Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9885

 1                           Tuesday, 7 December 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.  Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-03-69-T.

 9     The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before the next witness will be called, a few matters.  The

12     Stanisic Defence has in addition to the reason given earlier for the

13     accused to be provisionally released added to that they would like to be

14     authorised to visit his father's grave.  Mr. Groome, is there any -- do

15     you want to respond to that, if so, would you like to do it now or will I

16     set a dead-line for that.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, on that specific matter if the Chamber

18     does grant provisional release the Prosecution will have no objection to

19     him visiting his father's grave.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that.  The Stanisic Defence has

21     requested leave to reply to the Prosecution's response.  Any objection

22     against this request?

23             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the Stanisic Defence request for leave to reply

25     is granted hereby.

Page 9886

 1             Mr. Jordash, I think it would be in the interest of the Stanisic

 2     Defence that we receive that reply as soon as possible.  We are even

 3     thinking about today but that might be too early.  Tomorrow midday, would

 4     that ...?

 5             MR. JORDASH:  May I just consult, please.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7                           [Defence counsel confer]

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Today, Your Honour, would be fine with us.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If you could manage, multitasking is that called, is

10     it?  Yes, you would like to leave the reply, I was thinking about a

11     written reply.

12             MR. JORDASH:  So were we, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, you were on your feet.

14             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I wanted to add a

15     few words to this.  I wanted to ask for leave, oral leave from the Trial

16     Chamber that we also file a response to the Prosecution's reply and we

17     would do that by late tonight.  However, I think it's unrealistic that to

18     expect that we can file it by tonight, but we would manage to do so

19     during the course of the morning if we are granted leave to do so.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

21             MR. GROOME:  Prosecution would not object to leave being granted.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Bakrac, leave is granted, we expect you to

23     file it tomorrow in the course of the morning until midday.  If perhaps

24     already before filing tomorrow morning you would have a courtesy copy

25     available to the Chamber, that would be appreciated.

Page 9887

 1             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then last matter I put on the record that the

 3     Chamber informed the parties on the 3rd of December, although relatively

 4     late, at 7.00 p.m., that it had decided, and it was based on some

 5     discussions in court and apparently discussions between the parties after

 6     court time, that the testimony of Ewa Tabeau would commence on Tuesday

 7     the 7th of December, as was then scheduled.  That the testimony of

 8     witness of JF-029 will not commence before Wednesday, the 8th of

 9     December, and that in the event that the testimony of Ewa Tabeau does not

10     conclude by the end of Tuesday, the 7th of December, that the Chamber

11     will consider whether to interrupt the testimony of Ms. Tabeau in order

12     to commence with witness JF-029.  We'll -- when making such a

13     determination, we'll of course carefully consider all of the

14     circumstances.  This is hereby put on the record.

15             I have no further matters to be raised at this moment.  Is the

16     Prosecution ready to call Ms. Tabeau?

17             MR. FARR:  Yes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could the witness be escorted into the

19     courtroom.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. JORDASH:  I should apologise, I should perhaps have jumped to

23     my feet earlier.  It's -- may I address Your Honour, an issue concerning

24     this next witness's testimony concerning 14 additional victims that have

25     been the subject of an application to add to the exhibit list, dated the

Page 9888

 1     1st of October 2010 as part of the Prosecution's submission of the

 2     updated victim's support of expert witness Tabeau and motion to add proof

 3     of death documents to Rule 65 ter exhibit list.  We've been informed by

 4     the Prosecution that to the extent the indictment or schedule attached

 5     thereto expressly mentioned additional unnamed victims, those additional

 6     victims, the 14, are, according to the Prosecution, to be added to the

 7     indictment.  This particular witness mentions those 14 and perhaps what

 8     I'm requesting is that we be allowed to address you on whether those 14

 9     are allowed to be added to the indictment in the way that the Prosecution

10     are proposing, which is to basically do it without asking.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's -- I suggest that we start hearing the

12     evidence of Ms. Tabeau and at the last five minutes before the break,

13     because I find it not very appropriate to let her wait outside, otherwise

14     if you would have asked before --

15             MR. JORDASH:  No, it's my fault entirely.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, may the witness be brought into the courtroom.

17                           [The witness entered court]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that what, at least, I expect will be the

19     contents of the testimony, that it will not really become a problem.

20             MR. JORDASH:  There will be no prejudice by dealing with it this

21     way.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau.  Before you give

23     evidence, you are required to make a solemn declaration, the text of is

24     it handed out to you, may I invite you to make a solemn declaration.

25             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

Page 9889

 1     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Tabeau.  Please be seated.

 3     Ms. Tabeau, you'll first be examined by Mr. Farr.

 4             MR. FARR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MR. FARR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           WITNESS:  EWA TABEAU

 8                           Examination by Mr. Farr:

 9        Q.   Good afternoon, Dr. Tabeau.  Can you hear me clearly?

10        A.   Good afternoon, yes.

11        Q.   Could you please state your full name for the record?

12        A.   Ewa Tabeau.

13        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I note that you've brought some papers with you to

14     court today, can you please tell the Chamber what those papers are?

15        A.   One binder contains the text of my reports, and some additional

16     documents like my professional qualifications, like some presentations

17     prepared for this testimony, some sources that were used for this

18     project.  The other two binders contain excerpts or full proof of the

19     documents that were compiled for this project.

20             MR. FARR:  Your Honour, I would ask the Chamber's leave that

21     Dr. Tabeau be permitted to consult her reports and the other materials in

22     the course of her testimony as required.  These are all materials that

23     have been disclosed to the Defence.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Leave is granted.  Please proceed.

25             MR. FARR:

Page 9890

 1        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, your professional qualifications are outlined on page

 2     108 of your IDP's and refugees report which is 65 ter number 5864, and in

 3     your CV which has been uploaded as 65 ter number 5867, so I won't go over

 4     your background in detail.  I do have a few clarification questions,

 5     though.  Your CV indicates that you received your PhD in mathematical

 6     demography in 1991.  What was the focus of your research for your PhD?

 7        A.   I studied differences in mortality in Poland, regional

 8     differences and factors underlying these differences.

 9        Q.   Your CV also indicates that you were a senior researcher and

10     project leader at the Dutch Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute from

11     1991 to 2000?  What was the focus of your work there?

12        A.   My research area was the study of mortality in western countries

13     and central European countries.  I studied mortality, overall mortality,

14     mortality by cause of death, life expectancy, prospects for longevity,

15     this was a study meant to, first of all, focus mortality, overall or by

16     cause of death, and secondly, to explain the differences in mortality for

17     various social groups.

18        Q.   Since 2000, you have been employed by the Office of the

19     Prosecution here at the ICTY.  Your CV indicates that during that time

20     you've prepared approximately 40 expert reports.  In how many of those

21     reports have you used a methodology similar to the methodology you used

22     for your reports in this case?

23        A.   The methodology used for this report, for this case is a standard

24     methodology used by the demographic unit of the Office of the

25     Prosecution, so basically the answer would be practically in all other

Page 9891

 1     reports, the same methodology was used.

 2        Q.   As far as you know, were these reports admitted as expert reports

 3     in the cases in which they were presented?

 4        A.   Well, yes, of course, these were reports presented as expert

 5     reports and tendered, majority of them into evidence.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Farr, would that not be something that you could

 7     have agreed upon?  I mean, let's try to get to the core, and of course,

 8     I'm very happy to know exactly what the focus of Ms. Tabeau's work was in

 9     the past, but I'm primarily interested at this moment in the report.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. FARR:  I'll proceed, Your Honour.  Thank you.

12        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, during your testimony here today we'll be dealing

13     with two reports you prepared specifically for this case.  The full title

14     of the first report is:  "Ethnic Composition, Internally Displaced

15     Persons and Refugees from Five Municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

16     1991 to 1997/1998."

17             The updated version that we will be using in this case is dated 9

18     July 2010.  The previous version was first filed on 15 December 2004 and

19     that report has 65 ter 5864.  I will refer to that report as "the IDP's

20     and refugees report" in the rest of my examination.

21        A.   Yes, it's correct, this is the first report.

22        Q.   The full title of the second report is:  "Victims of War Related

23     to the Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic Indictment."  It is dated 6

24     August 2010 with the exception of annex 4 to that report which is dated

25     23 September 2010.  That report is 65 ter 5748 and I will refer to that

Page 9892

 1     report as "the victims report."

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct, that's the second report.

 3        Q.   During your testimony today we'll discuss the sources,

 4     methodology and results for each report.  We'll deal with the IDP's and

 5     refugees report first.  In that report, you identify the 1991 population

 6     census.  And the 1997/1998 voters' registers as the two principal sources

 7     and describe them at pages 5 to 9 in annex B.  My question is:  Can you

 8     comment briefly on the size and completeness of those two sources as

 9     compared to sources commonly used in demographic or statistical studies?

10        A.   The population census is the most complete population survey

11     existing so in principal it is meant to cover the entire population, and

12     basically did cover the entire population of Bosnia and Herzegovina as of

13     March -- end of March 1991.  The size of the population census for Bosnia

14     is 4.4 million individual records and we did use the individual

15     micro-level information about persons and not aggregate statistics, so it

16     is the most existing, most complete record of information about a

17     population, the population in a country.

18             The voters' register is not as large as the population census, it

19     is, basically speaking, a large sample of the population eligible to

20     vote, that is those who at the time of elections were 18 or older, 18

21     years or older, and it covers those eligible voters who registered to

22     vote.  But still its size was large for Bosnia and Herzegovina; it

23     covered approximately 2.5 million individuals.  Merged voters' register

24     1997 and 1998 covered altogether 2.7 million individuals and again we

25     used individual-level records from the voters' registration.  So these

Page 9893

 1     sources are exceptionally large and exceptionally broad.

 2             In statistics and demography, sample surveys are often used which

 3     are very small and of course even though they are representative, they

 4     cannot compare with sources like the population census or the voters'

 5     register.

 6        Q.   And what is the impact on the reliability of your results of

 7     having sources that are exceptionally large and exceptionally broad, as

 8     you've just said?

 9        A.   Yes, any statistics made on the basis of census data are simply

10     not -- are complete.  It is not that we have a large margin of error in

11     this case, statistics compiled on the basis of the voters' register have

12     very narrow confidence intervals meaning that uncertainty related to any

13     statistics compiled based on the voters is extremely low.  That is the

14     effect of the very, very large size of this source.  This is just

15     reliable statistics that are obtained.

16        Q.   Can you tell us now what were the key pieces of data you used

17     from each of these sources when preparing the IDP's and refugees report?

18        A.   When preparing the statistics on displacement of the population,

19     as I said individual data was used, basic items essential for this

20     analysis included ethnicity and the place of residence or registration to

21     vote in the case of the voters' register.  But so that would be the

22     ethnicity and place of residence or registration to vote.  But in

23     addition to this, these two sources in order to make the analysis had to

24     be linked with each other, that is, records from the census and the

25     voters' registers had to be matched and for this names of individuals

Page 9894

 1     listed in the census and in the voters' register were used.  So that

 2     would be the next portion of information that was essential for this

 3     study.  In addition to this, the individual identification number

 4     available in the population census and in the voter's register, the

 5     so-called JMBG was used in the matching procedure as well.

 6             MR. FARR:  You've just started --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Tabeau, could I ask you one additional question.

 8     All the answers you've given, it is true that I find them all in the

 9     first part of your report "objective and scope," that's mainly what

10     Mr. Farr is asking you about, isn't it?

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, this is all described in the report, partly in

12     the objective and scope and largely in the annexes, methodological

13     annexes and source-related annexes of the report.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  There we find the detail, but the level of questions

15     put by Mr. Farr to you, let's say, 95 per cent answered in the objective

16     and scope.

17             THE WITNESS:  Correct.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Farr, we've read that.

19             MR. FARR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. FARR:

22        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, you just started describing the linking process that

23     you used, and as Judge Orie has indicated, it's described in detail in

24     your report.  Can you tell us why you decided to use this method of

25     linking records between your two large sources?

