1 Tuesday, 21 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 8.31 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
11 This is Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, and I welcome Ms. Biersay,
12 Mr. Mundis, as well as their case manager. I also welcome Mr. Seselj.
13 Let me first read a statement, and I would like Mr. Seselj to be
14 extremely careful to listen to what I'm going to say.
15 Last week, we dealt in public with the Prosecution's motion
16 regarding contempt of court and dealing with the publication of one
17 Mr. Seselj's books in which, according to Prosecution, protected
18 witnesses were identified. The Prosecution, on several occasions,
19 mentioned the accused, who had been involved in harassment or
20 intimidation of Prosecution witnesses. This is an offence under
21 Rule 77(A)(iii) of the Rules. These allegations by the Prosecution must,
22 of course, be checked before any indictment be possibly drawn up against
23 the accused or against any other person.
24 When reading the written submissions made by the Prosecution, as
25 a judge, I wondered whether I should not withdraw myself under Rule 15(A)
1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding contempt of court procedures.
2 Indeed, it seems to me very obvious that if the allegations made by the
3 Prosecution end up being confirmed through an investigation, the question
4 of the motivation that made the accused do this must best be answered.
5 Why would the accused Seselj try to threaten or intimidate witnesses?
6 The only reason could be to escape his criminal responsibility in our
8 This being said, I believe that I would never be able to serenely
9 try the accused Seselj in the case at hand if I am fully convinced that
10 he was involved in threatening and harassing witnesses, because if that
11 was the case, I might have a bias regarding his criminal liability in the
12 main case that I am trying. This potential connection between the main
13 case and the marginal cases dealing with contempt of court, but involving
14 the same accused, i.e., Mr. Seselj, make it impossible for me to be in
15 charge of the contempt of court cases. This is why I have informed the
16 President of the Tribunal of my personal decision, which is to withdraw
17 myself from any case dealing with contempt of court, and this is why I
18 asked the President of this Tribunal to appoint another Judge that would
19 be sitting on these cases to replace me.
20 I must say that up until now, my fellow Judges, Judges Harhoff
21 and Lattanzi, have not had the same approach so far.
22 So, on top of this withdrawal, as the President of the Trial
23 Chamber and heading the proceedings of this Trial Chamber according to
24 Article 14 of the Statute, I asked the President of the Tribunal to
25 appoint another Trial Chamber that would be in charge of dealing with the
1 contempt of court submissions, because managing in parallel two cases --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] ... if two Judges of the Trial
4 Chamber are dealing with two cases, this might slow down the trying of
5 this case, which must be speedy according to Rule 20 of the Statute.
6 The investigations which are to be carried out in respect with
7 the contempt of court proceedings might take months if they are done
8 competently and seriously.
9 Furthermore, should people eventually be indicted and tried in
10 this respect, according to me there is a serious risk that the present
11 case be paralysed. Insofar that this Tribunal has 16 permanent Judges
12 and 14 ad litem Judges, setting up an ad hoc Trial Chamber for these
13 contempt of court proceedings would be no problem.
14 The accused is entitled, according to Article 21 of the Statute,
15 to be -- to a speedy trial. He's entitled to a speedy trial. This is
16 written in the Statute and to be judged without delay. Since the accused
17 has been jailed for six years now, I believe that there is undue delay so
18 far. Managing new motions and dealing with new motions that would
19 further increase the delay would increase this delay. This is why I
20 asked the President of this Tribunal to appoint a new Trial Chamber.
21 To sum things up, as far as I'm concerned, I withdrew myself from
22 all contempt of court proceedings; and in order to make sure that the
23 present case is speedy, I asked the President to please set up and
24 appoint a new Trial Chamber to deal with these contempt of court
1 This Trial Chamber, of course, will be able, without undue delay,
2 to try this case. The Prosecution still has about 40 hours to present
3 its case and its witnesses. There is no reason to paralyse this present
4 case with marginal procedures.
5 In a nutshell, Mr. Seselj, this is what I wanted to tell you:
6 This decision was difficult to make, but I believe that in the interests
7 of justice and in the interests of your present case, I should not be
8 involved in managing other marginal cases that might lead to undue delay
9 in your present case.
10 We have been sitting in court for more than a year now, and you
11 have been awaiting trial for six years altogether, which is why I have
12 asked the President to make a decision on my withdrawal, on the one hand,
13 and also on the appointment of a new Trial Chamber that would deal with
14 the contempt of court proceedings.
15 If you have anything to say, please take the floor; otherwise, we
16 will move to other topics.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that your
18 decision, from the legal aspect, is quite in order because it is quite
19 obvious that the Prosecution is using political methods in settling
20 accounts with me because of its incompetence to bring this trial to an
21 end by legal and lawful means as envisaged by the Statute.
22 I'd like to remind you that on a number of occasions, the
23 representatives of the OTP publicly acknowledged that they had planned
24 that 90 per cent of the witnesses be heard under 92 ter; and for fours
25 year, yes, four years, a full four years, they endeavoured to impose
1 Defence counsel on me, a counsel of their choice, so that this trial
2 should be conducted by bypassing me so that I should have no possibility
3 for defending myself. Now, since it didn't succeed in doing that, and as
4 I do have the means of defending myself, although I'm not satisfied with
5 the resources and the circumstances and conditions because they're
6 putting obstacles in my way all the time, the Prosecution doesn't know
7 how to get out of this impasse situation. Now they're launching a
8 campaign against me, stating I'm intimidating witnesses.
9 I have never intimidated a single witness. I have not exerted
10 any pressure or brought coercion to bear against witnesses. For years, I
11 didn't even know the names of the witnesses; and, last year, I launched a
12 process for respect of the trial on the basis of people who the
13 Prosecution heard, but never agreed to -- people who never agreed to be
14 Prosecution witnesses, starting with Jovo Ostojic and many others. I'm
15 sure you remember all their names.
16 Now, when I stated that publicly, when I informed the public of
17 that, then they came at me from all sides, people from the Prosecution
18 list, stating that they had been manipulated, that they had been
19 intimidated and had to sign something that was not their statement. So
20 that is the essence of it.
21 Now, in addition to this (redacted), there is a great deal
22 of mistification on the basis of this book, and it is a report that my
23 associates compiled for me as an attachment for my last complaint against
24 the indictment. You know the text was rather a lengthy one, about 300
25 pages, and you ordered that it should not be translated into English. I
1 said that it should be printed and published but that the names be thrown
2 out and that code names be used, the codes used by the Prosecution; and
3 in that book, you'll see those codes.
4 Now, the fact that somebody who is clever and intelligent can
5 draw their own conclusions as to who the person is, well, what do I care
6 about that?
7 Now, the Prosecution --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Mr. Mundis is
10 MR. MUNDIS: Good morning, Your Honours.
11 Again, we would very vigorously, respectfully, request the Trial
12 Chamber to caution Mr. Seselj with respect to any comments he makes about
13 this book, in light of the fact that we have indicated in this courtroom
14 before that we have filed a contempt motion concerning this book; and to
15 the extent Mr. Seselj, in court, talks about this book, and how it was
16 produced, and who produced it, and under what circumstances and what were
17 done, those statements very well might be incriminatory, and we would
18 vigorously asked that he be cautioned not to discuss that, or at least
19 warned that anything he says concerning that could be used against him in
20 subsequent proceedings.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, yes, refrain from
22 talking about the content of this book, please. You already mentioned
23 all this last week. We all know what you want to say, we all know what
24 you said, so do not talk about the content of the book.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am proud of that
1 book. That book was compiled absolutely pursuant to my strict
2 instructions, instructions given from The Hague here to my associates;
3 and everything that that book contains, I stand by the contents. My
4 associates were just my extended arm, so to speak, in compiling that
6 Now, you can't make me afraid and intimidate me through saying
7 that I'll be held in contempt of court in this trial, where I might be
8 sent to jail for years, for life. Now they say that I might get seven
9 years for contempt of court. Why should I care about that? I will take
10 great satisfaction in taking part in the proceedings and in showing
11 exactly how things stand. So you can't intimidate me in that way or
12 instill fear in me. Everything I stated, I stand by it. I have never
13 given up on a single word uttered by me, and everything I did state and
14 utter through my lifetime, if possible, I made public and published in my
15 books, and I'm proud of that, too. So there's no need for you to discuss
16 that matter at all.
17 Now, what is the essence of the matter here, the crux of the
18 matter? The Prosecution wants to buy time, and it is doing its utmost to
19 prolong these proceedings. Last week, for instance, we lost one day
20 because they didn't have any witnesses. This week, quite obviously,
21 we're going to lose another day, because when we finish with this expert
22 witness, we have a 92 ter witness and then nothing after that. So we've
23 lost a month because they asked that the proceedings be interrupted until
24 their request for me to be assigned counsel be decided on.
25 So far, we've heard 43 Prosecution witnesses, and they
1 experience -- the Prosecution experienced a fiasco with all those
2 witnesses. They still have nothing, no straw to catch on to, to support
3 their thesis from the indictment. They have absolutely nothing in their
4 hands yet, and the whole public can see that, and especially you as
5 members of the Trial Chamber, because you were present during the secret
6 sessions here as well.
7 Now they're doing everything they can to get themselves out of
8 the situation, and there's just one way out for the Prosecution, and that
9 is total and full capitulation. The sooner they capitulate, the better
10 for them. They'll save face that way. They are faced with capitulation,
11 and they want to prevent their own capitulation by opening some auxiliary
12 fronts. Now, if I am capable of being victorious and winning over them
13 in the main front, I certainly will be able to deal with the auxiliary
15 Judges, in this Tribunal, there were cases where Prosecution
16 witnesses were even killed, where they were abducted. In the Milosevic
17 trial, for instance, one witness's son and daughter were seized and
18 liquidated. Listen carefully. This was a Defence witness.
19 Now, in this trial, not a hair on any of the witnesses' heads was
20 dealt adversely with. It was only a moral contempt, that is, when a
21 witness was found lying and when one witness testified in one way. It
22 was just moral condemnation, and moral condemnation is not tantamount to
23 pressure exerted upon the witness or intimidation. Each one of us can be
24 exposed to moral condemnation, members of the Trial Chamber, members of
25 the Prosecution, and I, myself, if we do something which is morally
1 reprehensible. Everything that is against the law and unlawful is also,
2 in the broader sense of the word, morally untenable and deserves moral
4 I consider that your decision is very correct. Nothing must
5 stand in the way of this trial, even if I'm alone and without any
6 associates or anything. I still take part in this trial and I'm ready to
7 do so, and the Prosecution must be ready to do so.
8 As soon as contempt of court proceedings are launched, then there
9 are sessions outside -- being held outside the main trial proceedings.
10 We can have different shifts. This can be during different shifts, at
11 night, during the weekend. I'm not interested when these extra sessions
12 take place, but I do insist that any auxiliary proceedings do not impede
13 the normal development of this trial and these proceedings, because all
14 reasonable deadlines for wrapping up the trial have expired a long time
15 ago, all reasonable deadlines. We are now entering into the unreasonable
16 realm of deadlines, and there is no precedent for anything like this in
17 the civilised world.
18 Now, what can the Prosecution prove? It cannot prove a thing.
19 They can't find anybody whom I intimidated and exerted pressure upon.
20 That kind of person just does not exist. They cannot prove that I --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let me cut you off
23 As I told you, I am not involved in the contempt of court
24 proceedings, so I did not have any competence to be listening to all
25 this. I wanted to inform you of my personal decision. I want you to
1 have an expeditious trial in the main case. That is my main concern, and
2 I felt that I could not do this while trying you for a contempt of court
3 proceeding. So I want to focus only on your main case and only on this
4 one. I'm still awaiting the decision from the President as to whether
5 another Trial Chamber will be appointed. So either the President
6 believes that my two fellow Judges can sit on that Bench and will appoint
7 another Judge, and this new Bench will deal with the contempt of court
8 proceeding as they wish. I want to remain only in charge of the main
10 Now, regarding this main case, now we must move into private
11 session because I must ask the Prosecutor about an important topic.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 10816-10824 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me remind you,
19 Ms. Biersay, that you'll have half an hour to put questions to the
20 witness, to introduce her expert report. Mr. Seselj will have two hours
21 to conduct his cross-examination of the witness. The Judges will have
22 questions, of course; and, if necessary, you will be entitled to put
23 additional questions. You were granted one hour to do so, if it appears
24 necessary; but if the cross-examination and the Judges' questions are
25 sufficiently comprehensive, this additional time won't be necessary. But
1 we'll see how things stand as we go along.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning. Can you please
4 give me your first name, last name, and date of birth.
5 THE WITNESS: Good morning. My name is Ewa Tabeau; date of
6 birth, 26th of April, 1958.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
9 THE WITNESS: I'm a demographer in the Office of the Prosecutor
10 at the ICTY.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have had the
12 opportunity to hear you testify in other cases. I know that you've
13 already testified in other cases. Could you please give us the list of
14 all the trials you testified in as an expert witness.
15 THE WITNESS: This list is attached as part of my curriculum
16 vitae submitted with other materials in this case. I will mention a
17 number of cases. Most recently, I testified in Lukic and Lukic case, in
18 the Dragomir Milosevic case, I testified in the Prlic case, Slobodan
19 Milosevic case, General Galic. I testified in Popovic case, in Simic
20 et al, and Vasiljevic. I think that would be probably more or less
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please read the
23 solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
25 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may
3 be seated.
4 Very well. You've said so yourself, you've testified in this
5 Tribunal on several occasions. You're probably the expert witness who
6 has testified the most in this Tribunal, so what I'm going to say won't
7 come as a surprise to you.
8 You know that you are going to first answer questions put to you
9 by Ms. Biersay. Afterwards, Mr. Seselj, who is the accused in this case,
10 will put questions to you as part of the cross-examination. The three
11 Judges sitting in front of you may also ask you questions with respect to
12 the contents of your report. This is what I wanted to tell you by way of
13 an introduction.
