1 Tuesday, 24 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, good afternoon to you. Could you
6 call the case, please?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am. All the accused are present.
10 From the Defence teams I notice the absence of Mr. Ostojic, Madam
11 Nikolic, Mr. Lazarevic and Mr. Haynes and Mr. Krgovic. I understand that
12 the Popovic Defence team has got some kind of preliminary.
13 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you very
14 much. I will be very brief. In the course of the morning we received an
15 e-mail from the Prosecution which is relative to today's witness, who
16 took a solemn declaration yesterday but we cannot contact him. In their
17 e-mail they inform us about their approach to the document. We believe
18 that we are actually taken by surprise because we cannot verify with our
19 witness the allegations about the quality of that document. In any case
20 we are going to tender this document into evidence once his
21 examination-in-chief is over. This is as much as we wanted to inform the
22 Trial Chamber about, to tell them that we are not in a position to verify
23 the information with the witness.
24 I would like to introduce our intern who is present in the
25 courtroom today, Ms. Liane Aronchick who is going to join us in the
1 courtroom today, thank you very much.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam. [Microphone not activated]
3 welcome, Madam. As regards your submission, Madam Tapuskovic, I must
4 confess I didn't quite understand what this is all about. We are not, of
5 course, privy to the exchange of correspondence that went on between the
6 Prosecution and you. We don't know what document you are referring to
7 and what is the problem if there is a problem. If either you or someone
8 from the Prosecution could explain a little bit further, we would be in a
9 better position to direct you as to the best way possible to proceed
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you
12 very much. The document in question is a document, very important both
13 for the Defence and the Prosecution. This is a list of displaced persons
14 which is very important for the conclusions of the witness and of the
15 Defence and we received information from the Prosecution that this
16 document bears a different name according to their database. But we
17 believe that the evidence is absolutely reliable and that's why we are
18 going to tender it into the Defence evidence and we are going to examine
19 the witness about that document.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Do you wish to comment, Ms. Soljan, do
21 you wish to comment?
22 MS. SOLJAN: Just briefly, Your Honours. I don't think we are
23 going to object to this proposal but it has to do with an MIFing issue
24 that has to do with a description of document issue that came to our
25 attention when we were reviewing these documents. I don't think we will
1 be objecting. We don't think it's significant.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's deal with it, if at all, when it arises, if
3 it arises as a problem. Otherwise we won't need to deal with it.
4 Anything else?
5 Let's bring the witness in, please.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Kovacevic.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome back. We are resuming your expert
10 evidence today.
11 Madam Tapuskovic?
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 WITNESS: MILADIN KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Examination by Ms. Tapuskovic: [Continued]
16 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, good afternoon.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. We will continue where we left it off yesterday in your
19 examination-in-chief. When you were talking about the application of the
20 criteria, in your paper, in paragraph 16, you mention the application of
21 the conservative criterion. Could you please explain to the Trial
22 Chamber the notion of the conservative criterion?
23 A. In my report -- actually it is Brunborg and Urdal's report that
24 I'm talking about where the conservative criterion is mentioned as a
25 procedure or as the continued procedure to identify the missing persons
1 on the consolidated list of missing persons in the census. The report
2 does not provide any further explanation of that criterion. However it
3 may be understood from the contents that it is a subjective criterion
4 which implies evaluation on the part of the expert as to whether a pair,
5 which had been found to match the 71 criteria should be adopted or
7 Q. Did Mr. Brunborg and his associate Henrik Urdal anywhere in their
8 report provide the reasons why some pairs had to be rejected and some
10 A. We don't have any documents to that effect. The process of
11 identification of certain persons from the list of missing with the
12 census or the list of voters has not been explained.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Madam Tapuskovic. Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you Your Honours. Just for the sake of the
15 clarity of the record again, I would like to make sure we know what exact
16 report we are referring to right now. Is this the April 2000 report or
17 is that something else? Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Soljan.
19 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic. I think that's a fair comment. Would you
20 address it, please, with the witness? Thank you.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation].
22 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, which report by Henrik Urdal and the main author
23 of the author Mr. Brunborg does your comment refer to?
24 A. I have the report in front of me. The date is February 2000.
25 Q. Thank you very much. When you were talking about the criteria
1 for matching that Helge Brunborg applied, in your expert report you say
2 that there is the extensivity of the composing of these matching
3 criteria. Can you please tell us now what you meant by this extensivity
4 in composing criteria?
5 A. What I meant was the fact that in a number of these criteria, the
6 author went from the most rigorous one to the least rigorous one so as to
7 achieve the highest probability that a person on the list of missing will
8 be found in the census, i.e., to completely reduce the possibility for a
9 person not to be found. In addition to that, there are 57 persons that
10 I've mentioned in my report in paragraph 14 that cannot be matched with
11 any person in the census according to any of the criteria, and this is
12 the element that points to that extensivity.
13 Q. If I understand you well this means that when you performed your
14 matching between the census and the Brunborg's list and when you applied
15 all of these criteria, your result was 57 persons who could not be
16 matched according to any of the criteria?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. Let me repeat, there are 57 persons in the
18 list of the missing persons that could not be matched according to any of
19 the 71 criteria.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 How did you then understand Brunborg's approach to the
22 identification of the missing persons? And I'm now talking about the
24 A. The way I understood it was in the light of the 71 criteria as
25 completely limitless with regard to the possibility to match a person on
1 the list of the missing persons with the list that is the 1991 census.
2 Obviously I could not reconstruct the whole procedure because we were not
3 able to replicate the so-called conservative criterion.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Tell me, the procedure for matching between the list of the
9 missing persons by Helge Brunborg the so-called consolidated list and the
10 census, in any way, was it documented in Helge Brunborg's report in any
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, yes, Ms. Soljan?
13 MS. SOLJAN: I apologise to my learned counsel for interrupting
14 again, but again I would like just clarification. When we are talking
15 about the consolidated missing persons list by Helge Brunborg are we
16 discussing the May 2000 list or are we discussing -- and that would be
17 P566, or are we discussing the 16 November 2005 list, 2414?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Kovacevic, I am appealing to
19 your cooperation here because I wouldn't like this to happen again and
21 When either Ms. Tapuskovic refers you to a particular document, I
22 understand that in your mind you would know exactly what you are
23 referring to. If you could indicate that straight away to us so that
24 there will be no confusion at all in anybody's mind as to which document
25 either you or Ms. Tapuskovic or both of you are referring to, please? So
1 I am going to leave it entirely in your hands from now on to start
2 indicating which documents you are referring to from the Brunborg
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, all the time I've been
5 talking about the so-called consolidated list of the missing persons that
6 was compiled by Messrs. Brunborg and Urdal and the last version of that
7 list was provided to us in the demographic department of this Tribunal.
8 In other words, at the beginning, we mentioned the ICRC list and the
9 physicians for human rights list that were used to compile the
10 consolidated list, but from that moment on, we stopped talking about
11 those two lists. We have been talking only about the consolidated list.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
13 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I still don't think this answers the
14 question because the list from 2000 contains 7.475 missing persons. The
15 list that we have, the most recent list is the 7.661 missing. I just
16 want to make sure that we are discussing this most recent one that
17 reflects the 7.661. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you confirm that, Mr. Kovacevic?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And in many places in my
20 report, the figure of 7.661 is mentioned, and this consolidated list was
21 provided to us in April of this year in the demographic unit. I do not
22 refer to the original list which has since been extended, so to speak.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic, for this useful explanation.
1 Let's now go back to where we left it off. I'll repeat my question.
2 Let's go back to the criteria in one of the paragraphs of your
3 report, you indicate that the criteria were relaxed and that several
4 procedures to that effect were applied. What procedures are you talking
5 about? How does one relax the criteria?
6 A. The criteria were devised in such a way so as to start from a
7 unique key that I have already mentioned, I did it in my testimony
8 yesterday, and this key contains the first name, the last name, the
9 father's name, the sex, the date and place of birth, and then by the
10 process of reduction of the identifying elements in various combinations,
11 one would arrive at those criteria starting with the most stringent to
12 the least stringent criteria.
13 Q. And now I would kindly ask for 3D368 to be brought up in e-court.
14 Mr. Kovacevic, you're going to see on your screen, on the right-hand
15 side, this document, and you will please tell us what the document
16 represents. Can we scroll down a little? To the end of the page?
17 Do you see the table, Mr. Kovacevic?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Can you -- can we now move to the next page, please?
20 Mr. Kovacevic, what kind of a document is this, the one what
21 you're looking at on the screen?
22 A. This is a document that provides a very exact formula or
23 articulates exactly the 71 criteria.
24 Q. Can you please tell us which of the criteria, as you said it
25 yourself is the most relaxed one, and which provides the biggest
1 possibility for the candidates to be found for the persons who are listed
2 in the list of missing persons?
3 A. Obviously, you can't explain it in very simple terms, especially
4 not on the basis of this document. However, based on the analysis and
5 processing that we carried out, by using each of these criteria to match
6 the list of the missing persons with the census, it is obviously
7 criterion number 42. If you scroll down a little, then you will see this
8 criterion, number 42, yes, thank you.
9 Criterion 42 calls for a match between the initial of the first
10 name, the initial of the last name, the initial of father's name, and the
11 year of birth, and that year of birth can differ by plus or minus three
13 Q. And now I would like to call up 1D1129 in e-court, please. And
14 can we please display page number 6 in the B/C/S version and in the
15 English version the table starts on page 5 and continues on page 6.
16 Let's look at criterion 42 that you have just spoken about,
17 Mr. Kovacevic. Can we scroll down just a little bit more? Down. Thank
19 Mr. Kovacevic, do you see on the screen the table which is
20 overview 1 from your report?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you please tell us, in the second and third columns, what
23 are these figures? What do they represent in the light of what you have
24 just told us about the 42nd criterion?
25 A. In the second column, we have number 118032, which is the number
1 of persons in the census who could be matched with some of the
2 individuals on the list of missing persons according to this criterion.
3 The third column, this number of 118032 has been reduced to 6.958. This
4 was done in the following way. For each of the persons, only one
5 matching was taken into account, and I'm talking about the list of
6 missing persons.
7 Q. Does it mean that for 6.958 persons for the list of missing
8 persons, we have 180.032 candidates in the census?
9 A. No. That means that for 7.661 persons from the list of missing
10 persons, we have 180.032 candidates in the census and the number of 6.958
11 represents the group of people in the census which correspond to some of
12 the persons on the list of missing persons according to just one
14 Q. Thank you. When talking about a consolidated list of the missing
15 persons, can you tell me which were the most frequent shortcomings you've
16 encountered on that list?
17 A. When we are talking about the list of the missing persons, and in
18 view of the comparisons with the census, the most frequent shortcomings
19 or deficiencies appear with dates of birth, place of disappearance and
20 place of birth. Of course, there are also deficiencies in terms of first
21 and last names, father's name, et cetera, but to a lesser degree.
22 Q. The deficiencies or the shortcomings, could they have been
23 compensated for in any way?
24 A. If we trust the list of the missing persons, then those -- that
25 information could have been supplied from the census.
1 Q. You say they could have been supplied in that way. Do you have
2 an explanation as to why this was not done?
3 A. I do not, because the procedure of documenting the relations in
4 the triangle consisting of the census, the list of missing and the
5 voters' register was not applied.
6 Q. Can you tell us what would be your final belief concerning the
7 trustworthiness of the list of the missing persons compiled by Helge
9 A. Based on the research I carried out, the intention to prove that
10 each of the persons from the list existed is evident, as is the intention
11 that each and every single one of those persons went missing, i.e. that
12 that person is no longer among the living on the voters' list.
13 Q. You provided your opinion concerning the Brunborg criteria. Can
14 you tell us this: Which criterion that can be used for matching would be
15 something that you would be able to accept from the consolidated list of
16 the missing persons and the census?
17 A. According to the existing information from the census and the
18 list, a sensible criteria would be the following. It would have to
19 contain first, last name, father's name and year of birth.
