, that you don't have to care about it

 5     as long as it is not integrated in a consolidated list.  That's perfectly

 6     clear to us.  Also, that you don't have to create that new list, that's

 7     clear as well.

 8             This Chamber is interested primarily in the newest state of

 9     knowledge, and we do understand that you have not considered these

10     corrections and that you commented on a list which the Prosecution claims

11     has lost its validity because new information is available.

12             That's where we stand.  That needs no further explanation at this

13     moment.  Please carefully listen To Mr. File's next question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would disagree with

15     you as well, with utmost respect.  They have to provide a valid list with

16     the latest information to me or anyone else.  If I receive information

17     for 2009 --

18             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, I

19     didn't say anything about whether new list have to be prepared, yes or

20     no.  This Chamber will assess the totality of the evidence and has not

21     expressed itself - neither have I - about either the duty of others to

22     create a new consolidated list.  Neither have I said anything about

23     whether you were bound to do that.  I left that all open.  So if you

24     disagree, you disagree with something which I did not express as my

25     opinion.

Page 38341

 1             Please proceed, Mr. File.

 2             MR. FILE:

 3        Q.   So just to be perfectly clear about what actions you took and

 4     what was available to you, when you were making this list and putting it

 5     in your report, you could have looked at the 2013 update to verify for

 6     each of these individuals whether that information continued to be

 7     correct, but you chose not to do that; right?

 8        A.   No.  I received the OTP list for 2009 that Dr. Brunborg explains

 9     throughout his report.  Based on that information, Dr. Brunborg drew his

10     conclusions.  I had no access to the new databases and these matters.  I

11     only had individual cases for which assertions were made as a yes or a

12     no.

13             As for these individual cases, it never occurred to me that I

14     should delete them from the official list.  All of the matches I was able

15     to carry out were done according to the source of the information for

16     Srebrenica relied upon by Dr. Helge Brunborg.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please move on, Mr. File.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm struggling with your last answer and I would

19     like to clarify.

20             You say:  I had no access to the new databases in these

21     matters ..."

22             If I'm not mistaken we're talking about item 20 you listed on

23     page 4 of your report, the integration of the 2013 ICMP update with 2009

24     OTP list by Dr. Tabeau.

25             You had -- yourself referring to that list, and now you say you

Page 38342

 1     had no access to that?  I don't understand that.  Can you clarify?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, we didn't understand each

 3     other.

 4             When working on Srebrenica, Dr. Brunborg did it on the basis of

 5     the 2009 list, which is this list.  When I worked on Srebrenica, I relied

 6     upon that list for all of the possible matches and comparisons.

 7     Dr. Tabeau, in 2013, provides specific cases and says yes or no this

 8     person may or may not have been on the list.  As for these individual

 9     cases from 2013, I saw it unnecessary to correct the 7.000-plus list from

10     2009 being the source of information from Dr. Brunborg.  That was one

11     thing.

12             Another thing:  If she made that correction she could offered a

13     new total list for 2013.  That was my reasoning.  So I saw a part of it

14     only.  When I said that I had no access, I did not come here to check the

15     latest situation with the list.  There may well be an updated total list

16     of 7.000-plus people but I'm not aware of it.  I meant to say that I had

17     no occasion to see the whole new updated list for 2013.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The matter seems to be perfectly clear how you

19     operated and what you would have expected Dr. Tabeau to do.

20             Let's move on, Mr. File.

21             MR. FILE:  We may be time for a break.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's move on to the break.

23             Ms. Radovanovic, we'd -- we take a break of 20 minutes, and we'd

24     like to see you back at ten minutes past 12.00.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 38343

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at ten minutes past 12.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 11.49 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             MR. FILE:  While we're waiting, Your Honour, I would tender into

 6     evidence 65 ter 33044 and 33050 which were two parts of the publication

 7     we discussed earlier this morning.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Which publication?  Is it the list we're talking

10     about?

11             MR. FILE:  It's the publication --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Of the conference.

13             MR. FILE:  From the conference.  Correct, Your Honour.

14             MR. IVETIC:  No objection to those.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 33044 receives exhibit number

17     P7514, Your Honours.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes please proceed.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 33050 receives exhibit number P7515,

21     Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  P7514 and P7515 are admitted into evidence.

23             MR. FILE:  And before we move on to the next topic, I'd also

24     tender 65 ter 33042 which is the chart that we referred to with Serbian

25     and unknown locations.

Page 38344

 1             MR. IVETIC:  The Defence would object.  We have no information as

 2     to who prepared the chart using what data.  There are no footnotes.  It

 3     refers to an ICMP list, an ICRC list.  We've had several in this case and

 4     we have no way of cross-checking to see which one is at issue without a

 5     great deal of extra work and expending of resources.  Therefore we would

 6     object unless we bring a witness to testify about these factors.

 7             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, it's purely a demonstrative exhibit based

 8     on other exhibits for the convenience of the[Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  It's extracted for those lists.

10             MR. FILE:  That's correct.

11             MR. IVETIC:  And is it identified on the chart what tables come

12     from which?  A demonstrative exhibit has to have footnotes identifying

13     where data comes from or a witness to explain how it's created using that

14     data.  Otherwise we're left to guess.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If is an extraction were you able, Mr. File to offer

16     a cup of tea or cup of coffee to Mr. Ivetic, and point where you

17     extracted from those lists.  I take it that the

18     person [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. FILE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... I can do that, yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You can do that.  A cup of tea or a cup of coffee is

21     offered, Mr. Ivetic.

22             Meanwhile, if it's just an extract we can proceed to admit into

23     evidence but you have an opportunity to revisit the matter after the

24     coffee or tea.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, but if it's a demonstrative exhibit, does it

Page 38345

 1     need to be introduced into evidence [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, Mr. Ivetic, you are

 3     telling us that it takes such an effort to find in the other ones --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Now it is offered to you that it's demonstrated.

 6     And now you're inviting the Chamber to find out for themselves what you

 7     apparently consider too much work.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  That's not what I'm saying.  You're misrepresenting

 9     what I'm saying.  I'm saying that looking at theirs lists without

10     citations, it is too much work to find out where their list is.  I'm not

11     saying it's too much work to look at the source documents themselves

12     which might give more information.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber is assisted by having is in evidence

14     even if is just an extract.  And if there's any doubt as to the accuracy

15     of the extract then you may revisit the matter.

16             One second, please.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the numbers because there

19     were overlapping speakers from what lists you extracted this information.

