Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 43655

 1                           Tuesday, 26 April 2016

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             No preliminaries were announced.  Therefore, we'll wait for the

12     witness to enter the courtroom.

13             Yes, Mr. File.

14             MR. FILE:  Just one small point, Your Honour.  Yesterday, D1464

15     was admitted into evidence, and I believe it should be under seal due to

16     the personal identifying information inside.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we'll keep on the safe side --

18             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah, that's fine, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, we'll keep on the safe side, and

20     therefore D1464 is under seal and not a public exhibit any longer.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

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

25     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the


Page 43656

 1     beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,

 2     and nothing but the truth.  Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination.

 3             Please proceed.

 4                           WITNESS:  SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]

 5                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 6                           Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

 7        Q.   Good morning, Professor.

 8        A.   Good morning.

 9        Q.   We left off yesterday, and I'd like to call up again but not

10     broadcast, D1464, under seal.  And if need be, I think there's still a

11     hard copy in the possession of the usher.  And now we have the English on

12     our screens.

13             Yesterday we talked about this column that says new ethnicity and

14     has the value 5 which you indicated was for the Bosnian Muslims.  Whose

15     ethnicity is it that is being reflected in this column?  Which of the two

16     individuals in each -- which of the two individuals, one under the ICRC

17     and one under the population census, is reflected in this column as to

18     ethnicity?

19        A.   As ethnicity figures only in the document called the population

20     census and in the ICRC, with which this document is compared, ethnicity

21     does not figure, then the ethnicity is taken over from the population

22     census.  I don't think that Dr. Tabeau took some other ethnicity as a

23     category, especially as she says in her methodology that she took over

24     ethnicities from the population census.

25        Q.   And --

Page 43657

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, perhaps I briefly ask.

 2             What is new about the ethnicity?  Why is it new ethnicity instead

 3     of just ethnicity?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Dr. Tabeau could explain that

 5     better.  I can only assume that she placed new ethnicity because there is

 6     no ethnicity as a category in the ICRC database, and she develops her

 7     information in view of ethnicity and then applies that to the data

 8     received from the ICRC.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

10             MR. IVETIC:

11        Q.   And the column that says "matched," and yesterday you indicated

12     the value 1 indicates that a match has been declared.  What, in your

13     opinion, is being matched?

14        A.   Well, the word "match" implies a correspondence.  When you apply

15     the method called matching, then everything depends on the criteria that

16     you set out for the correspondence.  If you want to be sure, that is to

17     say that the degree of likelihood that the person is one and the same,

18     then you select several elements by which the persons would correspond

19     and for whom you can claim with a greater degree of likelihood that you

20     have found one and the same person in two different sources.

21             In other words, the person who is doing the matching establishes

22     the key for it, and the key must include a certain number of elements.

23     The more elements there are, the likelihood is closer to number 1 that

24     two items from two different sources will correspond.  The fewer the

25     number of elements, the likelihood is smaller, and the likelihood is

Page 43658

 1     within the range from 0 to 1, so you can say that that the likelihood is

 2     very close to 1, and I can claim with a high degree of probability that

 3     this is one and the same person.

 4             The fewer the number of elements, you then have to make

 5     calculations.  You have to review everything personally to draw some

 6     conclusions to say, yes, it is one and the same person, it could be, it

 7     may be, and so on and so forth.

 8        Q.   Okay.  I'd like --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Can I ask one additional question.

10             If here in this table you say the match is a 1 and not a 0, is

11     that exclusively on the basis what you've presented here in the ICRC 2009

12     and in the population census, or are other elements considered by Tabeau

13     as well when she concluded that it's a positive match?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, I took out examples

15     of what Dr. Tabeau designated as matches.  Now, whether she took into

16     account others or not, there is no footnote where she would indicate what

17     elements she took into account.  But in the internal database, there is a

18     column entitled "combinations" without an explanation of what that

19     implies.  So Dr. Tabeau could specify that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  So the emphasis that was laid yesterday on the fact

21     that people with the same family name, same surname, and same father's

22     name might be different persons, and that's all we see at this moment,

23     together with the date of birth, which is different, we do not know

24     exactly what it was that Tabeau may conclude that this was a match?  It's

25     not visible in this table?

Page 43659

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

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   Yesterday you identified the 2005 ICRC missing persons list as

 6     something you did not receive.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  And I'd like now to call up P7449 in e-court, which

 8     is Dr. Tabeau's report as to Tomasica, and I'd like to look at page 2, I

 9     believe, in both languages.  And again, we need page 2 in English as

10     well.

11        Q.   On the Serbian at the bottom of the page, and in the English it's

12     towards the bottom of the page from the -- I would say about two-thirds

13     of the way down, we see a listing of sources that Dr. Tabeau says she

14     used for the report.  And under the first item, she has listed the 2009

15     edition of the ICRC list.  If Dr. Tabeau indicates that she used the 2009

16     ICRC list as a source, why were you interested in the 2005 list, instead

17     of the 2009 list?

18        A.   Because on the following page of the same report she says that

19     she did everything on the basis of the census from 2005.  So here she

20     cites the source of 2009 ICRC, but on the following page she explains

21     that it's rather not 2009 but 2005.

22        Q.   And just to clarify something that may be a translation issue,

23     you are recorded as saying:

24             "Because on the following page of the same report she says that

25     she did everything on the basis of the census from 2005."

Page 43660

 1             Is that what you said or was something else said?

 2        A.   No, no.  There is no population census from 2005.  That is the

 3     ICRC list from 2005.

 4        Q.   And if we could turn to the next page in both languages of

 5     Dr. Tabeau's report, and if we could focus on the second paragraph under

 6     the heading of "2.1 Missing Persons' Records of ICRC," and we see here

 7     Dr. Tabeau says:

 8             "The 2005 ICRC list of missing persons for all of Bosnia and

 9     Herzegovina used for this report was provided directly by the Geneva

10     office of the ICRC on 17 August 2005.  The data was arranged in five

11     groups, in total 22.212 records, of which 486 were no more relevant."

12             What you would have to say about this, based upon this selection?

13        A.   Well, Dr. Tabeau says clearly the ICRC list of missing persons

14     from 2005 used for this report.  That is to say, the report on Tomasica.

15        Q.   And yesterday and today we've talked a little bit in passing of

16     the integrated mortality database.  I want to return to the integrated

17     mortality database and ask you:  Did you see sources identified in that

18     database which are regularly used in demography as to the investigation

19     of mortality?

20        A.   I reviewed the database that I received and noted there were ten

21     sources.  Of those ten sources, only one is used in the official

22     statistical research, and that's the database of births.  I did not

23     really review in detail another database that has 10.000 items, but I

24     also didn't find there a single report from the register of births.

25        Q.   What are the sources that are regularly used in the field of

Page 43661

 1     professional academic and scientific demography as to the investigation

 2     of mortality?

 3        A.   The source for investigating mortality are the registers of

 4     death.  For someone to be entered in the register of death, two documents

 5     need to exist.  One is called a certificate of death and it's signed by a

 6     forensic doctor stating cause of death, and in most cases that happens

 7     when death occurs naturally.  In violent deaths as well, but when it's

 8     known when and under what circumstances somebody died.

 9             In the situation in which we are working here, or when this is

10     unknown, the court issues a decision and declares a person dead.  The

11     registrar may enter in the registry of death only a person for whom a

12     certificate of death or a court decision that he is declared -- that he

13     or she is declared dead has been issued.  And therefore, documents are

14     issued from the register of death later on about the deceased person.

15     These are official state documents and official sources for statistics

16     pertaining to deaths.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one clarification question to you,

18     Ms. Radovanovic.

19             In your previous answer, you were referring to another database

20     that has 10.000 items, which you didn't review in detail.  Can you give a

21     little bit more information?  What kind of database is that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the database on exhumed

23     persons, which contains the exact number of the exhumed persons, from

24     which grave they were exhumed, and so on.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Who compiled this database?

Page 43662

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Then I repeat.  Who compiled this database with

 3     10.000 items?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that it was compiled by

 5     Dr. Tabeau on the basis of some information that she received from

 6     certain institutions responsible for exhumations.  I also suppose that

 7     the institution in question is the ICMP.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That means you really don't know exactly what

 9     list you didn't review.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know exactly why I did not review

11     it, but it only reads database on exhumed persons, and this is a type of

12     information provided by ICMP.  No databases has footnotes that would

13     point to specific sources.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I also have a question.

16             Madam, when you were answering the question on investigating

17     methodology, at page 7, line 3, you said:

18             "For someone to be entered in the register of death, two

19     documents need to exist.  One is called a certificate of death..."

20             What is the other one?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps the interpretation wasn't

22     correct.  No one can be entered in the register of deaths.  According to

23     the law, a register of deaths needs to exist.  It is a state document

24     which is kept in accordance with the Law on Registers of Deaths and

25     Births by designated officials.

Page 43663

 1             The registry of deaths includes all persons who died.  They are

 2     entered in it.  And there is a new register for death for every year and

 3     covers the period from 1st of January to 31st of December of any given

 4     year.

 5             The registrar may only enter into this register of deaths the

 6     persons for whom a following document exists:  A certificate of death

 7     signed by a forensic medical officer, or a decision of a court to the

 8     effect that the court has declared the specific person dead.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Either/or, not both documents.  Thank you so much.

10             MR. IVETIC:  If we could turn back a page in Dr. Tabeau's report

11     back to page 2.

12        Q.   And I'd like to look at what Dr. Tabeau has written in the middle

13     of the third paragraph from the top that starts off with:

14             "The fate of the victims was tracked down by pursuing the logic

15     and chronology of the events:  First the victim disappearance records

16     were studied, to be followed by their death records.  Unfortunately,

17     among the known death cases, Tomasica victims were not reported, and thus

18     exhumation records had to be consulted and analysed, including the victim

19     autopsies, other post-mortem examination records of the remains, and

20     their DNA identification.  The sources on the missing exhumation

21     identification were cross-referenced with each other, compared and

22     analysed in an attempt to produce a reliable proof of death of the

23     Tomasica victims.  The resulting Tomasica victim list, comprising victim

24     personal, disappearance, exhumation and identification details is

25     attached in Annex 1 to this report.  The POD list constitutes the core of

Page 43664

 1     the report and the reference for any conclusions drawn regarding the

 2     number [sic] of victims, their causes of death, basic demographic

 3     characteristics, and time and place of disappearance."

 4             Professor, how does this compare to what is looked at in

 5     investigating mortality in demographic scientific work?  Are these

 6     sources used?

 7        A.   No.  I have said that the only source, the only one that's

 8     official is the registry of births and deaths; that is, the certificate

 9     of death or a court decision declaring a specific person dead.

10        Q.   And if we could turn to page 7 in the English in this same

11     report, and it will be page 9 in the Serbian, and at the bottom of the

12     page in English, and it's at the top of the page in the Serbian,

13     Dr. Tabeau lists various records of identification and autopsy of the

14     Bosnia and Herzegovina prosecutor's office.

15             Are the items that are listed here, and on the next page in

16     English but on the same page in Serbian, are these sources compatible

17     with the sources that would be used in the scientific study of mortality

18     in demographics?

19        A.   No, none of these sources is used in scientific research because

20     they are not official sources.

21        Q.   Is Dr. Tabeau, as a demographer, competent to analyse proof and

22     cause of death according to the generally accepted principles of

23     demography?

24        A.   Well, as it is known in demography what is a source in terms of

25     mortality, a demographer does not try to prove anyone's death.  He or she

Page 43665

 1     just finds and takes over the information about persons whose death has

 2     already been established.  So in official scientific studies, I haven't

 3     had an occasion to see something like this.  I cannot assert that that

 4     doesn't exist, but it's a fact that a demographer does not deal in

 5     establishing or proving anyone's death, even if there are documents that

 6     are available on the basis of which this can be proved, because death is

 7     proved the very moment when someone is entered in the register of deaths.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you the following.  Was -- were the

 9     register of death, were they fully up to date?  That means comprising

10     most -- all or most of persons who had disappeared at the time?  I mean,

11     was it feasible to work on the basis of what you call official

12     demography?  Were those sources completely available?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was possible to work, and

14     Dr. Tabeau already was using the registers of deaths from Mostar.  Now

15     whether they include all persons who are assumed to be dead, I don't

16     know.  But it's a fact that persons that you can claim 100 per cent are

17     dead and have been identified are included.  It's known exactly who they

18     are, where they are from, their dates of birth, and so on.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's be very practical.  From the missing persons

20     in Prijedor area, for how many was it formally established in the

21     register of death that they had died when the -- well, let's say, in

22     2010, approximately, so well after the years of war?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If all those who deceased in 2010

24     are recorded in the registers of death, then there is no possibility that

25     somebody was not reported unless somebody was killed and buried and you

Page 43666

 1     claim that they were not.  So those who are deceased, there is no reason

 2     for them not to be reported, so everything that happened in 2010 would be

 3     recorded.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You may have misunderstood my question.  I was

 5     talking about missing persons.  Now, I take that in 2010 there were not

 6     that many missing persons.  I'm talking about those who went missing in

 7     the war years.  How many of them, what percentage of those missing were

 8     officially entered in the death registers at a -- in later years?  Could

 9     you tell us how many approximately, what percentage.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot tell you what the

11     percentage was.  But each identified person, at the moment in time when

12     they are identified, would you be given a certificate of death or the

13     court would declare the person dead.  That person would automatically be

14     recorded in the register of deaths.  If somebody went missing in 1992 and

15     was identified in 2010, and if that process of identification is

16     completed, that missing person would be recorded in the register of

17     deaths for 2010.  And then it would be precisely stated in the document

18     on what basis the person was registered, was it on the basis of a

19     certificate of death or a court declaration.

