1 Tuesday, 3 May 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
9 case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 We briefly move into private session.
12 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 MR. FILE: Your Honour, we have just one brief preliminary.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And would that -- one second. Can the witness
21 already be --
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one second. We are back in open session.
24 Mr. File, should that --
25 MR. FILE: It doesn't affect whether the witness is here or not
1 so we can bring the witness in.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the witness can be brought in. Please
4 MR. FILE: On 12th of August, 2015, at transcript 37.719 to
5 37.722, Mr. Lukic of the Defence raised an issue related to the English
6 translation of a Prosecution exhibit, P1147, specifically it related to
7 page 94 of the English translation, line 19 of that page. We verified
8 the translation and we now have a revised translation of that page. We
9 discussed this with Mr. Lukic and the parties have agreed that the
10 revised translation page should replace what is currently page 94 of the
11 English translation of P1147. We've uploaded the revised page as 65 ter
12 number 28780a [Realtime transcript read in error "28680a"], and we would
13 ask that are that replacement to be made.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Which would mean that the original page is taken out
15 of that document or have you uploaded the entire new version, including
16 that one corrected page.
17 MR. FILE: I believe it's just the one corrected page. I note
18 the transcript reads in error 28680a. The correct number is 28780a and
19 it would just be to replace that one page in the translation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that causes no problems to replace
21 one page from a document.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 THE REGISTRAR: No, it should not, Your Honours. It will be
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then you are hereby instructed to replace the page
1 94 of P1147 by the new one uploaded by the Prosecution.
2 Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: As always, I'd like to remind that you that you're
5 still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning
6 of your testimony. And Mr. File will now continue his cross-examination.
7 Mr. File, please proceed.
8 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. File: [Continued]
12 Q. Now, before we return to the hypothetical case we were looking at
13 yesterday afternoon, I just want to cover one discrete issue with you.
14 First, when the ICMP makes a final and conclusive DNA
15 identification, you do not dispute the accuracy of that identification;
17 A. Well, I did not have any occasion to dispute the accuracy, but I
18 have a problem with it. The problem is that when the ICMP provides a
19 table, nobody signs it and we don't know who is responsible for the
20 content of the table.
21 Q. That's actually my question. The content itself of the table,
22 you don't dispute that regarding the identification.
23 A. I was not in a position to dispute it. I never had an
24 opportunity to compare what they gave to Dr. Tabeau and what I requested
25 from them.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. I accept -- I accept it as it is.
3 Q. Okay. In your report at paragraphs 48 and 49, you criticise
4 Dr. Tabeau for counting as separate individuals the 22 people whose DNA
5 identifications were still under review or were not identified by the
6 ICMP by June 2014. Do you recall that criticism that you made?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. Okay, I don't --
9 A. I say that -- please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing what asked whether you recall that.
11 You've answered that question. Next question, please, Mr. File.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. When Dr. Tabeau was testifying at T36.728, she said: "They are
14 unique, different, unique individuals in terms of DNA profiles and
15 different from all other individuals with certain DNA profiles under the
16 main cases."
17 So even if at that time we didn't know who they were, we still
18 knew that they were unique individuals distinct from those who had
19 already been identified, so there is no problem with including them in
20 the count of individuals recovered from Tomasica, is there?
21 A. I don't see it that way. The ICMP, in their letter, say
22 precisely: Regarding 15 persons, it is probable that they have been
23 matched on the basis of DNA. Probable is not certain.
24 Concerning seven persons, they say precisely they have not been
25 matched --
1 Q. Okay --
2 A. -- with the family.
3 Q. Would you consider it relevant for the sake of your report to
4 know if these individuals had actually been conclusively identified since
5 June 2014?
6 A. Only if I take the word of Dr. Tabeau. I don't have any document
7 to support it.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
9 A. The ICMP did not send me a letter that they have done that. Or
10 maybe I haven't seen it.
11 Q. When you came to The Hague in January 2016, did you ask to look
12 at the most recent ICMP update from Tomasica, which was from
13 October 2015?
14 A. To be honest, I don't remember now. But I believe I requested
15 all ICMP reports. Whether there was one from October 2015, I can't
16 remember. But I have seen that correction, and that correction contains
17 tables showing how Dr. Tabeau corrected some things, but not ICMP tables,
18 as far as I recall.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, could I take you back three questions,
20 when you asked about the unique 22 persons, did you consider the answer
21 given by the expert witness an answer to your question? Because then I
22 might have misunderstood your question.
23 MR. FILE: No, I -- I don't see that as a direct answer to my
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if you ask that question, if you get an
1 answer which is not an answer to your question, I think for this Chamber
2 it would be important to at least establish that. And either seek an
3 answer or to establish that no answer was given in order to avoid any
4 confusion on our part.
5 MR. FILE: Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I ask this, because when Mr. File asked you
7 about the 22 unique individuals, you started talking about that there was
8 for 15 there was a probable match, for 7, there was no match. The
9 question was not about matches. The question was whether these 22 were
10 distinct from all the others who had been identified, and, therefore,
11 your answer may be fully correct but was not an answer to the question.
12 Please proceed, Mr. File.
13 MR. FILE: Could we look at P7437, which is actually going to be
14 on Sanction because it's an Excel spreadsheet. This is the June 2014
15 ICMP file on DNA identifications of Tomasica victims.
16 Q. And while we're looking at it, you can see in the second -- in
17 the -- in the column to the left -- no, the second column from the left,
18 the names of the individuals and how their main cases and reassociation
19 identifications are grouped together, which was what we were looking at
20 yesterday regarding the non-sequential ID numbering of identified
22 Now, if you look at the bottom of this page --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, is this to be shown publicly.
24 MR. FILE: Sorry. This is not to be broadcast.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
1 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. If you look at the bottom of the page, this tab is called:
3 Submitted DNA report.
4 Now, if we go to the second tab which is called: DNA reports
5 review, here you see there are 15 main cases along with their
6 reassociations that were under review at that time. The main cases are
7 at rows 2 to 7, 11 to 15, 18, and 20 to 22.
8 And then if we look at tab 3, titled: No match, you see seven
9 main cases in blue under source case ID along with reassociations in red
10 in the next column that had no match in June 2014?
11 Now, if we can switch to 65 ter number 33792, which is the
12 October 2015 spreadsheet.
13 First of all, what you'll notice is there's no tab 2 for review
14 at the bottom. And if we scroll down what you see is what was previously
15 tab 2. They've been identified with yellow boxes as newly identified
17 Now, if we look at the second tab for no match, we see there's
18 only one source case ID or main case that is remaining unidentified along
19 with its reassociations.
20 So now that you know that all but one person from Tomasica has
21 been conclusively identified as of October of last year, would you modify
22 your conclusions about whether to treat those newly identified
23 individuals as unique, separate Tomasica victims?
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I will object to the question until we
25 find out when this was disclosed to the Defence, this document that dates
1 from October 2015.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
3 MR. FILE: One moment, Your Honour.
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. FILE: It was disclosed on 21st of October, 2015 in batch
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, does your objection stand or ...
8 MR. IVETIC: That was just to get the information so he can ask
9 the question now. I don't think the --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it -- as a matter of fact, it wasn't an
11 objection to the question, I think, but you wanted to raise a disclosure
12 issue related to the question put to the witness.
13 MR. IVETIC: Related to the document put to the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. Do you remember the question I just asked?
17 A. I do, but before I answer, may I ask you to put back the previous
18 table once again. Because I can't follow it now. It switches very
19 quickly. The table before no match, the one you just showed me, saying
20 the non-identified -- or the newly identified ones are marked in yellow.
21 Yes, I see it now. I would not change anything because
22 Dr. Tabeau has already included these people in her report. And my
23 objection is why? In her calculation, technically nothing changed. She
24 has already included them in her total.
25 Q. But then to go back to your answer that we were discussing
1 before, when I asked you about the fact that these were unique
2 identifications that simply had not been confirmed at that point or
3 matched at that point but they were unique profiles, your response was
4 there it was only probably matched to an identity. But you don't dispute
5 that they were unique DNA profiles; right?
6 A. I don't dispute it, but I don't know what unique is understood to
7 mean. A unique DNA profile doesn't mean anything to me unless you
9 MR. FILE: Could we switch back to e-court and look at 65 ter
10 33791, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But before we do so, do I understand that you do not
12 know the understanding of the word "unique"?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know what the word "unique"
14 means, but I don't know what the Prosecutor understands under that term.
15 If he believes that a unique profile is the fact that somebody was later
16 identified as such, all right. But you can have several unique DNA
17 profiles, if you have more than one part, based on which you look for a
18 DNA profile. My impression is that the Prosecutor understands a unique
19 DNA profile to be equivalent to an exhumed person. If that's what the
20 Prosecutor believes, then I would say that --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My understanding, and let's check whether that
22 is also the understanding of the Prosecution, my understanding of a
23 unique DNA profile is a profile which differs from other known profiles.
24 That makes it unique because it's not the same as any of the other ones
25 known. And that's how we started in the beginning, where you gave an
1 answer - not an answer to the question - when the Prosecutor asked you,
2 we had a lot of identified DNA profiles. There were 22 where there was
3 no match, but what was put to you by the Prosecution at that time was
4 that those 22, 15 of them were the probable match, 7 not with a match.
5 That at least there they were unique in the sense that those 22 were all
6 different among each other and also different from those where a match
7 had been confirmed.
8 That was the question at the time, whether these are unique
9 persons, that is, persons with a different DNA profile.
10 That's how I understood your questions, Mr. File.
11 Could you now please perhaps answer the first question that was
12 put to you, whether you agree that those 22 are unique profiles, that is,
13 different from any other profile known in this context?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If that's the way you explained it,
15 then, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
17 MR. FILE: Could we look at 65 ter number 33791, please.
18 Q. And as this comes up, my follow-up question to your answer would
19 be: If you accept that they were unique DNA profiles, then your
20 criticism of Dr. Tabeau for counting them as separate individuals does
21 not stand; correct?
22 A. If they are proven unique DNA profile, then that critique doesn't
23 stand but I'm saying again it doesn't change anything to the total
24 because they have been already counted among the victims of Tomasica.
25 MR. FILE: I may have a technical difficulty with our screen for
2 JUDGE ORIE: We have a black screen at this moment.
3 Mr. Registrar, any way to -- now I see text again. B/C/S to the
4 left; English to the right. An overview of the 2015 ICMP update on the
5 Tomasica identified, dated 24th of November, 2015; author, apparently
6 Ewa Tabeau.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. When you were drafting the part of your report that we are
10 discussing now, did you see or had you seen this report drafted by
11 Ewa Tabeau which was disclosed to the Defence on the 27th of November,
12 2015 and which further describes the results of the update we were just
13 looking at?
14 A. To be sincere, I don't remember. I believe I've seen all the
15 reports but I really can't remember whether I've seen this one, in
16 particular. But the fact is that it's about the same number of people
17 that Dr. Tabeau states in her conclusion. I have probably read it
18 because I've read thousands of pages.
19 Q. Okay. Well, let me draw your attention to just a few sections of
21 Paragraph 1 at the beginning, it says: "In this research note, I
22 summarise the October 2015 ICMP update on the DNA identification of the
23 persons buried in the Tomasica mine, Prijedor municipality, Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina. This note does not expand on or make any changes to my 2014
25 expert report on Tomasica but merely gives the latest figures on the DNA
1 identification process of these individuals."
2 If we go to paragraph 2, starting with the third sentence. It
3 says: "The 15 main cases listed in 2014 without any personal information
4 are now complete, i.e., they have names and dates of birth (DOBs). One
5 person was reported in 2014 exclusively on the basis of his associated
6 reports, i.e., without a main case which was corrected in the 2015
7 update. This means that also this corrected case can be counted as an
8 additional person. Altogether, 23 new fully complete main cases have
9 been added since June 2014. (Annex 1)."
10 So if you had read this, and you were criticizing Dr. Tabeau for
11 including these individuals as separate individuals, would this have not
12 factored into your decision to issue that criticism?
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, the Defence will object to the use of
14 this document and the presentation of material from this document. This
15 document is a report authored by the expert witness of the Prosecution.
16 This report was not disclosed under Rule 94 bis as a report that was
17 being relied upon at trial. The Prosecution reopened its case to call
18 Ms. Tabeau in July of 2015. Thereafter, they've re-closed their case.
19 Now, we're having a new report from the expert witness that has not gone
20 through the procedures that this Court has set forth for expert reports.
21 So they can't now, again, for a second time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
23 MR. IVETIC: There's probably no translation in B/C/S from
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that from two sides we hear that
1 there's no interpretation.
2 MR. IVETIC: And now we do, apparently.
3 So the Prosecution cannot be permitted now a second time to amend
4 or add on to evidence of their expert witness outside of the rules and
5 decisions that have been set forth to permit that. By trying to get this
6 report in, in this manner, the Prosecution is basically violating the
7 order on reopening and is violating Rule 94 bis and so the Defence would
8 ask for Your Honours to issue a ruling on that matter.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
10 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I believe this objection is premature.
11 I'm not tendering this document right now, and I believe I have every
12 right to explore with this witness the information she had available to
13 her when drafting her critique and what she chose to accept or ignore is
14 relevant for this Chamber to know.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Understanding that you're not tendering this
17 document, Mr. File, it will not be admitted then in evidence and you may
18 put the information in this -- contained in this document to the witness
19 while examining her.
20 In that respect, I don't know whether, Mr. Ivetic, whether your
21 objection was against presenting new evidence or putting this to the
22 witness, but at least the Chamber, in response to what you raised, allows
23 Mr. File to put this information to the witness as information she says
24 she most likely has seen and is relevant for the report.
25 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, if it is being entered into the
1 record that is precisely a back-doorway of getting material into
2 evidence, so I fail to see the difference between whether a report is
3 being tendered or not. If it is being used with a witness in court on
4 the record and the material is being provided to Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. IVETIC: I see it as essentially the same thing, so I have to
7 say the Defence views it as still a violation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That objection is denied. This witness may
9 have had access to this material. She may have considered it when
10 answering the questions. Therefore, it may be put to her. It was
11 disclosed TO THE Defence. Not -- not as evidence but just to hear her
12 response to what Mr. File asks her and that's my ruling.
13 Mr. File, please proceed.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. So I'm just going to return to the question that I asked you,
16 which was: If you had read this and you were criticizing Dr. Tabeau for
17 including these individuals as separate individuals, would this not have
18 factored into your decision to issue that criticism?