20             MR. FILE:  The exhibit number itself is 33042.  The source --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean the 65 ter number?

22             MR. FILE:  That's correct.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's not an exhibit number.

24             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The exhibit numbers that

25     provide the information for this table are P2795 and P1901.

Page 38346

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Don't forget to bring them if you have the

 2     coffee or tea with Mr. Ivetic.

 3             For 65 ter 33402 you have assigned what number.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  P7516, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  P7516 is admitted into evidence under seal.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. FILE:  Okay.

 8        Q.   Final question before we move on.  Could we have 65 ter number

 9     33041; also not for broadcast.

10             Witness, if you would look at Table 2 of your own report on pages

11     36 and 37 --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   -- and can you verify that you see on this list in the second

14     column under names -- pardon me, in the third column under "names, ICRC,"

15     the same names that appear in your table?  Up to line 17.

16        A.   Well, now I need time to check all of this, but I'll take your

17     word for it.  I will believe that all of these are the same names.

18        Q.   Okay.  Can we go to page 2, please.  And, again, the third column

19     contains the remainder of the same names from your table; right?

20        A.   Let's say that that's the way it is.  Again, I'm taking your word

21     for it.

22        Q.   And what you see in the title column "case ID," towards the

23     middle right part of the page, in some of these entries you see that

24     there is a case ID; correct?

25        A.   Could you define what you mean by that?  "Case ID"?

Page 38347

 1        Q.   Well, the case ID that the ICMP would create for each located set

 2     of remains.  You see that some of these records have those.

 3        A.   If you mean, for example, in the case (redacted)

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You shouldn't mention any name.

 5             MR. FILE:

 6        Q.   Please just use the number, please.

 7        A.   Oh, please, I am so sorry.  I do apologise.  I'm getting old.  If

 8     you mean where IT says, "case ID," yes, I see that.

 9             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, I would just tender on the same basis as

10     the previous chart as a demonstrative exhibit, which uses the same

11     sources as the previous chart we just saw.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, a demonstrative exhibit is one that is

13     used in this court to elicit evidence there has been no evidence elicited

14     as to this document.  It's a document, again, that has been prepared by

15     the Office of the Prosecutor and has not been given to us prior to this

16     witness's testimony.  We're getting into, then, argument and

17     presentation.  That is for the final stage of the case not any evidence.

18     Again, there's not been any substantive testimony elicited using this

19     demonstrative exhibit, therefore it is not demonstrative.  It is

20     argument.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, doesn't this focus on the difference

22     between the tables the witness has used and the corrections that were

23     made later on, which were at the core of quite a number of questions in

24     cross-examination?

25             MR. IVETIC:  And we've not had any questions as to this document

Page 38348

 1     that is presented as a demonstrative exhibit that go towards those ideas

 2     such that we can use it demonstrate something.  The nature of a

 3     demonstrative exhibit is that you use it with the testimony of a witness

 4     to demonstrate something.  A demonstrative exhibit is not something that

 5     is presented for the truth of matter asserted.  This is being presented

 6     for the truth of the matter asserted without going though testimony or

 7     evidence to have it linked to be demonstrative in nature.  So it is not a

 8     demonstrative exhibit in the manner that is being used by Prosecution

 9     counsel.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, admission into evidence would assist the

12     Chamber.  At the same time, as with the previous table, it could be

13     discussed over a cup of coffee or tea whether this is really an extract

14     of what you claim it is an extract of, Mr. File.  And you said it's the

15     same as the previous one in respect exactly of what information?  Site

16     name or ...?

17             MR. FILE:  The cases ID.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The case ID, yes.  If it's about linking the names

19     to the case IDs, then I take it that a comparison of the more recent

20     lists would assist the Chamber.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I would like to have it put on the

22     record that having coffee or tea with the Prosecutor cannot change my

23     position that this is not a demonstrative exhibit in the manner that is

24     presented, and is being presented as argument for the truth of the matter

25     asserted rather than demonstrating and being used with a witness in court

Page 38349

 1     to explain and understand the testimony.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  This table assists the Chamber in finding easily and

 3     quickly those entries in the tables of the witness which seems not to

 4     fully correspond with the latest information on the other lists and for

 5     that purpose will be admitted into evidence.

 6             Madam Registrar, the number would be.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 33041 receives exhibit number P7517,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  P7517 is admitted into evidence, under seal.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             MR. FILE:  Okay.  We no longer need this document.  We're going

12     to switch topics.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             MR. FILE:

15        Q.   I'm going to ask you about one of the major subjects of your

16     report and testimony which relates to how Dr. Tabeau matched individual

17     records from different data sources and which applies to Dr. Tabeau's

18     analysis of both displaced persons as well as Srebrenica.

19             In the context of the Srebrenica report, you discuss spelling

20     errors and missing information occurring in more than 37 per cent, more

21     than 37 per cent of the time in the ICRC and PHR lists; that's in your

22     report D1211, at English page 38, B/C/S page 37.

23             At that part of your report, you claim Dr. Tabeau is being

24     "knowingly misleading," because "official statistical research tolerates

25     deviation, possible errors, of up to 5 per cent."

Page 38350

 1             On Monday, at transcript page 38168, you said this error rate was

 2     2 to 5 per cent.  Then you said 2 to 4 per cent when you discussed the

 3     issue again at transcript page 38175 to 38177.

 4             But isn't it true that the 5-per cent guide-line is for the

 5     margin of error of statistical estimates, not the frequency of errors in

 6     raw data?  Is that your understanding?

 7        A.   First of all, you said that I say 37 per cent.  I'm not saying

 8     anything.  I am just doing the calculations and quoting what your experts

 9     said.

10             As for statistical error from 2 to 4, or 2 to 5 per cent, in my

11     practice, in my country, it is 2 to 4.  However, your expert, Dr. Tabeau,

12     in her Mladic report, provides a methodology and when she speaks of

13     certain matches, she says, This corresponds to what is considered

14     statistical error from 2 to 5 per cent.

15             So then I said, okay, let it be 2 to 5 per cent and that should

16     not be in dispute.  I agree with Dr. Tabeau that it can also be from 2 to

17     5 per cent --

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

19        A.   -- in statistics where I work, it is 2 to 4 per cent.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please answer the question.

