1 Thursday, 27 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 and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 No preliminaries were announced. Therefore, could the witness be
12 escorted into the courtroom.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you again that you're still bound
17 by the solemn declaration that you have -- is there any ... given at the
18 beginning of your testimony. And Mr. File will now continue his
20 Mr. File.
21 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. File: [Continued]
25 Q. Good morning.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. Could we please look at P1900; English page 24, B/C/S page 27. I
3 think we need the next page in the B/C/S, please.
4 So here you see Table 11 which was being discussed on Monday.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You said on Monday at transcript 38212 that the figures for
7 Table 11 on the bottom line, under total, do not add up to 100 per cent;
8 do you recall that?
9 A. I didn't say that they are not 100 per cent accurate. I said the
10 sum was not 100 per cent.
11 Q. Right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said it was 75 per cent approximately;
13 so, therefore, 75 is not 100. Do we agree on that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. FILE:
17 Q. But these figures are not supposed to add up to 100 per cent, are
19 A. No, that's not right.
20 Q. Can you explain why you believe they should add up to 100
21 per cent.
22 A. It's not that I think it; it's a rule. If you have one total
23 mass, and from that total mass, you take out certain shares, then the
24 total mass must amount to 100. If it does not amount to 100, then a
25 footnote must be inserted to explain what's missing in those 100.
1 Because if you look at this and you say 34.2 per cent, of what? Of which
2 mass? You must know the total. And then 19.4 per cent, from which
3 total? All these must add up to 100 per cent. If they do not, you have
4 to explain where the difference lies.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And to what it relates. If you have -- if you say total, it
7 implies that this total contains within itself 100 per cent.
8 Q. This table shows the proportion of missing and dead Muslim men in
9 five individual municipalities relative to the 1991 census population in
10 each of those municipalities. So imagine a scenario where the proportion
11 in each municipality was 25 percent, if you added up the five figures of
12 25 percent, you would get 125. The point is that if you add these
13 together you just get a random number. It's not a percentage of
14 anything; right?
15 A. Sir, that's not right at all. I don't know if I'm explaining
16 this well, but it's an elementary thing called taking out portions out of
17 a mass, which is a total. If, for instance, somebody told you that your
18 income will grow by 34 per cent, you must know 30 per cent of what? And
19 that's going to be your raise. If somebody told you that your salary
20 would be divided according to percentages among four or five persons and
21 how much each of them would receive, that means that 100 per cent must be
22 such and such a number. If somebody says, Each of you will receive 20
23 per cent, and 20 per cent will go to charity, it still has to amount to
24 100 per cent of something. If you see a price of an item raised by 30
25 per cent, you must know the initial price.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. I want you to keep in mind the two figures on this page actually
4 and we're going to look at your report. So keep in mind the percentage
5 in the lower right-hand corner of Table 11, which is 14.2 per cent, and
6 also the figure in the lower right-hand corner of the footnote,
7 Footnote 18, which was calculated by removing the unmatched census
8 individuals, which says 12.3 per cent --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. File, would you allow me one
11 The whole of your answer rests on the assumption that we're
12 talking about one mass. As I read the report of Dr. Tabeau, the first
13 column is about the percentage of the male population of Srebrenica.
14 The second, the 19.4, is 94 per cent of a different mass. That
15 is, the male population of Bratunac.
16 The third, 11.3 per cent, is 11.3 per cent of another mass, which
17 is the male population of Vlasenica.
18 The fourth is 1.9 per cent of the male population of Zvornik.
19 And the fifth is 8.6 per cent of, again, a different mass; that
20 is, the male population of Han Pijesak.
21 Now you have explained clearly to us how, if you have one mass,
22 and if you take portions of that, and if it would cover the whole mass,
23 that you need to get to 100 per cent. That's the pie chart system. You
24 have not explained to us why adding percentages of totally different
25 masses, in your view, also when added, should be 100 per cent. You could
1 have added another ten municipalities and then, of course, there's no
2 logic at all, in my understanding, but please correct me when I'm wrong,
3 that by adding them up, you would end up at 100 per cent because it's not
4 one mass but it's five different masses.
5 You have any comment on this short explanation of how I
6 understand the report?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it's five different masses, then
8 it should not be shown this way, as it was shown by Dr. Brunborg and
9 Dr. Tabeau.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. In that case, that mass
12 has to be shown for every municipality, and then it should be 100
13 per cent for Srebrenica, 100 per cent for Bratunac --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'll stop you
15 there. Because you're always telling us that they should have done
16 something different. At the same time, they explained clearly what the
17 masses are on which they calculated percentages. You just ignore that,
18 apparently. Then, confronted with the lack of logic, you say but then
19 they should have presented it otherwise. They clearly said what the
20 masses are in this report. That is, the male population of Srebrenica,
21 the male population of Bratunac, the male population of Vlasenica, and,
22 therefore, you are putting question marks that it doesn't add up to 100
23 per cent, but there's no -- the whole of your criticism is based on, I'm
24 afraid - I'm carefully in saying - in misunderstanding that these five
25 columns are all in the percentages are all about one mass, all about one
1 total, where it's clearly explained in the report that they are not.
2 Do you have any comment on that, apart from telling us that they
3 should have done something else?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. First of all, it's not
5 clearly explained in the report. If you read it, beginning with the
6 title, it's not clear.
7 Second, there is a manipulation here. In the table here it says:
8 Population in 1995. I maintain that nobody could calculate the
9 population in 1995. That's one --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- if it's not the population of
12 1995 but in 1990 --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I stop you there. You're shifting to a different
14 subject. My question was about the logic of adding up the percentages of
15 what seemed to be different masses. Now whether you think that the
16 definition of the masses is not perfect, that's another matter. But
17 where's the logic of adding those percentages of different masses?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Percentage from different masses
19 should not be added up.
20 But, please, if you allow me. There is something in statistic
21 that is called statistical technique. Rules exist as to how to make
22 tables -- all right. All right.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I stop you
24 there. You clearly say percentages from different masses should not be
25 added up and that's exactly the basis for your criticism was. You said,
1 I add them up and it's 75.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the basis for my critique is
3 much broader than just this. But if that's the way you understand it,
4 there's absolutely nothing I can do about that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I know have you more critical notes, but I was
6 focussing on the one which you specifically expressed and for which you
7 now say that you shouldn't add up those percentages.
8 Mr. File, please proceed.
9 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. As I --
11 A. If you just allow me one more word --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... wait. Wait.
13 Wait for the next question. If there's anything that should be further
14 explained and is not clear, Mr. Ivetic has an opportunity to re-examine
15 you soon and will put everything straight, if it is not yet.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. As I was saying, the percentages I want you to keep in mind are
19 the 14.2 per cent figure in the lower right, the total for Table 11 and
20 then the 12.3 per cent in the footnote for the total -- for Table 11
21 minus the approximately 1.000 uncensused [sic] matched individuals.
22 We're going to turn to your report, which is D1211 MFI, under
23 seal. And if we could please have English page 58 and B/C/S page 57.
24 So here you have table 9 which says: Proportion of dead/missing
25 men according to the results of the Prosecution, ICMP, ICRC for the area
1 considered to be Srebrenica.
2 Now in the paragraph below that it appears that you've done your
3 own calculation of what the proportion would be if the Prosecution list
4 from 2009 were all dead, and you ended up with 12.8 per cent; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now yesterday you testified about the methodology in this table.
8 That was at transcript page 38276 and the next page. At page 38277, you
9 said: "So to calculate anything in terms of age, et cetera, for
10 Srebrenica and to assess how many inhabitants of Srebrenica there were in
11 Srebrenica, then no one can do that. It can only be done at an aggregate
12 level. This aggregate level is methodologically correct and you can say
13 there was this many in 1991, this many in 1995 went missing, died, et
14 cetera, from the total population of 1991 and this the total number of
15 victims from different areas. It is that percentage, that's it, and this
16 is how it is done."
17 My question for you is if this is how it is done and you get 12.8
18 per cent, and when Dr. Tabeau performs it according to her own
19 methodology and gets either 14.2 per cent or 12.3 per cent, depending on
20 whether you include the approximately 1.000 people who could not be
21 matched with the census, it seems that your method does not really
22 produce much of a difference in results; right?
23 A. I did not object to the total or the last column given by
24 Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau. I objected to the age groups, zero to 4, 5
25 to 9, et cetera. When you are dealing with totals on an aggregate level
1 that's fine. It is a fact that in the total population an age group has
2 a share such and such, et cetera, it's, let's say, 12.8 per cent. But
3 when you say that the population of that age in 1995 in any category was
4 such and such, have you to know the total population in 1995 and then you
5 say out of that total population, the age group 10 to 14 is so much, 45
6 to 50 is such and such a number. But they do not know the total
7 population in 1995, and nobody knows it. I don't even know anyone who
8 tried to make an estimate. And if you don't know that, it's not possible
9 to determine age groups --
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I also want to ask you about
11 your actual calculation here. This is another place where you rounded
12 down to a lower decimal when you should have rounded up; right? And the
13 basis for that is if you divide 7632 divided by 59674, you get 12.89
14 per cent. Do you agree with that?
15 A. I don't remember now. If you calculated it, it's possible, but
16 that really has nothing do with my desire to decrease something because
17 of some point 000-something per cent. If the second decimal is higher
18 than 5, it's rounded off to a higher digit. This cannot in any case
19 affect the general picture, whether it's 12.5 or 12.8 doesn't change
20 anything. In any estimates made by your experts, I never checked whether
21 they rounded things off to 12.4 or 12.5, and I didn't look at it through
22 that prism, through somebody's desire to diminish something or minimise
23 it. Maybe 1 per cent is important but 100th part of something can hardly
24 change anything. When I work, I always try to round off --
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
1 A. -- numbers upwards.
2 Q. One other question about this table. It seems that one claim
3 that you have is that the Tabeau report should have broken down the
4 percentages according to the missing and the dead and not put them
5 together in the same figure; right? That's another one of your
7 A. I think that would be more fair.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Because they put together the missing and the dead together here,
10 whereas, they could separate them as the ICRC does. That would be more
11 fair because there is no certainty, there is no confirmation that they
12 are dead, although they show them as such in their reports, saying that
13 they have not found any of these persons in voters' registers. That way
14 of showing things is absolute.
15 Q. So when you broke out those figures in this table under "dead,
16 ICMP," you put 5.061 which comes from the 2009 report. You didn't put
17 6.603 which is the figure in the 2013 update, P2794.
18 What was your thinking when you decided to do that?
19 A. I didn't mean anything bad. I used the report of
20 Dr. Helge Brunborg that I had access to in 2009, and I simply didn't take
21 into account the report from 2013. I just cited the exact source here.
22 If Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau show it that way, I thought that's the way
23 it was.
24 And, still, I don't believe that even if I had cited the 2013
25 report, it wouldn't have changed the picture much. This is proof of how
1 things should be properly done, and I take over the reports of your
2 experts. I don't think that I -- even if I had changed some number a
3 little, it wouldn't have changed the general picture, and I certainly
4 didn't have any intention to minimise anything.
5 In Dr. Brunborg's report, all these other numbers are also
6 present. Dr. Brunborg cites the ICMP and cites the ICRC as well. His
7 report contains all this data.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question to the witness, please.