20             And then would you have the day of death recorded, and there are

21     several options here.  If the date of death is in 1992, you would have

22     the exact day, month, and year of death on the basis of statements

23     provided by people in the process of identification.  There is a

24     different case as well:  A court would declare a person dead on the basis

25     of witnesses or some other documents, and then once again that would be

Page 43667

 1     recorded as that particular date of death.  If somebody died in 1999 --

 2     excuse me, 1992, and there is a document about that, they would be

 3     registered in 2010 but the date of death would be given as it was

 4     established.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And those who were not identified yet, dead

 6     bodies that were not identified, or not found, still missing?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They cannot be entered in the

 8     register of deaths until you receive a certificate from the officials

 9     that the person was identified pursuant to the rules, according to the

10     laws and regulations that apply to identification.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You say if you're formally registered as being

12     dead, that's what we consider.  If that has not happened, if you are not

13     state-approved being dead, then we just ignore that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Orie, I am

15     speaking of the legal procedure and what is used in scientific research,

16     and as for whether a demographer --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just interrupt you there.  I think I

18     perfectly understood what you said, but reality may sometimes even go

19     beyond what is legal procedure.

20             Let's move on.  I think I have understood your explanation.

21             Please proceed.

22             MR. IVETIC:  If we can look again at page 7 of Dr. Tabeau's

23     report in the English, and it will be page 8 in the Serbian.

24        Q.   And here Dr. Tabeau is talking about Dr. Clark.  And in the

25     second full paragraph from the top, she calls the lists of post-mortem

Page 43668

 1     findings from Dr. Clark as being helpful.  And later on, three

 2     paragraphs down, she says that the:

 3             "... cause of death information provided by Dr. Clark has been

 4     invaluable in producing proof of death for Tomasica victims."

 5             Do you have a comment from the standpoint of the practice of

 6     demography?

 7        A.   From what I read in Dr. Clark's report, he states that the cause

 8     of death most frequently corresponds to the cause of death that were

 9     reported by his colleagues; Dr. Durmisevic and Sarajlic, I believe.  He

10     does not mention the cases when this does not correspond, but he says

11     that most frequently they do correspond.

12             Dr. Clark also says that he had his own definition for cause of

13     death without explaining what that means, whereas Dr. Tabeau says that

14     while comparing different findings on death she made corrections -- some,

15     some corrections of these deaths.

16        Q.   At this trial, Dr. Tabeau testifying as a Prosecution witness

17     testified as follows, and I'd like to read to you a portion of that

18     testimony and then have some questions.  It's from transcript page 36798,

19     line 16, to 36799, line 7, and I'll begin the quotation:

20             "Q.  Okay.  If we can move on and look at page 7 in the English

21     and page 8 in the B/C/S.  In the B/C/S, it will be the second

22     paragraph from the bottom; and in the English, it's the second

23     paragraph up from the subheading 2.6, and here you say, Doctor:

24             "'Cause of death information by Dr. Clark has been invaluable in

25     producing proof of death for Tomasica victims.'

Page 43669

 1             "Doctor, would have you to defer to Dr. Clark as to cause of

 2     death, or do you think there is some other source more reliable than

 3     Dr. Clark as to cause of death for these persons found in Tomasica."

 4             Dr. Tabeau's answer was as follows:

 5             "A.  I think that what I said in the report, that Clark's

 6     information about causes of death is invaluable, I still stand by this

 7     statement.  I also used other sources for cause of deaths as you know,

 8     because I mentioned this today.  Jakarina Kosa autopsies.  I also used

 9     some autopsies from 2004 and 2006 excavations in Tomasica.  But, me, as a

10     demographer and statisticians, I'm not the person to determine the cause

11     of death, so it has to be in the hands of other specialists,

12     pathologists; in this case, as Dr. Clark himself."

13             And the question for you, Professor:  Do you agree with what

14     Dr. Tabeau said that as a demographer and statistician she is not the

15     person to determine the cause of death.

16        A.   Absolutely.  I agree.

17        Q.   And in your review of Dr. Tabeau's work as to the Tomasica

18     evidence, did Dr. Tabeau adhere to this rule that you agree with her on?

19        A.   No.  In one part of her reports she indicates that she made

20     changes to some cause of death during computer comparisons.  If she had

21     two findings, if they did not correspond, in some places it said that it

22     was established.  I guess with Clark or somewhere else it was

23     unestablished, that she corrected that.

24        Q.   If we can look at page 24 of Dr. Tabeau's report, which we have

25     before us in English, and it will be, I believe, page 29 in the Serbian.

Page 43670

 1     It will be the second paragraph up from the bottom in the Serbian, and it

 2     will be the first full paragraph at the top in the English that reads:

 3             "Last but not least, I need to explain how I dealt with the

 4     multiple CoDs available for JK victims from their associated DNA reports.

 5     For the purpose of my summary presentation of causes of death of the

 6     Tomasica victims, including those exhumed from Jakarina Kosa (see section

 7     3.6, causes of death according to all sources jointly), I selected just

 8     one condition from every set of the associated causes.  Initially, I let

 9     the computer choose one condition randomly.  Then, I reviewed these

10     choices and made the final selection.

11             "I saw during my review that for some cases, most of the

12     associated causes remained unascertained and just one of associated

13     causes was well-defined.  By 'well-defined,' I mean it was reported as

14     'gun-shot injuries of a body part'.  In such cases, I corrected the

15     computer choice of the 'unascertained' CoD and replaced it by a

16     well-defined cause.  In only a few cases I had to make a choice between

17     injuries of two different body parts.

18             "The logic of this approach was rooted in the purpose of this

19     analysis.  I saw my task as providing evidence about the external factors

20     that led to the deaths or injuries of the Tomasica victims.  So whenever

21     this type of evidence came to my attention, I included it as the

22     representation of these factors instead of leaving the answer blank

23     ('unascertained')."

24             Now, Professor, what Dr. Tabeau is describing here, is this

25     something that is in accord with the generally accepted practice of

Page 43671

 1     scientific demography or statistics, in your opinion?

 2        A.   A demographer, first of all, does not deal with causes of death

 3     in this way, and a demographer is not competent to establish cause of

 4    death regardless of how many autopsy reports they have. Cause of death, if

 5   two forensic experts don't agree on, they either reach an agreement or call

 6   a third colleague for assistance. So a demographer does not correct the

 7  cause of death. If there are several reports in which one says unascertained

 8   and another one would refer to gunshot injuries, then it would be absurd to

 9     say that the logic of behaving in this way is the purpose of my analysis.

10             What is the purpose of Dr. Tabeau's analysis?  If I understand it

11     correctly, it was to cause -- to prove external causes of death.

12     Demographers can deal with those external causes of death, but that would

13     imply the circumstances in which something occurred.  And as far as the

14     doctor is concerned, if it says a gunshot injury to the head, that would

15     be the end-all and the be-all.  As for whether it was caused during war

16     or whether it was because somebody was killed by somebody, these are now

17     external circumstances that could affect the outcome.

18             So without an explanation of what the purpose of the analysis was

19     and what was the logic applied, as far as I am concerned this is a very

20     partial analysis.  So without going into further detail, I really believe

21     that it's really quite absurd.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just ask a question, please.

23             Madam, at page 15, lines 14, Mr. Ivetic asked you the question:

24             "And the question for you, Professor:  Do you agree with what

25     Dr. Tabeau said that as a demographer and statistician she is not the

Page 43672

 1     person to determine the cause of death?"

 2             And you said you agreed with that.

 3             And then the next question was whether Dr. Tabeau stuck to that

 4     principle, and then this whole paragraph was then read to you.

 5             My question to you is do you understand this paragraph to say

 6     that Dr. Tabeau determined the cause of death, or that Dr. Tabeau was

 7     confronted with more than one possible cause of death and asked the

 8     computer to select one that was certain without her herself determining

 9     what the cause of death was?

10             How do you understand this paragraph?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand it as Dr. Tabeau

12     establishing death.  If there were several different ones and then

13     she changed that, the instant that she made a change in the document she

14     established it.  So she established that it was no longer unascertained

15     but it was a gun-shot injury to the head, so she established that.  And

16     when she was presenting that in her tables, she considered that to be a

17     death, the cause of which was well defined or ascertained.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So when she picks up a cause that was already

19     written by somebody else, that's her determination.  Do I understand you

20     correctly?  She -- she is not making a diagnosis.  She's picking from

21     various diagnoses.  Somebody said "ascertained," another one said "not

22     ascertained," and she picks up "ascertained."  So is that her

23     establishing the cause of death?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She is presenting to you or to the

25     Trial Chamber what she chose and not what exists.  I am not asserting

Page 43673

 1     that she's changing the documents, but she is presenting what she changed

 2     and what she established.  She is saying that something that was

 3     unascertained is now ascertained.  She's not presenting a new document

 4     but she is changing in the tables what does not exist in the documents.

 5             If Dr. Tabeau did it professionally, she can note that and she

 6     can exclude it or she can say:  If I have two options, and if we're

 7     talking about the same case, in how many cases this occurred, and what

 8     she did in this case, and what she did in another case.  She should not

 9     say that the logic was the purpose of the analysis.  Is the logic to

10     present the analysis to you with the highest number of ascertained

11     deaths?  I don't know.  All I know is what she wrote in the report.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I have a short question -- oh, sorry.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  After this explanation, I take it that you no

15     longer claim that she made a finding about the cause of death.  She just

16     presented a different document about an investigation by the respective

17     persons, about the cause of death; correct?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At no point did I say that she made

19     a new finding.  She already has two findings:  One finding says

20     unascertained, and the other one says well defined.  She is changing.  I

21     don't believe -- I didn't have the opportunity to verify if she changed

22     the first finding.  But by presenting her results instead of saying that

23     the finding is unascertained and instead of calculating that, she changes

24     that and she says:  I have decided to present to the Trial Chamber that

25     that was changed.

Page 43674

 1             I cannot believe that she would made -- make any changes to the

 2     finding in the original documents, but she changes that by presenting the

 3     cause of death in her tables and by presenting to you that all causes of

 4     death were ascertained even though they were not; namely, in cases where

 5     the option was either yes or no, she changed them to a "yes."  I really

 6     didn't have enough time to look at each of those documents to say:  Well,

 7     look, for this and this person, this pathologist says this, and the

 8     second pathologist says that.

 9             I don't believe that Dr. Tabeau changed documents written by a

10     pathologist, but she concluded:  I have two findings.  This one says

11     unascertained, this one arrived later as ascertained, so I'm going to

12     use the one that's ascertained and I'm going to present that in my

13     tables as an ascertained cause of death.

14             I believe that that is not professionally correct.  Even in cases

15     such as this one.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this long explanation again.  Now

17     you made it quite clear what you are presenting here in the courtroom.

18     At the beginning, you said Dr. Tabeau says that while comparing different

19     findings, she made corrections.  Some corrections of these deaths.

20             What I -- what you now told us is not correction of death but

21     choosing a document which she finds more reliable and with more details.

22     This is what I now understand from your testimony; correct?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Tabeau does not say that.  She

24     said:  I changed the cause of death.  I just assume that --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said that.

Page 43675

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes -- no.  But you can read.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sorry, sorry, I have to interrupt you.  You said

 3     that she changed the cause of death.

 4             But let us continue.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one other question.

 6             Dr. Tabeau describes situations where the causes of death are not

 7     fully consistent, that she asked the computer to make a random choice,

 8     and that she later then in a few cases has corrected that random choice

 9     because she thought there was a good reason to choose for either of the

10     options.

11             Could you tell us, approximately, have you verified, and how many

12     cases, because she describes this as a rather rare situation where she

13     made such corrections, do you have any idea about the quantity of those

14     cases and how they impact on the statistics, what -- what changes it

15     causes in the statistical analysis?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an idea but Dr. Tabeau

17     should have stated that.  That would have been professional.  She changed

18     it via the computer.  She should have said 10, 15, or 20.  My idea is --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  My question was not whether she should have done it

20     differently.  That is clear from your explanation.  You have, as you

21     say -- you have an idea about that.

