1 Monday, 2 May 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. 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, Mr. Registrar.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, the Chamber regretted very much that
17 last Thursday, that we have you made waiting for quite a while and then
18 we couldn't hear any further testimony of yours. Therefore, apologies
19 for that, but the situation was such that we couldn't do otherwise.
20 Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination-in-chief, and I
21 would like to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn
22 declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
23 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, professor.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. I'd like to take a look at Dr. Tabeau's report as to Tomasica.
6 MR. IVETIC: So if we can call up P7449, and it will be page 45
7 in the English and page 58 in the Serbian, and it will be the
8 second-to-last paragraph in English, and it will be the paragraph just
9 before the main findings of Dr. Tabeau in both languages.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I get the report, please.
11 MR. IVETIC: I think we still have everything in the hands of the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a hard copy of the report available for the
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. And so on the Serbian version that's on the screen, it will be
18 the paragraph right in the middle of the page, and it will be towards the
19 bottom of the page in the English. And the paragraph starts off by
21 "The matching methodology and sources used for this report were
22 the same as those applied in the compilation of all OTP lists of the 1995
23 Srebrenica victims, starting with the list of 2.000" --
24 A. I'm sorry, but I can't find this. Is it in the Serbian version
25 on page 58?
1 Q. On page 58, it is the middle of the screen and the middle of the
3 A. I have found it.
4 Q. So to begin again:
5 "The matching methodology and sources used for this report were
6 the same as those applied in the compilation of all OTP lists of the 1995
7 Srebrenica victims, starting with the list of 2.000 tendered into
8 evidence in the Krstic case and the latest one being the 2013 Srebrenica
9 update tendered in the Mladic case in November 2013."
10 Now, professor, I know that you are familiar with the list of --
11 of -- of criteria from the Srebrenica report.
12 MR. IVETIC: Perhaps we can call it up so that we can all be
13 refreshed of that. It's Exhibit P01900, and it will be a -- starting on
14 page 81 in the English and page 86 in the Serbian of that report. And in
15 both versions the list continues on to the following page, but if we can
16 have just the first aspect of that on the screen.
17 Q. Professor, now we have on the screen the criteria from the
18 Srebrenica report that Dr. Tabeau has just referenced in her Tomasica
19 report. What conclusions can we draw based upon what Dr. Tabeau has told
20 us in her Tomasica report about the matching methodology she employed?
21 A. Well, judging by what is written here, the matching was done in
22 accordance with 72 criteria, just as with Srebrenica.
23 Q. And in your opinion, how reliable are results obtained from such
24 a method of matching using these 72 criteria?
25 A. With 72 criteria, you can match anything you like. But degree of
1 reliability can be seen from the criteria where, according to the first
2 criteria, which shows high degree of likelihood that these are one and
3 the same individuals in two sources, and matching, if I'm not mistaken,
4 it's only 16 per cent. I think this is a mistake. It says 33.251 but it
5 is rather 3.251, because the ICRC database includes around 20.000 first
6 and last names, and they are matching with it. I'm not exactly certain
7 but I think it's 3.251 as compared to 20-odd thousand, so around
8 16 per cent, judging by the first criterion as I say, it's a high degree
9 of likelihood that it's one and the same person. So it could be said
10 with a great degree of likelihood that they really have been matched.
11 There is another error in the first criterion which is to be
12 found in English. If I remember probably in English it says, inter alia,
13 that it's compared with the place of death. In the Serbian version, this
14 does not exist.
15 Q. Yes, I --
16 A. But it doesn't matter. Because comparisons are made with the
17 census, as they say. The population census does not include the location
18 of death. Only the living are included in it. So I think it's just a
20 Q. And I think we may have dealt with that the last time you were
22 Now, in relation to the matching criteria or keys in the Tomasica
23 case, I asked Dr. Tabeau about the same, and I'd like to go through her
24 answers before the Trial Chamber with you to see if we can better
25 understand them.
1 First, at transcript page 36.790, lines 5 through 20, we have the
2 following testimony which I will read to you:
3 "Q. Okay. Now if we can turn to your report, which I believe is
4 P7449, relating to Tomasica, and if we could turn to the -- for now,
5 page 1 in both languages, and this is the contents of your report.
6 Doctor, last time you were here, we talked about over 70 criteria or you
7 called them, I think, keys, which you used when matching names with the
8 various databases. This report on Tomasica that is before us does not
9 seem to identify how many keys were used in the Tomasica report, does it?
10 "A. It is not so that I provide with every report an overview of
11 matching criteria I have used for matching various lists with each other,
12 so this particular report does not contain such a list. The list you
13 have mentioned was made available as part of the 2009 integrated
14 Srebrenica report provided as example, an explanation of how the matching
15 is done. I will stand by this list and the criteria, but in every
16 project, I use some of these criteria as they are in this table and some
17 additional criteria formulated in line with the logic of that table."
18 What comment do you have as to Dr. Tabeau saying that she uses
19 some of the criteria on the Srebrenica table and formulates additional
20 ones in line with the logic of that table for every project that she
22 A. Well, what would be professionally correct would be for her to
23 say which criteria of the 72 she used, and what additional criteria mean,
24 it would also be professionally correct to explain that. That was why I
25 requested to receive the matching criteria. I know what they were for
1 Srebrenica, though I don't know which ones she used.
2 And as for additional criteria, it's not only Dr. Tabeau who can know.
3 We have to know too in order to be able to assess whether they are
4 sufficient for matching, what they imply, and so on.
5 Q. By the way, were you able to find the matching criteria on your
6 own that Dr. Tabeau used anywhere in the demography unit materials that
7 were made available to you when you visited the Tribunal in January of
8 this year?
9 A. Neither in the materials when I was here, nor in any of the
10 reports that I have read. And I've read quite a few reports by
11 Dr. Tabeau.
12 Q. Now, I asked Dr. Tabeau another question when she was here
13 testifying about her Tomasica report, and I'd like to read to you the
14 testimony at transcript page 36.790, line 21, through 36.791, line 3, and
15 it goes as follows:
16 "Q. That's entirely what I expected, doctor, and that's why I
17 asked you to precisely tell us how many matching criteria or keys were
18 used for the Tomasica report and what precisely those keys were.
19 "A. You would have to be more specific about your question. If
20 you say matching of the Tomasica list, then have you to tell me with what
21 source, and then I can explain more specifically what was the criteria
22 based about. Still, I will not give you the concrete criteria because I
23 don't have them at hand."
24 Professor, what do you make of Dr. Tabeau's answer to my
1 A. Well, I think that Dr. Tabeau is playing with you. She is
2 telling you to be more specific and tell her what source you have in
3 mind. You're a lawyer, and as she thinks that the Trial Chamber is not
4 expert in methodology, she probably thinks also that are you not.
5 Regardless of which source you had in mind, there must be a criterion which
6 she had to state and then say, I compared it with such and such criteria.
7 What is especially interesting here is that she says you should
8 mention the sources. It means that for each separate source, she used
9 separate criteria. So, for example, for the ICRC source and the
10 population census, one set of criteria; then for ICRC and the book from
11 Prijedor, another set of criteria; for third sources, for example when
12 comparing some sources, a third set of criteria, and so on.
13 So what is professionally correct and what is required is to
14 state the criteria you have been using. It's symptomatic that she is not
15 using one and the same key for all sources or one and the same set of
16 keys. Why she is not doing that, well, that is something she would have
17 to explain, why she changes the criteria from one source to another. And
18 not in some order, but keys in general, as criteria, somewhere she uses
19 all the information, somewhere only the first and last names, and so on.
20 So it would have been proper if Dr. Tabeau had told you, or if she had
21 written that, inserted a footnote and said, I used this and this for such
22 and such a source, and so on. And asking you to state which source you
23 have in mind, I think that's just playing with you.
24 Q. By the way, professor, in your opinion, how difficult would it be
25 for a demography expert who has conducted matching according to keys or
1 criteria to provide those keys or criteria to someone else to review the
3 A. Well, that shouldn't be difficult at all. It's a methodological
4 procedure that you apply. How difficult it was to obtain all the
5 criteria that we have in front of us now that were used for Srebrenica,
6 the doctor did not write those criteria later on, or anyone else. When
7 you start with matching, you have to set the criteria and that mustn't be
8 difficult. When you begin this work, you have to know exactly what
9 criteria you are using to compare units from two different sources. So
10 somebody has to write it down. You cannot do it off the top of your
11 head, because if you do, you simply don't know what you have done or not.
12 So I do not consider that difficult at all. It's just a question
13 of good will.
14 Q. If I can present to you what Dr. Tabeau testified about at our
15 trial on this topic, that's at transcript page 36.791, lines 4 through 7.
16 And again, I would read that portion of the transcript and then ask you
17 some questions. And it goes as follows:
18 "Q. Do the concrete criteria exist somewhere in your office?
19 "A. If you mean in a form of the list, like the list of 70, then
20 my answer is no, they don't. Other than that, I can provide you with the
21 logic of my matching for any two sources that you will mentioned."
22 Professor, from the standpoint of professional, scientific
23 practice of demography, what is your comment as to Dr. Tabeau's assertion
24 that the matching criteria she used do not exist in the form of a list
25 but that she can provide us with the logic of the matching?
1 A. Well, I find it very strange. Let me repeat: When you start a
2 matching process, you set the criterion. And if you don't write it down,
3 for me it's unbelievable. The logic of matching cannot be explained
4 unless you have the criteria. You cannot match anything logically if you
5 do not know what you're matching it by, on the basis of what. You have
6 to know the element on the basis of which you're matching something. So
7 you can deduce the logic and say, I'll take the name, the first name,
8 last name, a date, but the logic itself doesn't mean anything unless you
9 have a key that you're applying. So, to be honest, I do not understand
10 what the logic of matching means without criteria. Once you set a
11 criterion and when you see if it's adequate, if it's logical and if it
12 makes any sense to do the matching based on it or not. So I don't really
13 understand, and I have never heard, that a logic of matching is provided.
14 I know that criteria for the matching are provided.
15 Q. I'd like to continue with additional items that Dr. Tabeau
16 testified about at transcript 36.793, lines 3 through 19, and they read
17 as follows:
18 "But I think that Mr. Ivetic sees the process of matching in a
19 very formal way, in the sense that one starts from a formal list of
20 criteria and then goes through the entire list to end with a result at
21 the end. As a matter of fact, a very long list of criteria, say 70,
22 might be finished after five first steps because the records simply match
23 very well, and then there is no need even to go through the rest of the
24 list. So the matching process is basically cross-referencing of two
25 related lists, or two lists expected to be related to each other, and
1 mainly by comparison of the names on the two lists and dates of birth,
2 other information on the lists, one draws conclusions about the
3 similarity of potentially related cases. If there is an identity of
4 reporting on the two lists of a given person, then a match can be easily
5 declared. If there are slight differences in the spelling of names or in
6 the dates of birth, then one has to decide whether the differences are
7 acceptable and a match can be declared or a match cannot be declared."
8 Professor, what can you tell us about what we have just heard
9 from the testimony of Dr. Ewa Tabeau?
10 A. The doctor notes that you are seeing the matching process
11 formally, but it is a formal procedure. It's not an informal procedure
12 of any kind.
13 She then says that she cannot set 72 or 100 criteria and then
14 start and see that they're fine after five. The problem is that when you
15 start with the first criterion you have to decide what's a high degree of
16 likelihood. So if that one works, you don't go any further. But if that
17 one does not work, then you have to reduce the criterion, make it
18 shorter. The shorter a key is, the likelihood of matching is higher.
19 But the likelihood of good data is smaller. If you say that units from
20 two sources are to be compared by the first and last name, the name of
21 the father, the place and date of birth, and you find identical
22 information, then the likelihood that it is one and the same person is
23 very high indeed.
24 But if you did not receive that, then you might say, Well, I am
25 not going to use all the criteria. I have to shorten it. Let me look by
1 using first and last name, father's name, and the year of birth, without
2 the place of birth, and I'll get matching again. But if I'm not happy
3 with it again, I can shorten it again and I can say, Well, just the
4 initial of the first and last name, the full father's name, and the year
5 of birth. And then on the basis of that, I will once again get a certain
6 number of matches with all similar initials, but, for example, you can
7 use the year range of three rather than five; from 1949 to 1952, for
8 example. And then you review all the information, then the doctor or
9 whoever is doing it may say, Well, this is the one. So it's not
10 identical by similar.