9 You said: "I take over the reports of your experts." This is
10 plural. But you didn't take over the report of 2013. Do you agree on
11 that? You ignored that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I reviewed it. In it, the
13 numbers just explained that the one that they got as identified for the
14 ICMP but both Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau wrote this report as well, from
15 which I took this data.
16 And now have you to take into account the following. I display
17 everything that they found, the missing, the dead, et cetera, there's no
18 wish to diminish the number. Within this number of the dead and the
19 missing, they are just speaking of the increase in the number of dead
20 persons and I'm not challenging that. I'm showing how it is according to
21 their report --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that all the missing are
24 dead --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, going far beyond the scope of my question.
1 I'm just stating that you -- you even said I reviewed the 2013 report but
2 then you didn't take that into account. You ignored the figures.
3 Do you mean the meaning of an update?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. But I did not ignore the
5 figures. Please do pay attention to the following --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... you said: I
7 reviewed it but I used the figures of the 2009 report. That means
9 Mr. File, please continue.
10 MR. IVETIC: For the record, Your Honours, I believe [Overlapping
11 speakers] ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: Not all at the same time.
14 Mr Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: For the record, I believe the witness is entitled to
16 answer. She started answering at temporary transcript page 12 line 3
17 before Judge Fluegge interrupted her and then gave the floor back to
18 Mr. File. If there's a question to be asked and the witness is in the
19 middle of answering [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic.
21 If there's any matter which is not sufficiently clarified have you an
22 opportunity in re-examination to do that. But this witness has shown,
23 time and time again, that she doesn't stay within the scope of the
24 question. Under those circumstances, parties and certainly the Judges,
25 have a possibility and have the discretion of interrupting. And I leave
1 it to that.
2 Mr. File may now proceed.
3 MR. IVETIC: For the record, Your Honours, she was interrupted on
4 line number 2 of her answer.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, this is my ruling. I don't need
7 comments on my ruling.
8 I said Mr. File can put his next question.
9 MR. FILE:
10 Q. You said that you didn't --
11 A. Allow me, if I may. I do apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Ms. Radovanovic, you're here to answer
13 questions. Listen carefully to the next question by Mr. File.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. I'm just going to give you what the figures would be, using your
17 method, if you had used the numbers from 2013 which you said wouldn't
18 have really made much of a difference.
19 If you do your figures, you have it here dividing 5.061 over the
20 total male population of 59.674. As you have in your table you say
21 that's 8.5 per cent. And if you divide 6.603, divided by 59.674, you get
22 over 11 per cent. Do you not consider that a significant difference?
23 A. No. For a simple reason. We are not understanding each other
24 here obviously. The first item in Table 9 says findings of the
25 Prosecution, total and it says 7.692. And all of these findings,
1 although they pertain to the dead and the missing, I show that through
2 12.8. So I accepted that independently of the increase in the number of
3 dead, as if they were all dead. I did not want to decrease anything. If
4 you see 12.8, that's my finding, that pertains to the total number of the
5 missing and dead, more than shown by the experts of the OTP.
6 So my objective was not to decrease anything but to accept it as
7 if all of that had been proven, that all of these people had been proven
9 Q. Could we please go back to P1900. This time we're going to look
10 at English page 81, B/C/S page 86.
11 Just one question about this table which describes the matching
12 process between the ICRC PHR list and the 1991 census. You mentioned
13 that you thought the first matching criteria were absurd because it would
14 be impossible to match OOD, what you called place of death, with the
15 census of living people. If that were the criteria, you would expect the
16 number of matches here to be zero not 3.325; right?
17 A. As for this criterion, if the place of death were to be provided
18 and if it requires to have matching with all elements of the key, that is
19 to say to have the name, surname, father's name, and what else was it
20 here? The place of birth, the place of death, if all of that were to be
21 matched, all elements, with the census, then there would be no matches
22 because in the census this element is absent. It is simply not there.
23 That's what I said: The place of death, that is not there.
24 Q. So would these results make more sense to you if OOD in this
25 matching key represented an identical match between the municipality of
1 disappearance in the merged ICRC PHR list and the municipality of
2 residence in the 1991 census?
3 A. Your experts don't say that. They don't say it anywhere. So I
4 don't know what they think.
5 MR. FILE: We don't need this document anymore.
6 Q. On Monday at transcript page 38170 you said that Dr. Brunborg
7 should have collected the raw data from the ICRC in the form of the
8 filled-out missing persons' questionnaires in order to gather more
9 specific information, including about military status and such things.
10 You said he "overlooked it," and you called it "unprofessional." That
11 was at page 38172.
12 Now you might recall that you made the same point back on the
13 31st of July 2008 when you testified in the Popovic case.
14 If we could look at 65 ter number 33031, please, which as you
15 will see is the transcript of your testimony from that day.
16 If we could go to e-court page 33.
17 Starting at line nine, my colleague, Ms. Soljan, put to you the
18 testimony of Dr. Brunborg in that case who was asked whether he had the
19 raw information from the questionnaires. He is quoted --
20 A. I'm sorry, I don't have the translation.
21 Q. I'm going to read it to you.
22 Dr. Brunborg is quoted, starting at line 24 as saying:
23 "Yes, I think I have the questionnaire, an empty blank
24 questionnaire, but as I told you just now we did not get that other
25 information. ICRC is very" --
1 Goes on to say:
2 "... protective about the information they are releasing, to
3 preserve the neutrality so they have access to all sides in a conflict."
4 Then when asked whether he requested it, he answered: "We made
5 general requests for information and I believe it was denied but we could
6 only get the information that had already been provided in electronic
7 format. For example, there was also on the questionnaire, they asked
8 about ethnicity, which was not provided to us.
9 Then you, Ms. Radovanovic, were asked: "So you did not hear this
10 testimony, madam?"
11 And your response was: "Yes, I heard it, and precisely on the
12 basis of this question, I based my conclusion that Dr. Brunborg may have
13 asked for this material, but that he did not see a single questionnaire
14 that had been filled in, and that Dr. Brunborg was happy with the
15 electronic format that was given to him, And that perhaps he did not
16 persist enough in his efforts to get it."
17 So, Dr. Radovanovic, you actually already know the reason why
18 they couldn't get the ICRC questionnaires, because you heard it directly
19 from Dr. Brunborg in his testimony in that case. Did you forget about
20 that on Monday when you said that he overlooked it?
21 MR. IVETIC: I object. He needs to read the whole answer if he's
22 going to ask about prior testimony.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to read the remainder of the answer.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. "But on the basis of what Dr. Brunborg said, that the
1 justification that the ICRC decided to treat this material as
2 confidential, is not logical enough.
3 "If the Red Cross places on the Internet the first name, second
4 name, date of birth, place of birth, father's name, and all the other --
5 or various other attributes, why would they conceal ethnicity or
6 professional background? And if they thought that this material could
7 not be posted on the Internet, even if that were true, I can find it hard
8 to believe that they would refuse to place this material at the disposal
9 of an institution such as the ICTY."
10 So my question for you is: You were aware of the reason why they
11 couldn't get the ICRC questionnaires. Did you forget about that on
12 Monday when you said that he "overlooked it"?
13 A. No, I did not forget that. You read it yourself what
14 Dr. Brunborg says. We -- he doesn't know what the answer is, so, in the
15 meantime, he could have seen whether they had been refused or not. I
16 continue to believe that the reasons mentioned by Dr. Brunborg are not
17 logical. I believe that this Tribunal has such authority that it managed
18 to obtain materials that are never given to anyone in the world. For
19 example, censuses according to individual data.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you're again
21 moving away from the question. The question simply focussed on whether
22 you said he overlooked it, whether you had at that moment had on your
23 mind that he explained why, and apparently Mr. File considers overlooking
24 something different than for reasons stated, right or wrong, not to have
25 obtained the materials.
1 Please proceed, Mr. File.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. I'm going ask you about one other subject that you have discussed
4 in your testimony and in your report, which is the notion that you claim
5 that the Prosecution experts show a broader context and longer duration
6 for all of the phenomena, and specifically in your report at page 20, in
7 both versions, you say the fact that there are no data sources for the
8 requested specific time when certain demographic phenomena were already
9 occurring is not decisive for them. So we're talking about the forcible
10 displacement report, and I would ask you that you are aware that there
11 are some aggregate numbers from counts that RS authorities did during the
12 conflict; correct?
13 A. I don't know exactly what have you in mind.
14 MR. FILE: Could we have 1D02454, please. 1D02454.
15 Q. As this comes up, you will see that are the minutes of the 70th
16 session of the RS government dated 19 May 1993 covering the previous
17 day's session chaired by Prime Minister Lukic?
18 If we could go to English page 7 and B/C/S page 5, please. Under
19 item 12 in the middle of the page, you see there was a debate on the
20 population census in Republika Srpska and the measures that have to be
21 taken in this regard. And then can you see that they list the data that
22 the census will collect, including first and last name, father's name,
23 date of birth, national affiliation.
24 And then at the bottom it goes on to say: "It is concluded that
25 the Republican Bureau of Statistics of Republika Srpska is to be the
1 co-ordinator and organiser of the overall activity of the census" --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down when reading.
3 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 "And that the executive committees are to be the co-ordinators
5 and organisers of censuses in the areas of their respective
7 Q. Are you aware that that effort was undertaken in 1993?
8 A. You mean that whether I agree that a census was carried out in
9 1993? I don't know exactly what you mean by the verb that you used.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm just asking whether you
11 know about this 1993 census --
12 A. As for discussions of a census and the possibility that it would
13 be carried out, I heard of that. But I'm not aware of it actually being
14 carried out and that this information was published regarding a
15 population census in Republika Srpska.
16 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would tender that document.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D02454 receives exhibit number P7519,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Before I decide on admission, you have read a small
21 portion of this document. Do we need the whole of the document in
22 evidence because then the Chamber would have to -- is there any way to
23 have an extract with cover pages, et cetera?
24 MR. FILE: That would be possible, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then, Mr. Ivetic, if the Defence would
1 have any wishes for contextualisation, then ... then I take it upon
2 having received the selection the Prosecution considers relevant that you
3 would add whatever you wish.
4 MR. IVETIC: Of course, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It will be marked for identification, pending
6 the upload of an extract on which the parties can agree.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. FILE: We're already going to be having coffee so we can add
9 it to the agenda.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You haven't had it yet?
11 MR. FILE: Not yet.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. FILE: Can we have 65 ter number 33013, please.
14 Q. So on the first page, you can see this is the RS Republican
15 Bureau of Statistics document send to the RS government dated 17
16 September 1994 titled: Further information on the population census
17 conducted in 1993.
18 If we can go to English page 2 at the top and in B/C/S it's the
19 second paragraph after heading 1.
20 It says: "The census was prepared and conducted in the territory
21 of Republika Srpska under the uniform methodological guidance of experts
22 from the Republican Bureau of Statistics in Banja Luka."
23 It goes on to describe the first results and clarify the
24 information that was reported. It says: "The first results established
25 the number of households, the number of inhabitants according to religion
1 and citizenship, the number of displaced persons and the number of
2 refugees for each populated place, municipality, and the republic
3 according to the administrative and territorial divisions on the day of
4 the census, which was 15 June 1993. The first results were not published
5 but were given to the government for its internal use together with the
6 report on the census, number 153/93 of 7 August 1993."
