1 Tuesday, 26 August 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Could you call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. For the record, all the accused are
11 present. The presentation is exactly as it was yesterday. I needn't
12 repeat it.
13 Good morning to you, Professor. Welcome back.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. I'm glad to be back.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic promised to finish within the next 15
16 minutes. Mr. Ostojic.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
18 Honours. I didn't quite catch the last comment, but I'll try my best,
19 Your Honour. I recognise the time estimates. It's just been going a
20 little slow. We'll try to move as quickly as possible. The good news is
21 my learned friend from the Office of the Prosecution indicated he may
22 reduce his, although he's obviously still contemplating that and he said
23 by almost 50 percent, but we'll see what happens, so we're still on
24 schedule. Thank you.
25 WITNESS: SLOBODAN REMETIC [Resumed]
1 Examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
2 Q. Professor, I'd like to turn to the intercept on the 16th of July,
3 1995, at 1111 hours, if we may, and for the record the one we'd like to
4 look at is P1187B, as in boy, and P1187A, which is the English version.
5 Professor, I think it's found on the B/C/S version of your report at page
7 And just to quickly move along, I think this is the intercept
8 that the word "triage" is mentioned, and I have a couple of questions in
9 connection with this intercept. You had an opportunity to review it,
11 A. Yes. This is the alleged intercept of the conversation that took
12 place on the 16th of July at 1111, and here there's practically nothing
13 based on which one could undertake a linguistical analysis. There are
14 only a dozen words here, and they are not pertinent at all. I mentioned
15 them in my report, and let's not waste any more time. There's no body of
16 language that would lend itself to any analysis, and as for the word
17 "triage," I have explained that word in my analysis; i.e., I have
18 transformed the analysis or the explanation from the relevant literature.
19 Q. Okay. And just if I may, I'd like to show the Court also in
20 connection with the definition of "triage" Exhibit 2D583. If that can be
21 brought up to the screen. I believe it's from a military encyclopedia as
22 indicated defining the word "triage." Let me know when you see that,
23 Professor, and I have a hard copy for you if you'd like.
24 A. Yes. I have one, yes.
25 Q. Is that what you relied on in order to draw your definition of
1 what "triage" means, among other things?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Professor, in your experience in giving lectures and in sitting
4 in lectures, have you come across the use of "triage" by various
5 colleagues or some colleagues in your area of expertise from time to
7 A. For 25 years I was the first associate of Pavle Ivic, a member of
8 the academy of sciences. He was the editor in chief of a magazine, and I
9 was his second in command or his secretary. When a contribution arrived
10 featuring unimportant data, irrelevant information that might burden the
11 text on it necessarily, the professor would usually say, and I quote:
12 "This has to be triaged. Slobodan, you are in for some triage work."
13 And when it so happened that a contribution contained dubious
14 data or data of dubious value that had to be eliminated, the professor
15 would say, and I quote again: "This has to be triaged now, and if we
16 don't get around to it the interested reader always does his or her own
17 triage." In other words, a selection or sifting of what is important
18 from what is not important and things like that. A month ago at a
19 session of the department for literature and art of the Academy of
20 Sciences and Arts of Republika Srpska, there was a discussion about the
21 procedure that would follow surrounding the election of new members of
22 the academy. The procedure envisages that all the proposals should be
23 referred to the academy, and the academy then submits these proposals to
24 the competent departments or sectors for evaluation, and the evaluation
25 concerns the quality of the proposed candidates, which has to be
1 documented by written papers.
2 At the session, Rajko Petrov Nogo, a member of the academy, Rajko
3 Petrov Nogo, a prominent poet, summed up our task by the following words:
4 "All the material arrives here, and we will carry out a triage." I have
5 noted the word word-for-word because I knew I would needed them.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, in the context of this case you may or may not
7 be familiar that the Prosecution has taken a view as to what the word
8 "triage" means, but for our purposes, and I know you may not know this
9 factually as to what was happening in July -- or on July 16th, 1995, but
10 to assist us as to what may have been going on in connection with this
11 word "triage" at 1111, let's look at another intercept of the same date,
12 16th of July, 1995, and that's P1200D and P1200A. If we could please
13 have that up on the screen. And this seems -- as it's coming up seems to
14 be a conversation between two individuals, Djurdjic and a female by the
15 name of Jelena, and Professor, you had an opportunity to review this
16 intercept, and I am going to ask you just a couple of questions in
17 connection with this. This intercept involves a situation that -- or a
18 discussion involving Potocari and Bratunac and the fact that there's 59
19 individuals and then perhaps even 46 in another place that may have been
21 Now, in this intercept did these two individuals -- I know it
22 doesn't necessarily relate or identify or compromise Mr. Beara, but these
23 two individuals Djurdjic and Jelena, do they talk about the word
24 "selection" and/or "triage"? I'm pressed for time, so I'm sorry for
25 having to go this quickly.
1 A. I saw it. The text has been shown to me, and mutatis mutandis,
2 this is it. This is the same semantics. This is the same meaning that
3 you can find in literature and that I found to have the meaning that we
4 encounter in everyday life.
5 Q. Okay. Great, if you could be kind enough, with the Court's
6 permission and the usher's assistance, if we can have you circle where
7 the word "triage" or "selection" appear, but just to maybe go a little
8 faster I'll just direct you. Both words appear and they're on the second
9 half of the paper, and for the Court and others who are watching, if we
10 could turn to the second page of P1200D, and at the top of that page I
11 believe -- I'm sorry, P1200A, the English version, the second page of
12 that document on the first sentence is where the words seem to appear.
13 Do you see it in the B/C/S version, Mr. Remetic?
14 A. No, not yet.
15 Q. Seven lines from the bottom. Now it's in the middle of the
16 screen now.
17 A. Yes, yes, I can see it now, but I don't have a pen.
18 Q. She will assist you.
19 A. [In English] Please pencil. Pencil. [Marks]
20 Q. Both words appear correct, Mr. Remetic, both the words "triage"
21 and "selection," correct?
22 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
23 Q. And help me with this. Do you see immediately above that that
24 they are discussing the situation in Bratunac and Potocari and they're
25 using the numbers of 59 individuals and 46 individuals among other
1 estimates that they're providing with respect to the wounded and/or
2 injured. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I can see that. And if you're asking me -- are you asking
4 me what I understand when I see the words "selection" and "triage"? Is
5 that what you're asking me?
6 Q. Sure.
7 A. In my opinion, this probably means that healthy people should be
8 selected from the sick people or something like that. That means that
9 they have to be separated, selected; that would be a triage, a selection.
10 Q. Okay --
11 A. And it also says here that a selection should be made as to who
12 would go to Belgrade
13 to Tuzla
14 This is by no means a frontal approach, a blanket approach; and this is
15 what is expected, as a matter of fact, when you see the word "triage."
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, under any -- under any circumstance as a
17 linguist and a dialectologist can you assume that these people were being
18 selected and being transferred for either triage or treatment in medical
19 facilities, or can anyone under any reasonable circumstance have the word
20 "triage" be interpreted to mean "execution"?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's objectionable, Your Honour. That relates
23 to the province of the Court to determine the facts in the case, and I
24 think it's an inappropriate question to put to this witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes --
1 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't even think the objection is sound, and I
2 think we have a linguist here, and I think the Prosecution on its own has
3 decided to give definitions to words and taking them without looking at
4 the complete picture as we have with this intercept, and I think if a
5 linguist can't give a reasonable definition, who can? It's not a legal
6 term that the Court with all due respect should define, but the Court
7 should look at what inferences it may draw from certain facts. If it's a
8 fact that triage was used, we can -- should be allowed to bring expert or
9 even lay evidence to define it. I truly believe that the objection is
10 not sound and has no merit at all.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: The objection in particular, Your Honour, is to
13 the part of the question that my colleague puts to this witness where he
14 asks whether anybody can under any reasonable circumstance have the word
15 "triage" be interpreted to mean "execution." That's a question of fact.
16 That's not a question of expertise and opinion.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Vanderpuye, at the end of the day
20 what you have juxtaposed here is the interlocutors, alleged interlocutors
21 that intercept who used the word "triage," and in that context it's us
22 and not the witness who is going to decide what they meant when they were
23 using the word "triage" and an expert who has already given us his
24 explanation of the word "triage." You can proceed with the question if
25 you like, but do you think it's going to take you anywhere?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, given the Court's comments -- I was hoping it
2 would, but given the Court's comments it seems unlikely.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's proceed to the next question.
4 MR. OSTOJIC:
5 Q. Looking again at the exhibit of the 16th of July, 1995, P1187A
6 and B.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: And if we can, Mr. President, please save the
8 document in which the witness has circled in the B/C/S the word
9 "selection" and "triage," which was the prior intercept that was just
10 shown it him. Thank you.
11 Q. Professor, look at the screen when they get it up, and it will be
12 again P1187A, which is the English version, and P1187B, which is the
13 manuscript handwritten version of the intercept where this word "triage"
14 shows you. We talked about it briefly, and you told us that there was a
15 limited and insufficient linguistics corpus which respect to the words
16 that may be attributed purportedly to Mr. Beara, but I'd like for you to
17 help me with this, and I could do it, but since you're here. Who uses
18 the word "triage"? Is it the gentleman with the initial that they use
19 for C, Cerovic, is it X, or is it the person that they purport is the
20 initial B for Beara? So when the Court looks at it, they'll see what
21 this individual who used the word may mean by the word "triage." Who
22 uses it? Look at the first sentence?
23 A. Mr. Ostojic, you can see it very well. Cerovic is the one who is
24 using that, a person under C.
25 Q. Okay. Look down five sentences. He uses it for a second time.
1 The word "triage" appears. Again, it's under whose initial?
2 A. Where lower down?
3 Q. Four lines down, you see the initial C, the first one, then X,
4 then C again, then the letter X where the word is used. Do you see it?
5 It's the 16th of July.
6 A. 16th.
7 Q. At 1111.
8 A. I practically know all the texts by heart. Yes. Please, there
9 is only one mention by Cerovic of triage here; underneath, there is no
10 mention of the word "triage."
11 Q. Let me help you with that. I don't know that you have the right
12 document in front of you, Professor. Help me -- just look at the screen
13 with me. If you seen on the very first line, the first -- you know, it
14 says -- an introduction says triage. Then if you go on the left side, if
15 you count with me X, C, X, again under the person who is X who is an
16 unknown, the word "triage" appears, right, for the second time? Do you
17 see that? And then --
18 A. Yes, I do, yes. Yes. The word "triage" appears on this page
19 three times, first under C --
20 Q. Let me help you, Professor. Professor.
21 A. Then X.
22 Q. Excuse me. Actually, it appears four times, but let me walk you
23 through it, okay, so that we see who actually uses "triage." It's used
24 the first time by Cerovic, then by the gentleman who is known as X.
25 Immediately before that it's used by whom again? Do you see it? The
1 very next line, sir.
2 A. X. A triage would be carried out. That's X.
3 Q. Then immediately --
4 A. C, to carry out the triage of the captives. [In English]
6 Q. And then if you look five lines from the bottom, again, under the
7 initial C for Cerovic, do you see whether or not he uses the word
9 A. [Interpretation] C, again, to carry out a triage.
10 Q. Thank you. That's four times; three times by Cerovic, once by X.
11 Do you see ever the initial or the person who they attribute the initial
12 B to be Beara ever utilizing the word "triage" in this or any other
13 intercept that you've reviewed?
14 A. Certainly not.
15 Q. Thank you. Let me move on to another topic in the interest of
16 time. Sir, when I say the word "govorim," that means to speak, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I know it's hard to do this because you are getting the
19 translation, but I have to do it or would like to do it for the benefit
20 of my learned friends and the Court. Let's turn to the intercept of July
21 13th, 1995, at 1009, please, and that's P01130B. And that's the B/C/S
22 version, which they'll bring up for you, and the English version of this
23 intercept is P01130E, as in "evening."