Page 9895

 1        A.   The method has its rationale in the idea of tracing individuals

 2     who lived in Bosnia at the outbreak of the conflict, that would be the

 3     individuals reported in the population census.  Throughout I did a whole

 4     conflict period, war period, and until the post-conflict situation.

 5             So the linking process is just nothing else but tracing, looking

 6     to -- for what happened to the same individuals over time and in this

 7     particular case the place of residence, the changes in the place of

 8     residence were the central question.

 9        Q.   And how long did this process of matching records between the

10     census and the voter register take?

11        A.   It was a very long process that started in 1998 and the project

12     was finished in terms of matching and compiling basic statistics in

13     mid-2003, so it took at least five years to complete these matching

14     activities.  Because of the size of the sources and because of the

15     complexity of the practicalities.

16        Q.   And I think you just indicated that the place of residence was

17     one of the key pieces of data that you compared between 1991 and

18     1997/1998; is that correct?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Now in your report you deal with two kinds of numbers of

21     internally displaced persons and refugees.  Minimum numbers and estimated

22     complete numbers.  My question is:  Do the matched records correspond to

23     the minimum numbers or to estimated complete numbers?

24        A.   The matched records correspond to the minimum numbers.  The

25     minimum numbers could be documented if required by lists of name of

Page 9896

 1     displaced persons, including their personal details before and after the

 2     war.

 3        Q.   Turning now to the estimated complete numbers, can you briefly

 4     describe how these numbers were obtained?

 5        A.   The estimated numbers -- the idea of the estimated numbers, first

 6     of all is related to the fact that the minimum numbers, as the name

 7     suggests, are very minimum, that means they are incomplete and shouldn't

 8     be seen as ultimate numbers of the displaced population.  So in order to

 9     compensate for this deficiency of the minimum numbers, we estimated the

10     more complete numbers for which we used some sampling statistics obtained

11     based on the voters' register which were applied to the pre-war census

12     population.  It was a basic simple statistical procedure that should be

13     seen as extrapolation of sample statistics over the entire pre-war

14     population.

15        Q.   I'd like to turn now to the results of the IDP's and refugees

16     report.  But before that I wanted to ask you a few questions about the

17     way in which you analysed the territory of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.

18     The number of the results in the report are presented with respect to the

19     portion of the territory that ended up in the RS versus the portion of

20     the territory that ended up in the Federation.  Can you briefly describe

21     what portions of the five pre-war municipalities in the

22     Stanisic-Simatovic area eventually became part of the RS and which

23     eventually became part of the Federation?

24        A.   Yes.  As a matter of fact, the municipalities covered by the

25     indictment include just five pre-war municipalities.  When I say pre-war

Page 9897

 1     implies that there is a post-war division of municipalities as well, and

 2     this post-war division we call post-Dayton division so the number of

 3     municipalities, the administrative division of the country into the

 4     municipalities obviously changed pre- and post-war periods.  So the five

 5     municipalities, Bijeljina, Bosanski Samac, Zvornik, Doboj and Sanski

 6     Most, these five municipalities were correspond to 11 post-Dayton

 7     municipalities.  What happened in the post-war division of

 8     municipalities, several municipalities were split into RS part and

 9     federal part.  This happened to four out of the five municipalities

10     included in this indictment.  Bijeljina actually is the only one that has

11     not been split; all other municipalities were split and Doboj was split

12     into even four areas.

13             So the RS municipalities relate to these parts of the pre-war

14     municipalities that became part of Republika Srpska and the federal part

15     is the one that belonged to the Federation.

16             I think it is convenient to perhaps take a look at this stage at

17     the population in the RS part and the federal part as reported in the

18     population census, so the RS part was approximately 240.000 individuals

19     and the federal part is about 80.000 individuals.  So it is that the

20     population in the RS part of the municipalities was much larger.  These

21     are the census data that are included in the report as well.

22        Q.   Thank you, we'll now turn to the results of your report.

23             MR. FARR:  And Your Honours, I would direct your attention to the

24     demonstrative exhibit of the excerpted results of the IDP's and refugees

25     report that was handed out before court.  That's document 65 ter 5862,

Page 9898

 1     and I'd ask that we can have that on e-court as well.

 2        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I just have two introductory questions regarding this

 3     demonstrative exhibit and the other we'll be using today for the victims'

 4     report.  First, is it correct that all the results in these demonstrative

 5     exhibits come from your reports themselves in the places indicated in the

 6     end notes to the demonstrative exhibits?

 7        A.   Yes, it's correct.

 8        Q.   It is also correct that the particular results presented in these

 9     demonstrative exhibits were selected by a process of consultation between

10     you and members of the trial team?

11        A.   Yes, it's correct.

12        Q.   So looking at the demonstrative exhibit, let's start with table 1

13     of the summary of the IDP's and refugees report which divides the results

14     according to the RS part and the FBiH part of the Stanisic and Simatovic

15     area.  The first row of the table is entitled, "Minimum numbers of IDP's

16     and refugees."  Can you briefly tell us what these numbers are?

17        A.   The first row as you said contains the minimum numbers.  These

18     are the numbers of displaced population, internally displaced and

19     externally displaced; internally meaning within Bosnia-Herzegovina and

20     externally, outside Bosnia-Herzegovina.  These numbers are the minimum

21     numbers, that is, they come from the matching procedure and can be

22     documented with personal and residence and ethnic details of every case

23     included in these numbers.

24             So the numbers are, first of all, given here only for the

25     individuals that were born before 1980.  This was a necessary restriction

Page 9899

 1     that had to be applied to both voters' registration and population census

 2     in order to make the statistics comparable over time.

 3             So it is the first remark.  We have here two panels in this

 4     table.  The first panel relates to displaced population from the RS part

 5     of the Stanisic-Simatovic area, and the second panel relates to the

 6     federal part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.  The Stanisic-Simatovic area

 7     are just five municipalities, pre-war municipalities, or alternatively as

 8     they were transformed into the 11 post-Dayton municipalities.

 9             So for the RS part the number mentioned in the table in the first

10     row is approximately 56.000 individuals, exactly 55.837, 55.837.  So that

11     is the overall number of displaced population who used to live at the

12     outbreak of the conflict in the RS parts of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.

13     That is the first number.  And further there is the ethnic breakdown of

14     this number, so there is, for instance, 44.798 Muslim displaced persons,

15     internally displaced and refugees, and 2.560 ethnic Serbs who became

16     displaced persons.

17        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.  Moving to the next row, the second row is

18     entitled, "Per Cent of IDP's and refugees within ethnic groups."  Can you

19     tell us conceptually what this number represents?

20        A.   This is a statistic obtained from the voters' records.  For

21     instance, 96 per cent that is given for the Muslim displaced persons

22     means that 96 per cent of the population identified as of 1997/8, 96 per

23     cent of this Muslim population became internally or externally displaced

24     as of 1997/8.

25        Q.   Can I just ask a follow-up on that.  I think I'm -- well, just

Page 9900

 1     tell me if this is correct, is it correct that for every 100 Muslims from

 2     the RS part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area for whom you were able to

 3     match records, 96 would have left their 1991 municipality of residence by

 4     1997/1998?

 5        A.   Yes, that's the interpretation.  Yes.

 6        Q.   And similarly for every 100 Serbs from the Federation part of the

 7     Stanisic Simatovic area for whom you were able to match records, 99.6

 8     would have left their 1991 municipality of residence by 1997/1998?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10        Q.   Are these the numbers that are represented graphically by figure

11     2 at the bottom of the page?

12        A.   Yes, that is correct.

13        Q.   Is there anything in your data or other information that you are

14     aware of that allows you to conclude whether these two significant

15     population movements, that is, one of Muslims and one of Serbs, occurred

16     at the same time or at different times?

17        A.   Probably these movements were occurring more or less in the same

18     time.  I believe these were most likely parallel processes.  I would

19     think so.

20        Q.   The next row is titled, "More complete number of IDP's and

21     refugees."  Earlier you described numbers that you developed using

22     statistical estimation methods.  Are those these numbers?

23        A.   The more complete number is the estimated number and this, I said

24     it is obtained by extrapolation, the sample proportion of displaced

25     persons over the entire 1991 population.

Page 9901

 1        Q.   And I think you, in addition to your estimated complete numbers,

 2     you also show a 95 per cent confidence interval for those numbers.  I

 3     think you said earlier that a confidence interval is somehow related to

 4     the degree of certainty related to an estimation, but can you just tell

 5     us what these confidence intervals that you have for this estimate mean?

 6        A.   Confidence intervals indeed express the uncertainty related or

 7     associated with the point estimate.  Point estimate is just one single

 8     number in this case of displaced persons, but of course it is just a

 9     point estimate and we are not 100 per cent sure that that is the number.

10     So using certain statistical techniques, we can make confidence intervals

11     which are telling us what would happen if many samples would be taken

12     from a certain population and each time statistics, the same statistics

13     would be calculated based on a different sample.  So this confidence

14     interval, for instance, for Muslims, it is 76.372 lower end, and upper

15     end 76.708, this is an interval which with a high confidence, in this

16     case 95 per cent confidence, comprises, contains the unknown number of

17     displaced person, displaced Muslims in this case.  It is a very narrow

18     confidence interval which is related to the large size of the sample that

19     would be the voters' register, and this kind of narrow confidence

20     interval suggests that our point estimate is very precise, as a matter of

21     fact.

22        Q.   You said a moment ago that it would theoretically be possible to

23     prepare a list of the individuals included in the minimum number by name

24     and place of residence in the two relevant years.  Now, correct me if I'm

25     wrong, but my understanding that it would not be possible to do that with

Page 9902

 1     your estimated complete numbers; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, partly correct, partly not, because the more complete number

 3     as a matter of fact should be seen as containing the minimum number plus

 4     the correction, say, or additional component that can be obtained using

 5     statistical techniques.  So for the minimum number, yes, but not for the

 6     additional part on the top of it.

 7        Q.   All right.  Can we now move to the top of the next page and take

 8     a look at table 4.  This also divides the results between the RS and the

 9     Federation.  And I'll ask you some more detailed questions in a minute,

10     can you just tell us briefly in general terms what table 4 sets out?

11        A.   Table 4 summarises the ethnic composition in the RS and federal

12     part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.  Ethnic composition on one hand is

13     represented for 1991 and on the other hand it is the ethnic composition

14     as of 1997.  The ethnic composition is expressed first of all by absolute

15     numbers and in addition to these in terms of percentage.  It's important

16     to note that the absolute numbers for 1991 are complete, but for 1997,

17     it's again a sample.  Large sample, but a sample.

18             So the 1997 absolute numbers are not the size of the 1997 actual

19     size of the 1997 population.  Percentages however can be compared in

20     these two years, so the second panel of this table, of table 4 for 1991

21     and 1997 can be directly compared and assessed.

22        Q.   And that's the panel that is titled "Per cent"; is that correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   And just to use an example to make this more concrete, is the

25     correct way to read this table that the Muslim population in the RS part

Page 9903

 1     of the Stanisic-Simatovic area fell from 33.1 percentage points to 1.6

 2     percentage points of the total population between 1991 and 1997 and that

 3     this represents a decrease of 95.3 per cent?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 5        Q.   And at the same time the Serb population increased from just over

 6     half to just over 90 per cent of the population of the RS portion of the

 7     area?

 8        A.   Yes, that's correct.  That is an increase by 76.4 per cent.

 9        Q.   Is it these changes in ethnic composition in percentage terms

10     that are represented by figure 12 at the bottom of this page?

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.

12        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to ask you a few questions about a

13     document.

14             MR. FARR:  Could we please have 65 ter number 564 on the screen.

15        Q.   This document has the heading of the Banja Luka Centre for State

16     Security Department of the Republika Srpska MUP.  It's dated February

17     1995, and it is titled, "Overview of data on the number and ethnic

18     structure of population according to municipalities in the area of the

19     Bahn Luke RDB centre for 1991 and 1995."

20             This document was seised by the Prosecution on 27 February 1998,

21     from the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka.