14 Please try to be extremely accurate and specific when you answer
15 questions. If a question is not clear enough to you, do not hesitate to
16 ask the person, even if it's a Judge, to rephrase the question.
17 We have breaks every 90 minutes, but if at any time you want us
18 to stop for whatever reason, do not hesitate to make that request to us.
19 You have made the solemn declaration and you know that your
20 testimony is likely to continue tomorrow. Let me remind you that you are
21 a witness in the service of justice. In other words, you're not
22 supposed, from now on, to have any contacts with the OTP, with your
23 superiors at the OTP. If you have to go back to your office, remain in
24 your office, but avoid any contacts with your colleagues at the OTP in
25 order to try to avoid any type of interference between you, as a witness,
1 and the Prosecution. But you know that as well as I do, you've probably
2 been warned about that in the past, and the Trial Chamber fully trusts
3 you in that respect.
4 Ms. Biersay, you have the floor.
5 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Given the Court's 15 October 2008 decision qualifying Dr. Tabeau
7 as an expert with respect to her Hrtkovci report, I won't be covering a
8 tremendous amount of her background.
9 Examination by Ms. Biersay:
10 Q. But what I would like to ask you, Dr. Tabeau: Could you please
11 tell us the highest degree that you hold and from what institution you
12 obtained that degree?
13 A. I have a Ph.D. in mathematical demography. I obtained this
14 degree from the Warsaw School of Economics in Poland, in Warsaw [Realtime
15 transcript read in error "Moscow"].
16 Q. For how long have you been employed with the OTP demography unit?
17 A. I have been here since September 2000, which is approximately
18 eight years.
19 Q. Could you briefly describe your general duties in that regard?
20 A. My unit is responsible for providing statistics --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Tabeau. I
22 heard that you received your diploma in Warsaw, but here in the
23 transcript we see "Moscow." So where did you obtain your diploma, your
25 THE WITNESS: In Warsaw, in Poland, not in Moscow. I've never
1 been to Moscow.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, very well. That's
3 line 9, page 23 of the transcript. "Warsaw" should be put here instead
4 of "Moscow."
5 MS. BIERSAY:
6 Q. You described before that a copy of your CV was attached to the
7 report that you produced in this case; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And is that annex B to the report?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Did you also prepare a more updated version of your CV?
12 A. Yes, I did. It is a brief version. The latest achievements
13 mainly are included.
14 Q. And is that in your binder as 2859B, 65 ter number?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the report that you produced
17 in this case. That report was dated 29 June of 2006; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. And the title is "Out-migration of Croats and other Non-Serbs
20 form village of Hrtkovci in Vojvodina in 1992"; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Just for ease of reference, I'll be referring to it as either
23 your report or the Hrtkovci report, just so you can follow me when I ask
24 those questions.
25 I'd like to direct your attention, it should be the first
1 document in your binder, which is 65 ter 2859.
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Is that the report that you produced for this case?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. I'd like to now direct your attention to the methodology, the
6 sources, and approach that you used in the compilation of your report for
7 this case.
8 How do the methodology, sources, and approach used to compile
9 this report compare with those used in other cases in which you have
10 testified as an expert?
11 A. They are fully consistent with all other sources, the reports,
12 and methodology and sources are used in these reports; full consistency.
13 Q. Based on your professional training and experience, are those
14 methodologies, sources, and approach consistent with the acceptable
15 standards used within the field of armed conflict demography?
16 A. Yes, of course, and more broadly with statistics, the approach
17 used in statistics.
18 Q. Directing your attention now to annex A of your report, what does
19 annex A represent?
20 A. This is a list of persons, the number of these persons is 722,
21 that are known to me as having left Hrtkovci in relation to the events in
22 May-August 1992.
23 Q. What time period does that annex cover?
24 A. Basically, it is the time around the summer of 1992, around the
25 period from May to August 1992, but there are also records --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me interrupt you
2 immediately. I'm listening to you with a great deal of interest, and I
3 have a question with respect to the list.
4 You are telling us that it is a list of persons that left the
5 village between May and August 1992, but please have a look at the first
6 name on the list, "Akrap." You have a column here called "Departure,"
7 and I see here that he left on the 15th of December. Isn't there a
8 problem here?
9 THE WITNESS: No, there is no problem. This is what I was just
10 going to explain.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please explain away.
12 THE WITNESS: The list is titled "Persons who left Hrtkovci in
13 relation to the events in May to August 1992," but the list should be
14 seen more broadly. So it is not only the departures in this exact period
15 from May to August 1992. These are the departures from Hrtkovci mainly
16 in this period, but including as well departures earlier in this year and
17 later in this year. And in addition to this, there are 13 individuals
18 who left -- listed here in annex A who left Hrtkovci in the first half of
20 So, once again, this list should be seen as more broadly than
21 just the period from May to August 1992. It is general departures
22 related to the events during this period, but the departures are the
23 majority of them, and the majority of them would be May to August 1992.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Should we then conclude that
25 some departures occurred before May 1992, but these departures were
1 caused by the events that took place between May and August? Is it what
2 you are trying to tell us?
3 THE WITNESS: No, no. This is not what I'm trying to tell Your
4 Honours. Well, I think I said clearly this is a broader list. Of
5 course, the departures starting from May and later most certainly are, in
6 the first place, related to the events in the beginning of May and what
7 was happening later; but as far as I know, the situation in this area was
8 already affected by the general situation in the former Yugoslavia and by
9 the conflict in Croatia, which started, of course, in 1991. So it is not
10 that the departures from Hrtkovci in this period were exclusively related
11 to certain events in May. I think it was a general situation that had
12 some impact on these departures as well.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I'm not mistaken, if I
14 understand you well, it might be that someone who leaves this village in
15 May would be leaving not because what had happened in May, maybe even
16 Mr. Seselj's speech on May 6th, but for other reasons that may have to
17 do, as you said, with the general situation prevailing at the time. Is
18 that it?
19 THE WITNESS: In my report, I didn't study the causes, in terms
20 of quantification of these factors, so I can't say what were the causes
21 of these departures. However, I studied the timing of these departures,
22 and the timing is shown, first of all, in long-term perspective, since
23 1949 until the year 2000, which is long enough to see all kinds of
24 patterns in the departures. On the other hand, I also show -- I'm
25 showing that I'm in the year 1992; and from this pattern, time pattern,
1 you see again certain irregularities, which I will talk about later. So
2 I didn't study the causes, but certain conclusions can be drawn about
3 underlying determinants of this migration from the analysis of the timing
4 that I present in my report.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I was asking these
6 questions, Madam Witness, to be specific, because we have seen a number
7 of witnesses in this courtroom who came to testify. We heard them and we
8 saw documents also, and thanks to this we know that a number of Croats
9 left this village before May 1992. We know that some of them, a few
10 dozens, left to join the Croatian National Guard, so these were voluntary
11 departures. I'm just wondering whether they are involved in your
12 statistics, these voluntary departures.
13 THE WITNESS: As I said, I'm unable, in my report, to distinguish
14 between voluntary and involuntary departures, as I didn't study the
15 causes of these departures. Obviously, certain sources that I used in my
16 report can be seen most definitely as involuntary departures. That would
17 be the list of refugees registered in Croatia, refugees from Hrtkovci;
18 and these persons had a legal status of a refugee, that is, a person who
19 didn't leave voluntarily. That is certain. And, well, there is another
20 list I'm using as a source. The list is called "Expelled persons From
21 Hrtkovci." Of course, these persons don't have the legal status of
22 refugees or internally expelled person, but they are called expelled,
23 and, probably, there are good reasons for this, that they are called like
25 So, even though I didn't study the causes, I believe the majority
1 of these departures are involuntary departures.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 MS. BIERSAY:
4 Q. Directing your attention to tab number 2859A, is that an amended
5 version of the annex A to your report?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And could you briefly describe in what way it was amended?
8 A. It is basically the same list, but at some point we saw a
9 formatting mistake in the date of birth. Some dates were reported with
10 the year of birth, beginning with a "9" or "8" or "5." It would be, for
11 instance, "9932," so obviously something went wrong in data processing of
12 the; and, indeed, there was a formatting problem during the data
13 processing. The number of date of birth originally attached with the
14 report were wrong and were correctly recently. This is the correct
15 version of the annex A.
16 Q. Is it fair to say that in your original annex A, all years should
17 have been listed as starting with the number "1"?
18 A. Yes. Definitely, yes.
19 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, Your Honours, the Prosecution moves
20 for the admission of 65 ter numbers 2859, which is the original report
21 with the original annex A and B. We would also move for the admission of
22 65 ter number 2859A, which is the amended annex A; as well as 65 ter
23 number 2859B, which is the updated CV.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me conduct with my
25 colleagues, but, first, Mr. Seselj, you have the floor.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that before that, the
2 expert should tell us who compiled this list. It is attached to the
3 expert report, it is an annex, but did the expert compile it or was it
4 somebody else who compiled it beforehand and the expert just took it
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, this list on
7 annex A, could you please tell us whether you compiled it yourself or was
8 it done by someone else?
9 THE WITNESS: This report was made in my unit, including the list
10 in annex A. I had assistance from two members of the Demographic Unit.
11 This is two colleagues of mine, Arve Hetland and Neda Loncaric. I think
12 we compiled the list together, in the sense that each of us did a part of
13 the work. So it is not that one single person compiled the entire list.
14 The list is not taken from any other source. It is a list
15 resulting from a combining of a number of underlying sources, and I think
16 I should list the sources right now. One of them is the list of refugees
17 I just mentioned a few minutes ago. This list was obtained from the
18 Croat authorities from Croatia. It is a list of 116 individuals.
19 Secondly, we used for this list the parish records from Hrtkovci. From
20 these sources, the names were taken for which requests for certificates
21 of christening and marriage were marked, written down in the parish
22 books. And the third source was the list of expelled persons from
23 Hrtkovci, the 280 families representing 805 persons, from a book by
24 Marko Kljajic about these issues. But basically the list of 280 families
25 comes from the same sources, the parish records. It is the Catholic
1 Church in Hrtkovci.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me consult with
3 my fellow Judges.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will give an MFI
6 number so far; and after Mr. Seselj's cross-examination, we will either
7 give a final number or not.
8 Mr. Registrar, could we have MFI numbers.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. 65 ter number 2859, which is
10 the expert report, will be MFI P565; 65 ter number 2859A, which is the
11 amended annex A, will be Exhibit -- will be MFI P566; and 65 ter
12 number 2859B, which is the updated CV, will be MFI P567.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay.
14 MS. BIERSAY:
15 Q. In your report, Dr. Tabeau, do you discuss exactly how annex A
16 was created by merging these sources?
17 A. Yes. There is a detailed description of how the matching was
18 done, how the sources were assessed, whether there were duplicates or
19 not. Of course, duplicates, a few duplicates, were found and eliminated.
20 The overlapping records were excluded. So the list represents a merge of
21 three groups of sources. In these three groups, we have five specific
22 sources, and it's a list that is compiled in my unit. It's not coming
23 from an external source.
24 Q. If I may now direct your attention to the tab marked 4100 in your
25 binder, that is 65 ter number 4100, and it would be after the
1 series 2859. Is that 65 ter number 4100 one of the sources used in
2 compiling your report?
3 A. Yes, it is. This is the so-called refugee table. This list
4 represents the refugees from the village of Hrtkovci registered in the
5 Croatian system of internally-displaced persons and refugees. This list
6 represents the persons who were still in this system as of mid-2005, so
7 many years after the events of 1992. There are 116 persons on this list.
8 All of them are listed as arriving in Croatia from Hrtkovci, most of them
9 in 1992, 113, and the remaining 13 in 1993. I have even made a chart
10 showing the time distribution of the arrivals based on this list, but --
11 Q. I'll stop you for one minute there.
12 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, the Prosecution moves for admission
13 of 65 ter number 4100, which is referred to in the report as the refugees
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Here, again, we'll
16 give an MFI number.
17 Mr. Seselj first.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Along with this document, we have
19 no markings of it being official. All we have is a table, nothing more
20 than that to say that it is official. Whose document is this? Should we
21 trust the expert at her word? I don't believe anything she says. She
22 says that this is a document of the Croatian authorities. Where can that
23 be seen? All we have here is a table without any other markings to tell
24 us that it is an official document.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This had not escaped me. We'll
1 give it an MFI number anyway.
2 Madam Witness, this table, 4100, you're telling us that you
3 obtained these figures from the Croatian authorities. I assume that the
4 OTP sent an official letter to the Croatian authorities, requesting from
5 them the list of all people who had been registered in Croatia in 1992 as
6 coming either from Serbia or from the village of Hrtkovci; and I guess in
7 their return mail, a few months later, the authorities gave you that
9 Now, this chart that we have, this table that we have here, is it
10 the table that you obtained from the authorities or did you reformat this
12 THE WITNESS: This is the original table as obtained from the
13 authorities. It's not reformatted. But you are right, Your Honour,
14 indeed, we made an official RFA to the government of Croatia sometime in,
15 as far as I remember, in 2005; and in response to this RFA, we received,
16 among other things, this list. There is a reference to the RFA in my
17 report on the first page of section 1. As far as I remember, the number
18 of this RFA is referred to, which I can show now. I hope that the copy
19 is already disclosed. If not, I will, of course, do this immediately.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I trust you on this. I have no
21 element whatsoever that would make me -- lead me to think that things did
22 not happen as you are saying.