19 MR. IVETIC: Object to the form of the question. The form of the
20 question is relating to Professor Radovanovic's conclusions in her report
21 which relate to the evidence that was admitted by Dr. Tabeau. So trying
22 to link that conclusion to material that is not in evidence is now,
23 again, going beyond the scope of the evidence that was presented via
24 Ms. Tabeau that Professor Radovanovic was asked to comment upon in an
25 expert manner.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is denied. It's relevant for the -- it's
2 relevant for the testimony which is evidence of this witness to put this
3 information to her.
4 Please proceed, Mr. File.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. Can you answer the question, please.
7 A. I don't think I would change anything, except perhaps that she is
8 putting in what doesn't even exist yet at the time she is writing the
9 report. But it doesn't change the whole total.
10 Dr. Tabeau made new calculations every year. If I had been
11 receiving that month by month, then it would have been all right. She
12 has another correction, I believe, from 2015, to the total number that I
13 have seen here in The Hague, but that's a correction to the total number,
14 and now she says it is no longer 378 but it's -- so these corrections
15 Dr. Tabeau is making here now do not affect the overall result.
16 Because --
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
18 A. Excuse me, just let me finish.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you. I
20 think have you answered the question: It would not change your
22 Mr. File.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. We're going to return to the simplified hypothetical that we
25 looked at yesterday afternoon.
1 MR. FILE: If we can put that on Sanction again.
2 Q. Just a few more questions about this and then we're going to dive
3 into a real-world case.
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. FILE: I think we need to switch to Sanction. Oh. I have a
6 black screen.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We have a list of students registered for this
9 MR. FILE: Okay. Perhaps it's just my screen.
10 MR. IVETIC: The Defence also has apparently what Your Honours
12 MR. FILE: Well, I have it on a different screen so I can
14 Q. So when we left off, we had match -- we can go forward a few
15 slides to the matches that we had made. There we go.
16 We had matched the student exams with the class registration
17 list. Assisted in part by some of the student IDs as you pointed out.
18 So regarding the accuracy and the completeness of the data fields
19 in the exams, in this example, we had first name, middle name, last name,
20 and student ID. So four pieces of data for each student exam, meaning 20
21 different pieces of data in total that you could potentially have used to
22 make matches.
23 Now, assuming for the moment that your registration list is
24 correct, if we can go to the next slide. And one more. So for the first
25 exam you received there are zero complete and accurate fields, because
1 the first name is incomplete, missing the middle name and the last name
2 and probably the wrong ID. For the second, there's one complete and
3 accurate field. The first name is inaccurate since he appears to be
4 using a nickname. Middle name is missing, last name is correct, but the
5 ID number is incomplete. For the third exam, there are two complete and
6 accurate fields. Correct first name, missing middle name and last name,
7 and correct ID.
8 For the fourth exam, there are zero complete and accurate fields
9 because it's missing the first name, misspelled the middle name, missing
10 the last name and missing the ID. And for John Douglas Smith, 124, all
11 four data fields are correct and accurate.
12 Now, if we go to the next slide.
13 So in this exam data source, out of 20 data fields, seven are
14 present, correct and complete, while 13 are missing or incorrect or
15 incomplete, which would give us a rate of accuracy of 35 per cent or a
16 rate of error or incompleteness of 65 per cent; right?
17 A. To be frank, I do not understand what you want, nor do I
18 understand how you computed these percentages and what you're trying to
19 ask me and what I'm supposed to explain here. I don't know how you
20 computed that seven of 20 are correct. Seven of what? Of the elements
21 that we have here? Do you -- I don't understand.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me, as a layperson, let me try to tell you how I
23 understand that as a layperson. That accurate and complete data fields
24 if you add to zero for the first one, 1 for the second, 2 for the third,
25 zero for the fourth and four for number five, then if you add all that
1 you come to seven. And as Mr. File explained before, in total, there
2 would have been 20 data fields which are known for the comparative group,
3 which means seven accurate fields where there could have been 20, seven
4 out of 20 is 35 and therefore would be 35 per cent. That's how I
5 understand it.
6 Mr. File, is my understanding correct?
7 Would you -- have you now followed me in what seven means, what
8 20 means, and what 35 per cent would mean? Apart from just numbers. So
9 I'm not yet interpreting anything, but ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have understood how you
11 have -- how you understood it, but I don't understand it in the same way.
12 Because in statistics or in demographics this is not done in that way.
13 If you take these as characteristics, first and last name, father's name
14 and the ID element, and you control all the names and you say of the five
15 names, all five are 100 per cent correct, but you never control in this
16 way. You're controlling in quite a different way when the sources of
17 data are checked: each element has to be checked separately rather than
18 in this way. Because how would you know how many fields are filled in
19 terms of date of birth unless you check all the dates of birth in your
20 source and you can say of the 22.000, as registered by ICRC, 50 per cent
21 of the fields for date of birth are filled, 25 per cent partially filled.
22 And the remaining percentage is missing the data. That's how you check
23 it. So what the Prosecutor is showing me, the checking is not used in
24 this way in the matching process.
25 For this, I could say, correspondence of name, 100 per cent. One,
1 2, 3, 4, 5, no correspondence with father's name and 100 per cent of
2 correspondence with the last names. In the source provided by
3 doctor. Provided by the Prosecutor. ID numbers different, so I can try
4 to locate them on the basis of ID numbers, but Dr. Tabeau can not look for
5 that in her sources because ICRC, for example, does not provide ID numbers.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We are not yet at Dr. Tabeau. We are just taking
7 this and the question is: Do you understand now the calculation as made
8 by Mr. File. He has not in any way yet linked it to whether Dr. Tabeau
9 had the same data available. That's a different matter.
10 Please proceed, Mr. File. I see that the witness was nodding
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't put it right. I could
13 check whether all the ID numbers are 100 per cent correct, if I had
14 another source with ID numbers. That's how you check the data source.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. FILE: Okay.
17 Q. And as you know, this is just a hypothetical so that's why we're
18 focussing just on the information that we have here.
19 Now, this is probably a common sense question, but there's a
20 reason that you would not try to match the student exams with the
21 registration list of the entire school because if you tried to match it
22 with the whole school, you could increase the risk of creating some bad
23 matches, like perhaps the real student number 126 who is not taking your
24 class might get matched with John Elliot Smith's exam just because Elliot
25 wrote the wrong student ID number on his test.
1 So you would agree that it would be best to limit the matching
2 only to students registered to take your class in this example; right?
3 MR. IVETIC: Object to the question. There's multiple questions
4 in there. It's a compound question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
6 MR. FILE: Well, I just put the premise for the reason and I put
7 to the witness so I'm asking whether she would limit the -- it's not a
8 compound question I'm asking whether she would limit the matching only to
9 the students registered to the class. That's the question.
10 MR. IVETIC: He asked if it would increase the risk and then he
11 asked would it best to limit the matching. Those are two separate
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would never do the matching in
16 this way. What you are saying is so hypothetical and I really don't deal
17 in hypothetics, nor do I understand this hypothetical situation. In
18 statistics, this is done in a quite different way. The five examples
19 that you are giving.
20 MR. FILE:
21 Q. I'm going to ask you about statistics because this -- well,
22 demography --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness answered the question before I
24 gave a ruling on the matter.
25 Mr. Ivetic, that the risk was increased was part of what was put
1 to the witness not as a question to the witness and, therefore, your
2 objection is denied. But we have now moved on and the witness took her
3 own course in further elaborating on the matter raised.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. So I understand you to say that when you never do the matching in
7 this way, that you wouldn't match exams with students who weren't in the
8 class and my question is this is what scientists who do data matching
9 would call blocking, right? It's the process of identifying a subset of
10 your group where you think the matches that you want are going to be
11 located and you run your search within that smaller pool of records.
12 That's called blocking; correct?
13 MR. FILE: And, for the record, this was described by Dr. Tabeau
14 at transcript page 36.796 to 36.797.
15 A. I have never used blocking and I don't know what the expression
16 means. But when scientists are doing the matching, they determine the
17 elements of matching, which I've said 20 times here.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you don't know what
19 blocking means, we can move onto the next question.
20 Now, when you were testifying, starting at transcript page
21 43.657, line 21, you said: "In other words, the person who is doing the
22 matching establishes the key for it" --
23 A. Please. Report. My report, please.
24 Q. I'm referring to your testimony.
25 A. All right. You said report or that's what I heard as
2 Q. It may have been misinterpreted.
3 In your testimony, you said: "In other words, the person who is
4 doing the matching establishes the key for it and the key must include a
5 certain number of elements. The more elements there are, the likelihood
6 is closer to number one, that two items from two different sources will
7 correspond. The fewer number the elements, the likelihood is smaller,
8 and the likelihood is within the range from zero to one so you can say
9 that the likelihood is very close to one, and I can claim with a high
10 degree of probability that this is one and the same person. The fewer
11 the number of elements, you then have to make calculations. You have to
12 review everything personally to draw some conclusions, to say, yes, it is
13 one and the same person. It could be, it may be, and so on and so
15 So when you said the fewer the number of the elements, the
16 likelihood is smaller of obtaining a successful match, that is not
17 necessarily true in the sense that matching is a dynamic process. So in
18 some case, the probability of a good match with only a few elements can
19 get larger as the matching process is performed because candidates are
20 removed from the pool when they are matched, as we saw in this
21 hypothetical example. That's how we're able to be confident in the
22 hypothetical in the last student exam match we made; right?
23 A. No, that's a possible theory. It's something that could possibly
24 be so but not necessarily.
25 If you are matching, according to criterion, for example, the ID
1 number, and that's not disputed, you have the exact ID number and from
2 22.000 from the ICRC, you can say, well, I've matched 3.000 so you then
3 exclude them. And you have remaining 19.000 for the matching. And now,
4 you have to use a different element because you have no numerical
5 elements, for example, if the ICRC included that. So you have 19.000
6 remaining. For the 19.000, you have to set a different criterion. So if
7 you say the criterion will be the first name or the last name, the
8 father's name, the date of birth, and I can match 3 per cent or 13
9 per cent, doesn't matter, you can also exclude them from the matching.
10 So, now, you are down to not 19.000 but 16.000, for example. So that's
11 not disputed at all. But the likelihood that you will match them in the
12 smaller number, if you don't have another criterion, then the likelihood
13 is being reduced.
14 Q. Okay. If we just switch to e-court, the final slide from this
15 hypothetical is under 33804. So I would tender that as a demonstrative
16 exhibit and then we can move to another area.
17 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object. If it's being
18 tendered as a demonstrative exhibit, we need the whole PowerPoint, all
19 the slides, because that is how it was demonstrated in Court. The
20 meaning of a demonstrative exhibit is the exhibit that was used in court
21 with the witness. This version was not used with the witness, therefore
22 we would ask that the entire slide show be admitted, if it's being
23 admitted as a demonstrative exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, any problem in tendering the whole --
25 MR. FILE: We can do that as well. This was just in the
1 interests of saving paper and space but we can certainly add all the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, since all the rest was shown in Sanction, it
4 may be very difficult to know exactly what was shown because it was not
5 all read out in detail apart from reading tables may be not the easiest
6 way of reconstructing later what you saw. So, therefore, I think it
7 makes sense. And, therefore, you're invited to tender the whole of
8 the -- of the PowerPoint presentation.
9 MR. FILE: We'll do that, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 Could we please have in e-court D1464, not for broadcast.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you no longer going to 33804?
12 MR. FILE: No, that was the 65 ter number reserved for the
13 PowerPoint presentation, so I'm moving to a different area now.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thanks.
15 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: So the -- I think a number was not yet reserved. I
18 think you started. The final slide being 33804 which will now be
19 replaced by the whole of the PowerPoint of the presentation and the
20 number to be reserved for that would be, Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P7827, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P7827 is reserved for the whole PowerPoint
24 Please proceed.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then, we would want to know the 65 ter number of
1 the whole presentation.
2 MR. FILE: I'm told will be 33804a, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Once it is uploaded and released.
5 Mr. Ivetic, where you insisted very much on having the whole in
6 evidence, may I take it there's no objection.
7 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then P7827 is admitted into evidence and it presents
9 65 ter 33804a.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. FILE: If we could have D1464, not for broadcast, on e-court,
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please have the hard copy
14 as I know that it exists. We have looked at this already. Or at least
15 if we could zoom in, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is it what you see on your screen now that you'd
17 like to have a hard copy?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, but let's --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's zoom in anyhow.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. This is the table that you produced of 24 records linked by the
25 demographics units between the 2009 ICRC missing persons list and the
1 1991 census. On direct examination, that was at page 43649, you claimed
2 the first, last and father's name in both sources are identical for each
3 row, but the date and place of birth are different.
4 So I want you just to focus on the first row of this table. In
5 the ICRC data source, in the fifth column under place of birth, you see
6 it's indicated Prijedor. Then if you go several rows over to the census
7 of 1991 source, under the column, census, place of birth, it says
8 Rakovcani. Rakovcani is a village in the municipality of Prijedor so
9 these fields may be consistent, just one is more specific than the other.
10 Did you consider that possibility?
11 MR. IVETIC: Object to the first part of the question as
12 misstating the evidence. She did not claim that it was identical for
13 each row, as Your Honour will recall in response to your question it was
14 largely identical but not for all of the rows.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any comment on misstating the evidence,
16 could you please refer to the exact source so that we know exactly what
17 the evidence was.
18 MR. FILE: It was 43.649 and I can check that momentarily but
19 actually that wasn't the thrust of my question.
20 Q. The question is: Rakovcani is a village in the municipality of
21 Prijedor so these fields could be more consistent. It could be that one
22 is more specific than the other. Did you consider that possibility?
23 A. Yes, I did consider that possibility.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
25 A. Because --
1 Q. If we could look at P1900. This is --
2 MR. IVETIC: Actually, Your Honours if she is being asked whether
3 she considered it and she said because, I think we're entitled to hear
4 the answer to the question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not know what the next question will be.
6 If the reasons for having considered or any thoughts related to that, if
7 you consider them relevant, then it can be dealt with in re-examination
8 and perhaps it already emerges from the following questions.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. FILE: And we may want to start with P1900 after the break.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're right. My colleagues reminded me
12 already that it's time for a break.
13 Ms. Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You
14 may now follow the usher.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at five minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we're waiting for the witness to enter
20 the courtroom but you're on your feet, so I thought you might want to
21 address us.
22 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours, I thought I'd use the time to put
23 on the record. At temporary transcript page 26, line 25, Mr. File
24 indicated a transcript reference of 43469 where he purported that the
25 witness had said that each and every single row of D1464 had the same
1 name, father's name and last name, and I indicated that Your Honours had
2 asked a question on follow-up which clarified. The follow-up question is
3 at transcript page 43.650, where indeed it was clarified that this was
4 not the case for all the rows but for most of the rows.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's hereby on the record.