22             Dr. Tabeau, are you familiar with this document?

23        A.   Yes, I am.

24        Q.   And you do have a copy of it in front of you; is that correct?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 9904

 1        Q.   Can you briefly --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it on our screen already?

 3             MR. FARR:  Your Honour, it's not.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  In order to follow the evidence, it's good for us to

 5     have a look at it.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently there's something wrong with the system.

 8     Nevertheless, Mr. Farr, if you would look at the screen as well, so you

 9     would know whether the Judges have access to the material you are asking

10     about.

11             MR. FARR:  I can proceed to something else and come back to this,

12     Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you do so.

14             MR. FARR:

15        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, we'll now turn to your victims report.  I would first

16     note that there are two main parts to this report, the first part is the

17     body and the first three annexes which deal with all of the war-related

18     victims from the Stanisic-Simatovic area.  The second part is annex 4

19     which deals specifically with the victims whose murder are charged in

20     this case.  We'll deal with these two parts in that order, and again,

21     we'll deal with sources, methodology, and findings.

22             Starting with the main body of the report, pages 4 to 6 list the

23     sources you use to compile the victims report.  Can you briefly explain

24     not what the sources are, because that's what is in the report already,

25     but what qualities or characteristics of these sources led to you select

Page 9905

 1     them?

 2        A.   I think it's important to note that finding appropriate sources,

 3     reliable sources that would report on war victims is a very hard thing to

 4     do.  So in the times of conflict, the expectation that sources are easily

 5     available, complete, and reliable and without any deficiencies is simply

 6     wrong.  So the sources that we use -- the sources that we use are

 7     nevertheless the best we could identify and collect and should be seen as

 8     largely complete and reliable.  We made a lot of efforts to acquire

 9     sources on both civilian and military victims of war.  For instance, when

10     it comes to the military victims, we have complete lists of fallen

11     soldiers and other personnel associated with the ministries of defence in

12     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  When it comes to the -- should I continue?  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm still listening but at the same time I'm looking

14     there.

15             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, thank you.  So when it comes to sources

16     related to civilians, we used two large databases that were compiled by

17     the statistical authorities of Federation and Republika Srpska in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina in which they computerised at our request all death

19     notifications from the time of the war.  There were two groups of deaths

20     in these sources.  On one hand we had natural deaths that were excluded

21     from this report and any other report related to victims of war.  But the

22     other part of information was explicitly reporting on victims of war.

23     These lists, RS and FBiH lists, the so-called Dem 2 [phoen] databases on

24     war-time mortality were importantly prepared by the professional

25     statisticians with appropriate training and experience in providing these

Page 9906

 1     kind of information and secondly, these records are documented by, for

 2     instance, death certificates or other documents, for instance, court

 3     declarations of certain individuals to be dead.

 4             We also worked with lists of missing persons, which is an

 5     important source on victims of war.  As long as there is no body of the

 6     deceased -- of a deceased this person cannot be included in the records

 7     of official death notifications, so including missing persons records is

 8     an important thing to do in this kind of project.  We also worked with

 9     exhumation records, that would be the records of identification of

10     victims whose bodies were found in the mass graves in Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina.

12             So the sources that we used, I most certainly believe were the

13     best available for this kind of work and these are not just sources,

14     these are appropriate sources that report on victims of war.  They are

15     reliable, large, however, I cannot say they are complete.  They are

16     incomplete, and of course, they are deficient as well in several ways.

17             MR. FARR:

18        Q.   At page 3 of the victims' report you indicate that mortality

19     sources were required to contain information on the date, place and cause

20     of death or disappearance.  Why did you require sources to contain this

21     kind of information in order to be used?

22        A.   Well, generally we require any source to be the individual-level

23     source, that means information must be available on persons.  That means,

24     basically, these are long lists of victims, dead or missing persons or

25     exhumed or identified persons, and for in order to be able to process

Page 9907

 1     this information and to cross-reference sources and eliminate

 2     duplication, we first of all need to have personal details, like names,

 3     date of birth, place of birth, et cetera, and in order to study the

 4     details of their death or disappearance, we need to have information

 5     about date, place, cause of death.

 6        Q.   And why is cause of death, in particular, important?

 7        A.   Well, cause of death is important because we are speaking of

 8     victims of war, that is, the causes of death are, of course, violent in

 9     this case, and cause of death is important not to mix natural death with

10     violent war-related deaths.

11        Q.   Is it correct that you looked only at violent war-related deaths?

12        A.   Yes, this is what I said, the subject of our study were the

13     violent war-related deaths.

14        Q.   I would now like to turn to your methodology.  In section 3 of

15     the victims' report you mention the 2010 integrated database and you

16     describe how it was constructed using your 12 sources.  You also mention

17     two additional sources, one of which is the 1991 population census and

18     the second of which are the 1997/1998 and 2000 voter registers.  Starting

19     with the 1991 population census, can you tell us how that was used and

20     what it was used for in the creation of the 2010 integrated database?

21        A.   Perhaps I will come to this, but it's important to say what the

22     integrated mortality database is.  This is a database that covers all

23     war-related deaths that we were able to identify in the course of time in

24     our sources, in the demographic unit.  This database was put together

25     very recently, so its final version was available, became available, in,

Page 9908

 1     I believe, January this year.  So it summarises the results of our work

 2     with sources reporting on war victims, the work experience which is, as I

 3     think, about ten years long as of now.  This database covers the entire

 4     war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and entire territory of the country.  So

 5     this database was a match of 12 large sources on victims of war and, of

 6     course, eliminating the duplications, overlap of sources, cleaning the

 7     data, repairing gaps if possible, et cetera, et cetera.  That is the

 8     crucial part of the core of our work, but in order to make sure that all

 9     these victims were indeed living in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the

10     outbreak of the conflict, the census population of 1991 is used.  We

11     cross-reference the victims with the census population in order to

12     validate the personal details of the victims, and possibly to expand the

13     record of information on every person by including census information in

14     the records on deaths or disappearance.

15             So the role of census and validation and improving information

16     about the war victims.  On the other hand, there is the other group of

17     sources.  This would be the sources reporting on the surviving

18     population, that would be the voters' registers of 1997, 1998, 2000.  We

19     also have the register, official register of internally displaced persons

20     and refugees of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina; it's another source

21     of surviving population.  So what we do is, as well, cross-referencing

22     the lists of victims of war with the records of surviving population.

23     This is done in order to eliminate false positives that would be the

24     persons reported dead or missing who at the same time are obvious

25     survivors.

Page 9909

 1             So that is the methodology that we used for this project and for

 2     several other projects.  Importantly, of course, not all the records were

 3     used from the integrated database which is a large database.  It's

 4     altogether about 90.000 records of war victims from Bosnia.  We extracted

 5     the relevant records from this database using the criterion of area and

 6     time, as exactly defined in this indictment.

 7        Q.   At pages 8 to 9 of the victims report, you indicate that

 8     information on ethnicity was not universally available from mortality

 9     sources, but that information on ethnicity could be obtained from the

10     1991 census for those records that were matched with the census.  Just to

11     be clear, did you take any information on ethnicity from the mortality

12     sources or did you always take it from the 1991 census?

13        A.   We always take it from the population census and one is that it

14     is not -- ethnicity is not universally reported but more importantly we

15     realise that ethnicity is, as a matter of fact, self-perception that may

16     change over time, depending on the circumstances one lives in.  So in

17     order to eliminate any bias related to changing perceptions of ethnicity,

18     we also always ethnicity obtained on the basis of links with the

19     population census.  So it's ethnicity as reported in the 1991 census, not

20     biased by any changes of -- in later reports.

21        Q.   The victims' report also contains information regarding the

22     military or civilian status of the victims, and you explain in the report

23     the way that you assigned military status to certain victims.  You also

24     indicated at page 9 of the victims' report that this designation does not

25     correspond necessarily to combatants, why do you say that?

Page 9910

 1        A.   The approach we have been applying for many years now is that any

 2     victim included in the military lists -- we have three military lists,

 3     the lists of ABiH soldiers, VRS soldiers, ABH soldiers, that are the

 4     three factions involved, military factions involved in the conflict.  So

 5     we have these lists, altogether, I believe 54.000 records.  These lists

 6     were made for the purpose of postmortem benefits to the families of the

 7     persons included, so whoever is confirmed, whoever of our victims is

 8     confirmed in these lists, we assign this person the status "military."

 9     But it has nothing to do with the circumstances -- or it has something to

10     do but not -- there is no one-to-one correspondence between the

11     circumstances of death and the fact of being reported a military in the

12     sense of our definition.  What I'm trying to say being a military doesn't

13     mean that a person died in combat circumstances.  It just means that the

14     person was associated in some way with the army or the Ministry of

15     Defence.

16        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.

17             MR. FARR:  Your Honour, I'm not sure exactly what time we

18     started, I don't know if this is an appropriate time.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We usually have a break after 75 minutes, but I'm

20     more concerned about the way your last question -- first of all, we know

21     that Ms. Tabeau worked on the job for five years.  I don't know what the

22     relevance would have been if she worked on it for three years or seven

23     years, mainly looking at the quality of her work and that's, so therefore

24     that's a totally superfluous question.  Apart from that, the military

25     status whether or not in combat or whatever, I find that on page 9,

Page 9911

 1     military status is clearly explained.  One line:  "Among the soldiers a

 2     number of them died in combat but we have good reasons to believe that

 3     many died in non-combat situation.  They were executed and their bodies

 4     exhumed from the mass graves."

 5             That's exactly what we spent two or three minutes on which you

 6     read in half a line and so clearly explains by the expert that I really

 7     wonder why we have not adopted as many other Chambers that if there is

 8     clear evidence on paper we should not spend too much time in first, seek

 9     the witness to be cross-examined.  Mr. Farr, you've got ten more minutes

10     until the break, do you think that with this in the back of your mind

11     that you conclude the examination-in-chief of Ms. Tabeau?  And perhaps

12     look at your questions, see to what extent it's just repetition of what

13     we tried hard to read because until now 40 per cent of your questions are

14     really just what is clearly explained and the remaining 60 per cent you

15     may have some doubt as whether we understood these statistics and what it

16     all meant, there's a fair chance that we did, but I can imagine that you

17     did not want to take any risk in that respect.

18             Mr. Farr, you've ten more minutes, see how far you can come in

19     those ten minutes.

20             MR. FARR:

21        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to turn to the results of your victims

22     report.

23             MR. FARR:  Your Honours, I draw your attention to the document

24     entitled, "Main findings of the victims report" that was handed out

25     before court and I would note for the record that this document has been

Page 9912

 1     uploaded as 65 ter 5863.

 2        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, at the top of this demonstrative exhibit we see the

 3     minimum number and estimated overall number that come from your victims'

 4     report.  Can I just ask you, is it correct that for this minimum number

 5     it would theoretically be possible to prepare a list naming each of those

 6     victims as it is for the minimum number in the IDP's and refugees report?

 7        A.   Yes, it is practically possible, not only theoretically.  It's

 8     practically possible, we do have the lists.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.  Moving to the estimated overall --

10             MR. FARR:  And Your Honour, I'll be guided by the Chamber whether

11     any clarification is required with respect to the way in which the

12     estimated overall number was calculated.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Seems to be clear.

14             MR. FARR:

15        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, turning to table 3B at the bottom of the page, please

16     tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly.  In the middle section where

17     it says, "percentages by ethnicity," and looking at the column that says

18     "civilians" is the correct way to read this table that of the minimum

19     number of 3.092 civilians, 73 per cent were Muslim, 19.2 per cent were

20     Serb, 3.7 per cent were Croats and 3.4 per cent were others?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   And is it also correct that within the minimum number of 5.359

23     Muslim victims, for example, 42.5 per cent were civilians and 57.5 per

24     cent had military status?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 9913

 1        Q.   You've described the way in which the undercount was calculated

 2     in your report.  Can you please just tell us what the undercount

 3     indicates, if anything, about the reliability of the minimum number?

 4        A.   The minimum number is the list of victims that we can document

 5     using the information from our sources, but there is a number of

 6     exclusions from -- that could not be extracted as relevant to the

 7     Stanisic-Simatovic indictment.

 8        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I apologise for interrupting you.  I believe that

 9     that's explained in your report.  Could you just tell us, what, if

10     anything, the estimated undercount tells us about the reliability of the

11     minimum number?