20 Q. Can you tell us why one needs to have the year of birth instead
21 of a date of birth?
22 A. Because a date of birth, as frequently happens and we can see
23 that in one of the tables, for example in paragraph 26, it is frequently
24 missing from the list of the missing persons. However, we often have the
25 year of birth. The criterion I propose contains the maximum number of
1 elements with the information that appears with the most frequency in
2 both sources.
3 Q. If we are to apply this sensible criterion, as you called it,
4 containing first and last name, father's name and year of birth, what
5 would be the result of matching the information from the consolidated
6 list of the missing persons and the census?
7 A. It is stated in paragraph 27. Such matching provides us with a
8 list of 2.943 people.
9 Q. What would be the status of those persons?
10 A. Excuse me? I didn't understand.
11 Q. You said that in paragraph 27, we have a list of 2943 missing
12 persons. That is to say that was the result of matching the information
13 from the list of the missing persons and the census?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. In your report and yesterday you mentioned the
16 existence of the personal identification number, the JMBG applied to
17 every citizens as a unique identifier. In your methodological notes to
18 your report and in paragraph 23, you mentioned the JMBG. Can you tell us
19 what it comprised and in what list did it exist?
20 A. The JMBG is an administrative code assigned to every person when
21 registering the event of birth. It contains the whole date of birth plus
22 an extension which provides for the uniqueness of the code. In the
23 records we used for the research we came across the JMBG because it is
24 contained in the voters' list and the census.
25 Q. Did you verify the accuracy of the JMBGs?
1 A. Yes. We matched it with the census.
2 Q. What were the results when verifying the accuracy of that
4 A. The census, of course, is not an administrative register but a
5 statistical one, and of course some of the JMBGs therein were inaccurate.
6 Concerning the census in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991, some 32 people
7 included -- 32 per cent of people included did not have their JMBG. The
8 figure is 1.400.000. Usually after the date of birth, there were zeros,
9 that is to say the extension was missing that should have provided for
10 the uniqueness of the code.
11 Q. What were the results of matching, as you stated in paragraph 24,
12 what were the results of the matching you carried out?
13 A. Well, in paragraph 24, it is stated that 57 people from the
14 missing persons list could not be matched based on any of Brunborg rules.
15 That's what I've already mentioned when we talked about the criteria.
16 Q. You carried out this matching procedure according to the 71
17 criteria using the consolidated list of the missing persons and the
18 voters' registers?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What were the results of matching of that type, using the
21 consolidated list of the missing persons and the voters' registers?
22 A. In order to make such matching possible, according to the
23 criteria, we copied the name of the father, when available, from the
24 census into the voters' register. According to Brunborg's information,
25 the fact that many fathers' names were missing and that is why they did
1 not use the same criteria to match the two documents as they did against
2 the census. When we did that, we matched 6983 persons from the list of
3 the missing persons against the voters' registers in 1997, 1998.
4 According to these criteria, we were unable to match 678 persons.
5 Q. What strikes you as characteristic when talking about the
6 matching between the list of the missing persons and the voters' register
7 which is something you discuss in paragraph 26?
8 A. It is characteristic that when we use a relatively stringent or a
9 very stringent criterion to match the list of the missing persons with
10 the voters' register, and that is the criterion containing name, last
11 name, father's name and year of birth, we end up with 22 persons who were
12 present on both lists. An interesting point which we do not find in the
13 Brunborg report would be is -- is to ask why these people were not taken
14 into account as someone who could have been in the voters' register, that
15 is to say people who were not on the list of the missing persons.
16 Q. Using the same exhibit, 1D1129, I would now like to go to page 8,
17 in order to be able to see the table or the result you mentioned, i.e.
18 the 22 persons. Could you please show us the next page, to see the end
19 of the table? This is the beginning.
20 Mr. Kovacevic, you identified in absolute terms which are the
21 persons appearing on both lists for which we can say that they were --
22 that they could be on the list of the missing persons as well as alive.
23 A. Based on this, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that
24 those people are alive, but we can say that the 22 persons, using a
25 relatively stringent criterion, can be found on both the list of the
1 missing persons and in the voters' register and that the criterion, the
2 conservative criterion, which is extraordinarily stringent, eliminated
3 these persons as those being potentially present on the voters' register,
4 that is to say alive, possibly alive, at that moment.
5 Q. In several paragraphs you mentioned the importance of the number
6 of 3.000, that is to say the result of your research which did not result
7 in the numbers greater than 3.000. Can you tell us why the figure of
8 3.000 is so characteristic?
9 A. Based on cross-referencing several sources, and based on -- and
10 based on the contrasting of the same sources, on several occasions I came
11 up with a figure close to 3.000, which was indicative. When I say
12 indicative, I mean that with a degree of possibility, one could believe
13 that that is the real number of missing. I will cite six examples. I've
14 already mentioned one when we were matching the Brunborg list, that is
15 the list of the missing persons that we have been discussing all along,
16 against census with the criterion of first and last name and year of
17 birth and the figure obtained was 2943.
18 Another indicative figure was arrived at by matching the Brunborg
19 list of the missing persons with the list of killed soldiers of the army
20 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, going by their first and last name, name of one of
21 the parents and year of birth. The figure obtained in that way is
22 concluded with 2.743 persons.
23 The third indicator is the following: When we use the number of
24 soldiers in Srebrenica, which is 6.000, according to a document
25 concerning the military forces in Srebrenica, and when we deduct from
1 that figure the figure of survived soldiers from Srebrenica which is
2 3105, we arrive at the figure of 2805.
3 The fourth indication is the following, and it has a separate
4 chapter, separate paragraph in the report. If we take the population of
5 Srebrenica and deduct the number of displaced persons from Srebrenica, we
6 arrive at a figure which is less than 2989.
7 The fifth indicative figure is the following. If we use the
8 number of identified persons, which is 3947, using the original list
9 after duplicates have been eliminated, if we from that figure deduct the
10 number of those who were killed by early 1995, which is 1300, we arrive
11 at 2647.
12 The sixth indicative figure is something we received by matching
13 the Brunborg list, the list of the missing persons, with the list of
14 identified persons, and then we arrive at a figure of 2.738.
15 Q. All the figures you mentioned, and I believe there were six, when
16 they are compared with the number of the missing persons on the
17 consolidated list of Helge Brunborg, what is your conclusion?
18 A. First and foremost, my conclusion would be a purely statistical
19 one. That is to say that all these figures are in the area of 3.000, the
20 figure being rather indicative or characteristic. It is far less than
21 7.661 [Realtime transcript read in error "6.661"]. These indicators
22 bring into question the 7.661 figure that is mentioned.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kovacevic. Let us move on to the second part of
24 your report.
25 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Tapuskovic, could you check the number with the
1 witness which appears on line 5, the figure is -- we arrived at the end
2 of the day, 2.738? Just for clarity.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The number
5 indeed is 2.738.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And we also have an intervention
8 about the record, page 16, line 12, it says 6.661 and it should be 7.661.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I may have misspoken.
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, what's the correct number, just to correct the
12 figure in the record? What is the correct number of people that are
13 listed on Brunborg's list?
14 A. 7.661. And this is the number that I've been talking about.
15 Q. Let's move on to chapter 12 --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 2.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. -- in your report, and let's go to page 10 in B/C/S version and
19 page 8 in English version, and I'm talking about this document that we
20 already have on the screen which is 1D1129.
21 Mr. Kovacevic, in your report, what is the significance of the
22 chapter entitled, "Statistical evidence on the unsustainability of
23 Brunborg's list"?
24 A. The part of the report under this title, which is statistical
25 evidence of the unsustainability of Brunborg's list and 7.661 missing
1 persons, represents a statistical analysis of all the available data
2 based on the available documents, i.e. data sources, and the adequate
3 relations which were used in order to establish the trustworthiness of
4 the established number of missing persons on Brunborg's list, which is
6 Q. This table --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan?
8 MS. SOLJAN: In the course of his answers, the witness seems to
9 be referring to multiple documents. I would like him to just identify
10 what documents he's referring to while he's answering. Is it only his
11 report or are there other documents that he's taking into consideration?
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Soljan. Yes,
14 Mr. Kovacevic, if could you explain that, please?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are talking about this
16 particular part of the report, and if we look at table 1, it is correct
17 I'm talking about several documents. For example, in the first column,
18 I'm talking about documents which provide the number of the population
19 that existed before the --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan?
21 MS. SOLJAN: I believe maybe the witness hasn't understood. It's
22 not the explanation of the substance of his report that I'm referring to
23 but the documents that he has before him right here in the witness stand.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Which documents are you referring to,
25 Mr. Kovacevic, in your last answer, or the previous one, rather?
1 MS. SOLJAN: From my point of view it's easier to see he has
2 documents in both his right and left hand. I'm just curious what all
3 those documents are basically.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't help you more than I have already. It's
5 Mr. Kovacevic that has to explain this to us.
6 Which documents are you referring to, Mr. Kovacevic? Which
7 documents are you referring to?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The document that we just
9 started talking about is my report, and the title of this report, as you
10 know, is expert report on --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't read the title. We know that. Are you
12 referring to also some other document that you have in front of you or
13 just your report?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm also using my notes. I have
15 extracted some of the things from my report in order to have all the
16 figures handy.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Is that clear to you?
18 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, there was another document and of
19 course if they are his notes we would like to have access to those notes
20 during break, at the latest. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Tapuskovic, perhaps you can explain that
22 to your witness.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Maybe you can clarify with him if these are the
25 only two documents he is using at the moments in answering the previous
1 question or whether he's using even more than these two documents that
2 he's mentioned and make it also clear that as soon as we have the break,
3 he needs to make available his notes basically.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, you heard the instruction provided by the
6 Presiding Judge. Let me ask you, while you were providing your answers
7 you have been using your report, as you said it. I'm very often
8 referring to the chapters in your report. And you also told us you're
9 using your personal notes, and when it comes to your personal notes, what
10 do they contain? How many documents do you have in front of you?
11 A. Currently, I have three documents. I have several documents in
12 my binder, I have Brunborg's report, some other documents, rules,
13 criteria. I have some documents that I used as the basis of my report.
14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic. I hope that this is enough
15 by way of explanation and I will follow the Trial Chamber's instruction
16 in that respect.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan?
18 MS. SOLJAN: Given the last thing that my learned friend has
19 said, we would like to have access to the remaining two documents that
20 the expert is referring to. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. That will be done during the
22 break if that is acceptable to you, Ms. Soljan, or do you insist on
23 having it done now?
24 MS. SOLJAN: The break is fine, thank you, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if -- the witness
2 said he is using different documents because of the figures because the
3 witness himself said this is a statistical issue and that a lot of
4 figures appear in his research, so one cannot reasonably expect from him
5 to have all these figures in his head, and while he was compiling the
6 report he used quite a lot of documents and the only way for him to
7 testify is to use all these documents in order to be able to quote the
8 exact figures. Thank you very much.
9 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, let's go to table number 1.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Tapuskovic and Mr. Kovacevic, no one is
11 criticising him for having brought notes or for trying to assist his own
12 memory and his own testimony by means of notes. He's perfectly entitled
13 to do that, but so is the Prosecution entitled to have access to them to
14 verify that what he is saying is indeed what he is saying.
15 Let's proceed anyway.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, let's look at table number 1, and let's look at
18 column number 4. The number -- the name of that column is, number of
19 missing, and in brackets, according to Brunborg's list.
20 You've just told us that the total number of missing persons on
21 the consolidated Brunborg's list is 7.661. Here, a different figure
22 appears, 7.659. How do you account for the difference?
23 A. Two persons appeared as duplicates when we did our IT search.
24 Q. Using the same document, can we go to page 15 in B/C/S? Scroll
25 down a little, please.
1 Mr. Kovacevic, you have before you a table which, under items ID
2 6 and 7, mentions two persons. Can you say whether these are the two
3 duplicates that you have just mentioned?