11 On the first or second day when I testified we had a chance to
12 see table 1, where in most cases the first name is the same, the father's
13 name is the same, and the last name is the same, but the places of birth
14 and the dates of birth are completely different. The doctor judged that
15 this was one and the same person who has been matched. But how, by
16 applying what kind of logic, that's something I really cannot go into.
17 Making such decisions is something that has to be stated. For the first
18 criteria I guarantee such and such a number. For the fifth, such and
19 such. I have made such decisions to do such and such a thing and that
20 applies to such and such a percentage of the total material that you are
22 I also don't know what Dr. Tabeau understands by small
23 differences. Is a different place of birth or a different date of birth
24 considered a small difference? I think that Dr. Tabeau should have
25 provided explanations for all of these, and professionally it could have
1 been done. We have the criteria in front of us. We could have assessed
2 the degree of matching. She could have said, Because, here, there's
3 around 16 per cent of matching. According to another criterion, it could
4 be 20 per cent. According to another, 20 or 60 per cent. So that's the
5 basis on which you decide about the degree of combining the data from two
6 sources. I think that Dr. Tabeau is intentionally concealing the
7 calculations so that the degree of combinations is difficult to assess.
8 But if you look at the 72 criteria and see that it's matching from ICRC
9 20-odd thousand people as compared to 4 million people, on the basis of
10 this you can assess the degree of combinations. The exact number, what
11 is matched with what, and you can see what the degree of combination is.
12 Q. I'd like to take a look at your report, which is 1D06189 and has
13 been marked for identification --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue --
15 Could you tell us why you think that Dr. Tabeau is intentionally
16 concealing the calculations? Do you have any reason to believe that she
17 intentionally wants to deceive this Chamber?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if she promised the lawyer to
19 provide the criteria and didn't, and then if I requested in writing that
20 she provide the criteria, she still didn't, then I think that she is
21 intentionally concealing them. If the additional criteria are not stated
22 anywhere, I could have taken these 72, no problem, but the doctor claims
23 there are additional criteria for various sources of information, she
24 doesn't even explain one -- why she didn't provide them.
25 JUDGE ORIE: First, you say "if she promised the lawyer to
1 provide the criteria." Did she?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, during the examination a few
3 days ago, we heard that she had promised and didn't. The lawyer quoted
4 that, but he hasn't received the criteria. Later, I requested them in
6 JUDGE ORIE: To Dr. Tabeau directly?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw Dr. Tabeau twice in my life
8 ten years ago. I address my requests to the Defence team, and I suppose
9 they forward these requests to Dr. Tabeau.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt for one second. We have now a
11 list on the screen. I think it shouldn't be broadcast.
12 MR. IVETIC: And then we also have the wrong document, then, it
13 would appear. I'm looking for what has been marked for identification as
14 D1464, which should correlate to 1D6189.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
16 MR. IVETIC: Or 6184.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you asked for.
18 Just to continue, Mr. Ivetic, was there a direct or not a direct
19 request to Dr. Tabeau to -- in writing, because we would like to know
20 then. And also we would like to know why, if there was no response that,
21 why the Defence -- at least I do not remember whether you asked us to
22 support any request for further information by Dr. Tabeau. Because --
23 could you provide us with some additional information on when and how and
24 in what wording requests were sent to Dr. Tabeau.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours, I can try to assist.
1 We looked at the transcript of Dr. Tabeau's testimony here in
2 relation to Tomasica from last year where I asked for those matching
3 criteria to be provided, and Dr. Tabeau indicated it would take some time
4 and she couldn't recreate them in the courtroom now. And then after
5 that, I believe it was in October of last year, it was the day before I
6 went to Serbia and the day before Dr. Dunjic's death, that I believe the
7 written list was provided to the Office of the Prosecutor in a meeting
8 between Mr. Tieger and Mr. Lukic. That written list was the request of
9 Professor Radovanovic. And I know that the Prosecution had that list
10 because in subsequent meetings with Ms. D'Ascoli and Mr. Traldi, I met
11 with them and they had that list translated into English. And on that
12 list I believe -- I don't have it front of me, but I think it was --
13 request number 12 or 13 was for the matching criteria that Dr. Tabeau had
14 used in her Tomasica report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, there are, well, relatively strong accusations
16 against Tabeau as intentionally concealing something. Is there any way
17 that the parties could agree to provide to the Chamber, because we will
18 take that seriously, first of all, the exchange of written reports,
19 because Ms. Radovanovic says, Well, we requested it in writing and now
20 it -- I do understand that there has been a communication between the
21 parties including lists -- well, a list in itself is not yet a request.
22 The Chamber also notes that if there was no follow-up, that as far as I
23 remember, but please correct me when my recollection doesn't serve me
24 well, that never we were asked to support or give further orders to the
25 Prosecution to present certain evidence such as these kind of matching
1 criteria used in relation to Tomasica. So it's all pretty tough, but I'd
2 like to know, and perhaps my colleagues as well, what exactly is at the
3 basis of that.
4 Mr. File.
5 MR. FILE: I might be able to provide a shortcut to this
6 exchange. We received the list of 13 requests that Dr. Radovanovic
7 wished to have access to when she came here on the 5th of November, 2015.
8 Number 13 on that list was "list of criteria used as basis for matching
9 and linking from different information sources."
10 And following our consultations, we presented the list from
11 P1900, the list of 72 criteria which includes all of the primary criteria
12 that Ewa Tabeau used for this report other than any individual
13 decision-making on particular records. We put that in the folder that
14 Dr. Radovanovic had access to when she came here in January, and we
15 received no further communications indicating that that was unacceptable
16 or that they were looking for some other type of information, and that's
17 where it was left.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may be that where Dr. Tabeau testified that
19 she didn't have a -- she couldn't reproduce immediately what criteria she
20 used, that she would have make that, and at that time I think there
21 70 criteria list -- was -- was in existence. So later on it's a matter
22 of access to something Dr. Tabeau may have testified, if it's the same,
23 that it did not yet exist and still had to be produced. And there is a
24 chance there is some mal-communication and at least there was no
25 follow-up with the Chamber. And if I understand you well, Mr. File, also
1 not once you had provided what you have provided, that there was no
2 additional request as to: This is not what I meant, I want something
3 else, which then, of course, also never reached the Chamber.
4 That's -- Mr. Ivetic, is there any -- do you agree that the
5 details given by Mr. File are about the same you talked about?
6 MR. IVETIC: Except for the date of November 5th, I'm not sure of
7 that date, but it was either late October, early November, when that was
8 provided. And then I also then quote the testimony of Dr. Tabeau at
9 transcript page 36.790, where she indicated for Tomasica she started with
10 the 2009 integrated Srebrenica report and then used additional criteria
11 formulated in line with the logic of that table. So we don't have that
12 additional criteria that Dr. Tabeau mentioned when she testified as to
13 the Tomasica report --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm at this moment primarily interested in
15 where it went wrong to the extent that Dr. Radovanovic is now saying that
16 Ms. Tabeau intentionally tried to conceal, where it may have gone wrong
17 in terms of communication, what -- who is asking what from whom, and was
18 the Chamber ever invited to assist in resolving such problems. That's --
19 was what I was mainly focusing at this moment.
20 I intervened. Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: I'm not sure if you intervened. I think it was your
22 question, actually, and then you posed a question to me. So I don't know
23 if Your Honours have finished with the question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I intervened. Ms. Radovanovic has answered my
25 request that she did not make any written request herself directly to
1 Dr. Tabeau, and we now better understand what kind of a request it was
2 and what response was received on that. And it was all about my question
3 what makes you believe that there was an intention to -- to conceal.
4 That's where I intervened. And please resume from where I
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay. We now have Professor Radovanovic's report as
7 to Tomasica on the screen. I'd like to have page 17 in English and
8 page 22 in the original Serbian, and it will be paragraph number 47 that
9 I'd like to focus on.
10 Q. And now, professor, we have your paragraph 47 on the screen. I'd
11 like to focus on the second half of that paragraph, and it starts in
12 middle of that paragraph, where you say:
13 "Reassociation means that another body part of an already
14 identified person was subsequently found and should be joined to the
15 initial already identified findings. Therefore, no new identifications
16 are in question but the reassociation of found skeletal parts of an
17 already identified person whose whole body has not been exhumed. The
18 Prosecution expert witness knows that for she notes that: The
19 reassociations cases of positive identification of body parts additional
20 to the already existing positive match reports for the main cases. The
21 reassociations are not counted as additional cases of positive
22 identification, they express the fact that the [sic] bodies were
23 sometimes dismembered within one grave or fragmented between more graves.
24 Why then does the expert add up the [sic] parts of the same whole,
25 although it is clear to her that all the reassociated cases are parts of
1 some main cases?"
2 Professor, you pose a question here. I would ask it of you and
3 see what answer you would come up with.
4 A. This table is presented in an incorrect way, and I believe it is
5 pure manipulation. If these are reassociated cases, then it involves
6 parts of the bones of some people that the doctor refers to here as main
7 cases. So it's the same people and parts of their bones.
8 In the course of identification, it happens that one doesn't find
9 the whole body, that later some body parts are found subsequently and
10 added to the body. You can't add it up and say that you have a total of
11 712. 712 what? A reassociated case is, in fact, the main case. Part of
12 the main case. The doctor says there are 378 cases out of which 334
13 bones belong to them. So you can't add it up. And what does it mean, a
14 total of 712? Is it 712 bones? No. Is it 712 identified people? No.
15 So this table has the purpose of creating confusion, in my deep
16 conviction, because this is not the way to present something and to add
17 it up.
18 Dr. Tabeau, within the tables that she attaches to the report,
19 and that is on -- about 100 pages, she numbers them from 1 to 712, so you
20 can't take a single table and follow the normal numbering from 1 to N.
21 If Dr. Tabeau knows exactly how many people have been identified,
22 although I don't agree with it, then you take it 1 to X.
23 First of all, I believe this is not the way it should be done.
24 Second, I believe the purpose is to create confusion. Because Dr. Tabeau
25 understands perfectly well the statistical methodology, and she is
1 counting on others not being familiar with it.
2 MR. IVETIC: Now, if we could turn to Dr. Tabeau's report, which
3 is P7449, and if we take a look at Table 18, which is to be found on page
4 32 in the Serbian at the bottom of that page, and in English it will be
5 the middle of page 26.
6 Q. And now that we have Table 18 up in both languages, can you
7 please explain to us what you want to say about this table of
8 Dr. Tabeau's.
9 A. This is not a piece of demographical data and I call it
10 statistical exhibitionism. The number of shots fired at somebody has
11 nothing to do with demography. Demography doesn't deal with any number
12 of shots. It deals with the cause of death by external effects, such as
13 gun-fire, poisoning, et cetera. So since Dr. Tabeau has not a single
14 demographic indicator shown normally in demography within statistical
15 reports, she uses the number of gun-shots. The number of gun-shots has
16 nothing to do with demography. Demography deals with cause of death by
17 gun-fire. I suppose -- in fact, I don't suppose, I know she takes this
18 from Dr. Clark. You have an absurdity here. She calculates how many
19 shots were sustained by each victim on average, and she gives you a
20 conclusion, saying that the whole group took 740 shots, up to 750. This
21 has nothing to do with science.
22 MR. IVETIC: If we could take a look at P7453 in e-court, and
23 this will be the PowerPoint presentation that Dr. Tabeau used in court
24 the last time she was here, and if we could have page 9, which is
25 slide 9, in both languages up on the screen.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While that is coming up, I would like to put a
2 question to the witness.
3 Ms. Radovanovic, you said:
4 "Demography deals with cause of death by gun-fire."
5 Why are you then saying that the number of gun-shots has nothing
6 to do with demography? The number of gun-shots may also indicate
7 something about the cause of death. I really don't understand why you
8 made this distinction. Could you explain it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I don't think we understood
10 each other well. Demography deals with the cause of death. Cause of
11 death, for instance, may be gun-shot wound to the head. And the
12 demographer is not interested whether death was caused by 1 or 75 shots.
13 He is looking at the cause of death, and he looks at relevant
14 information. He knows that the cause of death is an external impact.