12        A.   Well, the -- we tried to by presenting in quantitative terms the

13     undercount of our minimum number, we expressed, we made an attempt to

14     express what part is missing in this number.  So that it is the minimum

15     number is incomplete is obvious because we have been applying very

16     conservative approach, excluding deficient records, rejecting sources

17     that are not reliable enough, that we believe are biased, et cetera,

18     et cetera.  So but it is not only that we have done all these exclusions

19     but we also know that sources are incomplete.  So the undercount estimate

20     actually is a quantitative expression of the missing part in the minimum

21     number.

22        Q.   Could I summarise that or could I conclude that the existence of

23     this estimated undercount in some way illustrates that the minimum number

24     is a conservative number?

25        A.   Yes, yes, yes, that is the confirmation of it as well.

Page 9914

 1        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to turn to annex 4 of the victims'

 2     report.  This is the portion that deals specifically with the victims

 3     whose murder is charged in the indictment in this case.  And I'll first

 4     just ask you background, a few background questions regarding the kinds

 5     of documents that you reviewed in the course of preparing the charts that

 6     form part of annex 4.  You list these documents at pages 3 and 4, these

 7     kinds of documents at pages 3 and 4 of annex 4 and I'll just ask you very

 8     briefly, can you estimate how many documents of these kinds you've looked

 9     at during your work with the OTP?

10        A.   I think the number of documents that were reviewed in our

11     project, proof of that project was 250 plus-minus a few, but 250

12     documents.

13        Q.   Is that with respect to the victims in this case?

14        A.   This is the documents that were -- that are covering, that

15     covered the victims of listed in the schedules to the indictment.  Only

16     this group of victims.

17        Q.    My question was more general, during the course of your ten

18     years of work in the Office of the Prosecutor, how many documents of

19     these types have you had the opportunity to look at?

20        A.   I've been working with these kinds of documents systematically as

21     my unit is the one that is responsible for the OTP exhumations project so

22     we've been in touch, and I personally have been in touch with

23     organisations issuing these kind of reports, like the state commission

24     for tracing missing persons, in fact that the International Commission

25     for Missing Persons in Sarajevo, and also for other cases of this be

Page 9915

 1     Tribunal, Srebrenica cases for instance, Krajina cases, these type of

 2     documents have been used systematically.

 3        Q.   Could we say that you've reviewed thousands of documents of this

 4     type during your work at the OTP?

 5        A.   Well, I believe that would be probably the case.  I wouldn't be

 6     able to say how many thousand but many, many documents of this kind have

 7     gone through my hands.

 8        Q.   And during the course of reviewing these documents, have you

 9     become familiar with their usual form, the functional position that would

10     usually be held by a person who would sign or prepare them, the specific

11     organisations that and the specific organisations that created them in

12     Bosnia and Herzegovina?

13        A.   Yes, yes, of course, I as well personally visited several

14     organisations involved in the exhumation and identification processes in

15     Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it is not only that I had opportunity to

16     studies the actual documents, I also had the opportunity to speak to

17     persons who participated in exhumations and issued the documents.

18        Q.   I'd now like to move to the charts appearing in annex 4 to the

19     victims' report.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question perhaps.  You said you

21     reviewed some 250 documents here.  I'm looking at page 3 of annex 4,

22     "Overview of exhumation and identification documents used as proof of

23     death," you come to 430.  Is it -- that's not the same as 250 or that's

24     just a rough guess or...  What explains the difference?

25             THE WITNESS:  No, no, on this table as a matter of fact the 430

Page 9916

 1     are links to documents, so there were a number of bigger documents that

 2     contained lists of victims.  So this increases the number of actual

 3     documents when we speak of document links to victims to 430.  So there

 4     were actually 250 documents but because some of them were associated with

 5     more than one victim, then if we rearrange the documents, associated

 6     document with every victim then this increases the number of the actual

 7     documents to the document links, that is 430.  That means --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, total documents is the total number of links

 9     with documents.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes, to every single victim from the list.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Where it may be in one document you find ten links

12     where it's still only one document.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So where you say that for one victim you

15     sometimes have more documents, what you could have added is that

16     sometimes one document you have more victims.

17             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, please proceed.

19             MR. FARR:

20        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to move to the charts appearing in annex

21     4 to the victims report.

22             MR. FARR:  And obviously that's all been passed out to the

23     parties and the Chamber before court but could we please have page 7 of

24     the second document linked to 65 ter 5748 on the screen for the benefit

25     of the public?

Page 9917

 1        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, can you tell us what each row of this chart

 2     represents?

 3        A.   This is one row in this table relates as a matter to fact to one

 4     victim, and for this particular victim it relates to a given, to a

 5     particular document in which details of the death or disappearance of

 6     this person are described.  So for victim number 1, this is Ivan Agatic,

 7     Agatic Ivan, father's name Ante, there are two documents that were

 8     associated with this particular victim and are presented in this chart as

 9     two proof of death documents for this person.  So the document order, the

10     item called "Document order" for Agatic, there is document order 1 and

11     document order 2.  This item indicates how many documents were associated

12     with every victim.  Yes.

13        Q.   Thank you.  So essentially one row is one document and when there

14     are multiple rows for one victim then that means there are multiple

15     documents for that victim; is that correct?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   This may be self-evident but can you tell us what it means when

18     the word "yes" appears in the authenticity column with respect to a

19     document?

20        A.   This comment means that this was a standard document that I was

21     familiar with and I did recognise as a -- yeah, as systematically

22     presented by authorities at various occasions and, the yes is just my yes

23     to the authenticity, yes.

24        Q.   I'd now like to go through the notations --

25             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, we don't object to Mr. Farr continuing

Page 9918

 1     later, but we would ask if we could have a break, please.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Farr, could you tell us how much time you

 3     would still need?

 4             MR. FARR:  Less than 20 minutes, Your Honour.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  After the break you have 15 minutes, Mr. Farr.  We

 7     take a break and we'll resume at five minutes past 4.00.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber apologises for the late start.

11     Mr. Farr, the 15 minutes.

12             MR. FARR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to go through the notations that we find

14     in the column entitled, "Comment of Dr. Ewa Tabeau in the proof of death

15     chart."  And again being mindful of the time, I would ask you to give the

16     shortest possible answer that is complete and accurate.  Starting with

17     the "associated POD" notation, what does that comment mean?

18        A.   "Associated POD" means, in full, associated proof of death

19     document, and associated is related to a group of documents, exactly 38,

20     which had the name of victims handwritten on the front page.  Other than

21     that, the name of the victim was not included in the text, body text, of

22     the document.  "Associated" means simply that it is just one of the

23     documents related to a given victim, and the link between this document

24     and other documents was established based on, exactly speaking, body

25     label attached to the body of this victim and mentioned in the associated

Page 9919

 1     POD, as well as other documents.

 2        Q.   Thank you, what about the notation "reliable POD"?

 3        A.   "Reliable POD" means that this was a regular proof of death

 4     document and victims' details were included in the body text in the

 5     standard form could be clearly seen from the document.

 6        Q.   What about "confirmed war victim," what does that notation mean?

 7        A.   This means that the record of the same victim was found in the

 8     integrated mortality database and in brackets the numbers are related

 9     with subsequent sources in which this record was confirmed.  For

10     instance, in the third row, for the victim Antunovic, Jozo, document

11     number 2, there is - and 1 as well - there is in the brackets the number

12     2, 3 which mean that is the same victim was reported in the integrated

13     database in the underlying source number 2 and underlying source number

14     3.

15        Q.   And that was list of sources is found on page 5 of annex 4; is

16     that correct?

17        A.   Yes, that's correct.

18        Q.   Moving on to the next notation, what does "confirmed personal

19     details" mean?

20        A.   This means that the record of this individual was found in the

21     the population census 1991, so a match could be established between

22     victim record and the census.

23        Q.   Now, moving to the column entitled "final conclusion."  Under

24     what circumstances did you put the entry "very satisfactory" in that

25     column?

Page 9920

 1        A.   These were cases for which I could conclude that it was a

 2     reliable proof of death document, that the victim record was confirmed in

 3     the integrated mortality database, and finally that this person's record

 4     was found in the population census.

 5        Q.   Does your conclusion "very satisfactory" relate only to the fact

 6     of the person's death or does it also relate to other matters?

 7        A.   There were two victims for whom only a missing person report was

 8     available and no other documents, and for these two persons, "very

 9     satisfactory" simply relates to the fact that there is a satisfactory

10     record of missing for this person, not of death.

11        Q.   And with respect to the other individuals for whom you've said

12     very satisfactory, does that relate only to the fact of the death or does

13     it also relate to other matters, and if so which other matters?

14        A.   Well, very satisfactory relates to the documents themselves, type

15     and number of them, and the fact that the same victim could be confirmed

16     in other sources of information, population census is important and the

17     integrated mortality database.

18        Q.   And under what circumstances did you use the entry

19     "satisfactory"?

20        A.   So these were cases for which the information was limited, for

21     instance, there was no link established with the population census or

22     integrated mortality database, and for associated POD documents, the 38 I

23     mentioned with 100 names on the front page.

24        Q.   I'd now like to ask you about the 14 additional victims that you

25     identified while reviewing the proof of death documentation.  How did you

Page 9921

 1     identify those additional victims and why did you associate them with the

 2     other named victims?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Jordash, before we entered court I said to

 5     my colleagues, we have not given Mr. Jordash his five minutes.  I had on

 6     my mind to do it at the end of the examination-in-chief, but this might

 7     be a good moment as well.  Ms. Tabeau, there was a procedural issue which

 8     does not directly affect you but I do not think there was any problem if

 9     Ms. Tabeau would listen to you, would it, if you make a submission?

10             MR. JORDASH:  No, I think that must be right.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps we since we are now moving to the 14

12     additional victims, that we give an opportunity to Mr. Jordash to raise

13     the matter he wants to raise.  And you've still got ten minutes left,

14     Mr. Farr.

15             Mr. Jordash, I had five minutes in my mind.

16             MR. JORDASH:  I'll do my best.  The application is to -- for

17     Your Honours to order the Prosecution that if they wish to add 14 victims

18     to the indictment against the accused they do so by applying to amend the

19     indictment, rather than the intended process, which is to, as they've

20     done, to apply to add the victims to the Rule 65 ter exhibit list in the

21     filing of the 1st of October, 2010 and then seek to adduce the evidence

22     through Ms. Tabeau, and thereby create an additional liability for the

23     accused.

24             And it is an additional liability for the accused in so far as

25     what the Prosecution seek to do is increase the number of unlawful

Page 9922

 1     killings by 10 per cent.  And in our submission, that must be done in a

 2     way which allows the parties to make submissions to Your Honours as to

 3     the prejudice which arises by that intention and application, and that

 4     must be done, in our submission, through an application to amend the

 5     indictment.

 6             The Prosecution's position is, as far as I understand it, that

 7     they may do it, they may add these victims firstly in the way that I've

 8     just outlined, and secondly, because the indictment annex E part 2 has a

 9     permitting phrase, as they would see it, where, for example, the victim

10     list for Bosanski Samac names 16 victims and then has at the bottom with

11     asterisks at the side of it "plus additional victims."  And the same goes

12     for Doboj and Sanski Most and Zvornik.  In our submission, there's clear

13     authority, and Your Honours, I rely upon Kupreskic appeal judgement, but

14     I also rely upon the series of cases which followed Kupreskic in which --

15     has Your Honours received a copy of the -- I think your learned Registrar

16     has the copies to be given to Your Honours, it's Kupreskic appeal

17     judgement, paragraphs 88 to 90.  And stated in straightforward terms, the

18     Prosecution must state the victims on an indictment.  There is an

19     exception, a very narrow exception which arises in cases of mass-scale

20     crimes, and in those instances the jurisprudence doesn't require each

21     victim to be named.

22             And if Your Honours look at paragraph 88, that sheer scale

23     exception is referred to:

24             "Obviously there may be instances where the sheer scale of the

25     alleged crimes makes it impracticable to require a high degree of

Page 9923

 1     specificity in such matters as identity of the victims and the date for

 2     the commission of the crimes."