4 A. Are you talking about paragraph 49?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. No. These are not the two cases. This is just an example
7 showing how the consolidated list of identified persons was compiled.
8 This is a different list and it says here that it was obtained as
9 ICTY-Srebrenica related 2.xls. This describes how the list was
10 consolidated. (redacted)
13 (redacted). And then duplicates were eliminated and we have ended up with
14 a list which contains -- let me just try and find it, please, bear with
15 me -- 3.947 persons all together.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan?
17 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, please, two points. When the witness
18 refers to ICTY-Srebrenica related 2.xls I would like confirmation whether
19 this is actually what we know as the ICMP identified list of October 2007
20 or some other document. Second of all, if it indeed is the ICMP
21 document, then the names need to be stricken given that it is a document
22 that has so far been admitted under seal and the names have not -- cases
23 haven't necessarily closed. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's deal with the first of these. In your
25 previous answer, Mr. Kovacevic, when referring to 2.xls, were you
1 referring to the ICMP list of October 2007? Or were you referring to
2 some other document?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received the list in electronic
4 version. I wouldn't be able to give you an answer to this question. I
5 only know that this -- the -- this was the file name in the electronic
6 version that we received.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One moment. Let me deal with this,
8 Ms. Tapuskovic. Do you have a copy right in front of you of this list
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have it in front of me
11 because it was in electronic version.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: If we show you a hard copy of it, would you be able
13 to recognise it?
14 Ms. Soljan?
15 MS. SOLJAN: It's a rather poor copy, Your Honours, but --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Why wouldn't you be able to recognise it, if you
18 have seen it in electronic format?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to recognise it
20 because in the electronic format, it was provided in the corresponding
21 xls format. My IT expert analysed it, so I wouldn't be able to recognise
22 the list in terms of being able to recognise the names on the list.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I please add
24 something to this?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, Madam Tapuskovic.
1 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The document was
2 submitted to the witness in electronic form a couple of months ago. We
3 now have it on the computer and our assistant, whom we had introduced
4 yesterday, Mr. Bozo Grbic, has it on the computer and he's working on it
5 now. He could be able to locate it. At the moment of disclosure of this
6 document which arrived several months ago, we did not know that it was
7 under seal. And we don't --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We still have to identify the document in any case.
9 So that's why I remained -- or we remained in open session because we are
10 still talking in a sort of a vague way, so...
11 Yes, Ms. Soljan?
12 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I was just referring to the names that
13 were given by examples by the witness. It would be, I believe, wise to
14 strike them in the event that this is indeed what I assume it is, the
15 number 3002 exhibit, but pending confirmation --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So Madam Registrar, if you could go to page
17 21, please, last -- you can start from page -- line 24 on page 21, to the
18 first word in line 2 on page 22. And redact those, please.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if there is need
20 for us to refer to any of the tables containing names, we shall go into
21 private session, but I don't think it will be necessary.
22 Q. Let's go back to the same document, to the previous table
23 therein. It is table number 1 on page 10 of the report.
24 Mr. Kovacevic, you explain here why, in column containing the
25 number of missing, we have number 7.659. All these figures in the table,
1 do they comprise only the civilian population or not?
2 A. These figures were listed on the basis of the documents which are
3 identified in the report under Roman 3 in the annex. I took the figures
4 from the documents dated January 1994, the 1991 census, 11 January 1995,
5 and 11 January 1994. I took these figures as being relevant. According
6 to these documents, this number of population contains also the troops
7 which were present in the protected area of Srebrenica before July 1995.
8 Q. Thank you. Can you explain the role or the function of the last
9 column, which reads, "Balance," and in brackets, "S-R"?
10 A. The last column titled, "Balance S-R," in brackets provides the
11 difference between the appropriate number of inhabitants according to a
12 given document, and the ascertained number of displaced persons on the
13 basis of the documents and records we received from the ICTY and which
14 were described herein in the annex under paragraphs 41, 42 and 43. The
15 difference shows the mathematical number of missing persons.
16 Q. The mathematical value you state in the first row under the
17 column "balance," 2.988, what does it indicate?
18 A. The difference of 2.988, has the highest value of all the
19 differences ascertained on the basis of the documents showing the numbers
20 of inhabitants and displaced persons, which shows that on the basis of
21 these documents, this number cannot be brought into correlation with the
22 number of missing, which is this 7.661, and that the actual number of
23 displaced persons remains at the level of the value we have here, which
24 is 2.988.
25 Q. Let us dwell a bit on column 4, which has the designation, "R"
1 and which stands for the number of displaced persons. All the four rows
2 state the figure of 34.537. Can you tell us how is it that you arrived
3 at this particular figure of the displaced persons?
4 A. This number was arrived at through a mathematical processing of
5 four documents in electronic format which were listed in paragraph 41.
6 The first document - let me not read the designation of the document, you
7 have it in the paragraph - contains 9.258 persons. The second document
8 contains 4.816. The third document contains 6.116 persons. And the
9 fourth document, 2.832 [as interpreted] persons. All these documents
10 were dated as after July 1995 and they all have the expression saying,
11 related to the fall of Srebrenica.
12 Q. Just let me stop you there. On page 25, line 21 of the
13 transcript, you said the third document -- or rather the fourth document.
14 What was the number?
15 A. 28.342.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. By merging these four documents, one database was made. The
18 first document was dead, in IT terms, so first it was revived and then
19 the four documents were merged, resulting in a single database. This was
20 done in such a way where that only those persons were taken into account
21 which had next to their name stated as the year of their displacement
23 Next, duplicates were eliminated of persons appearing in both or
24 all of the documents, and the persons who had the same first and last
25 name, parents' name and year of birth were considered to be one and the
1 same persons.
2 Thus, the figure of 34.537 individuals was arrived at, which is
3 in the database, and this is considered to be the lower threshold or the
4 lower limit, since it's quite possible that some displaced persons had
5 not been registered or had otherwise been left out in these documents.
6 Q. This figure of 34.537 is considered to be the minimum number of
7 displaced persons by you?
8 A. Yes. We consider this figure to be the minimum number of
9 displaced persons on the basis of these four documents that were
10 available to us.
11 Q. In paragraph 31 of your report, you refer to soldiers and the
12 number of soldiers present in the protected area, as well as about the
13 number of soldiers pulled out, and they were labelled as "PV." Can you
14 tell us how it was that you processed the data you received concerning
15 the number of missing soldiers which was the number of 2.895?
16 A. This involved two documents mentioned in paragraphs 51 and 52,
17 which give the number of soldiers in the protected area of Srebrenica at
18 6.000. I will omit mentioning the name of the number of the document.
19 And as for the number of soldiers who pulled out of Srebrenica, that
20 figure is 3.105. Now, the difference between the two figures gives us
21 the number of the missing soldiers that is being referred to here.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have document P3472
24 called up in e-court, please? Can we scroll down, please? Thank you
25 very much.
1 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, are you familiar with this document?
2 A. Yes. This is one of the two documents I refer to.
3 Q. This is a document which refers to a number of which soldiers?
4 A. Yes. The number I am mentioning here, the members of units.
5 Q. Under 1, we have the defence liberation unit involved in combat
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up document
8 P3470? Can we please turn to page 2, or, rather, the last page of the
10 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, can you please read for us the information
11 concerning the author of the document?
12 A. I can't see the bottom. Oh, you mean --
13 Q. The heading.
14 A. Yes. "Command of the 2nd Corps" -- or rather, "the BiH army, 2nd
15 Corps, command of the 28 Division."
16 Q. What were the conclusions you made on the basis of the document
17 you have in front of you?
18 A. My conclusion was that the total number of men recorded after the
19 fall of the protected area of Srebrenica, as members of the military
20 units of Srebrenica, was 3.105.
21 Q. Thank you. Let us go back to document 1D1129. Let's turn to the
22 table on page 10 of the B/C/S version.
23 Mr. Kovacevic, column number 5 of table 1 from your report is
24 titled, "Number of those identified or capital I in brackets" and we can
25 see that this number of 3.947 individuals appears in each and every one
1 of these rows. What is the significance of this number of persons
2 identified for this particular table and your report as a whole?
3 A. When it comes to the number of soldiers who pulled out of the
4 protected area of Srebrenica, according to the document we looked at a
5 moment ago, this particular number here has been placed in the context of
6 the balance which stands for the difference between the number of
7 inhabitants and the number of displaced persons. I've already said, when
8 I was mentioning indicative numbers, that out of the number of persons
9 identified, 3.947, if you take -- if you deduct from that number the
10 number of 1.300 individuals who got killed, then we arrive at the number
11 of 2.647, which is the balance, which stands for the difference in the
12 number of inhabitants and the number of the displaced persons.
13 One can arrive at the same result where one looks at the number
14 of soldiers who were not recorded as having pulled out, which is, in
15 fact, the figure of 2.895. In the context of the balance, a possibility
16 emerged to the effect that the actual, real number of missing persons is,
17 in fact, part of that military unit.
18 Q. Can we look at document 1D1139?
19 Mr. Kovacevic, can you tell us who authored the document and who
20 it is addressed to?
21 A. The document was made by the municipal staff of the civilian
22 protection of the municipality of Srebrenica
23 and was signed by the president of the Presidency of the Srebrenica
24 municipality, Fahrudin Salihovic.
25 Q. Can we now turn to page 3 of the document? The bottom half is
1 what we are interested in. Can we turn to the next page, please? Can we
2 please scroll down? Thank you.
3 I will read out a passage from this document to you. "Moreover,
4 due to the war activities in the area of the municipality of Srebrenica
5 around 1.300 individuals have been killed so far whose identities have
6 been established and who have been buried in cemeteries that are already
7 in existence and in eight newly established cemeteries."
8 Mr. Kovacevic, when you referred to 1.300 soldiers, was this the
9 document you had in mind that I'm just showing to you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. What is, then, your general conclusion, in view of
12 the balance you arrived at in table 1 and the results of the
13 cross-referenced documents that were the subject of your analysis?
14 A. A general conclusion would be that the actual number of missing
15 persons on the basis of the sources and data available ranges between
16 3.000 -- or rather is within the interval of 3.000 and that the data
17 available and the documents available do not allow for a number to be
18 arrived at which would correspond to the number of missing persons found
19 on the list, which is 7.661.
20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that
21 this would be the right time for our break, although I only have need of
22 some ten minutes more to examine the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have the break now. 25 minutes. Thank
25 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, for the record, the Prosecution side has now
3 also Mr. Christopher Mitchell, in addition to Mr. McCloskey and
4 Ms. Soljan. And I notice that Mr. Krgovic's son is absent. He went out
5 to change his jeans, I suppose.
6 MR. JOSSE: Well, I think he's had enough of keeping an eye on me
7 today, Your Honour. He's gone to enjoy the sunshine.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't blame him.
9 Yes, Madam Tapuskovic?
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Just a
11 brief remark. During the break, the witness handed over all of the
12 papers that he had in front of him during the testimony. Among the
13 papers is the report drafted by the witness, as well as some certain
14 tables, which is document 380, containing the 71 criteria and the notes
15 he prepared for himself to testify. Unless the Chamber thinks otherwise,
16 I believe it may not be necessary to go in every detail through the
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] However, if there is any problem
20 with it, then by all means, it should be read out loud.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Not unless we hear more submissions on
22 the topic. So let's proceed with your next few questions.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. In paragraph 37 of your report, Mr. Kovacevic, you mention the
25 possibility of creating imaginary persons. Can you explain what did you
1 mean by non-existent persons?
2 A. Paragraph 37 has to do with an approach when using letters. In
3 the lists, such as the compiled list.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not lists but
6 A. What happened is that certain Latinic letters with diacritics,
7 these being [B/C/S letters spoken], were replaced by C, Z, S and D, which
8 had an impact on the numerical information -- excuse me non-numerical
9 information, such as first and last name, father's name, place of
10 disappearance, place of birth. In this way, what we can have are persons
11 who do not appear on any documents or registers, such as the census or
12 the voters' register.