23 So you obtained this document from the Croatian authorities.
24 Now, did you take a look as to the -- did you take a look at the
25 procedure that was happening in Croatia? When somebody arrived, what did
1 this person have to do? What documents did this person have to produce
2 to prove that this person was Croatian? It could be a person from Tahiti
3 or a person from Albania or whatever, you know, that might want to take
4 advantage of the system. So what exactly was the procedure used at the
5 time in Croatia? Who was in charge of the records, of the data?
6 Did you take a look to know what was going on at the time, what
7 ministry was involved, what department was involved? Did you investigate
8 into this? I'm sure you did, but could you shed some light on this,
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. We've been interested in the Croatia
11 registration of internally displaced persons and refugees for a long
12 time, this office. We did already some investigations and visits to this
13 group of people in Croatia already in 2003 for the needs of the Slobodan
14 Milosevic trial then.
15 It's an important source of information. It's a system that was
16 established in Croatia initially by the UNHCR together with the
17 authorities from the government of Croatia. This system is -- was
18 implemented as well in other countries of the former Yugoslavia, in
19 Bosnia, of course, in Serbia as well. It's a standard procedure based on
20 what an international organisation, renowned international organisation,
21 UNHCR, brought into these countries. This system is based on a lot of
22 experience from countries all over the world.
23 There was a ministry -- there is a ministry in Croatia who is
24 taking care of the system; and at some point, it was a ministry called,
25 I think, the Ministry of Labour, and many other things, a very long name
1 which I can't recall from my head, but I have the full name in the
2 documentation. I visited this group of people.
3 I had the opportunity to talk to them about how the information
4 is received, how the document is stored, and how the document is -- how
5 the documents are computerised. I had the opportunity to see the archive
6 in which individual files of IDPs and refugees are kept. So, indeed,
7 there is a requirement to provide certain documents that would allow the
8 entry into the system; and based on these documents and on the statements
9 from individuals applying for being registered, a decision is made,
10 official decision, by appropriate authorities.
11 In the case of Hrtkovci, normally, say, it is basic documents
12 that are required related to the birth certificate and record of place of
13 residence, and a statement or documents related to the fact whether or
14 not a person was persecuted for whatever reasons. It's important to have
15 a complete picture in order to make this legal decision of assigning the
16 status of an IDP or a refugee to an individual. This decision, of
17 course, has certain financial implications. People who have the status
18 of IDPs and refugees are entitled to certain financial compensations.
19 The authorities registering these people help them to find accommodation
20 and et cetera.
21 In the case of Hrtkovci, the situation was complicated because it
22 was, for many of these people, obviously difficult to obtain regular
23 birth certificates and records of their residence from official
24 authorities in Vojvodina.
25 It is not that I was there in Croatia and in 2005 when the data
1 were provided to us on these refugees from Hrtkovci, but I know that
2 instead of birth certificates and records of residents, other documents
3 were accepted, and these documents were the documents provided by the
4 Catholic Church in Hrtkovci. I'm speaking of parish records related to
5 the christening, and, of course, based on christening, date of birth
6 automatically become -- became available. There is also another type of
7 record, the request for the certificate of marriage. That is another
8 type of alternative document that was accepted by the Croatian
9 authorities at the time.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So the office of
11 refugees and displaced persons in Croatia, in Zagreb, set up this
12 document, which is listed as 4100. This comes from the Croatian
14 I think you added one detail. You said 1992 and 1993. Were they
15 computerised at the time they obtained all these elements, and they were
16 able to computerise all these elements?
17 THE WITNESS: This is a very good question, Your Honour. In 1992
18 and 1993 --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All my questions are excellent;
20 I hope so, anyway.
21 THE WITNESS: Sorry for my comment, then. Right.
22 It's important to realise that at that time, there was no
23 electronic system, 1992-1993. It was the time when the system was just
24 being started; therefore, these first individuals were not available in
25 records, electronic records from a computer system. There are, however,
1 files of these individuals kept by the Croatian authorities; and, of
2 course, it would be a matter of searching through the archives in order
3 to identify the individual files.
4 Later, in 1994, there was a survey in which a record was taken
5 and computerised of all then-persons having the status of IDPs and
6 refugees, and this is the first wave of data that is electronically
7 available. But this registration system is a dynamic system, so whenever
8 a decision is made to assign the status of an IDP or a refugee, then a
9 new person enters the system and there is a new record. However, if the
10 person is settled down somewhere there in Croatia, then the person loses
11 the status of an IDP or a refugee and it's out of the system.
12 So this explains why, by 2005, only 116 records from Hrtkovci are
13 there in the electronic data.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is very important. Thank
16 This document that we have here, this document 4100, when exactly
17 was it compiled by the Croatian authorities?
18 THE WITNESS: Approximately by mid-2005. That is the time
19 shortly afterwards, I assume, our RFA was submitted to the Croatian
20 government. So, in response to this RFA, this data was extracted from
21 the system.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
23 Second important element which you mentioned, and I need you to
24 confirm it: So when someone was granted the status of IDP or refugee and
25 then would change status, was becoming Croatian, had a Croatian passport
1 or left for somewhere else abroad, this person was taken out of the file.
2 Is that it? You said that it was taken out?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is what I said, and that is the dynamic
4 nature of the system. It changes all the time.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This list that was
6 compiled in 2005, could you tell us whether it only deals with the people
7 who remained IDP or refugees? In this list, can you tell us whether that
8 there are no people who would have arrived, for example, in June 1992,
9 who obtained the IDP status, and then say, "Well, now, three months from
10 this, I'm going to Canada. I no longer want to be a refugee or an IDP,
11 found another solution for my life" so they are no longer on the list; or
12 some that say, "I want to return to Serbia," because we have seen people
13 who return to Serbia, actually.
14 So please confirm that this 2005 list, whether it is a
15 comprehensive list with everyone or whether it's a list where we only
16 have those who are still IDP or refugees in 2005 and not those who
17 changed status between 1992 and 1995.
18 THE WITNESS: This is a list of actually exclusively refugees,
19 because these are people from outside Croatia, from Hrtkovci, who ended
20 in Croatia, who still have the status of a refugee in 2005. So,
21 basically, they are still there in Croatia and didn't acquire a permanent
22 residence in Croatia or elsewhere.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which means that a person,
24 refugee, who would have arrived in Zagreb in June 1992, who obtained the
25 status of refugee and who decided a few months later to move abroad, to
1 Canada, and told that to the authorities, would not be in that list, in
2 this 2005 list; is that it?
3 THE WITNESS: This is how it works, yes.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. That's what I
5 understood. It goes without saying, but it's good to say it.
6 Mr. Seselj.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an arbitrary explanation
8 given by the alleged expert. You can't see that anywhere from this
9 document. The expert now says, without never having said that before,
10 that this is the situation dating back to 2005 and that these individuals
11 had the status of refugees in 2005. We have no prove in evidence showing
12 us that they ever enjoyed the status of refugees. I don't suppose the
13 documents from 1992 and 1993 have been destroyed. I assume that was
14 accessible to the Croatian statistics. So this is being planted on us
15 here, which was -- this was compiled just for the purposes of these
16 proceedings, of this trial. They're trying to pull a fast one.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, I know you are very
18 competent, but our expert is also extremely competent, notably in
19 demographics and migration flows. So she told us that this file was
20 matched and cross-matched with other sources. She did not just use that
21 document --
22 You did not just use this document, this 2005 document, to reach
23 your conclusions; right, Mrs. Tabeau? You tried to match this and
24 cross-match this with other sources, didn't you?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's right, I did. Moreover, I would like to
1 add, I have been working with data on IDPs and refugees for a long time
2 now. It's been Croatia data, it's been the Bosnian data from the
3 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do have a lot of expertise in how
4 these data is compiled, and how the data is changing over time, and what
5 kind of decisions and how they are made.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm sure that we
7 will come back to this later on, but it's time for a break.
8 Our Registrar is also someone that takes care of everything. He
9 is going to give me an MFI number for the 4100 document.
10 Mr. Registrar, could you please give me that MFI number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P568.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's now break for
13 20 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.23 a.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is back in session.
17 Ms. Biersay, you may proceed.
18 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. If I could now direct your attention to what's in your binder as
20 65 ter number 2154A, which should be right after 65 ter number 4100; and
21 at this time, I'd just like to briefly touch upon the last two sources in
22 the next two tabs before you.
23 In looking at 65 ter number 2154A, is that one of the sources
24 that you used for the compilation of your report?
25 A. That would be the top 02154A?
1 Q. Correct.
2 A. Yes, that is one of the remaining sources. It's the list of
3 expelled persons from Hrtkovci. There are 280 families on this list, and
4 the entire list represents 805 persons; and in addition to the list,
5 there is a cover letter that was associated and presented together with
6 the list in the book by Marko Kljajic.
7 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, Your Honours, we would move for the
8 admission of 65 ter number 2154A, which is an extract from a book which
9 is 65 ter number 2154, but we're simply asking for the admission --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
11 MS. BIERSAY: -- of the extract at this time.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give you the floor later
13 on, Mr. Seselj. Just one point of clarification with the Prosecutor.
14 I've had a look at the list and at the cover letter. If I
15 understand correctly, you asked Mr. Marko Kljajic to send you that list.
16 So how did it all happen?
17 THE WITNESS: I didn't ask Marko Kljajic to send me the list. I
18 have the book by Marko Kljajic titled "How My People Were Dying" in my
19 office; and in this book, well, we saw this list and the letter. And, on
20 the other hand, this list was as well provided to me as part of the RFA
21 that we sent to the Croatian authorities with our request for information
22 related to out-migration from Hrtkovci, 1992. So in this response
23 received by me 2005, this list was attached, the letter wasn't, but
24 identified the same list in the book by Marko Kljajic, and then the cover
25 letter is there with the list.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 Yes, Mr. Seselj.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is so impudent that it
4 goes beyond words. This is not an accompanying letter along with a list.
5 This is a letter that Ciril Kos, bishop, sent to the Serbian patriarch,
6 Pavle, on the 6th of July, 1992. That letter has nothing whatsoever to
7 do with the list. It just happens to be in the book on page 45, and the
8 list starts on page 46. I believe that it would be best if the entire
9 book would be admitted into evidence so that this kind of deceit would
10 not take place in the future.
11 However, this is total impudence that an alleged expert is
12 offering this as a letter. You can see it on the basis of the content
13 for yourselves, because the bishop, the Catholic bishop, heard there were
14 persecutions. He's writing to the Serbian patriarch, but he's not
15 sending a list; and at the time, he's not aware of any list. The list
16 was made subsequently by Marko Kljajic as he manipulated information from
17 the bishop's office --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Parish priest's
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, I'm trying to
21 understand what this letter is related to. Apparently, Ciril Kos is
22 writing to the patriarch who is in Belgrade, but this letter, at first
23 sight, does not seem to be related to the list. How do you establish a
24 link between this letter and the list?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there is a link, and this was
1 a seminar of priests that took place around July 2000 -- 1992, at which
2 issues related to the population in the area of not only Hrtkovci but the
3 broader region in this part of Vojvodina were discussed. And at this
4 seminar, I believe the seminar is summarised in the same book by
5 Marko Kljajic, and this letter and the list are part of the materials
6 presented just after the summary of the seminar. So it's -- well, I
7 can't make another link; but just by looking and studying these
8 materials, I can associate with them.
9 Whether this is a manipulation, as Mr. Seselj called it, I would
10 totally disagree, because these three documents are fully consistent with
11 each other. There is the seminar report, at which these kind of issues
12 are explicitly mentioned of the population being simply forcibly
13 displaced from Hrtkovci; the letter; and the list.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sorry for interrupting you,
15 Witness. I'm looking at the letter. We see that there's a letter
16 between a Catholic and an Orthodox. A number of letters were exchanged.
17 The letter we have here is dated the 6th of July, 1992; but if you look
18 at the content of the letter itself, you see that reference is made to a
19 first answer dated 10th of June. That was an answer to a letter sent
20 initially on the 10th of March, 10th of March, 1992; in other words,
21 before the events of May 1992.
22 This Catholic priest is writing to his Orthodox counterpart to
23 talk about something. We don't know what. His Orthodox counterpart
24 responds on the 10th of June. And on the 6th of July, the Catholic
25 priest writes another letter; and in that letter - and you're right, it
1 may be the link - at paragraph 4, he draws the attention of his Orthodox
2 counterpart on the situation in Hrtkovci. But when looking at this
3 letter, there's something that we do not understand. We do not know why
4 did he write to him in March. We have no idea why he wrote to him in
5 March, what about. But you're right, the link can be established thanks
6 to the fourth paragraph, because this Catholic priest, in July, a few
7 weeks after May, draws the attention of his counterpart on what happened
8 in Hrtkovci. But what you're saying about the seminar in 2002 is
9 something completely different.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, first, a comment regarding the letter.
11 Obviously, it seems from the letter itself, the first paragraph,
12 that there has been -- there had been an exchange of letters between
13 these two priests, and this letter was not specially made to send it just
14 because of a particular issue, but obviously was one of a series of
15 letters. I, of course, agree with that. But, well, in the fourth
16 paragraph, as you have just mentioned, is the link to the list, so it
17 wouldn't -- it's rather straightforward to associate the list with the
19 As I'm saying, there are a few pages in the book just before the
20 letter which are not attached here, in which a seminar of the priests
21 from this area is summarised. But even without this seminar and the
22 discussion that took place at the seminar, and obviously were partly
23 related to the population situation in the region, I believe the bishop
24 really needed to have good reasons to send this kind of letter to the
25 patriarch, Pavle. Otherwise, I think, why would he do that? It's a
1 high-level correspondence, in my view.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, beyond the possible
3 link between this letter and the list, one question: If I understand
4 correctly, you cannot confirm that this letter was joined to the list.