21             MR. FILE:

22        Q.   My question was related to a more specific distinction.  I'm

23     distinguishing between the margin of error for statistical estimates and

24     the frequency of errors in raw data.  The percentage that we're talking

25     about here is a margin of error for statistical estimates, not the

Page 38351

 1     frequency of error in raw data; correct?

 2        A.   I disagree with you.  Read the paragraph carefully and you will

 3     see - at least this one that you've indicated - it is not an estimate.

 4     These are errors in data sources.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's exactly what Mr. File puts to you and that

 6     the margin of errors applies to the statistical estimates and not to

 7     errors in the raw material.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what I've said just now, I

 9     that that is not correct.  This error is applied to raw data because that

10     is how you assess whether your material is good or not.  And if you

11     establish that after all reviews, you still have a number that is larger

12     than what is considered to be a normal statistical error, then that

13     pertains to the raw data that you worked with.  Not only in terms of

14     estimates.  Estimates are a specific thing, and you can have a margin of

15     error -- well, I don't have to explain all of this now.  This is

16     something completely different.  You cannot assess a single data source

17     if you do not know what the error is.  If you establish that the share is

18     larger than permitted, then you have to make an effort, if at all

19     possible, to reduce this to a permissible share.  Here the Prosecution

20     experts said what the margin of error that they established was.  In

21     2009, in their report -- or, rather, in his report, Dr. Brunborg says,

22     Now it is 28.9 per cent.  So after all corrections, after everything they

23     did.  This is a margin of error of one-third.

24             MR. FILE:  Could we look at 65 ter number 32997, please?

25        Q.   As this comes up, you will see that it is a 2006 paper by

Page 38352

 1     William Winkler, a senior researcher in the Statistical Research Division

 2     of the United States Census Bureau.  For the record, Dr. Tabeau cites

 3     this in her 2009 Srebrenica report, P1900, at page 70.

 4             If we could please go to e-court page 10.  B/C/S is only a

 5     partial translation.  I believe we need to go to page 2 of the B/C/S.

 6     Actually I don't see the translation for this one so this may have to --

 7     we'll refer just to the English for now.

 8             In this article, doctor --

 9        A.   I don't have the translation in front of me.

10        Q.   I'm going to read you to the part, the relevant part.

11        A.   No offence, but I would prefer to see the translation, if

12     possible, but if it's a problem, then I will just listen to the

13     interpretation.

14        Q.   I'm going to read to you the paragraph under a heading entitled:

15     String comparitors, which is 3.3.

16             He writes:  "In many matching situations, it is not possibly to

17     compare two strings exactly (character by character) because of

18     typographical error.  Dealing with typographical error via approximate

19     string comparison has been a major research project in computer

20     science ... in record linkage, one needs to have a function that

21     represents approximate agreement, with agreement being represented by 1

22     and degrees of partial agreement being represented by numbers between

23     zero and 1.  One also needs to adjust the likelihood ratios according to

24     the partial agreement values.  Having such methods is crucial to

25     matching.  For instance, in a major census application for measuring

Page 38353

 1     undercount, more than 25 per cent of matches would not have been found

 2     via exact character-by-character matching."

 3             And it goes on to say:  "In the St. Louis region, for instance,

 4     25 percent of first names and 15 per cent of last names did not agree

 5     character by character among pairs that are matches."

 6             So my question to you is:  It is not unique or rare for

 7     statisticians to encounter an error rate in the underlying raw data that

 8     is well in excess of 5 per cent; correct?

 9        A.   They have to deal with where the error is 5 per cent but the

10     question is how they publish all of that.  They do all of that at

11     aggregate level.  They never do that at individual level.  And you see

12     here?  Statistics, as he says, I match such and such and what is right so

13     on and so forth and I cannot match such and such a number as Dr. Tabeau

14     says she cannot.  The census of the US or any European country, and this

15     method of matching, your expert, Dr. Tabeau, also explains that in the

16     methodology provided for the report in the Mladic case, and she says

17     hardly any country, if any, she doesn't say which one does it, rarely,

18     carries out matching at individual levels as far as population censuses

19     are concerned.  Please, of course, I'm paraphrasing.  I cannot say

20     exactly.  But I can bring it in later.  Because data protection is very

21     important there.  So it's done according to --

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File --

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do allow me to finish.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, as a matter of fact --

Page 38354

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I consider that to be an

 2     explanation.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What you are doing is you're answering a lot

 4     of questions but not the question that was put to you by Mr. File and

 5     it's not the first time it happens.

 6             Mr. File, you may proceed or move on.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Actually, Your Honours, I think the --

 8             MR. FILE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... if I might be allowed to

10     make a statement.  Looking at the question that was asked:  Is it unique

11     or rare for statisticians in a country for an error rate to be well in

12     excess of 5 per cent; correct?  Explaining what is or isn't unique or

13     rare the expert has to talk about all these factors relating to

14     countries.  So the question as phrased invites an explanation.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Your observation is put on the record.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from that, Mr. Ivetic, the proper way is to

18     first answer the question and then if need be to explain especially if

19     any further explanation is required.  But it's not [Overlapping

20     speakers] ...

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please not interrupt --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I

24     started answering and you didn't let me finish ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  As a matter of fact, I made my observations.

Page 38355

 1     That's it.  It's not an incident.  It's a repeated event during your

 2     testimony.  Your observation is on the record, Mr. Ivetic.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  And then did you not let the witness answer the

 4     question, Your Honour, because your comments [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, I gave a ruling.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. File.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just before we do, I thought I heard Mr. File

10     where the word "country" is mentioned say -- I heard him say "encounter."

11     And if you read the sentence "country" doesn't make sense and "encounter"

12     would make better sense.

13             MR. FILE:  That's correct.  That's what's what I believe I said,

14     Your Honour.

15             MR. IVETIC:  And that's why I stumbled over the word "country"

16     because I wasn't sure if that's what I heard.  But it does not change the

17     point of my objections that asking for [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm just correcting the record.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  It's hereby corrected.  Mr. File may move on.

22             MR. FILE:

23        Q.   Dr. Radovanovic, it's true and I think you can answer this with

24     just a yes or no, it's true, isn't it, that you have not cited any

25     scientific source like a journal article or a textbook anywhere in your

Page 38356

 1     report showing that standard statistical practice would not accept data

 2     with an error rate of more than 5 per cent.  Is that true?  Yes or no,

 3     please.