7 Now from your experience working in census administration, this
8 is how it normally works; right? There is aggregate data presented first
9 for initial reporting and then more detailed information comes later;
11 A. The first results are published and always as aggregate data.
12 Until they are officially published, it is not valid. Internally
13 carrying out a census that doesn't mean a thing. But information is
14 always disclosed a month or a month and a half after the census itself,
15 and in aggregate form at that.
16 Q. In your census experience, when you received the first figures
17 and then there were checks and the figures eventually published later,
18 how different from the revised figures from the initial figures?
19 A. Well, it depends. In the meantime, there's a check and then if
20 the check shows that -- well, according to certain methods according to
21 which this check is carried out then the first results should not vary
22 significantly from the final results.
23 When I say that they shouldn't differ to a significant degree,
24 the census contains a number of questions and at aggregate level there's,
25 after all, total number of inhabitants. But certain questions can be
1 done poorly so then they are not published. So not each and he have
2 question that is it contained in the population census is done with
3 extreme precision. So when the first results are checked that is stated
4 before publishing the final results and such things did happen.
5 There were questions that did not meet the criteria in terms of
6 representing valid information. However, in general terms, if criteria
7 are satisfied, then, yes, they should not vary considerably. The total
8 number of inhabitants, in terms of the final result as compared to the
9 previous results, however, certain characteristics can be considered to
10 be done poorly and then that is not published. For example, mistakes
11 concerning professions, occupations and --
12 Q. Just to be clear, a question such as what is your ethnicity,
13 that's not among the questions that is likely to be considered a poor
14 question that will produce poor data; right?
15 A. On the contrary. You have entire studies that discuss the
16 matter. Namely, whether the question regarding ethnicity -- rather,
17 answers are good or bad. That is a pending issue. So you can declare
18 yourself whichever way you want: In one census, this way, and in another
19 census, that way. And you don't have to declare yourself at all. Even
20 in the census of 1991, the questionnaire says: According to such and
21 such an article of the constitution, this question does not have to be
22 answered. The question regarding ethnicity is a subjective one. If I
23 feel a certain way or if I'm afraid to say how I feel, I can, but I don't
24 have to answer that question and I don't have to keep continuity in that
1 Q. Could we look at 65 ter number 32461, please.
2 As this comes up, you will see this is a 3 August 1994 Prijedor
3 public security centre document. In the text at the beginning, it says:
4 "Please be informed that we have conducted a census (registration) of
5 non-Serbian population in the municipality area, for the internal
6 purposes of the Ministry of Interior. The census was conducted
7 thoroughly, by going door to door, and the aim was to establish the
8 overall number of the non-Serbian population in order to be able to make
9 a proper security assessment."
10 Then it goes on to say: "We point out that the data should be
11 taken as 99 per cent accurate and we have in our possession the lists
12 with the data for the individual villages."
13 And then have you the breakdown of the non-Serb population.
14 If we go to page 2. There you have the figures.
15 So there was also this kind of census happening as well, done for
16 security reasons; right?
17 A. Well, probably. It says here the Ministry of Interior. But they
18 did not publish this anywhere. These are documents that were used
19 internally. I cannot assess them this way, whether they're good or bad,
20 if I don't know according to which methodology they were carried out.
21 How people were registered and what people said, what they were, or what
22 they were not. In order to say that a census is proper, you have to know
23 what the methodology used was. Now somebody saying that 99 per cent of
24 it is correct, the only thing I can say is that that is what is written
1 If I read this properly, there is a police document. That's not
2 called a census from a statistical point of view, that is, or they'd have
3 to say for which purposes and so on. Maybe this is some kind of
4 questionnaire. It's not a population census and it's not that within
5 that I'm asking you to tell me what your ethnicity is.
6 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would tender that document, and then I
7 have just one last question.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 32461 receives exhibit number P7520,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. File, if is really your last question, we'll hear the answer
13 to that question before the break. Otherwise, we'd have to take the
15 MR. FILE: We will need to switch back to the witness's report to
16 do so.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll do so.
18 MR. FILE: D1211, please. English and B/C/S page 24, please.
19 Q. In the top paragraph, the main paragraph there you say, "The
20 absurdity of declaring the voters' registers to be post-war lists of
21 survivors, regardless of which report is in question, is reflected in the
22 experts 'ideas offered to the Tribunal which lead to the logical
23 conclusion that anyone from the 1997/1998 voters' register and the 1991
24 population census who is not matched is proven to be dead."
25 My question for you is: In reality, to take the voters' lists as
1 an example, Dr. Tabeau is simply saying that they are evidence of a
2 subset of the people who were most likely alive in 1997 and that it's
3 worth checking just to be safe to see whether anyone on a missing list is
4 also on the voters' list but no one is saying that it is a comprehensive
5 list of probable survivors of the conflict and that not being on that
6 list proves you were dead in 1997. Isn't this a mistake in logic that
7 you're making here?
8 A. It is not. In his earlier reports, as in the last one,
9 Dr. Brunborg claims that they compared their list with the voters'
10 registers and replying to some previous remarks made that the voters'
11 registers have been made up, they answered by saying, no, there are no
12 living people still proving that our data is correct.
13 Dr. Tabeau states that voters' registers are never taken into
14 account by official statisticians to make calculations, saying that
15 these -- or such information is not official statistically. If on the
16 one hand you have proof there are no survivors because they were not
17 found on the voters' registers, and I can quote that, I can find it in
18 some of the previous reports as well as in the last one. And if, at the
19 same time, madam doctor says that the voters' registers are not official
20 statistical data, they refer to them for the most part as survivors. The
21 list of survivors. Since -- or how can a voters' registers which only
22 includes a part of the population be called a list of survivors? That is
23 what I based my conclusions on.
24 MR. FILE: Nothing further, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further.
1 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
2 That's five minutes to 11.00. You may follow the usher.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, you're on your feet.
8 MR. FILE: Over the break I realised I did not tender 65 ter
9 number 33013 which is the RS Bureau of Statistics document regarding the
10 1991 census. I would tender that now.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objection.
12 Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33013 receives exhibit number P7521,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give you an opportunity to cross-examine
18 the witness, Mr. Ivetic, Judge Fluegge would have a question for the
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Radovanovic, could you please explain for me
21 the difference between the place where a specific person was last seen
22 alive and the place of disappearance? What is the difference?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, according to Dr. Brunborg's
24 definition. As he defines it in all his report, the place of
25 disappearance is supposed to be place where someone was last seen alive
1 but it doesn't seen that it is also the place of death. I'm paraphrasing
2 but it can be read in the report. It could so happen that the VRS
3 arrived, place a person in a vehicle and take them elsewhere. The place
4 of disappearance, when reported to the Red Cross by the relatives, they
5 did so according to what they could hear, learn of, or were told about
6 somebody's -- somebody last being seen somewhere. In other words, the
7 place of disappearance need not be the place where the death occurred.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that clarification.
9 But yesterday you said - this can be found on page 38330, line 24
10 and 25: "That's the place where the person was last seen alive. It's
11 not place of disappearance."
12 And I just wanted to know what is the difference between place of
13 disappearance. I'm not talking about place of death but of disappearance
14 and the place where the person was seen alive. I take it now from your
15 answer that these two are identical; correct?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they're not. I don't know in
17 what context I referred to the place of disappearance. Perhaps I was
18 explaining a table. I'm simply relaying to you Dr. Brunborg's definition
19 of place of disappearance. It is defined as the place where somebody was
20 last seen alive.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That is exactly what I was hinting
22 at. Thank you.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
24 Q. Good morning, Professor.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. During cross-examination, you were asked about the DEM2T and this
2 was at transcript page 38338 and onwards. Could you please clarify for
3 us again this is what database, the DEM2T?
4 A. The DEM2T is a database about mortality between 1992 and 1995.
5 On the orders of the Tribunal it was done by the statistical institute of
6 Republika Srpska and of the Federation. It is the official database
7 created according to all statistical standards, especially when it comes
8 to the database of Republika Srpska, Dr. Brunborg praises it as a sound
9 base. As of 2004, the data contained therein is with the
10 Demographic Unit of the Tribunal, where I saw it for the first time.
11 Q. If I can ask you to clarify. In the transcript we have as of
12 2014 and I'm not sure actually which you said in the original Serbian.
13 Could you please clarify for us when is the data contained in the DEM2T
14 was within the -- within the --
15 A. The data gathered was gathered according to all the relevant
16 standards pertaining to the statistics of those who passed away in the
17 period 1992 to 1995. In other words, it is a database about deceased
18 persons between 1992 and 1995 and all the years in between, of course.
19 Q. And you say in 2004, the data contained therein and you state the
20 name of the unit at the Tribunal where this data resides. Could you
21 please clarify that unit that you mentioned at the Tribunal.
22 A. The Demographic Unit of the OTP.
23 Q. Now I would like to look at D1211, MFI, under seal, and we should
24 not broadcast this document. And we'll be looking for page 37 in the
25 English, page 36 and 37 in the Serbian. While we wait, Professor, I
1 think that you'll see that this is this your table number 2. And you
2 were asked about this table and this part of your report from transcript
3 page 38338 onwards.
4 Now, first of all, Professor, I'm going to ask you not to mention
5 any of the names on this table in open court. Is that first part
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, yesterday in cross-examination, it was said that a cursory
9 review of the databases by you led to these 31 names. Could you tell us
10 when it was that you performed the cursory review of the databases to
11 find these names.
12 A. When I was in The Hague in 2006 or 2007 to check the material.
13 That is when I had occasion to see it. It was in The Hague in the
14 Demographic Unit of the OTP.
15 Q. And now when you say you did a cursory review of the databases,
16 what databases are you talking about that yielded these results?
17 A. It is the DEM2T database as well as the database on the soldiers
18 of the ABiH and the list of the Prosecution containing the names of the
19 people they considered to be Srebrenica victims.
20 Q. Now, looking at your table which we have before us, we see that
21 we have a column that you have labelled as "went missing on Prosecution,"
22 and all those dates are in 1995 from, it looks -- from July through the
23 late part of September 1995. And then on the far right, you have a
24 column that says "date of death," and it lists for these same individuals
25 dates which occur before the date of disappearance in the prior column.
1 Can you tell us, first of all, where does the date of death in
2 the far right column come from?
3 A. Those are the dates that can be found in the DEM2T and the ABiH
5 Q. And, Professor, for the column that says "went missing on
6 Prosecution," where does that data come from?
7 A. It comes from the list of victims, according to the OTP, the
8 7.000-plus people.
9 Q. Now, throughout the cross-examination, Mr. File took issue with
10 you for allegedly not taking into account the 2013 integration report and
11 that was said to be P2794. I'd like to call up but not broadcast P2794.
12 And if we could turn to page 8 in both versions, again, Professor, we
13 should not identify any of these names that we see before us, but looking
14 at this page we see a table listing a total of six persons.
15 For these six persons, I don't see any information updating their
16 date of disappearance as recorded in the DEM2T or the ABiH list.
17 Therefore, Professor, does any of this data that we see now before us at
18 all change your conclusions that the OTP experts have people on their
19 list for whom the ABiH or Ministry of Defence said they disappeared or
20 died in the years prior to July 1995?