15 And he doesn't see it even in the relevant sources.
16 Here, Dr. Tabeau saw in Dr. Clark's report the number of
17 gun-shots, and since she has no relevant demographic indicator and she is
18 not able to say the cause of death is violent, caused by this or this,
19 death by poisoning, death by gun-fire, from fire-arms, et cetera, instead
20 she cites the number of shots. This has nothing to do with demography.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC:
23 Q. Looking at slide that we have on our screen, and during trial at
24 the intervention of the Trial Chamber, Dr. Tabeau corrected the table we
25 see in front of us. And that was at transcript pages 36.734 to 36.733.
1 And the correction of Dr. Tabeau says we have to delete the 13.2 per cent
2 listed under "unavailable" on Table 5, and the Serb translation on the
3 left has taken into account this correction of Dr. Tabeau, but in English
4 we still see 13.2 per cent under "unavailable."
5 In your opinion, is the correction by Dr. Tabeau of deleting the
6 13.2 per cent unavailable leading to an accurate demographic
7 representation of this data?
8 A. No. I think one of the Judges asked whether these
9 13-plus per cent should be deleted because the total exceeded
10 100 per cent. The doctor said yes. And this is an error. You can't
11 delete something that exists. These 13-plus per cent exist. But if you
12 see that the total exceeds 100 per cent, then it means you made an error
13 in calculation, and you have to recalculate the percentages.
14 The error here lies in the fact that Dr. Tabeau counts the
15 unavailable as Muslims, and she say there are 95 per cent of Muslims,
16 which is not correct. If there are 330, if I see well, it's not
17 95 per cent of the total. It's about 80-something per cent.
18 And you can see that very well in this next part where she talks
19 about Prijedor and the ARK. Look at the unavailable, 522. The field is
20 blank. And these 522 is about 20 per cent of the total. And, again,
21 Dr. Tabeau ascribes it all to Muslims. How does she know that these
22 unavailable are Muslim by ethnicity? Muslims are 80-plus per cent if
23 these 522 are about 20 per cent of the total.
24 So this is not about deleting an element that exists. The point
25 is in the calculation. And this calculation is done on the premise that
1 all of them are Muslims. I wouldn't mind if Dr. Tabeau put in a footnote
2 saying: I believe that these unavailable are Muslims for these and these
3 reasons. Because we are talking here about matching, and the only
4 ethnicity -- the only source of seeing ethnicity is the census. If she
5 found 522 or 44 unavailable by ethnicity because she couldn't identify
6 them according to 72 criteria, then it would be fair to leave it at that
7 and to change the share of other ethnicities. That is to say, the
8 Muslims. If Dr. Tabeau knows some other source that tells her that these
9 people are Muslims, then she should have put in a footnote saying: I
10 believe the unavailable are, in fact, Muslims.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Radovanovic, you said "if there are 330, if I
12 see well," perhaps it's an interpretation or a typing issue. The table
13 says 320, just for the record, and not 330.
14 Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, Judge Fluegge. My
16 eyesight is not too good. I can see now. It's been enlarged.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we are at the time for a break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We are, Mr. Ivetic, and thank you for reminding me.
20 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We very briefly move into private session.
1 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait for the witness to be escorted into the
23 MR IVETIC: While we wait for the witness, Your Honours, I can
24 perhaps put on the record that the Defence does not consider the
25 tendering of the 72 criteria from the Srebrenica report to be the final
1 answer as to the matching done for Tomasica or even for Srebrenica
2 because while the criteria are there, we don't have the matching results
3 which would allow us to know under what criteria or what number of items
4 matched. We don't have that for the Tomasica report, nor do we have that
5 for even the Srebrenica list because, of course, the 72 matching criteria
6 and the results in that part of the Srebrenica report relate to the ICRC
7 list and the census, not the list of victims for Srebrenica, so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
9 MR. FILE: If I may, Your Honour.
10 I believe that what Mr. Ivetic is referring to now is a matching
11 log, and that is different from the matching keys or criteria that we've
12 been discussing, and I just wanted to put that on the record as well.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now everything is on the record.
15 Let's move on.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
17 Q. Professor, I would like to return to your report, which is now
18 D1464 marked for identification, and I would like to look at page 22 in
19 the English and it will be page 29 in the Serbian, and it will be
20 paragraph number 66.
21 A. Yes, I have found it.
22 Q. Well, we have to wait, I think, for the e-court to catch up with
24 MR. IVETIC: Page 22 in English, D1464 MFI.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is it marked for identification, is it tendered --
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's under seal.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, D1464 under seal is 65 ter 1D6189.
5 The report that Mr. Ivetic is referring to is 1D6184 which has not been
6 tendered as yet.
7 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Then I stand corrected, and if we can have
8 1D06184, and it will be page 22 in English, and page 29 in the Serbian,
9 and paragraph 66.
10 Q. And, professor, in the approximate middle of that paragraph, you
11 have a line that reads as follows:
12 "As already said, such tables are of no demographic significance
13 in the sense of representing specific demographic indicators."
14 And this is in relation to Annex 3 of Dr. Tabeau's report
15 entitled: Index of victims identification documents collected to date,
16 source: BH Office of the Prosecutor.
17 Could you please explain your comments.
18 A. Well, the table shows when each of the documents was received by
19 the OTP and whether it's under seal or not, in which language it is, and
20 so on. In the demographic sense, that has no importance whatsoever, for
21 the simple reason that if you state the sources of information, it's
22 unimportant on what date you received which document.
23 It's a rather large table, and I really do not understand its
24 purpose, but it certainly has nothing to do with demographics. There's
25 no demographic information that you can draw from it.
1 Q. If we could turn to the next page in both languages of your
2 report, and if we could focus on paragraph 69 of the same, and I'll wait
3 for the screen to reflect that.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar informs me that the machine is frozen,
6 which surprises me on the first day where the sun shines in the
7 Netherlands, but apparently there's a technical problem.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. And now it would appear that we have resolved whatever the
10 problem was.
11 So looking at paragraph 69 of your report, and it reads:
12 "A preference for the broader context is pronounced in this
13 report as well. The broader context encompasses missing persons from
14 Prijedor as a universe for Tomasica victims. The results of the
15 comprehensiveness (universe) of missing persons from Prijedor are based,
16 as are all the other findings, on the powerful methodology. This is also
17 attested to by the fact that the different reports of the same expert
18 give different definitions of the area of the Autonomous Region of
19 Krajina (ARK). Different municipalities are thus added to or subtracted
20 from the region, including municipalities of unknown disappearances,
21 depending on what the expert thinks she needs. It is thus claimed that
22 the database contains disappearances from 23 ARK municipalities during
23 the period of 1992, including a number of cases with missing data on time
24 and/or place of disappearance or incomplete personal details. This
25 database was formed by matching PKM and ICRC lists. The expert conceals
1 the criteria used for the matching in order to find a total of unique
2 cases. A table, which is nothing but statistical exhibitionism, is
3 presented. Let us see what the table looks like and what information
4 exactly it gives or conceals."
5 Can you explain what you mean here in this paragraph.
6 A. The table shows, at least judging by its title, all the cases
7 from the database of persons from ARK who went missing in 1992. So you
8 can see the source, 1998, 2002, I suppose it's the Prijedor Book of Dead.
9 And then ICRC. And then the number of units found in those sources. And
10 then overlaps, 4.615. Overlaps of what? It is a fact that the database
11 of the Prijedor book from 2002 certainly contains many names from 1998.
12 It's also a fact, as Dr. Tabeau later says, that the ICRC and the
13 Prijedor books do not match in almost one-half of overlaps.
14 So what does it mean, a total of unique cases? That the doctor
15 singled out 4.615 unique cases from the ICRC and from the Prijedor book?
16 This is a table that is absolutely impossible to understand. Only the
17 doctor knows how she got this number of 4.615. If you have so many
18 overlaps, that implies that you found something in several sources. That
19 number of people. But what do unique cases mean? There are more
20 overlaps than unique cases. Each overlap should be a unique case.
21 So I absolutely do not understand this table. And I think that
22 its purpose here is to confuse. There is no explanation in the sense
23 that she would say, Yes, here I used the same source of information from
24 1998 and 2002 have the same number of cases. Later on, she explains by
25 saying that ICRC has 2000 and odd, and then I matched them so I have such
1 and such a number. But it's all so confusing, I think she is the only
2 one who know what she means.
3 Q. And in this paragraph where you talk about the changing
4 definition of the ARK, what municipalities are included in the ARK, in
5 footnote 75, you cite to the report for the Milomir Stakic case.
6 MR. IVETIC: And that is 1D6191 in e-court in our case.
7 Q. In that report, Dr. Tabeau has dealt with mortality statistics
8 for Prijedor in these municipalities from 1991. Has Dr. Tabeau taken
9 into account any mortality statistics for Prijedor or the ARK that
10 existed in peacetime in relation to her Tomasica report?
11 A. No. And not only for Tomasica. I've said a number of times
12 Dr. Tabeau has not a single one statistical demographic indicator, and
13 she knows exactly what those indicators are. It is also absurd, unless
14 you note that in a footnote, that in a report you use something as a
15 whole and in a different report something else, especially as these are
16 different municipalities. So sometimes municipalities are taken into
17 account or dropped and so on.
18 And as for the broader context, Dr. Tabeau says that ARK contains
19 23 municipalities. I can understand that, but I don't understand why she
20 needs it. What she's interested in here is Tomasica, and it's known
21 exactly where this Tomasica is. So why show something that's not part of
22 the task encompassed by the report? So if the tables say that the ARK
23 contains 23 municipalities but then she reduces them to 15 and then she
24 says, Well, we'll take only five municipalities that are contacted with
25 the indictment and show that in the tables, without any explanation, I
1 really don't understand what that is about. And if I don't understand
2 it, because I think I understand demographics a little, then as there are
3 no actual statistical indicators, then the broader context is very
4 important. Especially as in her book she says that the broader context
5 an imperative, though she doesn't say who set the imperative.
6 Q. Next I want to turn to your conclusions to be found on pages 24
7 to 25 of your report in English, and it will be pages 32 through 33 of
8 your report in the Serbian, and that will be beginning with
9 paragraph number 72 and going to paragraph number 73.
10 First of all, do you stand by the conclusions as written in your
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if I could pay particular attention to the second part of
14 paragraph 72, which will be on the same page in the Serbian in the middle
15 of the page, and it will be on the next page in the English, and it will
16 be the second paragraph of item number 72, and it reads as follows:
17 "Since appropriate scientific standards cannot be applied to
18 inappropriate data sources, the only way out is the application of a
19 'powerful methodology' which is contrary to all the rules of the
20 statistical and demographic profession and science. This methodology is
21 not practiced anywhere in the world except for the 'court' analyses of
22 the Prosecution expert. This methodology allows a selective choice of
23 data sources, modification of standard statistical and demographic
24 methods, and concealment of the criteria according to which these methods
25 are applied, invention of new methods, inclusion in identified persons of
1 recovered persons for whom final DNA findings still do not exist or whose
2 DNA findings do not match the DNA findings of family members, correction
3 of cause of death, insinuation that solely executed civilian victims are
4 in question despite the existence of documents showing that there had
5 been fighting also, presentation of statistical indicators which have
6 nothing to do with demography (gun-shots statistics) and review of the
7 'broader context' which is on no grounds associated with Tomasica and
8 Jakarina Kosa."
9 Do you have any further explanations that you'd like to give to
10 us in relation to this paragraph of your conclusions?
11 A. No, I think that this is a conclusion based on everything that I
12 studied and reviewed. This is all that I could draw as a conclusion.
13 Q. And if we could look at paragraph 73 of the report, which is on
14 the next page in the Serbian, on the same page in English, and it reads:
15 "The application of a powerful methodology produces targeted
16 statistical results. Targeted statistical results are not a genuine
17 contribution to finding scientifically grounded truth but their
18 presentation may cause confusion and impose a distorted picture of the
19 nature and extent of the events under analysis."
20 I would stop right there and ask you: Can you explain for us
21 what is the reliability of such targeted statistical results?
22 A. Well, as soon as they are targeted, it means that they cannot be
23 reliable. And the overall methodology, which as we have seen is not in
24 accordance with the academic one and the one usually applied but is,
25 rather, powerful, is not recognised anywhere as a scientific methodology.