 4        A.   That's in every statistical textbook.  That didn't occur to me --

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, the

 6     question is not -- the question is not whether one could find a basis for

 7     it but whether you gave it.  And may I take it from your answer that you

 8     didn't need it necessarily to give a reference to scientific sources for

 9     that position?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.  Especially since

11     Dr. Tabeau wrote that in her report when she was explaining the

12     methodology.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. FILE:

15        Q.   I'd like to turn to page 25 of your report, D1211, MFI, under

16     seal.

17             MR. FILE:  25 in both versions.

18        Q.   Now if you see at the bottom of the page, again in both versions

19     you say:  "The personal identification number is a good matching key,

20     provided that it is correctly written in both or several sources used."

21             And if we can go to page 26 in both versions, you go on to say:

22     "The advantage of the personal identification number is that it is

23     unique.  That is, two or more people cannot be allocated the same

24     personal identification number, and therefore there can be no duplication

25     or 'fixing' of matching.  In other words, matching with correct personal

Page 38357

 1     identification numbers excludes any subjective influence on the final

 2     results obtained."

 3             So I want to discuss how Dr. Tabeau and her team did this

 4     matching by looking at P1900; English page 85, B/C/S page 90.

 5             So here we should be clear that we're talking about linking

 6     records between the voters' register and the 1991 census, so we're

 7     talking about millions of records.  Later I'm going ask you about the

 8     table that you spent some time on direct examination with the list of 71

 9     matching keys for the ICRC PHR list but we're not going to talk about

10     that right now.

11             Here, you can see the very first matching criteria that were used

12     based on the following identification key.  It has the same first name,

13     in both records, same last name, same date of birth, and the same JMBG ID

14     number --

15        A.   Then we don't have the same data.  If you are reading to me this

16     table here below, it says these are variables according to which they are

17     matched.

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

19        A.   Well, then I don't know what you are telling me.

20        Q.   We're looking at the second paragraph from the top in the B/C/S.

21     There are two bullet points.  We're looking at the first bullet point.

22        A.   All right.  Identical names, surnames.

23        Q.   And identical date of birth.  And identical --

24        A.   All right.

25        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... and identical ID number?

Page 38358

 1        A.   Right, I see it.  Yes.  That's rule number 5.

 2        Q.   Yes.  IDQ indicates that the JMBG number is fully valid and

 3     internally consistent; right?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I have to at this point --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what it means.  But

 6     IDQ explains this table here in the footnote and then it says the date of

 7     birth and the identification number are correct and coincide --

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Counsel has now at line 10 of this temporary

 9     transcript page said "identical."  I see "identity."  Not identical in

10     those two bullet points that we're talking about the ones in the middle

11     of the page that link to IDQ number 5.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just -- are you quoting from the bullet point

13     or are you quoting from the transcript?  Or from the --

14             MR. IVETIC:  I'm quoting from the transcript at page -- page -- I

15     apologise.  Page 59, line number 7 which is directing us to the first

16     bullet point and starts saying identical names, surname, identical date

17     of birth and that's not in the document that I see before us.  If that's

18     the bullet point [Overlapping speakers] ...

19             MR. FILE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

21             MR. IVETIC:  Your question --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  One second.  The witness started

23     answering when not yet a question has been put to her.

24             Now, let's see whether -- I do agree with Mr. Ivetic that the

25     word "identical" is not used.  But if you match two data or two persons

Page 38359

 1     on the basis of the identity of the first name, and I think nowhere in

 2     the list of 71 you get other matters, but I do understand that identity

 3     in matching on the basis of the name means that you establish that they

 4     are the same, which is identical.  So matching on the basis of identity

 5     as we see it here, identity and identical may be the same.

 6             I just --

 7             MR. IVETIC:  I don't think they are necessarily, Your Honours.

 8     If you make a conclusion of a match and that they have the same identity

 9     that's not the same as they are identical, that all the factors are

10     identical.  Those are two distinct words that have two distinct points of

11     meaning.  This bullet point says one, counsel said another.  That's all

12     I'm saying.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Then the word used here are identity of

14     first name, apparently also identity of last name, identity of date of

15     birth, that's how I read this line and I'm open for any comment on how I

16     read it.

17             Please proceed.  And please put a question to the witness.

18             And would you wait for a question before you start answering

19     because it would come down to commenting rather than answering a question

20     which is not yet put.

21             Mr. File.

22             MR. FILE:

23        Q.   You understand the term "identity" of first name, last name, date

24     of birth, to mean that they -- each one of those fields is identical in

25     two different sources; correct?

Page 38360

 1        A.   Excuse me, by now, I have forgotten the question.  You're asking

 2     me whether these identical names first name, last name, DOB, MB, and IDQ,

 3     footnote 70, if that is correct.  Is that the question?

 4        Q.   I'm simply asking you that when you look at the first bullet

 5     point where it says identity of first name, last name, date of birth, you

 6     understand that to mean that each one of those fields in a record matches

 7     identically to that same field in another record.  That's what that

 8     means?

 9        A.   It may be, but not necessarily.  Because it says IDQ equals 5 and

10     then look at footnote 70.  It gives 5 values for IDQ.  The third and the

11     fifth value both note that it could be okay.

12        Q.   And the fifth value is the highest quality indicator; correct?

13        A.   Yes.  The fifth value is the highest quality.

14        Q.   And that quality indicator applies to the ID number; right?

15        A.   Well, probably.  If the IDQ is 5 then it must relate to that ID

16     number.

17        Q.   So when we're talking about identity of first name, last name,

18     date of birth for those it means it's the same, it's identical in both

19     records; correct?

20        A.   It could be, but not necessarily, but the fact is that the

21     identity number is good here and it doesn't matter whether the names or

22     surnames are good.  The identity number, the unique identity number means

23     that it is that person.

24        Q.   As you can see, this generated 1.151.559 matches?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 38361

 1        Q.   So this approach, we heard how you previously said in your

 2     statement that identical personnel identification numbers are

 3     advantageous.  This approach encompassed not only that matching key of

 4     the identical identification number but further match indicators as well,

 5     such as first name, last name, and date of birth; correct?  This is a

 6     match that doesn't involve only the identification number but also other

 7     fields as well.

 8        A.   That's correct.  But it's pointless.  Because if you have the

 9     correct identity number, the rest doesn't matter so much.  Maybe your

10     expert wants to prove -- to show that he has found all the correct names,

11     surname, dates of birth, et cetera.  If you have the identity number you

12     have it all.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

14             MR. IVETIC:  --

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I'm not disputing that it's a

16     million and 500.000.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

18             MR. IVETIC:  We started off by talking about JMBG ID numbers,

19     that was counsel's question at temporary transcript page 58, line 23

20     onwards and now we're at the stage where we're talking about this linking

21     that was done, matching that was done by ID number which is not one of

22     the criteria that is listed in the bullet point.