21 A. I would kindly ask that the table be enlarged. I can't read it
23 The table is in English, but I think I understand it well enough.
24 There's nothing I would change. Although I cannot compare it to the
25 other table, but on this list, we have one, two, three, four -- six
2 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, P2795 was the other annex in relation
3 to this that Mr. File did not use. I place on the record that P2795,
4 which is not in e-court and which I cannot therefore show, does not have
5 a column relating to the Ministry of Defence ABiH lists and only has a
6 column for date of disappearance without citation to source, listing the
7 same dates that you had, professor, in your table, number 12 that we just
8 looked at?
9 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I object to this as improper argument and
10 furthermore I would add that we can put this on Sanctions if [Overlapping
11 speakers] ...
12 MR. IVETIC: Is the Prosecution not stipulating that that is
13 correct? Are you refusing to stipulate that I have correctly identified
14 the columns?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look. I have no idea about 2795. In
16 e-court, indeed, it gives an error message and therefore I'd like to know
17 what we are talking about.
18 MR. IVETIC: Let's pull it up in Sanction. I don't know how to
19 do that, Your Honours. Oh, it should not be broadcast.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar says that we have P2795 in e-court.
21 I had difficulties in opening it.
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's a surrogate sheet. If there's any substance
24 which could be shown, I don't know if it is public or not. I have got no
1 Could we have a look at it so that we understand what we are
2 looking at.
3 MR. IVETIC: And it should not be broadcast, to err on the side
4 of caution.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not to be broadcast.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. And if we could look at the headings and I will read them for you
8 for the columns. The first one says ID. The second one says names,
9 original. The third one says date of birth. Column D says protocol ID.
10 Column E says case ID. Column F says ID ICMP. Column G says site name.
11 Column H says site co-ordinates. Column J says date of submission.
12 Column K says days of disappearance. And, again, does not list of
13 source. Column L says place of disappearance. And, again, does not list
14 the source. M says type of report. N says ICMP comment. O says
15 BAZ-(OTP 2009) integrated (2013). P says integrated new and less certain
16 (2013). And Q says Dups in 2013.
17 So we only have one column that says date of disappearance that
18 does not give a source and I believe the dates of disappearance are the
19 same as we just saw that you reported in your report based upon the
20 Prosecution's list.
21 If I am wrong, I invite Prosecution counsel to correct me. But
22 working -- go ahead.
23 MR. FILE: I just refer the Tribunal to P1901 which is the OTP
24 list which contains that information at page 5.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P1901. If that is the answer then we would also
1 like to have a look at P1901.
2 MR. IVETIC: It's not the answer to my question, but, it's, I
3 believe, where this table is said to have even come from.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to get -- do I understand that the issue
5 now is for six out of the 30 persons where the information about the date
6 of death would be prior to July 1995, that for that --
7 MR. IVETIC: No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then I missed it. And I would not even mind if you
9 briefly explain what exactly we're discussing at this moment in such a
10 way that it's not inappropriate to do before a witness or otherwise
11 clarify the issue with the witness.
12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the Prosecution during
13 cross-examination made repeated reference to the 2013 list which we've
14 now seen comprises two parts. The first part of the six names which has
15 no data on date of disappearance so it has no affect as to what we just
16 looked at from the witness's report. That's the Defence position.
17 The second annex that we just looked at contains only one date of
18 disappearance which is from the Prosecution list which is already
19 reflected in the table that Professor Radovanovic did and has no data on
20 the military lists which was the point of the report and the table
21 presented by Professor Radovanovic.
22 That is where we are at now and can then I go to some specific
23 issues with the witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC: Now --
1 JUDGE ORIE: For proper understanding, Mr. File, do you think
2 that we shouldn't look at P1901 or can we do -- or ...
3 MR. FILE: I'll let Mr. Ivetic do his examination as he wants to.
4 If something has to be cleared up I can ask questions later.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
7 Q. Now, in relation to this which we have in front of us, the 2013
8 report, this is what Dr. Tabeau said about this report and how it was
9 created and this is at transcript page 19241, lines 6 through 12.
10 I will read it:
11 "A. The 2013 Srebrenica report I made focuses exclusively on the
12 analysis of new identifications issued by the ICMP between the time the
13 2009 integrated report was finished until February 2013. This was the
14 date I used for my report for the Mladic case. So, in total, there was
15 1.190 new identifications in this period. Of this number, quite a
16 considerable portion have been additionally matched with the 2009 OTP
17 victims' list."
18 Now, Professor, Dr. Tabeau has indicated the exclusive focus of
19 this 2013 report was new identifications by ICMP. Would DNA
20 identifications by ICMP change your opinions which are based upon data in
21 the DEM2T and the army records of the Ministry of Defence of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina as you have set forth in your report.
23 A. No. These people were identified and I never disputed that they
24 were dead. I only disputed the date of death, according to the reports
25 of the army and DEM2T database, as well as -- as per the date as
1 specified on the OTP list as the date of someone's disappearance. One
2 cannot die before disappearing or disappear after death.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness also answer the question: What is
4 the approximate percentage or number where such inconsistencies are still
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no occasion after 2007 or
7 2008 to go and see it. And even if I did, given the time I'm usually
8 given, which is between three and five days, I cannot go into utmost
9 detail. I can only stop at points where I come across a certain figure
10 that I consider sold evidence. In order do things in detail, one
11 requires time. And then, after that, I would be able to tell you on this
12 or that list --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Upon your cursory review, that is
14 approximately 30 cases mentioned in your report. Is there any reason to
15 believe that the size of these errors, that the number or percentage
16 would be -- would be different or considerably different from what you
17 found and wrote down in your report?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally have reason to believe
19 that the number, actually the percentage, is considerably higher.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And what's the basis for that belief? And rather --
21 you say "belief."
22 I would rather have reasons, logical reasons than what is to be
23 believed to be the case.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I carry out comparisons and
25 when I come across certain example, I no longer engage in detailed
1 comparisons nor I do introduce new criteria. I provide the most accurate
2 criterion requiring the name, the name of father, last name, the precise
3 date of birth, and so on and so forth. If I expanded my criteria, I
4 would probably come across a larger number of cases and then, like the
5 OTP experts, I could rely on my visual selection to determine whether it
6 is possible or not.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But that goes beyond the date of disappearance
8 compared to the date of the death.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not follow you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you're explaining that you believe or think
11 that by names, et cetera, to include all that and to be very precise,
12 that may increase the numbers. But my question was solely focussed on
13 what seems to be a discrepancy between the date of -- between July 1995
14 and the date of disappearance or the date of death. Rather, the date of
15 death, I would say. That's a rather limited approach, and I think that
16 was the core of the table you presented.
17 And my question now is: In your explanation, did you go beyond
18 what was the focus of my question?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's possible that we don't
20 understand each other well.
21 When comparison is made, I have the Prosecution list and I set
22 the criterion which says name, father's name, date of birth. That
23 criterion applies to DEM2T and the BH army lists, and I inserted and let
24 all these persons coincide. When they do coincide, then they bring all
25 the other data with them --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see Svetlana Radovanovic born on
3 such and such a date and when I --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... stop you there.
5 Perhaps I should put my question more clearly.
6 We have seen in your report on page 37 in the English the table
7 which presents approximately 30 cases of a reported death which was prior
8 to July 1995. That's the core of the issue in that table. Would you
9 agree with that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. DEM2T does not record alleged
11 deaths. It's a database of statistics --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- commissioned by this
14 institution, according to all the professional standards.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I never used the term "alleged death." I was just
16 referring to the table where I say that the core of the table apparently
17 is that there's a discrepancy because the persons, having been found in
18 the BiH army list and DEM2T to have died before July 1995 are, if I
19 understand you well, incorrectly categorised as Srebrenica victims.
20 That's the core of the table, isn't it?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the essence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, my question -- so it was limited, my question,
23 in its scope, to the date of death compared to categorising the persons
24 as Srebrenica victims, and you gave approximately 30 examples of that, as
25 you said, after a cursory review.
1 Now, since 2009, approximately thousand new identifications have
2 made, if I understand the evidence well. My question was whether there's
3 any reason to believe that such inconsistencies, that is, date of death
4 being reported in the list of the BiH army and DEM2T before July 1995,
5 whether the approximate percentage of death for those last thousand cases
6 would considerably differ from the 30 out of the -- well, I'm just giving
7 a rough figure 6.000 approximately, or 5.000, perhaps, at that time.
8 That is, on the basis of what you established, it's less than 1 per cent.
9 Is there any reason to believe that for the new identifications that that
10 percentage merely on this issue would be higher or lower?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you're asking me to
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until I review the material, I
15 can't say anything with certainty.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... okay. So you
17 don't know.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I hate to disappoint you, but the very
20 next area I was going to go into before Your Honour started asking
21 questions is precisely the data which shows that there are even more than
22 30 in the prior set before the new. So we'll see all the documents. You
23 have already seen them, but I'll remind Your Honours of that and we'll go
24 through that. So your questions will be answered.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm usually -- whether there are more or less, of
1 course, this Chamber is especially interested in the rate of errors and
2 whether they were properly corrected, yes or no, if new information was
3 there. And that seems to be one of the issues touched upon where this
4 witness --
5 MR. IVETIC: Yes --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- and we'll -- at the same time the witness said
7 she couldn't tell us for the new ones.
8 MR. IVETIC: I'm talking about the old ones and I'm going to show
9 her the documents and I think it will be rather clear for everyone.
10 Because she said can't guess without having looked at the material and we
11 have Dr. Tabeau's material.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, before we add - and, of course, I'm looking
13 forward to see that - are we talking about -- and is there any way that
14 the parties could agree that there are another 10 or 20 or 100 or 1.000
15 mistakes having reviewed the material? Mr. File, Mr. Ivetic. Because
16 the Chamber would be without knowing all the details if the parties agree
17 that there are addition to the 30 here inconsistencies. I'm not yet
18 talking about what explains the inconsistency. It could be a wrong
19 report or a wrong qualification as Srebrenica victims, I have no idea.
20 Or whatever it is. But could the parties seek to agree on what,
21 approximately, the size of the additional mistakes is - --
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, you have that in evidence. It's D411.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- yes. And I hope you'll understand that I have
24 not every single piece.
25 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I will be presenting it to
1 the witness, so we'll all be reminded of that and we'll go through it
2 step by step and we'll see that what is there.
3 MR. FILE: We will see that D411 is not a current document and so
4 this is something that we could look into.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic. Please move on and
6 we'll further hear the evidence you elicit.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
8 Q. Now first just to finish up on the issue of ICMP DNA
9 identifications, yesterday you were shown P7513 and I'd like to -- no,
10 first of all, before we go there. Looking at the 2003 [sic] report which
11 we have up on our screens. Whoops, we just lost it.
12 Looking at the 2013 that we have on our screens now, if the
13 Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina still has a different
14 registered date of death that occurred before the date of disappearance
15 in this Prosecution list, would that be a continued cause for concern,
16 according to you, as to the reliability of the Prosecution's list?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now if we can look at P7513 and not broadcast the same, and when
19 we get to that document we'll be looking at page 5 in the Serbian, and
20 since page 5 in the Serbian is entirely in English, I propose we only
21 look at that page, and this was presented yesterday at transcript page
22 38327 as an ICMP data report for this individual.