6 And I understood from Mr. File that doesn't affect the gist of
7 the question that followed, although if the introduction is not accurate,
8 it should be corrected.
9 MR. FILE: That is --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Only the transcript page is missing because you
11 were talking too fast, Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: 43.650.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
14 MR. FILE: I actually have one separate point, which is just to
15 note that 65 ter 33804a is now available in e-court, the one that was
16 assigned provisionally P7827.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that -- now, then, Mr. Registrar, to the
18 extent he had attached already a document to it, certainly now the new
19 one with the small a should be attached to that exhibit number.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: And that, with the small a, that document, which is
22 the full PowerPoint presentation, that is the one that is admitted.
23 Please proceed, Mr. File.
24 MR. FILE: If we can look at P1900, please. It's going to be
25 English, page 67, and B/C/S, page 70.
1 Q. When this comes up, you'll see that it's Dr. Tabeau's Srebrenica
2 report which you're familiar with. And when we have the B/C/S up, it
3 will say at Annex 5 that here we're looking at data matching, general
4 introduction. And here on this page, you have many sources provided for
5 the background on data matching.
6 MR. FILE: If we could go to English page 72, B/C/S page 75,
7 we'll be looking at the bottom of the page, the last partial paragraph in
8 both versions.
9 Q. It says: "The matching of two lists was always begun by
10 searching for records with identical names and date of birth. It is very
11 unusual that two different persons have identical names and are born on
12 exactly the same date, especially if we are only considering the
13 population of a small area, such as a municipality or Eastern Bosnia.
14 Quite often, however, names are spelled differently or the date of birth
15 is recorded slightly differently - or missing altogether in one or both
16 lists. Consequently, for persons not matched in the first round, we made
17 the search criteria gradually broader for one or more variables, for
18 example, by including only the year (and not the full date) of birth, or
19 only the initial" --
20 MR. FILE: And I think we have to change to the next page of
22 Q. "... of the first name, in addition to the surname. The results
23 of such matches have to be inspected visually, however, to decide if the
24 matches are likely to be of the same person or not, by looking at the
25 other available information, such as municipality and place of birth or
1 residence. For example, the place of birth may be given as a
2 municipality on one list and a small hamlet, located in the same
3 municipality, on the other list. It would be very complicated, if
4 possible at all, to automate such checks."
5 So in the case that we were just looking at on the table that you
6 produced - and we can bring that back up, D1464 not for broadcast - when
7 we were looking at that example where one municipality said Prijedor --
8 one place said Prijedor and the other place said Rakovcani, it's clear
9 that that is one of those matches that would have received a visual
10 inspection and comparison with other available information to determine a
11 match; right?
12 A. No, it may be clear to Dr. Tabeau, but the information from the
13 population census is exact. As for the information from ICRC, it was
14 provided by relatives who may not where somebody was born --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
16 A. In addition to that --
17 Q. Pardon me, that wasn't my question. My question was not about
18 the sources themselves, it was about the process. And according to what
19 we just read, it's clear what that match would have received a visual
20 inspection; right?
21 A. Well, that's a fact. There were thousands of visual checks and
22 Dr. Tabeau says so. Not now but on one occasion she said that in a
23 report about Srebrenica from 2005. If I remember correctly. I think
24 there were thousands of visual checks.
25 MR. IVETIC: And Your Honours, for the record, the counsel is
1 incorrect when stating that what we just read refers to this. What we
2 just read refers to two individuals with the same name and the same date
3 of birth, which is not the case for the individuals that we were looking
4 at on D1498. The reference to matching was in relation not to the
5 municipality but the date.
6 JUDGE ORIE: To some extent, it's argument. But I tend to agree
7 with Mr. Ivetic, that the example is about different places of birth
8 where one may refer to the municipality and another to a more specific
9 location, but that is an example where, if you come to a match, it seems
10 that there should be no inconsistencies in other respects, and I think
11 what Mr. Ivetic, at this moment, does, is to point at other
12 inconsistencies, especially in view of the date of birth.
13 I don't know whether you want to deal with that in a follow-up,
14 Mr. File.
15 MR. FILE: Well, Your Honour, I do think that that was largely
16 argument and that the reading of the passage from Dr. Tabeau supports the
17 interpretation. But my next question relates to another aspect of
18 this -- of this exhibit.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I think it's -- it's -- it's clear what we
20 are looking at. That's most important at this moment.
21 And then put your next question to the witness.
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. So looking at this table of 24 rows, at transcript page 43648,
24 you claimed that there were around 100 examples like this. So to
25 clarify, that's around 100 examples out of the 19.615 people on the ICRC
1 missing list for BiH who matched with the census. Is that what you were
3 A. No. It reads here that this is the -- that the integrated
4 database is the source of information, and I mentioned the example from
5 ICRC and their examples also from the books of Prijedor and also from
6 other documents.
7 Q. So it's 100 examples in the entire integrated database.
8 A. No. I stopped at that number because I was no longer interested.
9 I believed that if I showed certain examples, then that was all right.
10 And if I got -- if I get the database, then I can tell you in detail by
11 source what, where, and how, and what relates to what.
12 Q. Okay. Did you look to see whether any of those 100 or so
13 examples that you found or any of these 24 that we have on our screen
14 matched with the list of the Tomasica identified that are the subject of
15 the report?
16 A. I haven't dealt with it for the simple reason that I expected I
17 would receive a database and I would be able to see it precisely. In the
18 time that I'm here, I cannot do it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you two questions.
20 The first is: Looking at the first line, we see that there is
21 different names for the place of birth, and there seem to be different
22 dates of birth. Do you count this as one or as two examples.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's one example of matching. One
24 from the ICRC with certain --
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's clear.
1 You count it for one.
2 When you had reached approximately 100 where you thought that
3 it's of no use to further continue, where were you in the database? I
4 mean, were you halfway? Were you at three-quarters? Were you at 20
5 per cent? Where did you stop listing examples of inconsistencies?
6 THE WITNESS: With the ICRC. Because I compared
7 only the ICRC, but I didn't look for such examples to cite, to see
8 how many there are in the Prijedor book because I would have had to
9 cross-check the ICRC and the Prijedor books. There was no time for that.
10 That's why I took only the ICRC.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But the total number of 100, then, is based on the
12 totality of the number of persons listed by the ICRC.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not the total number.
14 These are only parts of the example. But, yes, they were cited by the
16 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you where you stopped counting the examples,
17 and you said, I did only the ICRC. Then, again, my question would be:
18 Were you halfway in the ICRC list? Were you at 75 per cent? Were you at
19 20 per cent when you stopped counting any further?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've gone through the whole list,
21 and I singled out about 100, perhaps less, examples. Because I
22 considered them as interesting examples. I could have brought more but I
23 didn't think that was important. I was convinced I would get a database
24 and then I thought I would be able to say in detail for each source of
25 data what it is.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm a bit confused because I understood your
2 previous answer to say something different.
3 But what's interesting examples and what are not interesting
4 examples? Could you explain to me the difference between?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain the difference.
6 There is a series of examples, for instance, where the date and
7 month are different but not the year. There are examples when the names
8 are not exactly identical. Perhaps it's a typo; perhaps not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are these interesting or non-interesting examples,
10 the ones you mentioned a second ago.
11 THE WITNESS: They're all examples, but I thought
12 that these are interesting. I could have brought the whole table with
13 all of them. Again, I was convinced I would receive the database, and I
14 would then have brought a detailed report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think I still did not receive an answer to my
16 question, but I leave it to Mr. File to put further questions to you.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, you keep saying that you didn't have a database
19 or if you had received a database you would have done something
20 differently, but you had everything you needed to be able to find the
21 Tomasica identified victims within the integrated mortality database.
22 You had the ICMP Excel spreadsheet that has all of their names which when
23 if you were looking at June 2014, would have been 363 actual names. You
24 could have done that match, and you could have looked for any type of
25 discrepancies that you thought were relevant, and you could have brought
1 those to court to talk about them; right?
2 A. No, that's not how I understood it. Because I believed I should
3 show all the ways in which matching is done. Whether I would show it based
4 on what Dr. Tabeau says is from Tomasica or not, you know, I had Excel.
5 It's not enough for matching. You have to create a special programme and
6 then go through various sources. Dr. Tabeau provides this number based
7 on different sources of data. She doesn't say based on Tomasica, there
8 are so many and so many, and it is derived only from the ICRC, or only
9 from the book... She uses several sources, and keeps combining them, and
10 then I would have to look for it through several sources, not just one.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you there.
12 What Mr. File asked you is whether you could have done, on the
13 basis of the material you received, certain things. In your answer,
14 you're telling us what Dr. Tabeau should have done or could have done or
15 where you have difficulties in following her. But that was not the
16 question. The question was whether based on materials received, you
17 could have done things asked by Mr. File.
18 Could you please answer that question. And if you want to
19 re-read the question then -- because it's in English but ...
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't do it in the five days
21 I've been here in order to say with absolute certainty.
22 If I had been given a reliable source of data, I could do it.
23 I'm just explaining how matching is done. My task was to determine how
24 well grounded in science it is.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. Whatever your task may have
1 been, I'd rather have you answer the question that was put to you by
2 Mr. File.
3 The question was whether, on the basis of what you got, whether
4 you could have done that match, you could have looked for any type of
5 discrepancies that you thought were relevant and bring them into court.
6 Now, what you are now telling us is - and I'm a bit confused -
7 you say you could have done it but not in five days. Is that your
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's my answer.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Because in the follow-up of your answer you more or
11 less explained why you couldn't do it at all. So, therefore, now I
12 understand your answer to be that you could have done it on that basis
13 but that you would have needed more time.
14 Let's proceed.
15 Mr. Ivetic, you're on your feet.
16 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's precisely for this point, to
17 say that the witness did answer Mr. File's question as you did later on
18 read [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 MR. IVETIC: -- beginning indicated that she had not answered the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, my problem was that she gave two differing
23 answers to the same question.
24 Mr. File, please proceed.
25 MR. FILE:
1 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, you had everything that the demographics unit
2 used to derive those matches and if you needed anything else you could
3 have asked for it, but you didn't; right?
4 A. You're not right. I didn't have everything. I had a table
5 whether Dr. Tabeau says this is the way I made it. In order to check
6 whether it's correct and whether the matching is correct, you had to
7 develop a special programme. Not Excel. It has to work in Access, and
8 then I give a command. These are the criteria for executing it. And
9 then I have to put Dr. Tabeau's table through the sources of data. That
10 cannot be done in Excel.
11 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, what I think you are missing here is that these
12 matches have already been done. That entire process was already done.
13 You could have just asked to inspect it, for example. You never said
14 that you were lacking something to be able to verify any information on
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: Object to the question as phrased, where it says,
18 "The entire process was already done. You could have asked to inspect
19 it, for example." We have, ad nauseam, brought to the attention of the
20 Chamber and put on the record that we precisely asked for the matching
21 criteria from the Prosecution --
22 MR. FILE: Pardon me --
23 MR. IVETIC: -- on multiple occasions. Then the Prosecution
24 indicated that we were referring to is a matching log, not the matching
25 criteria. Then the same Prosecutor indicated they don't have a matching
1 log. So what is he referring to that we could have asked for, that is in
2 the possession of the Prosecution that they have not given to us because
3 they have not been forthright on this issue.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, first of all, slow down.
5 Mr. File, if you want to respond to it.
6 MR. FILE: Certainly. I take exception to the notion that we
7 haven't been forthright on this issue. I think it's clear what we're
8 talking about here is not criteria, it's not logs, it's the actual
9 matches which everyone can see on the list of 378 individuals in the
10 Tomasica identified list. It's in the ICMP list and it's in annex 1 of
11 Dr. Tabeau's report. She could have asked for, for example, an
12 electronic version of that if she wanted to do some kind of matching or
13 an inspection of these.
14 JUDGE ORIE: May I make one observation in this context. It
15 seems to me, provisionally, that matching data, matching lists, is not
16 the same as verifying whether matches which were established, whether
17 they are sound to the extent that the result of the matching process
18 still shows inconsistencies. And I think that's what you're pointing at,
19 Mr. File, and it may well be - I'm not saying it is, but it may well be
20 that we're talking at cross purposes on verification of a matching
21 process which, as we learned from Dr. Tabeau, is not always possible to
22 be -- to do in an automated fashion and verifying the outcome of the
23 process of matching and seeing whether you still see inconsistencies,
24 which are, perhaps, invalidating the match as presented by the person who
25 did that matching process first.
1 I just want to avoid that we are talking at cross purposes and
2 that we are not understanding each other.
3 MR. IVETIC: Then let me try to be very clear as to what the
4 Defence is talking about.
5 Madam Tabeau indicated that she utilised similar methodology that
6 is reflected in the 2013 Srebrenica report. In that report, we have 72
7 criteria, which identify for each criteria the matching that was the
8 result of searching under that criteria. That example is not in relation
9 to their list of victims for Srebrenica. That example is in relation to
10 matching the -- the -- the ICRC list with the 1991 census. We have not
11 been provided, either for the Srebrenica victims nor the Tomasica
12 victims, the results of the actual matching that Dr. Tabeau claims to
13 have undertaken to be able to verify what criteria were used, what
14 criteria were not used. Dr. Tabeau, in answers to my questions,
15 indicated that in addition to the -- to 72 criteria from the Srebrenica
16 report, she also used additional criteria which, to this date, have never
17 been enunciated, defined or given to the Defence by the Prosecution. I
18 have no other way of -- of labelling this activity than to say they are
19 hiding it. And in that regard, I would also ask that they please release
20 a document that telling me to date doesn't exist, which I was given
21 yesterday on their cross-examination list, and that is a document bearing
22 the 65 ter 33826, with the ERN number R068-6874-R068-6874. That document
23 does not appear on EDS under that ERN number.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Ivetic kindly slow down a little,
1 JUDGE ORIE: Slow down a bit and calm down.
2 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. I apologise.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC: When I sought this document this morning after
5 realising it was not released in e-court, I was told the document doesn't
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think the calming down is done
8 perfectly. The slowing down, not yet.