24 Now, I got the short version of this intercept here, and if we
25 could just go to the page, although -- yeah, let's stick with this. And
1 Professor, I know you have a limited knowledge of English, and I'm going
2 to help you here, and I'm sure the Court won't mind nor will my learned
3 friends, but if you look at the left-hand side and you see the English
4 version of the text, after the initial B the second word says "speaking,"
5 So it's if I were to say if I answered the phone "Ostojic govori," or
6 "Ostojic speaking," that's what that would denote, would it not? See at
7 the very second word after the initial B. I think there's even an arrow
8 or --
9 A. Yes, I can see it.
10 Q. Now, can you help me with this, sir, because this is a
11 translation supposedly of the very manuscript and/or typed text that they
12 had presented to the Court as evidence. Can you look at that first page
13 and tell me if the word "speaking" appears anywhere after Beara's name?
14 A. I don't recall that it's put like that anywhere. I did not
15 understand or treat this transcript in that manner, that is to say, as an
16 introduction of Beara by his last name, his personal introduction. As I
17 understand it, this "Beara" was written by hand of the -- by the
18 operator. That is the identification that he had made of the speaker
19 whom he had allegedly taped.
20 Q. We'll get to that in your opinion on that. I'm just curious to
21 know if you see, because my B/C/S is obviously never going to be as good
22 as yours, if you see the word "speaking" or "govori" on that intercept on
23 that very first page, and I have a couple more, so stay with me just on
24 the word "speaking" if you don't mind. We don't see it on that page. If
25 we could have the court officer or usher on e-court please flip to the
1 third page of this document P01130, which has the ERN ending in 810.
2 Now, for some reason that intercept --
3 A. Here is Beara. Yes, I've it.
4 Q. Okay, hold on. For some reason, and the Court's heard evidence
5 of this, the intercept operator crossed this section out and then rewrote
6 it, and then our learned friends from the Prosecution were kind enough to
7 translate it for us, and we have that translation. Actually, we have two
8 versions. We'll talk about the second version in a minute, but let's
9 stick with this version. If you see this new and I guess improved
10 intercept manuscript that the operator created, does it say anywhere
11 after the word "Beara" on that first line that he's actually speaking?
12 Does it say "Beara govorim" as reflected in this translation that the
13 Prosecution offered to the Court? Do you see the word there?
14 A. There is no word "speaking," and these two versions are different
15 at the very beginning.
16 Q. Sir, we'll get to your opinion --
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 Q. I'm just trying to break it down as -- and try to get through
19 this as painlessly as possible. If we can have the court please bring up
20 P1130A, which is a second translation of this document, please, and it
21 has the ERN number 00912596. And I know you can't read the Prosecution's
22 mind and I'm sure they'll explain it to us, but let me ask it anyway.
23 How do you think that they came up with this added -- or these added
24 words that Beara is speaking when in fact nowhere in either the
25 crossed-out version of the written manuscript or in the newer written
1 manuscript does that word appear?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: The question is inappropriately placed to this
4 witness, and my colleague is fully aware of the translation process that
5 the Prosecution has to go through in order to --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Move to your next ...
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I need to stick with this for a minute, but I have
8 to respond, and I'm fully aware of as they are of my duties of what their
9 duty are to this Court to bring revised changes and updated translations
10 if they see it, not to stick with an old translation whether or not it
11 was erroneous.
12 Q. But in any event, sir, look at the second translation that the
13 Prosecution has, and I know you are limited in your English. It also has
14 the words "Beara speaking." Do you see that on the very first line?
15 Sir, look at the screen please. Professor? Professor? Professor? Look
16 at the screen --
17 A. Yes, I can see it, but there is no word "speaking" in the
18 manuscript, and this is crucial for me.
19 Q. Good enough. And that's why, sir, in your table, if you look at
20 this document, you put a negative on that first intercept that you
21 reviewed of the 13th of July, 1009 hundred hours, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Knowing that you've told us that the speech model and the
24 speech pattern of Mr. Beara having listened to him for seven, eight hours
25 in April, having listened to the tape of four years ago that we just
1 recently received, were you able to discern any of the Cakavian or
2 Ekavian dialect in this intercept here, or just give us your opinion
3 based upon a reasonable degree of certainty as to whether or not you are
4 able to determine whether this intercept can be attributed to Mr. Beara.
5 A. I cannot attribute it to him, and it is my professional duty not
6 to do so, no.
7 Q. And why can you not, because there was a lack of characteristics,
8 linguistically and dialectically speaking?
9 A. There are not sufficient elements on the basis of which I could
10 do that. There are insufficient elements. His today's way of speaking
11 from the way he spoke in April, there is almost nothing left.
12 Q. Okay. And we'll look at your report for further clarification on
13 that. Now, we were going to go through some of the other intercepts, and
14 we do have time, I hope. But just quickly, the intercept of the 13th of
15 July at 1919, although though you looked at it because of the name
16 "Ljubisa" appears on it, I think it's pretty fair and I'm sure my learned
17 friends will agree, they're not attributing this intercept to Mr. Beara
18 at all, so let's not even spend too much time on that, right? Professor?
19 Oh. And then if you look at the intercept --
20 A. [No interpretation]
21 Q. Okay. If you look at the next intercept that we have, which is
22 13th of July, 1995, at 1945 hours, that intercept, also, is one that the
23 OTP is not attributing to Mr. Beara, and that's why we're just going to
24 skip it here and let them explain it to the Court, if necessary, even
25 though there the name "Ljubisa" appears, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then just going down our little list here --
3 A. Excuse me. There's the name "Ljubo" that appears here, but I
4 think this is Borovcanin [as interpreted].
5 Q. And I think, Professor, and in all fairness, if you look at the
6 intercept at 1945 hours on the 13th of July, which is P1148 --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologize to my learned colleague. I have just
9 one -- I just noticed in the transcript. I believe that the witness said
10 "but they say it's Borovcanin," and here it says "I think this is
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you for the correction. Do you
13 agree with that because I don't speak the language, so I can't ...
14 MR. OSTOJIC: That's more than fair, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: That's why I was going to come back to it just to
17 clarify it.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's go on.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. But just -- I have to clarify one thing the name says "Ljubisa"
21 on that intercept, sir, and you said in the transcript, I think, that it
22 says "Ljubo," but if you look at the intercept of 1945 hundred hours it
23 says "Ljubisa" on at least three occasions, does it not? Why don't we
24 bring up P1148, please.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters don't hear the answer that the
1 witness gave.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: The witness, I believe, did not provide an answer
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. All right.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1945.
6 MR. OSTOJIC:
7 Q. Correct.
8 A. Yes, Ljubisa is mentioned, but there is no basis to establish a
9 connection with Mr. Beara. The OTP themselves reached a conclusion that
10 this was Ljubisa, Ljubomir, Ljubo Borovcanin.
11 Q. Let me look at the next exhibit with you, Professor, which is - I
12 know we are going fast - the 13th of July, 1995, at 2305 hours, which is
13 P1153A and B, A for the English and B for the B/C/S. This intercept --
14 and now, we've been talking about the intercepts of the 13th, and we've
15 seen, obviously, one that you think is not relevant, one that had
16 inadequate corpus, one that -- the issue with speaking, the other one
17 that the Prosecution has defined who the individual is other than
18 Mr. Beara. Then let's look at this last intercept on that date, the
19 13th, 2305. You let me know when you've had an opportunity to look at
20 that, sir.
21 A. I had a look at it.
22 Q. This is also an intercept between two individuals, one individual
23 whose name appears as "Ljubo," correct? You see that on the third line
24 of the --
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. Now, we brought in evidence or we have tried to that it's a
2 different individual. I think the Prosecution - in fact, I know they
3 have they have - they've conceded that it's not Mr. Beara on this
4 intercept. We have this intercept here for you to review because the
5 name "Ljubo" or derivative of his name "Ljubisa" appeared. Sir, looking
6 at this, do you know how many different derivatives of the name "Ljubisa"
7 exists in the B/C/S language or in the Serbo-Croatian language?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Excuse me, Professor.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to
12 address my friend's comments, that is the position of Prosecution that is
13 not Mr. Beara. That is not the Prosecution's position. The
14 Prosecution's position is uncertain as to whether or not it's Mr. Beara.
15 I just want to the record to be clear.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's more correct, Mr. Ostojic, from what I can
18 MR. OSTOJIC: From what I remember, it was pretty clear that my
19 learned friend Mr. McCloskey conceded the point that it Ljubo Sobot
20 because it was a Zvornik brigade logbook that clearly showed on this
21 specific date there was a discussion involving food supplies, but we can
22 address that at a later time. I'm sure we can.
23 Q. But anyway, Professor, with respect to --
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Vanderpuye is correct, Mr. President, just so
25 that it's -- we just can finish this right now. Mr. Vanderpuye is
1 correct. We're not sure who that was.
2 MR. OSTOJIC:
3 Q. Professor Remetic, when looking at this, is this conversation a
4 monologue or a dialogue between two individuals?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It's hard to answer yes when I gave you both options, but I like
7 that, but which one is it? You think the operator captured both sides of
8 the conversation or one side of the conversation?
9 A. For the purpose of a linguistic analysis, there are no facts here
10 because according to the operator's words, this is a monologue of General
11 Mladic because his interlocutor, Osertin [phoen] Ljubo, as it is
12 mentioned here, was -- could not be heard.
13 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you about the name "Ljubo." Is it a
14 common name?
15 A. Ljubo is a very common name among Serbs.
16 Q. And how many -- go ahead.
17 A. It usually denotes an abbreviated version of a name, a
18 hypochoristic, that's a pet name for a term of endearment, a shortened
19 version of the full name such as Ljubisav, Ljubisa, Ljubodrag, Ljubomir.
20 The glossary of the Serbian names compiled three decades ago contains 47
21 versions, the basis of which is "Ljub," and of all these names "Ljubo"
22 can be one of the hypochoristics, or Ljuba.
23 Q. Okay, and I don't know if you identified -- I know you gave us
24 several examples. How about Ljubko? Do you think that might -- or do
25 you know if Ljubko, that came can be shortened to be Ljubo?
1 A. Both Ljubinko and Ljubko and Ljupce and Ljuboda can all be that.
2 There's also one very important thing pertaining to this case, the
3 Serbian names, the meanings of which imply something nice or pleasant or
4 dear, Ljub and the similar, can be given as secondary names to the people
5 having any other name.
6 Q. Okay. Let me --
7 A. I know from my own environment that Ljuba, Mile, Mico, and their
8 proper first names were Nikola, Petar, Ostoja, Slobodan, et cetera.
9 Q. Okay. Now, let me go a little more specific with you, and I know
10 we're talking about general and the various number of possibilities that
11 it could be Ljubo, but let's look specifically in the area of where the
12 events were unfolding. And we heard from witnesses whose names do begin
13 with Ljubo or Ljuban or Ljubko or Ljubomir already, but let's look at
14 Exhibit 2D592, and if you could just tell me briefly, and I know you're
15 not a military expert, Professor, but I think this document essentially
16 speaks for itself and I thinks is a -- it's from the command of the 33rd
17 Motorised Brigade, and it is from 1996, but I think from that you can
18 look -- and the name appears, if you look at that little list of
19 individuals who was there, almost on the first three lines you see two
20 people whose names are identified by the name of Ljubo and Ljubislav,
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, let's try to go closer to the events of when they were
24 unfolding with respect to this case, July of 1995. Can we have 2D593,
25 please, and I believe this is a list of officers for the month of July in
1 2000 -- I mean, July 1995. Now, we've seen this document before with
2 other witnesses, so it's -- if you look down, just take a look quickly if
3 you scroll down the names here, and you tell me if you see -- like, for
4 example, in number 9, do you see anything that would be a derivative or
5 actually the name "Ljubo" under that?
6 A. It says Colonel Ljubo Sobot here.
7 Q. Thank you. I wanted to know what his rank was as well. If we
8 scroll down it look at the 13th line, and it has another Ljubo. Do you
9 see that?
10 A. Yes. Lieutenant Colonel Ljubo Rakic.
11 Q. And, sir, this is a list of July of 1995. There's a colonel
12 there called Ljubo, there's a lieutenant-colonel called Ljubo, and we
13 have other lists with approximately 17 different names of individuals who
14 are on there. Could any one of those individuals have been people on an
15 intercept, and if you had heard the tape recordings it would have
16 assisted you, would it not, in determining who -- to whom to attribute
17 these conversations? Is that reasonable and fair, do you think?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The question calls
20 for speculation as to whether or not this witness has a basis of
21 knowledge as to who could be and who couldn't be on an intercept.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I have no comments to that.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think you should move to your next
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. Sir, from the analysis and the materials that you provided, did
3 the Prosecution give you any alternative names or individuals whose names
4 appear or could be derived from the word "Ljubo" or "Ljubisa" or
5 "Ljubomir" or "Ljubislav" or "Ljubko" or "Ljuban"? Did they provide any
6 such information on that?