23             Now I'm getting confused by this, but I think that what we're

24     doing is we're trying -- we're starting with one concept moving to

25     another and getting confusing information in court.  An ID number, a JMBG

Page 38362

 1     we've had evidence, consists of more factors than are listed in here.  So

 2     by presenting number one and then referring to this is matching done by

 3     an ID number what are we talking about considering that the beginning

 4     question was about a JMBG which is a unique identity number which has

 5     more information and that is listed here.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, I don't see the issue of confusion.  I

 8     think it's clear.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Ivetic commented on what he considered to

10     be confusing.  I do understand that you do not understand what exactly

11     would be confusing.  You may proceed.

12             MR. FILE:

13        Q.   Just to clarify, Witness, when we're talking about this ID

14     number, you understand that also to mean a JMBG; right?

15        A.   No, that's not right.  When we talk about an ID number here, then

16     in footnote 20 or whichever it is, that's an explanation of the values

17     that Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau took and these values are explained

18     here.  This first point here says identical name, surname, and MB number.

19     IDQ equals 5 which means the date of birth is correct as well as the MB

20     number and the sex is also consistent so in the first comparison, he used

21     one of these --

22        Q.   When you refer to identification number, I will be referring to

23     JMBG but I'll do my best to say JMBG so we're all clear about which

24     number we're talking about.  That's also the number that is listed here?

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For the record, it is not footnote 20 but 70.

Page 38363

 1             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And it might just help to read the remainder of

 3     that footnote 70.  Anybody can read it for him or herself.

 4             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   I'll ask another question.

 6             You are aware that once these 1.15 million individuals had their

 7     records matched they would be excluded from the next round of matching;

 8     correct?

 9        A.   Well, if he got all the matchings, it's logical he let them out.

10     He would say, I got 55 per cent of exact matches, I'm leaving out the

11     rest.  But I have to --

12        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

13        A.   -- make a little introduction.  The Prosecutor is asking me bit

14     by bit, not the whole.  The reference here is to the comparison of

15     censuses and voters' registers.  These two lists do not contain the same

16     data but they would have one thing in common, the MB number.  The voters'

17     register does not have the name of father and the ethnicity.  It does

18     contain name and surname, date of birth, and the MB number where it

19     exists.  The census contains the MB number, if it's good, the date of

20     birth, ethnicity, name, surname, and father's name.

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

22        A.   If you go about matching -- I have to explain this because this

23     is a special system of matching.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you have to answer the question.  The

25     question was whether in the next round of matching, whether the positive

Page 38364

 1     matches from the first round were excluded.  That was the question.  And

 2     if you think and if Mr. Ivetic thinks that things are taken out of

 3     context, then he certainly in re-examination will put any additional

 4     questions to you.  Therefore, I think you have confirmed that in the next

 5     round that the positive matches from the first round were further left

 6     aside.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, Your Honour, if they don't

 8     contain the same data, there could be two stages of matching for the same

 9     matching.  I took the MB number from the voters' register -- I have to

10     explain this because we have a misunderstanding here.  The Prosecutor

11     doesn't understand me.  If you take the MB number from the voters'

12     register and by that number you find Svetlana Radovanovic --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... I'm stopping

14     you there.  You're invited to answer the questions, and whether the

15     Prosecutor misunderstands you or not is a matter which will be dealt with

16     by Mr. Ivetic in re-examination.

17             Please proceed, Mr. File.

18             MR. FILE:

19        Q.   I'd like to draw your attention to the second --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You're supposed not to interrupt neither Mr. File,

21     nor Mr. Ivetic nor any of the Judges.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. FILE:

24        Q.   I'd like to draw your attention to the second bullet point.  This

25     shows the next match criteria based on identity of first name or last

Page 38365

 1     name, date of birth, MB or identification number or JMBG, sex, and,

 2     again, IDQ equals 5.  The quality indicator we were talking about before.

 3             So to clarify, this match involved the same identification

 4     number, JMBG that you talked about in your report, but also additional

 5     factors like date of birth and sex, the only difference is that one

 6     allows for typographical errors or bad scans or other inaccuracies for

 7     someone's first or last name.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   No.  The MB number doesn't need the date of birth and the gender

 9     because they are contained in the MB number.  When you have the MB

10     number, you can see on which date, in which month, in which year, the

11     person was born, in which territory they were registered and received

12     their MB number, what their gender is, and there is also a control

13     number.  And then, they derive the consistencies and the only thing they

14     cannot get a match for is the father's name because that doesn't exist in

15     the voters' register and the ethnicity doesn't exist either in the

16     voters' register.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Radovanovic, I understand what you have

18     testified to what you suggest the correct way of doing it is, that once

19     you have the ID number you have all these other things, sex and date of

20     birth.  But I think the question to you was is it correct that this

21     report here uses these qualities as matching data, irrespective of

22     whether they are wrong or right.  Says identity first name or last name

23     is not there.  Date of birth, MB, sex, IDQ.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MB number is always used alone,

25     if you have it.

Page 38366

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We don't understand each other.  Let's stop

 2     there.

 3             MR. FILE:

 4        Q.   Let's use an example.  Take, for example, the records that you

 5     misspelled in Table 5 of your report that we talked about earlier today.

 6     Where you misspelled someone's first name let's assume that we have all

 7     this information, we have their ID number, their JMBG in the record.  We

 8     have all the fields that we could use to match with the census.  If we

 9     ran this first set of criteria using identity of first name, last name,

10     date of birth, and identification number, it wouldn't get picked up, that

11     match, because of the misspelling of the first name.  However, if you ran

12     that against the second set of criteria that permits a misspelling of

13     either the first name or the last name but matches on date of birth and

14     identification number, in that case, the computer would have picked up

15     that match, the one that we saw with our own eyes is a match; right?