13 Q. You said that it could have a great impact on the process of
14 identification. Can you tell us what percentage we are talking about
15 when discussing the names from the former Yugoslavia or from
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, how many names contain such letters with diacritics?
17 A. Many names from the territory of the former Yugoslavia contain
18 these signs with diacritics which are characteristic of the Croatian
19 Latinic script. I cannot give you a percentage. It would require a
20 separate onomastic research on my part.
21 Q. Could we please have 1D312 put up in e-court?
22 Mr. Kovacevic, can you tell us who the author of the document is.
23 Could we zoom in, please so then the witness would be able to
25 A. The heading is, "The Statistics Institute of Bosnia-Herzegovina"
1 with the headquarters in Sarajevo
2 as well as the regional Defence Secretariat in Tuzla.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the document?
4 A. Please go down the page. Yes. This document talks about the
5 number of inhabitants in the protected area of Srebrenica, the date --
6 Q. Please go back to the top of the page so as to be able to see the
8 A. I believe it is the 11th of January 1994. Yes. It is referred
9 to in table 1 of my report, in the last column, where it says, "Date."
10 It is the document concerning the number of inhabitants, the number being
11 37255. Moreover, what is of particular importance for the analysis is
12 the fact that this document categorises the population in the categories
13 of locals or displaced persons within the protected area of Srebrenica or
14 those who moved into the protected area of Srebrenica.
15 Q. Could we please go back to the bottom of the document? Thank
17 Mr. Kovacevic, talking about this document, you mentioned the
18 figure of 37255. How did you arrive at that figure? Because we don't
19 see it in the document.
20 A. Simple math. When you add up the numbers contained therein,
21 9791, 10756 and 16708.
22 Q. Thank you. What is your understanding of the remark in the
23 document? I will read it out for you. "The requested data is attached
24 or contained for your statistical research. You should not provide this
25 material to international organisations because our calculations vary by
1 some 45.000 inhabitants."
2 How would this tally with -- in relation to the information
3 you've provided us with so far?
4 A. Based on the remark, I carried out a selection of all documents
5 in which there is any mention of the number of inhabitants in the period
6 before the PA of Srebrenica fell. That is to say, I used this remark to
7 do away with certain numbers mentioned in certain documents, which, in my
8 report, are referred to in paragraph 38. It includes reports sent to
9 international humanitarian organisations in which there are numbers
10 ranging from 43.000 or 42.000 and 40.000. The numbers as such are not
11 specified or broken down in the documents. We have round figures and are
12 obviously blown up due to the remark mentioned here. Therefore I limited
13 myself to the documents and numbers that provide a clear structure and
14 that are authentic and signed and that provide with the number of
15 citizens as stated in table 1 in lines 1 through to 4.
16 Q. We will have a look at the documents you mentioned.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D1197
18 brought up in e-court?
19 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, do you see the document?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are you familiar with it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you tell us what the date is?
24 A. The 19th of June 1995.
25 Q. Who was it sent to?
1 A. This is an intelligence report forwarded to the 2nd Corps command
2 in Tuzla
3 Q. Let us please go down to the last paragraph next.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is this the document that you based your calculation on that is
6 mentioned in your report whereby you mention 43.000 inhabitants in
8 A. I only referred to this number. However, I did not use it in my
9 calculations. I rejected it to come up with a total for the reasons I've
10 explained concerning the previous document.
11 Q. Please go to 1D1142 next. Let us go to page 2 -- no, first of
12 all, Mr. Kovacevic, can you tell us what the date of the document is?
13 A. The 15th of July 1995.
14 Q. Are you familiar with this document?
15 A. Hmm. Yes, I'm familiar with the document.
16 Q. Can we go to page number 2? In paragraph 5, line 7, the figure
17 of 42.000 inhabitants of Srebrenica is mentioned. When you were drafting
18 your report, you mentioned the figure. Did you have this document in
20 A. Yes. I had in mind this particular document, although the
21 document itself says that this figure was not confirmed. It was
22 established in 1993 but never confirmed.
23 Q. We have just mentioned a document that speaks about the
24 humanitarian aid and how the number of 45.000 inhabitants of Srebrenica
25 was used to calculate the quantity of humanitarian aid. Can you tell us
1 on what basis was humanitarian aid handed out?
2 A. I don't have a particular document that would with provide the
3 precise criteria for the delivery of humanitarian aid but it is only
4 normal to assume that the humanitarian aid was always calculated on the
5 basis of the number of inhabitants of an area.
6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now we are going
7 to ask our assistant, Mr. Bozo Grbic, to display on our screens, but not
8 in the gallery, just in the courtroom, to display the 1991 census as
9 processed by the team that participated, together with Mr. Kovacevic, in
10 the drafting of the report.
11 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Kovacevic, do you see it on your screen?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Can you tell us, please, column that is now bolded, what does it
15 A. The column's title is, "JMBG" which is the abbreviation standing
16 for the personal identification number.
17 Q. What you've just told us --
18 MS. SOLJAN: Could we just get the exhibit number for this?
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just bear with me
20 for a moment, please. This is Exhibit number 1D1196, and for my learned
21 friends in the Prosecution, this is the electronic database which is the
22 result of the work of the expert and his associates in the Tribunal's
23 demographic department.
24 Q. Can you please confirm what you've already told us when
25 explaining the meaning of the personal identification number, that the 0s
1 that we are seeing marked in a large number of cases actually show that
2 the ID number is incomplete?
3 A. Yes. There are such examples of things missing from the personal
4 number. This happens because the person who is taking the census
5 sometimes does not have available to them some of the personal documents
6 such as ID or passport or anything else.
7 Q. And now could we please call up the same document in e-court but
8 only its part relative to the list of voters? And we would also like the
9 document not to be shown to the gallery.
10 Mr. Kovacevic, in my -- in answering my question, you said that
11 the register of voters also contained the personal identification number.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Looking at this random sample that you see before you at the
14 moment, are the personal ID numbers complete here?
15 A. No, they are not complete here. However, when it comes to the
16 list of voters, these numbers should be complete - now we have them
17 complete in this part that I see now - because the voters are registered
18 based on their ID document which in this case is a personal ID card.
19 Q. If we look at the third column from the left, which is envisaged
20 to contain the name of the person's father; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What can you tell us about the characteristics and quality of the
23 list of voters which do not contain the father's name?
24 A. The quality is insufficient because the father's name is a very
25 necessary element of the person's identification.
1 Q. Can we now see the results of the matching according to
2 Brunborg's criteria for which you said that the results were not
3 delivered to you? Let's now use criterion number 27 for the matching
4 process. The matching process here was carried out between the census
5 and the missing list. Please look at your report, Mr. Kovacevic. Can we
6 now see Exhibit 1D1129 in e-court, please? Page 6. There is a table on
7 page 6 which I would like to call up. I would like to display criterion
8 number 27. Thank you.
9 In the second column here, what number of candidates did we
10 arrive at?
11 A. In the second column?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. So the column that refers to the census. 4.761.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you.
15 Can we now go back to 1D1196? And can we ask Mr. Grbic to
16 display the 27th criterion again?
17 Mr. Kovacevic, could you please read for us the number that
18 appears as the result of the matching according to that criteria?
19 A. 4.761.
20 Q. Thank you very much. This is the same number that you
21 mentioned --
22 A. The number has been transported from here.
23 Q. And now I would kindly ask the assistant to display the table
24 which was achieved based on the use of the 42nd criterion that you called
25 least stringent criterion?
1 A. Yes, the least stringent.
2 Q. Can you please tell us the number of candidates according to this
3 matching process did you receive in column 2?
4 A. 180.032.
5 Q. And the same refers to the column in the census according to all
6 the matches?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If you look at your own table, which you have before you, this is
9 table 1, how many persons may be taken into consideration from the census
10 with only one matching criterion?
11 A. With only one candidate in the census for the given person in the
12 list of missing, the number is 6.958.
13 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic. We will no longer need the
15 Now I'm going to ask you another question. What would be your
16 final comprehensive conclusion? What is the quality of Brunborg's 71
17 criteria and what can we say about the quality of the list of missing
19 A. As far as the 71 criteria are concerned, this group of criteria
20 is so extensive and so comprehensive that actually it all -- there is
21 almost no person in the list of missing persons or in any other list for
22 that matter that could not be found in the census if we applied these
23 criteria. As for the second part of your question, could you please
24 repeat that.
25 Q. The quality of the list of missing persons?
1 A. As for the quality of the list of missing persons, this quality
2 can be judged as poor quality, and the problem of matching as carried out
3 by Brunborg and Urdal when we they matched the census and the list of
4 missing persons in order to approve the trustworthiness of this list
5 lacks documentation to -- on which it is based, i.e. the relations
6 between the persons have not been incorporated in the triangle census,
7 list of missing persons, list of voters.
8 Q. Thank you very much, Your Honours, I have no further questions
9 for this witness and it has brought my examination-in-chief to an end.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Sarapa, yes, he's also your
11 witness. Do you plan to put questions to him?
12 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] We have no questions for this
13 witness, as everything that we were going to ask has been exhausted so
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nikolic for the Beara team?
16 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. No
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Bourgon?
19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. We have no questions for
20 the witness.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. Mr. Gosnell?
22 MR. GOSNELL: No questions, Mr. President, thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Ms. Fauveau?
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Just a few questions, very briefly.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
1 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you've just given the total number of
3 inhabitants in Srebrenica, and in your report at page 8 in English and
4 page 10 in B/C/S, we find that you refer to a document dated January
5 1995, according to which at the time there were 36.051 inhabitants in
6 Srebrenica. According to your research, is that figure of inhabitants
7 similar to the one of -- to the number of people who were in the
8 Srebrenica enclave in July 1995?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I would like to show you Exhibit P515. This is a report prepared
11 by the United Nations. Let me explain that whilst the document is being
12 pulled up. It's a document dated 13th of July 1995.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we have point 6 on the
14 screen, please?
15 Q. According to point or to item 6 of this report, 50 babies were
16 born yesterday, in other words, on the 12th of July. And to give you the
17 proper picture of this document, we are talking here about Potocari where
18 part of the population of Srebrenica had gone in July 1995.
19 In your expert opinion, is it possible that out of a population
20 of roughly 36.000 inhabitants, is it possible to have 50 babies born on a
21 given day?
22 A. Starting from the number of inhabitants, which is 36.051, under
23 the assumption that all the population was in Potocari that you have just
24 referred to, 50 babies in one day would mean that over a period of one
25 year, over 18.000 babies are either born or can possibly be born, which
1 would then mean that every fertile woman would have one and a half baby a
2 year, which is absolutely impossible. There are no such populations
3 anywhere in the world.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no
5 further questions.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau. Mr. Josse?
7 MR. JOSSE: Nothing.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And that leads us -- brings us to you, Ms. Soljan.
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Soljan:
10 MS. SOLJAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
11 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kovacevic.
12 A. Good afternoon.
13 Q. My name is Lada Soljan and I am an attorney for the Prosecution
14 at the ICTY.
15 Now, we haven't met before; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And we haven't discussed this case or any aspect of your report?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. You have met with the Defence counsel, however?
20 A. When?
21 Q. I'm asking, on how many occasions have you met with the Defence
22 counsels all together?
23 A. You're referring to the lawyers? Over the period of three years
24 of my work on this analysis, I've met with them a number of times but I
25 wouldn't be able to tell you exactly how many times.
1 Q. And of course in the course of your meetings with the Defence
2 counsel for Mr. Popovic, you have discussed your report with the
4 A. Different documents, different -- the contents of all these
5 different reports, the databases, the information that I required for my
6 work, and little by little, we did arrive at the final report, i.e. I
7 drafted the final report and then, in preparation for my testimony here,
8 we obviously discussed that.