 3             And then as an illustration of what a sheer scale or what a --

 4     the type of scale that the jurisprudence has in mind, Your Honours can

 5     see at paragraph 80 an example there of where an accused is alleged to

 6     participate as a member of an execution squad in the killings -- in the

 7     killing of hundreds of men.

 8             And if one then looks at our indictment, we fall, in our

 9     submission, well outside of that exception.  Bosanski Samac, the

10     Prosecution have named 16 victims, Doboj 20, Sanski Most 11 -- I beg your

11     pardon, Sanski Most 36, and so on.  In our submission, it is -- it was

12     well within the possibility that the Prosecution could specify these

13     victims and name them prior to the case commencing at the time the

14     indictment was drafted.  And to do so now or to attempt to do so now,

15     one, without applying to amend the indictment is in principle wrong, and,

16     two, if that application was to be made, in our submission it ought to

17     fail on the basis that the sheer scale exception cannot be said to apply.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Farr, Mr. Groome, whom should I attend at this

19     moment?  Please, Mr. Farr.

20             MR. FARR:  I'll just respond on a couple of points.  First of

21     all, with respect to the applicability of Kupreskic, I'm speaking off the

22     top of my head to some extent, but I believe that that related to more or

23     less to the events of a single day in Ahmici.  It was a geographically

24     and temporally limited incident and the accused were direct perpetrators

25     or very nearly direct perpetrators.  We would submit that this is a much

Page 9924

 1     different case, this a much larger case and it's a case in which the

 2     that's more like the exception that Mr. Jordash was referring to than it

 3     is like Kupreskic.

 4             Just specifically with respect to the incidents with respect to

 5     which new victims have been identified, in the indictment schedule for

 6     Doboj we say, "plus additional victims," and only one additional victim

 7     has been identified.  With respect to Zvornik, we say, "plus additional

 8     victims," and there it's a different situation, eight new victims have

 9     been identified.  However page 62 of the indictment does charge the

10     killing of approximately 20 non-Serb civilians, and I believe that these

11     additional victims bring the number up to 26, if I'm not mistaken.  The

12     final example is the example of Sasina and Sanski Most.  In that

13     situation we, in fact, plead only plus one additional victim and

14     Dr. Tabeau has identified five new victims.  So that's a situation which

15     I think we would concede that we might be required to amend the

16     indictment.  Or be guided by the Chamber as to how else we might proceed

17     by filing new victims list or whatever is appropriate.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Jordash.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Briefly in our submission, Mr. Farr doesn't address

20     the nub of the issue.  One has to break down the crime bases.  Was it

21     impracticable for the Prosecution when naming 16 victims relating to the

22     Bosanski Samac crime base to name a handful more and give the Defence an

23     ample opportunity to deal with those alleged killings throughout the

24     whole of the Prosecution case rather than at the end of it.  And

25     secondly, it isn't an issue in our submission with concerning how large

Page 9925

 1     the additional victim list.  It's an issue of an addition.  The

 2     Prosecution may say, well, we are only adding one unlawful killing.

 3     Well, that's one unlawful killing.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You started talking about percentages, Mr. Jordash.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Only to show the gravity of the situation.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, so apparently there the quantity, not to say

 7     exclusively, has some importance to you as well.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  It has some importance for those who are prejudiced

 9     by it.  It doesn't have importance for those who are benefitting from it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Benefitting is perhaps not ...

11             MR. JORDASH:  Perhaps that's not the right word.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand what you mean, in whose favour it

13     would be.  So the issue, if I could summarise it briefly, is the

14     following:  We are talking about the relevance of this evidence because

15     it's the position of Mr. Jordash that in order to name victims which were

16     not named at any earlier stage, that this would require an amendment of

17     the indictment for which the Chamber should give its approval, whereas,

18     Mr. Farr, you take the position that it's just filling in names for until

19     now unidentified persons.  I don't know whether I've missed it, the 14

20     additional victims, the identity is here of course established, it's part

21     of the list now, when did the Office of the Prosecution identify who they

22     were?

23             MR. FARR:  Dr. Tabeau identified the additional victims as she

24     was preparing annex 4 to the report.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps the question to you, annex 4 exactly

Page 9926

 1     was prepared when?  It may be that I said I read everything, but I might

 2     miss some details.

 3             THE WITNESS:  The date is 23rd of September, 2010.  That is the

 4     date of the report and this is when the work was finished and it became

 5     obvious that these are new entries.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You linked them to the incidents by name, so

 7     that was -- without this knowledge, the Prosecution could not have named

 8     them at any earlier stage.  I think we have to further look at the case

 9     law.  It is my recollection that in the Gotovina case a similar matter

10     played a role, although the scale was perhaps not exactly the same.

11     Kupreskic, the scale is also not the same but perhaps at the other end of

12     the scale.  I suggest that the Chamber will consider the objection and,

13     Mr. Jordash, it finally comes down to the relevance of the evidence on

14     the 14, isn't it, because if they are not included in the indictment, it

15     is at least to prove killed victims in the indictment, it would be

16     irrelevant because they would not be covered by it.  You say you first

17     should name them, ask for an amendment of the indictment and then we'll

18     oppose and then therefore whether it's -- this is relevant evidence or

19     not depends on how we should look at the indictment and there the parties

20     are 180 per cent opposed.

21             You say it's not part of the indictment if the indictment is not

22     amended.  Mr. Farr says these are the unnamed but meanwhile known victims

23     we refer to already in the indictment and therefore covered by the

24     indictment.  Is that --

25             MR. JORDASH:  I think that is the position, yes.

Page 9927

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If that is the case, then I suggest that we

 2     would continue, that the Chamber considers whether Mr. Jordash is right

 3     or Mr. Farr is right on whether, in order to make these 14 victims in the

 4     indictment, whether the indictment should be amended or not, and then of

 5     course, we'll draw consequences as far as the evidence is concerned how

 6     relevant and how probative it is for what has to be proven.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes, I agree with what Your Honour has

 8     just said, but may I just add this, that I think the situation is more

 9     complicated though than the indication just given by Ms. Tabeau.  For

10     example in relation to when the victims names were discovered or

11     discoverable, and I say that because I'm in possession of 65 ter 4871 and

12     there is the name of one victim there, I don't think there's a problem

13     saying his name in open court, Omar Delic, who was named in a document to

14     Mr. Brammertz, the chief Prosecutor on the 5th of June, 2008, and he is

15     one of the 14.  So in our submission, the Prosecution ought to at least

16     set out with some specificity when it is they came into possession of

17     each name.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which raises another matter, that I don't know

19     what document you are referring to, but if one sends a letter and says A,

20     B, or C was killed at that same moment, if you have no other evidence

21     whether you should immediately amend the indictment or not or whether...

22     Again, I do not know what the document exactly is about, but not the mere

23     fact that a name is mentioned in a document would justify to seek an

24     amendment of the indictment.

25             MR. JORDASH:  I completely agree.  I'm just submitting that the

Page 9928

 1     situation is more complex than that indicated by --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's any way for the parties to agree on these

 3     kind of factual matters which are underlying the more principled

 4     arguments so that we don't have to -- of course, if you disagree on those

 5     matters, whether you could or could not have earlier identified those

 6     persons, then of course we'd have to take that into consideration as well

 7     when deciding upon your application, if that is a relevant answer.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  We would still, of course, say, even if they

 9     couldn't, there ought to be a proper opportunity for the Defence to lay

10     out any prejudice which arises from the late discovery of victims names.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber would prefer to receive brief written

13     submissions on the matter.  We are talking about the scope of the

14     indictment, what is covered by the indictment, what is not covered by the

15     indictment, which is of course always a fundamental issue in a case and

16     therefore the parties are invited to make brief submissions.  How much

17     time would you need for that?

18             MR. JORDASH:  Well, if the Prosecution as the moving party were

19     to file their submissions, we could respond within a very short time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You are the moving party here, isn't it,

21     Mr. Farr?  You want to add this information to the 65 ter list, suddenly

22     the 14 pop up and --

23             MR. FARR:  I believe there's a motion pending already to add the

24     documents to the 65 ter list but we are happy to file submissions first,

25     that's not a problem.

Page 9929

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Of course what we could do is first ask Mr. Jordash

 2     to respond to that and give you an opportunity to reply.  If you already

 3     would make an additional filing in which you explain your point of view

 4     as you just did on under what circumstances the exception applies and

 5     then Mr. Jordash will have an opportunity to respond to the motion in its

 6     entirety, whether there will be any need to have a second round, we'll

 7     see once we've read your submissions.  Meanwhile, Mr. Jordash, I don't

 8     think it's prejudicial if we would continue at this moment hearing the

 9     evidence.  I mean, either it's relevant or it's not relevant, and it's

10     only 10 minutes.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, I agree.  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  The Simatovic Defence shares the position of

13     the --

14             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  My learned

15     friend Mr. Jordash spoke on behalf of our Defence team as well.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then we'd like to receive your

17     submissions by Friday close of business.  That's the 10th of December.

18             MR. FARR:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

20             MR. FARR:

21        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, can you please tell us as briefly as possible, how

22     you identified these additional victims and how did you associate them

23     with the victims already on the list for the given incidents?

24        A.   The one victim from Doboj was included based on the letter

25     mentioned already from the V8 [phoen] Prosecutor's Office to the

Page 9930

 1     Prosecutors of ICTY Serge Brammertz, and in addition to these there was

 2     an exhumation report in which several other victims were listed.  This

 3     exhumation report relates to the Makljenovac sites.  Other victims were

 4     already included in the indictment list except for this one so that is

 5     the reason that I decided to consider this person as a new victim.  For

 6     Sasina, there are 5 reports and five new victims, all of them are

 7     declarations, court declarations of the lower court in Sanski Most

 8     declaring these individuals dead and death circumstances as related to

 9     the Sasina incident.  There are witness statements summarised in these

10     declarations which all confirm the relevance of the circumstances of

11     death to the Sasina incident from the indictment.

12             Finally in relation to Zvornik, the eight victims were included

13     based on the identification reports for these victims.  Each of these

14     reports includes partly information from the families and as well DNA

15     matching results confirming the identity of these victims.  So there is a

16     date of that report here and the place of death and they are all related

17     to Zvornik.

18        Q.   Thank you.  One of the additional victims you identified is

19     Munevera Resic.  Since identifying her as an additional victim, have you

20     changed your opinion with respect to her?

21        A.   Yes, it at some point when cross-referencing documents related to

22     this victim and another victim, well, at that time we thought another

23     victim, it was Munevera Alagic, as far as I remember, yes, Alagic, from

24     the document related to the Munevera Resic, obviously it was a court

25     declaration with some witness statements, one of the persons giving the

Page 9931

 1     statement was her husband, Mr. Resic, it became obvious that the maiden

 2     name of the person was Alagic, so it was Resic that was the name the

 3     person acquired through the marriage.

 4             I also had run a census search, additional census search as this

 5     person wasn't found in the first run of searches and I did eventually

 6     find her in the census, but with misspelled name but was able to confirm

 7     all the personal details as reported by her husband.  So it is not a new

 8     victim, it is a victim already included in the schedules.

 9             MR. FARR:  Thank you.  Could we now please have 65 ter 564 on the

10     screen.

11        Q.   And Dr. Tabeau, you indicated earlier that you are familiar with

12     this document.  Can you tell us as briefly as possible what this document

13     sets out?

14        A.   It's the so-called census, so-called I'm saying because it was

15     just a survey and the survey was run by the Ministry of the Interior of

16     Republika Srpska in early 1995.  In this so-called survey, numbers of the

17     size of ethnic groups in the territory of the Banja Luka sector were

18     produced.  I think the date of this document is February 1995, early

19     1995, as part of the result from this survey, there is the ethnic

20     composition in a number of municipalities in the Banja Luka sector

21     presented as of approximately this moment.  In addition to this, this

22     document contains as well for reference purposes some 1991 census

23     figures, also by ethnicity in the same municipality.