16        A.   No.  When you release matches, you release only the MB number and

17     that MB number gets you also the name, surname and all the other data

18     contained in that document.  It's useless to put out the name, surname

19     and the MB number because precisely because of misspellings in the name,

20     you can fail to get a match.  If you have the correct MB number, you take

21     no risks.  You get with certainty the right person with all the correct

22     data.  That MB number says this is, indeed, Svetlana Radovanovic, date of

23     birth such and such, and you get all the other information.  When you

24     have two sources and you're not sure that the name and surname and some

25     other data are not correct, it's absurd to put out or to insert the MB

Page 38367

 1     number plus bits of information that could contain misspellings because

 2     if you use that as a criteria, the MB number has 13 digits and to this

 3     you add a name which has five letters and a surname with ten letters.

 4     That's absurd.  If you have the MB number, you insert the MB number.  If

 5     you are not sure that the MB number is correct only then you insert some

 6     other information.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one question for clarification.

 9             Ms. Radovanovic, you say:  The 13 digits of the MB number.  If

10     you have that, no other criteria is needed.

11             But if the -- if you think the number is right but it isn't, what

12     are you doing then?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then you would expand.  If the MB

14     is not correct, you didn't get matches, and you didn't get anyone at all.

15     If the MB number, for instance, is incorrectly listed in the voters'

16     register, then it cannot produce anyone.  There is no such case here.

17     For somebody to be matched, the matchings have to be absolute.  An MB

18     number otherwise would not produce any result.  Then that's why you

19     wouldn't use partial information.  If the MB number is incorrect, then

20     you would use the name or surname, then maybe add another DOB, et cetera.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.

22             MR. FILE:

23        Q.   Last question before I think it's time for a break, I want to ask

24     you this -- if you take these two sets of matching criteria you can see

25     that they -- the second one generated 404.662 matches, which takes the

Page 38368

 1     total of over 1.5 million.  So you would agree even putting aside all of

 2     the other criteria that these 1.5 million matches came from at a minimum

 3     matching the JMBG; right?

 4        A.   Partially correct.  Because not all of the JMBGs were correct.

 5     If you look at the fifth criterion, it says the date of birth is correct,

 6     the MB number is correct, which corresponds with sex and date, which

 7     means it coincides with eight figures rather than 13 or maybe ten.  So

 8     it's not an absolute or absolutely correct MB.

 9        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... okay --

10        A.   But I'm willing to accept that these 1.5 million may represent

11     relatively certain matches.

12        Q.   I didn't ask whether they represented relatively certain matches?

13        A.   I asked you whether they represented matches based on the JMBG

14     being identical in both records that's what I'm interested in.  I will

15     ask you that question but I want to distinguish between the IDQ which is

16     a measure of internal consistency or quality of a single JMBG; right?

17     It's not about whether the match is a quality match, it's about the

18     quality of the JMBG number; correct?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Well, I don't know if is comment or question but the

21     first part of the question says, I asked you whether they represented

22     matches based on JMBG being identical.  The answer of the witness in

23     lines 14 through 15 is talking about that doesn't absolutely coincide,

24     therefore it's not identical.  So counsel's comments that she is not

25     answering the question evade the fact that she is actually answering the

Page 38369

 1     question in precisely the manner that he has asked her to answer the

 2     question because she is explaining that the JMBG's are not identical,

 3     because they do not coincide.

 4             Now, as for the second part of the question, with this comment

 5     aside, I think it's a compound question.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think Mr. File has 20 minutes to think about

 7     whether he rephrases the question or not.  And we have some time,

 8     although I have no access to the transcript sitting at my desk, whether,

 9     indeed, the witness answered the question, yes or no.  I would need nor

10     time to find that out.

11             Mr. File, you have 20 minutes.

12             And, Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from now.

13     You may follow the usher.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. File.

20             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   So we were just talking about the number of matches from these

22     first two criteria used as matching keys.  If you look on the third

23     bullet point on this document, you see a third set of criteria that say

24     first name, last name, date of birth, IDQ greater than 2.  And if you

25     look at the footnote greater than 2 is the date of birth is complete and

Page 38370

 1     valid although there's a missing or invalid MB identification number.

 2             You see that generated 409.137, and what I want to do is show you

 3     P2788, English page 30, B/C/S page 28.  And what you will see here, this

 4     is Annex B5 to the displaced persons report.

 5             I think we need two pages back in the B/C/S and also two pages

 6     forward in the English.  At the bottom of the page in English it should

 7     say 219.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, we have not the usual way of presentation on

 9     our screens.  Usually we have B/C/S to the left, English to the right.

10     Therefore, also in my public view, in English I receive the B/C/S.

11             Could we get that as we usually get it.  Now the right pages.

12             Is this the page you were asking for Mr. File?

13             MR. FILE:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. FILE:

16        Q.   If you look in the second paragraph, approximately in the middle

17     of the paragraph, what you can see is that the total number of matches

18     generated between the voters' register and the census was 2.125.999.  So

19     if you add the three figures from just those three criteria that you were

20     used in the previous document we were looking at we get 1 million --

21        A.   I apologise.  I don't know where to look at.  I don't see the

22     figure.

23        Q.   It's in the middle of the second paragraph, the first full

24     paragraph in the middle of that paragraph to the right-hand side.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

Page 38371

 1             MR. FILE:

 2        Q.   It says:  "Out of the 2.67 million records about 2.13 million,

 3     i.e., 2.125.999 voters were matched in our project with the 1991

 4     population census."

 5             Do you see that?

 6        A.   I do.

 7        Q.   So if you take the number of matches generated by the three

 8     criteria that we looked at before, you have 1.965.358, and if you divide

 9     by this figure, it shows that 92.4 per cent of the matches were made with

10     matching of at least three of the four categories that we saw:  The ID

11     number, the first name, the last name, and the date of birth; right?

12        A.   No.  Please look at the line that follows, where Dr. Tabeau says

13     only 79.5 per cent.  It doesn't mean they only relied on the criteria

14     specified because the criteria used by Dr. Tabeau, which she explains in

15     this part as part of the methodological explanation for the Mladic case

16     area, are not identical to the criteria used by Dr. Brunborg, or at least

17     they did not present them identically.

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

19        A.   Dr. Tabeau said the first step was this, the second that.  So,

20     no, I disagree.

21        Q.   My question was the percentage of matches that were made, not the

22     percentage of the voters' register that was matched.  That's the

23     distinction.

24        A.   It's the same thing.  She matched the voters' register with the

25     census.  There was nothing else that she could compare.  Out of 2.600.000

Page 38372

 1     records, they managed to match 2.130.000 voters and that they had a

 2     certain number of them outside of the country.  I really don't understand

 3     what you're asking me.