1 It is constructed in order to obtain the targeted results; that is to
2 say, to meet the criteria set by the Prosecution and implying high
3 numbers. They do not explain what the criteria are, but they believe
4 that such criteria need to be met. And she's trying to avoid the
5 official sources based on which mortality is deduced.
6 Q. Professor, how are such targeted statistical findings treated in
7 the field of scientific demography?
8 A. Well, no one uses them as relevant. The fact that they are
9 targeted means they're not relevant. In scientific demography, it is
10 simply not the usual practice.
11 The problem here is that the Prosecution expert divides analyses
12 into court analyses and other analyses. And I have quoted this exactly,
13 what they mean already in Srebrenica here, perhaps it's in a footnote.
14 Because Trial Chambers do not comprise experts in methodologies, so let's
15 not burden them with methodology but, rather, write a court analysis.
16 But there are no court and other methodologies. There is scientific
17 methodology and those that are not scientific.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the Defence would tender the report of
19 Professor Radovanovic, which is 65 ter number 1D06184, at this time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We usually decide on admission, I think, when we
21 have heard the whole of the testimony of the witness.
22 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Unless, at this moment, Mr. File, you'd like to
24 express yourself on it.
25 MR. FILE: No, Your Honour, I believe the customary way of
1 addressing it should be fine.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Then, Mr. Registrar, the number under which the report would be
4 marked for identification would be?
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D1484, Your Honours, MFI.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
7 Ms. Radovanovic, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. File.
8 You'll find Mr. File to your right. Mr. File is counsel for the
10 Mr. File, please proceed.
11 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. File:
13 Q. Good morning.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. During your testimony last week starting at transcript
16 page 43721, line 23, you said:
17 "I cannot claim that certain sections in some reports are not
18 acceptable, but I can assert with a great degree of certainty that some
19 parts from a large number of the expert reports are absolutely
20 unacceptable in the methodological sense."
21 Now, we're here to talk about Dr. Tabeau's report on Tomasica
22 victims. Could you share with us which sections of that report - and I'm
23 using your double negative now - that you cannot claim are not
25 A. Concerning Tomasica, mainly all parts. But I could accept if
1 Dr. Tabeau had used, for instance, the records of identification she
2 received from the prosecution. These records -- I mean the prosecution
3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These records of identification are the basis for
4 issuing death certificates. I stress that the prosecutor's office of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, in my experience, because I also work as an expert in
6 Sarajevo, also has not only the records but also the death certificates.
7 I don't know whether the doctor requested them, but she received the
8 records --
9 Q. So, Dr. Radovanovic --
10 A. There are 180 of them. I could accept them as an official
12 Q. It sounds to me like you're issuing an another critique. And my
13 question: Was which parts of the report do you agree with?
14 A. I said I disagree with all parts of the report regarding
15 Tomasica. That's the first thing I said.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. FILE: Could we have P7 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could we then first -- you were quoted to have said,
19 I've not verified it yet:
20 "I cannot claim that certain sections in some reports are
21 acceptable, but I can assert," and then you said what you were
22 disagreeing with.
23 The question was: Which are the parts, which are the sections
24 and of what reports of which you cannot claim that they are not
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said some reports.
2 Reports, in the plural. Specifically concerning Tomasica, there is no
3 section in the Tomasica report that is acceptable from the point of view
4 of scientific demography.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But now what -- and then in other reports, if
6 you say, well, in Tomasica report, nothing, but you said: Some reports
7 there are portions which I cannot claim that they are wrong. What
8 reports, what sections, do you -- had you -- did you have in mind when
9 you said this?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there is a
11 misunderstanding. I said I can't claim that some sections of some
12 reports. What I mean is I've read several reports by Dr. Tabeau, not
13 only the Tomasica report, and some sections in some reports I could
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's all understood. But you are invited to
16 identify which parts of which reports.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as Tomasica is concerned,
18 not a single section.
19 As far as some other reports are concerned, if you want me to
20 specify now?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I talk about other reports?
23 What I could accept? All the reports by Dr. Tabeau?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just say: This section of that report. Not to
25 explain in full, but first to identify which sections of which reports
1 you do not take issue with.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now I would have to run all
3 the reports through my head. Could I answer this question after the
4 break? Because I've read countless reports, in fact, many reports by
5 Dr. Tabeau. What I can remember now is the report from 2013 that she
6 wrote for the Stanisic and Simatovic case, I believe. She fairly cites
7 all the sources for war casualties and these are all proper demographic
8 sources, but she states these sources relatively correctly.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
10 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Could we please look at P7453, page 9 in both languages.
12 Q. As this comes up, you'll see this is the PowerPoint presentation
13 that you were just looking at earlier today.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The frost is striking again.
16 Mr. File, there seems to be a technical error. Is there any way,
17 since I think everything that is in the PowerPoint presentation is taken
18 from the report, that you could refer to the relevant page of the report,
19 hoping that that can be produced on the screen?
20 MR. FILE: I can do that. Although I believe there was a
21 percentage at issue that may not be reproduced in the report, so I will
22 move to a different area and then come back to this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed as you suggest.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. I'd like to refer to your own report, which has been marked for
1 identification as D1484. We may not be able to put this on the screen
2 for you, but I believe you have a hard copy in front of you that you can
3 refer to.
4 I'd like to refer to you - and everyone - to English page 7,
5 B/C/S page 8. And this will be paragraph 14 at the bottom.
6 So at the end of this paragraph, you say:
7 "The question is why in drawing up her reports for the
8 Prosecution the expert witness does not respect recognised and known
9 international standards in preparing statistical and demographic
11 It's true that in this report you do not cite any textbooks on
12 statistics or demography that describe the recognised and known
13 international standards have you in mind; correct?
14 A. No, I'm not citing them. But in paragraph 13, I cite what
15 Dr. Tabeau says without a reference. I can answer as to what is
16 considered recognised and known.
17 Q. If you could just focus on the questions that I ask you.
18 My next question is that you also do not cite any scientific or
19 scholarly journals that describe these recognised and known international
20 standards in statistics or demography; correct?
21 A. Well, I quote Dr. Tabeau, and she knows well what is
22 internationally known and recognised, as you see from paragraph 13.
23 Q. And where do you quote Dr. Tabeau referring to a recognised and
24 known international standard that you refer to in your report?
25 A. Footnote 2. Dr. Tabeau says this without quoting, this is
1 internationally known and recognised. Because when you are in that
2 science, you know that very well.
3 In the 2005 report of Dr. Tabeau, I again quote Dr. Tabeau's
4 sources for mortality, what are good and what are bad statistical
5 sources, and through my report, you can see that I refer to it. I cite
7 Q. Can we look at --
8 A. I thought it was understood that we, between experts, know that
9 very well.
10 Q. You referred to paragraph 13 and footnote 2 of your report. In
11 paragraph 13, you say:
12 "In a publication intended for the broad public, the Prosecution
13 expert witness observes in reference to the reports of demographers
14 engaged by the Office of the Prosecutor that 'whenever a demographic
15 expert report is admitted'" --
16 A. I cannot follow you. You are reading from paragraph 13; right?
17 Q. Yes. I'll continue:
18 "'... the likely consequence is that the report has impact on the
19 judgement,' in contrast to reports from the opposite side, although 'a
20 vast majority of the work of Defence experts unfortunately cannot be seen
21 as up to international scientific standards.'"
22 So this reference that you made also does not describe the known
23 and recognised international standards that you refer to; correct?
24 A. Well, that's a quotation. I cannot describe it. I am quoting
25 Dr. Tabeau who is an expert in demography and who is competent to judge
1 what are and aren't internationally recognised standards. And if
2 Dr. Tabeau did not quote it from a textbook, I thought it was absurd for
3 me to quote it. But, again, I repeat, I can explain it if it's not clear
5 Q. Well, just to be clear, the only source that you refer to,
6 according to you, in your report as justification for what the
7 international standards in statistics and demography are, is the
8 Prosecution expert; right?
9 A. No. If you allow me, I have a Ph.D. in demography and I surely
10 know what are international standards and what are not. I suppose that
11 since Dr. Tabeau is the same, she knows it as well, and she needs not
12 explain to another expert in her field. I didn't think I should cite
13 textbooks because I am an expert, and I'm the most qualified in
14 demography in this courtroom. If somebody finds something incorrect,
15 inaccurate in my report, please go ahead. I do not think I need to cite
16 textbooks, but I'm ready and willing to explain.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- I -- Judge Moloto may have a question.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Dr. Radovanovic, your report is intended to give
20 an opinion to this Court. It's not intended as a letter to or a -- a
21 document that is sent to Dr. Tabeau. So we are not demographers, so if
22 you say Dr. Tabeau is wrong in -- from the point of view of the
23 principles of demography, you've got to say to us what -- on what basis
24 you say she is wrong judged against internationally accepted demographic
1 So we understand that you have got a Ph.D. in demography and
2 therefore you may not need to quote your authorities if you are talking
3 to Dr. Tabeau. But you are not talking to Dr. Tabeau. You are talking
4 to this Court. And this Court is lay in demography, and it expects to be
5 guided by your professional opinion which should be based on
6 internationally accepted principles which we don't know and so you've got
7 to give them to us. Okay? And that's the thrust of the question from
8 Mr. File. You don't tell us by what standards you're judging Dr. Tabeau.
9 You just say internationally accepted, but you're not giving us the
10 specific standard that judges that part of the -- of demography, okay?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe through this examination
12 I have said that, and I've also put it in my report.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's what Mr. File is asking you, that where
14 in your report do you give the internationally accepted demographic
15 standard against which you critique Mrs. Tabeau. He is asking you to
16 guide him into your report where you give such standards.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my conclusion at the end, when I
18 say she uses this, that, and that, it means all of that is contrary to
19 international standards. I have tried, through the examination and the
20 report, to say that in international standards there is no methodology
21 that is called powerful. There is a methodology called scientific and
22 it's based on relevant sources of data for mortality, and it is known
23 exactly - and I'm quoting Dr. Tabeau - that is, the death certificate,
24 based on the register of deaths and the court decisions. It's based on
25 the statistical method of matching called match, or overlap, but only if
1 used properly, and I've explained here what properly means; whereas
2 Dr. Tabeau provides 72 criteria. That is not an international standard.
3 Furthermore, I have shown that the sources used by Dr. Tabeau
4 have absolutely no relation to demographic sources.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I stop you there, please. Unfortunately,
6 you're not -- we've heard all this evidence that you've given us, but
7 you're not addressing the question that is being put to you. What
8 Mr. File is asking you is: You are not quoting authorities in demography
9 in your report against which you judge Madam Tabeau. Would you answer
10 that question: Yes, you do or you don't; no, I do. And if I do, you can
11 point to us on your footnotes where those authorities are mentioned.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understood you.
13 If you mean that I put in a footnote saying scientifically
14 recognised standards are these sources, this method, et cetera, no, I
15 haven't done that.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have answered the question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
20 MR. FILE: Can we try turning back to P7453, and we'll hope it
21 works this time.
22 Q. So I'm going to ask you a question that I think is probably far
23 beneath your Ph.D. level, it's just an arithmetic question. It's based
24 on your testimony at transcript page 20 from today, line 19. When you
25 were talking about these two tables you said:
1 "The error here lies in the fact that Dr. Tabeau counts the
2 unavailable as Muslims, and she says there is -- are 95 per cent of
3 Muslims, which is not correct. If there are 330, if I see well, it's not
4 95 per cent of the total. It's about 80-something per cent. And you can
5 see that very well in this next part where she talks about Prijedor and
6 the ARK. Look at the unavailable, 522. The field is blank. And these
7 522 is about 20 per cent of the total. And, again, Dr. Tabeau ascribes
8 it all to Muslims. How does she know that these unavailable are Muslim
9 by ethnicity? Muslims are 80-plus per cent, if these 522 are about
10 20 per cent of the total."
11 Now, if you look at the table on the left, if you take the Muslim
12 number, which is 320, and you add Croat number, which is 1, the other
13 number, which is 12, and Serb number, which is 1, you get a total of 334.
14 And if you take the Muslim number of 320, and you divide it by 334, you
15 get 95.8 per cent, which is the per cent that Dr. Tabeau presents here.