24        Q.   In preparation for your testimony in another case recently, did

25     you analyse how the data on population change related to seven of the

Page 9932

 1     municipalities contained in this document compared to your data for the

 2     same municipalities.

 3        A.   Yes, I did.  I analysed this information in the

 4     Stanisic-Zupljanin case and prepared summary graphs and some summary

 5     tables, so there our conclusion was that the pattern and the size --

 6     approximate size of changes in that composition, that we obtained in our

 7     project on IDP's and refugees and what is shown in this document are very

 8     consistent.

 9        Q.   In preparation for your --

10             MR. FARR:  Sorry, can we please have page 17 in English and page

11     15 in B/C/S.  It's the last page in both languages.

12        Q.   In preparation for your testimony here today did you compare the

13     figures on the last page of the document which appear to be figures for

14     the entire region with results obtained from your data for the area that

15     eventually ended up in the RS?

16        A.   Yes.  I produced my statistics, based on my sources, that means

17     the population census and the voters' register 1997, 1998, for the same

18     municipalities that are indicated in the MUP document of 1995.  It was

19     interesting to see a very high level of similarity of what the 1995

20     document is showing us compared with the statistics I obtained from my

21     data.  There will be small differences of course because the timing is

22     different.  I have data as of 1997/8.  Here it is 1995, early 1995, also

23     might be some territorial differences as I don't think they analysed, as

24     a matter of fact, the very same territories as I did due to the war

25     activities, but I think generally it is the same territory, slightly

Page 9933

 1     different time-period, high similarity of the results.

 2             MR. FARR:  Your Honour, I tender this document at this time.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objection, Madam Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  This would be Exhibit P1656, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 6             Could I ask one question, a question for clarification.  Page 17

 7     of this document and we see the document now for the first time, isn't

 8     it, Mr. Farr, or was it --

 9             MR. FARR:  Yes, Your Honour, I believe that's correct.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you the following:  We see in 1991,

11     well, substantial number of Yugoslavs, whereas in 1995, apparently the

12     Yugoslavs is not a category.  At the same time the Yugoslavs have not

13     become certainly not all of them -- they are not now under the category

14     of others because the 17.000 at least it's unlikely that all the 52.000

15     are now part -- or what remains of them are now part of the 17.000.  If

16     the Yugoslavs in 1995 have found their way into one of the traditional

17     ethnical groups, to what extent would that create difficulties in

18     interpreting the material?  You see my point if someone said, I'm a

19     Yugoslav, in 1991, and if he says in 1995, I'm a Serb, that's ...

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, they might have been included under Serbs in

21     1995.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

23             THE WITNESS:  Difficulties, now, the number of Serbs increased of

24     course by 1995 considerably, if we compare the number of Serbs in 1991

25     with 1995, it is obvious it is a far higher number.  And at the same time

Page 9934

 1     the Yugoslavs disappeared, my assumption would be that some of them just

 2     moved out and some might have reported themselves as Serbs.  I don't

 3     think it is, here obviously there is some bias related to the reporting

 4     of ethnicity, but generally, I don't think that this bias is considerable

 5     and we can still compare the statistics.  So the population of non-Serbs

 6     was outflowing from these territories at high numbers during the

 7     conflict.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless the Yugoslav were Serbs?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Well, with the Yugoslavs, it depends on the

10     context, how they see themselves.  In this particular case they would

11     report themselves as Serbs if they wanted to stay in Republika Srpska, I

12     think, but it is not so that I would agree that all of them just changed

13     the self-perception in order to stay because it wasn't easy to live in

14     this territory, so it is as other known Serbs were living, so were the

15     Yugoslavs I believe, because Yugoslavs it's not that simple that all of

16     them were from mixed marriage, Serb plus another ethnicity, so Yugoslav

17     means as well other mixed marriages between Muslim and Croats, for

18     instance, or just people who identify themselves as Yugoslavs, they

19     perceive themselves as Yugoslavs, as a separate ethnic category.  In the

20     census there were 98 categories reported, ethnicity was an open-ended

21     question, so anything could be reported and Yugoslavs were reported

22     explicitly as a separate ethnic group, and I have no reason to believe it

23     was not possible for people to feel Yugoslavs.  There were people who

24     didn't feel Serb, Croat, any other ethnicity, they felt we were Yugoslavs

25     there.

Page 9935

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the only reason why I'm raising it because we

 2     have an increase of Serbs from 1991 to 1995 of approximately 70.000 more

 3     or less in number on a total population which decreased considerably, and

 4     just -- I do understand that it may be very unlikely that suddenly all

 5     the Yugoslavs became Serbs, but theoretically -- I see your point, that

 6     of course there's knowledge about who declared themselves Yugoslavs, but

 7     it's difficult perhaps to estimate exactly what proportion of the

 8     increase of Serbs and what proportion of the decrease of the total

 9     population may be explained by what the Yugoslavs -- or what the persons

10     who declared themselves Yugoslavs in 1991 where they are found in 1995?

11             THE WITNESS:  I understand exactly what Your Honour is saying but

12     it's impossible to provide a quantitative measure that would answer this

13     question.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not saying, I'm just asking myself whether there

15     is a question which is where there's no quantitative answer to that yet,

16     and therefore that it should make us a bit cautious about the

17     percentages, perhaps not but the 10th of per cent but by 1 or 2 and then

18     the matter is how important 1 or 2 per cent would be on the totality of

19     the study.  If you'd like to add anything to this, please do so.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, in my study, there is no ethnic bias, and I

21     have some results related to these particular municipalities which I can

22     share with everybody in this courtroom and from this we see that there is

23     an increase in the Serbs in these territories and this increase is not

24     biased, it's unbiased, it's based on the ethnic definition from 1991

25     census.  That's the answer I can provide.

Page 9936

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You say you did not -- comparing this with your

 2     study where there's no bias as far as ethnicity is concerned, this,

 3     although not entirely easy to interpret, nevertheless gives the same

 4     picture as yours, where we know that there's no bias as far as ethnicity

 5     is concerned.

 6             THE WITNESS:  That's what I'm saying.  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Farr, I've stolen another 3 minutes of your

 8     time.  And I think there were four left.

 9             MR. FARR:

10        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, could I ask you to -- looking at your two reports

11     together, could you tell us comparing them in a big picture sense what

12     conclusions can be drawn by looking at the reports together, and in other

13     words, does the IDP's and refugees report provide any context to the

14     victims' report and vice-versa in your opinion?

15        A.   First of all, it is important to note that the scale of

16     displacement as we present it in our report is not usual.  It is most

17     definitely that there were large numbers of displaced persons,

18     extraordinary large numbers of displaced persons internally and

19     externally.

20             We identified the displacement as of 1997/8, so comparing 1991

21     with 1997/8 leaves a certain period between which is kind of uncovered by

22     this report.  However there must have been some push factors that forced

23     the population to change the place of residence in this period and

24     because of the scale we need to think that these factors operated in the

25     conflict period.  So this is one remark about the IDP's refugees report.

Page 9937

 1     When we take the victims' report, this report provides some context for

 2     the factors, push factors that were operating during the conflict period.

 3     It is not so that there were no reasons for the population to leave the

 4     houses and move in large numbers to other places.  So these factors,

 5     unusual factors must be seen as reported in the victims' report, so there

 6     is a timing of killings and disappearances reported in the victims'

 7     report, there are municipalities assessed from the point of view of the

 8     killings and disappearing.  So the victims' report most definitely can be

 9     seen as the context for the IDP's and refugees report.

10        Q.   I now just have a couple of questions about the proofing note

11     dated 24 November 2010 which has been uploaded as 5867.  Did you review a

12     list of discrepancies between the indictment schedules and your proof of

13     death chart and give your comments on what you believe to be the reasons

14     for those differences?

15        A.   Yes.  I did review these differences.

16        Q.   And are those recorded in the proofing note dated 24 November

17     2010?

18        A.   Yes, I believe that's the note.  Yes.  Yes.

19        Q.   And did that proofing note also contain the the list of the names

20     of the 29 victims from this case who you identified as having military

21     status?

22        A.   Yes, I identified 29 cases reported as militaries, yes.

23        Q.   And finally, does the proofing note also contain --

24             MR. FARR:  I see we don't have the right document on the screen.

25     I may have misidentified it; it may be 5866.

Page 9938

 1        Q.   And finally, does the proofing note also contain corrections to a

 2     number of typographical errors in your report?

 3        A.   Yes, this is correct.

 4             MR. FARR:  Your Honours, at this time I have a number of items to

 5     tender and to keep it simple, I'll go step by step.  First the two

 6     reports IDP's and refugees report, which is 65 ter 5864 and the victims'

 7     report, which is 5748.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we go step by step.  Let's first go to the

 9     IDP's and refugees report.  Any objections against admission?  Madam

10     Registrar, the number would be?

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5864 becomes Exhibit P1657,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  I did not take them

14     together.  The victims report, any objections to that?  No objections, no

15     reservation as far as the 14 additional --

16             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] I have -- I apologise if my

17     colleague wanted to speak.  I was just about to say that perhaps it

18     should be left as an MFI until we establish what the circumstances are

19     surrounding these 14 victims, that would be my suggestion.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, do you you agree with that or would you

21     say it's just irrelevant evidence if so, which might be a reason not to

22     be admitted on that portion, but.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Well, our position would that be all of the

24     evidence concerning victims not referred to on the indictment must be

25     directed to some other purpose than the evidence concerning --

Page 9939

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Than to prove the killing of those persons in

 2     relation to the indictment, that's what your position is.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  That is the only objection from both Defence teams.

 5     I think under those circumstances, we would MFI the document and then

 6     decide on admission together with the -- with the decision on the motion

 7     to add to the 65 ter list.  Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5748 becomes P1658, marked for

 9     identification, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And keeps that status.  Mr. Farr, please proceed.

11             MR. FARR:  The next items are the two demonstrative exhibits,

12     that would be 65 ter 5862 for the IDP's and refugees report, and 5863 for

13     the victims report.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections, Madam Registrar, the number would be?

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5862 becomes P1659 and document 5863

16     becomes P1660, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  P1659 and P1660 are admitted into evidence.

18             MR. FARR:  The next item, Your Honour, is the proofing note dated

19     24 November 2010.  That's 65 ter number 5866, if I'm correct this time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.  Madam Registrar?

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5866 becomes P1661, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  P1661 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

23             MR. FARR:  Dr. Tabeau's CV, which is 65 ter 5867 and I would just

24     note that this version is not on our 65 ter list, so this is a motion to

25     add it to our 65 ter list simultaneously.

Page 9940

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objection against the CV being added to 65 ter

 2     list or to admission?  No, then leave is granted to add the CV to the

 3     65 ter list and the Exhibit number Madam Registrar would be?

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5867 becomes P1662, Your Honours.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honours, I perhaps should have jumped

 6     up sooner, I noticed from that the proofing note of 24th of November 2010

 7     also has reference to new victims, so consistent with Your Honours'

 8     earlier ruling, perhaps that should be MFI'd.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a look at it, whether we change the

10     status or -- because it also explains some of the circumstance and to

11     that extent, it might even be relevant to our decision that it's not the

12     result of but the explanation of to some extent.

13             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  So we leave it for the time being and P1662 is

15     admitted into evidence.  That's the updated CV.

16             MR. FARR:  I would next tender the underlying documents listed on

17     the proof of death chart for victims other than the additional victims.

18     Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what the number of those documents

19     is, I only have an overall number.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you prepare the list, give it to Madam

21     Registrar, Madam Registrar will provide numbers to it.  But could I hear

22     already whether there would be any objection against the underlying

23     documents, if not, you are requested to proceed as I suggested, Mr. Farr.

24             MR. FARR:  Finally, we would just ask for at the same time the

25     remaining documents with respect to the additional victims to be MFI'd as

Page 9941

 1     well, pending resolution of the matter.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you also make a list of those and that should

 3     undergo the same fate as -- that means those numbers are assigned for

 4     purposes at this moment for marking for identification.  Anything else?

 5             MR. FARR:  No, Your Honours, thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then Mr. Bakrac, is it you or is it Mr. Jordash who

 7     will go first?