 4        Q.   Of those 2.13 million matches that they made, the percentage of

 5     those matches, of that 2.13 million that were made using just those three

 6     sets of criteria that we looked at before is 92.4 per cent.  That's the

 7     percentage I'm talking about, not the percentage of matches for the

 8     entire voters' register.

 9             Do you understand that distinction?

10        A.   I don't.  I don't see the difference.  Please explain.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, could you tell us exactly what number you

12     divided by what?

13             MR. FILE:  I divided 1.965.358 which is the --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, where is that to be found?

15             MR. FILE:  That is derived from adding the three numbers that we

16     saw as creating matches in P1900, the previous document we were looking

17     at, at page 85 in the English.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's the -- you would say the cumulated

19     matches on the basis of the first three sets of criteria.

20             MR. FILE:  That's correct.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And then divided by what.

22             MR. FILE:  I divided by this figure in this paragraph 2.125.999

23     which is the total number of records in the voters' register that were

24     matched with the census.

25             So of the entire number of matches that were made, the percentage

Page 38373

 1     that is generated, if you divide the number of matches created by just

 2     those three criteria, you get 92.4 per cent of all of those 2.13 million

 3     matched voters.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you're now talking about the percentage of

 5     matches on the basis of the first three sets of criteria.  What

 6     percentage that is of the totality of the matches.

 7             MR. FILE:  Precisely.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what you are talking about.  That's clear

 9     now.

10             Witness, you've understood --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand, but it is

12     incorrect.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, whether -- is the outcome of the division

14     incorrect or are you saying that Mr. File shouldn't do that?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  The Prosecutor claims that it

16     was arrived at according to three criteria, and I say that is incorrect.

17     He probably refers to the criteria we saw a moment ago.  The criteria was

18     provided by Dr. Brunborg in his expert report on Srebrenica.  Dr. Tabeau,

19     in her methodological explanation, provides the steps in the matching

20     process, explaining them in a completely different way.  If you look at

21     Dr. Brunborg's report, he states that they matched according to two

22     criteria we looked at, so the MB number, yes or no, then the figure is

23     about 1.5 million of matches, which is 50-plus per cent.  Dr. Tabeau only

24     mentions the figure of 79.5 per cent, but it is still unclear precisely

25     which criteria she used.

Page 38374

 1             I also want to draw your attention that this -- pertains to all

 2     of Bosnia and Herzegovina which doesn't mean that the matches can be

 3     linked to the Mladic case area because we don't know whether these

 4     matches -- okay.  Okay.

 5             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you do

 6     not challenge the calculation.  You do challenge that it is meaningful at

 7     all to do it because the starting numbers, the initial matches, that

 8     there is inconsistency between Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau.  That's your

 9     answer to the question, then, I understand.

10             Mr. File, please proceed.

11             MR. FILE:  Could we return, please, to the witness's report,

12     D1211, MFI, under seal.  We'll be looking at English page 52 and B/C/S

13     page 51, please.

14        Q.   If we look at the bottom paragraph, you say:  "The overall

15     estimates of internally displaced persons and refugees were obtained

16     using the method of proportions.  They are particularly interesting

17     because the method of proportions is never used in scientific and

18     professional research on migration, and according to the United Nations

19     recommendations, this method was also abandoned a long time ago in

20     estimating the population age structure.  The method was abandoned

21     because it does not ensure reliable results, as its final outcomes are

22     known and they are considered to be targeted."

23             You also made a similar point in court at transcript 38208.

24             Now, at this point in your report, it's true - and I think you

25     can answer this yes or no as well - that you have not cited any

Page 38375

 1     scientific source, like a journal article or a textbook, showing that

 2     proportions are "never used in scientific and professional research on

 3     migration" or that it was "abandoned a long time ago in estimating the

 4     population age structure" pursuant to United Nations recommendations;

 5     correct.

 6        A.   I explained the recommendations of the UN without referencing the

 7     book where they can be found.

 8        Q.   In fact, nowhere in your report do you cite any scholarly sources

 9     to support any claims about what is standard, commonly accepted practice

10     or methodology in statistics or demographics; right?  And, again, I'm not

11     asking for an explanation.  Just a yes or no.

12        A.   These are elementary things known by first-year students.  I did

13     not reference any professional or scientific source.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand that the whole of your report would

15     then be elementary things known by first-year students because there's no

16     citation whatsoever?  I have some difficulties in accepting that.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that should not be your

18     understanding.  When it comes to elementary matters --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And you considered this to be an elementary matter.

20     The question was about --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is well known, generally

22     known.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was about no citations at all to be

24     found in the whole of the report.  That was what was the question about.

25     But I understand that there are no citations --

Page 38376

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  There are citations,

 2     there are sources.  You are incorrect in that.  But not for what the

 3     Prosecutor is asking about.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's, then, go back to the question of the

 5     Prosecutor.

 6             He says:  "In fact, nowhere in your report do you cite any

 7     scholarly sources to support any claims about what is standard commonly

 8     accepted practice or methodology in statistics or demographics."

 9             That was the question.  Now you're telling us that you did.

10     Where in the report -- and it's maybe easy to contradict Mr. File.  Where

11     in the report do we find references to scholarly sources?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're not on the same page.  As for

13     these elementary areas, I did not reference those, but you said there

14     were no citations.  In terms of this, there are no citations.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was put to you in a general way.

16     Nowhere in the report you cite scholarly productions, citations, which

17     support your claims you are now telling us that that is totally wrong,

18     and then my question is:  Where, what footnote, where do we find the

19     reference, citations of scholarly -- give us one or two and then Mr. --

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when you say your

21     assertions it pertains to all rather than just to this part.  That was my

22     understanding of the question.  And I said that it was incorrect that I

23     did not provide citations.  I cited all the reports -- sorry, that was my

24     understanding.

25             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... tell us where we

Page 38377

 1     find them.  Give one or two examples.  Not the UN said this or -- but a

 2     quotation, a footnote in which it says there, that author, supports my

 3     claim.  Where do we find one?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't name any authors now, but I

 5     can recommend a book where you can find it published by the demographic

 6     unit of the UN where they recommend that the method of proportion not be

 7     used --

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

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- especially not --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You're telling us what others have written but by

11     not citing them, we have some problems in verifying the accuracy, and the

12     Prosecution also may have - and perhaps Mr. Ivetic as well - may have

13     some problems in verifying the accuracy of your claims.