22             Could you tell us what that idea is, and then talking in terms of

23     quantity.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My idea is that if you conceal a

25     piece of data like that, it's probably not something that is just small.

Page 43676

 1     I'm not saying that I'm right.  But as for whether it was minimal, what

 2     does it mean in a number of cases?  She could have said it was in 0.2

 3     per cent or 0.3 per cent of cases.  I was not able to do that.  I didn't

 4     have enough time.  But my idea is that if the demographer and

 5     statistician does not present that, as a demographer you have a reason

 6     probably for omitting this particular data.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want to conceal something, would you openly

 8     explain what you did?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in order to be able to say --

10     but, yes, I did cite that in a number of cases.  But if it's a number of

11     cases, then can you please express it in the way that an expert, a

12     professional, would express it?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No, my question was whether if you want to conceal

14     something, whether you would openly explain what you did.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You and I don't agree that this is

16     an open explanation.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We --

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- I believe that this is not an

19     open explanation.  This is an expert here who cannot just say in a number

20     of.  Why didn't she put three in parentheses, for example, or one?  Our

21     profession asks us to present things in an exact way with numbers, so

22     this number of several or a few causes me to doubt things.  I don't know

23     if it's a lot or just a few.  But I am setting out from the fact that if

24     you are an expert and you say a number, then you open parentheses and you

25     say three, seven cases, one, and this is what is causing me to doubt it

Page 43677

 1     because if you're a professional you know how a statistician or a

 2     demographer would express themselves:  By using numbers.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're questioning her integrity.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that she is not

 5     professionally correct.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that wasn't my question.  My question was

 7     whether you are questioning her integrity, which is more than not acting

 8     professionally but intentionally doing so to hide something.  That's what

 9     are you saying Dr. Tabeau has done.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If that is how we define integrity,

11     then yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed -- oh, no, I'm looking at the clock.

13     I think I should advise you not to proceed at this moment, Mr. Ivetic.

14             Professor Radovanovic, we'll take a break and we'd like to see

15     you back in 20 minutes.  You may follow the usher.

16                           [The witness stands down]

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

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the

21     courtroom.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   Professor, can you tell us in the generally accepted practice of

Page 43678

 1     scientific demography, how are violent deaths categorised?

 2        A.   Violent deaths caused by murder, accident, or suicide.

 3        Q.   Now, at our trial Dr. Tabeau testified as follows at transcript

 4     page 36855, line 21, to 36856, line 9:

 5             "Q.  Okay.  Now, would you agree with me that in the fields of

 6     statistics and demography, violent death is categorised into three

 7     category:  Accidental death, suicide, and homicide?

 8             "A.  Yes.  Broadly speaking, yes.

 9             "Q.  And would you agree homicide is further subdivided into

10     justifiable homicide and murder?

11             "A.  Yes.

12             "Q.  Now when you conclude in your report that all Tomasica

13     victims died violent deaths, can you differentiate between accidental

14     death, suicide, and the two forms of homicide, or are all these forms of

15     violent death included in your finding?

16             "A.  Of course, I couldn't differentiate as my knowledge of the

17     circumstances was not enough to make these kind of divides or

18     categorisations."

19             Professor, what would be your comment as to Dr. Tabeau's

20     testimony?

21        A.   Dr. Tabeau perhaps could not distribute them exactly according to

22     circumstances and show how these persons lost their lives, but it would

23     have been professionally correct if she had at least hinted that within

24     all these deaths may be also the deaths that were -- that occurred in

25     combat.  Whether she was able to divide between the two, I don't think

Page 43679

 1     so.  Probably not because there is not sufficient information.  But there

 2     are documents available that confirm that some persons did lose their

 3     lives in combat.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just ask a question.  How would you

 5     delineate a person who has died in combat, ma'am, as a demographer?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is a violent death which is

 7     not a result of execution but which occurred in combat, which is greatly

 8     different from execution.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  How do you come to that conclusion when you are

10     looking at a body that is dead already with bullets in it?  How do you

11     conclude that these bullets were fired in combat and not in execution?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are documents saying that on

13     a specific date there was combat under way and that some persons were

14     killed in combat.  There is also a report by a French policeman who says

15     that persons whose first and last names are known and who were members of

16     Territorial Defence were excluded because they perished in combat.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And it would not be a professional determination

18     in demography or which -- you're quoting other sources that tell us how

19     the person died?  Can she make a professional determination as a

20     demographer that a person died in combat or not?  That's my question, not

21     whether she can -- she uses other sources.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if she has documents saying

23     so, then she may indicate that not all deaths that she presents occurred

24     outside combat or if she could indicate that they occurred in and out of

25     combat, because as it is it's insinuated that all the deaths presented by

Page 43680

 1     Dr. Tabeau were caused by execution or ethnic cleansing.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Does she say they were caused by execution or does

 3     she say they were caused violently?  Let's just be clear what she says.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She says that all the deaths

 5     were -- that all deaths occurred under identical circumstances due to an

 6     ethnic cleansing campaign, and it is a fact that all deaths did not occur

 7     under identical circumstances because there are documents showing that

 8     the circumstances were not identical; that is to say, which confirm that

 9     there was combat too.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We have now moved away from the question I was

11     asking.  The question I was asking is how you distinguish death by

12     execution from death by -- in combat where people -- where the

13     description is just violent deaths and how you make that distinction

14     professionally as a demographer.

15             You have given your answer.  Thank you so much.

16             Yes, Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have -- nevertheless, have one question.

18             Ms. Radovanovic, you're saying there are documents which says

19     there were combat, and I consider that important for this Court.  Would

20     that allow to distinguish between those who died in combat or those who

21     died as from execution?  I mean, the fact that there was combat, would

22     that be sufficient to enable someone to determine that the persons died

23     in combat?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depends on what a document you

25     consult.  If, for example, there is a list from the BiH army, the Army of

Page 43681

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and if the list mentions soldiers who died, you can

 2     then take the data, and I cannot claim that some of them died in combat

 3     and some not, but it's a fact that they are soldiers, not civilians.  And

 4     it's only in 2009 that Dr. Tabeau says in Srebrenica 70 per cent were

 5     soldiers.  Up until 2009 they were all treated, and it was suggested,

 6     that they were all civilians.  So it's one of the documents where you can

 7     distinguish troops from civilians.

 8             Another -- or, rather, other documents are individual documents.

 9     I've stated some of them.  And these documents mention that fighting

10     occurred on a specific date, at a specific place, and that there were

11     casualties.  Now, Dr. Tabeau perhaps may not individually state who was

12     killed in combat and who was not, but she could say that possibly some of

13     the deaths occurred in combat.  As, for example, Nicolas Sebire does in

14     his report.  I'm not sure if I am pronouncing his name right.  He even

15     says that there is a database including issue -- decisions issued by

16     court declaring those persons dead.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the question still is, I think, what is within

18     the competence of demographers and what is within the competence of a

19     court which is to combine all the information to come to conclusions.

20             But let's leave it to that.  I have heard your explanation.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Again, I have a follow-up question because all

22     this was triggered by one sentence, that's on page 24, lines 21 to 23.

23     You said, I quote:

24             "But there are documents available that confirm that some persons

25     did lose their lives in combat."

Page 43682

 1             How many persons and on the basis of which documents did you say

 2     that?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report, I note which

 4     documents I have in mind, but I don't know how many persons.  Dr. Tabeau

 5     would have been professionally correct if she had at least suggested the

 6     possibility that some of those that she lists as those who died and who

 7     were victims of Tomasica may have died in combat.  She could have

 8     suggested the same thing for Srebrenica.  But up until 2009, not a single

 9     word to that effect was ever uttered and --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I am asking you.  And we are dealing here with

11     Tomasica, not with Srebrenica.  How many?  If you say there are documents

12     available that some persons did lose their lives in combat, how many and

13     on the basis of which documents?  If you don't know, then we can proceed,

14     but please answer this question.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documents which I listed.  I

16     can't tell you off the top of my head, but it's mentioned in those

17     documents that on such and such a day there was combat in such and such a

18     place.  If Dr. Tabeau draws conclusions at the end of her report about

19     incidents per day, in accordance with the indictment against

20     General Mladic, then on the basis of these incidents, dates, and places,

21     she could have concluded that some combat took place as well.  She

22     perhaps couldn't have said this specific person died in combat or not and

23     this one didn't.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You didn't answer my question, but let's

25     continue.

Page 43683

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, excuse me, I really wish to

 2     answer your question.  But perhaps I don't understand.  If the question

 3     is whether it's possible to distinguish who exactly died in combat and

 4     who didn't, then it's no.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Radovanovic, I quoted a sentence you said

 6     earlier, and I wanted to know the background of that, and you were not

 7     able to give me the background.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I have misunderstood

10     you then.

11             MR. IVETIC:  I don't know if translation is an issue, but in

12     paragraph 7 of Professor Radovanovic she says there are documents

13     confirming that victims could have also died, and in -- apart from that

14     one section Your Honour has read, every other answer she has given today,

15     that I've paid attention to, has talked about possibilities and not

16     actualities.  And unfortunately I did not listen to the B/C/S of that one

17     part that was cited to or missed, whether it was "could" or "could have."

18     But I do want to point out that the --

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That can you verified, as you know.

20             MR. IVETIC:  I know, I know.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If there is any reason to have the interpretation

22     verified, we'll do that in order to avoid whatever misunderstandings,

23     Mr. Ivetic, and you know that.

24             Then please proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:  If we can then turn to 1D6184 in e-court, and that

Page 43684

 1     will be Professor Radovanovic's report.

 2             And just for the record, the paragraph 7 that I mentioned is on

 3     page 6 in English and page 6 in Serbian.  But I'd like to turn to page 11

 4     in English and page 13 in Serbian and paragraph 25 of

 5     Professor Radovanovic's report.

 6             I don't know if everyone else is looking at a black screen or if

 7     it's just me, but ...

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, we don't have anything on the screen.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  It's saving power.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we find something on our screens now, so we

12     can proceed.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

14             If we can now then have the English version, which is to be found

15     on page number 11, and it will be paragraph 25 of the report, that reads:

16             "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing

17     in the Demographic Unit have been discarded without any explanation

18     having been given" --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I cannot follow.  That's

20     which paragraph?

21             MR. IVETIC:

22        Q.   Paragraph 25.

23        A.   All right.

24        Q.   "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing

25     in the Demographic Unit" --

Page 43685

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Apparently the English is bleeding through on the

 2     B/C/S channel, at least on this side.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then let's restart.  If you slowly read again and

 4     I'll follow on the B/C/S channel whether that gives, indeed, B/C/S

 5     interpretation.

 6             Please proceed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:

 8        Q.   "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing

 9     in the Demographic Unit have been discarded without any explanation

10     having been given for not using them in the Report of 20 August 2014,

11     gives rise to reasonable suspicion that these documents are being ignored

12     in a calculated manner.  Perhaps because in the decisions of some courts

13     it is stated 'some individuals were last seen while they were involved in

14     the local Territorial Defence (TO).  As it is possible that they died in

15     the course of combat activities, they were not taken into consideration,

16     except when other evidence indicates that they were captured and/or

17     detained by the opponent forces and later killed.' Thus, it was possible

18     at least to suggest, if not precisely establish, ... that not all victims

19     had died under the same circumstances, i.e., had been executed, as the

20     expert witness insinuates.  Apart from that, an account should be taken

21     of the fact that the expert witness, announcing problems in establishing

22     military versus civilian status, observes that it 'can be seen

23     differently, depending on circumstances of death.  A soldier shot dead

24     when he/she was not participating in combat (e.g. while on leave) must be

25     seen as a civilian.  And a civilian shot in fighting in which he/she used

Page 43686

 1     a gun and thus was engaged in combat would be a combatant' why does the

 2     expert witness 'overlook' the possibility that there had been both

 3     soldiers and combatants among the victims of Tomasica and Prijedor

 4     generally?"

 5             Is this the section that you earlier identified as talking about

 6     reports that were in the Demographic Unit that talks about combat and the

 7     possibility that certain individuals may have been deceased in combat?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Here one of the items you reference in the footnotes is a 2002

10     report of Prosecution Investigator Nicolas Sebire.  Given that the

11     Prosecution's Office has this information, dated 2002, precisely as to

12     Prijedor, as to persons last seen in the TO that possibly died in combat,

13     would a demographer following generally accepted scientific methodology

14     consider such a report relevant to investigating the death of persons

15     from Tomasica in Prijedor to determine how they may have died?

16        A.   Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic which footnote were you referring to.

18             MR. IVETIC:  That would be footnote number 16, I believe.  Let me

19     just turn to that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  It was 15.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It should be 15.