23 Now, we see that there is nowhere in this report a reference to
24 date of disappearance or date of death, and you said in relation to this
25 report, at transcript page 38326 through 38327 and I quote: "I see this
1 is a DNA report confirming that it was, indeed, that person we discussed
2 earlier and nothing more."
3 Later at transcript page 38333, you said: "I did not see any
4 other evidence because DNA does not prove when and where someone died.
5 DNA proves identity."
6 Now, given the type of data that is contained in ICMP DNA
7 matching reports and given your prior testimony, do you think that
8 looking at additional ICMP DNA matching from 2003 [sic] allows anyone to
9 determine anything about the date of death and date of disappearance?
10 MR. FILE: I object to this question as argumentative.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please rephrase the question.
12 MR. IVETIC: How is it argumentative?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please rephrase the question, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: Argumentative with whom. I'm not arguing with
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the ruling is rephrase your question.
17 Do it or move to the next question.
18 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
19 Q. Professor, if the ICMP DNA report only establishes identity of
20 someone and as we've seen does not have any date of death or date of
21 disappearance, of what assistance can it be in determining date of death
22 or date of disappearance, in your opinion?
23 A. It's not of any assistance for determining the date of death and
24 the date of disappearance or the place of disappearance, because experts,
25 such as Dr. Parsons, say, at this Tribunal, DNA analysis does not help
1 establish the place and time of death. DNA analysis helps determine only
3 Q. Now, I'd like to look at D344 but not broadcast the same. While
4 we wait for that document, I can introduce it by saying you looked at it
5 a few days ago and you told us at transcript page 38264 as follows about
6 this document: "So, in 2008, the Demographic Unit reacted to a Defence
7 request confirming that there were soldiers on their list and that they
8 matched some 70.1 per cent of overall cases. There were also 228 cases
9 of soldiers for whom the ABiH claimed had been killed before 1995 and yet
10 they were on the list as Srebrenica victims."
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, could you please repeat the
13 MR. IVETIC: I'm reading from the transcript, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. And you read the percentage 71 or.
15 MR. IVETIC: 70.1 -- oh, I apologise. I see now what you're
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you repeat that percentage.
18 MR. IVETIC: 70.1.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. IVETIC: Let's see where I left off.
21 Q. "In this reply, they state that they looked into those 220-plus
22 cases and that, in the meantime, they requested clarifications from the
23 ABiH. They also state that in some 137 cases or so, they received
24 confirmation that the date was incorrect and that it was corrected. They
25 also state that in a certain number of cases, the ABiH did not state
1 whether they were killed or not. In another 38 cases, no reply was
2 received and they were still awaiting one."
3 Now, first of all, do you remember that part of your testimony a
4 few days ago?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now I'd like to go briefly into private session.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 38427-38428 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Witness, he'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 11.49 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, yes, please -- could the witness
6 be escorted in the courtroom.
7 Mr. File, I raised a question in private session before the break
8 about the status of certain exhibits. Any answer to that yet.
9 MR. FILE: Yes, the second one, indeed, should be under seal.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's the --
11 MR. FILE: The list of names.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And which is -- which number is that?
13 MR. FILE: That's P2795.
14 JUDGE ORIE: 5 is hereby put under seal.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: If we could please take a look at but not broadcast
18 D411, under seal.
19 Q. Now, again, we should be careful not to mention anyone's name,
20 but if we count up 14 from the bottom of the list, I think we will see
21 the same individual we just looked at in private session who has listed
22 there as the date of death, according to the military records, 15
23 May 1992, and the column for corrected DOD is blank. That is to say,
24 there is no correction.
25 Now, as to this document, Dr. Tabeau said as follows, that this
1 came after the 2008 inquiry and let me just find the area. It's
2 transcript page 19443 to 19444, and Dr. Tabeau said as to this list:
3 "Where we see a yes in English, y-e-s, under clarification requested in
4 the table, this means that the Prosecution did not receive any new
5 information from the BiH Ministry of Defence as to the date of death."
6 And, in fact, she said that shortly after the request, they were
7 told the ministry was unable to provide any corrections. Bearing in mind
8 if we could look at the individual we just looked at, 14th from the
9 bottom, and for this one, the Prosecution did not even seek any
10 clarification as to the date of death. Given this information, do you
11 have any comment and does this change any of the opinions that you
12 expressed in your report?
13 A. No, I continue to believe that certain persons are on the
14 Prosecution list, certain persons who had lost their lives before 1995 as
15 the Prosecution states here.
16 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I just want to clarify one point in the
17 previous question. It was asked that for this one the Prosecution did
18 not even seek any clarification as to the date of death. I don't believe
19 there's been any evidence that whether the Prosecution sought information
20 is included in that table.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think Mr. Ivetic was referring to the
22 testimony of Dr. Tabeau, wasn't it?
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes, and --
24 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, the issue is -- not whether there's
25 evidence but whether Dr. Tabeau said so. Because her words are in
1 evidence as well.
2 MR. IVETIC: And we have the table itself which the line says
3 clarification requested and it's either yes or blank.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So what blank means, of course --
5 MR. IVETIC: Agreed.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- we need to have explained and it was 443 and 444,
7 19000; isn't it.
8 MR. IVETIC: What was 444?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. We --
10 MR. IVETIC: That particular part at 19444, lines 15 through 24.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes, examined by Ms. Marcus.
12 MR. IVETIC: By me.
13 JUDGE ORIE: By you and Ms. Marcus being present for the
15 Let me see. Yes, please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, this list we're looking at now, D411 under seal, on 18
18 November 2013, Ms. Maxine Marcus of the Prosecution said at transcript
19 page 19444, line 15 through 24, that this was the chart that should
20 replace the one in P1900 which is the 2009 report of Drs. Tabeau and
22 Now looking at the list and just the first page of this list and
23 I can state it has five pages in total, but on the first page of this
24 list I count a total of 50 individuals. Are you following me so far?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. For these 50 individuals, some we see new dates of death under
2 the column DOD corrected. But for the remainder, I see -- excuse me, 11
3 individuals who have dates of death prior to July 1995 where there is no
4 new date of death corrected and there is a yes in the column, meaning
5 clarification was requested and none received by the Prosecution. Are
6 you following me so far?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. For 14 more, we see that there is no corrected date of death and
9 we're left with just the date of death prior to July 1995, and we see a
10 yes in the column that -- that clarification was requested, and we see an
11 ICMP protocol and an ICMP grave-site identified for these individuals.
12 Are you following me so far?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And there are an additional five persons with dates of death
15 recorded in the years prior to July 1995 where we don't have any
16 corrected date of death and we don't have anything in the column that
17 says clarification requested, that there is no yes. Are you following me
18 thus far?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, that makes, just on the first page alone, 30 out of 50
21 individuals where their date of death as recorded by the military occurs
22 prior to July 1995. Does the data as reflected thus far on this chart
23 change any of the concerns and opinions that you expressed in your
25 A. Well, certainly. That is already 50 persons for whom the army
1 did not confirm that they lost their lives in July 1995 but considerably
2 before that.
3 Q. To make sure you got my translation correctly there are 30
4 persons on the first page for whom even after seeking the results that
5 the OTP sought from the Ministry of Defence we still have dates of death
6 before July 1995. I have not gone through any of the other pages, but I
7 can tell you that there are more on those pages as well, but I don't know
8 the numbers.
9 Does that cause you to change your conclusions as to your report,
10 as to the concerns you expressed about the reliability of the
11 Prosecution's lists of victims?
12 A. No. I am still concerned about the list of victims.
13 Q. Now I had not go through each page to do the arithmetic. I think
14 all of us are free to do that ourselves. But I'd like to look at
15 specific entries, again, without naming the individuals involved. The
16 last time we did this, we used the ICMP protocol numbers which are found
17 on the second-to-last column on the right. And I would like to look at
18 ICMP protocol number 1940/03 and this will be the 20th individual from
19 the top and for this individual we see the date of death for the military
20 as 17, 04, 995. Now that means April 17th, 1995, according to what the
21 Prosecutor told us before the break. That happens to be my birthday but
22 that's irrelevant. We see that --
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll put it on the record, Mr. Ivetic, and we'll
24 take care of it.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
2 Q. We see that for this individual there is nothing in the column
3 clarification requested and we see that this individual was exhumed from
4 the Liplje 2 grave. And does that information cause you to change any of
5 the findings or opinions that you expressed in your report as to the
6 reliability of the Prosecution's victim lists?
7 A. I still maintain that the list is unreliable, and this just shows
8 me that persons who lost their lives before July 1995 could have been
9 found in the graves that are linked to Srebrenica.
10 The fact that somebody was found in that grave does not prove
11 that he had lost his life in relation to Srebrenica and up until the end
12 of July, as Dr. Brunborg took it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in that respect.
14 If you find someone in a grave together with a lot of other
15 persons for which there are good reasons to believe that they died in
16 July 1995 in Srebrenica, if you found one person who's reported as having
17 died well before that date, perhaps even a year before, would you say
18 that doesn't prove he died with the others, I have no difficulties in
19 accepting that, what are the options? I can think of two options to
20 start with, but please add another one. Either he died a year earlier or
21 two years earlier and in one way or another, still unexplained, he ended
22 up in that mass grave where you say that, in itself, doesn't prove
23 anything. Another option would be that the record stating that he died
24 two years earlier is unreliable.
25 Is there any other option you could think of which we would have
1 to consider.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that the information is
3 unreliable, I can doubt the sources, the data sources that are being
4 used. It is the BH army, the ministry of the BH army that is the data
5 source here and there's no reason for me to doubt that, especially
6 because in 1992 when the Prosecution expert used this, assessed it as a
7 good data source. The possibility that something happened and that in
8 that grave -- may I go on or ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may go on although you are, rather,
10 referring to the options I gave rather than to tell me whether there is
11 any other option, but please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know I have to
13 speculate whether there is something else or not. In the demographic
14 office of the Prosecution, is there more documentation that I did not
15 have an opportunity to see? I really don't know about that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say that BiH Ministry of Defence
17 information, that was considered to be reliable and therefore you have no
18 reason to doubt that.
19 Did I understand well that out of these 220 that some 80 were
20 already corrected as being inaccurate? That's how I understand the
21 evidence to be.
22 Is that your understanding as well?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were corrected. But it's
24 not the entire list as such that had been updated. That is to say that
25 not everything had been corrected. Rather -- okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Some of them indeed remain still without answers or
2 at least at the time.
3 Now you earlier said that this was reliable, these were reliable
4 lists, if for those where an answer has been received out of those 220,
5 80 have been corrected, whereas for quite a number of others, no
6 additional information has yet been received. Would you still consider
7 that reliable, that a rate of -- well, well over 30 per cent which where
8 not all answers have been received, that 30 per cent was corrected and
9 turned out have been unreliable?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that the Prosecution
11 expert considered that to be a highly reliable source when using it in
12 1992. This is a correction in relation to a particular figure, whereas
13 this BH army lists contains, I cannot say anything now off the cuff,
14 20.000, 30.000, I don't know and 13.000 of which pertain to the region of
15 Tuzla. So since the entire list was not reviewed, I cannot claim that
16 it's 30 per cent of the total list of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you said more than that they presented it as
18 reliable. Because what you said is the following: "In the BH army, the
19 ministry of the BH army, that is the data source here, and there is no
20 reason for me to doubt that, especially ..."