5 You can't confirm that this letter was attached to the list?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is a correct observation. I cannot
7 confirm that the two things were sent together. That is -- that is the
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that it is absolutely
12 impermissible for the alleged demographic expert of the OTP to say here,
13 I quote, "I believe that the bishop had good reasons to write to the
14 patriarch." It's not for her to think or believe. She has to say what
15 statistical method she uses to link this letter with the list. Where is
16 her scientific elaboration there? It's not for her to think that the
17 bishop had good reasons. Is she here or was she brought here to think,
18 to think in the courtroom? This is the most ridiculous thing that we've
19 heard so far in relation to these alleged expert witnesses of the OTP.
20 She thinks, she says that she thinks. Unbelievable.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, two comments.
22 On several occasions, you used the word "the alleged expert."
23 You know full well that Ms. Tabeau has been acknowledged as an expert
24 witness by a great number of Trial Chambers at this Tribunal. A number
25 of people have acknowledged that she is competent in terms of demography,
1 so no need to use that sort of language, "alleged expert." That's the
2 first thing.
3 The second thing about this letter: From what I understood, and
4 you probably understood the same thing, this letter is to be found in the
5 book written by a priest about several events, including about what
6 happened to the Croats in Hrtkovci. This letter is to be found in the
7 book. In the book, you also find the list. The OTP, probably in
8 connection with Ms. Tabeau, the OTP decided that this letter may be
9 relevant, because at the first paragraph of the letter, you find that in
10 July 1992, the bishop who is in Djakovo, the bishop therefore is telling
11 his Orthodox counterpart that there is a problem. That's to be found at
12 paragraph 4 of the letter. Now, the question is: What is this problem?
13 Well, the problem is probably related to the departure of Croats from
14 Hrtkovci. That's it.
15 Now, if you look at the letter, at the list, the book, and the
16 events, you can see that a link has been established. Well, it may very
17 well be that the bishop was mistaken in his analysis of the situation,
18 and Ms. Tabeau stated earlier on that the bishop may have had very good
19 reasons to write this. But we don't know and you don't know where the
20 bishop had found information about these events, how he was informed
21 about this. We have no idea about that. You may decide to call this
22 bishop as a witness if that appears necessary.
23 But as things stand, what we have is a letter dated July 1992
24 between two high-level officials of the church, and they mentioned
25 something that happened in Hrtkovci. It may very well be that the
1 patriarch responded to that letter. He certainly probably responded to
2 that letter, but we don't have that response. It may be interesting to
3 find out what is said in response, and you may wish to ask him the copy
4 of that letter.
5 Well, we'll proceed; but before that, we'll give an MFI number.
6 One moment. I'll give you the floor later on, but first we need
7 to have an MFI number, and the Trial Chamber will rule after your
9 What did you want to say?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I want to tell you
11 that I'm not going to call Ms. Tabeau an alleged expert any longer. I
12 will try to imagine that she's a real expert.
13 Now, what does this letter, nevertheless, have to do with her
14 expertise? That's the core of the matter. This letter could have
15 accompanied the testimony of an ordinary witness. Marko Kljajic, the
16 author of the book, could have been brought in by the OTP. That would
17 have been a real treat. For reasons unknown, the OTP didn't want to call
18 Marko Kljajic as a witness, but they keep offering his book. All right.
19 They can offer his book along with ordinary witnesses, but not along with
20 a demographical statistical expert, because this letter has absolutely
21 nothing to do with demography or statistics; only if she had made
22 statistics for us to the effect of how many letters does the bishop send
23 every year and/or the correspondence between the Orthodox patriarch and
24 the Catholic bishop. Then that could be linked up to statistics.
25 Now, just this letter, having just one single letter planted
1 along with the expertise, the expert report of a demographical and
2 statistical nature, that is absolutely impossible. This expert has
3 nothing whatsoever to do with this letter, or can this expert explain
4 this letter, or can this expert present what it is that she thinks about
5 this letter. What do we care what she thinks about it?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, your comments are
7 on the transcript now, but we need to give a number to this document, an
8 MFI number. And as I said before giving you the floor, the Trial Chamber
9 will rule on this document after your cross-examination and after
11 Mr. Registrar, we need a number for this exhibit.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 2154A will be
13 MFI P569.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. For the transcript, I
15 want to add that Exhibit 2154A is made up of two documents; first, a
16 letter from the Bishop Kos, dated 6th of July, 1992, that is the first
17 document. Then we have a second document. It's a list of Croats from
18 that settlement, a list that is also to be found in the book written by
19 the Catholic priest. This number relates to two documents. The Trial
20 Chamber will eventually rule on the letter.
21 Please proceed, Ms. Biersay.
22 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Dr. Tabeau, if I can now direct your attention to the next tab,
24 which should be 65 ter number 4225. Is that exhibit also a source that
25 you consulted for the compilation of your report for this case?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you, very briefly, describe what that is?
3 A. This is yet another list that was used to compile the integrated
4 list presented in annex A of my report. This list was obtained in
5 response to the RFA, request for assistance, sent by the OTP to the
6 Croatian government in 2005. This list was submitted together with the
7 list of refugees we just discussed, and some other things. So this list
8 contains information about 200 individuals.
9 These individuals largely were listed in the book of
10 Marko Kljajic among the 280 families. Specifically, 97 family heads
11 listed in the book of Marko Kljajic are also included in this list that
12 was submitted to us completely separately by the Croatian authorities in
13 response to our RFA. The list in the book of Marko Kljajic is
14 incomplete. It only includes family heads. This is why we have 280
15 records on this list. However, in the book, it says that 805 persons are
16 represented by the 280 families. So, naturally, we wanted a complete
17 record of information about all 805 persons.
18 Croatian authorities, within a relatively short period of time,
19 were able to provide us with this list of 202 persons, among which 97 are
20 the heads reported among the 280. So it is just an expansion of the list
21 from the book of Marko Kljajic. Unfortunately, again, it is an
22 incomplete expansion. Due to the short deadlines we had at that time, we
23 obtained only the list of 202, and no more than that. Again, a very
24 unfortunate thing, but it's better to have records of 202 persons than
25 only the list of the -- from the book of Marko Kljajic.
1 The record of information is far more complete than what we see
2 in the book of Marko Kljajic. We have much more than just the first name
3 and family name. We have here father's name, date of birth; we have
4 address; we have the date of departure; we have the new address in
5 Croatia; et cetera, et cetera.
6 MS. BIERSAY: At this time --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please try to shed
8 some light on the following mystery. Please have a look at the list, at
9 number 1 on this list, Ivan Akrap. We know that he was born on the
10 28th of April, 1960. We also can see that his father's name was Ante.
11 We know his address -- not in Hrtkovci. No, we don't know it. It's
12 unknown. The mystery for me lies at the next line. What do I find here?
13 I find the following: "First registered in Croatia, 2nd of
14 February, 1982, Zagreb." Then we have the address, number 16 Jure
15 Kastelana Street. Apparently Mr. Akrap lived in Croatia in 1982. Isn't
16 that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is possible. Many people in the former
18 Yugoslavia had their permanent place of residence in one of the former
19 republics and worked in another. So for Croats from Vojvodina, it would
20 be that some of them would have their jobs in Croatia, and they would
21 travel systematically between these two places of residence. The same
22 was the case in the population in Bosnia. So for those who travelled for
23 jobs or just were there in Croatia for temporary jobs, it was, of course,
24 obviously far easier in difficult times to go back to apply to be
25 accepted in Croatia due to the situation in their permanent place of
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This raises another legal
4 Looking at the case of Ivan Akrap, we can think that he was a
5 legal resident of Croatia. We find the address that was his, and we see
6 that he was registered. He has a name -- a registration number, 6251.
7 At number 1, we have a Croat, a citizen of the Republic of Croatia, who
8 was in Hrtkovci for some unknown reason, maybe to work there, but this
9 person is a Croat and he's a Croat citizen. He has Croatian citizenship,
10 and he goes home in 1992, apparently after the events.
11 Is that the proper way to analyse this particular case?
12 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't interpret it this way. I would see Ivan
13 Akrap as a person from Hrtkovci with his permanent place of residence in
14 Hrtkovci. If you, Your Honours, compare this record with the record
15 number 1 from the just-discussed list of 280 families, then you see that
16 entry number 1 is Ivan Akrap from Hrtkovci, Ulica Lenjinova. The family
17 size listed here is three persons. So the two lists are consistent.
18 So the same person is reported in two sources: On the one hand,
19 in the list of expelled persons from Hrtkovci, as the family head,
20 number 1 on the list; and, at the same time, from the second list
21 provided to us by the Croat authorities, we know this person obviously
22 travelled between Croatia and Hrtkovci for whatever reason, most
23 obviously I would think of a job in Croatia. And in 1992, the person and
24 the family decided to leave Hrtkovci, as they are reported as persons who
25 out-migrated from the village in the list of Marko Kljajic. That is my
1 interpretation of these records.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.
3 Mr. President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
4 that this document doesn't have any official designations. We can
5 believe that the -- believe the expert that someone from the Croatian
6 authorities gave this to her. Furthermore, the expert is allowing
7 herself to speculate here.
8 I do have to apologise for using the term "expert." If I were to
9 use the feminine form in the Serbian, then it would mean "witch,"
10 literally, so that wouldn't be right. That's why I'm using the
12 MS. BIERSAY: [Previous translation continues]... is totally
13 unacceptable, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have just used
15 unacceptable terms to call the expert we have in front of us.
16 But you're telling us, madam, that the Croatian authorities sent
17 you this document. That is a more comprehensive document than the
18 others. But which authorities are we talking about? Are we talking
19 about this office, about the labour ministry, about the interior
20 ministry? Who sent you these documents, and how did they compile this
21 document? There's a great deal of information here, to start with the
22 fact that these people had been registered in the Republic of Croatia.
23 There must be files somewhere. So who sent you this document?
24 THE WITNESS: The exact name of this organisation is the Office
25 for Detained Persons -- Detained and Missing Persons in Zagreb. The head
1 of this office is Colonel Grujic, and this list was compiled by his
2 office. I believe - exactly, don't know - I believe this list was
3 compiled based on their own searches in the official population register
4 of Croatia, using the names of family heads from the first list. This is
5 how was it made, in my view. So whoever was registered in the official
6 records of Croat authorities is shown here in this list with all kinds of
7 detailed about them.
8 I want to stress that, in our request, we explicitly asked for
9 records of expelled persons from Hrtkovci, who left Hrtkovci in 1992, and
10 this was part of this response.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So we now know that in
12 Zagreb, you have an Office for Detained Persons and Missing Persons, with
13 Mr. Grujic as its head, and that he's the one who sent you this list. It
14 may have been a good idea to also provide the various correspondence
15 related to that, but now at least we know where this document comes from.
16 It was not clear at first sight.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to draw your attention,
19 Mr. President, to the fact that Colonel Grujic was mentioned, but it's
20 actually Ivan Grujic who figured here for over five years as an expert
21 witness of the OTP for some other matters; and, recently, they withdrew
22 him, assessing that his credibility had been challenged in some other
23 trials. Now they replaced him with Anna Maria Bilic and this other
24 expert. I can't remember exactly. I cannot tell you just off the cuff
1 So, see, one suspicious circumstance accompanies another one. As
2 soon as you're allowed to use a document that is not an official one or
3 not designated as an official one, then there's a series of problems.
4 Now, Ivan Grujic, even I've been taken by surprise. Although I
5 have excellent intelligence services, I haven't come across this
6 information. Now I'm really surprised.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, Colonel Grujic, is
8 he the Ivan Grujic who was supposed to testify as an expert witness and
9 was then withdrawn from the list? Is it the same person?
10 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, I will have to consult with wiser
11 minds in my office to see if, indeed, it is the same. I believe it is
12 not; but before I go on the record formally stating that, I'd like to
13 check first.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Please proceed.
15 MS. BIERSAY: At this time, we would move for the admission of
16 65 ter number 4225.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll give an MFI number to
18 that document as well.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI P570.
21 MS. BIERSAY:
22 Q. I would now like to turn your attention to what's in your binder
23 as 65 ter number 2859E, so it's those sections that would come
24 immediately after your report in the first binder. What I'd like to have
25 you explain to the Trial Chamber is figure 7, which is listed as
1 "Requests for certificates of christening by year of request." Again,
2 that should be in your binder as 2859E.
3 A. Oh, I'm lost a little bit.
4 Q. Do you have binder 1, or are you looking at binder 2?
5 A. At binder 1. We're looking at binder 1 now; yes?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. It is just an extra presentation after the list we just
9 Q. Can you find your report in the binder?
10 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes. It's first, yeah. Oh, yes, yes, yes. I do
11 have it. It's 02895E, right, you're referring to?
12 Q. Correct. And, actually, that is a page from your report at
13 page 21; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. This is just an extract for simplicity. Could you, looking at
16 figure 7, briefly describe to the Trial Chamber what that figure depicts?
17 A. This is the timing of requests for certificates of christening
18 shown here by year of request. The period covered by this figure is from
19 1949 until 2001. The births shown in the figure represents the overall
20 number of requests for certificates of christening made in a given year.
21 The first observation from this figure is that there is one very high
22 peak on the figure for the year 1992. This bar, the highest bar,
23 represents the 180 requests made in just this single year. So an
24 extremely high number compared with all other years, compared to the year
25 1992, where 180 requests were made. In all other years, insignificant
1 numbers are shown.
2 There are also two different colours used in this figure: One is
3 red, one is blue. These colours show a distinction between the requests
4 made for individuals who died - that would be the red colour - and
5 individuals for whom requests were made at the time that they were alive.
6 It's normally the case that if a person dies, then a request is made in
7 order to arrange a Catholic burial. So, normally, requests for surviving
8 people wouldn't be made if there were no other reasons. For the red
9 bars, we see that the --
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Tabeau, a request for what exactly?
11 THE WITNESS: For the certificate of christening. Certificate of
12 christening is --
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry. Would there be a request for christening
14 for someone who had died?