7 A. If you are asking me, I don't know. To me as a linguist, every
8 Serbian name can in practice among his family members be Ljubo, Mico,
9 Dragan, and whatever. I'm speaking from my personal experience. This is
10 my area of expertise.
11 Q. I'm going to ask you, and just give the Court -- you mentioned
12 Mica and other names. Mica is also often a common nickname for many
13 different names, is it not?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Do you think it's -- is it as many as for --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment. Ms. Fauveau.
17 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I didn't get the translation --
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to go back to the
20 transcript. Could "Mica" be spelled because the way "Mica" is spelled in
21 the transcript is not correct.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You handle this, Mr. Ostojic, please, knowing both
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. I think, sir, that -- and we are going very fast, Professor, and
1 I do apologise. It's entirely my fault. When you use the word "Mica" or
2 "Mico," can you just be kind enough to spell it for us, please, and I
3 think it's M-I-C-O and M-I-C-A, but why don't you help us here.
4 A. M-I-C, with a diacritic, O.
5 Q. And sir, "Mica" would be the same way the diacritic only with an
6 A as the last letter, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Give us a sampling just briefly of the names that could be
9 utilized who used the name "Mica" as a nickname. What names -- we know
10 from "Ljubisa" you can have "Ljubo" among other common first names, but
11 just give me an example of "Mica," if you can.
12 A. It's an often-found hypochoristic derivative of the name Milorad,
13 Milutin, Miroslav, Miladin, Milita, Milisa, Miljko, Milos, Milun,
14 et cetera. However, Mico can also be a secondary name or a second same
15 of a person who has been christened under a different name. A neighbour
16 of mine had nine children, seven daughters, and the last born son was
17 called Tadija. His family always only called him Mico.
18 Q. Thank you. And now, how about just briefly, because it's
19 relevant to the intercepts that we have, how about the nickname Zoka or
20 Zoko? Is that also a common nickname for various other first names?
22 A. As far as I know. I'm not an expert in onomastics. I don't
23 particularly deal in the names. "Zoka" is a new nickname. It could be
24 Zoka, or Zoki just like Miki.
25 Q. Let me move on to the next item, which is the 14th of July, 1995
1 the intercept, sir, at 2102 hours, which is 65 ter 1164, and we have it
2 marked in e-court at P1164C for the English version, B for the
3 manuscript. We'd like that one up, and then just so the Court knows,
4 there's the E, which is the typed version.
5 Professor, I'd like to ask you, you've obviously reviewed this;
6 I've read your analysis and report in connection with this intercept, but
7 can you tell me in a nutshell whether this intercept, sir, in your
8 professional opinion can be attributed to Ljubisa Beara?
9 A. In this alleged intercept there's very little linguistic data.
10 Some words may be linked with the name of Mr. Beara or are, indeed,
11 linked with him. According to the operator's words, he does not know the
12 code 155, which is quite odd for a high ranking officer not to be
13 familiar with the unit. Furthermore, in the manuscript or in the
14 handwritten version, we also have the admission of the operator that some
15 errors and omissions have been made and that the identity has been
16 mistaken. They subsequently added to the first letter B, the letter E,
17 which is easily checked. It can be checked very easily, and by doing
18 that they have denoted Beara, whereas it should have been the Badem
19 station. It says here very nicely that the person at the switchboard is
20 speaking, and they attributed these words to somebody else, and at the
21 end there is a remark added by the hand of the operator through a mistake
22 of the switchboard operator at Badem. We intercepted a conversation
23 between the person X and the other person Y, but we could not actually
24 hear that person while the conversation was being intercepted and while
25 the line was open for Jokic 44.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you, Professor, and looking at this, I know from
2 reading your report, and you correct me if I'm wrong, that the
3 linguistics corpus of this intercept was insufficient in order to
4 determine whether you can attribute that to Mr. Beara. I know you've
5 highlighted other problems with this intercept, and the Court has looked
6 at that.
7 I do have one other question in connection with this witness and
8 we have heard -- or this intercept. Now, yesterday I asked you, I
9 believe, at page 40 approximately regarding the word "phonology," and it
10 was certainly my mistake, and you told me that phonology was -- and help
11 me distinguish phonology from phonetics. There's obviously a
12 distinction, but help me understand phonology versus phonetics.
13 A. Phonetics is a science that deals with the physical acoustic
14 properties of sounds.
15 Q. And I know you told us yesterday that from reviewing the
16 statements from the various operators they were not required to record or
17 capture these conversations from a phonological standpoint, but now let
18 me ask you from a phonetic -- or phonetically speaking, do you remember
19 reading statements and testimony from these witnesses where they have
20 said that they phonetically were told to capture the conversations?
21 A. I don't remember that they had been told to register that. Those
22 people are foreigners to linguistic terminology. Linguistic terminology
23 is something foreign to them.
24 Q. Let me now -- and I know we have another intercept left with the
25 Court's indulgence.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: And Mr. President, I would be asking for additional
2 time given the recent or at least a month ago tendering of audio
3 recordings. I know we've mentioned the one that was in the Prosecution's
4 possession since the 11th of October, 2004. We just received that on the
5 18th of July, 2008. Also, we had a couple of other recordings that we
6 have shown to Professor Remetic that I'd like for him to comment on with
7 the Court's permission, and they just came up because of the filing on
8 the 18th of July -- not filing but discovery.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection on your part? We have already gone
10 beyond the time --
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, yes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- that you had requested quite considerably, I
13 would say. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have no material objection to it, but I would
15 like to point out that the interview a relatively short document, and I
16 think it was simply asked whether he would like to be interviewed and he
17 declined, and that's the extent of that audio material.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Oh, I guess that's basis for not producing it to us
19 under the rules, but I don't accept that. But let me move on in the next
20 few minutes, if I may. If we can 2D566, please.
21 Q. Professor, we looked at Ljubisa Beara as you interviewed him in
22 2008, and we saw some of his short interview, I guess, that the
23 Prosecution took in 2004. But I want to know if we saw a transcript with
24 Mr. Beara just identifying this one because I just don't have the time to
25 walk you through it all linguistically, but I will probably apply to have
1 you come back and look at these audio recordings. And if you look at
2 2D556, sir, I want you just to turn to the second page, and this is a
3 conversation that purports to have occurred on the 6th of June, 1995,
4 which is temporally closed if not within the parameters of the indictment
5 that's been filed, and this is a conversation that is among several
6 individuals including Ljubisa, or it says Ljubised Beara and Tolimir
7 Zdravka, but it's Zdravko, and I just want to look at the second page of
8 the B/C/S version there. And if you can look at the second line where
9 Mr. Tolimir uses the word "nereseno." Do you see that? Maybe if we
10 could enhance it or enlarge it that would help.
11 A. No, no, this is not necessary. I can see that.
12 Q. If you look right underneath that, it seems to have a word --
13 almost the same word purportedly utilized by Mr. Beara. Is that the same
14 word, or are those two different words, "nereseno" and "nerjeseno," with
15 the J? Do you see it immediately underneath that?
16 A. Yes, I can see it.
17 Q. Tell me what the difference is between the two words, the meaning
18 first, if any?
19 A. There's no difference in the meaning. There can't be any
20 meaning. This is just the way it is pronounced. The only difference is
21 in the way these two words are pronounced. There is no difference in the
22 meaning at all.
23 Q. And one person from a different region would be using it with a
24 certain dialect, and another person from a different region would be
25 using a different dialect, correct?
1 A. Yes, correct.
2 Q. I think I understand it, but let me stick with it for just
3 another minute or so. The one that's --
4 A. Yes, as that, yes.
5 Q. The one that's attributed to Mr. Tolimir, can you tell us by
6 looking at that word what -- strike that. Let's look at the one from
7 Mr. Beara having interviewed -- or having been with him in 2008,
8 listening to the audio of 2004 with the Prosecution. Now, looking at
9 this in 1995, can you discern from this, sir, as to what region or which
10 dialect Mr. Beara was speaking in 1995, June, approximately?
11 A. This is insufficient. This is too little to lead to an
12 unambiguous opinion.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And where it says "nerjeseno" here, I heard it as "nereseno,"
15 which is not surprising.
16 Q. And why is that, Professor?
17 A. Well, here where it says "nerejeseno" under Ljubisa Beara, J is
18 often lost after an R. It's very difficult to pronounce. The word
19 "vrjema," if pronounced as "vrjeme," by somebody, V-R-J-E-M-E, very often
20 this comes out as in true Ekavians, and that's something that we are
21 aware of.
22 Q. Let me show you another quick transcript, and it's 2D587, and I
23 -- sir, I know you haven't had ample time to review this, and I apologise
24 for that because we recently received it and we've been gone for awhile
25 here, but let -- I think you could help me with this. 2D587, and this,
1 again, just as we're looking at it, purports to be a conversation of the
2 13th of August, 1995, between a person by the name of Brke or Brko and
3 Ljubisa Beara, and what I'm going to do is just ask -- and I wanted you
4 to look at the front page so you could see the date on the top, and then
5 we'll ask if we can go to the second page of document, and they'll get
6 there. And if they can please enlarge the centre of the document. If
7 you could just scroll down a little.
8 Sorry. Just on the record, there was just a mistake. The prior
9 exhibit given, it's ERN number -- I mean, it's the P number, and that one
10 the transcript reflects a different number. The one that we had just
11 seen, not this one, was P -- 2D556. Just so the record is clear, and
12 this one that we are looking at now is 2D587.
13 And sir, sticking with this, I noticed in the middle of the page
14 there, if you look at the language that's being attributed to Mr. Beara
15 here, and it says -- there's -- in the middle of the page, "A Sta Se
16 Dogoja." Do you see that?
17 A. "A Sta Se Dogoja." With a J, yes.
18 Q. That would be consistent with which kind of dialect or from which
19 region, if you can help me with that?
20 A. Cakavian. This is a Split
21 Q. Okay. And let's just look at almost towards the end of that page
22 where it says "Dobro burazer." Do you see that? And if you could just
23 read that whole sentence, and I really want you to focus on the third
24 word from the end of that sentence, and then give me an opinion as to
25 whether that is Cakavian or from Split
2 A. You mean the sentence: "Very well, brother, I'll see about that.
3 Probably I won't be able to do it either tomorrow or the day after." Is
4 that what you mean? I suppose it's a literal word. This is a form found
5 in people speaking Ekavian. If it was spoken from a person from Zagreb
6 it would probably be the najviro jatne [phoen]. However, in the speech
7 practice you can hear it used in this form, and I suppose that this is
8 used by the Bosnian Ekavian speakers as well.
9 Q. One last exhibit, if I may, please, with 2D594, which is the
10 brief interview that the officer of the Prosecution conducted with
11 Mr. Beara without his lawyers on the 11th of October, 2004. And I know
12 it's brief, and I know what the limitations are for having a brief corpus
13 here, but I'd just like to -- and I know you looked at this briefly
14 without having adequate time to fully analyse it. I want to just
15 highlight a couple of the words that appear, and we pulled them out. If
16 you could look on the third page of that document, sir, and thankfully
17 this has the lines numbered, so we'd be able to follow one another quite
18 quickly. And in the B/C/S version, I'm going to direct you to the third
19 page, line 9. The word "razumem" means "understand," and Mr. Beara uses
20 the word here as transcribed and as heard on the tape audio recording
21 "razumim." Do you see that? Line 9, please. Oh, I'm sorry, on this
22 copy -- that's odd --
23 A. It says -- Yes, it says "razumim" in the 7th line. I apologize.
24 I beg your pardon. This is good. Yes, it's well written. Yes, okay.
25 Q. I'm not questioning that, just because I have it as line 9, so I
1 apologise to the Court. My copy has line 9, but we'll check as to why
2 there may be two different versions, so that's why -- I see that it's 7.