21 So apart from it being presented as reliable information,
22 pointing at well over 30 per cent having been corrected, although not all
23 answers had yet been received, you consider that it's still -- there's no
24 reason to -- well, at least have some concerns about the reliability or
25 have some doubts about the reliability if that number of cases have been
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This number of corrections pertains
3 to the 220 that we're looking at here, not the total list of the Army of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina that Dr. Tabeau in 1992 assessed as good and reliable.
5 Not me. I have no reason to doubt that assessment of hers, so it is not
6 30 per cent of corrections in the total list. It 30 per cent of
7 corrections in this list that was presented. Namely that these persons
8 are also on the Prosecution list and the BH claims it was earlier on,
9 that they had lost their lives earlier on, that is.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Now again, not wanting to look at names but if we
12 look at the fourth entry from the top of the page, and the ICMP protocol
13 number is 1602/03, we see for that individual under the date of death,
14 military, the notation 1001994.
15 Now, in commenting about this type of notation, of which there
16 are several on this page, Dr. Tabeau says as follows on transcript page
17 19439, lines 19 through 24 on a question posed by Judge Moloto -- I
18 should read the question too. That's at line 16.
19 "JUDGE MOLOTO: That is true, but when one looks at the list,
20 there are those with a double zero and there are those with a single
22 "THE WITNESS: I would interpret this as a 101 being an
23 incomplete code 1/00/1, and I would interpret this dating exact day way,
24 meaning that the date is incomplete. Day and month are unavailable and
25 the only part available is the year 1994. It is a typo that you often
1 see in these kind of situations. Somebody who was typing in the 101994
2 just skipped one zero simply."
3 Do you agree with Dr. Tabeau interpretation that for these
4 entries 1001994 or 101994 we only know the date of -- pardon me, the year
5 of death, 1994. Is that how you would read this data.
6 A. You mean 101946? Is that what you mean? The fourth case from
7 the top?
8 Q. The very next column that says 1001994.
9 A. No. That is interpretation. These -- this is the way data are
10 registered. It means that it pertains to the 10th of January, 1994.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you have any explanation as to why so
12 many people apparently then died on the 10th of January, 1994? What
13 would have happened that all those mismatches that they all had died on
14 the 10th of January, 1994? I see them by the --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know whether there
16 was some fighting then or something. I really cannot say. I presume
17 that it's the army that knows what that was all about. Whether on those
18 dates there were some particular battles.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You do not know, but has it raised any concern
20 that suddenly many, many persons which were reported to have found in
21 mass graves in Srebrenica massively died on the 10th of January, 1994?
22 Did it raise any concern on your mind?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see it being en masse here
24 as compared to the rest. It did not raise any concerns in my mind
25 because it is an official state document. That was my starting point.
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thought they made sure it was --
3 JUDGE ORIE: You say you don't see it as being en masse. How
4 many are there on the list which appears on your screen that died on the
5 10th of January, 1994?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not count them but these are
7 the examples of those I found back then. There must have been more than
8 220. I didn't count them, but I can.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You already formed an opinion that it was not
10 en masse whereas we see many, many of them already on this first page and
11 you said you didn't count them but you commented it was en masse. I'll
12 count them and then we'll know approximately what percentage it is --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just to make sure we understand
15 each other. It may be a lot as -- as compared to 220 but I don't know
16 whether it is a mass occurrence compared to 13 or 15.000 it is well
17 likely that it is significant occurrence compared to the initial figure.
18 I didn't or wasn't able to examine everything in details. These are just
20 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that parties agree that many many persons
21 apparently reported as having died on the 10 -- the 1001994.
22 MR. IVETIC: 10 if you count the ones that are with the corrected
23 date of death. Ten or 11.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, 30.
25 MR. IVETIC: I said if you take the corrected date of death, Your
1 Honour. It's 11; trust me.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And [Overlapping speakers] ...
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers] ... by Judge Orie in
4 relation to the many people died on that day ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers] ... according to the ABiH
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, if the date has been corrected they did
9 not die on that day they died on a different day. Isn't that correct as
10 well, Your Honour. The question that has been asked by Judge Orie, the
11 answer is 10 or 11.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The concern was about the initially reported date of
13 death and some have been clarified. Others have not been clarified. But
14 initially apparently it was reported for many many of them that they
15 would have died on that day. Which the witness says is the 10th of
17 Let's move on.
18 MR. IVETIC: Okay. We don't need this document on the screen
19 anymore unless Your Honours have something further with it. I could --
20 JUDGE ORIE: No. We don't need anything at this moment.
21 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
22 Q. I'd like to now move to some items that you were asked about in
23 court. If we could first have P7520 in e-court. You were asked about
24 this today. This is from the public security station in Prijedor from
25 the MUP, the Ministry of Interior.
1 First of all, Professor, in relation to a properly conducted
2 census in your experience, is the Ministry of Interior the organ that
3 undertakes to collect data for a census.
4 A. No, it has never been the case. It is well known who is supposed
5 to correct data for a census and how.
6 Q. Then I'd like to go to a different topic and for that, I'd like
7 to have P1900, page 85 in the ... one moment. It should be, I think,
8 page 85 in the Serbian -- in the English and page 90 in the Serbian.
9 Yes, that's the page.
10 Now, while this page was shown to you yesterday in court, you
11 were asked a question and you were not -- you were in the middle of
12 answering when your answer was cut off. I'm going to read the question
13 and the answer that we have thus far and then I'll give you an
14 opportunity to complete your answer.
15 And this starts at transcript page 38363, line 5:
16 "Q. I'll ask another question. You are aware that once these
17 1.15 million individuals had their records matched, they would be
18 excluded from the next round of matching; correct?
19 "A. Well, if he got all the matchings, it's logical he let them
20 out. He would say, I got 55 per cent of exact matches. I'm leaving out
21 the rest but I have to --"
22 And then you were interrupted and then you continued: "... make
23 a little introduction. The Prosecutor is asking me bit by bit not the
24 whole. The reference here is to the comparison of census and voters'
25 registers. These two lists do not contain the same data but they would
1 have one thing in common: The MB number. The voters' register does not
2 have the name of father and the ethnicity. It does contain name and
3 surname, date of birth and the MB number where it exists. The census
4 contains the MB number if it's good, the date of birth, ethnicity, name,
5 surname, and father's name ..."
6 And then you were interrupted.
7 And then you continued: "... if you go about matching -- I have
8 to explain this because this is a special system of matching ..."
9 And then you were interrupted.
10 And then you continued: "Judge, Your Honour, if they don't
11 contain the same data, there could be two stages of matching for the same
12 matching. I took the MB number from the voters' register. I have to
13 explain this because we have a misunderstanding here. The Prosecutor
14 doesn't understand me. If you take the MB number from the voters'
15 register, and by that number you find Svetlana Radovanovic ..."
16 And then you were interrupted and we don't have the rest of your
17 explanation. Could you please try to complete your explanation.
18 A. Although the OTP experts do not explain it directly, they only
19 say when comparing the voters' register and the census as specified in
20 the methodology applied to the Slobodan Milosevic case report, they
21 engage in several steps. The several steps do not necessarily refer to
22 the key used for the matching but to the difference between the
23 characteristics of the census, on the one hand, and the voters' register
24 on the other.
25 The voters' register does not contain the name of father and
1 ethnicity. It does contain first name, last name and an MB number.
2 The census contains the first name, father's name, last name, and
3 ethnicity, and there may or may not be an MB number.
4 If they match according to the correct MB without saying there
5 are 60 per cent of correct MBs in the census and in the register, then if
6 they only rely on the MB, that is to say, exclusively on numbers
7 amounting to the best way of matching under the condition, then the MB
8 numbers are correct, then they come up with real persons such as
9 Svetlana Radovanovic. If her number on the voters' register is correct,
10 it will match the same MB number, if correct, in the census. And then
11 they have this Svetlana Radovanovic whose father's name is Dragan born on
12 this and that date and her ethnicity is as follows. If the MB is
13 incorrect, they can look for Svetlana Radovanovic according to her year
14 or date of birth. They may find her or not and then they can shorten and
15 say let's just take the year not the whole date. Then they can get
16 certain overlaps or matches which are not direct because they will have a
17 number of names, different people who shared the name of Svetlana, last
18 name Radovanovic and who were perhaps born in the same year. Then out of
19 the several people, they need to choose the Svetlana that they need.
20 Once all that is done, they can say, This part that we think is a match
21 will no longer be matched because according to these elements we cannot
22 find them all.
23 So that's the statistics I referred to. They could have said,
24 according to the first criterion, we matched 20 per cent, then we matched
25 10 per cent and then the 30 per cent were done according to the first
1 criterion and after the several steps we have undertaken, we will no
2 longer be using them in the further matching process.
3 The matching process as specified according to Dr. Tabeau in
4 terms of the steps they took, i.e., according to the rules provided by
5 Dr. Brunborg with Dr. Tabeau being the co-author, well, I have to make a
6 correction now because I'm not certain about this as it is not explained
7 anywhere. When it says five it doesn't mean it refers to the fifth
8 rule alone but it may well be a combination. It may refer only to the IQ
9 value number 5. Now when taking into account all those rules 1 through 5
10 because Dr. Brunborg obviously says that values 5 and 3 are considered
11 good matches, then by using those, they matched some 1.5 million voters
12 against the census. But let me remind you that there are 2.7 million
13 voters as Dr. Brunborg specified in the report. And yesterday the
14 Prosecutor showed me the precise figures for the level of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina which are 2.65 or so million. If you accept these
16 criteria and match them to come up with the figure of 1.5, it is no
17 longer, 70 -- 79.5 per cent compared to the overall voters' register. It
18 is only 50-plus per cent.
19 So from the assertion that the percentage is 79, we go down to
20 the lower figure but they give a certain probability greater than 2, for
21 example, leaving out again the statistics of comparison. Why? Because
22 it displays the level of -- or -- or amount of combinations they have
23 relied upon.
24 That is what I tried to explain yesterday.
25 Q. Now, if we can move to another part, at transcript page 38353,
1 you had started answering the following question which I will read,
2 starting at line 6: "So my question to you is: It is not unique or rare
3 for statisticians to encounter an error rate in the underlying raw data
4 that is well in excess of 5 per cent; correct?"
5 "A. They have to deal with where the error is 5 per cent but the
6 question is how they publish all of that. They do all of that at
7 aggregate level. They never do that at individual level. And you see
8 here statistics, as he says, I match such and such, and what is right so
9 on and so forth, and I cannot match such and such a number as Dr. Tabeau
10 says she cannot, the census of the US or any European country and this
11 method of matching. Your expert, Dr. Tabeau, also explains that in the
12 methodology provided for the report in the Mladic case, and she says
13 hardly any country, if any, she doesn't say which one does it, rarely
14 carries out matching at individual levels as far as population censuses
15 are concerned. Please, of course, I'm paraphrasing. I cannot say
16 exactly but I can bring it in later because data protection is very
17 important there. So it's done according to..."
18 And then you were not allowed to finish.
19 So could you please explain for us the entirety of your answer so
20 that we have the benefit of the same in the record.