9 MR. IVETIC: Not yet. Let me try to accommodate both. In
10 relation to this document, I asked for it this morning and was told that
11 this number didn't exist. One minute later, I was given an e-mail with a
12 new document under this number that doesn't fit the description that was
13 disclosed to us yesterday on the cross-examination list, which says:
14 "Table upper with three names as reported by ICRC 2009 and in parallel by
15 the 1991 census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Summarising the overlap
16 between 1D06189 and the list of 385 cases of DNA-identified persons
17 exhumed from Tomasica in the fall of 2013.
18 "The second table, lower, includes clarifications of
19 inconsistencies in the dates of birth between the ICRC, 2009, and 1991
20 census for the same three individuals."
21 Why can't the Defence get the documents that they claim to have
22 that they then claim that they don't have. If they relate specifically
23 to objections that have been raised as to the methodology of the report.
24 Why can't the Defence see what Dr. Tabeau relied upon in using her
25 demographic skills to give evidence under oath to this Chamber? I am at
1 a loss as to what is going on here, Your Honours.
2 MR. FILE: So am I, Your Honour. This -- this discussion from
3 Mr. Ivetic refers to a document that I -- I -- it was not on our
4 cross-examination list. We had a number reserved for the document what
5 is currently there which we uploaded this morning. This document is --
6 that he is referring to, I don't know where he has this reference from,
7 but it's not intended to be used on cross-examination and there's no
8 reason for Defence to be requesting this.
9 MR. IVETIC: Does the document exist? We've been playing cat and
10 mouse trying to get access to documents that they say do exist, don't
11 exist. Does the document exist? If it does, I want it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think, not quite unusual that various matters are
13 mixed up at this moment. Mr. Ivetic is talking about disclosure of a
14 document where he wants to know whether it exists or not.
15 Whereas you are talking apparently about a list of documents you
16 wish or do not wish to use during cross-examination.
17 Could you answer the question put by Mr. Ivetic or perhaps in the
18 next break sit together and see what's really bothering both of you,
19 because two people being lost is a serious situation.
20 MR. FILE: We can certainly discuss it, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I would leave it for the time being to
22 that. And I would urge the parties not to mix up all kind of things,
23 that is, identification processes, exactly the way in which it was done,
24 automated, not automated, and verification of the outcome of a process.
25 These are not exactly the same things, and I would urge you not to mix
1 them up.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. FILE: And, for the record, Your Honour, your interpretation
4 was correct, what we're talking about --
5 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, just in case you haven't followed all of what
6 we've been discussing, is the verification of the matches that you can
7 see in Dr. Tabeau's Annex 1, for example.
8 So getting back to this table that you produced that's on the
9 screen with the 24 entries, that table does not appear in your report;
11 A. No.
12 Q. Just for the sake of clarity, you didn't make any of these
13 matches yourself. They're just selected data fields that have been
14 copied and pasted from the demographics unit integrated mortality
15 database; correct?
16 A. I couldn't do a single one because Dr. Tabeau didn't give me the
17 ICRC from 2005, although I requested that document. And she says she
18 worked based on it.
19 Q. If you'd please just answer the question.
20 A. Yes, I took that from the integrated database, according to the
21 ICRC, from 2009 and the census.
22 Q. And your report does not contain any tables of any kind that you
23 produced with your own data matching or your own calculations; right?
24 A. I'm telling you, I didn't have the 2005 ICRC. I cannot match if
25 I don't have the source that was the basis for her work. If I had had
1 the database, then I maybe would have been able to do something with the
2 2005 ICRC.
3 Q. You -- you had the 2009 ICRC list. You appear to be saying that
4 you chose not to use that one. But if you wanted the 2005 ICRC list, why
5 didn't you ask for it during the week that you were here?
6 A. I requested it in writing from the OTP, and they probably
7 forwarded it to Dr. Tabeau. She says, I did my work from -- on the basis
8 of the 2009 ICRC, and then in the document, it is stated that it was all
9 based on the 2005 list.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We earlier had a discussion on what was requested in
11 writing or in any other way, and the Chamber would appreciate to it --
12 that reference is made to the specific requests in writing because
13 earlier we established that sometimes what was considered to be addressed
14 to Dr. Tabeau actually was given to the Defence, and perhaps when the
15 Defence communicated to the Prosecution and then sometimes in different
16 wordings. So in order not for this Chamber to get lost as well, we'd
17 appreciate if any such request is referred to, that we receive or at
18 least are given access to what exactly was asked, by whom, in writing, at
19 what time, and with what formulation.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I can indicate this was written
22 request number 1 on the list that was given to the Prosecution in B/C/S.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we still haven't seen it. But when was
25 MR. FILE: It was November 2015.
1 MR. IVETIC: We had a discussion yesterday that it was either
2 late October, early November. So around that date, yeah.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I remember that we had a discussion on that. Again,
4 the formulation, I think, was still somewhat implicit. If you want us to
5 seriously consider that, provide us with that information so that we can
6 look at it.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. FILE:
9 Q. So you still haven't answered my question, which was: If you had
10 wanted, specifically, the 2005 ICRC list and you arrived in January here
11 and you found that you had been given the more recent ICRC list that
12 Dr. Tabeau refers to in her report but you still wanted the 2005 ICRC
13 list, why didn't you ask for it when you were here and you saw that it
14 wasn't among the materials that you had?
15 A. Because I requested it in writing, and I believe that it has not
16 been given to me intentionally.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let me there, again, stop you.
18 You asked for something in writing. Two months later, you're in
19 The Hague. You haven't received it. Do I understand your answer well,
20 that you say I didn't again ask for it because I felt already that it was
21 intentionally kept away from me and, therefore, I didn't ask for it
23 Is that how we have to understand your answer?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you send something to somebody
25 in writing and if it's on record --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... would you please
2 answer my question.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In any case, I don't think it's
5 JUDGE ORIE: Again, not an answer to my question. I invited you
6 now twice to answer my question. You apparently have reasons not to do
8 Mr. File, next question, please.
9 MR. LUKIC: Although it's my colleagues business today,
10 Your Honour, I have to object at this moment. How many times the Defence
11 has to ask so that the Prosecution [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: It's not our experts --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this is --
15 MR. LUKIC: I cannot tolerate this anymore.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please sit down.
17 MR. LUKIC: I --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you sit down. You sit down and I'll say
19 something you. Please sit down.
20 Mr. Lukic, you do not intervene in an examination of a witness to
21 raise disclosure issues and certainly not if a witness has refused to
22 answer twice or has at least not answered twice a question I put to her.
23 That's not the appropriate moment, not being involved in the examination
24 of the witness at all, that's not the appropriate moment to raise a
25 matter which is about the substance of what I asked. The matter can be
1 raised in re-examination. It was inappropriate to intervene in the way
2 you did, and we will now continue.
3 Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the Defence takes exception to
5 Your Honours saying that the witness has refused to answer. The witness
6 has attempted to answer on two occasions.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: I'm allowed to make a record.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: I'm not. I want a ruling on that. I'm not allowed
11 to make a record. I want a ruling of that. I want it in writing,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, on the basis of your first few words, I
14 intervened. I corrected myself when I said the witness refused to answer
15 my question. I said the witness did not answer my question. I corrected
16 myself. Perhaps -- that's clear. That's the reason why I stopped you
17 there, because what I said and what you wanted to rely upon was corrected
18 by myself. And I leave it to that at this moment.
19 We will now continue. Mr. Mladic is thinking that it's time for
20 a break. He is asking for a break. One second, please. No speaking
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, not a break. I would like to
23 say something.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently Mr. Mladic would like to consult with
25 counsel. He is given an opportunity to do so. At such a volume that
1 it's inaudible for anyone else.
2 Inaudible, I said. Inaudible, I said. Mr. Mladic, if you
3 continue to speak aloud, you're removed -- you'll be removed from this
5 Has Mr. Mladic his earphones on? He apparently has not.
6 Mr. Mladic, put on your earphones, please, or, Mr. Lukic, would
7 you please advise Mr. Mladic to put his earphones on. Mr. Mladic, next
8 time, if you consult with counsel, you should speak at a volume inaudible
9 for others, and you should keep on at least one of your earphones so that
10 you can follow the instructions I give you.
11 Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: If I may continue and I'll state what I wanted to
13 state before you interrupted me.
14 You cannot -- it is the Defence's position that one cannot say
15 that a witness has failed to answer a question when on both occasions
16 Your Honour interrupted the witness in mid answer. That is creating a
17 fake record, an improper record of the proceedings.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If we would have to wait until the end of the answer
19 of this witness, again and again and again, where she moves away
20 consistently from the questions that are put to you, under those
21 circumstances a Presiding Judge can intervene, and that what's I did.
22 Mr. File your next question, please.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. So just to clarify that between your report and your testimony,
25 the one piece of work that you've shown us in data tables from the time
1 that you spent here at the Tribunal in January boils down to this
2 one-page table of 24 entries that you copy/pasted from part of the
3 integrated mortality database; right?
4 A. I'm dealing with what is scientifically established. I don't
5 have to provide tables. I don't deal with numbers. I'm proving that
6 official demographic data is available for that, and Dr. Tabeau hasn't
7 used them. This is not a table that should be used as part of my report
8 because it shows the methodology of matching used by Dr. Tabeau.
9 Q. Once again, not my question. The question was: Between your
10 report and your testimony, both of them combined, the one piece of work
11 that you've shown us in data tables from the time that you spent here at
12 the Tribunal in January boils down to this one-page table of 24 entries
13 that you copy/pasted from part of the integrated mortality database;
14 right? That is the work that we've seen.
15 A. Yes, as a proof of matching.
16 Q. Okay. So then when you spent a week here in The Hague, did you
17 perform any data-matching operations using any of the Demographics Unit
18 resources while you were here, either the ICRC or the integrated
19 mortality database or the ICMP list of missing, or the book of missing
20 from Prijedor municipality? Did you do any data matching at all while
21 you were here?
22 A. I didn't need to. And I didn't do that because I did not have
23 the appropriate document from ICRC. And, secondly, I prove in a number
24 of ways that the matching as performed by Dr. Tabeau is not
25 scientifically based. And for that, I don't need tables at all. I can
1 see the quality of the data sources. I see what she is saying. I can
2 see that she uses a special methodology which is inexistent [as
3 interpreted]. I see that she say it's the same as Srebrenica, so I don't
4 need to prove whether she drew the numbers correctly or incorrectly. I'm
5 showing how she is performing the matching and that's it's not
6 scientifically based.
7 Q. Okay, I'll take that as a no. Now, one way to verify whether a
8 match is a good match is to see if there are any alternative candidates
9 out there that might be a better match. So if you didn't do any data
10 matching, you didn't compare any of these sources together, you're not
11 able to tell us if there's any better match out there than the one that
12 Dr. Tabeau provides.
13 A. I'm not supposed to say that. What I'm supposed to say is what
14 Dr. Tabeau has done, and I say that she did everything on the basis of a
15 methodology which is not practiced anywhere in scientific research.
16 Q. So then there is something I'm wondering related to your
17 allegations related to combat fatalities. If you're here in The Hague in
18 January, you have the list of 378 identified Tomasica victims, you have
19 access to the ABiH database of fallen soldiers, you've complained that
20 Dr. Tabeau did not use that ABiH list in her analysis, so why didn't you
21 just do it yourself, look for some matches and see what you find? See if
22 there are any Tomasica identified in the ABiH list?
23 A. Because when you do not use a data source which exists and that's
24 what Dr. Tabeau is doing, she is not using a data source, it is up to me
25 to prove that this is not scientific and not professional. Rather than
1 to prove that there are so many soldiers in Dr. Tabeau's list, I claim
2 that she did not use sources that may that combat did happen. So that's
3 the point.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... aware of that claim of
5 yours, but what I'm asking you is: Dr. Tabeau did have a source for the
6 Tomasica identified. You had that source too. You could have just
7 looked for those names in the ABiH list, which you had when you were
8 here. But you didn't do that, did you?
9 A. But I was not the one who was supposed to do it. It was rather,
10 Dr. Tabeau. It was up to her. It is not I who needs to do that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me interfere again. You said several times yet
12 you don't have to prove anything. Well, first of all, you're here as an
13 expert witness. Proving is -- even the Defence doesn't have to prove
14 anything; It's the Prosecution who has to prove something. I do
15 understand your answer that you thought it to be sufficient to comment on
16 what Dr. Tabeau did, and that's what you did, and that you didn't
17 consider it of any use or of any value to do more than what you did.
18 Is that well understood?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My task was to prove whether this
20 is scientifically based. If I proved that she leaves out sources on the
21 basis of which something could be, that's my task. Whether it is
22 scientifically established. And if she leaves out professional sources
23 which exist and which may prove something, it's a proof that she is not
24 applying scientific methodology but modifies it in accordance with her
25 needs. And I'm not disputing any numbers with regard to Dr. Tabeau. She
1 could have done anything she wanted on the basis of the methodology which
2 she applies.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if would you have done it, where you say you
4 don't have to, would that not have strengthened, perhaps, the outcome of
5 that, your allegations against Dr. Tabeau, because if you would be able
6 to do it and then demonstrate that Dr. Tabeau didn't do it to serve her
7 own needs, wouldn't that have strengthened your position?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I did do that, only I don't
9 mention it. I contacted registrars and I know that there are data
10 sources available which are normally used in scientific research but
11 Dr. Tabeau has not done that. She says she used death certificates from
12 the registers of death. There is not a single one in the disclosed...
13 So I did what I believed was my task. And I demonstrated that. It's not
14 true that she is using this and such a source does exist.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I still do not consider this to be an answer to your
16 question even after five lines.
17 But please put your next question to the witness, Mr. File.
18 MR. FILE:
19 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, when you were a Defence expert witness in the
20 Popovic case, you came to the Tribunal to use some of the same
21 demographics resources; right?
22 A. The ones that I requested. Whether they were one and the same I
23 really couldn't tell you now.
24 Q. That was another week-long visit just like in this case. It was
25 from 5 to 10 February 2007. Is that a yes?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And during the time you were here, you matched the OTP list of
3 missing and dead from Srebrenica which had over 7.600 people on it, with
4 the ABiH list of fallen soldiers and you produced a number of lists in
5 annexes to your report in that case with thousands of names that you
6 matched during that visit; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And on that same visit, you performed matching searches in other
9 databases as well and you produced additional annexes for those?
10 A. Yes, the Defence asked me to do that. That was my task: To
11 check the BA lists and match them with lists from Srebrenica because, up
12 until then, they claimed there were no soldiers in their lists from
14 Q. So it's something -- on that five-day visit, you matched a OTP
15 list that was about 20 times larger than the Tomasica list here and you
16 produced annexes showing the results. But you're claiming that it just
17 wasn't your job to do it this time?