15 THE WITNESS: If a Catholic burial is going to be arranged in
16 another place by another Catholic priest than the one from Hrtkovci, then
17 they would need a certificate for christening of this person.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Witness, this chart on
19 figure 7 is striking, especially so since it's in colour, which is really
20 good. What I note, but I'm sure that everyone in this courtroom can note
21 the same thing, what I note is this: We see that from 1949 to 1971,
22 there were requests for christening certificates, but only for people who
23 had passed away. At the time, no certificates of christening were asked,
24 requested for living people. And a witness explained to us, saying out
25 of memory, that under the communist regime, it was not very good to say
1 that you were a Catholic, which is why probably certificates of
2 christening were not requested. However, and now this is where I run
3 into a problem, it's true that in 1992 there are 180 requests.
4 Obviously, something happened.
5 But why is it that in 1989, 1990, and 1991, there were some
6 requests for these certificates of christening? How can you explain
7 that? 1992, okay, we know that events took place, and one could
8 understand what happened. But why is it that before, the three years
9 before, there were some requests? It's on your chart.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, there are. It is not that I can explain by
11 giving you concrete reasons why, because I didn't study the reasons why
12 these requests were made. If it would be my personal opinion,
13 unsupported with any material, I would think of a changing political
14 situation in the former Yugoslavia. I would think of 1989, about Kosovo
15 and the speech by Slobodan Milosevic on Kosovo Polje; and generally the
16 situation becoming politically more and more unstable and, well, more and
17 more ethnic clashes were happening at this time.
18 But this is not my expert opinion; and, as I said, I didn't study
19 any underlying causes for the requests presented in this chart.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'm talking to the expert
21 here. When you look at the figures, and you see the figures of the
22 people who are leaving the settlement as of 1989, does this mean that as
23 of 1989 there's already an out-flow of people starting? These people are
24 going to Croatia, aren't they?
25 A number of witnesses came here and told us and explained that in
1 order to go to Croatia, in order to cross the border in the first place,
2 one had to prove Croatian ethnicity or Catholicism, and having a
3 certificate of christening could prove you were Catholic.
4 So could you tell us that as of 1989, there was a migratory
5 outflow which may have to do with Milosevic's speech in 1989? I don't
6 know, but you're the expert here; and in your report, you want to
7 demonstrate that in 1992 a number of Croats left. So I would like to
8 know whether Croats didn't leave beforehand, because it seems to be what
9 you have on your chart.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's right, some left before 1992, and this is
11 what is shown on the chart. Well, we shouldn't forget that population
12 movement always in there, in any area. It is any country that people go
13 out and come in; and, obviously, there were some migratory movements
14 already before 1992. Only the difference is, for 1992, we know exactly
15 that those who left the village took the direction of Croatia. So that's
16 the difference.
17 If we could study the destination of those who left before, we --
18 I am thinking of people who left this area and moved to other countries,
19 for instance, the out-migration from the region of the former Yugoslavia
20 was enormous, and it was -- it did not start exactly with the beginning
21 of the conflict.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. And chart number 8 helps
23 us go into details regarding this issue.
24 In 1992, you state that 180 people leave; and on figure 8, we
25 have more details regarding this. We note that before May, even before
1 May 6th, people were already leaving. In January 1992, maybe one or two
2 people made a request. In February, there's twice the number. March,
3 it's doubled again. In April, before the speech was actually made and
4 delivered, obviously there are at least five or six people who are asking
5 for this christening certificate. Then we have a peak in May and June,
6 and then it tapers down.
7 So, as an expert, can you say that even before May 1992, there
8 were requests for christening certificates involving about a few dozens
9 of individuals?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is what I'm saying. So I am not saying
11 that the out-migration started rapidly in May and continued only in May
12 and June until August. So the region was affected by some factors that
13 caused people to move out in the entire year of 1992; although obviously
14 most intensively, unquestionably intensively, it was May and June, as
15 shown on this chart.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's quite striking in
17 your chart. In May and June, there's about 70 people every month that
18 are asking for these christening certificates.
19 Ms. Biersay, the Registrar is telling me that you have ten
20 minutes left.
21 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. In that vein, if you could, in the same -- under the same tab,
23 turn to page 23, the extracted page 23. Your Honour has covered figure 8
24 with you, which is on page 21. I'd now like to direct your attention to
25 figure 9 on page 23.
1 Looking at that figure, were you able to identify a peak month or
2 peak months for the requests that were made for christening certificates?
3 A. Actually, figure 9 is showing the distribution by day of request.
4 In two months, in May and June, the left chart shows the date for May and
5 the right one for June. So, here, the bars represent the daily number of
6 requests. So it's striking, then, in May, the first requests were made
7 on the 8th of May and then continued intensively until the end of May.
8 The highest number is seen for the 15th of May and the days thereafter,
9 16th, 19th. And on the right chart, we see also in the first half of
10 June, the number of requests, daily number of requests, was high.
11 So it is even not the two whole months, but May, starting the 8th
12 of May until the end, and the first half of June, where the numbers are
13 extraordinary high.
14 Q. You discuss in your report also your reliance on the requests
15 made for marriage records from the church; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Did you do a similar comparison as far as the timing of the
18 request for marriage records?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And how did the timing compare to the ones that we've just
21 discussed for christening records?
22 A. It is very similar; very, very similar, really. Most -- the most
23 requests for marriage certificates were made again in 1992; actually, 82
24 of 94 requests, as far as I remember. So 82 out of 94 or something like
25 that were made in 1992; and the remaining requests were made, a few of
1 them, in the later years, but in the 1990s. That is one observation.
2 And within the year of 1992, it was the month of June where the highest
3 number of requests were made.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Witness, before talking
5 about these marriage certificates, let's take a look at the technique
6 used, and go back to table 9, please. We see that on May 8, there are
7 three requests for a christening certificate; then, on May 10, we have
8 two requests; on May 12th, two; May 13th, four; May 14th, two. Then
9 there's a peak which you told us about on May 15, because on May 15 there
10 are ten requests.
11 Then, when I go back to figure 7, where I see the figures from
12 March, April, January, February, I see that there are requests. I don't
13 see any speeding up in this process there. So maybe the speech made on
14 May 6th had a certain influence, but if there has been an influence,
15 maybe there's a time lag before the effect is actually felt in time.
16 Here, it seems that it took about 15 days for the effect to be felt --
17 no, ten days, between May 6th and May 15. But after May 15, we see that
18 there's still an even number of requests up until June 10th.
19 So, this being said, I wondered the following, and I wonder
20 whether you investigated this. This is what I wondered. We have the
21 figures, of course, but we have to explain these figures; otherwise, you
22 know, just figures by themselves are not sufficient. We need to
23 understand the figures.
24 We were told that the people who crossed the border had to
25 produce documents, certificates, possibly christening certificates. So
1 the people who obtained these christening certificates, I would like to
2 know whether they immediately left or whether they took some time before
3 leaving. Let's take the example of a person who's requesting a
4 christening certificate on May 10th. When's he going to leave Hrtkovci;
5 on May 15, in June? I'm sure you can't tell us, so I don't think you
6 really went into such detail.
7 So we don't really know whether these people who obtained their
8 christening certificate leave immediately once they have the paper in
9 hand, but let's assume that they leave very fast, that they leave almost
10 immediately. I would like to know whether you checked whether they were
11 leaving in convoys, in organised convoys, or whether they were just
12 leaving on their own, by themselves. I assume that, you know, they had
13 to pick up their belongings, their pets, so they needed either to have a
14 private car or there needed to be a bus or trucks.
15 So were there organised departures, or is it the fact that at the
16 OTP no one really investigated this? Because if Croatia regulated the
17 influx of refugees, which could be understood, of course, this might
18 explain why these requests for christening certificates seem to be
19 scheduled over time in an organised fashion. Did you envisage all these
20 assumptions; yes or no?
21 THE WITNESS: I didn't investigate the ways of departing, and I'm
22 calling the requests for certificates a proxy for departures. This is
23 how the information should be understood. This is a proxy. That means
24 an approximation. It is an explicit expression of the intention to
25 depart. I don't know whether there were buses, whether there were
1 organised convoys, anything of this. I don't know that. There must be,
2 of course, a lag, I guess, time lag between the decision and the
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Tabeau, can I just put another question in
5 follow-up of what the Presiding Judge has just asked you.
6 If you look at the table number 9, you see that there is a peak
7 apparently on the 15th, 16th, and 19th of May in requests for christening
8 certificates, and then it appears that there's another peak in June, on
9 June 10th. Did you make any attempt to explain why these peaks occurred
10 on these days?
11 THE WITNESS: I didn't.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: Perhaps, if I may add, I believe not all requests
14 for certificates were registered in the parish books. I believe there
15 were more requests made, and not all of them are on paper. As far as I
16 know, some people were afraid of being registered as having requested
17 their certificates. For whatever reason, they didn't want to leave this
18 on paper. And if you compare the number of requests for both marriage
19 and christening certificates with the number of individuals represented
20 by the list from the Marko Kljajic book, then of course the number from
21 the book is much higher.
22 If all those people reported on this list, which would be 805,
23 have requested the certificates, then the numbers would be much higher,
24 of course. But whether or not this would have impact on the peaks, I
25 believe not really, because these requests from the parish books are a
1 representative sample, I believe, of all the requests. So the timing can
2 be seen as a representation of the overall timing.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you investigate the use of
4 these christening certificates? I'm sure that you had some working
5 meetings with trial attorneys at the OTP, but I'd like to know whether
6 you investigated, whether you checked whether it's the Croatian
7 authorities that had asked for these marriage certificates, who would
8 have told people, "We don't mind welcoming Catholic Serbian nationals who
9 may be of Croatian ethnicity as long as they have a christening
10 certificate," as that might explain why there are so many christening
11 certificates and so many requests for this. Did you look into this while
12 you were compiling your report?
13 Your report shows that something happening, obviously. Suddenly,
14 we have all these requests for christening certificates that crop up,
15 but, I mean, there must be an explanation. So do you believe that it is
16 the persons themselves who, on their own volition, decided that they
17 needed to have their christening certificate, if need be; or was it
18 because the Croatian authorities had very specifically asked for them?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, we -- I don't think Croatian authorities
20 denied that this was required from the people from this area to be
21 accepted; but at the same time, they didn't provide the copies of the
22 certificates to us.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But what would if I told
24 you that a witness told us that exactly, what would you say to that?
25 THE WITNESS: What can I say to this? I don't have any
1 certificates from the Croatian authorities. This is my answer.(redacted)
5 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, if we could move into private session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move to
7 private session, please.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 10871-10872 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
24 MS. BIERSAY:
25 Q. If I could now direct your attention to, again, your binder, just
1 the next tab, which is 65 ter number 2859F, which is also page 10 of your
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Biersay, I forgot to ask
4 you whether you wanted a number for the tables we've just examined, 7, 8
5 and 9; or, for you, are they part and parcel of the report of the
7 MS. BIERSAY: Yes, Your Honour, we do believe that they are part
8 and parcel of the report. The only question that I would pose to the
9 Chamber is, if the Chamber would find the colour useful in its
10 deliberation, then I could move for the admission of this or resubmit a
11 colour version that might be helpful with the graphs and the like.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll ask my fellow Judges, but
13 it's true that when you have coloured graphs, coloured charts, it's
14 easier. Yes, of course. We'll give a number, then, to the previous
16 Mr. Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 2589E will be P571.
18 It will be admitted and [indiscernible].
19 MS. BIERSAY:
20 Q. In the preparation of your report, did you consult any census
22 A. Yes, we did. The two censuses, 1991 and 2002, aggregate
23 statistics obtained from statistical authority in Serbia were used.
24 Q. Directing your attention to the census for 1991, approximately
25 how many people were reported as living in Hrtkovci?
1 A. These numbers are all reported in table 1, so it is perhaps
2 easier if you look at the table 1 to see the numbers. So the Hrtkovci
3 was a small village, as a matter of fact. Approximately, 2.500 people
4 lived there at the time of the 1991 census. Of those, about 1.000 Croats
5 and 500 Serbs, 500 Hungarians, 400 Yugoslavs, and the rest were remaining
6 were ethnicities. So the ethnic composition in Hrtkovci was actually
7 with a majority of Croats. That wouldn't be an absolute term,
8 "majority," it would be a relative, "majority." That would be about
9 40 per cent of the Hrtkovci population in 1991. The Serbs were
10 represented at 21 per cent, Hungarians 19 per cent, Yugoslavs about
11 17 per cent. So it was obviously a multi- ethnic village with all
12 ethnicities' major groups, I mean, living in Vojvodina represented in the
14 Q. In comparing the 1991 census with the 2002 census, were you able
15 to discern any increases or decreases in the number of non-Serbs in that
17 A. Well, the non-Serb population, especially of Croats, Hungarians,
18 and Yugoslavs, declined very considerably between the two censuses, the
19 1991 and 2002 census. This is shown in table 1 and also in figure 2 that
20 represents the data from table 1. So for these groups that I just
21 mentioned, the Croats, Hungarians, and Yugoslavs, considerable declines
22 occurred between these two censuses. Altogether, these three groups
23 declined by 1.283 persons, which is by a drop of 76 per cent,
24 approximately; and the other groups, most importantly the Serbs,
25 increased. The number of them increased between these two censuses from
1 500, approximately, to 2.400 in 2002, which is a very high increase of
2 357 per cent.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Tabeau, can we just, for clarification, ask
4 you to clarify whether a Yugoslav is defined as being a non-Serb, or is a
5 Yugoslav defined as someone who has not given any information about his
6 or her ethnicity?
7 THE WITNESS: Yugoslavs, sir, are people who reported themselves
8 as Yugoslavs to the question about their ethnic affiliation in both
9 censuses. In both censuses, this question was an open-ended question.