3 Now, looking down, is that consistent, is that use of that word
4 "razumim" as opposed to "razumem" or "razumijem," would that be
5 consistent with the dialect that you heard Mr. Beara in 2008 and that
6 we've seen, although briefly, from the use of the Split region and the
7 Cakavian dialect that Mr. Beara utilized both in 1995 and 2008?
8 A. I listened to the audio recording, albeit in a haste. There are
9 very few words here, very little linguistic material. The conversation
10 took place in a very formal atmosphere in rather official circumstances.
11 This was a statement provided to the OTP, and everybody who is in that
12 situation uses a very standard language. They are not relaxed, and this
13 form "razumim" is precisely something that reflects the way Mr. Beara
14 spoke in April, and I remind you that I encountered "razumijem" in
15 transcripts. I also encountered "razumem," but I never came across the
16 form that I heard from Beara and that I heard on this audio recording.
17 There is very little information, but in my view this is very important
18 proof for me that I did my job as I should have done it, to avoid any
19 false modesty. This is just a confirmation of that because I found this
20 type of speech in Beara's words in April, and I've not come across any
21 similar examples in the intercepted conversations that I perused.
22 Q. Let's look just quickly -- and thank you. Let's just quickly
23 look in the three minutes - and I'm grateful to the Court, I truly am for
24 giving me that additional time - three lines down on line 12, I think it
25 is, the word "lijepa" or "lijepa" as some would say. Do you see that?
1 Is that distinctive for any region or dialect that you could look of?
2 Lijepa, I think it's on line 12. Yeah.
3 A. Hvala lijepa and hvala lipa are both mostly connected with the
4 western variant of the former common language and currently Croatian
5 standard variant.
6 Q. I have one other topic that I just forgot to mention. I know
7 it's in your report, and it's related to the 13th of July, 1995
8 intercept at 1009, Professor, and we did rush through it a little bit.
9 You found -- and I apologise for leading on this. Did you find from the
10 transcripts of the intercepted conversations any evidence of a Dalmatian
11 speaking or someone with a Cakavian dialect such as that which we've seen
12 from Mr. Beara in 1995, June and August respectfully, such as that we've
13 seen in 2004 and 2008 respectfully, and I want to focus on the one word
14 that I think Madam Frease was talking about, and that's the word "Sjor"
15 on the July 13th, 1995
16 the B/C/S version and the same number designated for the English version
17 with the letter E as well as A. If the Court remembers there was two
18 English versions, and that's where the beginning states Beara is speaking
19 in the translation but not necessarily on the manuscript. So can you
20 tell us what the word "sjor" means?
21 A. This comes from the Italian word "Signor." In the coastal
22 dialects, this has become "sjor" or some such thing, so this would be a
23 typical example of Cakavian, which appears only once. The words like
24 "sjor," "gospon," "burazer" are commonly used as filler words in one's
25 speech, and it is indicative that "sjor" does not repeat anywhere else.
1 It doesn't appear in the conversations with Mr. Beara in April, either.
2 In my view, this is really odd.
3 Q. Just so we have it, why don't you spell it for us in the
4 transcript, although I could do it, I think. It's S-J-O-R with a
5 diacritic over the S, but I think that's accurate, and it's reflected in
6 the written form, as well, but I don't know if it was captured
7 immediately. Go ahead, Professor.
8 A. [No interpretation]
9 Q. Okay. Now, help me with this in the last minute we have. I'm
10 looking at the last page of your report in English, page 30, second to
11 the last paragraph. I just want to understand with respect to this word
12 "sjor" and the context. You state in your report - and I apologise if I
13 read it fast, but I'll try not to - "A comparison of the language of the
14 alleged intercepts and Mr. Beara's current manner of speech has brought
15 to the surface their diametric opposition. In the transcripts submitted
16 to us, there is literally not one trait of the Split variant of Cakavian
17 Ikavian, not one Cakavian morphological feature, while in the lexical
18 domain only "sjor," again the S with the diacritic J-O-R --
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, let us -- help find the passage.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. It's page 30 on the English version of his
21 report, second to the last paragraph.
22 JUDGE PROST: 31 in the English, page 31, second last --
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologize. I have what was filed with the filing
24 number on it, and I'm specifically looking at page 30, and it's the
25 second to the last, so I apologise for that.
1 JUDGE PROST: It is the second to the last. It's just the page
3 MR. OSTOJIC: It's the second to the last paragraph of the
4 report, whatever page that may be, I guess. Sorry.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead, and it's soon break time --
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, I --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and I hope that soon the end, also, of your
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Thank you. And if I may just inquire, have
10 we found it, Honourable Judge Kwon?
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. I apologise. Thank you.
13 Q. Sir, I'm just trying again, and I wanted to do this, and I tried
14 to do it in the beginning. You talk about not one trait or -- and I
15 think you explained, it the variant from the Cakavian Ikavian, not one
16 Cakavian morphological feature, and then while in the lexical domain only
17 "sjor" was registered. Is that where you found the word "sjor" on the
18 July 13th, 1995
19 that the one time you found it?
20 A. This is the only example, the only one.
21 Q. And this last question before we go on break: Did you find with
22 the exception of August 1st, 1995
23 is on your table at 1002 hours where you obviously placed a positive or
24 plus sign in the four categories, did you find from your review of the
25 intercept conversations that any of them can be attributed to Mr. Beara
1 based upon a reasonable degree of linguistics certainty?
2 A. I did not find any foundation to attribute anything to him, and
3 the closest possible example that may be linked to Mr. Beara's name is
4 the third version of the same conversation, which I believe took place on
5 the 15th of July at 10 o'clock
6 the same conversation, or rather, we have three different versions of the
7 same conversation which have been obtained in my opinion by the
8 subsequent interventions and harmonisations of the three texts which had
9 been recorded by three persons who probably hailed from different areas.
10 This conversation, or rather, this transcript, or rather, the
11 three transcripts took most of my time. I carried out a very detailed
12 comparison in order to be able to observe linguistic differences. At the
13 very beginning of the three transcripts, I noticed some discrepancies as
14 well as the time differences, which I could not account for in any other
15 way but this, which is also my final opinion: These were not three
16 different conversations but just one, and that one conversation has
17 appeared in three different versions, which have been polished
18 subsequently, and the third version would be the closest to the way Beara
19 speaks but not so close to allow me to attribute this version to him.
20 Q. Thank you, Professor.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, it's probably overdue.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's have the break now. Thank you. 25
24 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, thank you. Given the Court's
3 comments and your generosity in having me go further than the estimated
4 time, yeah, we'll stop here and we'll let the Prosecution ask or anyone
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let me now -- Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I have no question
8 for this witness. Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mrs. Nikolic.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We have no
11 questions for this witness.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic. Thank you, madame.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: No questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Madam Fauveau.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Merci. Mr. Krgovic or Mr. Josse?
17 MR. JOSSE: No question.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Sarapa?
19 MR. SARAPA: No questions for this witness.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. That throws the ball in your court, Mr.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to
23 you. Good morning to my friends.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Remetic.
1 A. Good morning, sir.
2 Q. My name is Kweku Vanderpuye. On behalf of the Prosecution, I
3 will put some questions to you in relation to your direct examination. I
4 just want to let you know if there's anything that I ask you that is
5 unclear or you don't understand, just let me know and I'll do my best to
6 rephrase it in a way that we can both better understand one another.
7 Now, you testified rather extensively concerning the development
8 of dialects in the former Yugoslavia
9 underpinnings as well as a contact between peoples and the exchange of
10 language between them as concerns the development and acquisition of the
11 dialects you are speaking about. But I want to focus you, if I may, on
12 more practical aspects of your report. I noticed in your report that you
13 referred to on page 17 certain terms that borrow from the romance
14 languages, and you indicate that that is typically present in the sea
15 coast areas where you've indicated Mr. Beara has spent a substantial
16 amount of time.
17 In particular, you say that words such as "sjor," "gospon,"
18 "burazer" and those types of terms occur frequently in everyday speech of
19 the people that use them, and you said that while this is lacking in the
20 transcripts you examined though you looked for them.
21 Now, if I could, one of the intercepts that you looked at was one
22 on July 13th at 1009, and if I could just have that up in e-court,
23 please. That's 65 ter 1130. The B/C/S is 1130B, and I think that would
24 be the best to look at just for now. All right.
25 Now, if I could page forward to ERN the page number ending 815.
1 Okay. And now, if you look at the words that are attributed to B
2 counting up from the bottom, if you count to the third line where there
3 is actually written words, you see the word "burazer." You see that on
4 your screen, Mr. Remetic?
5 A. Yes, I do. I do.
6 Q. If I could just page back now to page number 813. Actually
7 before we do that, just a moment. The phrase that is written there, if
8 you could just read that out so we are all clear that we are talking
9 about the same thing where you see it.
10 A. "Very well. Excellent. Now, listen to me, broth."
11 Q. Thank you. Now if we could go to page ending -- all right, it
12 will be page 6, I'm told, this intercept. That should be ERN ending 814.
13 All right. Just one more page back to 813, please. Thank you very much.
14 This would be the second line that is attributable to B. Do you
15 see the word "burazer" there, also, and if you could just read that into
16 the record.
17 A. "Excellent, broth. Super."
18 Q. Now, if I could just page back to ERN ending 810. Okay. I think
19 that's fine. Below the crossed-out part of the handwritten text, you see
20 a reference to the word "sjor," as in Sjor Lucic. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I do. "Hello, Sjor Lucic. How are you?"
22 Q. Okay. Now, all of those words appear in that one intercept.
23 That's correct, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If I could refer you to intercept 11 -- 65 ter 1178. 1178B, I
1 believe. Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you very much. Now, if you look
2 five lines from the bottom.
3 A. Yes, I can see it.
4 Q. All right. And you can see attributable to B in that
5 conversation a line that begins with "Tako." Do you see that?
6 A. That's it. "Listen, broth."
7 Q. And that's the same word that we just referred to on the previous
8 intercept on 13 July, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Just for the record the intercept I'm referring to is 15 July
11 1995, 0954 hours.
12 Now, Mr. Ostojic also introduced you to a number of other
13 intercepted communications. This one is 3603, 65 ter 3603. All right.
14 If we could just go to the second page, please. Just bear with me a
15 moment because I have a slightly different pagination. All right. Just
16 about the middle of the page on the page at the right, you can see what
17 is attributed to Mr. Beara as the words "Dobro burazer." Do you see
19 A. "Okay, broth. Mrki wants to speak to you."
20 Q. All right. If I could, I'd like to go to 65 ter 3607. Sorry,
21 for the record 3603 is an intercept dated 6/6/1995 between Tolimir and
22 Beara. 3607 is dated 05/12/1995
23 bear with me a moment so I can orient myself - if we could go to ERN
24 7107, please, that page number. Okay. If you look from the sixth line
25 from the bottom of the page on the right, you see what's attributed to
1 Mr. Beara beginning with the words "Nemam buraz." You see that?
2 A. "I don't have it, broth. Let's just -- the only way is through
3 the administration." But just a moment, I think that in the audio, you
4 can hear "burazer." Please, can you tell me the date of this recording?
5 Can you give me the time and the date?
6 Q. I can certainly give you the date, which I think I've indicated
7 as 5th December 1995. The time, I don't have for you at the moment, but
8 I will get it for you if you need it. In the interim let me turn to --
9 first let me confirm with you that the word --
10 A. Yes, sir, the audio recording says "burazer." That's a mistake
11 in the printed version, and there's an abundance of errors in the printed
12 versions, and the word in this one is "burazer."
13 Q. Okay. Is that substantively distinctive from a linguistic
14 perspective from the other times you've seen the word in the other
16 A. What do you mean? "Buraz" and "burazer"? Is that what you are
17 referring to? If you allow me to say that "sjor" and "burazer" do not
18 have identical meanings. Sjor is indeed a marked Cakavian version. One
19 can only encounter it in the coastal area, and it's a Romanic word,
20 whereas "burazer" is of the Turkish origin and is used throughout the
21 entire Serbian linguistic area.
22 Five days ago I had a call from my brother, and he asked me, and
23 I quote, "burazer, or broth, when are you coming back?" The secretary of
24 the Serbian Academy
25 years that he spent in this post addressed me hundreds of times with the
1 words such as "burazer," among others. It has been used if one wants to
2 emphasize something and most commonly if one wants to put forward a
3 different opinion, such as, this is not like that, broth, or my broth,
4 you can hear it in the films, in the TV series produced by the Belgrade
5 television. Anyway, the word "burazer" can be checked in the Serbian
6 dictionaries. The shortened version, "buraz," is more common in the
7 west, notably in Bosnia
8 not a marked word.