9 Q. Okay. And therefore you discussed the substance of your
10 testimony with them?
11 A. Yes, of course we discussed the form of my testimony, the
12 contents, the possible questions, documents, the trustworthiness of those
13 and so on and so forth.
14 Q. And in fact, today during your testimony you were referring to a
15 document that was produced in the course of your discussions with the
16 counsel; is that correct?
17 A. What are we talking about here? I apologise.
18 Q. What I mean to say is besides your own report which you had at
19 your desk over there, you also had the 71 criteria of Mr. Helge as
20 Ms. Tapuskovic has said, in addition to that you also had you two sets of
21 notes, one sort of a key set of notes with the main figures as well as a
22 about a 13, 12-page document which contained the questions that were
23 going to be discussed in the course of your direct testimony today; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Not entirely correct. The outline of the questions contained
1 some of the questions, not all of them, but also it contains some of the
2 questions that we assumed or rather I assumed that would be put to me
3 but in the course of my testimony have not been put so that these
4 questions were noted with my own hand on the paper and I just drafted my
5 possible answers. This would have served me to avoid wasting time,
6 although my answers were actually much broader than just -- than the
7 notes that I made.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Tapuskovic?
9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
10 object to this line of questions about the notes because immediately
11 after the break, we suggested that these notes be read in the courtroom
12 and that everybody be informed about their contents. We are now in the
13 sphere of speculation, so I suggest that the notes be read so that
14 everybody can see exactly what they contained. We suggested that this be
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan?
17 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I wouldn't say I agree quite with the
18 characterisation that Ms. Tapuskovic gives to this. It was according to
19 your order that we gained access to the notes. I simply wanted to make
20 this. There is no speculation. I'm not going any further with this.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed. Let's proceed. And let's go to the
22 substance of the -- what Mr. Kovacevic's testimony should all be about.
23 MS. SOLJAN:
24 Q. Now, Mr. Kovacevic, in the course of your preparation for your
25 testimony today as well as for your report, you had an opportunity to
1 also review related testimony; is that correct?
2 A. Only one, which I have here in the binder. I looked at it and I
3 believe that was the testimony provided by Brunborg and Urdal.
4 Q. Okay. But --
5 A. Yes, I'm right. On the 1st of February and the 9th and 10th of
6 May 2007, Brunborg testified and I have that.
7 Q. All right. So you've reviewed Mr. Brunborg's testimony from this
8 trial. Did you review any further testimony?
9 A. No, not that I remember. I may have come across something over
10 the three years of my work but I can't remember. But in any case, even
11 if I have seen something, it still isn't of any major relevance for my
13 Q. Okay. But just to be clear, so you did not review the testimony
14 of Dr. Ewa Tabeau from 5th February of this year, 2008?
15 A. No, I have not reviewed that.
16 Q. Nor did you review the testimony of Dr. Thomas Parsons from
17 February 1 of this year?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And did you review any of the testimonies of the forensics
20 experts who have testified in this case, such as Jose Baraybar, John
21 Haglund, John Clark, Richard Wright, Christopher Lawrence, all of whom
22 testified early 2007?
23 A. These days, Professor Dunjic, has given me a copy, but I'm not
24 sure whether this is his testimony. The number of the document is IT
25 0588. The only thing I was interested in was the number of persons who,
1 based on the post-mortem and DNA analysis, which are typical of forensic
2 medicine, provided a comment which shows that based on three criteria, we
3 have numbers of 2626 persons, 2553 persons and 3479 persons. I'm not a
4 forensics expert so I'm not well-equipped to analyse this report, but I
5 was interested in that because these figures correspond very well to the
6 numbers that I am talking about, and they are very indicative.
7 Q. Okay. But so you haven't reviewed -- you have not reviewed any
8 of the testimonies that I've listed for you before?
9 A. Of the testimonies that you've mentioned, I have not seen two.
10 Q. Okay. I believe the correct number would be more than that
11 because I mentioned Dr. Ewa Tabeau's testimony, Dr. Parsons as well as
12 the testimony of about six forensic experts who testified.
13 A. Yes, you're right there. I apologise. As far as the forensic
14 reports are concerned I can't tell you anything because I'm not an expert
15 in the field.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
17 Now, in order to refer to -- in order to prepare and review
18 relevant documents for your own report, you referred to in the course of
19 your testimony today to the February 2000 report by Mr. Brunborg and
20 Mr. Urdal; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Have you also looked at other reports besides the 2000 report of
23 Mr. Henrik and Mr. Urdal, sorry, Mr. Brunborg and Mr. Urdal?
24 A. I saw the annex to his report and Mr. Helge Brunborg's testimony.
25 I have not had at my disposal any other reports.
1 Q. Okay. So you haven't seen any of the reports that have been
2 issued in 2005, 16 November 2005
3 A. No.
4 Q. Nor did you have an opportunity to read the reports that were
5 issued as updates to that, including the testimony of Dr. Ewa Tabeau,
6 well, the basis for Dr. Tabeau's testimony, those would be the 2007
7 progress report on the DNA-based identification by ICMP which is an
8 update to the 16 November 2005
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic?
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an hour ago the
11 witness said that he had received from Ewa Tabeau the most recent report
12 containing 6.661 persons as missing in the demographic unit. The number
13 is 7661.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The most recent list.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The most recent list from the
16 month of April. And the witness said that to the Prosecutor's objection
17 which was to the fact that we didn't know what document the witness was
18 talking about.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan?
20 MS. SOLJAN: That's a fair comment. I was talking about the
21 reports, though, so far. I was not talking about lists and I'll be very
22 happen happy to refer to specific exhibit numbers.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's be clear about this, please.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Will do.
25 Q. Okay. Mr. Kovacevic, you have not had a chance to review, as you
1 said, the report dated 16 November 2005
2 number 2413. And I can show it to you. I have a B/C/S version of this
3 document printed out.
4 A. No. The document as such is something I did not receive.
5 However, in the demographic unit, I had a list of 7661 at disposal and I
6 used that as the basis of all my analyses.
7 Q. But there would be --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mrs. Tapuskovic's microphone be turned
9 off, please?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Tapuskovic, if you could turn off your
11 microphone? Thank you.
12 MS. SOLJAN:
13 Q. But if you're dealing with -- if you have access to the most
14 newly issued list of individuals missing, would you not want to also look
15 at the report and read the methodology that's laid out in the most recent
17 A. Well, yes. Of course, I began studying the 2000 report quite
18 some time ago, and in that report I could see the basic methodology. I
19 believe that could not have been changed and it was not until the latest
20 figure of 7661. What is still being used is the matching against the
21 census, the voters' register. I received both. The documents I used are
22 still being used today. I don't see what any new report could change in
23 my findings. However, I would be very curious to see this report in
24 particular, but by sheer coincidence, it didn't get to me.
25 Q. In the course of your testimony, though, I understood that you
1 had been in contact with the Defence counsel for the last three years, so
2 this was not one of the documents that you received from counsel?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And so if -- would you be surprised then to find out that in the
5 2005 version, as well as the upcoming versions or updates of the reports
6 issued by the demographic unit, they are taking into consideration not
7 only the 1997 and the 1998 voters' register but also the 2000 voters'
9 A. Well, I must confess that would not surprise me. However, I do
10 not see what one can gain from that because that register is further away
11 from the events than the registers in 1997 and 1998. Therefore, it is
12 not as good to be used as the other two, particularly in view of the fact
13 that the persons from the missing list were not on the voter registers
14 later on. However, what I would find surprising would be if the voters'
15 register from 1996 was used.
16 Q. Why would you be surprised about that, sir?
17 A. Because the 1996 voters' register was closer to the events and
18 would be more relevant, having in mind the goal that was -- that they
19 were trying to achieve.
20 Q. Indeed you testified about this yesterday. You were saying that
21 you know that elections were held in 1996 and -- but you did not know
22 whether they were parliamentary or what type of elections they were, and
23 you testified that you have no explanation for that, why those elections
24 were not used by the OTP demographic unit; is that correct?
25 A. It is.
1 Q. Now, in the report which you reviewed, the February 2000 report,
2 this would be Exhibit number P00571, at page 9 -- if we could get those
3 called up on the screen, please?
4 Sir, you should be able to see a B/C/S translation of this
5 document. I'm just going to give you an indication for what this
6 document is. It should be the next page in the B/C/S version, please.
7 Thank you, sir. Now, if you look at the second paragraph of this
8 document, the second sentence of there paragraph says, "[Interpretation]
9 However, registering as such for the 1996 elections was not done, and
10 instead of that, what was made use of was the list --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The census.
12 MS. SOLJAN:
13 Q. -- from 1991." [In English] So in fact you'd actually been able
14 to see the explanation for why the 1996 census was not used, have you
15 not, sir, in the very report that you are referring to?
16 A. Yes. But I subsequently learned that there were elections in
17 1996, and I presumed that certain -- a certain voters' register was made.
18 However, it says here that registering for those elections was not
19 carried out and that the census was used instead. This means that they
20 used the census to generate the voters' register. It is unclear,
21 however, why the voters' register was not used for this matching.
22 Q. Well, sir, would it surprise you to know that there was no
23 unified electronic database such as existed for the OSCE voters'
24 registration for 1997, 1998 and further?
25 A. Well, of course it wouldn't surprise me. This is additional
1 information I wasn't aware of. I only said that there were elections and
2 that there were voters' registers, and it wasn't clear to me why these
3 were not used in the analysis.
4 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, you've put together a very detailed and
5 technical demographic report which I would like to go over with you a
6 little bit. You've had of course an adequate opportunity to review your
7 report, have you not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And to check for any errors?
10 A. Well, I admit having discovered a few typos subsequently.
11 Q. But they do not change the content and the meaning of your report
12 as it is now?
13 A. No, no. They do not change the essence.
14 Q. Thank you, sir. And your report sets out all of the information
15 therefore that you relied on as well as all of the information you
16 considered in preparing it; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And in putting together a report like this, you would
19 agree that you have to be neutral?
20 A. Yes, certainly, yes, certainly.
21 Q. And you have to fully consider all of the information that is at
22 your disposal?
23 A. Yes, certainly.
24 Q. And you have to scrutinise the information in order to see that
25 it's accurate?
1 A. How should I put it? It is not always possible. I cannot go
2 into issues such as whether that official information is correct, as
3 provided by the president of the Presidency of Srebrenica municipality as
4 regards the lists of inhabitants. This would require different expertise
5 regarding the authenticity of the documents and this did not fall under
6 my remit.
7 Q. But you would also agree with me that it's important to
8 scrutinise the information to make sure that it's complete?
9 A. The information was incomplete very frequently when this type of
10 analysis is concerned. That's why I referred to many different sources.
11 Q. But at the very least, in order to produce your report, you have
12 to ascertain or scrutinise the information to make sure that it's at
13 least sufficient?
14 A. Well, yes, in principle. Of course, the question of analysing
15 information has many aspects.
16 Q. And you have to see if it's reliable enough to sustain the
17 conclusions that you're actually drawing in it, is that not correct?
18 A. Anything that is an official document is what I thought was
20 Q. Sir, what do you mean by official document, just to be clear?
21 A. When I say official document, I mean to say that in that document
22 there is a header, a name of a certain institution.
23 Q. An institution such as the ICRC or something more specific?
24 A. Anything that is in institutional form, anything that meets the
25 requirements for what I call an institutional subject.
1 Q. But you agree with me that it's important that you have to
2 scrutinise the information to make sure that it is reliable in order to
3 sustain the conclusions you draw?
4 A. It is a request which is a must for any researcher.
5 Q. And this is particularly important in this case because you know
6 that your report is being offered as evidence?
7 A. For me, it is important for any case, any report, or any
8 analysis. It is important for me as an analyst and expert, for
9 demography, statistics and other relevant issues, in particular here.
10 Q. Thank you, sir. And although it may be inevitable, it is
11 important in any technical analysis such as yours to avoid assumptions;
12 is that correct?