10 That means everybody could report whatever the person wanted to. So
11 Yugoslavs are most definitely not those who didn't report any ethnicity
12 or had unknown ethnicity. They just reported themselves as Yugoslavs.
13 In most cases, it would be people from mixed marriages, for instance. So
14 this group is separated here because it is just a separate ethnic group
15 at the time of 1991 and the time of 2002. Both are present in the data,
16 in this data.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm asking because in your report you refer to
18 other non-Serbs as being, for instance, Hungarians or Yugoslavs, and this
19 may lead one to think that a Yugoslav is defined as being a non-Serb.
20 THE WITNESS: Actually, I would think of them as non-Serbs
21 because they had the opportunity to declare themselves as Serbs in the
22 census and they didn't. They choose the option Yugoslavs, which is an
23 expression of being not a Serb, a Croat, a Hungarian, a German, anybody
24 else, just a Yugoslav. This issue comes in several discussions back and
25 back again, and I believe, myself, and strongly so, that this was a
1 separate group of people, an ethnic group, Yugoslavs.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if we look at the bar
4 charts with the 2002 census in red and the 1991 census in black, it's a
5 very clear chart. We can all have a look at the chart and then look at
6 the table, where we have detailed figures about the number of inhabitants
7 and their distribution according to their sex and ethnicity. In this
8 chart, we can see without any doubt that the Serbs constitute the
9 majority in 2002. In 2002, the Serbs in the village account for 2.396
10 inhabitants. In 1991, there were 531 of them. But did you know that
11 these Serbs, the Serbs in the village, had been expelled from Krajina,
12 themselves? Were you aware of this? You must have been told about this.
13 THE WITNESS: Well, most likely there are in-comers among the
14 population of the 2002, and most likely they are from -- these are
15 Croatian Serbs who entered in this village as well, as they did in other
16 places in Vojvodina, of course. It is impossible that a normal
17 demographic growth of the population would result from 500 in 2000 and
18 400 within ten years.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wouldn't it have been possible
20 to study the arrival of these expelled Serbs and look at what time they
21 arrived in great numbers? Because I suppose that when they arrived, they
22 must have been registered in Hrtkovci, but it's something you didn't look
23 into, or maybe you did. I don't know.
24 THE WITNESS: Well, it is most certainly them registered in
25 Serbia. The authorities also had registration of internally displaced
1 persons and refugees; and at that time, already the registration existed
2 and all persons, in-comers from Croatia, were in the system. I don't
3 have the data on this, but it is correct that data exists that would
4 allow to study the arrivals of the Croatian Serbs in Vojvodina and other
5 areas of Serbia. I requested this data already, I think, in 2003, but
6 never received, under the excuse that the data is confidential and cannot
7 be shared, which is not true because I have the same data for Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina, for instance.
9 Well, not having the data, of course, doesn't mean that no
10 analysis is possible, not having, I mean, individual data on arrivals;
11 but I had some aggregate statistics which I included in my report. There
12 is a table in the report, and this is table 6, page 18 in the report.
13 This table comes from the Yugoslav survey, which is an official journal
14 published by Serb authorities. There are scientific articles on all
15 kinds of issues. Among others, this one article was about the data from
16 the registration of internally displaced persons and refugees in Serbia,
17 in Serbia and Montenegro, I should say, at that time.
18 The data comes from a very large survey conducted in 1996. That
19 would be a perfect moment after the war in Bosnia ended and huge waves of
20 Croatian Serbs arrived in the Serbian territory after Operation Storm and
21 Flash. Here, in this table, data is shown by the time of arrival; and
22 not only that; this is one aspect of arrival in Serbia. The other aspect
23 shown here is the country of origin. One of the countries of origin of
24 the arrivals of refugees and other war-affected persons, as they are
25 called, is Croatia, Croatia.
1 As we see, we have two figures for Croatia by the end of 1991 and
2 in 1992. So the refugees from Croatia registered in Serbia; refugees and
3 war-affected persons, I should say - that is an important distinction.
4 By the end of 1991, there were 56.194 individuals registered as arrivals
5 from Croatia, all territories, not only the Republika Srpska Krajina but
6 also remaining territories of Croatia; and in 1992, there are 34.119
7 arrivals. So, altogether, these two numbers give a total of
8 approximately 90.000 arrivals.
9 That is based on data coming from a very good source, very
10 reliable, and we can further conclude that that is the number that could
11 be maximally expected in Vojvodina. But not all arrivals ended in
12 Vojvodina. There is another table in this report, table 5 on the
13 previous page, where I show how many of the arrivals were in Vojvodina
14 and how many in Serbia. So about 40 per cent of the arrivals were in
15 Vojvodina. I'm speaking of the total of the arrivals. That would be a
16 much larger total because it would relate to the entire conflict period,
17 1991 until 1996 even.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
19 If you allow me, I'd like to follow up on the question put to you
20 by my fellow Judge. I have the following question with respect to
21 statistics: In 1991, 426 people declared themselves as Yugoslavs. In
22 2002, 67 declared themselves as Yugoslavs. So over the space of ten
23 years, if we compare these two figures, about 360 individuals changed
24 their ethnicity. What about these 360 individuals? Well, they can be
25 either Croats, Serbs, or Hungarians. These 360 individuals are to be
1 distributed amongst these three categories. If we assume that all of
2 these 360 individuals were Croats, it's impossible, statistically
3 speaking, it's impossible, I know, it's impossible. But the Croats who
4 were 504 in 1991, there would have been more of them if you take these --
5 at least a third of these 360 people into account. But in 2002, we find
6 that the number of Croats drops to 256, and the Croatian population is
7 valued by two, roughly. Are you following what I'm saying?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So every second Croat left the
10 village by 2002, but there's something that I find rather surprising.
11 Out of these 256 Croats, we have 110 men and 146 women. But if you look
12 at all the other figures, you have roughly the same number of men and
13 women. If you look above, you have 504 men and 502 women. That's
14 obvious because at birth you have about one boy for every girl born.
15 Where does this deficit come from in 2002, this deficit of 30
16 men? Could you provide a statistical or demographical explanation for
17 us, because we should have the same number of men and women. But here we
18 find there are 30 men less; whereas, if you look at the Serbs, you have
19 the same number of men and women, 1.197 men and 1.197 women. Could you
20 provide an explanation for this or not?
21 THE WITNESS: I have some comments.
22 First of all, this -- the population is shown in this table on
23 two different moments of time: Ethnicity in the 1991 census and later in
24 the 2002 census. The definition of ethnicity in each census is based on
25 the data collected in this census. There is no guarantee that persons
1 who reported themselves as Croats remained Croats in the next census.
2 And this is right that particularly among Yugoslav people tendered to
3 change their report on ethnicity depending on the situation, political
4 basic situation at the time the census was conducted.
5 It's possible that some Yugoslavs indeed declared themselves as
6 Serbs in the 2002 census. So this presentation is in some way biased
7 because of the changing perceptions of ethnicity among the respondents of
8 the census. That is one remark.
9 So, ideally, the change in the ethnic composition should be
10 assessed by using a different approach, which we tried to do in this
11 project; but in order to do this, I would need individual census records
12 from both censuses. By linking these records at the individual level, I
13 could compare the ethnic group -- groups as reported in one of the
14 censuses. In this case, I would choose, of course, the 1991 census as
15 the basis for this comparison. I could not do that because the data was
16 not provided to me by the Serb statistical authorities, again being
17 confidential. But as we know, regulations can be done in order to
18 prevent the confidentiality and the data could have been provided. So
19 that is one thing.
20 So I can't explain these kind of changes by directly linking the
21 census 1991 with the census 2002.
22 As it comes to the sex distribution, of course we can look at the
23 sex distribution as reported in these two years, and we can try to assess
24 this distribution. It is, indeed, the right observation that for some
25 groups, as for Serbs, for instance, the distribution is more or less
1 50/50. But the change -- the sex distribution is dependent on the age
2 structure of the population. The older the population, the less men are
3 reported; and, for sure, the age structure among the ethnic groups in the
4 former Yugoslav was not the same. The Croat population was known to have
5 an older age structure, so that might be one explanation for the less
7 But another explanation is that, who knows, perhaps more men left
8 the village. We still see the number of the, say, missing Croats in 2002
9 is 750 as compared with the 1991 census. So this population did not
10 recover by 2002 and is much, much smaller than what was reported in 1991.
11 The opposite is for the Serbs. Well, for Hungarians, there is a decline,
12 considerable decline, as we see; and for Yugoslavs, there is a decline,
13 but part of this decline might be related to the change of ethnicity
14 reported in the 2002 census.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will need to have our last
16 break. We'll resume after a break.
17 I believe that the Prosecutor has two minutes left.
18 MS. BIERSAY: I have one question left.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please put your question to the
20 witness, then.
21 MS. BIERSAY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Could you compare for the Trial Chamber the decrease in the Croat
23 population, when you look at the two censuses that you discuss, with
24 annex A that you prepared?
25 A. Well, the annex A contains records of 722, say about 700 persons;
1 and the decline which we still observe by 2002 is 750 persons. So I
2 wouldn't call it a coincidence, just only, you know, because I made this
3 list. There is an unquestionable observation that the population of
4 Croats declined between the two censuses and that most obviously people
5 were living in the village. The question is when they were living in the
6 village. From the analysis of timing, it is clear it was - I did it for
7 the entire period, even for 2002 - it is clear the maximum numbers were
8 seen for 1992. Why they were leaving is a question I couldn't answer in
9 this report, for all kinds of reasons. First of all, I didn't look at
10 the causes explicitly, but by using sources that I would collect for it.
11 MS. BIERSAY: And at this time, Your Honour, the Prosecution
12 would move for the admission of 65 ter number 2859F.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, can we have a
14 number, please.
15 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 2859F will be MFI P572. And just
16 to clarify, the previous document, which was 65 ter number 2585E will be
17 MFI P571.
18 MS. BIERSAY: No further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll now break for 20
20 minutes. We'll resume around a quarter past 12.00, and Mr. Seselj will
21 be able to start his cross-examination. That will obviously continue
23 --- Recess taken at 11.55 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
1 Ms. Biersay.
2 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, I owed the Trial Chamber some
3 information with respect to Ivan Grujic, and I can now confirm for the
4 Court that it is the same person. So the person who is replaced on the
5 witness list is also the person with whom the RFA information was
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
8 Mr. Seselj.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I knew that before, Judges, and I
10 was right.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj:
12 Q. Ms. Tabeau, you were born in Poland, were you not?
13 A. Yes, I was.
14 Q. What is your nationality?
15 A. I have dual nationality, Polish and Dutch.
16 Q. Well, I didn't mean "nationality." Perhaps the interpretation
17 was wrong. I meant "ethnicity." In Serbian, when you say
18 "nacionalnost," it implies "ethnicity." So what is your ethnicity?
19 A. My answer would still be the same, Polish and Dutch.
20 Q. Well, were your mother and father Dutch?
21 A. No. My mother and father were both Polish.
22 Your Honour, if I may make a remark. If there are going to be
23 private questions to me, I feel I have the right to protect my privacy,
24 and I don't want to discuss these private issues in an open session. I
25 feel this is my private life, and I want to protect it for business here.
1 That is as simple as that.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, if you want to deal
3 with private matters regarding our witness, let me tell you that the
4 witness is asking for private session to discuss these issues.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am absolutely not
6 interested in the private life of this witness, and I don't know why the
7 witness is suddenly so afraid. I have nothing further to ask her. What
8 I'm interested in is the ethnicity of the witness and her religious
9 affiliation, and that must be done in public session. That's all I'm
10 interested in, her religion and her ethnicity, and she has to give me an
11 answer publicly.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Maybe there was an
13 interpretation problem. It's your religious faith that Mr. Seselj is
14 interested in. Do you believe that this is part of your private life or
15 can you want to an in open session, or do you want a private session for
17 THE WITNESS: He asked me already about my parents and what
18 nationality were they, and I believe my religion, my values and morals,
19 are my private life, so I insist to answer these kind of questions in
20 private session.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult with my
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the Trial Chamber
25 has deliberated on this issue and believes that regarding religious
1 faith, if the witness doesn't want to answer, she doesn't have to answer.
2 It's her own free will, which is normal. She said that she would not
3 answer it, and she won't answer.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will withdraw that question
5 because I consider that there is a reason for which the witness is
6 ashamed to say what her ethnicity is and what her religion is, but I'm no
7 longer interested in that. All I'm doing is observing that the witness
8 did not want to answer the question and that she must have a strong
9 reason for that, which means she's ashamed of her ethnicity and religion.
10 Let me draw your attention to one more thing. This is not the
11 first case of this kind. There were other experts like that too.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, the witness is not
13 ashamed or anything. She told you that her parents were Polish. Very
14 well. And regarding her religion faith, she just won't say anything.
15 That's the end of the question. Move to something else.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what happened was
17 that I asked about her ethnicity, that is, her ethnic affiliation, and
18 the witness kept insisting upon her citizenship. I'd just like to remind
19 you that we had a similar case with Anthony Oberschall and with
20 Mr. Riedlmayer, the same case exactly, that they were avoiding stating
21 their ethnicity. I can draw my own conclusions about that, but I'm not
22 going to deal with that anymore, and I'm going to move on to my next
24 Q. For eight years, you've been working in the Tribunal's OTP;
1 A. Yes, it's correct.
2 Q. How did it come about that you gained employment with the OTP?
3 A. I applied for a job and was accepted out of about 60 candidates
4 who applied as well.
5 Q. Was it a public job announcement?
6 A. Yes, it was. It was announced on the web site of the United
7 Nations and this Tribunal, so it was a public announcement, yes.
8 Q. And what were the requirements of the job?
9 A. Well, there is a job description that was placed on the internet
10 at that time, and the requirements are specified there. So there was a
11 whole list, long list of requirements; and, obviously, I fulfilled this
12 entire list.