18 A. Yes, I say that it wasn't my job. I stated exactly what was the
19 job that I received from the Defence.
20 MR. FILE: I think we're around the time for a break,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We are, Mr. File.
23 We take a break, and we'd like to see you back, Ms. Radovanovic,
24 in 20 minutes from now. You may follow the usher.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at quarter past 12.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.54 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I see, Mr. Ivetic, that you are on your feet.
5 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. To put on the record that,
6 pursuant to your request, we spoke with the Prosecutor during the break.
7 They confirmed that the document which I cited originally in court as 65
8 ter number 33826, with the stated ERN number of R068-6874 does exist and
9 had not been previously given to the Defence. I have now been given a
10 copy of a document which does not bear the ERN number but which I'm told
11 is that document. I will review the same. But at the same time,
12 Your Honours, the Defence would want to place on the record as we did
13 during the discussions during this break, repeatedly, we have asked the
14 Prosecution for Dr. Tabeau's matching criteria that she used for
15 Tomasica. At our transcript, at transcript page 36.792, Dr. Tabeau said
16 this would take some time but it could be done. To this date, the
17 Defence has not received the same. We would like to draw to
18 Your Honours' attention some case law that indicates -- and this is from
19 the Prosecutor vs Martic, Decision of Prosecution Motions for admission
20 of transcripts pursuant to Rule 92 bis and of expert reports pursuant to
21 Rule 94 bis of 13 January 2006 at paragraph 37. It is also from the
22 Gotovina case, Decision on Disclosure of Expert Materials, 27
23 August 2009. And it reads as follows: "An expert is expected to give
24 his or her expert opinion in full transparency of the established or
25 assumed facts that he or she relies upon and on the methods used when
1 applying his or her knowledge, experience or skills to form his or her
2 expert opinion. If the Prosecution is not able or willing to provide us
3 with the sought material that we asked Ms. Tabeau about at the transcript
4 reference I read, we believe they have not complied with this
6 Further, from the Milosevic case, Decision on admission of expert
7 report of Robert Donia, 15 February 2007. Also from the Milosevic case,
8 Decision on Defence expert witnesses of 21 August, 2007, and from the
9 Stanisic and Simatovic case, Decision on Prosecution submission of the
10 expert report of Nena Tromp and Christian Nielsen, pursuant to Rule 94
11 bis, dated 18 March, 2008 --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, slow down, please.
13 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
14 Dated 18 March 2008. The jurisprudence reads: "The sources for
15 the report must be clearly indicated and accessible in order to allow the
16 other party or the Trial Chamber to test or challenge the bases on which
17 the expert witness reached his or her conclusions."
18 Again, if the Prosecution, after all these months, is unwilling
19 or unable to give the Defence access to what specific criteria were used
20 by Dr. Tabeau to match purported victims, they have not complied with
21 this jurisprudence. We would ask for a date certain to be provided that
22 material by the Prosecution so that we don't have to keep waiting and
23 hoping and getting different answers from them every time we ask about
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I am not and have not been directly
2 involved in this issue. I'm rising in the hope of being able to offer a
3 constructive and efficient solution to the repeated interventions and
4 demands. So let me just say the following: Let me begin with the fact
5 that the heat of any submission is not necessarily -- does not
6 necessarily correspond to its accuracy. The Prosecution has provided
7 everything that it has been asked to provide and we say that from the
8 outset. Mr. File has repeated it more than once, we are more than happy
9 under these circumstances to look at all the submissions that were made
10 in the course of today and in relation to this issue to see if there is
11 any way of satisfying the -- a legitimate Defence concern, but as the
12 Court has heard, the Prosecution provided its full response to the list
13 of items prepared by the Defence and submitted to the Prosecution in
14 anticipation of this witness's visit. Until this point, we did not hear
15 any indication that there was any problem in that response. Now, we
16 understand that the submission itself did not reflect the specific item
17 that is the subject of these repeated interventions. My own
18 understanding is that no such item of that type is in existence.
19 Whether or not there is some way of resolving the underlying
20 concerns in a way that advances the efficiency of the proceedings, I
21 don't know, but we're happy to look at during the course of the day and
22 address the Defence and the Court tomorrow.
23 I only rise to say two things. Number one, that there has been
24 no failure on the part of the Prosecution to produce materials for which
25 it has been asked. And, secondly, we are always prepared to consider
1 legitimate requests by the Defence and any requests by the Court to see
2 if it can possibly be fulfilled and that's what we will be doing in the
3 course of this day and responding to the Court to about tomorrow.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Tieger, I don't know maybe from the way the
5 problem has been placed it may well, be that some things may have fallen
6 through the cracks.
7 As I understand Mr. Ivetic's position, this request was not made
8 directly to the Prosecution but rather was made to Mrs. Tabeau while on
9 the witness stand and she was asked if she can provide the criteria on
10 which she does her matching, upon which she is alleged to have responded,
11 I do not have it, but it -- I can make it, I can -- it can be done so --
12 and the request was: Please do. And the idea beings that she would do
13 it later after she had gotten off the stand and then provide it. I stand
14 corrected, Mr. Ivetic, if I misunderstand you.
15 MR. IVETIC: You understand me perfectly, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that's why I say, this might have fallen
17 through the cracks because it wasn't directly to you as the Prosecution,
18 it was to the witness herself. And I think if I -- if I become generous
19 to Mr. Ivetic's approach, he is -- I assume he is saying, having heard
20 that request, you as the person whose witness that is, can't you
21 facilitate that we get that.
22 MR. TIEGER: On this, Your Honour, I'd have to defer to those who
23 worked more directly on this subject and/or with Dr. Tabeau, but my
24 understanding, based on both today and the discussions that arose, and
25 previous general discussions about this, would be the following.
1 Number one, that there was no existing --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely.
3 MR. TIEGER: -- log of that type.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms Tabeau said so.
5 MR. TIEGER: Number two, it would be the replication of a process
6 that would basically -- the repetition of the process of doing that,
7 which I understand to be a bizarrely labour-intensive process to the
8 extent that it would actually be -- I would think, if my understanding
9 about this is correct, impossible to actually recreate that process which
10 is so labour-intensive. In other words, you could do the process again
11 but that would never be a way of identifying the particular items that
12 you looked at at a particular time to make the matches. It would be
13 something equivalent to saying, I know the sources you relied upon to
14 reach your opinion, thank you for providing that, but I'd like to know
15 which paragraph of which page you were looking at when you wrote this
16 particular part of your report previously. And so, again, that's my
17 general understanding of the logistical and lack of
18 feasibility [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... I hear that explanation.
20 Unfortunately, that's not what Ms. Tabeau said. She said that it can be
21 done -- and just a second.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me correct myself. I'm being advised by my
24 colleagues that Ms. Tabeau said it can be done but she never promised
25 that she would do it. So to that extent, I don't remember that detail
1 but I just remember that this was discussed in court so it may very well
2 that she never promised to give this but she just said that it can be
3 done and it would take a lot of time. So at that point I don't know if
4 we can look at the transcript of that date to see whether she did
6 JUDGE ORIE: We will verify, exactly, the history because we are
7 all relying on our memories which are not -- perhaps may not be correct.
8 So, therefore, we'll verify all that and then further look at the matter.
9 There's one tiny little thing. Do I understand that there was an
10 additional disclosure today of a document to the Defence?
11 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour. Purely --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's a yes. Was there an obligation to
13 disclose this? Is it -- do we have to consider it as late disclosure or
15 MR. FILE: No, it was disclosed purely as a courtesy. It's
16 not -- there was no obligation to do so.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because late disclosure, where there existed a
18 disclosure obligation, I think according to the Rules you should disclose
19 that to the Chamber as well.
20 MR. FILE: Just to clarify, the document was only generated last
21 week and it was just a demonstrative exhibit for cross-examination, so
22 there was no obligation there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So that's being verified. Let's move on quickly.
24 Ms. Radovanovic, you were a witness, but then in a different
25 sense of some procedural debates where we are here, first of all, to hear
1 your testimony. So we will now continue to hear your testimony.
2 Mr. File will proceed.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to ask you about some of the other
5 information that you referred to when discussing combat. On direct
6 examination, at transcript page 43680 to -83, and then at 43687 to -89,
7 the Judges asked you several questions about the nine documents that you
8 cited at footnote 17 of your report for the proposition that: "There had
9 been armed conflicts."
10 I have just a couple of additional questions for you about those
11 documents. One of them is about timing, in the context of Dr. Tabeau's
12 report. Now, you probably noticed in Dr. Tabeau's report - for the
13 record, P7449 - I'm specifically referring to English pages 18 to 21 and
14 B/C/S pages 22 to 26, Dr. Tabeau provided statistics on when the Tomasica
15 identified victims were reported to have gone missing. And the vast
16 majority, at least 237 out of 378, went missing in July 1992. She put
17 that in Table 12 of her report which is English page 18, B/C/S page 22.
18 And then she broke it down more closely and you could see that the vast
19 majority of those, at least 221, disappeared between 20 and 25 July 1992
20 and that was Table 14C and Figure 4.
21 So my question for you is: Are you aware that, of the nine
22 documents that you refer to in your report at footnote 17, only one of
23 them is from July 1992 --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, would you not speak aloud when questions
25 are put to the witness.
1 Mr. Mladic. Would you stop speaking aloud.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. Only one of those documents is from July 1992 or even describes
5 any events of any kind in the entire month of July 1992. Are you aware
6 of that?
7 A. I'm not sure I understood your question. Are you asking me
8 whether in the documents I cite only one is from July 1992?
9 Q. Precisely.
10 A. Well, I accept it at your word. I know there are several
11 documents. They relate to July and to some other dates.
12 Q. No, there's one document that relates to July; correct?
13 A. I don't know it by heart. I would have to check. But I've
14 attached all these documents. I really can't remember now if there is
15 only one relating to July, but I accept it.
16 Q. Okay --
17 A. Or perhaps in the break I can check.
18 Q. I don't think the Defence is going do dispute this point, so I'm
19 going to show you the one which is from July, which is 65 ter 02696.
20 So as you can see, this is a 1 KK combat report to the Main Staff
21 dated 27 July 1992. And if you go to paragraph 2, you can see a
22 reference to the Prijedor area. It says: "Units in the Prijedor region
23 continue operations to find and neutralize groups of extremists."
24 Then if you go to paragraph 5, it says: "We have no information
25 that there have been any losses since the last report."
1 So, in terms of the presence or absence of combat, one thing that
2 you know from this document is that no one in the VRS is suffering
3 casualties here; right? There's no report of that.
4 A. From the VRS, I don't know. Probably. If they have no documents
5 that there were no losses on the VRS side, then that's probably true.
6 Q. And you also don't know whether the 1 KK units that are
7 performing operations to find and neutralize groups of extremists are
8 encountering any resistance; right? That's not listed here either?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: The previous question said that there: "In terms of
11 presence or absence of combat one thing that you know from this document
12 is that no one in the VRS is suffering casualties here; right? There is
13 no report of that."
14 Item 5 in the English language and in the B/C/S language, that's
15 what I've just checked, says: "We have no information that there have
16 been any losses since the last report." Therefore, what counsel is
17 presenting is an interpretation of the document that -- which does not
18 flow from the plain meaning of the document and is twisting the factual
19 scenario to make a proposition that does not flow from this document.
20 MR. FILE: That's purely an argumentive objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It indeed is, and ... whether it is twisting the
22 factual scenario, it may be incomplete where it does not give all the
23 details about when the last report was there, but, again, that's a matter
24 not to raise as an objection but you could have raised in re-examination.
25 MR. IVETIC: But Your Honours --
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Ivetic. I gave you my ruling.
2 I have a question for the witness. Witness, do you when the
3 previous report was issued prior to the one you relied on?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember now whether I
5 attached the previous one and this one, but I know what's written in
6 item 1. It's proof that there was combat.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where was that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Look at item 1 of this report, it
9 says: "During the night and in the morning, the enemy occasionally fired
10 on our forces. The fire from the direction of Bugojno," et cetera,
11 et cetera. "... was particularly long."
12 So, in my view, there was combat.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least in the locations described here. Is
14 that -- how far is that from Prijedor?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say how far it is from
16 Prijedor, but there are reports that name places close to Prijedor or
17 belong to the Prijedor area.
18 JUDGE ORIE: My question was about this document, not about other
20 Mr. File, please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm still on my feet. Given your
22 ruling, I need the guidance and instruction of this Chamber. Is it
23 Your Honours' position that where I rise to object that counsel's
24 question misstates the contents of a document and therefore misstates the
25 evidence upon which he is relying that that is argumentive and should not
1 be raised as an objection and should be dealt with in re-direct. I want
2 Your Honours' ruling on that, so I can understand your previous ruling.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think I have ruled on it, that it may have
4 been incomplete and that the terms in which it was phrased made it more
5 argumentive than necessary to object to the question. I leave it to
7 Please proceed, Mr. File.
8 MR. FILE: Just for the record, Your Honour, the previous combat
9 report from this corps from the previous day is already in evidence at
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. So something else that you don't know from this document is
14 whether the 1 KK units that are performing operations to find and
15 neutralize groups of extremists are encountering any resistance.
16 A. Well, I see it is known. It's under item 1. That's how I
17 understand this document.
18 My entire objection was that Dr. Tabeau was able to see from a
19 variety of documents that there had been combat, so she cannot claim that
20 all of these are executions, which is the insinuation she makes; namely,
21 executions as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
22 Q. Are you not aware that these locations in Item 1 are not in
23 Prijedor -- not even close to Prijedor?
24 A. In this document, possibly.
25 Q. So this document then can change the geography of Bosnia and
2 A. I don't understand.
3 Q. I'm going to ask you something else about this document.
4 You can't tell -- and now I'm specifically referring to item 2.
5 You can't tell from that item whether the so-called extremists are even
6 armed; right?
7 A. It was not my purpose to determine that.
8 Q. Can you --
9 A. I suppose that nobody is fighting or firing from nothing. I
10 don't know whether they were armed. I suppose they were. If there were
11 all sorts of actions during the night, I suppose the people were not
12 unarmed, but I don't know for a fact.
13 Q. Okay. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that item 1 is
14 not relevant to this issue. If you look just at item 2, there's nothing
15 there that suggests that these so-called extremists are armed; right?
16 A. Well, if that's the way you look at it, yes. But the purpose of
17 my conclusions was to determine not whether they were armed or not but
18 whether there was fighting or not, and there are various documents
19 testifying to it. Not only this one.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think, Mr. File, that the expert witness has
21 emphasised importance of looking at the possibility that people may have
22 died in combat. We look at the matter in the totality of the evidence.