14             I invite the parties to see whether there is any such UN document

15     which could possibly provide the support for that claim and then also

16     present it to the -- give it to Chambers staff too so that we have a

17     source for.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And I would like to add, a UN report is not a

19     scholarly publication.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from that.  But let's move on.

21             Mr. File.

22             MR. FILE:  Could we please have 65 ter 33029.

23        Q.   I'm going to read to you paragraph 637 of the Popovic Trial

24     Judgement from 2010 which refers to you in a context of a discussion of

25     your failure to specify documents were relying on beyond just providing a

Page 38378

 1     number.

 2             It says:  "In calculating the number of the displaced persons

 3     following the fall of Srebrenica" --

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do we have it on the screen already.

 5             MR. FILE:  I have it on my screen.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not know from what paragraph are you reading,

 8     we have paragraph 637, 638 and 639 on our screens.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You're reading from?

11             MR. FILE:  At line 2 I mentioned paragraph 637 is the paragraph.

12             "In calculating the number of displaced persons following the

13     fall of Srebrenica both Kovacevic and Radovanovic use documents

14     identified in their reports only by number.  Neither report explains the

15     source nor the content of these documents.  When Radovanovic was asked

16     about the origin of these documents, she replied that she did not know

17     where they came from.  The Trial Chamber notes in this regard that

18     Radovanovic and Kovacevic both rely upon documents and sources which

19     provide the Trial Chamber with no basis to assess their reliability.

20     This is particularly so in the case of Radovanovic, given that she cannot

21     identify the source of these documents when asked.  Without sufficient

22     information to substantiate the findings of Radovanovic and Kovacevic,

23     the Trial Chamber considers their evidence to be pure speculation."

24             Now, before you wrote your report for this case, were you aware

25     of this paragraph of the judgement which would have put you on notice

Page 38379

 1     about the importance of clearly specifying your sources, not only in

 2     scientific papers but also there expert reports submitted to Chambers of

 3     this Tribunal.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I'll object.  What the document in

 5     front of us says and what Mr. File says do not match.  He is saying

 6     things that are not in this document, so he cannot say that this document

 7     which says A should have put you on notice about B.  He has been doing in

 8     entire cross-examination he says one thing and then he changes it.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's try to cut this short.

10             MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... This relates to a report

11     that is not in evidence.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I see that.  Mr. File, this is a comment which is

13     based on the evidence presented in that other case and I understand,

14     perhaps, why you asked this question, but let me put the question to the

15     witness.

16             Were you aware that in another case in a judgement on the

17     testimony you gave and the report you gave in that case, that you were

18     criticised for not having provided sufficiently the sources for your

19     claims and for your conclusions?

20             Were you aware of that?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             MR. FILE:  Could we please have 65 ter number 33022.

25        Q.   When this comes up, you will see it is a United Nations handbook

Page 38380

 1     preparing migration data for subnational population projections prepared

 2     by Alden Speare of Brown University on behalf of the UN Department of

 3     International, Economic and Social Affairs in New York.  Can we go to

 4     e-court, English, page 12, and B/C/S page 3.

 5             I'll read to you what this paragraph says --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Before do you so, could you give us at least the

 7     year of publication of what you're reading from.

 8             MR. FILE:  1992, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  1992.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. FILE:

12        Q.   "In addition to household registers" --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where is that to be found in B/C/S?

14             MR. FILE:  Yes, it is.  I believe it's the first paragraph in

15     B/C/S at the top of the page.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It may be, indeed.

17             MR. FILE:  Yes.

18        Q.   "In addition to household registers, the amount of information

19     collected by governments for other purposes may be useful in estimating

20     migration.  In the United States, base data on migration streams between

21     states is obtained from tax records.  Because a substantial majority of

22     American households file tax forms each year and because they are

23     required by law to enter their social security numbers and current

24     address, computers are able to match records for adjacent years and count

25     the number of movers (see Wetrogen and Long, 1990) however, because

Page 38381

 1     low-income persons are not required to file tax forms and because persons

 2     entering the labour force or entering the country may not have filed in

 3     the previous year, only about 80 per cent of the population are covered

 4     by matching tax records for adjacent years.  Although migration rates are

 5     based only on matched records, when these rates are applied to the total

 6     population, it is assumed that the uncovered population moves at this

 7     same rate.  Wetrogen and Long (1990) compared these rates for census and

 8     current population survey rates for comparable periods are found the

 9     differences are small."

10             So my question for you is when this UN handbook says although

11     migration rates are based only on matched records when the rates are

12     applied to the total population it is assumed that the uncovered

13     population moves at the same rate, that is specifically referring to the

14     distribution or proportion method; right?  And again, just a yes or no

15     will suffice.

16        A.   For America yes, for here, no.

17        Q.   Could we go to P1900 -- I would tender that article, Your Honour.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Is it the whole article or just the part?  Because

19     if it's the whole article, we don't have a translation.

20             JUDGE ORIE:

21             MR. FILE:  We can tender just this part, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It looks as if there's more text, but perhaps ... I

23     see a 3 -- there seems to be more in the B/C/S than there is in the

24     English.

25             MR. FILE:  Oh, yes, that's right.  We should extract that from

Page 38382

 1     the B/C/S translation.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And you have read the entire English text into

 3     the transcript.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  If so --

 6             MR. FILE:  I think it might be useful to have some of the initial

 7     pages that show the author and --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  When you are having coffee or tea anyhow with

 9     Mr. Ivetic, unless you had it already, could you try to find out whether

10     the Defence would like to have additional portions in evidence and then

11     make a selection preferably supported by both parties, what should be

12     tendered.

13             Meanwhile, we'll MFI it.

14             Madam Registrar, the number would be.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  P7518, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Is marked for identification.

17             I'm looking at the clock.  It's time to adjourn.

18             Ms. Radovanovic, I'm not very original, but we'd like to see you

19     back again tomorrow morning again at 9.30 in this same courtroom.  I,

20     again, instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in whatever

21     way, with whomever, about your testimony.

22             You may now follow the usher.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File, could you tell us where we are

Page 38383

 1     approximately in terms of time.

 2             MR. FILE:  I believe can I finish by the end of the first

 3     session tomorrow.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  End of the first session.

 5             Mr. Ivetic, as matters stand now, what would be your estimate of

 6     re-examination?

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Less than a full session.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Less than a full session.  That's clear.  The Judges

 9     may have some questions as well.

10             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Thursday, the

11     27th of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

12                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

13                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 27th day of

14                           August, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.