13 Q. With respect to the requirements, I'm just interested in one
14 thing, and that is whether that job announcement put up -- whether
15 The Hague Tribunal was asking for an expert of the demographic branch.
16 Did they ask for a demographer or was it a general announcement and
17 competition for different various professions?
18 A. It was an announcement for a demographer.
19 Q. And of 60 demographers, they chose you. Is that how I'm to
20 understand your answer?
21 A. Well, I don't know about the other 59 persons who applied,
22 whether or not they were all demographers or just social scientists, but
23 obviously I was chosen as the best applicant among all.
24 Q. But if the job announcement asked for a demographer, it is
25 understood that all the candidates, all the applicants, must be
1 demographers if they meet the requirements of the job description?
2 A. Well, I believe so. This is the title I have, and this is the
3 title I have been using officially in this Tribunal.
4 Q. But you're not sure?
5 A. How can I know about other candidates? I wasn't on the panel who
6 were interviewing the candidates. I was just one of the candidates.
7 Q. Well, I assume you followed the outcome of the announcement. You
8 had people you knew in the OTP who gave you that information, how the
9 process was progressing.
10 A. Well, not -- I didn't know the people at the OTP. Actually, this
11 is my husband who had found at that time the announcement on the UN web
12 site and told me about it.
13 Q. Mmm-hmm. Now, how would you explain the concept of a refugee?
14 How would you define "refugee"?
15 A. Well, it depends on the definition one uses. There is a legal
16 definition that is used by authorities in the countries in the former
17 Yugoslavia and other countries who collect information and register
18 internally-displaced persons and refugees, and there is also a
19 statistical definition that I used myself in several studies I presented
20 at this Tribunal.
21 Q. Give us that definition, at long last.
22 A. Which one do you want, legal or statistical?
23 Q. The one you know.
24 A. Well, the legal definition would include the fact that a person,
25 a refugee, is somebody who left their own place of residence and their
1 own country, and they didn't leave voluntarily but they left because of
2 being persecuted or because of the fear of being persecuted, due to
3 reasons as racial, ethnic, whatever other reasons. What matters is the
4 fear of being actually persecuted.
5 The statistical definition is different from legal, in the sense
6 that what we did in the past in several projects. We compared the place
7 of residence of individuals at the outbreak of the conflict and after the
8 end of the conflict; and based on the comparison of the places, we drew
9 conclusions about whether or not the person became displaced or a
11 Q. Your colleagues in the OTP instructed you well. You gained a
12 great deal of experience in other trials to waste as much time as
13 possible during the cross-examination. You could have given us a much
14 simpler answer.
15 MS. BIERSAY: Objection to that characterization. The running
16 commentary on the witness's answers is inappropriate.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Refrain from making comments,
18 please, and making running commentaries. You asked a question on the
19 definition of refugees. Our witness -- the witness gave us the
20 definition according to the Geneva Conventions in 1951 that we all know,
21 then she gave the statistical definition of "refugees." She gave a good
22 answer, so why do you add anything?
23 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
24 Q. All right. Now let's simplify that. Now listen to me carefully.
25 A refugee is, therefore, in the simplest possible terms, an individual
1 who feels certain danger and is trying to escape from that danger,
2 because in the word "refugee," there is this few -- there is this concept
3 of a person running away, faced with a danger, whether real or imagined.
4 That's not important, but he is fleeing his own country. Do you agree
5 with that?
6 A. Well, the danger of, you said, the fear is one thing, but in the
7 same definition, that the person is actually persecuted; this is
8 either/or. So you are right, generally speaking, either being persecuted
9 or feeling this fear to be persecuted. I'm not instructed by the OTP, if
10 I may comment on the other questions that you had to me.
11 Q. Well, I am now using the less extreme word. "Persecution" is the
12 more extreme. What I'm saying is that it's enough for the person or
13 refugee to feel fear, to flee his country because of that fear, whether
14 it is real or imagined. So that is the lowest level at which this term
15 "refugee" can be applied. With "persecution," of course, we don't need
16 to use many words to talk about that; right?
17 So it's the fear of -- the fear of danger. I'm being very mild
18 in saying that it need not even be realistic fear; it can be imagined
19 fear, perceived fear. Do you agree with that?
20 A. Well, I could not imagine that the fear is something imagined.
21 You either have the feeling, the fear, or not. That is how it is. This
22 is how I see it, simply speaking.
23 Q. I didn't say that fear was imaginary, but danger was imaginary.
24 Fear is a subjective category, and danger is an objective category, for
25 the most part. So don't try and reverse what I've said.
1 Now, somebody who is fleeing is leaving something behind him, and
2 that something is, first of all, property, immovables, but very often
3 movable property, too, because they can't carry everything with them;
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can we then, according to you as a demographer, a professional
7 who knows the legal definition and demographic definition of "refugee,"
8 can we call a refugee somebody who for certain reasons, whatever those
9 reasons may be, has the time to find somebody with whom he will exchange
10 his property and draw up a contract about that, register it with the
11 court in question, and having drawn up a contract and made it official,
12 organise his leaving? Can such a person be called a refugee at all?
13 A. Well, if the exchange is voluntary and from both sides voluntary,
14 then it is voluntary and there is no fear, I guess. But it's all about
15 whether or not exchanges were voluntary in Vojvodina.
16 Q. And for you to check and see whether the exchange was voluntary,
17 you would have to look at the exchange agreements and contracts and to
18 compare the property that was being exchanged; right? That was the only
19 exact manner of verifying this; am I right in saying that?
20 A. I didn't study the exchanges. If I had a project on exchanging
21 property, then most certainly I would collect -- would collect other
22 sources than what I used in my report. I didn't study it. It is not the
23 study of my report, exchanges of the property.
24 Q. Well, that's why I'm asking you because it isn't the subject of
25 your report; whereas, you allow yourself, in your report, to speak about
1 refugees and displaced persons. Whereas, you don't have a single piece
2 of evidence and proof to show that a single Croat from Hrtkovci or
3 Vojvodina can be considered a refugee at all. You must have an
4 objective, material piece of proof and evidence to show that the person
5 was actually a refugee; right?
6 A. Well, the official piece I have is the list of 116 refugees that
7 I obtained from the Croatian authorities. This is the list of legal
8 refugees in Croatia. And in this list, if you study it, for some persons
9 remarks are made relating to their property, and some involuntary
10 exchanges or just lost property are mentioned. But you are right that I
11 don't have the actual contract of exchange, any kind of document that
12 would be associated with these records.
13 Q. Let's leave behind the Croatian authorities, state authorities,
14 that they are a relevant source of information. Had they been a relevant
15 source of information, they would have been called in here to testify by
16 the Prosecutor and show on the basis of books that there are Croatian
17 refugees from Vojvodina. You are the Prosecution expert witness here
18 now, and now I'm asking you to show me any evidence whatsoever on the
19 basis of which you are able to say with certainty that such-and-such a
20 person, just one man, one person, a refugee, is a refugee, in the sense
21 that fleeing from some danger because of his fear, he left behind his
22 property and sought refuge in another state. You don't have any such
23 proof or evidence, do you?
24 A. Except for the list of 116, plus the analysis of the census
25 records, 1991 versus 2002, in which it's clear some people had to leave
1 their property behind. Except for other data on the departures from
2 Hrtkovci, I don't have any other evidence.
3 Q. Please, you cannot make a single conclusion saying that people
4 left their property behind. Nobody left their property behind. All the
5 people who left exchanged their property. Maybe you can find someone
6 somewhere that had sold his property earlier on and went to Austria,
7 Hungary, or goodness knows where else, but you don't have a shred of
8 evidence to show that there was a single Croat from Vojvodina who,
9 according to the legal definition from international law or the
10 demographic definition, can be called a refugee; right?
11 A. Well, we just discussed the sources I used in my report, and
12 these are the sources I have at my disposal and studied. I don't have
13 any sources --
14 Q. Please, we will come to the sources.
15 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, if the witness --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will get to the sources.
17 MS. BIERSAY: -- please be allowed to continue instead of
18 Mr. Seselj cutting her off, that would be helpful.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. You had started an answer
20 on line 22, 23, 24, and 25; and Mr. Seselj interrupted you. So could you
21 complete your answer?
22 THE WITNESS: I wanted to say I don't have sources that would
23 report on the exchanged property or property that was sold or property
24 that wasn't sold. I don't have these records, simply speaking; and this
25 is clear from my report.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we've seen a number of
2 witnesses here. Of course, you can imagine that since the trial started,
3 we have heard a good number of witnesses. Out of memory, let me tell you
4 that some witnesses said that they exchanged their flats, and we did see
5 some exchange contracts by which flats were exchanged. This is a fact
6 that we took due note of.
7 Then, secondly, other witnesses said that the exchange had been
8 encouraged or triggered, we don't really know who started, by the Croats
9 or the Serbs. We even have a witness who told us that according to him,
10 some kind of secret agreement had been made between Tudjman and Milosevic
11 to order these population transfers. So we were told of all these
13 If we assume that what all these witnesses told us was true, do
14 you believe that this would have changed anything to your report and to
15 the conclusions you actually drew?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't think I would make any changes, I don't
17 think so. My report remains as it is, and I was just answering the
18 question related to whether I have any additional evidence related to the
19 property. I don't. That is my answer.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You gave an answer when you
21 were asked about the definition of "refugees." I was listening to you,
22 and I was wondering at the same time whether demographers, in the
23 framework of their studies, don't have the same definition of "refugees"
24 as the Geneva Convention. Why don't they have their own perception of
1 I'm not a demographer. I don't know what are the bases for all
2 this, but why is it that your definition does not match the definition of
3 "refugees" that is recognised in international law? Why is it that you
4 have another approach in demography?
5 THE WITNESS: I don't think we have another approach in
6 demography. We fully respect the legal definitions as proposed by the
7 Geneva Conventions. This is not about the different definitions that we
8 use; and, of course, there are sources in every country which report
9 separately about the legal -- legally-defined refugees or asylum-seekers
10 and we often use this data. But at the same time, we in demography have
11 the studies of migration in which we not necessarily use only the data on
12 refugees and asylum-seekers. We would then use other data sources.
13 There are plenty that can be used. On the first place, there are
14 surveys which cover certain groups of migrants arriving or departing;
15 and, well, in these sources, possibly the legal definitions would be used
16 when asked what the reasons, right, et cetera. But the statistical
17 definition I mentioned was actually the definition I used in my expert
18 reports in this Tribunal.
19 In the absence of sources that would report on the
20 legally-understood refugees, I had to work with a definition that would
21 bring me the results that were needed for my reports, and this is why the
22 statistical definition, which is often used in demography, by the way.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you use the word "refugee"
24 in your report, if I understand correctly, the meaning you ascribe to
25 this word of "refugee" can be the meaning defined under the Geneva
1 Convention, but it can also be another meaning. Am I right?
2 THE WITNESS: Not in this report. It is, in this report, the
3 Geneva Convention. There is one source called "Refugee table," these 116
4 records; and this is the legal definition. The other sources I don't
5 call "refugees" because I don't know, simply speaking. These are persons
6 who left the village. Of many of them, it is known that they are called
7 "expelled individuals," but this is not expelled -- well, I wouldn't dare
8 to use the legal term "refugee," because I don't know how many of them,
9 as a matter of fact, were recognised in Croatia as refugees and how many
10 were not.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I get your point.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Well, as a scientist, if you establish that someone is a refugee,
14 you look at the definition from the Geneva Conventions, from
15 international law in general. That is what you use as your yardstick,
16 not how the Croatian authorities registered a particular person. What do
17 you care about how the Croatian authorities registered a certain person,
18 or are you putting your full trust in the Croatian authorities?
19 A. It is not me who is the authority entitled to make decisions
20 about whether or not a person, a migrant arriving in a country, is a
21 refugee. So it is that, in every country, there is an authority who is
22 entitled, who has in its mandate to make these kind of legal decisions.
23 I have to rely on the data provided by this authority, and this is what I
24 did in this case. I can't dismiss every source based on reasons like,
25 you know, whether a person is likable to me or not. There is an
1 authority. There is an authority who has it in its mandate, and I have
2 no reasons to disbelieve this authority, but I just use the data.
3 Q. As a demographer, you could observe certain movements of the
4 population, and there's no denying that. There were movements of the
5 population. One of the elements of this movement is the movement of
6 Croatian population from Serbia towards Croatia. But as a scientist and
7 as a Prosecution expert, you had to have irrefutable proof that these
8 were refugees, not just a piece of paper given to you by the Croatian
9 authorities without any official designation and in which they say
10 such-and-such persons are refugees. How could you accept that?
11 So you've already taken sides, with one particular side in a
12 civil war. What the Croatian authorities gave to you is irrefutable for
14 MS. BIERSAY: Your Honour, I'm having trouble finding the
15 question in Mr. Seselj's monologue.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is not a question for
17 Ms. Biersay. It's a question for the Prosecution expert.
18 Ms. Biersay, I'm not putting a question to you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, you were asked a
20 question, and I understood that question, but can you answer the question
21 or not?
22 THE WITNESS: I believe I can. I haven't taken sides with
23 anybody. I must say I made a lot of efforts to be as objective as
24 possible. I contacted Serbian authorities. I requested data on the
25 census, 1991, 2002. I requested data on the refugees and IDPs within
1 Serbia, and I did exactly the same thing with the Croats. So there is
2 nothing different in these two approaches, and there is nothing about
3 taking sides. I have not taken any sides.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You said that you did not have at your disposal official data on
6 property exchanges. However, since these are contracts that are
7 registered properly with courts of law and they are accessible to all
8 interested parties, why didn't you try to get a hold of these contracts?