13 A. No. When talking about statistical and demographic analysis, it
14 is important to stress that something is an assumption. When drawing
15 conclusions in such reports based on informations and presumptions, one
16 needs to specify that, unless it is evident in itself. Any analysis, be
17 it matching, contrasting, indication, contrasting projections,
18 reconstructing history through numbers, all that allows for certain
19 assumptions. However, one needs to stress that they are present.
20 Q. But you'd agree with me that it's always better and more accurate
21 to rely on facts that can be established and substantiated?
22 A. In science, no. In the world of science, facts can only be
23 plausible explanations as such. When we use a reference framework in
24 processes such as the one discussed here, or, rather, in testimonies
25 which needn't necessarily be expert testimonies, one needs to insist on
1 facts alone, without assuming or using indications. Of course, in my
2 report, I precisely referred to documents and facts but I also mentioned
3 indications. I used the word indicia so as to distinguish that from the
4 so-called exact proof or finding.
5 Q. Okay. Sir, in your report, you state that the objective of it is
6 to assess the methods used by Helge Brunborg in his work. That would be
7 at paragraph 2 of your report. And the other objective of your report
8 was to give the expert opinion on the number of people who went missing
9 in Srebrenica in July 1995; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in order to do that as a demographer, you need to be able to
12 determine whether the people reported to have been missing actually of
14 A. It is a part of the process carried out by Brunborg and Urdal. I
15 replicated the process to a certain extent in the part of it which
16 corresponded to computer matching with the list of inhabitants as a
17 relevant source of information to prove that those persons existed. My
18 conclusion was that that procedure and that type of matching, so to say,
19 are limitless and that in that regard, for any person on the missing
20 list, one can find, using certain rules, an appropriate person in the
22 Q. Thank you, sir. And you referred to computer matching with a
23 list of inhabitants and the census. What you mean by that is you relied
24 purely on the computer matching, there was no additional visual analysis
25 of the matches obtained? If you could please say yes or no, the record
1 doesn't take it --
2 A. We are not of course matching numbers in the census but the
3 matching of the census with the list of missing persons. When I say
4 computer matching, I mean the use of the 71 rules which are relaxed as
5 to -- as compared to the unique key of identification. In my finding,
6 you find it in table 1. As I said on several occasions, I could not
7 replicate the visual identification process, as referred to by
8 Mr. Brunborg using the conservative indicators. What I mean is to say
9 that I could not come up with a particular person that could be exactly
10 and precisely matched with the person from the missing persons list.
11 That is the bottom problem, bottom issue, with the whole procedure,
12 because from my point of view, given the importance of the list of the
13 missing persons and the importance of the process that you referred to
14 yourself, it is very important to document each and every person from the
15 list of the missing persons to see whether the procedure was brought to
16 an end in matching the person with another person from the census, and
17 not only to use the separate groups you may arrive at by using certain
18 rules but rather using the conservative criterion which would identify
19 the person as identical to the person from the census from which we
21 From my point of view, this is where science stops.
22 And one needs to go back to the documenting of subjective
23 decisions made by researchers and experts who made the decision as to
24 whether a person existed or not and to see what was the basis of such a
25 conclusion and on the basis of what the researcher said that the person
1 from the list of the missing persons is the person from the census, or to
2 turn it around, to say that that person does not have its match, its
3 pair, in the census. That is to say, if the basic identification
4 elements coincide, why the person in the census was rejected as an
5 identical person or the pair of the person from the missing persons list.
6 Q. You do realise, however, that on the other side, a pure computer
7 matching will of course avoid certain mistakes. In other words you will
8 not be able to spot certain mistakes if it's purely the computer that's
9 doing that work; isn't that right?
10 A. Computer matching was used here rationally as the first phase in
11 the process of matching, of finding the identical person to that in the
12 census. It means that it was used to reduce the number of potentially
13 identical persons so that, by visual insight, i.e. the conservative
14 criterion, one could choose the person we believe to be identical. In
15 other words, the criteria was not used to avoid mistakes but to narrow
16 down the possible groups and to simplify visual identification in terms
17 of time and concentration.
18 For example, imagine someone searching for a -- for someone from
19 the missing persons list out of the 4 plus million inhabitants.
20 Therefore, they looked for those people who, under certain elements, and
21 in the criteria the elements are -- vary from the least to most
22 stringent, in order to arrive at groups which would be included in the
23 visual identification process. Based on the reports, I cannot presume
24 the size of work that needed to be done in order to find a certain person
25 even in such a narrowed down figure such as the figure of 118.000.
1 Q. And in fact, sir, as you're aware, since you have read Mr. Helge
2 Brunborg's testimony and have been reading at least his 2000 report, this
3 work, the painstaking work has been taking place since at least 1998 so
4 this is a period of about ten years of work including computer matching
5 as well as visual analysis, but I'll move on. And basically you are
6 taking issue with the methodology of the demographic unit but in your own
7 expert opinion, you're trying basically to assess the same issues, how
8 many people were alive once, how many people may be dead or missing?
9 A. These are two completely different goals and approaches. I dealt
10 with the numbers from the documents, That is to say, how many people used
11 to be alive, how many people were dead. I could not go into the
12 derivation of lists. I dealt with this problem and the methodology used
13 by Urdal and Brunborg. This list derivation is something I find poorly
14 substantiated by documents and methodologically unfounded when talking
15 about transparency and clear indications to show how a certain person
16 from the list was found in the census or why a certain person from the
17 voters' register was rejected as being identical, however many
18 identification elements did match.
19 Q. And indeed according to your own calculations of the Brunborg's
20 missing persons list, and that would be the updated Brunborg missing
21 person list, as well as the census of 1991, with the census of 1991, you
22 arrive at a number of 2.943 persons who are missing. This would be
23 paragraph 27 of your report.
24 A. Yes. In the report, it is but one of the six indicational
25 calculations. I stressed that on several occasions. I called this an
1 indicational calculation as opposed to what I believe to be a proof in
2 the sense of it being undisputable. I used the most stringent criterion
3 that one can use to match the list of the missing persons and the census.
4 That criterion is not as stringent as the unique key because it does not
5 contain the place of birth but just the basic items like first and last
6 name, father's name and year of birth.
7 Under that key, under that identification process, I arrived at
8 this number of 2943. This number is only an indication because it should
9 be viewed in the context of other indications, that is figures. The
10 number in itself does not represent the number of the missing persons,
11 but it indicates to a possible number of missing persons in the context
12 of other indicational figures which were arrived at by other means, and I
13 showed this here in a separate part of the report referring to the six
14 indicational calculations.
15 Q. And this number, the actual list of these -- the people that you
16 say is the final list obtained through your conservative or sensible
17 criteria has not -- we, at least the OTP does not have access to that.
18 Was it appended to your report?
19 A. No. It's actually in the electronic form with my assistant, just
20 like the comparisons. We have all those in electronic form.
21 Q. We would like the Defence for Mr. Popovic to just concretely
22 indicate where on the two CDs the work product of this exhibit, the
23 tables are, and we would like to actually obtain the list of names that
24 was obtained through this matching of the Brunborg list with the 1991
25 census, please. It doesn't need to be immediately. We would just like
1 to know in the course of today. Thank you.
2 Just one quick comment about this comparison, then we are going
3 to go into these other six indicative results you were talking about or
4 at least a selection thereof but one thing that occurs to me is the
5 census of 1991 contained the data that you use with your sensible
6 criteria, you have the name, the last name, the father's name and the
8 Now, often, however -- well, I won't say often but there will be
9 situations where the father's name may be taken down in a sense of not in
10 the nominative case of the name but in the genitive case of the name and
11 as a result of this --
12 I'm sorry, the record did not pick up your yes, so if you could
13 say it for the record?
14 A. Well, excuse me, what was your question?
15 Q. In the census, in the 1991 census, there are situations where the
16 father's name, for example, will not be purely set out in the nominative
17 case, let's say Ramiz, but it will set out in the genitive form of the
18 case or of the name, which will make it into Ramiza; isn't that correct?
19 A. Yes. You're right, although this is very few and far between in
20 a census because there is a rule and there are separate lines for that.
21 Q. There are, but you have found surely that there are situations
22 where genitive will be applied?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And therefore the actual word will be different. Therefore when
25 you're applying your four sensible criteria if you're applying one name,
1 the nominative form of the name, that will be discarded and would
2 therefore be automatically disregarded by the computer matching process,
3 will it not?
4 A. Yes, you're right.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, let's go to some of the data that you were
6 analysing in detail. You were already talking about the table at page 10
7 of your report in the B/C/S version. And you discussed what you based --
8 what documents you based your analysis of these documents on. This would
9 be page 10 of the B/C/S and page 6, and this would be Exhibit 1D1129.
10 A. What are we talking about, table 1? Okay.
11 Q. And there, in table 1, you -- in the very first column, you refer
12 to a document about the number of inhabitants.
13 A. To any document that in one way or another specified a --
14 specifies the number of inhabitants.
15 Q. And these documents are in fact specifically referred to in your
16 report and you discussed them today in testimony with Ms. Tapuskovic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you included in your report and in this table the particular
19 numbers as representative of the number of inhabitants because, as you
20 say at paragraph 31, they were very close and faithfully documented?
21 A. In paragraph 32? What paragraph?
22 Q. 31?
23 A. Okay, 31.
24 Q. You say --
25 A. It says here that they are faithfully documented, not in detail.
1 You said in detail and it says faithfully documented here.
2 Q. I think this may have been an interpretation issue.
3 A. The significance is different because details means that I would
4 have detailed analysis of the population structures in my report, but
5 here we are talking about the faithfulness of the documents such as they
7 Q. All right. And in fact you didn't include in your table 3 of the
8 documents which you discuss later on because -- and those were documents
9 that contained estimates of 43.000 inhabitants of Srebrenica, 42.000 and
10 40.000 persons or inhabitants in Srebrenica; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, and I've explained all that.
12 Q. In fact, today in testimony you said they were blown up or
13 unconfirmed. Now, you did, however, list in your table, as we can see,
14 four remaining documents and they are listed separately in order to
15 establish or give an indicative idea of the numbers of Srebrenica
16 individuals between 1995 -- or between January 1991 and 1995.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you listed them separately because, in your expert opinion,
19 each of these documents provides separate and independent corroboration
20 of the likely number of individuals before the fall of Srebrenica in
21 1995; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And these numbers as we read them out then are all in the range
24 of about 37.000, they begin with 37525, 37211, 36051 and 37255 and -- is
25 that correct?
1 A. It is correct.
2 Q. You relied on four documents as the basis of your calculation,
3 four separate and independent documents as the basis of your calculation?
4 A. You mean documents referring to the number of displaced persons,
5 the answer is yes.
6 Q. Now, if we could get on e-court, please, document number 1D312.
7 Is it possible also to get document P3471 side by side? Or if not, I
8 could also put it on ELMO and --
9 Sir, can you tell us -- can you take a quick look at both of
10 these documents, please, and tell us what the date of them is?
11 A. They bear the same date.
12 Q. Can you tell us who signed these documents or the two documents?
13 A. Fahrudin Salihovic.
14 Q. And in fact, sir, these are the same documents, are they not?
15 A. No, these are not the same documents because --
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
17 A. But first of all, these are copies.
18 Q. But if you take a look at the numbers, let me just walk you
19 through the numbers here. First of all, it says [Interpretation] Number
20 of local population in the municipality?
21 A. Yes, the figures are the same.
22 Q. Okay. And in fact, the sentence at the bottom and the figures
23 are all the same; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And when you add them up, it should be 37.255; is that correct?
1 A. 55, yes.
2 Q. Okay, sir, now, if I can show to you that actually document 1D312
3 is a document that you cite to in paragraph 37, fourth subparagraph. In
4 fact, the document on the right is the document that you refer to in
5 paragraph 37 --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... 37.525 rather than 225.