23 The witness has drawn our attention to a few documents relating to
24 certain places, to certain dates, and I think whether this would support
25 or compel any conclusion that this would give data which I find
1 irrelevant is still to be considered, but perhaps not very useful to go
2 into detail on this matter with this expert witness at this moment.
3 Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, paragraph 2 cited to by Mr. File
5 indicates units were returning fire. In my plain understanding of the
6 English language that means both parties were armed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. We have heard your argument in
8 relation to how we should understand this document. It's on the record.
9 Please proceed, Mr. File.
10 MR. FILE: Thank you. And I would just as that it's referring to
11 their own units --
12 JUDGE ORIE: If I said, as a matter of fact, that it's argument,
13 that's an implicit hint to not argue at this moment, but, rather, ask
14 questions to a witness. Therefore, there's also no need to respond in an
15 arguing way.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. You mentioned another document in your report and in your
19 testimony, which was the 2002 report by Nicolas Sebire. I'm going ask
20 you some questions about that?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY:
22 MR. FILE: Before I do, I would like to tender document 02696
23 that we were just looking at.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P7828, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. And for the record, you testified about this document we're going
4 to look at pages 43679 -681 -685, and -686.
5 So this will be 65 ter 26260.
6 So as this is coming up, you'll see this is a 28 August 2002
7 report by Nicolas Sebire entitled: Additional report, exhumations and
8 proof of death, municipality of Prijedor. You listed this as one of the
9 sources you consulted in preparing your report and you quoted this
10 document in paragraph 25 of your report. You recall that?
11 A. I do.
12 MR. FILE: And Your Honours as we noted earlier, the main text of
13 this report along with Annex 1 and Annex 15 are in evidence as P3282 and
14 I'll be using some additional parts, so for simplicity, I'm using the
15 complete report which is uploaded under 2620 and I'll alert the Chamber
16 when we begin to use pages that are not already in evidence.
17 If we could go to e-court English page 7 and B/C/S page 9.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Have you verified whether the confidentiality which
19 is claimed on the cover page whether that has any consequences for our
20 proceedings and not only for the portions that are already in evidence
21 but perhaps also for the portions perhaps still to be added?
22 MR. FILE: I don't believe -- I have -- I have checked whether it
23 is under seal, but I don't believe there are currently confidentiality
24 concerns but when I get to pages that may have that, I will alert
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please keep this in mind.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. So under heading 3.2, the documentation relating to the proof of
4 death --
5 MR. FILE: Sorry, I've just been notified it is under seal so I
6 think it is not for broadcast, this part. It's due to the annexes which
7 contain names, that's why.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, I do not know -- I have no clear
9 recollection of which annexes have caused this. It's a non-public
10 document for the time being.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. So under this heading, it says the documentation relating to the
14 proof of death. It says: "The Office of the Prosecutor has received
15 from the Bosnian authorities court judgements concerning declarations of
16 death for 2.026 individuals" --
17 A. I can't follow you. You are reading from the document of
18 Nicolas Sebire?
19 JUDGE ORIE: And --
20 MR. FILE: I think we need the previous page in B/C/S.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File is reading 3.2 which is on the top left
22 side where it reads "dokumentacija." You found it? Let's proceed.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MR. FILE:
25 Q. It says: "The Office of the Prosecutor has received from the
1 Bosnian authorities court judgements concerning declarations of death for
2 2.026 individuals from the municipalities of Prijedor, Sanski Most,
3 Banja Luka, Bosanski Novi, Bosanska Dubica, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, and Donji
4 Vakuf, who were killed or went missing during the 1992 to 1995 conflict.
5 All of the individuals for whom proof of their death was received are
6 non-Serbs. This report will only focus on those declared officially
7 deceased from the municipality of Prijedor, and therefore concern 1.295
9 And there's a footnote that says: "Including those declared
10 officially deceased and exhumed since then."
11 "In general" -- if we could go to the next page in English "these
12 court decisions are accompanied by a birth or marriage certificate in
13 respect of the individual to be declared officially dead. The decisions
14 mainly rely on the testimonies of relatives or witnesses who were in a
15 position to state when a particular individual was last seen alive."
16 Now, when you were testifying at page 43664, you said the only
17 source that's "official for use in demographic scientific work" is the
18 death registry which includes "a court decision declaring a specific
19 person dead."
20 And then you criticised Dr. Tabeau for not using court decisions
21 in her analysis, and that was page 43685. So when you saw this report
22 relating to court decisions in Prijedor from 1992 to 1995, or governing
23 people who died or went missing during that period, that must have been
24 something that you were interested in; right?
25 A. It is very interesting, for the simple reason that he is here
1 using official documents n mortality and he says there is a database on
2 it. It's not only the court decisions. I've said that there also death
4 Q. Let's look at the information about the database as it is
5 described here. It is English page 8 and the same page in the B/C/S,
6 page 9. It's under the heading 3.3, the databases. In says in the
7 second paragraph on the --
8 A. Could you put the tenth page in Serbian on the screen? I see
9 only the subheading on the ninth page.
10 Q. We're still in the right place. It's going to be the second
11 paragraph under the heading: 3.3, the databases. Okay?
12 A. I'm sorry.
13 Q. It says: "As it was impossible to translate all of the
14 documentation, two databases were created and bilingual
15 (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian/English) data entry clerks were brought in to
16 enter the information. These two persons were responsible for
17 summarising the documentation provided by the Bosnian authorities and
18 entering the information in the English language into the databases. The
19 present report relies on the information that has been entered into the
20 databases according to the above-mentioned procedure."
21 And then there are headings below that will show the two
22 databases. 3.3.1, which you see on the screen, is the exhumation
23 database, which we're not going to look at for the moment, and if we go
24 to the next page in the English and in the B/C/S, under the heading
25 3.3.2, it says the proof of death database. And the first paragraph here
1 says: "This is the database that contains all the information received
2 by the Office of the Prosecutor and relating to the court decisions made
3 by either the Sanski Most or Kljuc Municipal Courts declaring missing
4 persons from the ARK as officially deceased."
5 That's the database that you were just talking about; right?
6 A. Yes. But there's part where Mr. Nicolas Sebire precisely cites
7 Prijedor and the court decisions for Prijedor.
8 Q. We're going to get to that. If we can go to English page 13 and
9 B/C/S page 15. So here we've arrived at the passage that you quoted in
10 your report. Under heading 4.2 which is titled: The court decisions
11 issued by the Bosnian municipal courts, I'm going to read the first
12 paragraph of this and then I'm going ask you a question about it.
13 It says: "Court rulings relating to the municipality of Prijedor
14 were received by the Office of the Prosecutor for 1.295 individuals. The
15 large majority of these individuals are Bosnian Muslims. It should be
16 mentioned that the court rulings concern individuals who were still
17 missing at the time the court decision was issued. In some instances,
18 individuals officially declared dead have been exhumed and identified
19 since then and must therefore be excluded when discussing the rulings.
20 Out of 1.295 court rulings, 1.054 individuals were killed or went missing
21 in the course of the year 1992."
22 And next to the figure 1.054 there's a footnote that says: "See
23 Annex 5 which lists all 1.055 individuals.
24 Continuing on in the paragraph it says: "However, 99 cases out
25 of 1.054 have been excluded from the analysis. For those 100 cases, the
1 information contained into the court ruling indicates that the
2 individuals were killed in the course of a combat action or that there is
3 doubt about the time and circumstances of the death or disappearance."
4 This is what you were talking about when you said in your report
5 at paragraph 25: "The fact that sources contain court rulings of death
6 existing in a Demographic Unit have been discarded without any
7 explanation having been given for not using them in the report of 20
8 August 2014, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion these documents are
9 being ignored in a calculated manner."
10 Now, this is the report and these are the court rulings that you
11 were referring to; right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Note that there's a footnote that says: "See Annex 5," which I
14 just mentioned, which lists all 1.055 individuals. I also note that the
15 B/C/S version says "all 1.005," I believe.
16 So what this document is telling you is that the report contains
17 an annex that listed over a thousand people who went missing in Prijedor
18 in 1992 and that on that list are 99 people who either may have been
19 killed in combat or for whom there was doubt about the circumstances of
20 death or disappearance. So for someone who places great stock in court
21 decisions and who raises this possibility that there could have been
22 combat fatalities, this must have looked like a useful resource to you.
23 Did you check the annexes to see if you could find anyone from the
24 Tomasica victim list there?
25 A. That was not my purpose. My goal was to show that the doctor had
1 at least to hint that all the persons who she claims were exhumed from
2 Tomasica were not executed but that it's likely that they were killed in
3 combat. It's unimportant whether among the 99 persons there may be
4 someone from Dr. Tabeau's list, for me. What was important for me was to
5 show that even when she had documents at her disposal, she did not check
6 them but did not mention them at all. So Dr. Tabeau does not mention
7 this database as one that she consulted at least. If she had mentioned
8 it and said, I have checked it and determined that it wasn't there,
9 that would have been about a different matter, but she doesn't mention it
10 in her data sources, she doesn't say a single word about this.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just verify the -- you are interpreted as
12 having said, Professor Radovanovic, that Dr. Tabeau had at least to hint
13 that all the persons who were exhumed from Tomasica were not executed but
14 that it's likely that some of them were killed in combat.
15 Is that what you said? Or did you intend to say what she should
16 have hinted at that not all the persons who were exhumed from Tomasica
17 were executed but that it's likely that some of them were killed in
19 Is it the latter that you intended to say or ... did you say that
20 she should have hinted at that not all the persons were executed.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that she had to hint that it
22 wasn't an execution where she says at the end as part of an ethnic
23 cleansing campaign but that there is a possibility that some of the
24 persons may have been killed in combat. Because it's evident that there
25 was fighting going on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then one follow-up question.
2 If there's fighting going on, does that mean at least some of
3 those were killed in combat or is that also just a possibility?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She hints at the possibility and
5 she cannot determine whether it is certain or not, but she also cannot
6 assert that all the persons found in Tomasica perished in an ethnic
7 cleansing campaign. That's precisely what Dr. Tabeau claims.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although that was not my question, please
9 proceed, Mr. File.
10 MR. FILE:
11 Q. So I asked whether you checked the annexes. You said that was
12 not my purpose, so I take that as a no, you didn't check them.
13 A. No, I didn't. Because I never intended to check whether someone
14 from Dr. Tabeau's list was present here. The goal was to show that she
15 never took into account an existing source. Why? She could have said,
16 well, it exists but I do not use it because it does not contain what I
18 Q. So you felt it was important to raise the question about what was
19 in this source that you were looking at, but if I quote you, you say it's
20 unimportant whether among the 99 persons there may be someone from
21 Dr. Tabeau's list. So, for you, it is important to raise the question
22 but not to know the answer. That's what you're saying.
23 MR. IVETIC: I would object to the question because in the
24 question he says, "but if I quote you," and then he say something that I
25 have not been able to find in the answer of the witness. So if he's
1 going to quote the witness, he has to quote the witness verbatim. And I
2 don't see where the witness said in the answer to the last question
3 anything that says it is unimportant.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I assist you, Mr. Ivetic, to find the
5 relevant sentence. Page 70, line 25. I quote: "It's unimportant
6 whether among the 99 persons there may be someone from Dr. Tabeau's
8 That is, in my understanding, the sentence Mr. File was referring
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this being verified now what the witness
11 exactly said, perhaps you repeat your question following on the quote
12 which was very accurately pronounced by my colleague.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I said that for me it
14 was not important because I established the source rather than whether
15 someone is in the list or not.
16 MR. FILE:
17 Q. Okay. So the same question: For you, it is important to raise
18 the question but it is not important to know the answer.
19 A. No, it is important to show that Dr. Tabeau, even when relevant
20 sources for determining mortality are available to her, does not use them
21 without providing an explanation why.
22 MR. FILE: I don't have any further questions, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. File.
24 Mr. Ivetic, could you give us an indication, I asked about it
25 yesterday, about how much time you would need?
1 MR. IVETIC: At this stage I would think about 25, 30 minutes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we might even find a little bit of time to deal
3 with a few procedural issues as well. But perhaps it's better that we
4 take the break now and then start at 1.30 and then you have an
6 MR. IVETIC: That's fine.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? We take a break.
8 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Professor Radovanovic.
9 You may now follow the usher.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Although the witness may be prepared to be on stand
15 by, I briefly deal with the following matter that's tendering of
16 contextual evidence.
17 On 21st of April of this year, the Chamber denied admission into
18 evidence of documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 30547 and 33653, as the
19 Prosecution had not specifically set out why it should be allowed to
20 tender those documents prior to the rebuttal phase. The Chamber invited
21 the Prosecution to make submissions as to why it should be permitted to
22 tender the documents at this stage.
23 On the 26th of April, the Prosecution made oral submissions which
24 the Chamber understands to have been in response to the 21st of
25 April invitation.
1 On the 28th of April, the Defence responded.
2 The Chamber notes that the Prosecution has not made submissions
3 specific to the documents in question. The Chamber finds that the
4 Prosecution has not specifically set out why it should be allowed to
5 tender specifically these documents during the Defence case rather than
6 at the rebuttal phase and will not revisit its denial of their admission
7 into evidence.
8 That's -- if the witness is ready, she can ...
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, you'll now be re-examined by
11 Mr. Ivetic.
12 Please proceed.
13 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
14 Q. Professor, at transcript page 43.871 through 43.872, you offered
15 to explain, if not clear enough as to paragraph 13 of your report but you
16 were not allowed to do so. To give you the context, I will read that
17 portion of the transcript for you, starting at line 10 on page 43.871.
18 And it reads as follows:
19 "Q. You referred to paragraph 13 and footnote 2 of your report.
20 In paragraph 13, you say: 'In a publication intended for the broad
21 public, the Prosecution expert witness observes in reference to the
22 reports of demographers engaged by the Office of the Prosecutor that
23 whenever a demographic expert report is admitted" -- and then you
25 "A. I cannot follow you. You are reading from paragraph 13,
2 "Q. Yes, I'll continue. 'The likely consequence is that the
3 report has impact on the judgement in contrast to reports from the
4 opposite side, although a vast majority of the work of Defence experts
5 unfortunately cannot be seen as up to international scientific
6 standards.' So this reference that you made also does not describe the
7 known and recognised international standards that you refer to; correct?