22             MR. IVETIC:  15, yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that in evidence, for us?  Just for us to know.

24             MR. IVETIC:  It is not.  It is on our list.  We could -- I could

25     get you the number of that.  I don't have the list in front of me right

Page 43687

 1     now, but it is uploaded, I believe, in e-court.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I just wondered whether we have that

 3     available.

 4             MR. FILE:  Your Honour, there are excerpts of this document

 5     already in evidence upped P3282, and the entire document is 65 ter 26260.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then you consider, I don't know how long the

 7     document is, what we would need and what would assist us in evaluating

 8     this.

 9             Please proceed.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

11        Q.   And you list several other documents in footnote number 17 that

12     you say show that there was armed conflict in certain areas.  Would you

13     have expected Dr. Tabeau, if following a generally accepted professional

14     scientific methodology, to have looked at such information contained in

15     such documents?

16        A.   Yes.  It would have been correct on her side to study them.  She

17     may have noted why she wouldn't use them, but she shouldn't pretend as if

18     they did not exist.

19        Q.   And if we can go to the next page in the Serbian, and it will be

20     the same page of your report in the English --

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you do that, may I ask for a

22     clarification.

23             Mr. Ivetic, when you started this line of questioning, you were

24     referring to paragraph 7 on page 6 in the English and page 6 in Serbian.

25     There, I read, in paragraph 7:

Page 43688

 1             "The expert witness insinuates but does not prove that all

 2     victims were executed although there exist documents confirming that the

 3     victims could also have died in combat."

 4             This is in paragraph 7 of the witness's report.

 5             I would like to know from Ms. Radovanovic, now we heard about the

 6     report of Mr. Nicolas Sebire of 2002.  Is that the only report you are

 7     referring to here, the only document, or have you anything else in mind?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This paragraph 7 is a summary so

 9     it's shortened, and it's not the only one.  This refers also to other

10     documents under footnote 17 from paragraph 25.  As this is a summary, I

11     did not write about it expansively.  I did in further text.  But this is

12     just a conclusion drawn from what follows.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  But in footnote 17 we have only a

14     list of documents with ERN numbers.  Can you summarise what kind of

15     documents are these?  There are no titles, and we have no idea what kind

16     of documents these are.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot remember exactly how

18     they are called, but those are mostly reports -- I have them in my room,

19     so if you like I can bring them.  Reports submitted by certain persons

20     about what happened on a specific day, where there was combat, and so on

21     and so forth.  I can't remember who it was that submitted them, but I can

22     look, I have them in my bag in my room, and tell you exactly what

23     documents these are.  These are some kinds of minutes that were then sent

24     with reports on what was going on, on specific dates.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you have any information if one or more of

Page 43689

 1     these victims of combat mentioned in these documents ended up in the

 2     Tomasica mass grave?

 3   THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not examine this. I took it more as

 4    an example that there was combat on specific dates and in specific places.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:

 8        Q.   And now looking at paragraph number 26, and here you deal with

 9     Dr. Tabeau's reference to machine-gun fire.  For a demographer, does one

10     ever deal with whether someone is killed by a gun, machine-gun, or by

11     other means; and, if so, when?

12        A.   No, they deal with causes of death that were given by forensic

13     specialists.  They can say a gun-shot wound to the head, but whether it's

14     from a machine-gun or a pistol or something would have nothing to do with

15     that.

16        Q.   Now if I could ask you about something that Dr. Tabeau testified

17     about during our trial, and that was at transcript page 36800, lines 8

18     through 20.  I will read as follows when I asked her about the testimony

19     of Dr. Clark, and it went like this:

20             "Q.  I would like to put one last question regarding this topic

21     by way of a conclusion.

22             "Is it correct that, as a scientist, you cannot exclude the

23     possibility that any or some of the people were killed in combat?

24             "A.  Yes, I can't -- I can't exclude that."

25             And that's citing now Dr. Clark.  And then I asked Dr. Tabeau

Page 43690

 1     about this testimony of Dr. Clark as follows:

 2             "Is this finding by Dr. Clark highly consistent with your results

 3     in doing your work as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica?

 4             "A.  Sir, I didn't any -- I didn't study any sources based on

 5     which I could say that someone died in combat or in non-combat situation.

 6     I actually draw no conclusions about that.  So whatever Mr. Clark said in

 7     his testimony, it is his opinion, but I cannot make any statements at

 8     this moment on that."

 9             And that's the end of the citation.

10             Professor, what would be your comments as to this testimony.

11        A.   Dr. Tabeau said it well, that she did not look at any other

12     sources that would indicate something else, and Dr. Clark presents the

13     causes of death.  I do not recall Dr. Clark writing that anybody died

14     from machine-gun fire.  I don't think there's anything like that in his

15     reports.  But he does talk about pistol shots, how many shots, and so on

16     and so forth, but for a demographer that would not be something of

17     significance.  Even Dr. Clark, if I recall, does not rule out the

18     possibility that some persons were killed in combat.

19        Q.   In the continuation of her testimony on this topic, Dr. Tabeau at

20     transcript page 36810, lines 9 through 14, testified as follows:

21             "Q.  Dr. Tabeau, do you think differentiating between

22     combat-related deaths and those from ethnic cleansing is irrelevant for

23     purposes of your report?

24             "A.  I never said it is irrelevant for the purposes of my report,

25     but I was just not able to study sources that would be telling me about

Page 43691

 1     the combat and non-combat incidents."

 2             Professor, what would be your comment as to this part of the

 3     testimony.

 4        A.   I would ask why Dr. Tabeau did not have that opportunity.  She

 5     has a database that she formed herself with her associates.  I assume

 6     that she knows the content of the database.  If she did not have the

 7     opportunity, she should have given a reason; perhaps lack of time, lack

 8     of available material.  The fact that she did not have the opportunity to

 9     do something does not mean that that particular thing does not exist.

10        Q.   Did Dr. Tabeau have access at the Demographic Unit to other

11     sources of army documents listing casualties, apart from the

12     Nicolas Sebire report that you cited to in your report.

13        A.   The Demographic Unit has everything that Dr. Tabeau and her

14     assistants created, meaning different databases based on the special

15     project that she was heading at the Office of the Prosecutor.  She knows

16     everything that those databases contain, and she knows which documents

17     are available.

18             If I was able to receive some things from the Defence, I don't

19     think that the Defence found them on the street.  These documents were

20     recorded, registered if they refer to the population.  I mean, I assume

21     that Dr. Tabeau had these same documents as well.  I don't know

22     everything that is contained in the database -- in the databases of the

23     Demographic Unit because I never had access to the overall data of the

24     Demographic Unit.  I am not aware of any catalogue existing which would

25     say we have these documents at our disposal, so that I would be able to

Page 43692

 1     go through that list and say:  Well, this would be interesting to me.

 2             The demographic database familiarity with it and its contents is

 3     something that is known to Dr. Tabeau, so she can make a selection.  I'm

 4     not able to make a selection.  I can rely on what she refers to in her

 5     report.  I can ask for that.  Also, things that I get.  If the lawyers

 6     help me, they find a report; for example, I received Nicolas Sebire's

 7     report in The Hague.  I did not know about that report earlier.

 8        Q.   You --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I try to get a focused comment on the

10     following matter.

11             What Dr. Tabeau says, as quoted, is that she was unable to

12     distinguish between combat-related death and death from ethnic cleansing

13     because she was not able to study sources that would be telling her about

14     the combat and non-combat incidents.

15             Now, you are saying:  You should have told us I have no time,

16     et cetera.  Are you aware - and I really would be interested in it - are

17     you aware of sources which clearly distinguish between incidents as a

18     result of combat and incidents which are considered to be part of ethnic

19     cleansing?  Because we -- over the last hour, we discussed in quite some

20     detail that whereas almost everyone concedes that people may have died in

21     combat, and there may have been combat, but it's very difficult to

22     specifically identify this was a combat victim and this was an ethnic

23     cleansing victim.

24             So where you say she should have explained that she had no time,

25     but she should have done it, or explained why she didn't do it, here, at

Page 43693

 1     least as I understand it, she says:  I didn't have such sources.

 2             My question for you, therefore, is:  Are you aware of sources

 3     which identify clearly between this incident is a combat victim and that

 4     incident is an ethnic cleansing victim?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have such information, but

 6     I think that the Demographic Unit at least has parts or sections --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.

 8             Ms. Tabeau says, I don't have such sources.  You're saying, I'm

 9     not aware of such sources but she must have them.  Could you tell us why

10     you conclude that where she says, I have no such sources, what makes you

11     believe - and I really would be interested to know - what makes you

12     believe that she did have such sources?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She does not say that she does not

14     have them.  She just says that she did not study them.  At least that's

15     what I got in the translation that I had.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Then let me read it exactly.

17             "I was just not able to study sources that would be telling me

18     about the combat and non-combat incidents."

19             You apparently understood this as such sources do exist, but I

20     was unable - lack of time, whatever it would be - and you have not

21     considered this possibly to be understood as I wasn't able because they

22     do not exist.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If she did not have these sources,

24     at least this is my reasoning, the doctor would say, I do not have

25     sources on the basis of which I could make that conclusion.  If she does

Page 43694

 1     say I was not able to study, then these sources do exist, or at least a

 2     part of such sources exists.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But that's your linguistic analysis of the answer.

 4             Let's proceed.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  If we could look at paragraph --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have a question in respect of paragraph 26.

 7             Ms. Radovanovic, you say in paragraphs 26 that:

 8             For Dr. Tabeau to say that shooting was from machine-gun,

 9     machine -- or sometimes handguns is intellectually dishonest if account

10     is not taken of the fact that there had also been combatants amongst the

11     dead.

12             My question is:  Is it your position that combatants would not be

13     killed by machine-guns or handguns.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can't say it if you have data

15     anywhere that there was fire from a machine-gun or machine-guns.  Based

16     on the sources cited by Dr. Tabeau, and then during questioning, she says

17     that this is something she saw at John Clark's reports and then this is

18     missing in the -- in the analysis of John Clark.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you because

20     you're not answering my question at all.

21             My question is:  Is it your position that combatants cannot be

22     killed with machine or sometimes handguns because you're saying by

23     alleging that people were killed with machine or sometimes handguns is

24     intellectually dishonest because it does not take account of the fact

25     that others were combatants.  My question to you is are saying combatants

Page 43695

 1     cannot be killed with machine or handguns.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  And, Your Honours, if you're asking for the

 3     conclusion of the witness, you have to read the full conclusion, which

 4     after the comma says:

 5             "... as well as that not a single document that the expert

 6     witness uses contains information about machine-gun fire."

 7             That's the finding in that paragraph, so you can't take one part

 8     of it --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I think you wanted to make a suggestion,

12     a brief suggestion to Judge Moloto.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's not the language you used.  You told

15     him what he had to do, yes?  Okay, therefore I leave it in the hands of

16     Judge Moloto again.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But next time you may suggest but not tell

19     Judge Moloto what he should have done, whether it's right or wrong what

20     you're telling, but that's not the way we address one of my colleagues.

21             Please proceed.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I am aware of the rest of that sentence, and the

23     rest of that sentence really doesn't turn around the question I'm asking.

24     The fact that there is not a single document that the expert witness uses

25     contains information about machine-guns, it's -- should then -- the --

Page 43696

 1     the expert should be challenged on the basis that she has -- doesn't give

 2     us a source of where she get the information that machine-guns were used.

 3             I'm dealing with a question of where she is being accused of

 4     being intellectually dishonest simply because she uses -- she says the

 5     bodies were shot at with machine or sometimes handguns.  Now if you --

 6     and my question is:  Is it the position of this expert that combatants

 7     are not shot at -- cannot be shot at with machine or sometimes hand guns?

 8     That's all I'm asking.  It has nothing to do with the rest of the

 9     sentence.

10             And, Madam Radovanovic, will you please answer my question, if

11     you can?

12             And I just want to say I take a strong exception to your


14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Combatants can be shot at with

15     anything, machine-guns, rockets, bombs.  If this is what you're asking me

16     --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, that's what I'm asking.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and if Dr. Tabeau concluded

19     that --

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But this is what you're concluding.  You're

21     concluding that because she says machine-guns and guns were used,

22     therefore, she is excluding combatants.  Now you're saying that

23     combatants can also be shot at with machine-guns, which in fact then

24     contradicts what you are saying.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours I would have to object to the question

Page 43697

 1     as posed and give Your Honours some instruction as advice that the

 2     conclusion, as stated in the report, contains additional matters which

 3     you have not raised which go towards the conclusion.  So to say and to

 4     pull out one half of the conclusion and say your conclusion is based on A

 5     while ignoring part B, which is also part of the conclusion, I believe is

 6     creating a false record.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It is the implicit suggestion which was dealt with

 8     by Judge Moloto, and you may now proceed.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   Now, let's turn to paragraph 24 of the report, on page 10 in

11     English at the bottom, and it will be page 13 in Serbian, and here we can

12     see what Dr. Tabeau said about her access to other documents.  Here you

13     are citing Dr. Tabeau's article from 2005 that says:

14             "Only a few sources can be taken as safe and sound, for instance,

15     records from" --

16             MR. IVETIC:  And I think we have to turn the page in English.

17        Q.   "... death certificates, court decisions proclaiming persons

18     dead, and death records of armed forces from the archives of the Ministry

19     of Defence."