8 Can you tell us now?
9 A. [No interpretation].
10 Q. In paragraph 40 it's the same document?
11 A. Yes, that is. It is, yes. It is a typo, although I did not see
12 before. Instead of 5, it should be 2.
13 Q. But you'd agree --
14 A. But it does not change the essence of the bottom line.
15 Q. Okay, sir, but when we go back to table 1, in fact, we had
16 mentioned just previously or you had mentioned to us that there were
17 these four separate lines which created six indications of how many
18 individuals were living in Srebrenica somewhere between 1991 and 1995, in
19 fact, one whole row of your -- or two whole rows are in fact the same
20 row, they are the same document or based on the same document?
21 Let me make it even clearer. In paragraph or rather table 1 on
22 page 10 you refer to a number, a total number of inhabitants which is
23 37.525, that's your very first number, your very first S number, and the
24 last row of your document of the table 1 cites to 37.255?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... both these documents are
2 January 1994?
3 A. They are.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... same numbers, same date,
5 same last name or same signature of the person, it is indeed the same
7 A. It is possible that this is the same document, although I treated
8 them as two different, but this is because of the typo in the first
9 column, instead of 5 it should be 2 but this does not really change the
10 story about indicative numbers because only one indicative number has
11 been derived from this table. The number here is 2.998 as the uppermost
12 limit. However, because of the error it should be lower, it should be
14 Q. Thank you, sir. But in short, your table should contain only 3
15 and not 4 references to the Srebrenica population?
16 A. Yes. This is how it seems at the moment.
17 Q. Can we go back to P03471 for a moment, please? Now, sir, in
18 relying on these figures, in relying on these figures, you did not
19 consider any additional data, did you, the figures that are set out in
20 this document?
21 A. When I was referring to the number of population, no. I -- when
22 I was referring to this particular number, 37.255, I could not use
23 anything else because this is the figure that was referred to within this
25 Q. Okay, so the document and the numbers did not come with a list of
1 names attached to it?
2 A. I did not see any such lists.
3 Q. And the document did not contain a list of JMBGs or anything
5 A. As I say, I did not have any such list of names. I can't even
6 assume that they exist or not. I don't believe that they exist as
7 statistical records but I believe that the figures were compiled based on
8 some register and they were then used by some local authorities. That's
9 where -- the way they were compiled in the first place.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I do have a fair bit more to go. I
11 don't know if this would be the right time to break.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: It's time anyway. So let's have a 25-minute break.
13 Do you think you'll finish your cross-examination today?
14 MS. SOLJAN: I do, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we need to keep the next witness here or not, if
16 he's here, Madam Registrar, I don't know if he's here or not. You will
17 check and in the meantime, you and Madam Tapuskovic will liaise with the
18 registrar and just make sure that the gentleman, if he's here, will not
19 stay here unnecessarily. So 25 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.15 p.m.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
23 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. Now, earlier in your testimony, you told us that you had excluded
25 numbers of Srebrenica population -- three documents with numbers of
1 Srebrenica population that numbered 40.000, 42.000, 43.000 persons.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Yet the documents that you did rely on contained no names, no
4 list of names, no list of JMBG, no kind of verifying information that
5 would allow you to actually rely on that data; is that correct?
6 A. Within this context, within the context of reliability, which you
7 have emphasised just now, what matters is the administrative reliability
8 and not the issue of statistical demographic or any other research of
9 reliability, the reliability of the figures contained in the document.
10 Q. Okay, sir, but you'd agree with me that a document coming
11 directly from the Srebrenica statistical organisation would be as
12 relevant as a document coming from UNPROFOR, for example, and you've
13 relied on documents both from Srebrenica as well as from United Nations?
14 A. No. A document coming from the statistics department, i.e. from
15 the president of the Presidency of the municipality, and is sent to the
16 statistics department, is relevant because its subject is the number of
17 inhabitants. If we are talking about an UNPROFOR document, then you can
18 see that this document is not intended for establishing the number of
19 inhabitants. It is just a bypass product. And in one place it is even
20 identified as unverified. So these numbers of inhabitants in a document
21 like this have not been checked. They have been rounded off to a round
22 figure. And they don't rely on any official document provided by local
24 Q. Okay, sir, but you'd agree with me that the documents we were
25 just discussing before break do not contain any lists, they do not
1 contain any kind of a verifying data attached to them?
2 A. I did not receive any such lists, but this doesn't mean that in
3 the background of the document and the administration behind such
4 documents, such as the president of the Presidency of Srebrenica, such
5 documents do not or did not exist. It is fair to assume that such lists
6 did exist because the number of inhabitants is specified in here.
7 Moreover, it is segregated by the categories of local population,
8 displaced population, people who had moved in from elsewhere, and it is
9 obvious that the figures have not been rounded off.
10 Q. Okay, sir, but you yourself did nothing to check about the
11 existence of such documents?
12 A. I must admit that that goes beyond the scope of what I was tasked
13 to do.
14 Q. Sir, you testified earlier that you have not actually reviewed
15 the most recent reports produced by the demographic unit of the OTP;
16 isn't that correct?
17 A. If we are referring to the written documents and reports that you
18 mentioned, I have not had an opportunity to read them, but I relied on
19 the most recent versions of the list based on which the reports have been
21 Q. Okay. And therefore, you had access to what is called the
22 Srebrenica missing persons -- or Srebrenica missing persons reported
23 missing and dead after the takeover of the Srebrenica enclave by the
24 Bosnian Serb army on 11 July 1995
25 the DNA-based identification by ICMP.
1 A. I did not understand your question, I'm afraid.
2 Q. Your Honours, there's a document --
3 [Technical difficulty]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. It seems to be solved. Ms. Tapuskovic?
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
6 kindly ask my learned friend from the Prosecution to explain to the
7 witness the meaning of ICMP. This is an abbreviation and I would like if
8 she could explain the abbreviation to the witness.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Could you explain the acronym to
10 Mr. Kovacevic, please? Thank you.
11 MS. SOLJAN:
12 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, are you aware of the existence of an organisation
13 called international commission for missing persons?
14 A. I've heard of that organisation.
15 Q. And the acronym for this organisation is ICMP?
16 A. Very well, then.
17 Q. Now, the ICMP is discussed in the earlier reports of 16th
18 November 2005, 21st November 2005 and in fact we have a whole lot of
19 evidence that has been discussed here in court over the last year and a
20 half that comes from the ICMP. In fact, what we have as of October 2007
21 from the ICMP is 5.021 individuals who have been exhumed from graves,
22 Srebrenica-related graves, and whose IDs we have from the ICMP. Would it
23 surprise you to know that?
24 A. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that. However, this is down to
25 the identification of exhumed bodies and this is something that is
1 outside the scope of my report. I know this is a very complex issue and
2 it is the forensic experts, medical professionals, that do that kind of
4 Q. But surely you would agree with me [Microphone not activated]--
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
6 MS. SOLJAN:
7 Q. Surely you would agree with me that the best evidence of a person
8 being dead, which was part of the equation used by the demographic unit
9 in compiling its missing list, is an actual proof of his death, of his
10 existence in a grave related to Srebrenica?
11 A. I have emphasised that I'm not even familiar, let alone an expert
12 in the issue of body identification. This is part of the science of
13 pathology and I can only logically conclude that an entirely new issue
14 arises here when it comes to the exhumation of bodies and their
15 identification. I do not belong to the profession but I know it is a
16 very delicate and time-consuming job and sometimes it can be very
17 complicated, and obviously there are methods and expert opinions and I'm
18 really not an expert in the area and I'm afraid you will have to talk to
19 somebody who is an expert, so I cannot agree with you that it is
20 sufficient enough to find a body or a grave to confirm that the dead body
21 is actually somebody who is on the missing list.
22 Q. But indeed, if you had had access to the documentation that I've
23 listed to you in the course of your testimony here today, you would have
24 realised that yes, it is a complex process but indeed we have had an
25 expert from the ICMP come here and explain to the Court how the -- how
1 the DNA was compiled and how this number has been arrived at, would you
2 not have wanted to look into that evidence in order to consider more the
3 validity of the data before you, the complete data before you?
4 A. These days I've had an opportunity owing to sheer coincidence to
5 meet an expert from that field and to arrive -- to get hold of some of
6 the documents that he is privy to, and the documents that I am talking
7 about is -- pertains to the field of pathology and body identification,
8 and obviously I saw a different figure there, different to the 5.021 but
9 I repeat, I cannot talk about that. It is not part of my job. My job
10 boils down to the statistical demographic and record research and not at
11 all to the issue of exhumation and arriving at a figure on that basis.
12 If I had an opportunity to embark on a more complex investigation
13 of the whole issue, then I would love to be a member of the -- of a mixed
14 team that would consist of an expert pertaining to my profession and a
15 pathologist. That team would be a mixed team that would also involve
16 people from the Prosecution, people from the Defence, and such a complex
17 team would work interactively and look at all the facts interactively and
18 would embark on compiling a very complex multi-layered report. In my
19 humble view, that might take years to comply -- to compile.
20 Q. Sir, I'll -- let me ask you one more thing. Were you also
21 informed by the Defence that the ICMP, as of November 30th of last year,
22 had received DNA data for 7.772 individuals reported to be missing in
23 Srebrenica? If you'd had this data -- well, first of all do you know
24 about the existence of this information?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic? One moment, one moment.
1 Ms. Tapuskovic?
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness on
3 several occasions said that he has nothing to do with identifications,
4 and a little while ago he said clearly that he deals with statistics and
5 demography, which has nothing to do with the identification of bodies, be
6 it classical identification or DNA identification.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Still, I think the substance of Ms. Soljan's
8 question is directed more to the number that shows up in that document
9 than to anything else and what's being asked of the witness is to know
10 whether he is familiar with this document or not. So he can answer this
11 document -- this question, and then we proceed from there.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, I'm not familiar with
13 this document, because I believed that this type of documentation did not
14 fall within the domain that I was supposed to deal with. However, as a
15 person who can of course hold a wider view of the matter, I believe that
16 this type of documentation is not particularly relevant in the context of
17 my research because, in it -- or rather, it implies the issue of
18 expertise concerning identification. I know from such experts that that
19 area is very complex and that various and different experts see this in a
20 different way.
21 MS. SOLJAN:
22 Q. Yes, sir. But you misunderstood my questions. ICMP on November
23 30th actually sent us a letter saying they have 7.772 persons reported
24 missing. In other words, it's not a matter of full identification, this
25 is how many profiles they had as of November of persons missing. That's
1 demographic data, isn't it?
2 A. I don't know. I have not seen such a list. And as far as I can
3 see in the primary report, it was not a reference referred to when
4 drafting the missing persons report.
5 Q. I'm sorry, sir, when you refer to the primary report, what are
6 you referring to?
7 A. The primary Brunborg-Urdal report from 2000.
8 Q. Well, certainly it wasn't referred to then but there have been
9 updates ever since and the ICMP data has been crucially recognised. The
10 point is --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Please avoid arguing with the witness and limit
12 yourself to questions, please.
13 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
14 Q. What I'm putting to you, though, is if an organisation has a
15 number of individuals reported to be missing, would you not want to maybe
16 have access to this data in order to be able to evaluate this data?
17 A. Of course I would like to have them, but then I would carry out a
18 separate research in the sense of matching it with the census and voters'
19 registers and so on and so forth. However, my goal here, my primary goal
20 was not for me to derive or prove that a certain list is good or not,
21 realistic or not. It was up to me to try and bring into dispute that the
22 list produced by Brunborg and Urdal should be viewed in the context of
23 all information that we have and in the context of the methodology used
24 so as to prove that it is not true, that it is not a valid list, and that
25 its validity cannot be corroborated by the documents I had at my
2 Q. But, sir, in your own report you actually referred to ICMP data,
3 data from the ICMP, is that not correct?
4 A. I don't know which piece of information you have in mind. Could
5 you please be specific?