9 Q. Well, Mr. Remetic, I put these questions to you because in your
10 report, you wrote that you considered the absence of the words "sjor,"
11 "gospon," and "burazer" in the intercepts that you examined. Now you're
12 telling me, apparently, that the word "burazer" has absolutely no
13 linguistic significance. So my question to you is, Why is that something
14 that you paid attention to in your report?
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I object to the form of the question. I think it
16 mischaracterizes his report, and I think the professor as he's tried to
17 explain it, but it certainly mischaracterizes it as the question has been
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can read what's in the report into the record
21 if that will help my colleague a little bit.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, and Ms. Fauveau.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Well, precisely, I wanted to have
24 the reference for this, please.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I think I referred to it initially when I
1 began the examination, but I'll refer to it again. It's at page 17 of
2 the report. It's in the second paragraph of the English version of the
3 report, and it reads as follows: "The noun "sjor," represents a typical
4 borrowing from the romance languages that has taken root mainly in
5 coastal areas and suggest someone who has lived on the sea coast for
6 awhile. However, in the corpus of 18 transcripts, it occurs only once.
7 This is quite symptomatic considering that words such as "sjor,"
8 "gospon," "burazer," and the like occur frequently in the every day
9 speech of people who use them, while this is lacking in the transcripts I
11 I put it to you, sir, that the transcripts that you examined
12 actually do contain the word "burazer" as you have written it in your
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry to interrupt, honestly, but I think he is
16 mischaracterizing and misunderstand --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: How can he mischaracterize -- how can he
18 mischaracterise if he's been reading?
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, because -- look at his question, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop, Mr. -- stop. Please answer the
21 question, Professor.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, this refers only to the word
23 "sjor," which is supposed to be heard quite often because it's a custom
24 that this type of word such as "sjor," "gospon," and "burazer" means that
25 "burazer" is being used unlike "sjor," and that's why I said it wasn't
1 enough. It is said previously that the Turkish originated word "burazer"
2 or its abbreviated version "buraz" is not territorially restricted or
3 limited, although it occurs more often in the western area, therefore
4 including Bosnia
5 and in direct communications, the word "burazer" can also be heard in
8 MR. VANDERPUYE:
9 Q. Are you taking issue, sir, with the fact that Mr. Beara uses the
10 term "burazer" rather frequently? Are you taking some contrary position?
11 A. I'm not denying that he used to use it, just as I'm not denying
12 that I or my relatives or my friends are using it. My brother whenever
13 he calls me, he says "bro" or "broth," but sir, the word "sjor" does not
14 appear, and that's an indicative word that can serve as a repetitive
15 indicator, but it doesn't appear.
16 Q. All right. Did you consider the use of the word "burazer" in the
17 intercepts that you examined in the context of determining whether or not
18 the speaker was Mr. Beara, or did you disregard it?
19 A. Sir, I took everything into consideration; however, everything
20 was not -- was very little. It was a limited corpus. I said that
21 several times. It was limited in terms of quantity. From the linguistic
22 point of view, it's so one-sided and thin. We see short orders, short
23 questions, short answers without any context. I look at it as a whole.
24 I found the word "buraz" more appropriate for the western area. In
1 took it as one of the elements, and I weighed the facts that either speak
2 against or for it; that is, for the assumption that we are talking about
3 Mr. Beara. I wrote in my report that I performed my job by looking for
4 the elements, the proof, the foundation for establishing the link between
5 the transcript and Mr. Beara.
6 Q. I understand that, but my question was a yes-or-no question. Did
7 you consider that term or the frequency of that term in terms of
8 determining whether or not Mr. Beara was the speaker on the intercept?
9 A. Yes, I recognised it as a fact, but I repeat again that the most
10 important thing for me was the situation referring to the long "jat,"
11 where you can clearly discern variants.
12 Q. All right. So you gave it a different degree of weight in terms
13 of identifying the speaker. That's fair to say, is it?
14 A. What do you mean by giving it -- in my view whether he said
15 "podijeliti" or "podjelit" has more weight than whether he used the word
16 "burazer" because "burazer" is not marked in terms of variants and
17 territory, whereas the other one is. If the word "sjor" occurred as many
18 times as did the word "burazer," then it would have had a proper weight.
19 Q. All right. Thank you for that. Now, you're a linguist. Are you
20 familiar with the term --
21 A. [In English] Yes.
22 Q. You're familiar with the term an idiodialect, right? Are you
23 familiar with that term, sir?
24 A. [Interpretation] Well, yes.
25 Q. Well, if you would, tell us what that is.
1 A. An idiodialect is, let's say, a personal linguistic expression of
2 an individual that is being formed over a period of time. It is
3 recognisable and it identifies this particular person. It's a linguistic
4 system used by an individual.
5 Q. That's right. It can also incorporate patterns of speech, can't
6 it, Mr. Remetic?
7 A. Yes, yes, of course.
8 Q. I'm an English-speaking person, and I use the word "man" quite
9 frequently in my speech. That is a pattern of my speech that is
10 identifiable. Did you, sir, consider Mr. Beara's pattern of speech
11 independently of his dialect in terms of determining who was speaking on
12 the intercepts?
13 A. I was in the company of Mr. Beara for seven or eight hours
14 listening to him speaking. I myself took part in the conversations, and
15 all I can say is that I found it very impressive that he was so calm and
16 composed. I noticed that he is using the colloquial Split dialect that
17 the input of a standard language came from the Croatian standard
18 language; however, there was not enough time for me to notice these
19 phrases, these patterns, as you say, "hey, man," "listen, man," as you
20 say is used in English, or "burazer." I did not observe any frequency of
21 usage because there was not enough time. There was not enough
22 possibility. Had we had an opportunity to talk alone in a relaxed
23 manner, I may have found it out, but it was sufficient for me to see that
24 I had in front of me a person who speaks Cakavian dialect and the person
25 who comes from Split
1 Q. All right. Well, the reason I ask you this, I just want to make
2 sure we are talking about the same thing. When you say that you didn't
3 have a chance to observe this, you are talking about during the course of
4 your 7- or 8-hour interview with Mr. Beara back in April. Is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What I'm talking about is whether or not you made any
7 observations with respect to that as concerns the intercepts that are
8 attributed to Mr. Beara. In other words, is there a commonality in the
9 idiodialect found in the intercepts that are attributed to Mr. Beara
10 separately and apart from a dialectological analysis of those intercepts?
11 A. As you can see from the analysis, and the OTP themselves arrived
12 at that conclusion, if I'm not mistaken, a certain percentage of these
13 transcripts have not been linked to Beara. Furthermore, some of them are
14 so brief and fragmented that they do not constitute a corpus, and it is
15 inappropriate to make any serious linguistic judgement on them. And
16 also, what has been said is that these transcripts do not correspond to
17 one another in linguistic terms. It has been said quite clearly and
18 precisely that in places there is an incongruous between the transcripts
19 and the typed versions. I would like to remind you that on the 1st of
20 August, the talks or the conversations held in the morning and in the
21 afternoon is something that -- which I described as a mixture. A person
22 without a conscientious effort cannot do that. I as a dialectologist can
23 say the same thing in different dialects, but I'm nearly at the end of my
24 career. Secondly, about the report and the 15th of July, I mentioned the
25 dilemma, whether there was one transcript or three transcripts. This is
1 what I described as "leopard skin". What can one discern as a
2 specificity in a leopard skin if there are such huge differences?
3 In a nutshell, the transcripts do not contain enough consistent
4 and uniformed text in order to demonstrate a possible specific feature of
5 the speaker or possible specific traits. I would like to remind you that
6 all the words that are linked to Mr. Beara according to the operative
7 workers, when I type them into the computer, what came up was 2 and a
8 half pages of text; nearly half of it can be discarded as minor details,
9 meaningless words, and in the remaining part you have different things.
10 You don't have consistency.
11 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Remetic.
12 What I'd like to know and what I think I was trying to get at
13 was, as you see, as I pointed out to you, the word "burazer," or "buraz"
14 shows up in a number of intercepts apparently attributable to Mr. Beara.
15 It shows up in 65 ter 3607. That's the one of December 5th, 1995. It
16 shows up on one, two, three occasions in that intercept. It shows up on
17 the one dated 6/6/1995
18 bear with me one moment, please - dated 13th August, 1995, one, two --
19 two occasions. It shows up in another intercept. I'm sorry. That was
20 65 ter 3627 for the record. It shows up in 65 ter 3626, as well, on one,
21 two, three, four occasions. And it shows up in the intercept dated 15
22 July 1995, as I went through with you, on one occasion. It shows up on
23 the intercept dated 13 July 1995
24 you, and the 65 ter number for that intercept is 1130. In addition to
25 that, I wondered if you noticed or paid attention to whether or not
1 Mr. Beara was prone to use, I don't know, foreign words in his language,
2 in his particular means of speaking. And what I'd like to do is draw
3 your attention, if I could, to the August 1st, 1995, intercept, which is
4 65 ter 1380. Yes, that intercept is at 2245 hours. There are a couple
5 of words I'd just like to draw your attention to on that intercept. If I
6 could have the -- okay. Great.
7 Now, if I could just go to the second page of the B/C/S. All
8 right. It's the last paragraph of that intercept. It ends with the
9 words -- it looks like "ceka dalje." Do you see that? It's on the
10 right-hand side of the screen in front of you. It's in the middle of the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, in that sentence, that is the line immediately above that --
14 A. Actually, I can't see it. Where is that? "Ceka dalje."
15 THE INTERPRETER: [French spoken] [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Now we get to do French.
17 THE INTERPRETER: [French spoken] [No interpretation]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I don't know if I'm the only one
19 receiving the interpretation in French. Okay. All right. So there is
20 something to be rectified. You can continue, Professor, in the meantime.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE:
22 Q. Let me just, if I could, orient you to where -- what I'm talking
23 about. Do you see the words "burazer," and there's a number 999 in the
24 middle of the page on the right? All right. It's the paragraph
25 immediately preceding that starts with looks like --
1 A. Yes, I can see that.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Do you see that? If we
3 could just --
4 A. I can't see -- "ijerko ova [phoen]." I can't see that. "Hello,
5 I'm here." "Hello, I'm here."
6 Q. Okay. It's above that. It's --
7 A. "I've just called the boss" -- oh right. Yes, I can see that.
8 Oh, this person from Uzice says, and so on and so forth.
9 Q. Okay. And in that paragraph, you see the word -- the words -- it
10 says "drugi" and then is says "befel [phoen]."
11 A. Drugi befel? Yes. Close and wait, yes, I can see that.
12 Q. Do you know what the word "befel" means?
13 A. An order. An order.
14 Q. That's of German origin, isn't it?
15 A. Befel, befel. I don't know.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. Possible.
18 Q. How about the word "muchachos?" Are you familiar with that term?
19 A. Los muchachos. I'm not familiar with the word.
20 Q. Okay. How about the word --
21 A. Well, I apologise. You asked me about the word "burazer," did
22 you not? If I may, you have put quite a number of questions. Let's deal
23 with the word "burazer" first, if I may. "Burazer" -- based on the word
24 "burazer," which appears quite often, I could not link any of the
25 transcripts to Ljubisa Beara because every Ljubo in the army could use
1 the word "burazer" just like my brother does because it's widely used
2 across the country, and that's where the problem arises from.
3 Q. That's fine. What I'm asking you about in particular is whether
4 you considered whether or not Mr. Beara had a tendency to use foreign
5 words, words that are outside his normal dialect or influence from
6 foreign origins in his speech, in his speech, he particularly as opposed
7 to he from the Cakavian, Ekavian group of people, speaking people.
8 That's what I'm asking you.
9 A. I didn't notice that he would do that more commonly than other
10 people that I normally communicate with, and if you allow me, I can
11 illustrate this by saying that you will hear in the conversations, this
12 is how it is and "schluss." Even people who don't speak German will use
13 this German word, "schluss" or "schloss," and "schluss" in this case is
14 just a confirmation that people will use foreign words. Languages have
15 no boundaries. We are all exposed to foreign influences from radio, TV,
16 and all of our expressions are full of foreign words. I have not noticed
17 Ljubisa Beara being any different from either me or anybody else, for
18 that matter.