 8             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, your guess was right.

 9     I'm going to go first.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by

11     Mr. Bakrac.  Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.  Please proceed,

12     there seems to be an additional noise in my earphones.  There was one

13     moment when it disappeared, but I don't know what changed it.

14             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] I think it's my microphone that's

15     causing the noise.  I'll try using the other one.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  But at this moment -- okay.  Please proceed the best

17     possible way using the best microphone.

18             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

20        Q.   I don't know how much the microphone is going to help me but I'm

21     going to do my best to continue in the best possible way, right.  Good

22     afternoon, Ms. Tabeau, I have a few questions for you in order to clarify

23     certain matters, both for our Defence and for the Trial Chamber actually.

24     I'm going to focus on the first part of your report now that speaks about

25     ethnic composition and internally displaced persons and refugees from six

Page 9942

 1     municipalities, that's what it says here, but actually reference was made

 2     to five municipalities from 1991 until 1997 or 1998.  Actually, my

 3     understanding was that these municipalities, these five municipalities

 4     after Dayton became a different number of municipalities, but is that

 5     what we are talking about?

 6        A.   Well, perhaps you are looking at the old version of the report.

 7     I actually have in the title five municipalities.  This is one point.

 8     But indeed the five municipalities were split and resulting

 9     municipalities are post-Dayton municipalities and there were 11 of them.

10        Q.   Very well.  Ms. Tabeau, if I understand you correctly, this is a

11     report that pertains to the entire period from 1991 up until 1997, or

12     rather 1998; is that right?

13        A.   That's right.

14        Q.   Again if I've understood you correctly, Ms. Tabeau, the basis for

15     your report, or rather, the two basic foundations of your report are the

16     census of Bosnia-Herzegovina for 1991, and the voters' list compiled

17     after the Dayton Accords in 1997 and 1998.  On the basis of these two

18     fundamental sources, you compiled your report; is that right?

19        A.   These were the major sources.  There were additional as well, but

20     these were the major, that's correct.

21        Q.   If I understood things correctly, this document from Banja Luka

22     from 1995, I don't know whether it's the public security centre or the

23     state security centre, I'm not sure now, but that is the additional

24     document that you used; right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9943

 1        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, in addition to these basic sources and this

 2     additional one that our learned friend Mr. Farr showed us, could you tell

 3     us what else you know concerning demographic figures or documents or

 4     evidence that in a demographic sense reflects what happened in 1992,

 5     1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in the territory of these five municipalities

 6     that were later split up on the basis of the Dayton Accords?

 7        A.   We have another source that I also used as contextual in my

 8     report, this is the BH government registration of internally displaced

 9     persons and refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and these persons

10     registered in that source are all related to the events during the

11     conflict 1992 to 1995.  And I am aware of another document by the

12     Ministry of the Interior, state security sector, related to 1993 which

13     unfortunately I didn't use in this particular report but in which there

14     is mention or there are reports about the population movements from the

15     municipalities in the Banja Luka sector.  I mean, population movements,

16     mainly outflow of the population of ethnicities other than Serbs and

17     inflow of population of Serb ethnicity.  So there are some documents.

18     I'm sure that many more documents could be identified.  I am aware of a

19     number of UNHCR documents, reports, monitoring reports, further

20     monitoring reports of other international monitors that were reporting on

21     the population movements during the conflict period.  I didn't use them

22     all in this particular report.  Why?  Because it is far more reliable to

23     use primary sources like the census and the voters' register and compile

24     statistics from individual data.  This is something that one can have

25     full control of, and moreover, every displaced person can be documented

Page 9944

 1     by information from these sources.

 2             So context is one thing, and there are quite a number of, a large

 3     number of sources that can be used to discuss the context in terms of

 4     aggregate statistics, but using primary sources, individual micro-level

 5     sources and making statistics based on these sources is a totally

 6     different thing.  It is a far more reliable, more specific, well-defined

 7     approach.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Now, you explained to us why you hadn't used these

 9     other sources, why you ignored them.  I would be interested in the

10     following:  While you compiled your report, did you have information to

11     the effect that towards the end of 1991 for instance, from the area of

12     Western Slavonia, about 40.000 refugees, Serbs, came to the area of

13     Banja Luka?  Did you include that in your report when you provided the

14     final figure of 1997, 1998 about the census?  Actually, the ballot and

15     the persons who were eligible to vote?

16        A.   Yes, I did not have records of the refugees from

17     Western Slavonia.  I believe these records could have been obtained

18     somehow.  It was not my purpose to collect them.  However, the, yeah,

19     refugees from Western Slavonia wouldn't be citizens of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina, right?  So that is a totally different group of

21     population, so the target population of my report was the population who

22     resided in Bosnia in 1991 and demographic consequences of the conflict to

23     this population.

24        Q.   But, Ms. Tabeau, let us take the assumption that out of these

25     40.000, say, 20.000 in the meantime received Bosnian documents, that is

Page 9945

 1     to say, documents of the Republika Srpska, and were therefore on the

 2     voters' register of 1997 and 1998.  Would that not affect the ratio and

 3     the number that you presented to us in your report?

 4        A.   No, no, this is not as you are saying.  In order to be registered

 5     as an eligible voter in 1997/1998 elections one had to be included in the

 6     population census in 1991.  Unless one could demonstrate using IDs and

 7     other documents that this person even though not registered was the

 8     citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time.  So as a matter of fact, it

 9     was a precondition, you know, to participate in the elections to be the

10     citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 of course, yes.

11        Q.   As for your report, Ms. Tabeau, did you incorporate in it the

12     250.000 refugees from Croatia who came to the area of Banja Luka after

13     Operation Flash and the same number came after Operation Storm?  Did you

14     look at that number of persons, Serbs who fled from the Krajina area?

15     Did you take that into account when you worked on your statistical

16     analysis?

17        A.   I think it is wrong to say that the refugees in such large

18     numbers, 250.000 Croatian Serbs came to Bosnia-Herzegovina.  As far as I

19     know, they did not come to Bosnia-Herzegovina in these large numbers.

20     They did come to Serbia, and there are statistics reporting on these

21     numbers.  Statistics that show the country of origin of these refugees as

22     well as the time of arrival in Serbia.  So the largest numbers of

23     Croatian Serbs ended in Serbia, not in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Well,

24     again, this is the same issue.  In order to participate in the elections

25     of 1997/1998 one had to be listed on the population census of 1991.  One

Page 9946

 1     had to be the citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  My statistics are not

 2     flawed because of the alleged high numbers of refugees from Croatia that

 3     you are telling entered in Bosnia.  I don't think so.  First of all,

 4     there were not that many in Bosnia and Herzegovina as the many country of

 5     destination of the Croatian Serbs was Serbia, not Bosnia.  There were

 6     some thousands and they are reported in the BH registration of IDP's and

 7     refugees, but it's not 250.000, it is 25.000 as of the year 2000, so it

 8     is a totally different number.  But as I'm saying, it is the 1991 census

 9     population who must be taken into account when speaking of the election

10     1997/1998.

11        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, very well, we are not going to debate the figures.

12     You do allow for the possibility of some 25.000 Croatian Serbs remaining

13     in the territory of these municipalities.  My question is as follows:

14     When you worked on your final figure of the number of Serbs in these

15     municipalities in 1997 and 1998, did you find all of these persons on the

16     list of persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991?  I mean the census, that's

17     what I meant.

18        A.   Well, the matching rate for the voters with the population census

19     is 80 per cent, so that means 80 per cent of records of the voters from

20     the registered 1997/1998 were confirmed in the population census.  It

21     wasn't 100 per cent.  There were 20 per cent that were not matched,

22     basically because of deficiencies in the data.  But I'm telling you once

23     again, in principle the voters 1997/1998 had to be listed in the

24     population census, moreover I can assure you that every registration

25     office in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the elections had two copies of the

Page 9947

 1     population census, one was the hard copy, one was the electronic copy.

 2     And when people were coming to register to vote they had to prove they

 3     were on the census lists.  So that is how it worked.  It was the first

 4     serious democratic elections in 1997, after the 1996 election basically

 5     wasn't perfect as we know, right, and things were prepared in such a way

 6     that any fraud would be prevented and this is why the relationship

 7     between the census and the voters' list.

 8        Q.   Yes, but if I understood you correctly, you included in your

 9     figure these 20 per cent of the Serbs who were not on the census at all

10     in 1991.  The census of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that's what I'm talking

11     about, or did you simply ignore that figure in your report?

12        A.   My statistics are based on matched records, so only the 80 per

13     cent matched are included in statistics.  The 20 per cent unmatched are

14     not.

15        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, do you remember, or can you tell us now, what was the

16     number either in terms of numbers or in terms of percentage points in the

17     census in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991, how many Yugoslavs were there in

18     terms of numbers or percentages?

19        A.   I cannot say it from my head.  I would have to check but it

20     wasn't significant.  The percentages of the two major groups, Bosniaks

21     that would be the Muslims and the Serbs were considerable but not the

22     percent of Yugoslavs.  I don't recall the exact number.

23        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, I would not agree with you.  I think that

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina was the republic that had the largest percentage of

25     Yugoslavs in that period of time, however, the conclusion is that you

Page 9948

 1     cannot tell us now what the actual number was.  Can you tell us how you

 2     treated such persons?  Is it possible that some of these persons who were

 3     Yugoslavs in 1991, in the 1991 census, came to vote in 1997 and 1998 and

 4     was on the voters' register?

 5        A.   As I mentioned earlier today, there were 98 categories, ethnic

 6     categories reported in the 1991 census.  We regrouped the categories and

 7     created four major groups:  Muslims, Serbs, Croats and others.  Muslims,

 8     Serbs and Croats, three major groups, were taken as reported in the

 9     census without any modifications.  The others is a large category that

10     comprises among others the Yugoslavs, and many many other categories

11     imported in the census.  And one more remark I have that you said that

12     Bosnia had relatively highest numbers of Yugoslavs, it might not mean

13     that this number was very high.  It is relatively high as compared to

14     other republics, so it might be so but it doesn't mean that they were 40

15     per cent of Yugoslavs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina because they were

16     not the major group in that republic, former republic.

17        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Tabeau.  If I understood you correctly, actually

18     let me just try to confirm this, in your research, you established that

19     there was more or less parallel population movement in that period.  If

20     we look at the percentage of Muslims or non-Serbs who left the area of

21     Republika Srpska, if that is 96 per cent and if the number of Serbs who

22     left the area of the Federation where the population is predominantly

23     Muslim and Croat, the percentage is 99.6 per cent, did I understand that

24     correctly?

25        A.   Yes, I recall these two percentages and I agree it was a parallel

Page 9949

 1     movement.  Serbs were moving out from the Federation and non-Serbs from

 2     the others' territory, this is the picture.

 3        Q.   Madam, Ms. Tabeau, in view of your rich experience as a scholar,

 4     can you tell us in situations or circumstances that prevailed then in the

 5     territory that was the focus of your study, was that customary in view of

 6     all the hotbeds of crisis that you analysed?

 7        A.   If you could be more specific, what do you mean by circumstances

 8     that prevailed?  So there was a conflict, a war going there in the

 9     territory of the country, certain areas were affected more than other

10     areas.

11        Q.   Yes.  Yes.  That is what I'm saying.  In these five

12     municipalities during this period of time that we are discussing, there

13     was a war going on among the ethnic groups there and that conflict

14     practically engulfed all of Bosnia.  In view of your experience, you said

15     yourself that it seemed to you that this migration went along parallel

16     lines, so in this situation of ethnic fighting, conflicts, is it logical

17     that, say, Muslim inhabitants are going into areas where the population

18     is predominantly Muslim and the other way around, that Serbs go to areas

19     where the population is predominantly Serb when there is a war going on?

20        A.   Well, I think what I meant when saying that there was war in

21     these territories, most certainly there were combat activities, but most

22     certainly there were incidences of mass violence and from the victim's

23     report, it is clear that the Muslims were the major group who actually

24     suffered in the war and mass violence incidents as well.