20             Has Dr. Tabeau utilized death records from the archives in the

21     Ministry of Defence in other reports that you have reviewed?

22        A.   No, she did not use these documents anywhere in the reports that

23     I reviewed.  Except in 2009, the Ministry of Defence, in Srebrenica, so

24     only in 2009, but can I also say that it's not actually an official

25     document.  I can agree with Dr. Tabeau that she included it in the -- as

Page 43698

 1     an official document, but in scientific work it's not counted as an

 2     official document.  An official document would only be the certificate of

 3     death or a court decision to that effect.

 4        Q.   And if we return to paragraph 25 of your report, we have another

 5     citation, I believe, from the same 2005 article of Dr. Tabeau.  I read it

 6     before, so I won't read it again, but it is in relation to footnote

 7     number 18 in paragraph 25 of your report.  Can you reconcile with what

 8     Dr. Tabeau has written in 2005 and what she has not done in Tomasica?

 9        A.   If Dr. Tabeau knows what the documents are that are certain and

10     valid and if she informs the expert public about that, then I think that

11     it would have been professionally correct for her to also inform the

12     Trial Chamber and to say:  These are documents that are used in

13     scientific expert studies, but I'm not using that, I'm using something

14     else.

15        Q.   Now, on the same topic at transcript page 36810, lines 15 through

16     20, Dr. Tabeau testified as follows:

17             "Q.  Given that you concede combat is also a violent death,

18     different than people killed as non-combatants or killed not in combat,

19     will you agree that there exists a possibility that some or all Tomasica

20     bodies may equally be from combat as they may be from what you've called

21     ethnic cleansing?

22             "A.  I cannot exclude this option."

23             What comment do you have on this testimony of Dr. Tabeau in

24     relation to her expert report as to Tomasica.

25        A.   She did not write that anywhere in her report.  Quite to the

Page 43699

 1     contrary.  She concludes that all of that is a consequence of ethnic

 2     cleansing, and a widespread campaign of ethnic cleansing at that.

 3     Nowhere does she indicate the possibility that this could have been in

 4     different circumstances.

 5        Q.   If we can look at Dr. Tabeau's report, it will be P7449 in

 6     e-court.  It will be page 47 in the English and page 60 in the B/C/S.

 7     And it will be under the heading "Conclusions," which appears two pages

 8     prior, so that's the section of the report we're dealing with.  And it

 9     will be the last paragraph in the report before the listing of annexes to

10     the report.

11             MR. IVETIC:  We're still waiting for the Serbian.  If I can

12     assist, it's page 60 in the Serbian.  And it's at the very bottom of the

13     page in the Serbian.

14        Q.   And here Dr. Tabeau, as the very last thing she writes in her

15     report, says:

16             "All in all, a significant evidence was presented in this report

17     which supports the conclusion that all Tomasica victims died violent

18     deaths in extremely dramatic circumstances of a broader campaign of

19     ethnic cleansing in the Prijedor municipality and as part of the ARK

20     ethnic cleansing campaign."

21             First of all, how do you understand this?  Is this a conclusion

22     of Dr. Tabeau or something else?

23        A.   It's Dr. Tabeau's final conclusion.  It's in the section entitled

24     "Conclusion" as the final point of the overall conclusion.

25        Q.   If we can now take a look at 1D6184 again, that would be your

Page 43700

 1     report, and paragraph 31 of the same, which is found on page 13 in the

 2     English, page 16 in the Serbian.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you a question.

 4             You said this is Dr. Tabeau's conclusion.  What is her

 5     conclusion, that there is evidence which supports; or is it her

 6     conclusion that this is what happened, that all Tomasica victims died

 7     violent death in extremely dramatic circumstances, et cetera?

 8             What is her conclusion, that there is significant evidence to

 9     support that or that this is what happened?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Her conclusion is that there is

11     evidence but that it happened in a ethnic cleansing campaign in extremely

12     dramatic circumstances.  I accept the number of the dead from Tomasica.

13     I'm not going to dispute the number or the fact that they are dead.  I am

14     just asking:  What led her to conclude that it was a consequence of a

15     broader campaign of ethnic cleansing in extremely dramatic circumstances.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to again explain to you what my problem

17     is.

18             My problem is that Dr. Tabeau points at the existence of what she

19     calls significant evidence that something may have happened.  She doesn't

20     say that's what happened, but she says there's significant evidence that

21     supports that it has happened, which I understand - but please correct me

22     when you read it in a different way - that she does not draw that final

23     conclusion, although she points at the significance of the evidence which

24     would support such a conclusion.  That's the reason why I'm asking you.

25     Because the question put to you by Mr. Ivetic was:  Is this here

Page 43701

 1     conclusion.  And therefore, I asked you:  Is her conclusion that

 2     significant evidence exists where she refrains from saying that it's what

 3     happened, or is it her conclusion that this is what happened.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She says that that is what really

 5     happened and that Tomasica corroborates the widespread campaign; namely,

 6     that that really happened and that that is evidence of a broader campaign

 7     of ethnic cleansing.  That is how I understand this conclusion.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how you read the conclusion which was quoted.

 9     That's your linguistical analysis of the lines that were read to you.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, Judge Orie.  I am

11     reading what Dr. Tabeau wrote, and what the attorney read to me as a

12     direct quote of what Dr. Tabeau wrote --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- let's --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in the last lines of her

15     conclusion.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's how you interpret what was read to you.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. IVETIC:  I think we're at the time for the break again,

19     Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  It's time for a break, indeed.

21             Professor Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at 20 minutes past midday.

24                           --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.


Page 43702

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll briefly move into private session.

 2                           [Private session]

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 43703

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

22             Mr. Lukic, would you remind your client that he's supposed not to

23     speak aloud.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.


Page 43704

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   I had wanted to ask about paragraph 31 of your report where you

 3     say that Dr. Tabeau has stepped outside her profession for the purposes

 4     of the analysis and that is obviously biased in selecting sources of

 5     data.

 6             In this regard, I'd like to -- first of all, do you stand by

 7     paragraph 31 of your report, as written?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now I'd like to address the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" by

10     Dr. Tabeau since the Trial Chamber had several questions about it in the

11     last session.

12             I'd like to present to you various testimony of Dr. Tabeau

13     precisely on the use of the term "ethnic cleansing," and I'll take each

14     of the sections of her testimony one by one and then ask for comments as

15     to each.  So the entire section of the transcript that I will be talking

16     about is from transcript page 36802, line 18, through 36804, line 12.

17     The first part of the testimony is as follows:

18             "Q.  Then do you feel that your conclusions as to ethnic

19     cleansing are complete since you did not take into account the potential

20     impact or role of combat as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica?"

21             And the answer of Dr. Tabeau was as follows:

22             "A.  I think that the report I made is not about the ethnic

23     cleansing in the first place.  It is about the victims from Tomasica in

24     the first place --"

25             And then in the continuation of the transcript, the second

Page 43705

 1     question was asked:

 2             "Q.  Doctor, I beg to differ.  The conclusion I just read is the

 3     penultimate conclusion of your report.  I put it to you that it is the

 4     basis of your report and it is the key part of your report.  If you do

 5     not want us to rely upon that conclusion, please say so."

 6             And Dr. Tabeau's answer was:

 7             "Well, to me I see a clear picture of ethnic cleansing based on

 8     the records I studied, based on the records of missing persons, from the

 9     Prijedor municipality - in particular from the Prijedor municipality and

10     from the ARK area as such.  The fact that many victims went missing on a

11     few days in July, the 20th, 23, 4th, and 5th, these are huge numbers."

12             Professor, what comment do you have as to Dr. Tabeau's testimony

13     on this matter.

14        A.   In my opinion, it is contradictory.  First of all she says that

15     she believes her report is not on ethnic cleansing, but she draws the

16     conclusion that the victims were victims in a wide-ranging ethnic

17     cleansing campaign.  She also says that she can see a clear picture of

18     ethnic cleansing based on the records on the ARK and Prijedor.  She could

19     have included a footnote and let us know, let me know, or the Trial

20     Chamber, where we could see that too.

21             What Dr. Tabeau sees, any demographer has to document in a

22     scholarly work and say on the basis of this, this, and this, I draw

23     such-and-such conclusions and that's why I see it like that.  I believe

24     that personal views don't have a scientific basis unless they are well

25     documented.

Page 43706

 1        Q.   And in the last part of the transcript range that I cited, more

 2     precisely I believe it is 36804, lines 1 through 12, Dr. Tabeau went

 3     further as to ethnic cleansing and testified as follows:

 4             "Yes, I discuss the ethnic cleansing in my report as the context

 5     for the Tomasica victims.  It is unavoidable to mention the words 'ethnic

 6     cleansing' as in my view the deaths, the killings of the Tomasica victims

 7     were part of the ethnic cleansing.

 8             "And, of course, there is some results, quite some results in my

 9     report that support ethnic cleansing considerably.  I am speaking of

10     ethnic cleansing from my own experience.  It is not the first time that I

11     have been working on the 92 victim, Tomasica victims, also victims from

12     the ARK and Prijedor municipality.  I studied other sources of

13     information and made other reports.  From my experience and from the work

14     I have done in the past as well, there is quite some support in this

15     report in this work for the ethnic cleansing."

16             From the standpoint of the generally accepted practice of

17     scientific and professional demography, do you consider Dr. Tabeau's

18     discussion of ethnic cleansing to be in line with the accepted

19     terminology and type of review seen in that field?

20        A.   No.  There is no definition of ethnic cleansing in demography.

21     What Dr. Tabeau deems to be very important and that she must unavoidably

22     mention ethnic cleansing in her conclusion and that she proved through

23     various reports, while working on Prijedor and the Autonomous Region of

24     Krajina, or the ARK, she has to note in a professionally correct manner

25     in a footnote what are the reports on the basis of which she concludes

Page 43707

 1     that this is a case of ethnic cleansing, because a demographer does not

 2     have such a definition, and she could then tell us on the basis of this,

 3     this, and this, including the experience which Dr. Tabeau says she has.

 4     But once again, it has to be founded on a scientific basis.

 5             In the report as presented by Dr. Tabeau where she talks about

 6     the ethnic cleansing campaign, I did not find a single footnote that

 7     would indicate on what basis she concludes that the Tomasica victims are

 8     the result of an ethnic cleansing campaign.  I also do not know what

 9     Dr. Tabeau considers as ethnic cleansing.

10        Q.   At transcript page 36854, line 20, through 36855, also line 20 --

11             MR. IVETIC:  That can't be right.  I believe it's 36855 -- just

12     one moment.  It's 36854 and onwards, Dr. Tabeau told us in an answer:

13             "Well, ethnic cleansing is not defined within the field of

14     demography.  It is the demography of war, or conflict demography, that

15     has been dealing with issues like ethnic cleansing, among other things."

16             First of all, what is your comment on this.

17        A.   Dr. Tabeau says herself that there is no definition of ethnic

18     cleansing in demography, but then she notes that war demography, or

19     demography of war, deals with that.  If there is such a discipline of

20     demography as the demography of war, and I don't think that's the case,

21     because Dr. Brunborg in a document of his says that it is about to be

22     constituted.  Whether it's being constituted or not, I wouldn't know.

23     But if there is such a thing as demography of war that Dr. Tabeau is

24     aware of and I am not, then the demography of war also must provide some

25     sort of definition of ethnic cleansing, and then this demography of war

Page 43708

 1     says we do not apply the legal definition of the United Nations but for

 2     us ethnic cleansing represents such and such a thing.  And then it may be

 3     discussed within demography and agree or disagree whether this definition

 4     is good or not.

 5             But in any case, it needs to be said what the demography of war

 6     implies under this category, ethnic cleansing.  If Dr. Tabeau is a war

 7     demographer and deals with the demography of war.  I believe myself to be

 8     no less a demographer of war, but I'm not aware of any definition of

 9     the demography of war.  It would be nice for me to learn something new or

10     to say, all right, fine, now we have a new definition in demography, or

11     perhaps I might object to it.