19 Q. Maybe I'm not phrasing this as clearly as I would hope. When you
20 examined the text of the intercepts you analysed, did you consider the
21 fact that that text contained language attributed to Mr. Beara which had
22 in it foreign words in order to determine whether or not it was likely --
23 it likely originated from Mr. Beara? That's all I'm asking, is whether
24 you considered, and if you didn't, then the answer is no; and if you did,
25 then the answer is yes.
1 A. I looked at dialects, and "sjor" appeared once and never again.
2 As for the word "burazer," I've already said that it is not marked. As
3 for the rest, I did not pay particular attention to foreign expressions
4 or words that are not so common in the transcripts. They are rather few
5 and far between, I would say.
6 Q. It's those rather few and far between transcripts that are at all
7 attributable to Mr. Beara; isn't that the case?
8 A. Sir, in my view, only one with -- a huge, big reservation, in my
9 view. If anybody has firm arguments to prove that they indeed may be
10 attributed to Beara, I would be curious to see those. The 1st of August,
11 the conversation in the morning, is most congruent with what Ljubisa
12 Beara is today.
13 Q. All right. Well, then my question is, when you saw the word
14 befel in the 1st August, 1995, intercept at 2245, 65 ter 1380, did you
15 consider it in light of having later seen 65 ter 3626 in which the term
16 "Los Muchachos" is used allegedly attributed to Mr. Beara? Did you
17 consider -- and did you consider that in terms of 65 ter 3627 where the
18 term "professional" is attributed to Mr. Beara, or did you not?
19 A. Sir, there's a Serbian proverb which says, One swallow does not
20 spring make. Just one example extracted from a whole is too little to
21 lead to any major conclusions, and as for befel, you will hear that in
22 conversations with people who will say, what's up, did the little wife
23 send you a befel, meaning that did your wife order you to do something,
24 implying that women give orders to their husband. I would say this word
25 is not marked; it's not indicative; it's not enough to seriously identify
1 a person. Judgements on -- made at least in my profession based on
2 facts. The more facts there are, the more reliable the judgement is; and
3 another thing, the problem are counter-arguments, those that eliminate
4 rather than confirm.
5 Q. I appreciate that, and I thank you for your answer, but it is
6 interesting that you reference this proverb, which is one swallow does
7 not spring make, and that's one example extracted from a whole is too
8 little to lead to any major conclusions because what you did in this case
10 A. Yes, yes, one swallow. That's what I said. One swallow, yes.
11 Q. What did you in this case in your report is you analysed no more
12 than nine intercepts that alleged that Mr. Beara is speaking over a
13 period of about a month. That's what covers the intercept range of the
14 ones you examined, and you concluded based upon what amounts to no more
15 than 2 and a half pages, half of which you said you could discard, that
16 you could exclude Mr. Beara as the speaker in several intercepts, this
17 based upon a 7- or 9-hour initial interview with Mr. Beara, but I'll get
18 to the specifics of that in a moment.
19 A. I have looked at all the transcripts, and in some there are no
20 linguistic facts at all. I did not force any exclusive judgements. My
21 judgements would say that there's nothing to link the transcript to
22 Mr. Beara, especially in the context of his -- today's utterance, the way
23 he speaks today.
24 Q. All right. I just want to, if I could, go to the appendix of
25 your report. 2D551. I think we have it there on the right. It might be
1 useful to have the English version in here as well. Okay. All right.
2 Now, the first thing I wanted to point out was the code that you
3 used, and you can see on the right-hand side of your screen. I think it
4 may be on the second page of the English, but in any event, you did
5 describe that somewhat on direct, so I don't want to belabour the issue.
6 Zero indicates that there's insufficient data, and I take it that you
7 mean that there's insufficient data to draw any conclusion with respect
8 to the categories that you've indicated above, which is -- which are,
9 Participant revealed himself or was revealed as Beara; does the dialect
10 clearly reveal the speaker's origin; is the dialect strongly tied to a
11 certain area; and lastly, is the speaker's dialect close to Ljubisa
12 Beara's current manner of speech? When you say zero with respect to
13 those categories, it means you don't have sufficient information to draw
14 a conclusion one way or another, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. When you indicate with a negative, well, it's
17 obvious. You mean that those criteria are not fulfilled?
18 A. [Overlapping speakers]
19 Q. Okay. And a positive the contrary, that the category is
20 fulfilled, has been met, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. So where you've indicated zero, that does not exclude
23 Mr. Beara as a potential participant in the conversation that you are
24 examining, does it?
25 A. Those are usually conversations where there's no text, no words
1 at all, where he is in one way or another indirectly implied.
2 Q. My question has to do with whether or not your analysis -- well,
3 whether or not the indication of zero is an exclusive or inclusive
4 designation or a neutral designation?
5 A. This certainly does not include Mr. Beara because there's no
6 data. There are no elements that would include him.
7 Q. So among the intercepts that you examined, intercept at -- on
8 July 13th, 1919
9 doesn't mention Beara at all; and therefore, you indicate that it has
10 apparently no linguistic value, or you are unable to ascertain any
11 linguistic value from that intercept. That's a better statement, isn't
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. With respect to intercept 13 July, 1945, that is 65 ter
15 1148, same conclusion, you can't extrapolate from that intercept any
16 useful information with respect to Mr. Beara; and in fact, there's a
17 reference to Mr. Beara in that intercept but not as the speaker, right?
18 There's a reference to Ljubisa, I should say, to be accurate, but not as
19 the speaker, right?
20 A. He is mentioned, but I believe that the OTP says Mr. Ljubisa
21 Borovcanin here. So if I'm not mistaken, according to the OTP this is a
22 different Ljubisa rather than Ljubisa Beara.
23 Q. I accept that, Mr. Remetic, but I would assume that you when you
24 conducted your analysis of these intercepts, you used your independent
25 judgment to determine what was what and not what the OTP represented or
1 what the Defence counsel represented, I assume?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may object to the form of the question, and
5 it's mischaracterisation. I think the professor in his report clearly
6 indicates that he utilized the Prosecution's understanding or
7 interpretation of some of these intercepts, but nowhere does -- or
8 nowhere did we give our interpretation of these intercepts at any time to
9 the professor, so it certainly mischaracterises it. But in his report he
10 isolates which exactly work he performed, and that included looking at
11 what the Prosecution's position was.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I mea, he's just querying for a confirmation,
13 asking a confirmation from the witness that he used an independent
14 judgement. That's how I understand it. I mean -- Judge Kwon? Yeah.
15 Let's move. Let's move.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE:
18 Q. With respect to July 13th or 13 July intercept at 2305 at 65 ter
19 1153, for the record: Now, in that case there's a reference to Ljubo
20 but, he cannot be heard, and that provided you with no useful linguistic
21 information, right?
22 A. For a linguist, yes, there was no work for me there. This
23 allegedly is a monologue by General Mladic, which was out of my scope of
25 Q. All right. With respect to the 15th July intercept at 0952, this
1 is 65 ter 1177 for the record, and that is an entry indicating that Beara
2 is looking for General Zivanovic, and you derive no linguistic value from
3 that intercept either, right?
4 A. Yes. The operator says what he says, and I analyse what is
5 denoted by B, Beara, colonel or whatever the code name may be, and
6 there's none of that here.
7 Q. All right. 16 July at 2233 hours. That one you've indicated all
8 zeros for all four categories. It's 65 ter 1204, and similarly you
9 derive no linguistic value from that intercept?
10 A. No.
11 Q. All right. 23rd July at 805 - July '95 for the record - 805, and
12 65 ter 1310. There's a mention of a Ljubo in there but not as a speaker.
13 So that was of no linguistic value to you as well, right? I'm sorry.
14 You have to answer for the record.
15 A. Yes, that's right. Yes, yes, yes. It's empty. There's nothing
17 Q. 2nd August, 13 00
18 intercept that mentions Beara but not as the speaker.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That was no linguistic value to you, and you issued -- and you
21 indicated that by placing zeros in all four relevant categories, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There's 16 July at 1111 hours. That's 65 ter 1187, and you've
24 indicated that although there is an indication that Mr. Beara identifies
25 himself as Beara, there's otherwise insufficient linguistic information
1 for your analysis, so you put a plus where it says "participant revealed
2 himself or was revealed as Beara" and zeros for the remaining three
3 categories, right?
4 A. 16 July, 1111
5 Q. All right. And on the 25th of July, 1995, 0709. That's 65 ter
6 1328 [Realtime transcript read in error, "1028] for the record. You have
7 indicated a negative for "participant revealed himself or was revealed as
8 Beara," and you've indicated zeros for the remaining categories. In
9 fact, in that intercept somebody is identified as Ljubo, but that was of
10 no linguistic value to you; is that right?
11 A. Well, no. No. Very little.
12 Q. So what we're talking about here in terms of the relevant
13 intercepts for your analysis or the intercepts you say you were able to
14 analyse are 13 July at 1009; 15 July at 0954, 0955, 0957, 10 a.m.; on 1
15 August at 2245, 2308; and on 2nd August, 1957.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, I think also the 1st
17 of August at 1002, which we covered, but it doesn't seem to have made it
18 in the record.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. That's correct. 1002 is the one intercept in which you say you
21 were able to positively link to Mr. Beara.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: That's mischaracterization, but we'll let the
23 record stand as it is.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
25 Q. So we're talking about eight intercepts where you say there's not
1 sufficient information to attribute -- well, let me rephrase that. This
2 negative answer that you gave, so those intercepts cannot be attributed
3 to Mr. Beara as per your analysis. Eight, right?
4 A. Yes. I attributed one with a reservation. I allow for this for
5 a possibility. As for the others, that was not the case.
6 Q. All right.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vanderpuye, just for the record, previous page,
8 page 52, line 25: Is that number correct?
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm just trying to
10 catch up with you.
11 JUDGE KWON: 65 ter number of the intercept of 25th of July,
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, it should be 1328. I'm sorry if I misspoke.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE:
16 Q. All right. You've indicated that - I believe you indicated, and
17 you correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't review any testimony of the
18 intercept operators that were involved in these particular intercepts
19 that you analysed; is that true?
20 A. I did read the operator's statements. I said yesterday that some
21 of them come from my municipality from the region where I come from. I
22 read them very carefully, and I realized what difficulties they had in
23 their work. And I said yesterday that in a certain manner, these
24 operators and I are colleagues. I recorded at least 1.000 hours of
25 conversations and listened to at least 2.000 hours of conversations of
1 the recorded material. I also read Nijo's [phoen] critic and his opinion
2 on how these operators worked and under what conditions they worked, and
3 we agreed to a large extent.
4 Q. All right. I understand that. What I'm trying to do is I just
5 want to clarify for the record what it is that you looked at and what it
6 is that you didn't look at. So I want to distinguish for you between
7 statements and the testimony, and my question is to you, is did you
8 review the testimony in addition to the statements, or did you review
9 only the statements of these operators?
10 A. I think that I had their statements in my hand in which they say
11 that they were aware of the possibility of being called to testify before
12 the Court. One of them was asked if he remembered the conversation and
13 the transcript, and I think that one that is linked to Mr. Beara and
14 Konjevic Polje, and he said that the handwriting resembled his but that
15 another operator – (redacted)
16 (redacted). He couldn't exactly recall who took part in the
17 conversation. The only thing he could remember was that they had
18 problems with a tank at the time.
19 Q. If I could just interrupt you for one second, please.
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, could we go into private session
22 one second, please? If we could go into private session for one second,
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.
25 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. All right. Just so that -- rather than belabour this issue, just
22 -- the documents that you were provided that you looked at are listed in
23 your report. That's fair, right? That's in section 5 of the material.
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. Just so that you are aware, it doesn't actually list any
2 testimony in here, so just so you know that. Now, you said earlier, I
3 think that was yesterday --
4 A. Then it's a mistake, then. No, sir, so this means these are
5 their statements. Okay, they are statements, not testimonies, so we have
6 here a terminological error, and I do beg your pardon.