8 "A. Well, that's a quotation. I cannot describe it. I am
9 quoting Dr. Tabeau who is an expert in demography and who is competent to
10 judge what are and aren't internationally recognised standards. And if
11 Dr. Tabeau did not quote it from a textbook, I thought it was absurd for
12 me to quote it but, again, I repeat, I can explain it if it is not clear
14 Then the following question was:
15 "Q. Well, just to be clear, the only source that you refer to,
16 according to you, in your report as justification for what the
17 international standards in statistics and demography are is the
18 Prosecution expert; right?
19 "A. No. If you allow me, I have a Ph.D. in demography and I
20 surely know what are international standards and what are not. I suppose
21 that since Dr. Tabeau is the same, she knows it as well, and she needs
22 not explain to another expert in her field. I didn't think I should cite
23 textbooks because I am an expert and I'm the most qualified in demography
24 in this courtroom. If somebody finds something incorrect, inaccurate in
25 my report, please go ahead. I do not think I need to cite textbooks but
1 I'm ready and willing to explain."
2 And did you have anything further you felt that you needed to
3 explain in relation to this question, professor.
4 A. Yes. I can only add, as that was obviously not clear, that
5 Dr. Tabeau does not quote anything anywhere in her report when she says
6 what are the relevant official documents for mortality, and those are
7 certificates of death and certificates of birth and court rulings, and
8 that is undisputed. I think that everyone working in demographics knows
9 that. That's what I tried to say. If Dr. Tabeau never quotes anything
10 anywhere, then I don't know why I am requested to quote textbooks and I
11 am in discussion with a demographer who knows a lot about this. Perhaps
12 I should have quoted it for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, but I
13 quoted Dr. Tabeau who says what the reports are.
14 So, in my report, it's a quotation, and I have nothing against
15 it. I'm just proving that she knows what international standards and
16 sources for draws conclusions about mortality are.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you refer to 43.871 through -72. For
18 me, it's 891, -92. That's at least what I have in my e-court. I don't
19 know whether you have the same e-court.
20 MR. IVETIC: I'm looking at the transcript that was sent to us by
21 the transcript service and I'm reading from the actual page that says
22 43.872. I don't know if it's not the e-court, it's the Word version
23 since I don't have access to the --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just to know there may be some confusion there.
25 Let's leave it to that at this moment.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. And in relation to a question posed by Judge Orie at -- and I
4 have it as transcript pages 43.876, line 16 through 43.877, line 9, you
5 said that you couldn't agree with Judge Orie so I'd like to read the
6 question to you and ask you to explain your answer to us.
7 And it reads as follows:
8 "Judge Orie: I'll cut this matter short. It's clear that the
9 totals include the unavailable. It seems also clear that in the
10 percentages, the unavailable were excluded, which is not a very
11 transparent way of presenting these tables. It also explains why the
12 13.2 per cent should be taken out if you want to present the ethnicity of
13 those for whom the ethnicity is an available datum. If you want to
14 present something else, that is, that you wasn't to present that the
15 percentage of Muslims is on the total, that is, available ethnicity, not
16 available ethnicity then, of course, the percentages are different.
17 Would you agree with that?
18 "The witness" --
19 This is you.
20 "I don't know what Dr. Tabeau means. I see what she writes -- I
21 really don't know, I can't --
22 And then Judge Orie: "I'm asking if you agree with that I said,
23 which includes some criticism on Dr. Tabeau because she is not consistent
24 but I tried to explain what you could understand from this and I wondered
25 whether you agreed with me and if you want to re-read it then, well, no
1 you can't, well, in English you can re-read it."
2 And then the answer as given by you, professor, is recorded as
3 being: "No I can't agree with you for the simple reason that ..."
4 And then were interrupted. And I wanted to see if you could
5 provide us with an explanation of your answer and a continuation of what
6 you were going to say before you were interrupted, if you recall.
7 A. I recall. If there is a total mass representing 100 per cent and
8 you have certain elements within the total mass, then you work in
9 relation to the total mass. For Dr. Tabeau, the total mass is 378. And
10 she notes, I have found that there are Muslim, Serbs, Croats, and
11 unknown. If she reduces the total mass, even though it exists, then she
12 can increase the percentage of one of the ethnicities, in this case,
13 Muslims. So you have to have a reason why you want to drop something
14 that exists. You cannot just say well, drop it.
15 So if she operates with one mass, then the mass has to be
16 constant. She cannot say well, for me, 378 represented 100 per cent but
17 let's drop out the -- those who are unknown. The unknown exist. If you
18 leave them out, then 100 per cent is no longer 378 but when you subtract
19 those who are unknown. So that is why I did not agree with His Honour
20 Judge Orie. Dr. Tabeau could have done that differently. She could have
21 left that out or dropped it but then the total mass could not be 100
22 per cent but, for example, 90 per cent and then in a footnote she could
23 have said the difference to 100 per cent is constituted by those whose
24 ethnicity is unknown, and that is how this is supposed to be done
1 Q. Professor, we have heard from the Prosecutor that there does not
2 exist a log of the matching results obtained by Dr. Tabeau when she
3 performed matching according to whatever criteria as to Tomasica. From
4 the standpoint of the science of demography, what comment do you have as
5 to that admission by the Office of the Prosecutor?
6 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I object to that as beyond the scope of
7 cross-examination. I didn't ask her any questions about logs or anything
8 like that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: It is new material that came to us after we -- after
11 we completed our direct examination. I believe it's a highly relevant
12 matter to consider. It was a matter that we had asked previously and had
13 not gotten a firm answer on and we were just told by Mr. Tieger when he
14 stood up, I believe it was in the last session and told us on the record
15 so I believe I'm entitled to get this expert's opinion as to what that
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, although the objection and response are on
19 cross-purposes, we allow you to put the question to the witness,
20 Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. Professor, let's me please re-read my question to you.
23 We have heard today from the Prosecutor that there does not exist
24 a log of the matching results obtained by Dr. Tabeau when she performed
25 matching according to whatever criteria as to Tomasica. From the
1 standpoint of the science of demography, what comment do you have as to
2 that admission by the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. Well, if there is no log, how did she perform the matching? So
4 that means that she can perform the matching in any way she wants. She
5 has to show us the criteria because once she begins the matching, she has
6 to set the condition for a match and say, I'm going to look for this,
7 this and this, from one source, in another one. And I really can't
8 believe that there is no log of the matching, unless Dr. Tabeau decided
9 to match in any way she wanted and then she could say, well, this is
10 matched and this is it not. I don't know a single professional who would
11 do the matching without setting the criteria and hold on to them so that
12 he would know the next day or five days later that this is used for that
13 in the procedure. I don't know what it means when it is said that there
14 is no log of matching results. Because one cannot remember that, keep it
15 in one's head. It is something that has to be noted down somewhere.
16 Q. My next question has to do with 65 ter number 33791 which you
17 were shown during cross-examination, and I'd ask for that to be shown on
18 the screen, just to refresh your recollection as to what we're talking
19 about. It's the November 2015 new memorandum or report of Dr. Tabeau
20 which was not introduced in evidence.
21 So in relation to this report, you were answering a question at
22 temporary transcript page 15, line 24 to temporary transcript page 16,
23 line 9, earlier today, and you were not allowed to complete your answer.
24 I will read for you the relevant transcript of your answer and
25 then ask you to please complete what you were about to say.
1 It reads as follows:
2 "A. I don't think I would change anything except perhaps that
3 she is putting in what doesn't even exist yet at the time she is writing
4 the report, but it doesn't change the whole total. Dr. Tabeau made new
5 calculations every year. If I had been receiving that month by month,
6 then it would have been all right. She has another correction, I
7 believe, from 2015 to the total number that I have seen here in
8 The Hague, but that's a correction to the total number, and now she says
9 it is no longer 378 but it's -- so these corrections Dr. Tabeau is making
10 here now do not affect the overall result because" --
11 And, professor, this is where you were cut off, and I'd ask for
12 you, if possible, to recreate your answer and complete your answer.
13 A. They do not affect the whole because there are no changes to the
14 whole, or perhaps because changes are subsequent, they do not affect the
15 entirety based on which I make my conclusions.
16 In August 2013, Dr. Tabeau knew that these people would all be
17 identified by November 2015 and then she proves it in November 2015. I
18 say again, in this report, she did not change the total number. She had
19 already concluded it in 2013. She received information from the ICMP
20 that all these people would be identified, or were identified, but she
21 seems to have known it already years before. That seems a bit odd to me,
22 but there's nothing I can do about it.
23 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about the PowerPoint hypothetical that
24 you were shown relating to students and that has now been introduced as
1 MR. IVETIC: And if we can call up that exhibit and show the last
2 page of the same so that the professor can understand what document we're
3 talking about.
4 Q. And now we have it on the screen. So this is what we're talking
5 about. And I'd like to ask you, professor, in your opinion, can such a
6 hypothetical example be used to describe the matching of persons with
7 missing person lists and the census?
8 A. No. Because Dr. Tabeau is not matching the census according to
9 the ID with any other document. ID in the census would perhaps be the
10 unique identification number, and she doesn't have the unique ID number
11 in any of the documents she is using for Srebrenica.
12 Q. And at -- in relation to the list that you prepared which is
13 D1464 - which should not be broadcast - at temporary transcript page 27,
14 lines 2 through 7, you were asked if you considered that Rakovcani was in
15 Prijedor and you started to answering by saying: "Yes, I did consider
16 that possibility because" ...
17 And then you were cut off, and I'd like to ask you to complete
18 that answer if you remember it.
19 A. Census records precisely the place of birth. Based on a document
20 you have your personal ID. I don't know how precisely that is recorded
21 by the ICRC. It is usually provided by the family. But I don't know if
22 the family member knows that, whether he knows the place of birth, but I
23 suppose he does. So I guarantee for the datum in the census and the
24 ICRC, considering that nobody checks it, it is possible that anyone can
25 come in and provide information, not necessarily a family member, I don't
1 know if the data is correct. But if that is so, if the data is not
2 accurate, then the ICRC is not reliable. That's not the source on which
3 you check mortality anywhere in the world.
4 Q. At today's transcript page 44, line 12, through page 45, line 3,
5 you were asked a question, and I'd like to read to you that portion of
6 the transcript, and then I'll ask you to give your full answer.
7 "Judge Orie: Let's -- let me there again stop you. You asked
8 for something in writing. Two months later, you're in The Hague, you
9 haven't received it, do I understand your answer well, that you say, I
10 didn't ask for it because I felt already that it was intentionally kept
11 away from me and, therefore, I didn't ask for it again? Is that how we
12 have to understand your answer?
13 "The Witness: If you send something to somebody in writing and
14 if it's on record" -- and then your answer was interrupted.
15 And Judge Orie said: "Would you please answer my question."
16 And then it continues:
17 "The witness: In any case, I don't think it's accidental."
18 Can I ask you to try to complete the answer that you were in the
19 process of giving in relation to this question, if you remember it.
20 A. I do remember.
21 If you are seeking criteria and Dr. Tabeau says I'll provide it,
22 if I request the criteria in writing and I suppose when Dr. Tabeau gives
23 me what I have asked for in writing, she holds in her hand the list,
24 there are only two possibilities. Either she is sloppy or she is
25 intentionally keeping it away from me. I cannot say now definitely that
1 it was intentional. I have no proof, but I believe it was not done in
2 the way it should have. You have in your hands a list. The Defence is
3 requesting it. I will either give it to them or I will put it in a
4 footnote and explain why I didn't.
5 Let me had, I received a database that contains ten elements and
6 in the report from 2010, she states that this database contains 12
7 elements, but I did not make a fuss. Why do I see ten elements and she
8 says there are 12? I thought, perhaps, it doesn't matter. But about
9 this, I did make a fuss because I requested to receive in writing the
10 criteria according to which Dr. Tabeau says that she – she doesn't always
11 do matching according to the same criteria, there are some additional
12 ones, et cetera, et cetera.
13 Q. You were asked in cross-examination about the Popovic case and
14 when you visited the ICTY to review demography records in that case.
15 Thinking now back to the Popovic case, did Dr. Tabeau and the Prosecutor
16 give you access to everything that you sought at that time to be
18 A. Yes. If I had no objections, then probably.
19 Q. Professor, I thank you for your patience. The Defence has no
20 further questions for you at this time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I would have before I give an opportunity to
22 Mr. File.
23 In the Popovic case, was there a log on how the matchings were
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Mr. File, I just wanted to know whether it
2 was there.
3 Please proceed.
4 Further Cross-examination by Mr. File:
5 Q. Just three final questions. When you were talking about what was
6 provided or not provided, regarding the 2009 ICRC list, You were aware,
7 retire, that the 2009 list contains the information from the 2005 list as
8 well; right? The 2009 list is an update?
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I fail to see how this arises from my
10 re-direct. I have not asked a single question about the ICRC list in my
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
13 MR. FILE: He asked about what she had available at the time, and
14 I think this is perfectly reasonable as a question.
15 MR. IVETIC: At what time? I did not ask a question about what
16 she had available at the time. That is not in my re-direct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please give the exact ...
18 MR. FILE: He asked at transcript page 84: "Can I ask you to try
19 to complete the answer that you were in the process of giving in relation
20 to this question, if you remember it."
21 And the question was, from Judge Orie: "You asked for something
22 in writing, two months later you were in The Hague, you haven't received
23 it, do I understand your answer well," and it goes on.
24 In the context of that question, in cross-examination, was the
25 ICRC list.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is granted.
3 Please proceed, Mr. File.
4 MR. FILE:
5 Q. When you testified that -- when you testified -- pardon me.
6 You said at temporary transcript, page 80: "Well, if there's no
7 log, how did she perform the matching? So that means that she can
8 perform the matching in any way she wants. She has to show us the
10 Do you consider the criteria for matching and the log to be the
11 same thing?
12 A. Yes, I believe it's the same thing. You record a criterion
13 according to which you match something.
14 Q. So you've never heard of a log where every decision that's made
15 on a particular match is written down, recorded, sometimes thousands of
16 times. You don't consider that to be a log or you're not aware of that?
17 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I fail to see the relevance of this
18 since it's -- the Prosecution has said they don't have this. If they are
19 now saying they do have this, we have another issue.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Ivetic, the issue is how relevant, how
21 important a log is and that's an issue whether or not we have it is not
22 the relevant issue.
23 Could you please answer the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a log on 72 criteria and
25 that's what I saw.
1 As to what Dr. Tabeau says later about additional criteria she
2 used to make adjustments, for that, there is no log. At least I haven't
3 seen one.
4 MR. FILE:
5 Q. My final question is related to your comment at transcript page
6 77, line 3, you say: "If Dr. Tabeau never quotes anything anywhere, then
7 I don't know why I am requested to quote textbooks and I'm in discussion
8 with a demographer who knows a lot about this."