16 So the fact is, she's not counting unavailable as Muslims. She's
17 just giving the per cent of the available; correct?
18 A. No. Dr. Tabeau says here: Total, 378, not 334. And Dr. Tabeau
19 maintains that 378 is the number of victims in Tomasica.
20 What Dr. Tabeau means and whether her arithmetics are correct, I
21 don't know, but the fact is that out of 378, Muslims do not account for
22 95.8 per cent. If she made a correction, then she should have taken into
23 account the total. If the total is 378, then 320 is not 95 per cent.
24 And if the total is not 378, then why write it?
25 Q. I would also -- I would also point to the table on the right. If
1 you add all of those first four numbers together for the available
2 information, you get a total of 2058, and if you divide 1953 by 2058, you
3 get 94.9 per cent again.
4 Now, I understand you're relying on what the number says at the
5 bottom row, but this is very easy to figure out if you see what this
6 breakdown is; correct?
7 A. No. First of all, it's not 2058. It's 2580. And the table
8 should not be designed for us to make an effort to understand what
9 Dr. Tabeau meant. But somebody asked the question - I mean
10 Judge Moloto - whether these 13 per cent should be deleted. Dr. Tabeau
11 says yes.
12 In the second table, where the total is 2580, 1600-something, the
13 percentage is not right. It's 74 per cent or something, not what is
14 written here.
15 Apart from that, how can --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'll cut this matter short. It's clear that the
17 totals include the unavailable. It seems also clear that in the
18 percentages, the unavailable were excluded, which is not a very
19 transparent way of presenting these tables. It also explains why the
20 13.2 per cent should be taken out if you want to present the ethnicity of
21 those for whom the ethnicity is an available datum. If you want to
22 present something else, that is, that you want to present what the
23 percentage of Muslims is on the total, that is, available ethnicity, not
24 available ethnicity, then, of course, the percentages are different.
25 Would you agree with that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what Dr. Tabeau means.
2 I see what she writes. I really don't know. I can't --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking if you agree with what I said, which
4 includes some criticism on Dr. Tabeau because she is not consistent, but
5 I tried to explain what you could understand from this and I wonder
6 whether you agreed with me. And if you want to re-read it, then -- well,
7 no, you can't -- well, in English you can re-read it.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't agree with you for the
9 simple reason that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. No, that's good.
11 Please proceed, Mr. File.
12 MR. FILE: I think we're at the time for the break, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We are at the time for a break.
14 One second, please.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers that it's sufficiently
17 informed about the matter you raised, about the calculations,
18 percentages, et cetera, in relation to this table in relation to the
19 questions that were put to the witness.
20 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Ms. Radovanovic. You
21 may follow the usher.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, while we wait for the witness, I did
3 want to perhaps raise a matter.
4 During the last session, at temporary transcript page 23, lines
5 16 through 18, my colleague on the other side, Mr. File, talked about
6 what he called a matching log which is different from the matching keys
7 or criteria we've been discussing.
8 I want it place on the record that the Prosecution has never
9 disclosed to the Defence any matching log as a -- bearing that title. We
10 believe that this is therefore, if it exists, in violation of the rules
11 as to expert testimony. Because from the Martic decision on Prosecution
12 motion for admission of transcripts pursuant to Rule 92 bis and of expert
13 report pursuant to Rule 94 bis of 13 January 2006 --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down if you want to have it on the
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now, before we start talking about the hypothetical,
17 Mr. File, I understood your observation to be that Mr. Ivetic is now
18 asking for something different, that is, a log, and you -- at least I
19 didn't have the impression but please correct me when I'm wrong, I didn't
20 have the impression that you thought that it would exist or -- but that
21 it's just that you drew our attention to the fact that Mr. Ivetic was
22 asking for something he had not asked for before.
23 MR. FILE: That's precisely correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, on the hypothetical, then
25 please sit together with Mr. File, ask him whether he considers what he
1 says you asked for in addition to what you asked before, whether he
2 thinks that exists. If it exists, then the issue of disclosure, I think,
3 becomes relevant.
4 MR. IVETIC: Then I move to my second point. On the
5 cross-examination list for this witness, we have 65 ter number 33824
6 which has just been disclosed to us, which says it's a table when you
7 open up the document. It's under seal so I won't reference the name of
8 the individual involved. But it says: Criteria for checking. So, in
9 essence, this is criteria, not a log. We've never had this before. We
10 checked the ERN range and that was not disclosed on the EDS system. And
11 it pertains to one named victim. So if these exist as to other named
12 victims, I do believe that the Prosecution has --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first --
14 MR. IVETIC: -- acted outside of the rules.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first try to focus on the facts. Is there one
16 or is there such a document for all victims, Mr. File?
17 MR. FILE: Your Honour, the document that Mr. Ivetic is referring
18 to doesn't have anything to do with this issue that we're discussing
19 right now, and it may be used in cross-examination but it's not -- it's
20 not about this question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- I think Mr. Ivetic was raising a disclosure
22 issue, rather. If there's any reason to pursue that, Mr. Ivetic, after
23 you've heard the questions in cross-examination, you can deal with the
24 matter in re-examination. And if it is relevant and if there's a
25 disclosure issue, we'll certainly pay proper attention to once it is
1 raised at that point in time.
2 Please proceed.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could please have
5 D1484 MFI.
6 Q. This is your report again. We're going to look at English
7 page 10, B/C/S page 13, which is paragraph 24 of your report.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which paragraph, Mr. File?
9 MR. FILE: Paragraph 24.
10 Q. So here you're pointing out that Ewa Tabeau's Tomasica report
11 does not repeat a point that she made in an academic journal article that
12 she co-authored. The quotation that you cite says:
13 "Only a few sources can be taken as safe and sound, for instance,
14 records from death certificates, court decisions proclaiming persons
15 dead, and death records of armed forces from the archives of the Ministry
16 of Defence."
17 You also testified about this point, starting at T.43697.
18 Now we're going to look at this article.
19 MR. FILE: It's 1D06187, please. I think the transcript says 16.
20 It's 1D06187.
21 Q. So here you see Dr. Tabeau's article in the European Journal of
22 Population from 2005. The title is: "War-related deaths in the
23 1992-1995 armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A critique of
24 previous estimates and recent results."
25 And if you go a little further down in the page, you see where it
1 says "abstract," it says:
2 "In this article, we provide a critique of previous estimates of
3 war-related deaths from Bosnia and Herzegovina and propose an analytical
4 framework and a new estimate of such deaths."
5 So, from this, you would agree that the context of Dr. Tabeau's
6 article here relates to the issue of an estimate of all war-related
7 deaths in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. FILE: If we could go to English page 12, B/C/S page 10.
10 Q. Just directing your attention to the headings on this page, at
11 the bottom of the B/C/S, the heading says this is section 3.1, which
12 relates to the sources and methods Dr. Tabeau's team used to generate an
14 MR. FILE: Now if we could go to English page 15 and B/C/S
15 page 13, please.
16 Q. So looking at the paragraph in the middle of the page in both
17 versions, you see Dr. Tabeau discussing the challenges in obtaining
18 reliable data about war deaths. This paragraph starts by saying:
19 "The next difficulty with data on war-related deaths is that
20 persons reported in certain sources as dead or missing sometimes could
21 have survived without their families notifying the appropriate
23 And then we have the sentence that you extracted for your report
24 about a few sources that can be taken as safe and sound.
25 So this paragraph is about the potential problem that a given
1 source could erroneously describe someone as dead who is actually alive,
2 causing statistical estimates to lose accuracy; correct?
3 A. Well, this kind of source is not used in scientific research
4 which Dr. Tabeau says in the previous paragraph only such and such
5 sources, yes, and the fact that she has the following difficulties with
6 data, that's a fact because she uses sources that are not relevant.
7 Q. So is that a yes as to what this paragraph is about?
8 A. I do not understand the question. Can you please be more
10 Q. I was just asking you how you understand or read this paragraph.
11 It's about the potential problem that a given source could erroneously
12 describe someone as dead who is actually alive, causing statistical
13 estimates to lose accuracy.
14 That's what this paragraph is about; right?
15 A. No. This paragraph explains in principle all possible problems
16 of sources that are relevant for demography and warns the professional
17 public of what is normally used. We use other sources and we have the
18 following problems.
19 Q. So I'm a little confused as to how you receive the meaning of
20 this relating to, as you said, "all possible problems of sources that are
21 relevant for demography," when the first sentence of this paragraph says
22 that it relates to data on war-related deaths, and then it goes on to say
23 "that persons reported in certain sources as dead or missing" - certain
24 sources as dead or missing - "sometimes could have survived without their
25 families notifying the appropriate authorities." Where do you get "all
1 possible problems of sources that are relevant for demography" from that?
2 A. For example, the ICRC source. It has to do with the ICRC source,
3 the Prijedor books of the dead, those are sources where, for example,
4 someone's reported as dead and then it turns out that he is alive. And
5 in the Tomasica report, Dr. Tabeau says - I don't remember whether it's
6 for 2005 or some other year - that it's been established and so and so
7 are alive, by the ICRC.
8 Q. Okay. The Tomasica report relates to the process of counting and
9 identifying dead people who have been exhumed from mass graves in
10 Tomasica and in some cases linked to Jakarina Kosa; correct? That's what
11 that report is about?
12 A. Not only that. Also the missing persons. There's a series of
13 tables that have to do primarily with the ARK and that where she talks
14 about the missing persons. I can't tell you off the top of my head, but
15 I can look whether she talks about the dead from Tomasica in a table or
16 whether she talks about the missing persons. The places where they went
17 missing --
18 Q. That's fine. So related to the part of the report that relates
19 to the process of counting and identifying dead people who have been
20 exhumed from mass graves, the question of whether a source is a reliable
21 indicator that someone is dead is not at issue for this part of the
22 report; right? We already know these people are dead.
23 A. We know that they are dead if relevant documents exist. We don't
24 know whether they are dead if they are noted as missing by ICRC. And
25 some notions have been mixed here. I think that you insist on something
1 that Dr. Tabeau has not written. She says that she has difficulties with
2 all sources of information, but she says such and such sources are
3 relevant. I don't have them.
4 The next difficulty is that some cases of death are such that persons
5 may be dead or may have survived. But that's not a relevant source.
6 Dr. Tabeau also gives the sources of the information on the basis
7 of which she draws such a conclusion, so perhaps if would be good to show
8 the sources of information.
9 Q. You said:
10 "We know that they are dead if relevant documents exist."
11 But if you've exhumed someone's remains from the ground, they've
12 been DNA identified, we know they are dead. We don't need additional
13 documents; right?
14 A. We know that they are dead but we don't know where and when they
15 were killed. And Dr. Tabeau is working on Tomasica noting dates and
16 places of death or when and where a person went missing. I do not
17 contest that the DNA shows where a person was found, in which grave, and
18 that this person was identified, and this is scientific. But it is not
19 scientific proof nor can it be established where and when and under what
20 conditions this person lost his or her life.
21 Q. Well, Ms. Radovanovic, I put it to you that what you've done here
22 is you've pulled this quotation out of context in a way that
23 misrepresents the point Dr. Tabeau is making in her article. You're
24 taking a quotation that relates to sources that might potentially report
25 someone incorrectly as being dead who could be alive, and it doesn't
1 apply to this situation; right?
2 A. You are wrong. The whole quotation saying what the relevant sources
3 for establishing death are, a relevant source cannot be misleading as to
4 whether someone has been found to be dead or alive. She says that it has to
5 be a source from the registry of deaths or a court decision. And all this
6 that precedes refers to the sources which Dr. Tabeau is using. And there
7 are problems with that. Because she says that only a few sources can be
8 taken as safe and sound here, and she does not use any of those in Tomasica.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, what is put to you is that
10 Dr. Tabeau writes about a problem which may arise if there still can be
11 uncertainty about whether someone has died, yes or no, and for that
12 situation, she describes what she considers to be reliable sources.
13 What Mr. File puts to you is that when such uncertainty does not
14 exist because the body has been exhumed and DNA-identified, that what
15 Dr. Tabeau writes here is for such situations irrelevant. That is what
16 is put to you, and do you agree with that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I have understood you
18 quite well.