7 Q. No problem with that, Mr. Remetic. No problem at all. You
8 mentioned yesterday, and that was yesterday's transcript at page 11,
9 lines 15 through 20, I don't know if it's been updated and changed, but
10 you said that "The degree of reliability in determining the identity is
11 directly proportional to the quantity of linguistic facts and the core of
12 facts available to the expert who wishes to determine the identity in
13 question. The more, the wealthier the core of linguistic facts, the
14 higher the chances of success." And then it says, "Viscosity of
15 linguistic fact ..." and it appears that there was something in the
16 transcript that didn't make it, that wasn't transcribed, "... makes the
17 call more difficult."
18 As you said, the corpus of the material that you considered for
19 analysis amounted to no more than 2 and a half pages; that's true, is it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You said that half of that material was completely useless and
22 could be discarded, I think is the term you used; that's right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That leaves us with about a page and a quarter of useful
1 A. Roughly speaking. I didn't measure it precisely with a
2 calculator. What is relevant is relative, but in absolute terms it's a
3 very poor material. Never in my life had I had to work with a poorer
5 Q. Well, then, it's fair to say that the poorer the material, the
6 less reliable the conclusions, isn't it?
7 A. They are difficult to reach, the conclusions, I mean. Scientists
8 are reluctant to make conclusions based on few facts.
9 Q. All right. Well, scientists are also reluctant to make
10 conclusions based upon facts that they cannot quantify and measure;
11 that's true too, isn't it?
12 A. Caution is a good ally. Caution is a good partner in one's job.
13 Of course they are reluctant. We are talking about percentages, about
14 the degree of probability. We are talking about nuances. You know,
15 science is not a dogma; linguistics cannot be classified as a yes or no
16 science. You can't measure it in kilograms. You have to assess the
17 probabilities and the possibilities, and one tends to choose the one
18 which seems to him to be the most credible and the most sustainable one.
19 Q. All right. Well, I'm glad that you mentioned the word "science"
20 because I wanted to ask you about that too. When you make a
21 determination as you did in this case that a given intercept is
22 incompatible with the manner of speech of Mr. Beara in April of this
23 year, when you make that kind of a determination, what is the probability
24 of error with respect to that conclusion? How is that measured in
1 A. If one were to make a judgement on how the language of the
2 transcripts and the expressions linked to the name of Mr. Beara stand
3 within the context of the present speech or the one heard on the 7th or
4 the 8th of April, my profession would demand that all these transcripts
5 be rejected a priori, in advance. I said yesterday what approach I took
6 to this task. I'm not sure whether it's a good and proper approach. I
7 was seeking a possibility for establishing a definite link to Mr. Beara -
8 I also said yesterday and I reiterate it again today - in free
9 communications in a more informal and relaxed conversation in a
10 colloquial Split-based Cakavian dialect. Whenever there are any inputs
11 of standard language, that's the Zagreb-based standard Croatian, and I
12 allowed for this possibility in the transcript as well. A person using a
13 dialect, and especially a high-ranking officer, most commonly will use
14 standard language, and this is what has been said, that this transcripts
15 were made in a relatively good standard language, and I suppose that
16 Beara spoke in the Zagreb-Croatian language. In the 1st of August
17 transcript is the place where I found the most elements to establish this
18 link. I never said that this is the only thing and absolute thing. This
19 is not a dogma. There are no absolute truths or very few absolute
20 truths, but I say that I found it more plausible that the factors that
21 it's his outweighed the others. So when Beara is using the dialect and
22 the standard language, I took this option into the consideration, as
23 well; and therefore, I allowed for the possibility that it was him
24 speaking there. Unfortunately, there is no transcript written by the
25 hand of the operator concerned.
1 Q. Well -- all right. Thank you for that. What it sounds to me
2 like you are saying is that you did the best you could under the
3 circumstances you were presented with. Is that fair to say?
4 A. Precisely so, sir, and I spent a lot of time doing this job. It
5 was a difficult one, an unusual one, and I did my best on the basis of
6 the available facts.
7 Q. It also sounds to me like you have some reservations as to
8 whether or not the approach you took was good and proper within the
9 scientific domain of linguistics, which is why you say that if it were
10 considered that -- in those terms, these transcripts wouldn't even be
11 considered, right?
12 A. You see -- excuse me, I'm not quite sure I understand your
13 question completely.
14 Q. All right. Let me ask it is different way. When you said I'm
15 not sure that this approach is good, did you mean that you are not sure
16 that the techniques that you used because you had to in these
17 circumstances are acceptable for a linguist from a scientific point of
18 view? Is that what you meant?
19 A. No, I meant something else. I almost took the same position as
20 you did towards this material. I was looking for something on the basis
21 of which I can link the transcript to Mr. Beara, so I analyse every
22 single word, whether "sjor" was enough. It wasn't enough. It wasn't
23 mentioned enough. Is "burazer" enough? No, it was not because it was
24 being used throughout the whole area. The infinitive was not also
25 sufficient because it was counterposed by some other form. You see that
1 every little detail was analysed, and then on the whole if arguments A
2 and B -- and I repeat, that was a poor corpus of material.
3 Q. All right. I think this is a good time to break with the Court's
4 permission if I'm right about the time.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 25-minute break.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: How much longer do you have? Do you think you will
8 finish with this witness today?
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Possibly.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not pushing you. I mean, I'm just querying to
11 see whether we should keep the next witness here or not. I mean, that's
12 the reason why I put the question.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think that's a fair question. I think I'll be
14 an hour with him yet.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't have an hour. We have three-quarters of
16 an hour when we resume.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Well, I think I've answered your
18 question. I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and I take it you have a re-examination.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, Mr. President, 15 to 20 minutes, but if we
21 can release the witness, maybe, because I think -- okay. Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly, this is why I put the question, I mean,
23 not to push either of you. Madam Registrar, if you could kindly arrange
24 with the Victims and Witnesses -- okay. Thank you. And explain to her,
25 explain to her what happened. All right. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you
5 and Your Honours. I want to apologise for --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Go, go.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
8 Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. Remetic.
9 Okay. Last off -- last we left off - I'm sorry - I was asking
10 you about the science aspect of the analysis that you performed in
11 relation to these intercepts. Now, one thing I do want to ask you is, in
12 your analysis of these intercepts, with respect to the possibility of
13 identifying Mr. Beara, did you look specifically at elements of language
14 for the purpose of including Mr. Beara as a possible source of the text,
15 conversation, or did you look at elements of language for the purpose of
16 excluding Mr. Beara?
17 A. I believe that I said before the break, or I was about to say,
18 that basically I was seeking such features that could potentially
19 identify Mr. Beara; that means linguistic facts that carry weight of a
20 reliable proof that there was sufficient quantity of these facts and that
21 they are of a differential type. In other words, that they can be linked
22 to a specific area, a specific variant, and a specific dialect region.
23 Only in the alleged conversation of the 1st August for which we do not
24 have a manuscript, regrettably, I would have preferred to have one, I
25 allowed for a higher degree of possibility that it was uttered by
1 Mr. Beara. I say Beara in the context of the standard language of the
2 region in which he served for 20 years and which he adopted as his own
3 dialect. He adopted the Split
4 standard language, as I said many times before, it was the common variant
5 of the Croatian language, which is nowadays the standard Croatian
7 Q. Okay. Now, I think in your direct testimony you refer to the
8 specific discipline of linguistics that you are involved in as
9 dialectological linguistics; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you are aware, of course, that there are other fields of
12 linguistics or subdisciplines of linguistics that are applicable to a
13 forensic analysis such as the one that you've undertaken with respect to
14 these intercepts?
15 A. Yes, but it was not possible to make a proper phonetic analysis.
16 A proper phonetic analysis requires a high quality audio recording or a
17 professional dialectologist noting down somebody's speech in his
18 notebook. The best Serbian study on the Serbian dialectology was
19 published in 1905.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. And that was the time when audio recordings were not available
22 but good professionals and scholars took notes.
23 Q. All right. So a phonetic linguistic analysis is not possible
24 based upon the material that you had at your disposal, right?
25 A. An accurate one. You don't have the timbre of the voice; you
1 don't have the timbre of the consonants; you don't have the accents; you
2 don't have the prosodia; and these are all the basis on one immediately
3 recognised the origin of a person who is talking. The accent is
4 revealing; it cannot be concealed, especially some of its traits.
5 Q. I think you've indicated in your report that you yourself would
6 able to identify Mr. Beara's voice if you heard it on a tape; is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, in addition to a phonetic linguistic analysis, you could
10 also regard this material from the point of view of a sociolinguistic;
11 isn't that true?
12 A. Well, to a certain extent. Sociolinguistics can provide that,
13 and that was taken into consideration. The influence of the
14 environments, the influence of the professional environment is there.
15 Q. That also has to do with the acquisition of a particular dialect,
16 right, the circumstances under which a person might use a secondary
17 dialect if they have one, right?
18 A. Of course, yes.
19 Q. All of the influences that go into determining whether or not a
20 person speaks with one dialect as opposed to another; is that true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that's a phenomenon known in co -- known in sociolinguistics
23 is code-shifting, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you took that information into consideration, of course, when
1 you met with Mr. Beara back in April of this year and when you reviewed
2 the corpus of the intercept text, right?
3 A. The present way in which Mr. Beara speaks and his code-shifting,
4 basically, from one model of speech to another can only be explained
5 within the context of social linguistics. The Split dialect is a
6 prestigious one. The people of Split
7 proud of it. They do not try to avoid it or suppress it. The Split
8 community has a high rating both before and now, and anyone who wishes to
9 integrate him or herself into this community must accept and adopt its
10 way of communications, its communication codes, which Mr. Beara did. In
11 my view, he knowingly adopted the Split dialect as his own, and this
12 attitude he did not change even after the war and all the consequences
13 left in the wake of the war. I think that it's clear.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you for that answer. Your analysis of this material
15 was based upon primarily dialectological analysis, right, a
16 dialectological evaluation?
17 A. No, the analysis was based on everything. I looked at the
18 context of the person's dialect and also the variance of the Serbian or
19 Croatian standard language. If I had adhered strictly to dialect only, I
20 would have rejected everything as irrelevant for the analysis after my
21 conversation with Mr. Beara in the month of April of this year. I put
22 everything in the context of the Serbo-Croatian standard language.
23 Q. All right, but what I mean is in your report you don't mention
24 anything about the phenomenon known as code-shifting, which we've just
25 discussed, which determines whether or not a person who is bidialectical
1 uses one dialect versus another dialect in any given circumstance.
2 There's nothing in your report concerning that sociolinguistic phenomena.
3 So my question to you is, did you consider that and if so, why isn't it
4 in your report?
5 A. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. I said and I'm
6 sure you will find it in my report that it is difficult to devise and
7 decipher how it could have happened that a person who was born in
9 Ikavian speaker. You will find it in my report, sir. I'm sure of that.
10 How could that person have forgotten that Cakavian dialect during the war
11 or at least for the 15 days when the intercepts were taken, and how was
12 it possible for that same person to return to that Cakavian dialect after
13 the war? There is no doubt in my mind that that's how he spoke before
14 the war or even more consistently. I mentioned that in my report, and I
15 also say in my report that we have before us a phenomenon of somebody who
16 drowns his linguistic identity into something else, into something
17 foreign. People who surrounded him even said that they didn't know that
18 he was not a Croat until the war began, and then when he joined the Army
19 of Republika Srpska they thought there that he was a Croat, which means
20 that his dialect was such as it was, and it still remains to be the same
21 to this day, and it is in sharp collusion with what I can read in the
23 Q. Mr. Remetic, you posed the question, and the question is how can
24 somebody's dialect change from one period of time to another period of
25 time and revert at yet another period of time? And the answer to that
1 question as you well know is found in the literature of social
2 linguistics and is particularly well known that it is found within the
3 particular phenomenon in social linguistics as code-shifting. You know
4 that, and so my question to you is, why doesn't that appear in your
5 report as opposed to the question that you posed? Why isn't the answer
6 there, if you considered it?
7 A. Sir, I looked at the transcripts. Within this context, a
8 Cakavian and an Ikavian before the war, a Cakavian and an Ikavian after
9 the war, what we are talking about probably does not belong to that
10 Cakavian person. That would be the healthiest logic that I can come up
11 with. This is something that I cannot explain. If any of these
12 transcripts may be attributed to Ljubisa Beara, how did this all happen?
13 And there is something else. There are situations that differ from one
14 another in communication. There are also functional styles. There are
15 different registers. For example, there is allegedly chat among friends
16 on the one hand, and on the other hand there is public speaking.