6 Q. You refer to a document called ICTY-Srebrenica related 2.xls.
7 A. ICTY Srebrenica, the list of identified persons, yes.
8 Q. And were you aware, when you were making calculations with this
9 document of where this document came from?
10 A. I probably did. I didn't emphasise this in particular. I knew
11 it was an official document in the sense that we received it from the
13 Q. Okay. And it's actually -- the Defence has cited that as 1D1127,
14 but what I'd like to know is did you know therefore that this was a
15 document directly received from the ICMP?
16 A. I must say it was not that relevant for me. It was important for
17 me that we received it via the Tribunal and that in terms of contents, it
18 is a list of those identified. As for our additional computer research,
19 it was so that -- it was done because we wanted to make the list as valid
20 as possible because it was rather problematic in terms of names,
21 duplications and so on and so forth. That's why we went down from 5673
22 to 3943.
23 Q. Okay, sir. Well, the demographic unit used this very same data
24 received from the ICMP and Ms. Ewa Tabeau has testified about it during
25 her testimony of 5 February 2008
1 all together on that very list that you were analysing and out of those,
2 4.263 were identified persons, matched to living family members who had
3 reported their loved ones missing from Srebrenica, so 4.263 were then
4 matched against the list, the missing list, the 7.661 missing list and an
5 overlap of 50 per cent was obtained; 3.837 persons from that list of
6 4.263 identified persons, 90 per cent from that list are on the OTP
7 missing list, the list containing 7.661 persons.
8 A. What is your question?
9 Q. The question is shouldn't you have done that with the information
10 you had available?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Tapuskovic?
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe the witness should be
13 informed on whether that is disputed by the Defence or not.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must say that I did not
15 understand the question, or, rather, I don't know whether there was a
16 question. However, what I can say before the question is repeated is
17 that this list that I had at my disposal was matched with the list of the
18 missing by first and last name, name of one of the parents, and year of
19 birth. It is a key which takes into account the elements found in both
20 the list of the missing -- or that is to say the identified and the
21 Brunborg missing list. And the figure arrived at in this way is 2.738,
22 which is something very distinct from what we are now hearing from Madam
24 In my report I used that as an indicational calculation only, as
25 one of the six I have been mentioning. Of course, by matching that list,
1 which otherwise is of poor quality, the list of the identified, and when
2 I say of poor quality I mean from the aspect of identification, by using
3 a weaker or less rigorous criterion that we derived, that would result in
4 a higher figure probably. The issue in my mind is why the list of
5 identified is so poor, in terms of identification, if the process also
6 included communicating with the families of the missing and if the
7 identifications were conducted by using methods I am not familiar with.
8 The question is why the list was not filtered better, in terms of
9 information, so as to avoid overlaps and so on.
10 MS. SOLJAN:
11 Q. Okay, Mr. Kovacevic. If the number 5.021 unique, identified
12 individuals coming out of graves is correct, then your number of 3.000 is
13 not correct; is that right?
14 A. It is so, given that or provided that, in the forensic pathology
15 expert report -- and of course all other material facts concerning the
16 time of disappearance, so on and so forth, it is proven that the figure
17 of 5.021 is correct and that it is in relation with the events in the PA
18 of Srebrenica. What I, as a mathematician used to suspect anything and
19 everything, would say is that I do not believe the figure to be correct.
20 Why? Because then I would have to find it necessary to dispute some of
21 the figures that I included in my report in two documents, and this is
22 the number of the population and the number of displaced persons. Based
23 on the documents available, that cannot be done.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. Just one final question. In the notes
25 that we obtained from you during break, we had a chance during the second
1 break to just review them briefly, and we see there that there are a
2 number of questions that are typed out as well as your handwritten notes.
3 However, in a number of instances there are also answers that are typed
4 out and I was just wondering who typed those answers out, sir?
5 A. Well, it was entered during the preparations I had in Belgrade
6 with the Defence counsel. Some of it was typed by my secretary, some by
7 myself, then I made additions in handwriting, some associations, I
8 received some information from the attorneys. I cannot tell you
9 precisely what was written by whom at what time. We worked in stages.
10 Q. Okay, sir, and as I was to see at some points during your
11 testimony, you were able -- you were reading those notes, were you not?
12 A. I don't know if you noticed that when answering, I was not
13 reading, because I always looked in front of me. However, I did use the
14 notes to remind me of certain things so as not to have to go back to the
15 documents to find out the figures. This was just -- these were just
16 prompts, suggesting in which direction I should go.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. I have no more questions.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Soljan. Ms. Tapuskovic, do you have
19 a re-examination?
20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I'll be
21 brief. I'll finish before today's session, before the end of today's
22 session, and there will be no need for the witness to return.
23 Re-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
24 Q. Mr. Kovacevic, you were asked about the data put forth by several
25 experts, be it DNA experts, anthropologists, et cetera. To what extent
1 do the results of their findings impact the statistical and demographic
2 issues you dealt with in your report?
3 A. They cannot impact the demographic, statistical issues, but
4 potentially, if one goes into that type of analysis, in a combined team,
5 their results could cause a reassessment of certain information that we
6 received through official documents and then used in our analysis. We
7 would have to think about why Mr. Fahrudin Salihovic signed the document
8 about the number of missing persons, when others' documents show
9 differently. However, such a research would probably take a decade or
10 so. It is a very complex issue why someone at a certain moment
11 misinformed an official body or why certain documents contain these
12 numbers instead of those, et cetera.
13 Q. At page 48 of today's transcript, you were asked about the
14 methodology of data processing. In relation to that, when and did you
15 review one of Mr. Brunborg's reports? Would the methodology of
16 statistics change within the interval in between the reports or would the
17 methodology remain the same?
18 A. During the break, I had a look at the report and it only talks
19 about certain details and some very small additions to the list of
20 missing as compared to the original missing list. As regards the
21 methodology, there were no changes. Of course, in my report, we used the
22 lists, the latest versions of the lists, which were used to draft the
24 Q. You were also told that a report arrived from the ICMP which
25 states that on the list of missing, there are at least 7.772 persons.
1 Had you known that figure at the moment of writing your report, would
2 that have changed your approach or would that have had an impact on the
3 result of your report?
4 A. It would not have had any impact on my approach. However, I
5 would be -- would have been able to compare that number with the lists of
6 voters and then I could indicate a total number of matches or mismatches,
7 much the same way we had done it with the previous ICMP reports.
8 Q. You were also shown this ICTY Srebrenica-related document.
9 A. That's what we used.
10 Q. You described it in your report and you said that it was the list
11 of those identified. Would the situation have been any different had you
12 known that this document arrived from the ICMP instead of the Tribunal,
13 for example?
14 A. No. For me, it's the same thing.
15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kovacevic, to go back to the document referred to
16 several times by myself and my learned friend, Ms. Soljan, it is 1D312,
17 it needn't be brought up on the screen again. We all know what it is.
18 It is signed by Fahrudin Salihovic. You told us that you believed it to
19 be a manipulation of information so as to arrive at a certain figure
20 concerning the registers in various municipalities.
21 A. I must correct you. I did not say that the document was a
22 manipulation of sorts. What I did say is that it points to the
23 manipulation in certain documents that were sent to humanitarian
24 organisations. I intentionally referred to those documents, even without
25 the remark we had studied here, one could see that these were figures
1 that had been rounded off and probably did not reflect the situation in
2 the field.
3 Q. Can you tell us why you believe that this document is reliable,
4 containing the data it does?
5 A. Because it is official and it was sent to the statistics
6 institute, which is an official state body collecting and verifying, to a
7 certain extent, such information. That institution deals with data and
8 analyses data and, of course, it would be difficult for me to understand
9 why someone would want to misinform their statistics institute on the
10 number of population instead of supplying them with hard facts.
11 Q. Ms. Soljan asked you about the list of those identified and how
12 you arrived at the reduced figure from the 5.000 plus referred to in that
13 document. What procedure did you apply? In your report at page 15 in
14 B/C/S, paragraph 48 -- sorry, 49, you said that there was some screening
15 or cleanup and deletion of duplicate names. What do you mean by that?
16 A. Once we noticed that it was a poor quality list, in terms of
17 identification elements, because we frequently had the -- two names for
18 the same person, we mentioned the example of -- well, I don't believe I
19 can mention the name, but on certain occasions, we had two names for the
20 same person in the same line, and buy computer research we realised that
21 they were duplicates. First we did the following. If we had two names
22 for the same person, we made that one person. If there was Miladin and
23 your name, what was your name, I forgot.
24 Q. Mira Tapuskovic.
25 A. Mira. If that was in the same row, we made it into two persons.
1 We had Milorad and Mira or Miroslav, thus maximising the number. The
2 first step maximised the number of those identified, and then we excluded
3 duplications. If we found Miladin Kovacevic once and then came across
4 him again, then we deleted him the second time around. After those two
5 steps, out of 5786 people we arrived at 3949. It was a reasonable thing
6 to do, in terms of computer processing of a list that is unclear.
7 Q. Did you have any indication which would show that Helge Brunborg
8 did the same?
9 A. I don't think Helge Brunborg refers to this list. It was not
10 used to draw the list of the missing. As it is stated, they relied on
11 two lists, one of the ICRC and the other of the Physicians for Human
12 Rights. We used this list because we received it. And then we noticed
13 that it also had certain indicational calculations contained therein.
14 Q. Tell me, please, in any of the documents that you reviewed while
15 preparing your report, did you see that Helge Brunborg said that the
16 person under a certain name on the list of missing, he found under the
17 same name on some other list, be it the census or the list of voters?
18 A. I did not come across that. My basic and final objection to the
19 way all the elements were looked at consists in the following: There are
20 no documents, no relations were established within the triangle
21 consisting of the missing persons list, the census and the list of
23 I think that it is the most indispensable thing that should be
24 done, if given such a task, because for every missing person, you have to
25 see whether that person is in the census, just to establish that he
1 actually did exist.
2 And also which person has the identical identification elements,
3 like, for these 222 persons which were rejected, why they were rejected
4 and what criteria were used to reject that person or to accept the person
5 if we are talking about the census.
6 In a nutshell, that would be the foundation of the
7 trustworthiness of this list in the statistical and demographic sense,
8 and documents have to be prepared for every single person regardless of
9 the text, the fact that it would be time-consuming, but let me refer to
10 the Prosecutor's words. This is not a matter of material process but
11 this is a crucial issue regarding the -- what happened in Srebrenica in
13 Q. My last question to you, Mr. Kovacevic, is this: You mention the
14 triangle. In your report and in your work recorded on the three CDs, do
15 you show the interaction within the triangle between the list of missing,
16 the census and the list of voters?
17 A. All the findings that are given in the report can be covered by
18 documents which refer to the matching between the census and the list of
19 voters. I've already emphasised that I could not embark on the visual
20 identification because I did not have any trace of the visual
21 identification carried out by the authors that have been mentioned in
22 this courtroom.
23 Obviously, this part of matching and analysis cannot be complete
24 or, rather, no correspondence can be established in the way the
25 Prosecutor described it with the findings of the forensic experts,
1 pathologists because this could be a separate subject of a separate
2 analysis which would also imply looking at mirroring one against the
3 other and vice versa.
4 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
6 examination of this witness. Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you very much, Ms. Tapuskovic, for your
9 Mr. Kovacevic, we have come to the end of your testimony,
10 assuming that none of my colleagues wish to ask you questions.
11 I wish to thank you for having come over and tried to explain
12 these difficult matters to us, and on behalf of everyone present, I wish
13 you a safe journey back home.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would also like to
15 thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my findings with
16 regard this issue, and I am at your disposal for any other tasks you may
17 give me. Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we can -- you would agree to leave the
20 documents for tomorrow. Yes?
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
22 leave it until tomorrow, if you're agreeable.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I'm definitely agreeable.
24 We stand adjourned, resuming tomorrow at 2.15, like today.
25 Thank you.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
3 June, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.