19 If a body is exhumed and identified, I do not dispute that this
20 person is dead. I only say --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- so I'm not disputing the death.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And for that situation, whether or not death
24 certificates or court decisions are there is irrelevant for establishing
25 whether someone is dead or alive.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is unimportant in that
2 situation. But not as regards Tomasica.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File. I -- and one short
4 additional question. Have dead bodies been found in Tomasica where
5 identification through DNA took place?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 184 are listed by Dr. Tabeau that
7 she received the DNA information from the prosecutor's office of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unless I'm mistaken. So if --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't -- I didn't ask you all that. I just asked
10 whether in Tomasica such cases exist. That is, body exhumed --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the dead?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Body exhumed, DNA-identified, do such cases exist in
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. FILE:
17 Q. Did you say 184 or 384?
18 A. 184. I'm not sure if it is 184 or 194. That was received from
19 the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina. ICMP said something else.
20 Q. Okay. Let's look at your report again.
21 MR. FILE: D1484 MFI, please.
22 Q. This time we're going to look at page 22 of the English and
23 page 29 of the B/C/S. This will be paragraph 67.
24 So I'm referring to the part of the paragraph that you put in
25 bold typeface, where you say:
1 "... no table indicates the source of the data on the basis of
2 which it was made."
3 MR. FILE: So if we could switch to look at the Ewa Tabeau
4 Tomasica report, P7449, please. We're going to start at English page 15,
5 B/C/S page 18.
6 Q. I'm just going to take you through a couple of examples when this
7 comes up.
8 If you look at Table 7, the title of that table is: "Place of
9 disappearance in the ICMP records of the Tomasica identified."
10 And then if you go down to Table 8, you see: "Place of
11 disappearance in the ICRC records of the Tomasica identified."
12 And then table 9 says: "15 most frequent places of disappearance
13 according to ICRC and KNP records."
14 Just to give you one last slightly different example, if we could
15 go to English page 18 and B/C/S page 22, Table 12, you see the title:
16 "Time of disappearance in ICMP records of the Tomasica identified."
17 And then in case we missed what's written in the title, if we
18 could just go to English page 19 and B/C/S page 23, the first
19 paragraph of text reiterates:
20 "The source for Table 12 was the ICMP ..."
21 So how can you say that no table indicates the source of the data
22 on the basis of which it was made when all have you to do is read the
23 title of the table or the text of the document?
24 A. You are not right. This is technically not right, and there are
25 two ICMP reports, one is from May and the other is from June. There are
1 two books of lists of Prijedor victims, one is from 2008 and the other
2 one is from 2002, I think.
3 And then what else. ICRC. There is ICRC where Dr. Tabeau says
4 for the source in 2009 which sources she used and then she tells us next,
5 I was working everything in accordance data from 2005. So what would
6 have been scientifically acceptable, what one does when writing a
7 scientific paper, you have to mention the source and say: ICRC books
8 2005, or 2009, or 2007. And ICRC book doesn't mean anything if there are
9 ten such books or five or six. The Prijedor books of the dead, if there
10 are two, once again I don't know which one she was using. Or maybe she
11 combined the two, but then she would have to say the book from 1998 or
12 the book from 2009. The ICMP has two different reports. Perhaps
13 insignificantly, but they differ. So which one was she using?
14 Q. So in the example of the ICMP that you just gave, there's a
15 May report, May 2014, then there's a June 2014 update, which she says she
16 used. But you still think she might have meant the May version, the
17 older version. Is that what you are saying?
18 A. There's nothing for me to think. In scientific research there is
19 rule, a standard, which says the source is such and such. As soon as I
20 have to think whether Dr. Tabeau was using the one from May or the one
21 from June, then there is something wrong about it.
22 Q. Let's go back to your report, D1484 MFI. Here we're going to
23 look at English page 22 --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
25 MR. FILE: Oh.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You put to the witness that Dr. Tabeau says she used
2 the June 2014 update. Could you assist me in -- perhaps the witness as
3 well, to tell us where exactly that is found?
4 MR. FILE: It's on English page 6 of Dr. Tabeau's report.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, is -- if an expert says, I used
6 this version of a report, is it your position that in every table that
7 expert witness has to repeat that that's the version, or would one
8 explanation - I used this one - be sufficient unless an exception is
9 specifically made?
10 THE WITNESS: I think it's an exception. If it were not an
11 exception, maybe it would be sufficient. But it's not a matter of
12 technique. In scientific reports, you don't do that. You give the
13 source. And here I think it's an exception, as this quotation from the
14 ICMP which Dr. Tabeau explains, that letter is from the month of May, not
15 June. Now, whether the accompanying letter also exists for June, I don't
16 know. But in the report, Dr. Tabeau mentions seven unidentified persons,
17 15 probably identified, and the ICMP report, I can check, as I have the
18 document, is I believe from May 2014.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. FILE:
21 Q. I'm going to move on and return to your report, which is D1484 MFI.
22 MR. FILE: It's going to be English page 22 and B/C/S page 29,
23 please, and it will be paragraph 67.
24 Q. At the very bottom of the English page, you say that:
25 "Without a word of explanation," it continues onto the next page
1 in English. You point out then that the number -- the victims are not
2 numbered sequentially, which you also testified about today.
3 And then at the end of that sentence, you say that they are
4 numbered "in an order known only to the Prosecution expert witness."
5 So here you're referring, in particular, to the first column
6 that's labelled ID in Annex 1 of Dr. Tabeau's report; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you read the explanatory notes at the beginning of
9 Dr. Tabeau's annexes?
10 A. I don't know exactly which notes you mean. There are several.
11 Q. I'll show you.
12 MR. FILE: Could we have P7451, which are the four annexes to
13 Dr. Tabeau's report. We're going look at English page 3 and B/C/S page 3.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in on the text,
16 MR. FILE: We're going to be focusing especially on the bottom of
17 the page. It will be the fourth --
18 JUDGE ORIE: This document not to be shown to the public; I do
19 understand it's under seal.
20 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 Q. So I'm going to direct your attention to the bottom of the page,
22 it's the fourth paragraph under the Annex 1 heading. It says:
23 "Parts A and B can be linked with each other through victim names
24 and victim ID. The ID was created by the database software but resembles
25 the order of cases in the original June 2014" - here again we have
1 June 2014 - "ICMP file on DNA identifications of Tomasica victims."
2 So your comment without a word of explanation Dr. Tabeau numbered
3 the individuals this way is not accurate. There is a word of
4 explanation, and it's in the explanatory notes at the beginning of the
5 annexes; right?
6 A. But, still, there are known only to Dr. Tabeau. And she says the
7 connection between tables A and B. If you showing the total number of
8 victims and you claim there is a certain number - we don't know - then
9 you don't provide the ID numbers given by ICMP. You derive the number of
10 victims, and how you connect the A and B tables is a matter of your
11 methodology. If you can connect them and give a numerical sequence, then
12 fine. If you cannot compose a numerical sequence, then you provide the
13 ICMP ID numbers. Whether she provides here everything that ICMP has
14 provided or she is making her own table, we don't know.
15 Q. Did you watch or read the testimony of Dr. Tabeau from the
16 7th of July, 2015?
17 A. I don't remember the date, but I did listen to a lot of it.
18 Whether I've listened to 7 July 2015, is that related to Tomasica?
19 Q. It is. Let's see if you remember this part which I'm going to
20 read to you from transcript page 36.771, starting at line 11. The
21 question was:
22 "Q. So, first of all, Dr. Tabeau, the ID. So this is number
23 162, but we see --
24 "A. Yes --
25 "Q. -- that the numbers in this column, the numbers before and
1 after, are not in a successive numeric order, so can you explain that?
2 "A. This reference number, victim number, is the number
3 associated with each victim as reported in the ICMP list from June 2014,
4 the list of identifications."
5 And, again, here you have June 2014.
6 Continuing on:
7 "It was a list that reported jointly on the main cases and
8 reassociations. The Annex 1 exclusively reports on the main cases.
9 Reassociations have been separated, taken out from the list. This is
10 because the whole report I made focuses on individuals, on persons, and
11 not on DNA match reports available in total. So, therefore, we see that
12 the first victim has the number 152, next one 154. So 153 obviously is
13 gone because it was a reassociation, an associated match report."
14 Do you remember that part of Dr. Tabeau's testimony?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. So your comment that the victims are numbered "in an order known
17 only to the Prosecution expert witness" is not accurate, is it? She said
18 publicly how she numbered these people.
19 A. Because, again, it's a manipulation, from my point of view.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness, whether you like the explanation
21 is a different matter. Whether you call it -- the question was -- you
22 say: She only knows, she never explained. That's more or less what your
23 criticism is.
24 The question by Mr. File simply is: I gave you two places where
25 she explained. Do you agree that she explained how she numbered the
1 lists, the persons? Whether you find it misleading, that's a different
2 matter, but could we focus on what Mr. File asked you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember exactly what's in
4 the first column of the ICMP table, and I don't know whether the ID
5 number is there. But if she copied it from ICMP, then it's probably
7 It was not her homework to copy it. It was to provide her own
8 sequence derived from the ICMP. I agree that she copied it from ICMP,
9 Judge Orie. And she and the ICMP know what it means. That's my
11 JUDGE ORIE: And, therefore, we also know how she used the
12 numbering, isn't it?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you probably know.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
15 MR. FILE: I'm going to move on to another subject.
16 Q. Last week, you withdrew part of your critique as a result of
17 basing part of your criticism on an incorrect B/C/S translation of the
18 Tabeau report. And I'm referring to transcript pages 43.626 to 43.627,
19 where you withdraw paragraph 42 of your report and that's where you
20 quoted Dr. Tabeau's report as stating that she used a "DNA matching
22 And then you pointed out that Dr. Tabeau is not an expert in
23 performing DNA matching.
24 And you withdrew this part of your critique last week because the
25 word "DNA" did not appear in the English original. Do you remember that
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I just want to ask you about one additional place where this may
4 have occurred. If we could look again at your report, which is D1484
6 MR. FILE: It's going to be English page 22, B/C/S page 28.
7 Paragraph 65. And I think we need to go to the next page in the B/C/S.
8 Q. So it's this first part that is highlighted in bold, where you
9 claim that in Dr. Tabeau's report she says that 750 shots were fired at a
10 part of the group but 645 shots were fired at the entire group, which is
12 And I take it you got this figure from the B/C/S translation of
13 Dr. Tabeau's report? Is that correct?
14 A. From the official B/C/S translation of Dr. Tabeau's report.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. FILE: I'd like to show P7449, English page 27, B/C/S
17 page 33. It's going to the first paragraph of text in the English
18 version and the only paragraph on the page in the B/C/S version.
19 Q. Can you see in the English original it says 570 shots for a part
20 of the group, not 750 shots, and the translation has obviously reversed
21 the numbers.
22 So looking at the numbers now in the English version, would you
23 withdraw this part of your critique?
24 A. It's part of the illogical. But I still maintain that the number
25 of shots has nothing to do with demography.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter. That's fine. But now
2 knowing that the English version is different from the B/C/S version, do
3 you still stand by your criticism, which, at least Mr. File puts to you,
4 seems to be based on the B/C/S version and not on the English version?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if that translation is
6 incorrect, then my conclusion obviously doesn't stand, if the B/C/S
7 version and the English one have different numbers.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. FILE: And just for the record, Your Honour, we will submit a
10 revised page for the previous correction as well as this correction so
11 that the B/C/S is accurate in both respects.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a bit alarming, though, that these
13 mistakes are made which produce, then, of course, expert opinions which
14 in themselves may be correct but caused by clerical errors which -- but I
15 leave it to that for the time being. We are looking forward to the
16 revised version of the B/C/S translation.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. FILE:
19 Q. Now I'm going to ask you about your testimony related to
20 corrections of cause of death in Annex 2 of Ewa Tabeau's report. You
21 expressed one of your complaints at transcript page 43.673, starting at
22 line 5. You said:
23 "If Dr. Tabeau did it professionally, she can note that and she
24 can exclude it or she can say, If I have two options, and we're talking
25 about the same case, in how many cases this occurred, and what she did in
1 this case and what she did in another case."
2 Then you is said at transcript page 43.675 to -676 that she
3 should have provided figures for how many corrections she made.