9 For instance, in Hrtkovci, there were, say, 1.000 Croats living there.
10 Now there are a lot less. You have a census from 1991, and now you see
11 that there are less Croats now and to what extent. You go to the
12 Municipal Court in Ruma and you ask for information regarding their
13 property, and then they give you a survey. Everything is computerised
14 now. The computer provides you this data straight away. I'm not very
15 knowledgeable about computers, but I guess it's like an exhaust pipe: It
16 just gets out.
17 So you see that there is an exchange and some property was
18 exchanged for another property with somebody else. Why didn't you do
20 A. My task was to make a report on out-migration. In the initial
21 stage, it was out-migration from Vojvodina, the province. Later, this
22 task was evolving due to the lack of appropriate data, and we ended with
23 a study of Hrtkovci, but the task was still the same: Migration,
24 out-migration in particular of Croats and non-Serbs. If I had been
25 tasked with a report on exchanges, then that is a different report.
1 These two can be even associated with each other, but you can't claim
2 that I haven't done things for the report on migration. You know, I
3 haven't done things on exchange. It wasn't a report on exchange issues.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, when you compiled your
5 report, did you know or were you told by the OTP that apartments had been
6 exchanged? Were you aware of that or not, and did you prepare your
7 report by not taking this into account?
8 THE WITNESS: At the time I was tasked, I was unaware of
9 exchanges of the property between these two groups of the population, and
10 I learned about it in the course of the project. But, still, my task
11 remained exactly the same. From the beginning, it was a task for a
12 demographer, a study of migration. That is, of course, related in some
13 way to property as, say -- I don't know how to say it as a broader
14 context for this migration. But it was not that I was specifically
15 tasked to study both the trends, the patterns, and the causes of the
16 migration. So it was a descriptive study of migration patterns, on the
17 first place.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Ms. Tabeau, are you aware of the fact that a person who
20 regularly, in conformity with all possible regulations, carries out an
21 exchange of property, and after that moves out, such a person cannot be
22 considered a refugee in accordance with the provisions of international
23 law? Are you aware of that?
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, before the witness answers this
25 question, I would suggest that the witness is not in a position to answer
1 this question because she's not a lawyer.
2 Now, your position seems to be that because people voluntarily
3 exchanged their property between Serbia and Croatia, they cannot be
4 refugees in the legal sense, but I don't see any reason why you put
5 together the fact that people exchanged their properties on a voluntary
6 basis, on the one hand, and on the other, that they might do so because
7 they actually felt afraid and felt that they were being threatened and
8 persecuted. You cannot conclude from the fact that people exchanged
9 their properties voluntarily that they did not leave involuntarily, so
10 I think it's a bit unfair to put this question to someone who is not an
11 expert in international law.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge Harhoff, every day I feel
13 fear as I walk into the courtroom, but I still keep on coming in. There
14 is a difference in the intensity of fear. Some people are afraid of
15 rain. Some people are afraid of the wind. That's fear, too, but it's
16 not the same kind of fear that can lead to that kind of flight that a
17 person becomes a refugee and gets that status, leaving everything behind.
18 The difference in intensity of fear is a difference that shows whether
19 people are so frightened that they flee, leaving their property behind,
20 in order to save themselves and their children; or there is some fear,
21 fear of uncertainty, of incidents, of some undefined danger, and then
22 perhaps it might be better if we exchange our property and left.
23 These are two completely different intensities of fear. There is
24 one fear that leads to one becoming a refugee, and this other fear leads
25 to certain exchanges of populations, but that is not by way of becoming a
1 refugee. My thesis is that not a single Croat from Vojvodina was a
2 refugee in Croatia because none of them left, leaving their property
3 behind. That they felt unpleasant, I can understand that, I can believe
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Seselj, thank you very much for your lecture,
6 but my point was that this is not a question that can be put to the
7 witness who is not an expert in international law.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. But that witness is
9 referring to lists of expelled persons, refugees, and so on. That is
10 what she says in her expert report, you see. That's what the problem is.
11 The witness is speaking of certain things that she cannot prove had taken
12 place at all, and that is why I'm bringing into question the entire
13 expert report. If the expert has not mastered these categories, if she
14 cannot prove that there was at least one single Croat who was a refugee
15 from Vojvodina, how can one accept her expert report?
16 May I proceed now?
17 Q. Now, Ms. Tabeau, tell me, how would you define expelled, evicted,
18 or deported persons? What is an expelled person, an evicted person?
19 A. Well, I believe my private definition would be that the person
20 feels pushed out by all kinds of factors from the place where the person
21 is residing; pushed out, very strong, pushed-out circumstances. This is
22 how I would define it.
23 Q. Please, I'm not asking for your very own definition here. I'm
24 asking for a legal definition or a demographer definition that you were
25 guided by. It has to be a generally-accepted definition. It cannot be
1 your private definition. In international law, there is a definition of
2 an expelled person.
3 A few days ago, the authorities in Belgrade expelled the
4 Montenegrin ambassador and the Macedonian ambassador. They left in 48
5 hours to leave Serbia, so they were expelled. Also, if soldiers with
6 rifles come to somebody's door and say, "Off you go," those are people
7 who are expelled; and, usually, they are escorted to the border with an
8 armed escort. It is a tangible force that expelled them, not a feeling
9 that their environment does not accept them. A person's inner feeling
10 cannot turn that person into an expellee.
11 For example, I feel totally unpleasant here. I feel like jumping
12 out of my skin, that's how unpleasant I feel. But I don't consider
13 myself to be an expelled person and I'm not trying to run away or
14 anything. On the contrary, I'm trying to relish the circumstances
16 So give me your definition, the one that you proceeded from, from
17 a scientific point of view.
18 A. Well, the definitions are in the data sources that were used for
19 my report, and "refugee" is a term that is used for the data provided by
20 the Croatian authorities; that is, the so-called refugee table that I
21 used. The term "expelled" is used in the title of the list of 280
22 families, and this list is read together with the letter and some other
23 materials related to the events in Hrtkovci at that time. It seems to be
24 justified to use this term. I'm just using the term after the sources I
25 collected for this report. I'm not using the term "refugee" or "expelled
1 persons" in relation to the parish records that I also used for my
2 report. At the same time, I do include these records in the integrated
3 list that is available in annex A.
4 And in addition to this, what makes me think that the departures
5 from Hrtkovci were not just, you know, voluntary, economic migration,
6 educational migration, things like that. If you look at the ethnic
7 composition, the change in the ethnic composition between 1991 and 2002,
8 it's really dramatic. I can't think of regular demographic factors or
9 socioeconomic factors that would be -- that are the determinants, the
10 factors behind these kind of changes. So the picture, the broader
11 picture, makes me think that, wait, this is not just a regular
12 educational, economic, whatever other, migration. There were certainly
13 forces that caused these dramatic changes in the ethnic composition.
14 Q. Ms. Tabeau, we'll look at those tables tomorrow, but I would like
15 to warn you that you are a Prosecution expert. You are here to prove and
16 show that a certain crime took place. That crime took place -- and that
17 crime, in the Statute of this Tribunal, is defined as a crime against
18 humanity, and that crime against humanity incorporates and encompasses
19 clear forms of perpetration. One of the forms of perpetration is
21 So you must know the definition of "deportation" for you to
22 recognise it or not recognise it in practice, and not to have to resort
23 to lists from ill-intentioned Croatian sources which didn't even make an
24 effort to show that it was actually deportation that had taken place.
25 You haven't got a single piece of evidence that even one single instance
1 of deportation from Serbia to Croatia took place, and you have not even a
2 shred of evidence and proof to show that there is -- that there is a
3 single Croat who can be defined as a refugee from Serbia.
4 On the basis of the definition in international law, it was your
5 duty to support the indictment in that respect, wasn't it?
6 A. I wouldn't know what was my duty to support the indictment. I
7 was requested to make a report on the out-migration from Hrtkovci, and I
8 was able to collect a number of sources, two of which explicitly
9 mentioned in the name of the data included refugee -- the term "refugee"
10 and "expelled persons."
11 I don't have other evidence as to whether these people were
12 transported in an organised way, buses, whether there were soldiers
13 escorting them, et cetera, et cetera. I don't have this evidence, and I
14 didn't use this in my report. But, still, I believe I made a relevant
15 report which is quite informative and is helpful in a better
16 understanding of what happened in these territories.
17 Q. I don't know who might find this useful. It's certainly not in
18 the interests of justice to cloud the issue, to cloud the substance,
19 instead of clarifying the substance of the indictment. You have to show
20 whether there were indeed refugees or not, you have to demonstrate
21 whether there were deported individuals or not. There, you had at your
22 disposal certain methodology. You did not avail yourself of that
23 methodology, you didn't use it.
24 And since you've been working in the OTP for eight years,
25 Ms. Tabeau, what is your salary in the OTP?
1 MS. BIERSAY: Objection to relevance, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This type of question was
3 already put to another witness. I suppose you're either a P-2, P-3, or
4 P-4 staff. It's very well known. Do you have a specific status or are
5 you a staff member of this Tribunal, a staff member of the United
7 THE WITNESS: I'm a staff member of this Tribunal and the United
8 Nations, and I am P-3, professional.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] P-3. Very well. She's a P-3.
10 You just need to consult all the relevant documents from the United
11 Nations, and you will have the answer to your question.
12 Please proceed.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have anywhere where I can
14 look it up, Mr. President; and when I asked the last expert witness about
15 that, those sources were not accessible to me. Nobody explained to me
16 what P-1, 2 and 3 up to P-5 is and means, so I don't know that; whereas,
17 I should know it. It would be good if I did know it.
18 Q. In your country, the country of your origin and now the country
19 that you have been naturalised in, that is, to say, Poland, the former,
20 and Holland, the latter, where an expert appears in court, he can in that
21 capacity testify only if there are absolutely no common points with the
22 prosecution, no points of contact with the prosecution. Is that
23 something you know or aware of?
24 A. I don't understand what are the common points to you. The common
25 point is that my office is in the area of the OTP. But other than that,
1 my office is quite independent; and in the decisions that I make about my
2 work, I'm completely independent. Nobody's telling me how to do things
3 and what -- yeah. I'm an independent expert from this point of view;
4 but, as a matter of fact, the location of the office is the OTP premises
5 in this Tribunal.
6 Q. However, you do your work as you consider that the Prosecution
7 would like to see you do it, because had you not done it that way, they
8 wouldn't have had you there for eight years, but you would have been
9 dismissed earlier on. So you cannot be an unbiased and international
10 person in the scientific and professional sense; isn't that right?
11 A. I don't think it is right. Your comment goes very far. You are
12 saying the Prosecution is telling me what kind of results I'm supposed to
13 produce. I just said I'm independent in my work, and nobody's telling me
14 how to do my work and what kind of results to obtain. The results are
15 obtained from studying the sources, and from data processing, and from
16 studying related materials. This is how we do it. Why do they keep me
17 eight years? You have to ask them that. That is another question.
18 Q. Why, then, didn't you deal with a serious study, compiling a
19 serious study, but you base your expert report on just three sources: A
20 list of 116 alleged Croats who were refugees, provided to you by
21 unidentified Croatian authorities; and then the parish records; and the
22 book by Marko Kljajic? Those are your three sources, and you have
23 nothing more than that; right?
24 It is on the basis of those three sources that you write your
25 expert report and are presenting yourself and acting as an expert here.
1 It's not very nice to say that you are a Prosecution expert here;
2 whereas, you based your report on just those three sources. It's a bit
4 A. What's the question, actually? What do you want to know?
5 Q. Well, the question is: Why didn't you compile a serious
6 scientific study on the topic you were given? What you did was allegedly
7 write an expert report on the basis of those three sources and none of
8 them can be reliable in the statistical sense, not a single one of them.
9 Let me make the question simpler. You are a doctor of
10 statistics, as a mathematical method use in social sciences; that's
11 right, isn't it? It was your duty to use a strict methodological
12 principle that your science places at your disposal in order to arrive at
13 scientific truth. On the other side, opposed to that, you used incorrect
14 methods that are untenable in science in order to support something that
15 cannot be supported, and that is this false indictment. Isn't that
16 right, Ms. Tabeau?
17 A. I don't think it is right; it is all not right. First of all, my
18 study of Hrtkovci is a very serious study. I must say I like it very
19 much, and, well, it's a very good study. This is one thing. And if you
20 criticise the sources, I would very strongly disagree with you. For
21 instance, if I would have used only the parish records, I would feel
22 already very good about this. Parish records is an excellent source that
23 is often used in demography all over the world. Church books last back
24 for centuries. They were for the first time registers of births and
25 christenings and marriages were initiated in England in the 16th century.
1 So using parish records give us a unique opportunity to study demography
2 in historical populations. That is one of the major sources in
3 historical demography, and the study of Hrtkovci is exactly what it is.
4 It is a study of historical demography.
5 And from the point of view of the sources I use, I am very happy
6 with the sources. But if you speak of your serious study, what would it
7 be? Your serious study. I had a different concept as well, an
8 alternative concept for my work, which then at that time was related to
9 the entire province of Vojvodina and to work with census records,
10 individual records, and individual records on refugees and displaced
11 persons both in Croatia and in Serbia. But my attempts failed because I
12 didn't -- I was unable to collect the appropriate sources for this. I
13 don't think Hrtkovci study is less informative or less serious than the
14 Vojvodina study would be.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, we'll have to stop
16 here. We have to adjourn at a quarter past 1.00. We'll resume tomorrow,
17 and Mr. Seselj will proceed with his cross-examination.
18 Let me remind you again that you are not to talk about your
19 testimony with the Prosecution.
20 We'll resume our proceedings tomorrow at 8.30. Thank you very
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.14 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day of
24 October, 2008, at 8.30 a.m.