12        Q.   In the continuation of the pages I cited, 36854, line 20, through

13     36855, line 20, Dr. Tabeau was asked about which definition of ethnic

14     cleansing she used.  And the testimony went like this:

15             "Q.  Can you tell us, Doctor, for purposes of your report on

16     Tomasica, what is the definition of ethnic cleansing that you used and

17     had in mind when you drafted the report?

18             "A.  I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic cleansing.

19     I interpreted certain demographic distributions as illustrative and

20     indicative of ethnic cleansing in this area, in the area of the ARK and

21     Prijedor in particular."

22             Now before I continue with the rest of the answer, do you have a

23     comment as to what Dr. Tabeau has said thus far?

24        A.   Well, that's really contradictory.  First, she says it does not

25     exist in demography as such but it does in the demography of war, but

Page 43709

 1     then she says, I didn't use any particular definition but I interpreted

 2     distributions.  What Dr. Tabeau implies under that I don't know - but

 3     specific distributions are made on the basis of ethnicity but there are

 4     no special distributions on the basis of ethnic cleansing.  You can make

 5     a distribution of population based on ethnicity and then draw certain

 6     conclusions: this one is rising, this one is falling, this one has

 7     remained the same.  So as regards this answer of Dr. Tabeau, I don't know

 8     how to understand it.  It turns out that she used a definition from the

 9     demography of war, then she didn't.  We know for certain that a

10     definition does not exist in demography and so on.

11        Q.   In the continuation of the transcript, we see as follows:

12             "Judge Orie: But, Ms. Tabeau, that requires a certain

13     understanding of what you understand ethnic cleansing to be, and I think

14     that was the question that Mr. Ivetic put to you.

15             "The Witness: So if I may continue then.

16             "Judge Orie: Please.

17             "The Witness:  I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic

18     cleansing.  I used my own understanding of ethnic cleansing, which I

19     understand as focusing certain actions on a given group of population

20     leading to eradication, largely, of this group from a certain territory,

21     and I saw it from the distributions of the missing persons by ethnicity,

22     by age and sex, which I interpreted as supportive and indicative of

23     ethnic cleansing in the territory of ARK."

24             Professor, from the standpoint of the generally accepted practice

25     of the field of demography as a colleague and fellow demographer, can you

Page 43710

 1     comment on these words of Dr. Tabeau.

 2        A.   Well, someone who is involved in a certain field professionally

 3     would deem this answer incomplete and scientifically incorrect.  Because

 4     Dr. Tabeau says, I didn't use any particular definition, but I used my

 5     own understanding.  We don't know what one's own understanding is.  She

 6     had a right to draw such conclusions but she would need to explain that.

 7     In my own understanding, ethnic cleansing, it means when you kill only

 8     men or only men aged from 5 to 105 or another category.

 9             So she had to define what her own understanding was.  It wouldn't

10     have been scientifically based because a legal definition in demography

11     is known.  But perhaps we could have accepted her understanding if she

12     had provided a definition and relevant argumentation supporting it.  But

13     to say that in your expertise, which pretends to be scientifically based,

14     you have your own understanding without providing explanation and

15     arguments and that you only rely on a distribution of some structures

16     without having relevant sources for the distribution, this distribution

17     of the ethnic composition is drawn up by Dr. Tabeau on the basis of one

18     source which is accepted in the scientific world, and that's the

19     population census, and the source that is not accepted anywhere among

20     scientists, and these are electoral roles.

21             So such a distribution on the basis of such sources is not

22     recognised as relevant anywhere among scholars.  But if she had explained

23     what her own understanding was and why she thought so we may have agreed,

24     and I may have said all right, that's fine, though I doubt it as the

25     other source which is used as source of the survived population, which is

Page 43711

 1     absurd.  Electoral roles are not sources from which you can determine

 2     what population survived anywhere in the world, so I don't think that

 3     this is scientifically acceptable.

 4        Q.   If we could look at Dr. Tabeau's report, it's P7449, page 11

 5     Serbian, page 9 in the English, and it will be the last part of the third

 6     paragraph under 2.8 in relation to methodology.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Again, we should have page 11 in the Serbian and

 8     page 9 in the English.  I may have misspoken.  And we'll need ... one

 9     moment, please.  We'll need page 11 in the Serbian.  We see page 7, I

10     believe, up on the screen now.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do they correspond, Mr. Ivetic?

12             MR. IVETIC:  I don't think so.  I'm trying to -- trying to see

13     which part is being displayed so as to give advice.  We need to go --

14     actually, yes.  No, no.  No.  You can go back to the...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think what was found in the English on the lower

16     part of the page is found in the upper part in the B/C/S.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

19             MR. IVETIC:  So the paragraph in question is the third from the

20     top in the B/C/S.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And the semi-last in English?

22             MR. IVETIC:  Well, the English starts off with "in this report,

23     in the first place."  It should be the third paragraph under the heading

24     2.8, which I think will be on perhaps the prior page in the B/C/S.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's indeed not.

Page 43712

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 2        Q.   So the paragraph at issue is the last one on the page in the

 3     Serbian.  The part I want to focus on will be on the next page in Serbian

 4     and it will be the last part of that paragraph up at the top.  And it

 5     reads as follows:

 6             "The methodology is simple but powerful.  It's strength relates

 7     to using reliable sources and to benefitting from matching and merging of

 8     the various sources at the individual record level.  When matching and

 9     merging of the source, I always pay particular attention to the

10     identification and elimination of duplicates."

11             Professor, can you comment as to this part of Dr. Tabeau's

12     report.

13        A.   The methodology is simple but powerful.  What does powerful

14     methodology mean?  You have scientific and non-scientific methodology.

15     In scientific research and methodology, there is nothing that's powerful.

16     This something that is beyond the scientific or its more scientific than

17     the scientific method.  So it's not comprehensible what powerful

18     methodology is.  There's no explanation.

19             But based on all the procedures used, it can be noted that this

20     methodology is special and does not comport with scientific methodology.

21     This profitable methodology is not practiced, not applied in the

22     scientific world, as far as I know, because it represents an adaptation

23     of some methodological solutions which are applied in scientific work to

24     the needs of one's own research.  Therefore, when you say that the

25     methodology is simple but profitable without explaining what the

Page 43713

 1     profitable part would mean, this is just a pure phrase or terminology

 2     that has no meaning.  I underline it does not have any significance

 3     without an explanation, unless one understands it as selecting what you

 4     need and choosing what you need for your own research purposes.

 5        Q.   Now, if we could turn to 1D6187, and this will be an article

 6     published by Dr. Tabeau from 2005.  And it will be on page 20 in the

 7     Serbian and page 22 in the English language.  And it will be in the

 8     middle of the page in the English, and I think it's the fifth

 9     paragraph up from the bottom of the page in Serbian.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. File.

11             MR. FILE:  Just one minor point, Your Honour.  Counsel

12     represented this as an article by Dr. Tabeau.  I believe it's an

13     article -- it's co-authored by Dr. Tabeau, and I just think that should

14     be on the record.

15             MR. IVETIC:  And it will be in the middle of the page of the

16     B/C/S, starting [B/C/S spoken], and I'll --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I cannot follow, which

18     paragraph is it in the Serbian?

19             MR. IVETIC:

20        Q.   The fifth paragraph up from the top which should be at

21     approximately the middle of the page which starts out [B/C/S spoken].

22        A.   All right.

23        Q.   And now I'll read.

24             "International organisations operating in Bosnia, such as, for

25     example, ICRC, ICMP, and UNHCR, made considerable contributions to the

Page 43714

 1     process of collecting information about war-time missing persons, deaths,

 2     identification of victims, and internal and external migration.  The

 3     mandates of these organisations have, however, other major objectives

 4     than producing statistical information about casualties of war.  Their

 5     contributions can therefore not be seen as a substitute of the outcomes

 6     of regular statistical activities normally conducted in peacetime."

 7             Then the next paragraph, it starts:

 8             "The contributions of (local and international) non-governmental

 9     organisations operating in Bosnia, being meaningful and important, can

10     for the same reasons not be considered as replacements for regular

11     statistics."

12             What do you have to say about what is written in this article

13     co-authored by Dr. Tabeau?

14        A.   Dr. Tabeau knows exactly what can and what cannot be considered

15     as valid official data in demography or mortality or in official

16     documents.  In this study of hers, which is intended for the broader

17     professional public, she correctly delineates the point of I know what

18     should be done, and that these were the things that the international

19     organisations did who don't usually do this kind of work.  So in the

20     analysis that I looked at, she does not inform any Trial Chamber about

21     this, and she does not say:  These sources of data that I acquired from

22     non-governmental organisations do not substitute the work of regular

23     statistical services because they would result in such-and-such a

24     problem.

25             So this approach would be a kind of caution about the overall

Page 43715

 1     quality of the expertise that is being done.  If it cannot be measured

 2     with official statistical sources of data, then there must be some kind

 3     of observation about the quality of the expertise that you are producing.

 4     In many expert reports, including this one, Dr. Tabeau says that the

 5     objective is to present accurate data.  However, she does not have a

 6     source for accurate data.

 7        Q.   If we could turn to page 4 in the same work in Serbian and in

 8     English, and it will be, I believe, at the middle of the page in both.

 9     So it's the middle paragraph that in Serbian begins,

10     "[Interpretation] Note that our research results ..."

11             [In English] And in English I will continue reading:

12             "Note that our research results were obtained from a project

13     somewhat different from the usual statistical and academic work.  Our

14     perspective was in line with that of expert reports submitted to the

15     Trial Chambers at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former

16     Yugoslavia (ICTY) as part of the (prosecution) evidence.  The goal of

17     such reports is to provide the Chambers with high-standard war-related

18     population statistics satisfying the requirement of being 'beyond a

19     reasonable doubt' and consistent with the framework of the international

20     humanitarian law."

21             Professor, from the standpoint of the generally accepted practice

22     of professional demographic science, what comment do you have on this

23     approach as stated in this article co-authored by Dr. Tabeau?

24        A.   Dr. Tabeau, quite rightly, says that this is not in accordance

25     with the usual academic work without explaining what it's supposed to be

Page 43716

 1     in accordance with.

 2             Unless we accept as an explanation that their perspective is in

 3     keeping with the -- is in line with that of the Trial Chambers at the

 4     International Criminal Tribunal or the Prosecution, what would be that

 5     perspective in line with the Prosecution if it deviates from customary

 6     professional procedures?  I mean, we would need an explanation for that.

 7     She then notes that the research is not in line with academic work and

 8     then that the sources of data are not the customary sources used in

 9     research that is in line with academic work and that these are

10     organisations whose results are not even close to official results.  I

11     don't know exactly which words she used.

12             How can then the conclusion be made that the results offered to

13     the Prosecution are of high quality which satisfy criteria of the

14     Tribunal and are in accordance with international criminal law?  In my

15     deep conviction, the criteria of the court, and I assume of the

16     Prosecution as well, can only be satisfied by the criteria and results

17     that are scientifically founded, methodology that is applied in

18     scientific academic research.

19             If Dr. Tabeau does believe that this is in line with

20     international humanitarian law, then again she would need to footnote

21     that and say that international humanitarian law perhaps recognises the

22     methodology that one would devise oneself and that that can deviate from

23     all kinds of things, but then I believe that in that case that would be

24     proper and correct.

25             I don't know -- of course, I don't claim to know everything, but

Page 43717

 1     I don't know that international humanitarian law insists on getting

 2     reports that deviate from scientific professional conditions needed for

 3     such a report to be acceptable.  I don't know about the court.  I mean, I

 4     don't know.  And perhaps Dr. Tabeau does know that and perhaps she could

 5     explain this to us how this special methodology, which is not in line

 6     with the science, has significance for the Tribunal and the Prosecution,

 7     or how, on the basis of special methodology, one would acquire

 8     statistical data of high quality.

 9             Also, it is very interesting - I would like to know - for

10     example, had Dr. Tabeau put in a footnote explaining what it is that

11     would satisfy the criteria of the Tribunal.  What is it that would

12     satisfy the Court's criteria?  There is a partial explanation for that in

13     Srebrenica.  I described that in my own report.  In that case it is

14     considered that a large number, even though the Court never says that

15     anywhere, is one of the elements to satisfy the criteria of the Court.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you the following.

17             A small portion was read, and you commented in a long answer on

18     that.  What conclusions does Dr. Tabeau draw from the fact that the usual

19     statistical academic work could not be applied?  What triggers that in

20     her mind in this paragraph; could you tell us?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She makes a distinction between

22     what is applied in science and what is applied in court, and she says

23     properly that in science such and such a thing and such and such sources.

24     However, our expert report was done from the perspective in accordance

25     with such and such a thing.

Page 43718

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  What she says you then should do?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She doesn't say anything in this

 3     report about what should be done.  She, however, presents --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  In the article, I meant.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the article that she published

 6     in a professional publication, she does not say what should be done.