4 And finally, at page 43.677, you questioned Dr. Tabeau's
5 integrity on the basis that she was intentionally hiding something.
6 Do you recall making those points?
7 A. I do. I remember saying that, probably in those words which you
8 quote, because I cannot follow the transcript here.
9 Q. And, for the record, you also made similar arguments in your
10 report at paragraphs 28 and 29.
11 Now my question is: Did you read Annex 2 of Dr. Tabeau's report?
12 A. I have read all of Dr. Tabeau's reports. You have to tell me now
13 exactly what is Annex 2.
14 Q. We're going to look at it together.
15 MR. FILE: It's P7451 - not for broadcast - e-court page English
16 69, B/C/S 79.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we please enlarge it.
18 MR. FILE:
19 Q. So this annex is the overview of links between Tomasica main
20 cases and their reassociations. And here on the very first page of
21 Annex 2, you can see the first example of a correction for the individual
22 with ID number 11.
23 On the column furthest to the right, if we can scan over to the
24 right, you have the cause of death determined by the pathologist for
25 different sets of remains, for reassociations to the same person, or the
1 same original main case.
2 Now, in these boxes - and on the B/C/S, the last row is on the
3 next page, page 80 - but four of the five boxes are either blank or
4 unascertained. But the penultimate one, which is at the bottom of the
5 page in B/C/S, that one says "GSI, head," or gun-shot injury to the head.
6 The very final row on this page in the B/C/S and the penultimate
7 row on the page in the English. In the right-hand column, it says "GSI,
9 So for all of this person's different sets of reassociated
10 remains, there's an unascertained or blank cause of death except for one
11 of them, which says "GSI, head."
12 Now, if we look over to the left at the cause of death integrated
13 column, which is the fourth column from the left, you can see all of the
14 boxes have been filled in with "GSI, head." So you can see that
15 correction has been made for every set of reassociated remains for that
16 person, taking that one defined cause of death and applying it to all of
17 them; right?
18 A. No. First of all, it's difficult for me to follow the entire table,
19 but please pay attention to column 3 at the beginning. It says the main
20 cases and in brackets "Clark plus," and the last column also says Clark.
21 Now, when you see these cause of death integrated, it means that
22 Dr. Tabeau integrated Clark's causes of death, and since the only other
23 causes of death are provided by records of exhumation, here we have
24 integrated records of exhumations, 55 of them, plus Clark. And then the
25 last column also says the Clark report.
1 Does it mean -- and now we are going into the area of what could
2 be but not necessarily. What is in the integrated one, what is in Clark
3 report? If this one is integrated, is it integrated because they are all
4 identical? What she has as the reports of the prosecutor's office of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, does it overlap with the Clark report? She states
6 that most of them overlap, but the records made by pathologists, received
7 from the Prosecution, indicate 65, or 70, out of which 55 have known
8 names, or perhaps the number is 50, I don't know off the cuff, and about
9 15 are unidentified, NN. From this, we cannot see how many corrections
10 Dr. Tabeau made because she doesn't say anywhere, this reference to
11 integrated means 100 per cent overlap.
12 Q. I think my question was a little more simple than that. It's
13 just that this is an example of a correction because the cause of death
14 determined by Dr. Clark for an individual set of remains, which is shown
15 on the right as unascertained, has become GSI head in the integrated
16 cause of death column. So it's been changed in that column. That's an
17 example of a correction.
18 A. Dr. Tabeau doesn't say that anywhere. She doesn't put in a
19 footnote saying, I corrected this and this. Am I supposed to guess? It
20 has not been presented in an intelligible way. If you are telling me
21 that it's an example of a correction, I don't have to take your word for
22 it. Or Dr. Tabeau's. She has to state it clearly, to show it clearly,
23 through a footnote or in some other way. She is integrating here Clark
24 with Clark and comparing Clark with Clark. Because the number she got
25 from the prosecution is 65.
1 In writing the report she could have put in a footnote and said,
2 I changed 3 or 4, I derived it using computer software. In that case, I
3 wouldn't have had to guess whether it is an example or not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But could I ask you: Where the cause of death for
5 some parts of the body found was unascertained, and then later it's said
6 it's an injury to the head, a gun-shot injury to the head, do you have to
7 make a footnote to say, This is something else, or this is a correction?
8 Or does it logically follow that if one body part has an identified cause
9 of death and if that's a part of the body -- of the same body as the
10 other parts which were without a cause of death, should you say in a
11 footnote, This is a correction, or is that obvious from the table itself?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Dr. Tabeau is not competent
13 enough to correct causes of death. She could have said, I have this case
14 with two causes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the example given is some body parts where
16 apparently the competent expert was unable to tell us what the cause of
17 death was and apparently one set of bodily remains where he could.
18 Now, if the body parts are all of the same person, would a
19 layperson not be able to say, If I take this cause of death which could
20 be established on a certain part of the body, that is, gun-shot injury to
21 the head, if that's a valid one, then it is valid for that person, and,
22 therefore, the other body parts found, which may be legs or arms or
23 whatever, of course, follows the established cause of death for that part
24 of the body for which it could be established.
25 Is there anything wrong with that ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From my point of view, yes.
2 Dr. Tabeau could have included a footnote and said, I found an
3 unascertained cause of death and a gun-shot injury to the head. Because
4 maybe in three or five days they would find another bone with another
5 injury, and perhaps not.
6 So in such situations when she needs to decide, she should refer
7 to both documents. Because we have to have in mind that Dr. Clark's
8 documents do not match in the sense of definitions of cause of death with
9 the ones ascertained by the expert from the prosecutor's office of the
10 BiH. So I think professionally she should have said, I'm not going to
11 correct this, I have two reports, one says this and the other one says
12 that, especially as --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that that is very transparent where at
14 the final column it says unascertained, unascertained, unascertained,
15 gun-shot injury to the head, and that then in the other column she takes
16 it that if there are no two contradicting causes of death, that the
17 unascertained may have been a leg, and, of course, on a leg it's
18 difficult to see whether someone was shot in the head, that she clearly
19 makes -- combines the information, and should she, in addition to that,
20 have considered that if another body part would have been found, which
21 would have shown another cause of death, that that might have changed the
22 correction she made? Do you have to -- then we have to wait for
23 eternity, isn't it, to see whether other body parts would be found.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the methodology that
25 Dr. Tabeau applies anything is possible. She can correct it as a
1 layperson. She can take just one piece of information without
2 correction. She can choose whatever she likes. I don't see a single
3 reason why she would deal with corrections. If this is one and the same
4 person and reassociated remains and the cause of death was established
5 with the reassociated parts, is it then a wish to show as many as
6 possible causes of death that would mean something en masse? If it's a
7 small number, why was it a problem to say, I corrected three or four or
8 five? I don't see the reason why she is making any corrections at all.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File -- oh, rather, I would say
10 let's take a break first.
11 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Ms. Radovanovic. We'll
12 resume at 20 minutes to 2.00. You may follow the usher.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, could you tell us whether we're on track
15 as far as time is concerned?
16 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour, I believe we are still on track. I
17 gave the revised estimate of five hours, and I'm doing my best to reduce
18 that where possible. But, so far, I don't think it would extend beyond
19 five hours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because, if possible at all, if we could
21 conclude the testimony of this witness tomorrow, that, I think, should be
23 Mr. Ivetic, I do not know whether you have already a very long
24 list yet or what your estimate would be if things go as they go now?
25 MR. IVETIC: Thus far, I do not have a long list. But again it
1 depends on what develops.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you never know. Could the parties try to see
3 to what extent it would be possible to conclude the testimony of this
4 witness by tomorrow so as to avoid that we need another hearing on
6 We take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.
9 MR. IVETIC: And, again, Your Honours, while we wait for the
10 witness, I can place on the record that, pursuant to your instruction, we
11 did speak, Mr. File and I, during the break, and I was advised that there
12 does not exist a matching log, as mentioned in the last session.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's hereby on the record.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, we'll proceed. May I urge you to
16 focus your answers very much on what is asked.
17 Mr. File, please proceed.
18 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 If we could stay with this document and just go to the next page
20 in both versions, please.
21 Q. So I'm going to direct your attention to, on the left-hand side,
22 item 31, or ID 31. The B/C/S again carries over to the next page, this
23 time with three additional rows pertaining to the same individual. This
24 is another example of the type of correction we were talking about
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we see item 31 on the English side, please.
2 There are four 31s.
3 MR. FILE: There are four 31s. All of the integrated cause of
4 death say GSI head and chest. And if we go to the right-hand side, the
5 cause of death is either blank -- starts with blank, the next one is
6 blank, the next one is unascertained, and the final one says GSIs, head
7 and chest.
8 Q. So I want you to assume for the moment --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: I think in the B/C/S we only have part it because I
11 believe that only one of the four is being displayed in the B/C/S. And
12 since the professor doesn't have a hard copy of this, I think it's
13 something she needs to see the next page of.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 You've now seen the three additional entries under number 31?
16 Please put your question to the witness, Mr. File.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. So, Ms. Radovanovic, I want you to assume for the moment that
19 it's obvious that these are corrections. I understand your earlier
20 criticism about how you wanted to see a footnote explaining that. But if
21 you assume that this -- this is obvious these are corrections, this is
22 better than just providing a statistical figure on how many corrections
23 she made; right? You can actually see the corrections with your own eyes
24 and you can count them, if you want. Right?
25 A. This is what Dr. Tabeau offers, and I should believe her that
1 this is exactly so. Once again, I tell you, I cannot deal with this
2 because these are integrated lists. As you can see, this is the
3 possibility that three persons -- or, no, two, and whether the
4 unascertained relates to both or to only one, does Dr. Tabeau correct
5 this because she thinks that if she shows more unascertained deaths, that
6 would be more relevant for I don't know what kind of decision. Let me
7 repeat --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer the question, whether it's
9 better to present it with the documents rather than to just give a number
10 like five or ten have been corrected, where, as you here can see, what
11 the basis for it is, whether this one were to be preferred above just
12 giving numbers. That was the question.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's better to provide both. I
14 only assume what Dr. Tabeau did here.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Please proceed, Mr. File.
17 MR. FILE: Let's go to e-court English page 76 and B/C/S page 87
18 of this document, please.
19 Q. We're going to look at the underlying reports for the person with
20 ID number 173. We're not going to use the name in public session. And
21 then I'm going to ask you some questions about them.
22 So, if we could go -- look at the fifth column over, you'll see
23 the site where the first set of remains were exhumed is Jakarina Kosa and
24 the case ID was JK01, or Jakarina Kosa 2001, and body part number 294 BP.
25 And then if we go two columns over to the right, under site name
1 reassociation you see that two additional sets of remains matching this
2 person were found in Tomasica, and then in the column to the right, you
3 have the case ID that ends with the body numbers 326D and 327D. And here
4 you have one cause of death listed as GSI head, and one listed as
6 MR. FILE: If we could look at 65 ter 33793, please.
7 Q. I'm first going to show you the first autopsy report for this
8 person. This is the one from Jakarina Kosa in 2001. It's only in
9 English, but I'll read you to the relevant portions so that you can
10 receive the interpretation.
11 Now, in the upper left corner you can see it says case number
12 JK01/294B. And here, for the record, I would just add that DNA later
13 revealed that there were mixed bones in this collection from two
14 different men so that's why the body number 294B in this autopsy becomes
15 a main case ID of JK01/294BP for person number 173 on our list. The
16 other individual can be found under ID number 49, and his main case ID is
18 So below you have the summary by the forensic medical doctor
19 which says:
20 "Skeletonized and disarticulated incomplete human remains."
21 The next three lines describe the sex and approximate age and
23 And then it says:
24 "Several of the bones were fractured, but there were no specific
25 features to these and these may well have been damaged after death.
1 "Since soft tissues are not present, many bones are missing, and
2 present and examined bones show no specific injury, I cannot state the
3 cause of death.
4 "Therefore it should remain unascertained."
5 Now I want to show you the two entries from Clark's report for
6 the reassociations that matched a part of these remains.
7 MR. FILE: So if we could go to P7444, English page 102 and B/C/S
8 page 108.