17 Standard language is more commonly used in official situations, at
18 conferences when you are standing at a rostrum, when you write a text or
19 a report or a review. It is within that context that I looked for
20 possibilities to link Beara or the person denoted as Beara with the
21 western variant of the standard language which prevails in these
23 Q. All right. Thank you for that answer. You've indicated -- well,
24 let me ask you this. With respect to whether or not a person has a
25 command of varying dialects or various dialects, in this particular
1 instance you've put in your report that Mr. Beara has an infallible
2 command of Ekavian, Ikavian and Ijekavian. That's in your report at page
3 14, right? I'll read it to you. It's in the middle of the page in the
4 English in 14, and it starts --
5 A. Sir, I've got it. I found it.
6 Q. All right. That's what your report says, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That's relevant to the determining whether or not he has the
9 ability and the skill to change his dialect, right, if he has an
10 infallible command of them? It's relevant; you can answer that one yes
11 or no.
12 A. Sir, I'm not saying that he is in full command. I'm just saying
13 that he is aware of all the distinctions. He did not use Ekavian first
14 and then Ikavian and then Ijekavian to enable me to say that he is in
15 full command. I asked him concretely about some forms that I found in
16 the transcripts, and he answered matter-of-factly, no, I'm not a Serbian,
17 this is not me. He knows how Serbians speak, he also knows how
18 Montenegrins speak, and he knows how people speak in different areas. He
19 is aware of all the distinctions. However, when you write that somebody
20 is in full command, that person should be able to demonstrate all that.
21 He demonstrated well the Cakavian, Ikavian dialect of the Split
22 within the seven hours that I spent with him.
23 Q. All right. Well, with all due respect what is written in your
24 report and perhaps is a translation error or a translation misconception
25 is that "Even" -- you wrote, "Even today after sometime spent in
2 - in bold - "that he has an infallible command of the Ekavian, Ikavian,
3 and Ijekavian distinctions, which was confirmed to us by listening to his
4 conversations with other individuals present..." et cetera, et cetera.
5 The word of "command" is not one that originates from me. That's what's
6 in your report, and you can see that. Is that right, Mr. Remetic?
7 A. I am afraid I'm not able to find where this is. I would like to
8 be able to consult.
9 Q. Well, the closest I can find in the text is a bold section, a
10 bold part of the text in section 7 of your report, and it immediately
11 follows that section where it says Ikavian, Ekavian, Ijekavian, Bosnian,
12 Montenegrin, Serbian, in bold in your report.
13 A. Yes, sir. Yes, yes. Now I've got it. Yes, I've got it now.
14 Thank you. It says here, he, and we repeat, has an infallible command of
15 the Ekavian, Ikavian, and Ijekavian distinctions, and we were able to
16 convince ourselves of that while listening to their conversation with
17 other interlocutors followed by a cross-examination, and so on and so
18 forth. Maybe this has been put in too simple terms terminologically. He
19 knows how things are said by other persons. When he says lipodite
20 [phoen], he knows where people say lipodeta [phoen] and where they say
21 lijepodijeta [phoen]. He knows where people say ditza [phoen], where
22 they say djetza [phoen], and where they say dijetza [phoen]. He is aware
23 of that. He is aware of the distinctions, but he is not using those
24 words. He had never demonstrated usage. He is only aware of those
25 things. He even has a negative attitude towards Ekavian and none of that
1 towards Ijekavian.
2 Q. I didn't ask you whether or not he used it. I asked you whether
3 or not he had a command of it, and that's what your report says, isn't
4 it -- doesn't it?
5 A. He knows how people speak in different areas, yes.
6 Q. That's relevant to an assessment as to whether or not he has the
7 capacity to use it, whether or not he has the ability to use a different
8 dialect other than the one you observed. It's relevant, is my point.
9 Yes or no?
10 A. I don't know whether he can distinguish between different
11 dialects, but he certainly can distinguish between the variances of the
12 standard language. There are a lot of dialects which are different. I
13 myself am not able to use all sorts of dialects in my speech. Please,
14 bear that in mind because there is a difference there. He probably may
15 be able to use Ekavian, but I'm not sure whether he would be able to use
16 Ijekavian correctly, but with speaking about the variances of the
17 standard language whereas there are a lot of dialects in all the
18 variances of the standard language, in all three of them, the Ekavian,
19 the Ijekavian, and the Ikavian.
20 Q. All right, Mr. Remetic. Thank you for that. You also indicate
21 in your report, also on page 14, that Mr. Beara as you observed is of
22 high intelligence, that he has an obviously enviable general cultural
23 background, and that he is well read, right? And these are all
24 sociological phenomena that contribute to an evaluation of his abilities
25 as concerns by dialectism, right?
1 A. He is an intelligent man, and any intelligent man finds it easy
2 to cope with all sorts of situations, and he certainly is an intelligent
4 Q. All right. Now, with respect to the reliability -- well, before
5 I get to that, in terms of your analysis here, you said that the
6 reliability of your conclusions are directly related to the amount of
7 linguistic relevant material that you have before you. That's true,
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And in an analysis of this type, can you point to any
11 literature, document, or protocol that tells you how much meaningful
12 linguistic information you have to have in any given document in order to
13 make the attribution of identity as you have done in this case? How many
14 words have to appear? How far apart do they have to be? How many times
15 do they have to appear in order for you to make the kind of connection or
16 disassociation that you make in relation to these particular intercepts?
17 Is there any methodological material you can point us to?
18 A. There's no rule. There are no percentages or set numbers, but in
19 principle it is clear: The higher the quantity of the facts, the higher
20 the degree of reliability of any evaluation. Not all the facts are
21 equally relevant. There are differences based on which speeches may be
22 classified. We said it already that in our language one thing is jat and
23 the other is accent. The accent is completely missing here, and there's
24 very little jat to be found in these transcripts.
25 Q. Among the intercepts that you have indicated negative values for
1 the four categories you've provided in your annex, among those
2 intercepts, how is a Court going to determine among those intercepts what
3 degree of reliability is claimed as to each one of those intercepts? How
4 is the Court going to determine that when you indicate negative for
5 Intercept X and you indicate negative for Intercept Y that you are
6 talking about the same degree of reliability or a close degree of
7 reliability as to either one? How does that occur without the ability to
8 quantify your results?
9 A. It is true that some conversations where I had only five, six, or
10 seven words which were completely meaningless or of no relevance for the
11 topic that was being discussed did not allow for any possibility of
12 linkage. In other transcripts where there were more facts provided, I
13 looked at those that might provide a differentiation, that might be
14 marked as being linked to western areas or to the western variance of the
15 standard language, and to the dialect or the conversational patterns of
16 the area where Beara had lived. I did not find that. I did not find
17 identifying facts that might have linked him to those alleged intercepted
19 Q. All right. So you've indicated that there's no rule, which means
20 that you cannot make a quantitative assessment as to the level of
21 reliability that's indicated in your report. That's correct, right,
22 other than to say it's likely or unlikely or consistent or inconsistent,
24 A. [Overlapping speakers]
25 Q. And in fact, it's not possible for you to quantify in terms of
1 the linguistic significance each of the words that contribute to the
2 finding that you've made as to whether or not it likely -- whether or not
3 the intercept likely encompasses Mr. Beara or excludes Mr. Beara. That's
4 true too, isn't it?
5 A. [Overlapping speakers]
6 Q. Okay. And in the absence of standards of quantification in terms
7 of the reliability of the results and in terms of the reliability of the
8 information contributing to the results, it makes what you've done in
9 this case impossible for another person to repeat or replicate?
10 A. Another person?
11 Q. Yes, sorry. Another linguist examining the same material as you
12 might very well reach a completely different conclusion in terms of the
13 ability to attribute certain intercepts or include Mr. Beara as a
14 potential participant in an intercept or excluding him?
15 A. To compare others with oneself is beside the point, and if
16 somebody were to arrive at a different conclusion, I would like to see
17 their arguments for that.
18 Q. That's fair enough, but what I'm talking about in particular, as
19 you are well aware, is the scientific method, and the scientific method
20 necessarily incorporates the concept of verification, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Verification entails a standardized means by which results
23 can be checked, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you are telling me there's no rule; ergo, there's no
1 standardized means by which your results can be checked, right?
2 A. Well, see, there's no standard. The basic features of properties
3 of dialect are well known. Furthermore, the relevant features are also
4 known, and they can be used to speak about the variances of what until
5 recently was our common language. Those are very well known, and based
6 on those I carried out my analysis. I had all those in mind when I
7 embarked on my analysis.
8 Q. Mr. Remetic, what you are doing here in terms of your forensic
9 analysis of these intercepts is effectively you are making an
10 identification; that's true, right?
11 A. Everything boils down to identification, and everything boils
12 down to the question whether these intercepts may be linked to the name
13 of Mr. Beara.
14 Q. The identification that you are making is based upon something
15 indemning to a person that is inherently mutable, right? Is that true?
16 A. Well, that's something I could not check because there was
17 nothing to base my verification on. The only thing I had were
18 transcripts, and that's what I used in my work. One could check only if
19 one had the audio recordings of all the transcripts that I analysed.
20 Second of all -- I don't see anything else, actually.
21 Q. Let me point something out to you. A dialect is something that
22 can change. You can -- we can agree on that, right?
23 A. Everything changes. Dialects are no exception. Civilisation
24 makes its mark. What do you mean when you say that? Do you mean that a
25 person changes his or her dialect, or do you mean that a dialect changes
1 with evolution, a dialect as a system -- as something that undergoes
2 changes, or are you referring to me as a person who is able to change his
3 dialect and go through different dialects at different times? What do
4 you have in mind.
5 Q. That's a perfectly fair question. I apologise if my question was
6 too broad. What I'm talking to you about is in the context of individual
7 identification. So when I say a dialect can change, I'm talking about on
8 an individual level, through exposure to other people, through moving
9 from one place to another, through taking up jobs in certain locations
10 and moving back home. All of those contribute to the change and
11 development of a person's dialect --
12 A. Of course.
13 Q. -- individually, right?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. Okay. Dialect can change more easily than, for example,
16 somebody's height as an adult, right?
17 A. Well, one has to take into consideration a number of factors when
18 we speak about changes.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. Several factors. Firstly, the age. A young person, a child will
21 be more susceptible to changing his or her dialect if they change
22 environments. That's one thing. Secondly, the prestigiousness of a
23 dialect, whether you have arrived into a community which is reputable or
24 prestigious or -- in other words, whether this change is beneficial to
25 you. You are entering a new environment which is more developed in terms
1 of culture or industrial achievement, et cetera, and it requires you to
2 adapt to it.
3 Furthermore, it depends on the professional profile of the person
4 in question. A less literate person, a less educated person will more
5 quickly shift and give up his own dialect, so as I say, there are a
6 number of factors.
7 There are people who are economically inferior, and they always
8 adapt to those who are economically superior, and they will more readily
9 accept someone who is superior to them.
10 Q. Remember, I'm not talking at a social level. I'm talking about
11 an individual level, that somebody's DNA, eye colour, and height are less
12 mutable than their dialect as a general principle. That's true, isn't
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So for the purposes of a forensic identification process, what
16 you are studying is something that is inherently more malleable,
17 changeable than other forensic identification sciences, right, such as
18 DNA identification, fingerprint-processing, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And all those forensic activities can establish a known rate of
21 error with respect to the processes that they employ, that is, the chance
22 of a random error given the processes that you undertake. My question,
23 therefore, to you is, given what you've said today, can you tell us, what
24 is the random rate of error, the known or predictable rate of error with
25 respect to the analysis that you performed on these intercepts?
1 A. Only those who do nothing do not make mistakes, and I don't see
2 where the errors are, and I cannot see that I could have done any better
3 job than I did. In my analysis and during these two days, I've been
4 speaking about a very few cases where one can give explicit answers,
5 exclusive answers. I'm talking about the degree of reliability, and I
6 took such a view to look for something that can potentially be linked to
7 Mr. Beara rather than what is not. What was possible, I then looked for
8 a negative witness. For example, in court we have a witness that
9 provides evidence, one, and the other one refutes that with his negative
10 evidence. So this is the stance that I took within the framework of the
11 corpus that I had at my disposal, and that was the best I could do.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to call it a day. We stand adjourned until
15 tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1:47 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 27th day of
18 August, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.