 7             If I may explain it briefly.  She says we're going to present the

 8     war-time victims.  It should be like this, but we're actually doing it

 9     like this.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll phrase the question in a different way.

11             What I read in this report immediately following the portion that

12     was read to you, she writes, or they write:

13             "The first prerequisite implies that questionable, deficient,

14     incomplete sources and/or individual death causes [sic] are excluded from

15     our statistics."

16             Cases.  Where I said "causes" I should have read "cases."

17             I understand that to be that if you are using this unusual method

18     that you should be very careful in excluding sources which are, as she

19     writes, deficient, incomplete.

20             That's apparently the conclusion she draws.  Is that something

21     you would consider wise to do and acceptable to do under those

22     circumstances?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  First of all, these are

24     sources that are never used in the scientific research for what

25     Dr. Tabeau is writing.  And then she says we are using those that are not

Page 43719

 1     used, but the first preconditions in those which are usually not used for

 2     scientific research would be to exclude duplicates.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You'd say that questionable, deficient and

 4     incomplete sources, you consider that a reference to duplicates?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  What is meant are the

 6     insufficient, questionable, incomplete sources from the Red Cross, ICMP,

 7     and so on, which also contain, among other things, duplicates, and then

 8     those sources that are used by the doctor are verified, they're checked.

 9     And then when you find duplicates, because there were cases that in the

10     Red Cross or in several sources you have one person appearing a number of

11     times because it was reported by different relatives, so when you take a

12     source where a same person is found to have been reported three or five

13     times, that would be excluded and leave just one such report and not

14     five.  So that is their procedure regarding the incomplete sources which

15     is not usually applied in scientific research in demography.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   Now if we could turn to your report, 1D6184, and page 14 in the

20     English and page 18 in the Serbian and paragraph number 35 of the same.

21             In paragraph 35, you pose a question:

22             "What is the specialist and scientific significance and what is

23     the real value of results obtained in research different from the usual,

24     statistical, and academic work without being comparable to any

25     methodologically, scientific, and specialist procedure recognised in

Page 43720

 1     statistical and demographic research in the world?"

 2             What do you mean here?  How would you answer?

 3        A.   I meant that Dr. Tabeau was obliged to explain this.  Since

 4     Dr. Tabeau did not explain that, I am putting this question to the Trial

 5     Chamber, even though I don't have a right to that.  However, my answer to

 6     that question would be that all the findings would be pretty suspect,

 7     that they are not scientifically grounded, and that Dr. Tabeau explains

 8     this nicely in her work but not in the report.  Because I really don't

 9     know, if it's only Dr. Tabeau who asserts that her work is sound in the

10     report to the Chamber but that it is not done according to the customary

11     rules, I don't know to what extent this is acceptable because it's not

12     scientifically grounded.  So I think that the answer to that is very

13     important.

14        Q.   And, Professor, in the next paragraph you pose a second question:

15             "To what extent does the expert's project, being somewhat

16     different from the usual statistical and academic work contribute to

17     misinformation?"

18             Do you have an opinion as to the answer to that question?

19        A.   I have.  Dr. Tabeau always says there are some differences.  That

20     can mean that there are drastic or minimal differences, that they can be

21     neglected or not.  I don't believe that there are negligible differences.

22     I believe that there are substantial, drastic differences.  And if such

23     differences exist in the opinion of Dr. Tabeau, and if they're just

24     slight, or if she believes that they are not just slight, then she should

25     answer the question of how much do they contribute to correct, accurate,

Page 43721

 1     information of the Trial Chamber, or to the misinformation of the

 2     Chamber.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to put matters very clear.  Your answer, if I

 4     understand you well, is that this project is considerably contributing to

 5     misinformation.  Is that how I should understand your answer?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would really need to look at all

 7     the projects now.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat her last

 9     sentence.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat your last sentence.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be asked to step away

12     from the microphone.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you come a little bit further away from the

14     microphone.  That's what the interpreters ask.  Yes.

15             THE WITNESS:  I believe that the project did contribute to

16     misinformation, and it's not only the Tomasica project but also about the

17   change of the ethnic structure, the ascertaining of the number of dead, and

18  warranting that they are dead, and so on and so forth, because it is founded

19    on data sources which, had they been professionally done and had it not

20    been aspired to a large number but to things that could be proven reliably

21    and definitely, the findings would have been much more acceptable as such.

22             However, the projects or the reports make it evident that the

23     accent was on the number, on presenting the highest possible number.  I

24     cannot claim that certain sections in some reports are not acceptable,

25     but I can assert with a great degree of certainty that some parts from a

Page 43722

 1     large number of the expert reports are absolutely unacceptable in the

 2     methodological sense.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   In paragraph 37, Professor, you pose a third question, which I

 6     will not read but we have before us.  What, if anything, would you like

 7     to say in regards to this question posed?

 8        A.   Nowhere - and I mean nowhere - does Dr. Tabeau in this report,

 9     and in the majority of others, give her opinion on the degree of the

10     reliability of the results.  If you use unusual or uncommon sources, then

11     it would be logical to talk about the degree of reliability as well,

12     which is arrived at on the basis of an assessment of the sources that you

13     are using.  If Dr. Tabeau did assess the sources that she was using,

14     trying to be professional, and she could say there are many empty fields

15     or some data is still missing, she never expresses that in the way that a

16     demographer or a statistics expert would say.

17             There are some places where she would say 1.300-odd pieces of

18     information are not correct, but then at the end of it all she concludes

19     that all of that is acceptable.

20             In this report, for example, she says the Red Cross does have

21     some omissions, there are still some empty fields.  The Prijedor Book of

22     the Dead has many more failings, and then she lists them saying that

23     almost a half of the persons registered in the Prijedor Book of the Dead,

24     I think it's about half, are not given the place of death, if I'm not

25     mistaken.  I can check that.

Page 43723

 1             But as I said, when you merge those two sources, then they are

 2     acceptable.  How can you get one good source from two bad ones?  All I

 3     can conclude is it can happen because Dr. Tabeau did the matching.  What

 4     I didn't find in the Prijedor Book of the Dead, I'm going to find in the

 5     records of the Red Cross, and that's how we get to that.  So again, we

 6     come to the problem of not knowing how she did the matching.  She does

 7     not say in any of the reports:  This is the criteria we used to move

 8     things, to match things, and then these three criteria or these five

 9     criteria.  In this report she says:  According to the methodology used in

10     the case of Srebrenica, which means that 72 criteria were used, if you

11     use 72 criteria, you can match whatever you want.

12        Q.   We'll get to the criteria.  I would like, first of all, to have

13     you explain to us what you mean when you say "degree of reliability," and

14     what is, in the generally accepted field of demographic work, how is that

15     degree of reliability usually expressed?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps the witness could think over the answer --

17             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and that we take a break first.  And could you

19     please give focused answers rather than very lengthy answers which often

20     move away from what is really asked.

21             You may follow the usher.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, is there any way that you could keep the

24     witness a bit closer to your questions, because the question you are

25     putting to her now is -- is similar to the previous question where


Page 43724

 1     apparently no answer was given which would satisfy you.  Therefore, the

 2     balance between the length of the questions and the length of the answers

 3     seems not to be optimal.

 4             We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 1.21 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, the Chamber was informed that you would

 8     like to raise a procedural matter.  Can we deal with it in open session?

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  We can.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

11             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             I advised my colleagues from the Defence that I wanted to raise

13     this issue at this juncture because I considered that it would not

14     implications for the timing of the rest of the week and was also a matter

15     that should be raised as soon as possible in our ongoing efforts to

16     expeditiously conclude the case, and that is the Trial Chamber's

17     invitation in its recent decisions on the bar table motions, specifically

18     in the ninth decision at paragraph 14, to make submissions on the timing

19     of the tendered documents in the context of the bar table motions.

20             Now, I note preliminarily that this submission is about the issue

21     of timing, not about the appropriateness or even necessity of the

22     admission of the documents that have been tendered by the Defence -- by

23     the Prosecution in order to contextualise or clarify or that are

24     otherwise intimately related to a document tendered by the Defence.

25             And we consider that given the practice in this case in related

Page 43725

 1     matters, and in particular the message from the Court in its recent

 2     decisions, that the issues seem to be about timing and not about the

 3     issue of admissibility per se.

 4             We consider that the answer to that question lies in the

 5     distinction between rebuttal and this particular process, irrespective of

 6     the fact that both may be vehicles for the admission of evidence that may

 7     ultimately shed light on the probative value to be accorded documents

 8     tendered by the Defence.

 9             Thus, rebuttal is and refers to evidence introduced by one party

10     to contract or nullify the evidence introduced by another.  Now, that is

11     necessarily a sequential process; that is, you can't rebut evidence until

12     it's admitted.  And as we all know, the process of evidence admission

13     takes place in a sequential basis pursuant to defined aspects or phases

14     of the case.

15             Now that is different from the process of admitting documents

16     because that process, the question of considering the admissibility of a

17     document and the possible admission of related documents, necessarily

18     involves the consideration of other documents that bear on the tendered

19     doc, and that is something that the Trial Chamber itself has acknowledged

20     in the eighth and ninth bar table motions when it made reference to the

21     factors that it was considering in connection with the admissibility of

22     those documents; their probative value, their reliability, and so on.  I

23     would also note that this was the approach that was adopted and

24     implemented by the Karadzic chamber when it considered Defence bar table

25     motions.  That is, it considered the submissions of the Prosecution in

Page 43726

 1     connection with the -- with the issue of other contextualising,

 2     clarifying, or otherwise intimately related documents to the documents

 3     submitted by the Defence, and in many cases it denied admission of the

 4     documents tendered by the Defence on that basis but in at least one case

 5     it admitted the tendered Defence document along with a couple of

 6     contextualising documents submitted by the Prosecution.

 7             In short, Your Honours, we consider that the process of evidence

 8     admission is -- which includes consideration of other documents apart

 9     from the specific tendered document, and the possible admission of those

10     intimately related documents, is part of an integral and

11     compartmentalised process that is separate from rebuttal despite the fact

12     that they both are vehicles for admission.

13             And I would say in that regard that if the Trial Chamber were to

14     find that the documents the Prosecution has submitted were not related to

15     the Defence tendered documents in that fashion, then those documents

16     would be suitable instead for rebuttal.

17             And finally I would make this plea to the Chamber, and that is to

18     ask the Trial Chamber to do its utmost to complete its decisions on the

19     bar table submissions at the earliest possible opportunity and if at all

20     possible before the conclusion or before the commencement of the week of

21     the 30th, recognising that -- that -- that we're all pressed for

22     resources.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The 30th of April?

24             MR. TIEGER:  The 30th of May.  Did I say April?  Thank you.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  No, you didn't say a month.  You didn't give a

Page 43727

 1     month.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Yes.  And I'm relating that, of course, to the end

 3     of presentation of Defence evidence.

 4             I think it's clear that that would result in the greatest

 5     possible efficiency and certainty for the parties and avoid the risk that

 6     we may found ourselves litigating matters or even deciding matters

 7     related to evidence as we approach the very last parts of the case

 8     related to the submission of the final brief.

 9             So I thank you for your time, Your Honours, and hope you

10     understand why the Prosecution chose to raise this matter at this

11     juncture.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, I think I will not surprise

14     anyone by saying I wasn't exactly prepared to respond today to these --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No one expects you to immediately respond to

16     something not earlier announced.

17             MR. IVETIC:  So I would defer then, and I'll try to, at the

18     earliest possible, perhaps even by the end of the week, come back with

19     something perhaps in writing which would then save us time from the court

20     proceedings.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which also gives us an opportunity to

22     carefully read your submissions, Mr. Tieger, because I think it's a

23     rather delicate line between related to the documents or clarifying, and

24     then the timing, whether it should be done now or at the rebuttal phase,

25     that apparently is the issue the --

Page 43728

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Understood, Mr. President.  And if I could

 2     identified a bright line along that spectrum, I would have.  I

 3     certainly -- I would agree that there are documents that clearly fall on

 4     one end of the spectrum and the other end.  Where those two merge is a

 5     little bit more difficult and nuanced.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We leave it to that for the time being.  Perhaps you

 7     may revisit the matter.  And I think since we are sitting on Thursday and

 8     not on Friday, perhaps it would be good if you briefly respond -- if the

 9     Defence would briefly respond by Thursday so that we can further consider

10     the matter.

11             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps a very practical matter.  I think for

14     interpretation purposes, Mr. Segers was scheduled for this Thursday.

15             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And I think we should stick to that.  There is a

17     fair chance, if I look at all the estimates now, that we'll not conclude

18     to hear the evidence of Ms. Radovanovic this week.  So therefore, we

19     should continue with Mr. Segers and interrupt hearing the evidence of

20     Ms. Radovanovic on Thursday.

21             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct, Your Honours.  And my understanding

22     is that the Dutch language translators are available from the first thing

23     on Thursday, so our plan was to start with him, complete him and get him

24     on his way, and resume with Professor Radovanovic.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.