21 A. It is done at certain levels. For example, an aggregate whole
22 need not cover an entire country but maybe a part of it. It is practice
23 in all developed countries as well as some others for the simple reason
24 that individual data must never be published. Nothing is done at an
25 individual level because it amounts to official secret. Such data is
1 secret. When something like that is done in the US and the most
2 developed countries, it is precisely regulated.
3 Dr. Tabeau says plainly in the rest of the paragraph that they
4 opted for the individual level.
5 Q. And my final area is in relation to something from today's
6 transcript at temporary transcript page 11, line 7 and onward, I will
7 read that from the screen so that we have that.
8 You were asked a question by Judge Fluegge from line 7 onwards
9 and I quote: "May I put one question to the witness, please.
10 "You said, 'I take over the reports of your experts.' This is
11 plural. But you didn't take over the report of 2013. Do you agree on
12 that? You ignored that."
13 You answered as follows: "No, I reviewed it. In it, the numbers
14 just explained the one that they got as identified for the ICMP but both
15 Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau wrote this report from which I took this
16 data. And now have you taken into account the following? I display
17 everything that they found, the missing, the dead, et cetera. There's no
18 wish to diminish the number. Within this number of the dead and the
19 missing, they are just speaking of the increase in the number of dead
20 persons, and I'm not channelling that. I'm showing how it is according
21 to their report" --
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that it was meant that I'm not
23 challenging that.
24 MR. IVETIC: I believe so. But I'm reading as it is.
25 JUDGE ORIE: For the full understanding of it --
1 MR. IVETIC: I agree.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. And then Judge Fluegge said something that is not recorded.
5 And then you went on to say, madam: "Then all the missing are
7 And then Judge Fluegge asked a second question: "Again, going
8 far beyond the scope of my question, I'm just stating that you, you even
9 said I reviewed the 2013 report but then you didn't take that into
10 account. You ignored the figures. Do you" -- and I think Your Honour
11 said know the meaning of an update?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is what I said.
13 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
14 Q. And then the answer that you gave, madam, is: "I do but I did
15 not ignore the figures. Please do pay attention to the following." And
16 that's where we were not able to hear the remainder of your answer.
17 Could you explain now your answer in full.
18 A. I wanted to say that I'm trying to show that the methodology used
19 by the OTP experts is invalid. I'm not here to dispute the figures
20 making them less or more. I assert that the figures are based on a
21 methodology which is not recognised in the profession and in science but
22 on an adjusted methodology which was suitable for the OTP experts. I
23 never disputed the figures. I dispute the methodology. I consulted all
24 the reports when I wanted to provide examples, such as the ones that the
25 OTP referred to recently during their examination in the table, I
1 included all that was found on their list without going into whether
2 there are still some people missing there or if they're all dead. That
3 is not my job here. I'm trying to explain that the methodology that was
4 applied exists only in the demographic unit of the The Hague Tribunal and
5 no where else in the professional and scientific world.
6 Q. Professor Radovanovic, on behalf of my client and the rest of the
7 time I thank you for answering all my questions this last week.
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I have nothing further in re-direct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take a break, Judge Moloto has a question.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm talking advantage of this document that's on
11 the screen.
12 Earlier today you explained when Mr. Ivetic asked you what DEM2T
13 means. Can you tell us what JMBG means?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The JMBG is short for unique
17 identification citizen number. All citizens of the former Yugoslavia
18 under the 1982 or 1983 law were assigned a JMBG. The number contains 13
19 digits. The first seven correspond to the date of birth. What follows
20 is the figure indicating an area; for example, for Serbia, it is 7. It
21 is followed by three digits determining the sex. The last digit is a
22 control digit. It is used to prevent a case in which two people would
23 share the same JMBG. The unique number is unique. Even if there are
24 people with same first and last name and date of birth their MB is not
25 the same. It is differentiated according to the other characteristics.
1 Since 1982, every person born had to be assigned an MB and only
2 then was the person recorded in the register of births.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... and what does
4 MB mean? Very briefly.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] MB is used by Dr. Brunborg. It
6 doesn't mean anything, in particular. I think though that he confused
7 things, and the MB may be what he referred to when referring to the first
8 seven digits.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you so
10 much. If it means nothing. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'd like to see you back at
13 Mr. File, could you give us an indication as -- I do not know
14 whether the next witness is on stand by or not.
15 MR. IVETIC: He is on stand by, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But before we let him wait for another hour,
17 I'd like to know what your expectations are.
18 MR. FILE: I would expect to take 20 minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 20 minutes. Then I think it's still worthwhile to
20 have the witness remaining on stand by.
21 We'll take a break, and we'll resume at 1.30.
22 --- Recess taken at 1.09 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
1 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Could we have D344, please.
3 Further cross-examination by Mr. File:
4 Q. So here you will see this July 2008 memo that we were discussing
5 before regarding the 220 names.
6 If we go to page 2 at the bottom, please.
7 You see it says: "A total" -- it may be the next page in the
9 It says -- this is in the second full paragraph towards the top
10 of the B/C/S version: "A total of 220 ABiH records for those matched
11 (5.371) with the OTP list have inconsistent DOD. A complete overview of
12 the 220 inconsistent cases is attached in Annex 2 to this memorandum. Of
13 the 220 inconsistent cases, 140 have been confirmed as identified and
14 related to the Srebrenica grave-sites by the ICMP (according to the
15 July 2008 update);
16 "127 have been corrected by the FBH Ministry of Defence in 2003
17 in response to the OTP request for clarification of a number of
18 inconsistent ABiH records identified by the DU" - Demographics Unit -
19 "prior to and in the course of 2003 ..."
20 You see that text?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. FILE: And, for the record, Your Honour, I believe it was
23 stated in the transcript, page 53 that there may be 80 corrections, but I
24 think this clarifies the number of corrections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Could we just move to the first
1 page for a second again. I'd like to ...
2 Yes, thank you.
3 MR. FILE: Could we go to page 5, please, not to be broadcast. I
4 think we can use just the English version.
5 Q. So here we see this table. In the upper right-hand side, the
6 last column, it says "ICMP grave-site (July 2008)."
7 So it's clear that this information comes from as recent as
8 July 2008; right?
9 A. ICMP provided this data in 2008, that's what we see here.
10 Q. Now, I'd like to direct your attention to -- and this, by the
11 way, this is the same table that exists as D411 and this page was
12 formerly page 97 of P1900, the Srebrenica report until that was redacted
13 and replaced with the entirety of D411. I just want to put that on the
15 Can I direct your attention to almost exactly the middle of this
16 page. We're not going to use the names. And you'll see in there someone
17 with a date of birth from 4th of February, 402927. 4th of February, 1927
18 date of birth. Do you see next to that it says "the date of death
19 military" --
20 A. No, I can't find it. Just a second. How many numbers down the
21 line, down this column?
22 Q. It's approximately 20. It's almost -- it's just above the middle
23 of the page.
24 MR. IVETIC: 23.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we see an entry POD corrected, Potocari.
1 It's really in the middle of the page. Where you see Potocari.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. I do.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... the line we
5 are talking about.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 4 February 1927.
7 MR. FILE:
8 Q. And -- yes. And next to that you have the military date of death
9 as 1st of January, 1994. Pardon me, 10th of January, 1994. And then
10 next to that you see the date of death corrected says: 12th of July,
11 1995; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now if we could go to D1211, not to be broadcast, page 37 in
14 English, page 36 in B/C/S.
15 You see that individual listed as the second person listed on
16 this table in your report?
17 A. I see it. That's the one. I have no reason to challenge it.
18 Q. And you see in the right-hand column for date of death you've put
19 1st of January, 1994; correct?
20 A. Yes, 1st January 1994. That's written.
21 Q. So you decided not to put the corrected date. You put the
22 original date instead.
23 A. No. A moment ago, you showed that these corrections were
24 supplied in 2008, and I used a list from 2009. So the list of victims
25 presented by Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau from 2009 contain this person.
1 I didn't change or decide anything. And this comparison I made with
2 DEM2T and the ABiH records. I made it when I received the material.
3 When I wrote 1st of the 10th, it's an honest mistake. I'm not trying to
4 change anything or change the material. I have nothing to gain by
5 writing 10th of the 1st instead of 1st of the 1st.
6 Q. Ms. Radovanovic, you did not get the date of death 1.1.1994 from
7 the Prosecution list. You got it from the table that we were just
8 looking at. That table was excerpted and included in Exhibit P1900 which
9 was one of the reports that you looked at for this case.
10 A. I did these matchings before 2008. After that, there is no
11 complete list corrected or not corrected that I would treat and say, I'll
12 do it deliberately. These matchings were not done in 2009 or 2011 so
13 that you could say that I made something up in 2007, et cetera. This
14 data from 2007 and 2008 when I made the matchings were in the BH army
15 list and in the DEM2T. DEM2T, as I explained earlier is an original
16 document made by the statistics.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- Mr. Ivetic is on his feet.
19 MR. IVETIC: Temporary transcript line [sic] 29, lines 2 through
20 4 the answers of the witness were clearly that she did the pairing in
21 2006 and 2007. Therefore, the question as phrased by Prosecution counsel
22 misstates the evidence on record.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: There is never any line 29. Can you tell us the
24 correct line?
25 MR. IVETIC: Page 29, line 2 through 4.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please continue, Mr. File.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. We can probably be even clearer. The table we were just looking
5 at with the list of 220 names, did you look at that table when you were
6 preparing this report?
7 A. I don't understand the question. Did I look at that table when I
8 was preparing my report? Is that the question?
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... yes.
10 A. I looked at it.
11 Q. And you did not check to see if there was a corrected date of
12 death for any of the people in your table.
13 A. Based on what could I have checked? Just because your expert
14 says so. Your expert does not provide any document to corroborate it,
15 saying we have received this concerning this and that person as evidence
16 that this information is correct. I would have to take the expert at
17 their word. I want to believe the expert, but I would have to assume
18 that this correction was made by the expert based on some documents
19 supplied to them by the BH army. That documentation was not attached to
20 the report.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
22 MR. FILE: We're going to look at -- on Sanction at P2795.
23 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, you indicated that you would 15 minutes
24 approximately and the next witness is waiting. Could you please try to
25 wind up quickly.
1 MR. FILE: I think I said 20 minutes. And I will.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If I --
3 MR. FILE: Oh, I --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the document is under seal.
5 MR. FILE: It is. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Could we look at row 138.
7 Q. Here in this row you'll see the same person we were just talking
8 about; right?
9 MR. IVETIC: There's no translation on the B/C/S, I'm told.
10 MR. FILE: I will ask it again.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you ask it again.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. Here on this row, you see the person we were just talking about;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you see information contained in column E; correct?
17 A. I see the information in which grave this person was found.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. Is that what you're asking? I see that. But I don't see
20 anywhere information confirming that the person was killed in 1995.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please limit yourself to what Mr. File asked you
22 whether you saw it.
23 Please, next question, Mr. File. No, no, wait for the next
25 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please wait for the next question. You've
2 confirmed what you saw, what you didn't see is at this moment not what
3 Mr. File is asking.
4 MR. FILE:
5 Q. So my final question relates to this. At transcript page 51,
6 there was a discussion of another individual on this list of 220 names
7 who was exhumed from the Liplje 2 grave. The evidence in this case,
8 specifically P1987, which is the Dusan Janc report that we discussed
9 yesterday in the context of Serbian surface remains, at page 4 in the
10 English of that report, page 5 B/C/S, it shows that in the Liplje 2
11 grave, 172 individuals have been identified after being exhumed as of
12 April 2013. And at page 75 in the English it shows that this grave-site
13 associated with the Petkovci dam primary grave-site. Were you aware of
14 any of this information?