9 Q. So I'm going to start with the second one of these reassociations
10 which is the case 327D. If you look at the general description of the
11 remains in the fifth column, you see that we are talking about bones in
12 and around the left arm and shoulder area. It's the scapula, humerus,
13 and the upper end of the ulna. The next column over to the right says
14 there were no obvious gun-shot injuries. And the final column on the
15 right says the cause of death is unascertained.
16 However, the third set of remains of this person is in the row
17 above with ID 326D.
18 MR. FILE: In the B/C/S, we need to go to the previous page, 107,
19 where this entry begins.
20 If you look at the general description of remains in the fifth
21 column, you see that we are talking about the skull, C1 to 6 vertebrae
22 and the left clavicle. The next column over says that there was a
23 gun-shot injury to the head causing fragmentation of the skull with an
24 apparent entrance hole at the back on the left side in the occipital
25 region behind the mastoid.
1 And in the B/C/S we need to go to the next page.
2 It says there was an exit at the top of the head. And then in
3 the final column on the right, the cause of death is GSI head, or
4 gun-shot injury to the head, with the minimum number of shots of one from
5 a high-velocity gun.
6 Q. So my question for you is: If you have a mixed collection of
7 some of this gentleman's bones with no specific injuries to them, then
8 you have part of his left arm again with no specific injuries, both of
9 them have an unascertained cause of death, finally, you have his head
10 with a bullet-hole in it, and a gun-shot injury cause of death, so if you
11 were going to just for statistical purposes select what was the cause of
12 death for this entire person as opposed to these separate sets of these
13 remains, what would you choose? Unascertained, or gun-shot injury to the
15 A. A demographer does not do that, nor does he have to do it. He
16 takes the causes of death for which he is certain. But for Dr. Tabeau,
17 what is certain seems not to be adequate. She wants to represent a
18 higher number. So what is unascertained and what she as a demographer
19 would not correct, she would get a smaller number for which she is
20 absolutely certain that the cause of death has been ascertained. So I
21 would exclude this. Possibly I would include a footnote and say there
22 are ten reports with both unascertained and ascertained. So I might
23 point to the fact that it exists, but I'm not the one to establish that
24 this is the one cause of death. I'm not competent for that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you how you conclude that she wants to
1 represent a higher number? What's higher here in her approach?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there is information about both
3 unascertained and ascertained and she says, For the unascertained, if
4 there are some parts available, I said that they are ascertained, that's
5 a wish to show a higher number. She didn't say, I have 100 that are
6 certainly ascertained without any dilemma and another five or ten where a
7 doubt exists.
8 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that she presents them as one
9 ascertained cause of death? It's not that she makes three persons having
10 died from gun-shot injuries, but what she says is - at least that's how I
11 understand it - that from what we know, there's one person who died as a
12 result of a gun-shot injury in the head; whereas if she wouldn't have
13 done that, we also would have had one person who died from a gun-shot
14 injury in the head, because that has been established for that skull
15 which was found.
16 So I do not see how she increases the number. It's one in the
17 beginning; it's one in the end.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: In addition, I note that this table gives all
19 three results: One ascertained and two unascertained. So it's for the
20 reader to make -- to choose. Dr. Tabeau is not saying GSI to the head
21 over the two unascertained. She gives you both, all three, and says,
22 That's the result I found.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what documents, from the
24 integrated Clark and Clark. If Dr. Tabeau is expert enough to add it all
25 up, then that's a different matter. But she's not an expert, and she
1 could have said, I have such and such a number certainly ascertained, and
2 for so many additional cases a report does not exist, and then she could
3 have explained it all. The purpose, when she increases, is to prove that
4 there were many more deaths that are ascertained, than unascertained. I
5 do not know whether that is so.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat. She's way too fast.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part of your answer
8 because you were speaking too fast.
9 THE WITNESS: The purpose is to increase the number of those
10 whose death has been ascertained. And Dr. Tabeau draws
11 such a conclusion because she adds the reassociated parts even though
12 this one turns up three times. She doesn't say, I have a number of
13 documents, this is certainly ascertained and these are the injuries, and
14 for these there are various documents, so it's probable or it's likely or
15 it's possible, and then she would view them differently. No. Dr. Tabeau
16 says -- I don't know the exact number but, for example, for 85 per cent
17 the cause of death has been ascertained.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that the starting point for
19 Dr. Tabeau is, We know of a person, let's call him A, the cause of death,
20 because gun-shot injury to the head.
21 Now, some other body parts were found of which it was established
22 that they belonged to the same person, and, therefore, we still have at
23 the end one person with unascertained cause of death and that's gun-shot
24 injuries to the head.
25 I have difficulties in understanding on how that adds to numbers,
1 because it's one in the beginning, and, in the end, clearly explained
2 how, she still takes one person, Mr. A, who died as the result of a
3 gun-shot injury to the head. I have difficulties in understanding how
4 that increases the number.
5 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't receive interpretation.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It increases the number of
8 ascertained causes of death. And, second, I can't follow anymore. Is this
9 the same person where the cause of death is ascertained several times?
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- it's ascertained once, gun-shot injury in
11 the head. And the other were unascertained.
12 But, Mr. File, please put your next question to the witness.
13 MR. FILE: I'm going to move on to a different subject. I'd like
14 to tender number 33793 which was the autopsy report we just looked at.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7826, perhaps under seal,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And do we have translations?
19 MR. FILE: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And do we one report or did we have -- let me see.
21 We had --
22 MR. FILE: We just discussed one report and then --
23 JUDGE ORIE: One report.
24 MR. FILE: -- the Clark report is already in evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're right. Marked for identification
1 pending a translation.
2 Please proceed, Mr. File.
3 Under seal and marked for identification, yes.
4 Please proceed, Mr. File.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. So to finish today, I would like to shift gears and discuss with
7 you a very simple hypothetical in order to work through a few of the
8 basic principles that we have behind record linkage and data matching.
9 We have a PowerPoint to illustrate this hypothetical which we're
10 going to bring up on Sanction. It's in English, but I'll also be saying
11 everything that's on it and I think it will be obvious to you what's on
13 MR. IVETIC: Can we get the 65 ter number so we can follow in
14 hard copy.
15 MR. FILE: There is not a -- well, there is a 65 ter number for
16 the final slide, but this is just a demonstrative for the moment.
17 MR. IVETIC: I believe I'm still entitled to demonstrative
19 MR. FILE: It's 33 --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like to receive a copy? Perhaps a copy
21 could be made or printed out for Mr. Ivetic who --
22 MR. FILE: It's 33804.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. So let's say you are teaching a class of five students, and
1 you're going to give them an exam. So you have a registration list from
2 the school for all five students who are registered for your class and it
3 contains the students' first, middle, and last names, and their unique
4 student ID number. So as you can see on this list, the student names and
5 ID numbers that on your list are John Alan Smith, number 121; John Bob
6 Smith, number 122; John Cody Smith, number 123; John Douglas Smith,
7 number 124; and John Elliot Smith, number 125.
8 Now, all five of your students come to your classroom and they
9 take your test, and you recognise them as students who have been taking
10 your class all semester. Now, you told them to put their full names and
11 student ID numbers on the exams, but, unfortunately, when you get the
12 exams back, you see this.
13 MR. FILE: If we can go to the next slide.
14 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, for the record, this does comport
15 to what has been given to us as 33804. And I just checked on web mail, I
16 have not received a copy of any PowerPoint presentations to be used in
17 court. So, again, I don't know at this point what we're looking at.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, is there any way that we could perhaps
19 print out or --
20 MR. FILE: Yes, we can print out a copy.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And then, please, with all the elements of the
22 PowerPoint presentation.
23 Now, Mr. Ivetic, whether it's PowerPoint or whether it's a sheet
24 or whatever is not, I think, decisive, it's just a way of putting it on
25 the screen. That's what PowerPoint is for.
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. And with other PowerPoint
2 presentations, it's customary as we have received, I think with
3 Dr. Tabeau, slides. You have slides in PowerPoint and --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
5 MR. IVETIC: -- each slide is a different presentation of data.
6 And as I read 33804, it is one sheet of paper that is not resembling
7 exactly what is on the screen we have right now, so I'm missing -- I
8 have -- I might have the final slide, but I'm missing all the other
9 slides. And I believe --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know -- let's --
11 MR. IVETIC: -- if something is being used with the witness, I'm
12 entitled to it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
14 Mr. File, are there other -- okay, there we see -- could you make
15 a printout, which is possible in PowerPoint, to make a printout of the
16 whole of all the slides so that Mr. Ivetic receives them right away, all
17 of them?
18 MR. FILE: We certainly can. He has just received a preview
19 essentially of the final slide but that's -- we can print out all of
20 them, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if you want to show more, then I think
22 it's --
23 MR. FILE: It's no problem.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- it's right that Mr. Ivetic received disclosure of
25 all the slides you want to present.
1 You'll receive them in a second, Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. So if we go to the next slide, you'll see what you receive on the
4 exams that come back from your students, unfortunately.
5 The first one just writes J and 126, so you have one person who
6 just put a single initial and a clearly wrong student ID --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, you are saying that it's a wrong ID.
8 MR. FILE: In the sense that it doesn't match any of the five
9 IDs on the list --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the first one gives the wrong ID or whether
11 the student gives the wrong IDs, we do not know yet.
12 MR. FILE: Right.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. The next person puts Jack Smith, 22, so someone else may have
16 used a nickname, forgot to put middle name, and put a wrong or incomplete
17 student ID.
18 The next one is John, 121. So there you have someone who put
19 their first name and student ID, it appears.
20 The next one says Codee, spelled with two es. So here you may
21 have put only their middle name and may have misspelled their own name,
22 or perhaps it's misspelled on your registration list.
23 And the last one appears to be the model student who puts
24 John Douglas Smith, 124, with all four fields filled out.
25 You don't have any additional information, such as handwriting or
1 other things, to try to decide who to assign these exams to. So if you
2 are faced with a situation like this, figuring out who wrote what exam is
3 fundamentally a matching exercise; right?
4 A. Hypothetically speaking, yes; but scientifically speaking, no.
5 Q. We are --
6 A. If you take it as a simplified example, yes.
7 Q. That's exactly what we are doing. In this sort of circumstance,
8 you would want to start with a more restrictive set of criteria such as
9 an exact match of the first name, the middle name, the last name, and the
10 ID number. And if we can go to the next slide, it would give you one
11 match, this one where it matches identically; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So I want to take you through a series of additional less
14 restrictive matching criteria.
15 The next one, if you used first name and ID number, you could get
16 another match of John Alan Smith, 121, to John, 121.
17 If we can go to the next one. If you used a fuzzy search for the
18 middle name, which is like if you did a search for matching the first
19 three letters of the middle name, for example, you could get another
20 match of John Cody Smith, 123, to Codee.
21 If we go to the next. If you use the first initial and the last
22 name and the fuzzy ID, you could get another match between John Bob
23 Smith, 122, to Jack Smith, 22. That would be as if you matched only the
24 last two digits of the ID.
25 And then for the last person, you could use first initial only,
1 but you could make that match since there's now only one person left in
2 your class with that first initial. So John Elliot Smith, 125, could
3 match with J. 126.
4 So my first question is: Just looking at this hypothetical
5 example, and, of course, it's a simplified hypothetical, you would agree
6 that this probably the right result in terms of making the best possible
7 matches between the exams and the students; right?
8 A. If you have an accurate ID, yes. If you don't have an ID or you
9 have an inaccurate ID, then no. You are giving me examples with correct
10 ID numbers.
11 Q. Okay.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I maintain that in many sources of
14 information used by Dr. Tabeau, there are no ID numbers or there is an
15 insufficient number of accurate IDs.
16 MR. FILE:
17 Q. For now, we're just talking about this example. We're not
18 talking about Dr. Tabeau's sources. But in this case, this is the best
19 possible match for these exams and students; right?
20 A. With a correct ID, such a simple case would not be a problem.
21 But this is an extremely simplified case.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- isn't a good last answer for the day, that
23 this is a simplified, extremely simplified case.
24 We leave it to that.
25 I instruct you again that you should not speak or communicate in
1 any way with whomever about your testimony, whether already given or
2 still to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning. And
3 we will try to do our utmost best to see whether we can conclude hearing
4 your testimony tomorrow, but this is not a guarantee.
5 You may follow the usher.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
8 Tuesday, the 3rd of May, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd day of May,
11 2016, at 9.30 a.m.