Page 43729

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  And could I ask the parties, and I'm already

 3     addressing the Prosecution as well, to try to keep the witness on track

 4     in responding to the questions rather than to give long explanations

 5     which go further and further away from what was asked.

 6             I'm also saying this, Mr. File, because I saw that there was an

 7     extended estimate of time, and please reconsider whether you can reduce

 8     it again.

 9             MR. FILE:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will do everything to be as

10     efficient as possible.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

12             MR. IVETIC:

13        Q.   Professor, I have been asked to try to ask you to keep your

14     answers as short and concise as possible so that we can complete the

15     remaining portions of your testimony.

16             In that regard, let me try to shorten the question that I posed

17     before the break and just simply ask you:  In what manner is degree of

18     reliability usually expressed in demographic work?

19        A.   First of all, by judging the quality of the sources you are using

20     and then the demographic indicators based on which you express what you

21     found, and it's known exactly what's the demographic indicator for

22     mortality.

23        Q.   And in what format is degree of reliability reported in

24     demographic work?

25        A.   In a numerical format, which you may later describe and say the

Page 43730

 1     error is such and such, I accept or I do not.  And, of course, the errors

 2     depend on the characteristics.  And the source is -- the more valid, the

 3     fewer errors it contains.

 4        Q.   At transcript page 36819, line 22, to 36822, line 14, Dr. Tabeau

 5     testified about this topic.  We'll take the items of the testimony one by

 6     one to try to keep things as concise as possible.

 7             The first question posed to Dr. Tabeau and her answers are as

 8     follows:

 9             "Q.  Wouldn't it be accepted practice in the field of demography

10     to assign a grade or reliability factor to a particular source that is

11     being used and to report the same in your demography report?

12             "A.  Yes, Mr. Ivetic.  Absolutely."

13             And in relation to this part, Professor, do you agree with

14     Dr. Tabeau.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And does Dr. Tabeau's Tomasica report give any such grade or

17     degree of reliability for all the sources she used in her report as you

18     would except to see from a colleague engaged in the field of demography?

19        A.   Partly.  She mostly describes the insufficiencies of a certain

20     source; for example, the Book of Dead from Prijedor.  And, for example,

21     with regard to ICRC, she says there are still many shortcomings and some

22     errors do occur.  So she does not provide that as usual.  I cannot say

23     that she doesn't mention certain numbers with regard to the Prijedor Book

24     of Dead, but she does not provide a final assessment but she just says

25     overall the source may be accepted, or all in all when we combine these

Page 43731

 1     two sources then they may be accepted.  In scientific demographics

 2     "overall" or "all in all" is not an acceptable description.

 3        Q.   Before we continue with Dr. Tabeau's testimony, what is accepted

 4     in demographic studies?  What degree of reliability is required for a

 5     work to be deemed acceptable for scientific work?  What degree of

 6     reliability as to a source is required?

 7        A.   The percentage of error within a source that is later published

 8     may be between 2 and 5 per cent.

 9        Q.   Now, in the continuation of Dr. Tabeau's testimony in the

10     transcript range that I read out earlier, the second -- the next question

11     posed was as follows:

12             "Q.  And so could you please help me then why are you unable to

13     provide such a grade or reliability factor for the data from ICMP

14     demographically speaking?

15             "A.  Yes, for the simple reason that I don't rely on this source.

16     When I discussed the disappearance information of the victims, I used

17     mainly the ICRC records in combination with the records from the Book of

18     Missing, Prijedor Book of Missing, and I'm not using basically the ICMP

19     disappearance information."

20             Do you have a comment as to this, Professor?

21        A.   Yes.  She could have provided an assessment of ICRC, perhaps not

22     a descriptive one as "all in all it's good" and "I accept it as such."

23     She provides a descriptive assessment for 2005 by saying that from 2000

24     and something until 2013, not the number of the missing, but she doesn't

25     say in 2005 there are still some fields that are missing -- I am

Page 43732

 1     paraphrasing now, I don't know how to quote it exactly but I can read the

 2     quotation if you like.

 3        Q.   We'll get to that if need be.  For now, I'd like to stick to the

 4     development of Dr. Tabeau's answers.

 5             In the next question posed to Dr. Tabeau in that transcript's

 6     range I read earlier read as follows:

 7             "Q.  Are you in a position to report a grade or reliability

 8     factor for these other sources that you did rely upon?

 9             "A.  Well, it depends on what you want me to provide.  If you

10     want a number, a single number, then I don't have such a number.  But I

11     do have an opinion about the reliability of both ICRC and the Prijedor

12     Book of Missing.  I have been working with ICRC, in particular, for many

13     years, and several times I studied the reliability of this list and

14     assessed the list as very reliable, as a matter of fact, although not

15     free of certain deficiencies like gaps in the data or incorrect dates of

16     birth, for example, victims.  These kind of issues are there, of course."

17             Professor, what would you have to say in comment to this

18     testimony of Dr. Tabeau, especially that the reliability factor she can't

19     express any number?

20        A.   The degree of reliability can always be expressed numerically.

21     But when Dr. Tabeau says I don't have a number but I have an opinion,

22     what does she base her opinion on if it's not on some relative ratio of

23     errors in a specific source?  If she says there are still certain

24     shortcomings, also that is unacceptable.  Are these shortcomings

25     1 per cent, 30 per cent, or what?  It means that you are basing your

Page 43733

 1     opinion on the reliability based on the parameters that you use to

 2     evaluate a specific source.

 3        Q.   In the continuation of Dr. Tabeau's testimony in the stated

 4     transcript range, the testimony developed as follows:

 5             "Q.  Okay.  You've told us about the ICRC list.  What about the

 6     other sources you use?  Can you give us an assessment in demographic

 7     terms of the quality or reliability factor of the other sources you use

 8     for the Tomasica report?

 9             "A.  The most important source is, of course, the ICMP list of

10     DNA matched note officials, and I certainly have a very high opinion

11     about the ICMP records, and this is a reliable list that I have no

12     reasons to doubt.

13             "ICMP have been used -- again many times.  I have used the ICMP

14     list many times in various cases.  I unfortunately have to mention

15     Srebrenica again, Mr. Ivetic, as it was the most substantial case in

16     which these records were used, but also in other cases.  I used the

17     Prijedor Book of Missing which is a sources made locally in the Prijedor

18     municipality.  This source is less reliable than the ICRC list, yet it

19     highly overlaps with the ICRC list; however, there are many more

20     deficiencies in the Prijedor Book of Missing like missing pieces of

21     information or errors in the date of birth.

22             "I studied also the 1991 census which I assessed several times

23     also during other projects presented in this case about which I testified

24     in November 2013.  I used the integrated mortality database which was a

25     source for cross-referencing the records of the missing and checking

Page 43734

 1     whether the reporting of the disappearance is consistently reported there

 2     as well and to exclude the possibility that someone has survived

 3     Tomasica, but they didn't, or were confirmed dead."

 4             "Q.  What reliability factor?  You told me what you use, I

 5     believe, in your report.  I'm asking for a reliability factor for, for

 6     instance, the 1991 census and the integrated mortality database which you

 7     just mentioned?  Could you please answer that question."

 8             And the answer of Dr. Tabeau was:

 9             "Well, I again cannot give you a single number on the scale from

10     one to ten, for example, because I don't have such a scale.  But as I'm

11     saying, census, for example, 1991 census, even though it has its

12     problems, it's a very useful source for checking -- improving the

13     validity of the reporting by other sources.  Well, we as the

14     demographic unit invested a lot of time and effort to eliminate mistakes

15     from the census and improve the reporting of the names in the census.  It

16     took us several years until we established a version that could be

17     reliably used in our work, and honestly I believe it is a very reliable

18     source of information, very reliable source of information that proved to

19     be helping me to make decisions about many things, like, you know,

20     matching on the first place, consistency of lists, places of residence,

21     places of disappearance, ethnicity, age, many, many, many, many aspects

22     that I studied in my reports, integrated database is a very large

23     database that is a compilation of several sources --

24             "Q.  How reliable is it, ma'am?

25             "A.  In my eyes, very reliable."

Page 43735

 1             Professor, as a practitioner in the field of demography, what if

 2     anything do you have to say about the testimony and answers of Dr. Tabeau

 3     in this section I've just read?

 4        A.   For most of the explanation, Dr. Tabeau is telling you about the

 5     population census in 1991, and she says that it's reliable and I agree

 6     with her absolutely.  It is highly reliable because it's official data,

 7     and I'm sure that the institution took care about the range of error.

 8             However, the name, surname, and father's name are not statistical

 9     data, and Dr. Tabeau says that they lost time and time to correct that

10     statistical data.  There is no other source which we could refer to so

11     that we could say the corrections were well made or were not well made,

12     but it could have been said that in the census we corrected 40 per cent

13     of names, last names, father's names, some where these were just typing

14     errors, some where we had completely different names, and so on and so

15     forth.  One must keep in mind that the population census was done in the

16     Latin script and the Cyrillic script, so the translation from Cyrillic

17     into Latin script can result in errors.  So professionally, it would be

18     correct to say we corrected 30 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent,

19     2 per cent of names and surnames.

20             Everything else other than names are facts indicating that the

21     census is a reliable source.  But the -- Dr. Tabeau used the census to

22     compare data from the Red Cross.  For example, the person that she found

23     in the Red Cross records, she would check back to see if they were in the

24     census, and so in the case of Srebrenica they used that to consider -- or

25     to establish that the persons that they believed to be victims in

Page 43736

 1     Srebrenica were not fictitious persons and they really did exist.

 2             I don't know how they did this matching.  I'm not going to go

 3     into that.  I saw the table.  But I don't know what it was they took into

 4     account in the matching.  But again, it would have been professionally

 5     correct for them to say:  Okay.  I matched this list according to this

 6     criteria, that criteria, and other criteria.  In Srebrenica we saw that

 7     they compared the Red Cross with the population census, and they used

 8     this criteria:  First name, last name, father's name, and the date of

 9     birth, the rate of matching was 16 per cent.  And this is in relation to

10     the Red Cross, which has 22.000 entries for missing persons.

11             What Dr. Tabeau took from the population census, let's say the

12     ethnicity, because no other sources contain the ethnicity, so again she

13     takes it again according to the decisions used in matching.  We used --

14     we saw how she used it in that particular graph, how she matched the

15     ethnicity.  As for what she says, that she could check the place of

16     disappearance in the census, there is no information in the population

17     census about the place of disappearance.  The population records the

18     living.

19        Q.   Professor, if I could ask you very briefly, does a professional a

20     demographer and statistician keep a record of what matching keys or

21     criteria are used, and if so how would this be reported in relation to

22     the scientific research or report that is authored resulting from the

23     matching inquiry?

24        A.   In professional work, this is done.  Not how, but which.  We know

25     what matching is and what this implies, that something is matched.

Page 43737

 1     However, you must note the criteria that were applied.  Dr. Tabeau says

 2     that in the mortality database there is no chart of that.  So how is the

 3     matching done if you don't know what criteria you are using?  You devise

 4     a criterion which you believe is good and which you believe will show you

 5     with high degree of probability that -- that's the right person, and

 6     that's the criterion you start with.  And then when you get results on

 7     the basis of that criterion, you can then say:  Okay.  I got 16 per cent.

 8     I don't like 16 per cent.  And then I can shorten the...

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, the simple question was whether a record

10     would be kept professionally.  You've answered that question already in

11     the first two lines.  I'm also looking at the clock, Mr. Ivetic.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It's quarter past 2.00.

14             Ms. Radovanovic, we'll adjourn for the day.  We'll not sit

15     tomorrow because in this country the birthday of the king will be

16     celebrated, which is a day off, and the United Nations has adopted that

17     as a holiday as well.  So you know what to expect tomorrow in this

18     country.  We'd like to see you back on Thursday, although we'll start

19     with a brief examination of another witness for which we need special

20     interpretation, so it will not be at 9.30 that we would start but would

21     the assessment that it would be -- how long?  11.00, 12.00 approximately?

22             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, in direct I have only about ten

23     questions, and then I believe the Prosecution has an hour and a half

24     estimate so ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So all together some two hours, so we expect that it

Page 43738

 1     will be around 12.00, perhaps shortly before 12.00, that we'd like to see

 2     you back, so would you please keep that in mind.

 3             I again instruct you that even not on the king's birthday you

 4     should discuss with anyone on the streets your testimony.  Don't discuss

 5     it with anyone or communicate in any other way.  You may now follow the

 6     usher, and we'd like to see you back on Thursday.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll adjourn for the day, and we'll resume

 9     Thursday, the 28th of April, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,

10     I.

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of

13                           April, 2016, at 9.30 a.m.