15 A. I did not consult the material you are citing and I didn't know
16 it was related to Petkovci. But could you please tell me: What kind of
17 list is this? Who provided it? The one we're looking at now.
18 MR. FILE: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
19 MR. IVETIC: Just one or two arising from that. If we can --
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's after --
21 MR. IVETIC: Oh, Your Honour, I apologise.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Otherwise we would have a fifth and a sixth
23 round, Mr. Ivetic, and that would make your next witness wait for a long
25 Ms. Radovanovic, this concludes your testimony in this court.
1 I'd like to thank you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and
2 for having answered the questions to you by the parties and by the Bench.
3 Sometimes even a little bit more than that. I wish you a safe return
4 home again.
5 You may follow the usher.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And I apologise to the
7 Chamber if I got on your nerves by talking too much.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You did not.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you escort the next witness into
11 the courtroom.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 MR. FILE: May I be excused, Your Honour. Pardon me, may I be
14 excused, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You are excused, Mr. File.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: For the next witness, I think it's a continued
19 If any lecterns have be positioned, then this is the right time
20 to do it.
21 Mr. Lukic, you do without?
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak. Mr. Tusevljak,
24 unfortunately, the -- we -- you had to wait for quite a long time and
25 we'll not spend for time with you than a little bit over 15 minutes
1 today. May I remind you that you are still by the solemn declaration
2 you've given at the beginning of your testimony, that you'll speak the
3 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And Mr. Lukic will --
4 Mr. Sasa Lukic will now continue his examination-in-chief.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: SIMO TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. S. Lukic: [Continued]
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Tusevljak.
11 A. Good day.
12 Q. At the beginning of your testimony, you told us where your office
13 was at the beginning of the war. Could you repeat that.
14 A. My office was in Lukavica at the beginning of the war.
15 Q. After that?
16 A. At Ilidza.
17 Q. How far was your office, that is to say, the MUP building from
18 the front line?
19 A. About ... about 250 metres.
20 Q. Did the BH army forces fire on that building?
21 A. Yes, on many occasions while we were at Lukavica as when we were
22 at Ilidza.
23 Q. Can you tell us from which weapons?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
25 MS. EDGERTON: I know we only have 15 minutes but that question
1 that was just asked and answered was leading but I just want to put a
2 marker down that my friend could maybe keep an eye on this as he
4 JUDGE ORIE: The marker is there.
5 Please continue, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. S. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Do you know the locations from which fire was
8 opened at the MUP building in Ilidza?
9 A. From Butmir and Hrasnica and Sokolovic Kolonija.
10 Q. From which features or buildings, if you know?
11 A. If we're talking about the line on the other side, all these
12 features were higher than the buildings at Ilidza in our neighbourhood.
13 Q. If we're talking about Hrasnica, can you tell us which features
14 those would be.
15 A. From what we know, from Hrasnica, they opened fire from the
16 primary school Aleksa Santic and the other buildings that were high. And
17 from Hrasnica, fire was opened at Ilidza from artillery and mortars.
18 Q. Please do answer these questions a bit more slowly.
19 Could you tell us how come you came to this information?
20 A. We got that information from the members of the army because they
21 informed us and we also know about these locations because persons of
22 Serb ethnicity who came to Ilidza from these areas and who were
23 interviewed indicated the locations from which the firing was coming.
24 Q. Apart from the MUP building in Ilidza, what other buildings were
25 under attack by the armed forces of BH?
1 A. The entire territory of Ilidza was fired at. All buildings, all
2 streets, all institutions, all facilities were under artillery fire and
3 wherever possible sniper fire too, and also fire coming from light
4 weaponry, infantry weapons.
5 Q. Can you give us examples of these buildings.
6 A. Since I was head of the crime prevention police, the operatives
7 who were in my department whose supervisor I was, they went out for
8 on-site investigations. There were a lot of casualties there. There was
9 a lot of material damage there where these shells fell, in the area of
10 the secondary school that was close to the front line in Ilidza. Then
11 bus-stops, and the medical centre was shelled, the Zica hospital was
12 shelled and many other residential buildings.
13 Q. If you would observe a location that these buildings were fired
14 at - I'm referring to the members the MUP, the police - what kind of
15 measures would you taken then?
16 A. We would inform the command of the Ilidza Brigade, that is to
17 say, the army. We did not have the possibility to fire at the other
18 side. So the army was notified, and also these observers of the UN peace
19 mission, through our liaison officers.
20 Q. How did the members of the Army of Republika Srpska neutralise
21 those firing points?
22 A. Probably as one does in war, by weaponry and --
23 MS. EDGERTON: [Previous translation continues] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
25 MS. EDGERTON: That's another leading question, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you refrain from leading, Mr. Lukic. And
2 perhaps rephrase that question, although partly answered already.
3 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, thank you. I'll do my best.
4 Q. [Interpretation] What was the position of Ilidza at that time?
5 From how many sides was it surrounded by members of the BH army?
6 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, another one, yeah.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, another one. We're not here on a course,
8 Mr. Lukic. We are here in the examination-in-chief of a witness. Would
9 you please not forget about what was in the course, but, rather, practice
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. S. LUKIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. [Interpretation] The Ilidza Brigade, which units was it facing at
14 the front line?
15 A. On the other side, there were units of the Army of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina. It was the 1st Sarajevo Corps on one side and on the other
17 side there was, I think, the 3rd Corps that covered the Doboj region.
18 That is to say, there were BH army members on two sides, and on the third
19 side members of the HVO. These are the lines towards Kiseljak.
20 Q. Thank you. You said what the situation was like at Ilidza. What
21 about the other municipalities, the Sarajevo municipalities that were
22 under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska?
23 A. There are two parts of Serb territory. Part of Serb territory is
24 Hadzici, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca, Ilijas and they were on the western
25 side of the Sarajevo field and then this other territory, under VRS
1 control or Serb authority's control and that is Novo Sarajevo, part of
2 municipality of Novi Grad and also part of the municipality of Ilidza.
3 That was in that area that Hrasnica, Butmir, Sokolovic Kolonija cut
4 through it.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
6 be asked to slow down.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dobrinje, Mojmilo. So divided into
8 two parts.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are invited to slow down. Otherwise
10 part of your words might be lost.
11 Please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So there are two parts of the
13 territory of the city of Sarajevo. As I already mentioned, five
14 municipalities were at the lower part and then there were these three
15 other municipalities in the upper part. So it was divided into two
17 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Who had under their control the part of Sarajevo that was called
20 A. Part of Grbavica was under the control of the VRS or, rather, the
21 Serb authorities.
22 Q. Which part of Grbavica?
23 A. Well, if I had a map here, I could show you that from one street
24 to the other. And it is -- I mean, if we look down the Miljacka river,
25 it's on the left-hand side, underneath Vrbanja Bridge, all the way up to
1 the Bridge of Brotherhood and Unity.
2 MR. S. LUKIC: Can we see now video 1D06006C.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MR. S. LUKIC: Can we stop here, please.
5 Q. [Interpretation] We saw the beginning of this video-clip. Can
6 you tell us which part of town this is.
7 A. This is Grbavica, because I was in Grbavica very often during the
8 war and otherwise I do know the entire area of Sarajevo. I worked as a
9 policeman in Sarajevo before the war during the war, after the war, so I
10 see clearly that this is the neighbourhood of Grbavica.
11 MR. S. LUKIC: Can we continue, please.
12 [Video-clip played]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are we supposed to ignore the sound
14 or ...
15 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, of course, not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I mean, the spoken words, not perhaps the
17 sounds which doesn't need translation, but the comment spoken by the
18 broadcast system. Should we pay attention to that?
19 MR. S. LUKIC: No, that's -- that irrelevant.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That's irrelevant, so we don't need any translation
21 of comments.
22 MR. S. LUKIC: Just the sound.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Just the sound. Not words spoken by the broadcast
25 Then please proceed.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. S. LUKIC: We can stop here.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Since the sound doesn't matter for what we saw
4 just now, I would like to ask you also to disregard what you heard when
5 this video-clip was played.
6 You told us that you meant that you recognised this as Grbavica,
7 part of Sarajevo?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Out of these buildings that were shown in the video just now, how
10 far away is the front line?
11 A. Approximately 200 to 300 metres, maximum. Somewhere it's perhaps
12 even less.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Lukic,
14 there is a bit of a problem. I mean, the comment you say is irrelevant.
15 At the same time but perhaps I should be clear to that, the witness
16 listens to it and could be guided by it, be influenced by it, and if you
17 later say you should ignore it, that is not the proper way. Of course,
18 what you should have done is to switch off the sound entirely but then,
19 of course, we would have lost also the running of the children, et
21 So, one way or another, this is not a very satisfactory situation
22 you have created, but for the time being, since Ms. Edgerton was not on
23 her feet, let's move on for the time being. And if you are talking about
24 buildings, how far they are, that, of course, would then cover all the
25 buildings and I have seen at least six or seven already.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. S. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll try to rephrase
3 my question.
4 Q. From the street that was filmed with this camera, how far away is
5 the front line?
6 A. As I've already said, 200 to 300 metres. You see, you can
7 disregard anything that was heard in these videos because I saw a lot of
8 this during the course of my work.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, there's no need to tell us what we could
11 Mr. Lukic, I'm also looking at the clock. I see that the clip is
12 almost at its end. Unless you could promise us that in one or two
13 minutes we'll be fished. Otherwise, we would wait until Monday.
14 MR. S. LUKIC: That's not possible.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll wait until Monday. No problem. It is
16 better to be realistic than to ...
17 Mr. Tusevljak, and I must perhaps -- well, perhaps not correct
18 myself, but be more precise, when I said good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak, I
19 should have made clear that it's Mr. Simo Tusevljak who is known as
20 (redacted) in this case, and not any other Mr. Tusevljak.
21 MR. S. LUKIC: I'm sorry, there is no translation in B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then, I'll say again what I just -- it's there?
23 I should have been more precise when I said good afternoon,
24 Mr. Tusevljak. I should have made it clear that I said good afternoon to
25 Mr. Simo Tusevljak, who is known as (redacted) in this case and not any other
1 Mr. Tusevljak.
2 Having put this on the record.
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, yesterday you had indicated we should
4 not use GRM numbers.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are right. At least not the old ones. I
6 stand corrected for that, and I'm asking for a redaction as far as the
7 number is concerned.
8 We adjourn for the day, and we'll not resume until Monday.
9 Mr. Tusevljak, therefore, we'd like to see back on Monday, the 31st of
10 August, 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom, I. You are invited
11 to follow the usher, but not until after I have instructed you that
12 should not speak or communicate in whatever way, as you have not done in
13 the past few months, not to communicate or speak with anyone about your
14 testimony, whether it is given today or earlier in July or still to be
15 given next week.
16 If that is clear to you, you may follow the usher.
17 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume Monday, the
20 31st of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 31st day of August,
23 2015, at 9.30 a.m.