9 Just to clarify your comment there, are you saying that
10 Dr. Tabeau never quotes any scholarly sources or any professional or
11 academic articles in her reports?
12 A. No. I meant to say that Dr. Tabeau, when she says but the
13 documents according to which mortality is recorded, she doesn't say any
14 books because that's known; whereas in some reports and some articles she
15 used, there are citations. So she doesn't cite what is generally known
16 in the science of demographics.
17 MR. FILE: No further questions, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. File.
19 This then concludes, Professor Radovanovic, your testimony. I
20 would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague a long way and
21 to be here for quite a number of days and for having answered all the
22 questions that were put to you, put to you by the parties, put to you by
23 the Bench. I would like to thank you, and I wish you a safe return home
25 You may now follow the usher.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We are five minutes away from the usual time where
4 we adjourn. I have approximately one and a half, two pages of small
5 items to deal with, procedural issues. If the parties would agree that
6 we extend the session slightly so that we avoid coming back tomorrow
7 morning. I'm looking at both Defence and Prosecution to start with. And
8 then, of course, also whether interpreters, security all those who are
9 constantly assisting us would have any problem.
10 Mr. Traldi.
11 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, of course, we have no objection to
12 extending the session. I'd actually risen on a slightly different issue
13 which was just to make sure that we correctly understand the state of
14 play as to requests for material after the conclusion of
15 Ms. Radovanovic's testimony which is, as we understand it, first
16 everybody is in agreement there is no matching log that could ever have
17 been provided. The Defence requested a list of criteria, we provided the
18 one with we had and there's nothing else in existence that can be
19 provided and that's the situation we're in. If there's any dispute about
20 that, I'd just ask Mr. Ivetic to confirm my understanding.
21 MR. IVETIC: There is dispute. What has been provided is dated
22 from the 2013 Srebrenica report. It does not relate to Tomasica. I
23 don't know how criteria that existed in 2013 and results obtained in 2013
24 can relate to results that Dr. Tabeau says she did in 2014. I don't know
25 that. Dr. Tabeau in her testimony indicated that she, for every single
1 project she did when specifically asked about Tomasica, there were
2 additional criteria that she created based on the logic of the 72 keys.
3 Those additional criteria that she used exist, albeit perhaps only in her
4 head maybe not on paper, but they exist. They were used for the Tomasica
5 report. We are entitled to have them. That's what we are asking for.
6 We have never received anything that comports to that additional criteria
7 that Dr. Tabeau testified under oath that she used.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So your position is that whatever is in the head of
9 an expert and if it has played a role in drafting a report should be made
10 available. That's --
11 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- your position. Thank you.
13 Mr. Traldi.
14 MR. TRALDI: I don't think it will come as a surprise that we
15 disagree with that position, Your Honour.
16 Separately in both Dr. Tabeau and Dr. Radovanovic have said at
17 points in their testimony that it would be either incredibly difficult
18 and time-consuming or entirely impossible to create such a list after the
19 process was over. My -- and would basically require redoing all the
20 matches, and that comes, as I understand it, because this is -- because
21 of the way matching works, and we saw a little bit during
22 Dr. Radovanovic's examination. So during the hypothetical exercise, it
23 turned out that a student who wrote J126 could be confirmed as John Eliot
24 Smith 125 and the criteria there was basically a judgement call based on
25 the fact that the other examples had been blocked. But to do that for
1 every instance, you would have to redo all the matching.
2 Now, in terms what's been available, Dr. Tabeau repeatedly
3 invited Mr. Ivetic during her testimony to ask about specific examples as
4 the Chamber also underscored at the time, and Dr. Radovanovic and her
5 team came to The Hague, used our systems, had access to all of the same
6 information and could test Dr. Tabeau's evidence additionally by
7 attempting to check her work, by seeing if they could recreate the
8 matches or came to different results.
9 Now, if the Defence wants to assert that the lack of a
10 complete -- what's now sort of in a middle ground between a log and a
11 list of criteria goes the weight to be afforded to Dr. Tabeau's
12 testimony, that's something they can do, and the Chamber will have to
13 assess that in the context of all the other evidence on the record.
14 That's very different from suggesting that there's a disclosure
15 obligation for everything in an expert's head while they're preparing a
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: There are many, many things mixed in here. I will
19 try to address them all, but first I will also say that as to the issue
20 of extending the session, the Defence has not have an objection since we
21 will likely do so in the midst of my response.
22 First and foremost, I have cited to Your Honours jurisprudence
23 from prior cases of this Tribunal.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll verify that.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I -- I -- I expect nothing less.
1 That jurisprudence relates to the transparency of expert reports
2 and ability of opposing party to have access to the materials that the
3 expert relied upon in reaching their conclusions. Therefore, if the
4 Prosecution and Dr. Tabeau are unable to provide this Chamber and this
5 Defence with the methodology that she employed to create the matches in a
6 format that we can understand, that we can see, that we can verify, it's
7 much more serious than Mr. Traldi sets forth. Because in that case it
8 doesn't go to the weight of the expert testimony. It goes towards its
9 exclusion. And if that is the case, this Defence will move for the
10 expert report of Dr. Tabeau and her related testimony to be stricken from
11 these proceedings, not only as to Tomasica but as to Srebrenica and since
12 now we hear there are no matching records. That is a critical and
13 fundamental violation of the Rule 94 bis jurisprudence. That makes it
14 impossible for this Defence to be able to look at the expert opinions and
15 verify and take issue with them in the way foreseen under the Rules
16 because a party has made a decision not to record their results in such a
17 manner so it can't be verified.
18 In relation to the assertion made by Mr. Traldi, and I want to
19 scroll back on the transcript to make sure that I'm not misquoting it.
20 But at temporary transcript page 90, lines 13 to 18, he is cited as
21 saying the following: "Now in terms of what's been available Dr. Tabeau
22 repeatedly cited to ask about specific examples as the Chamber also
23 underscored at the time, and Dr. Radovanovic and her team came to The
24 Hague, used systems, had access to all of the same information and could
25 test Dr. Tabeau's evidence additionally by attempting to check her work,
1 but seeing if they could recreate the matches to come to different
3 There are two points here I'd like to address.
4 One is the specific examples. What Dr. Tabeau asked me was to
5 provide specific sources, which I did, and asked her what criteria she
6 used for each one. As Dr. Radovanovic has testified in these past few
7 days, for work according to the principles of scientific demography, one
8 does not change keys as to sources, and she appraised Dr. Tabeau's offer
9 during my cross-examination as being that she is playing with me.
10 Because the same keys apply to all sources. So that's one comment.
11 Number two, the comment that our team and Dr. Radovanovic had
12 access to all of the same material as the Office of the Prosecutor is
13 patently false. We were given limited access to three linked computers
14 that were set up in the Defence offices of this Tribunal and when I say
15 "we," I mean the Defence expert and her assistants. They were not given
16 access, direct access to the demographic records of the Office of the
17 Prosecutor. Instead, copied on those three computers, which did not have
18 an Internet connection, was material, including some of the material that
19 had been asked for and some material that had not been asked for. We've
20 already heard from Professor Radovanovic that some of the material she
21 would have expected to find and that she had asked for was not on that
22 material. So to say that they had access to everything that Dr. Tabeau
23 had access to, we can't ever know that, because we've never been provided
24 an itinerary, an inventory, of all material, all the sources available in
25 the OTP's demographic database. Dr. Tabeau testified, for instance, that
1 she personally has access and logged onto the ICMP database to do her
2 work. Our experts never had that ability, never had that option to log
3 onto the ICMP database. So the representations by Mr. Traldi on this
4 matter are perhaps too general and do not accurately reflect the totality
5 of the circumstances.
6 Now, I would only add one last point. The hypothetical we looked
7 at which relates to students and ID numbers, respectfully, as we heard
8 Dr. Radovanovic say, has nothing to do with the work that Dr. Tabeau
9 allegedly did with respect to the sources that she examined. It's a red
10 herring. So I don't know why we're constantly going back to that and
11 saying, well, as this demonstrates it can't be said to have demonstrated
12 anything because [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't this an argument in relation to the evaluation
14 of the evidence rather than a response to the matter raised by
15 Mr. Traldi?
16 MR. IVETIC: Actually, it's a response to the matter raised by
17 Mr. Traldi, at temporary transcript, page 90 lines 5 through 8, where he
18 specifically talks about what we can draw from the hypothetical example.
19 And so I agree, in a way it is argument. Argument that you've presented
20 the Prosecution the opportunity to give their arguments, and now the
21 Defence would like to make its own arguments, because the same rules
22 should apply to both sides in these proceedings.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else.
24 MR. IVETIC: That is all and I apologise for going over the time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I didn't give you a time-limit so,
1 therefore --
2 The Chamber will consider the matter, and there's a fair chance
3 that we would give a ruling in writing on the matter. We'll still ...
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: If necessary. Of course, that's the first thing
6 we'll have to do is to find out whether we have to decide anything at
7 this very moment.
8 Then, where all parties agreed with a slightly extended session
9 and where -- in order to avoid that we have to come back tomorrow
10 morning, I see that there's a lot of nodding in the affirmative in the
11 booth as well, I'll deal with a few procedural matters.
12 The first one is a remaining issue from the testimonies of
13 Vojo Kupresanin and Jose Cutileiro.
14 On 24 February of last year, Exhibit P7005, excerpts from the 8th
15 Session of the Republika Srpska Assembly, was admitted into evidence
16 through Vojo Kupresanin.
17 On the 9th of December, Jose Cutileiro gave evidence in relation
18 to the speeches given by Karadzic and Krajisnik during the same session.
19 On the 20th of January, 2016, the Prosecution e-mailed the
20 Chamber and the Defence, advising that the two speeches had been added to
21 the extract and uploaded into e-court under 65 ter number 02345B, the
22 Chamber instructs the Registry to replace Exhibit P7005 with the new
23 version and gives the Defence one week do revisit the matter, if
25 I move onto Exhibit P401, which is an instruction from the RS
1 Presidency and was admitted into evidence on 30 October 2012.
2 On 17 March 2016, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber and the
3 Defence, advising that a revised English translation had been uploaded
4 into e-court under doc ID 0124-6855-0-ET.
5 The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the translation of
6 the exhibit with the revised one. The Defence has one week to revisit
7 the matter, if necessary.
8 Next item, Exhibit P3333, which was admitted into evidence and
9 placed under seal on the 20th of December, 2013.
10 On the 1st of April of 2016, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber
11 and the Defence, advising that a portion of the exhibit had been
12 erroneously redacted and that the correctly redacted original and its
13 translation had been uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number
15 The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the exhibit and its
16 translation with the revised versions and to place them under seal.
17 The Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
18 I move to Exhibit P7532, which was admitted into evidence and
19 placed under seal on the 8th of October, 2015.
20 On the 14th of October, the Defence e-mailed the Chamber and the
21 Prosecution, suggesting revisions to the B/C/S translation and requesting
22 that certain paragraphs be redacted.
23 On the 1st of April, 2016, the Prosecution e-mailed the Chamber
24 and the Defence, advising that the redacted original and its revised
25 translation had been uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number
1 11377b and noting that CLSS had made stylistic revisions to paragraph 139
2 of the translation.
3 The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the exhibit and its
4 translation with the revised versions and to place them under seal.
5 The Defence has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
6 I move to Exhibit P576, which was admitted into evidence on the
7 5th of December, 2012 and placed under seal.
8 On the 10th December, 2012, the Prosecution informed the Chamber
9 that a redacted version had been uploaded into e-court.
10 On 5th of April, 2016, the Prosecution requested that the
11 redacted version be admitted into evidence as a public exhibit. In
12 accordance with the Chamber's 2012 guidance on avoiding duplication of
13 the evidentiary record, the Chamber recalls that whenever possible,
14 public redacted versions of confidential exhibits should be filed on the
16 The Prosecution is invited to follow this procedure and to
17 refrain from tendering such public redacted versions.
18 I move to P4491 which the Chamber admitted into evidence on the
19 17th of December, 2013.
20 On 22 April 2016, the Prosecution notified the Chamber and the
21 Defence, via e-mail, that a revised English translation had been uploaded
22 into e-court. The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the English
23 translation of Exhibit P4491 with the revised one and gives the Defence
24 one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
25 I now deal with the remaining issue relating to the testimony of
1 Jan Segers.
2 On 28 April, 2016, P7825 was marked for identification pending
3 the provision of a B/C/S translation.
4 On 2nd of May, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and the
5 Defence, via e-mail, that the translation had been uploaded into e-court
6 under doc ID Y030-9214-BCST. The Chamber instructs the Registry to
7 attach the translation to P7825, admits it into evidence, and gives the
8 Defence one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
9 My last item deals with the admission of Rule 92 bis statements.
10 In October 2015, the Chamber conditionally admitted into evidence
11 the statements of Ostoja Javoric, Drazan Visnic, Radoslav Danicic and
12 Dusan Denadzija pursuant to Rule 92 bis, pending the filing of the
13 relevant attestations and declarations. On 28th and 29th of April and on
14 the 2nd of May, 2016, the Defence filed the corresponding attestations
15 and declarations together with the relevant statements.
16 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to: Assign exhibit
17 number D1277 to the updated document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D01691
18 with the page range 1D29-0145 to 1D29-0151; assign exhibit number D1296
19 to the updated document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D01651 with the page
20 range 1D29-0224 to 1D29-0237; assign exhibit number D1321 to the updated
21 document bearing Rule 65 ter number 1D01678 with the page range 1D29-0103
22 to 1D29-0113; assign exhibit number D1338 to the updated document bearing
23 Rule 65 ter number 1D01680 with the page range 1D29-0122 to 1D29-0134.
24 And the Chamber hereby admits these documents into evidence.
25 This was ...
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: I correct myself. In relation to Exhibit P4491, I
3 referred to the Prosecution's notification to the Chamber and the Defence
4 that a revised English translation had been uploaded into e-court. I,
5 however, did not give the doc ID for this revised English translation,
6 which is 0531-9976-0-ET, and that's the doc ID of the document which
7 replaces the English translation of Exhibit P4491.
8 All the rest remains the same.
9 These were all the procedural issues I had. It's likely that
10 we'll not sit for the near future. Therefore, if there's any matter to
11 be raised, it be raised, rather, now.
12 If nothing, then we adjourn for the day, and we'll adjourn
13 sine die.
14 We stand adjourned.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.32 p.m.,
16 sine die.