25             Well, I am not, you know, I don't feel okay to say that it is

Page 9950

 1     normal that large groups of population moved this way or that way in war.

 2     I don't think these movements are voluntary because there must be some

 3     factors that force people out from their homes.  Why?  Because numbers of

 4     people who moved were so extremely high, so the situation must have been

 5     dramatic in order to push them out and leave their homes.  And if there

 6     are killings and large numbers of killings, we are speaking of about

 7     10.000 excess deaths related to war in these territories in the war

 8     period so that is not neglectible [sic], it is a high number of

 9     predominantly Muslim population who actually suffered in this war and

10     mass violence incidents.

11        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, I do apologise, it's probably that I used a clumsy

12     term when I said normal.  I actually meant customary, usual.  When you

13     spoke about suffering now, actually, in order to leave your home, you

14     assume that it has to do with forcible expulsions, when you are talking

15     about Muslims, you are also referring to those Serbs who left the

16     Federation, over 90 per cent of them; right?

17        A.   That is the number, yes.

18        Q.   Now, Ms. Tabeau, as you worked on your statistics, and we all

19     know that sometime in November 1995 the Dayton Agreement was signed,

20     peace was established on the the basis of the Dayton Agreement, right?

21     And did the Dayton Agreement return the right to every refugee to go back

22     to his or her place of residence, his or her home, are you aware of that?

23        A.   Yes, it was part of the Dayton Agreement, the right to return

24     home.

25        Q.   I think this is a very important question.  When we are supposed

Page 9951

 1     to make such judgements about forcible expulsions, et cetera.  Did you

 2     devote your report or part of your report to facts and figures pertaining

 3     to the number of Muslims who returned to their homes after the Dayton

 4     Agreement or how many Serbs or how many Croats returned to their homes

 5     after the Dayton Agreements?  You will agree that there was no threat of

 6     force involved anymore, people were not under threat, people could go

 7     back home, couldn't they?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Tabeau, Mr. Bakrac announced this question as a

 9     very important question.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I get the feeling, but please correct me if I'm

12     wrong, that Mr. Bakrac is moving in areas where your expertise might not

13     allow you to give answers to all of his questions.  If you feel that your

14     expertise does not allow, don't hesitate to say because we are moving

15     from demographic statistical analysis to an assessment of circumstances

16     of matters which, as this Chamber and the Judges know and you most likely

17     know as well, of an extremely complex nature what means force, what

18     circumstances made it easy or less easy to move from one place to.  If

19     you look at the case law of this Tribunal, everyone will become aware of

20     the complexity of this issue.  So if you at any point feel that your

21     expertise does not allow you to answer the questions with a sufficient

22     level of reliability, do not hesitate to tell us.

23             THE WITNESS:  This is what I was going to say, it was beyond my

24     expertise to assess the circumstances.  However, it was an interesting

25     question for us to assess how many minority returns took place between

Page 9952

 1     1995 December and the moment we provided our statistics for.  Why?

 2     Because if there were many returns, so that only means that our

 3     statistics are far too low as a matter of fact, but and that is the my

 4     interest, of course, as demographer to understand what is the extent of

 5     the underestimation, which is, basically speaking, actually the

 6     conservative approach and underestimation is in favour of these

 7     defendants, of course.

 8             However, I must conclude that I studied minority returns, there

 9     are statistics published by UNHCR for the years after the war, and there

10     were not that many minority return.  There were returns but minorities

11     were not returning in large numbers in these two years 1996 and 1997.  So

12     what I'm saying there is a certain degree of underestimation in our

13     report of the displacement, especially internal displacement, but also

14     external displacement, but, yeah, I think it is a good statistic simply

15     to work with.  They are conservative, they are methodologically solid

16     based on good sources and can be documented with individual records, so

17     that is all I have to say here.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Bakrac.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the clock too.  I'm

20     looking at the clock too but I did have one question, Your Honour.

21     Perhaps could we just have a minute or two because then we might round it

22     off.  Actually, we can do it after the break as well, but could

23     Ms. Tabeau just explain to us how does this minimal return of refugees

24     confirm her analysis.  Let that be the question that will be answered

25     after the break.  Let us give the doctor a time to focus on it and say

Page 9953

 1     what she wishes to say.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  How much more time would you need apart from this

 3     question?

 4             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume that after

 5     the break I would need another half-hour and then I should be done.  And

 6     I think that my colleague, Mr. Jordash, said that he will not take more

 7     than half an hour either.  I don't think that he is actually hearing me

 8     now in a language he understands.  Maybe things have changed.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac was giving an assessment of

10     how much time you would need.  He thought that it might be half an hour.

11             MR. JORDASH:  I think I need at least an hour, maybe an hour and

12     15 minutes.  I did speak to Mr. Bakrac earlier, but we've changed our

13     mind, I am afraid.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what he suggested as a possibility.

15             We'll have a break and we'll resume at 6.00 and the parties are

16     urged to confer and see whether there's any possibility to conclude the

17     testimony of Ms. Tabeau today.  If not, then we'll see how to proceed.

18     We resume at 6.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  As always, the breaks are as busy, if not busier

22     than court hearings and we apologise again for the late start.

23             Mr. Bakrac, I think you asked the witness a question before the

24     break.  Perhaps she still remembers the question and could answer it.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do remember.  So minority returns, what is

Page 9954

 1     the impact of minority returns of the statistics of displaced persons and

 2     refugees presented in our IDP's and refugees report.  Minority returns

 3     wouldn't be included as among the statistics, the numbers of displaced

 4     persons and refugees.  Why?  Because these persons would have be back

 5     home.  So wouldn't be listed as displaced persons.  So this is the source

 6     for an underestimation, what I'm saying is in fact there were more

 7     displaced persons, but because there were certain returns, not many, but

 8     there were returns, so the statistics that describe the status of

 9     displacement as of the fall of 1997, 1998, this is an underestimation of

10     the actual number of displaced persons.

11             And I have more reasons to believe that our numbers are an

12     underestimation, the reasons are explained in the report in section 7.

13     I'm not going to go into reasons but think for instance born after 1980

14     not included in our statistics, that is, children, think of unregistered

15     voters, et cetera et cetera.  These reasons, we tried to compensate for

16     some of them by presenting the more complete estimate in our record.  So

17     et cetera et cetera, so our numbers are very conservative as a matter of

18     fact, if you compare them with the UNHCR statistics, then you see that

19     UNHCR is much less conservative.

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, can we agree and can you agree with my view that your

22     estimations are more of a mathematical nature and that to a lesser extent

23     they indicate what the percentage of those who returned did so forcibly,

24     of their own will or otherwise; is that right?

25        A.   I didn't study the causes for displacement.  It is just the

Page 9955

 1     statistics that describe the status of displacement.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.  We were able to see the two

 3     primary sources that you drew upon.  Do you know that following the

 4     Dayton Accords, in November 1995, some 30 to 40.000 Serbs who hailed from

 5     Sarajevo left Sarajevo.  These were individuals who were on the census

 6     records in 1991 and that they were in fact the population that migrated

 7     to what later became these 11 municipalities.  Were you aware of this?

 8        A.   Well, I didn't study Sarajevo in our report.  I did study the

 9     population of the voters as of 1997/1998, so newcomers were included in

10     these statistics.  So if there were any Serbs, from Sarajevo, who were

11     listed in the census in 1991, and moved from Sarajevo and ended in any of

12     these five municipalities or 11 split municipalities, they are included

13     in statistics.

14        Q.   The statistics, or rather, the voters' registers, did they show

15     or did you draw any comparisons or try to find matches to establish

16     whether a certain number of inhabitants who left Sarajevo were in fact

17     later on on these voters' registers, or did you simply not try and

18     identify if these persons are to be found on both these primary sources?

19        A.   Well, it was so, the target population was the population who in

20     1991 lived, resided in the five municipalities.  So for this target

21     population, we traced them to see how they moved and whether they became

22     displaced or not.  So in displacement statistics, you will only see the

23     population of the five municipalities and their movements.  But there is

24     a different, the second sort of statistics, this is the ethnic

25     composition of municipalities.  And the ethnic composition in 1991 is

Page 9956

 1     based on the census data, census population in five municipalities on one

 2     hand and on the other hand there is the ethnic composition of the

 3     population based on the voters' register 1997/1998.  But still this is

 4     the population as reported in the voters' register, right, and matched

 5     with the census.  So anybody who newcomer who moved into one of these

 6     municipalities and was reported in the census, would be listed as a

 7     newcomer.

 8        Q.   Yes, if my understanding of what you are saying is correct, you

 9     now say that you focused on the population that was to be found in the

10     the census record of 1991 in relation to these five municipalities; is

11     that right?

12        A.   In displaced statistics, yes.

13        Q.   Yes.  Then in 1997/1998 there is a significant increase in Serb

14     population in these five municipalities in terms of percentages.  Can you

15     explain to us the following:  If you focused only on the population

16     residing in these five municipalities according to the 1991 census, how

17     did there come about a sharp increase in the number of Serbian

18     inhabitants in these five municipalities?

19        A.   What I said I would repeat it.  So for the ethnic composition we

20     studied de facto population in 1991 versus 1997/1998, right?  The

21     1997/1998 population was as reported in these municipalities, these

22     municipalities meaning including also newcomers.  Newcomers subject to

23     being registered in the 1991 census.  1991 census in general in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina, right?  Not necessarily in the five municipalities.

25     There might have been municipalities from other municipality, of course

Page 9957

 1     there might have been newcomers from other municipalities.  Were they

 2     from Sarajevo, I cannot say.  I can check this and provide statistics.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask to try to see if I understand,

 4     Mr. Bakrac, because I'm a bit surprised as a matter of fact by your

 5     question, rather than by the answer.  If I have a population of 100.000,

 6     let's keep it simple, 50 per cent Serbs, 50 per cent Muslims.  Yes.  Now,

 7     if 49.000 of the Serbs -- of the Muslims leave, I'm not saying this is

 8     what happened, and let's say that all the Serbs remain, I'm not saying

 9     that this happened because usually the number in the statistics you see

10     decreased slightly.  Then from 50 per cent, suddenly you have close to 98

11     per cent Serbs.  The shift in percentage, I'm trying to give you this

12     answer to see -- to check also whether I understood it well, depends on

13     how much Serbs are leaving, how many Muslims are leaving even if the

14     Serbs were leaving in a certain number or their number decreased because

15     they went elsewhere, but if the Muslims would have left in by far larger

16     numbers, then the percentage of Serbs would of course increase.  And now

17     I do understand that Ms. Tabeau also is a bit cautious there because

18     what -- how many Serbs there were in 1997 we do not exactly know because

19     they might not all have registered as voters therefore also the

20     percentages are limited to the matched persons which means that there may

21     have been far -- at least a substantial number more of certain ethnicity

22     but that they did not match and that they did not register as voters.

23             Ms. Tabeau, I'm just trying to see whether I understand you well,

24     and was again a bit surprised by the question of Mr. Bakrac because it

25     seems relatively simple to me, but I might have underestimated the

Page 9958

 1     complexity -- one second, please.  I might have underestimated the

 2     complexity, please tell me whether my understanding more or less matches

 3     your understanding.

 4             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, before the

 5     answer provide you with an explanation.  It seems to me that Ms. Tabeau

 6     also raised her figures, not only estimates --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just first try to seek Ms. Tabeau's answer to

 8     my question whether I more or less understood --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Here is the thing, when preparing statistics

10     on the displaced persons, we use the restriction that we only looked at

11     the original 1991 population and for this population, only this

12     population, from five municipalities we observed how many of them became

13     displaced and how many just stayed in the original municipalities as they

14     lived in 1991.  That is one thing.  So there was a restriction.  However,

15     if you assess changes in the ethnic composition, then it is de facto

16     composition, de facto ethnic composition in 1991 and also 1997/1998.  In

17     five municipalities or 11 split municipalities.  That means for the 1991,

18     the population of the census is analysed and ethnic makeup of this

19     population is shown.  For 1997/8 it is all who registered in these

20     municipalities for whom the ethnic makeup is shown.  So there is no

21     restriction here that the municipality of origin.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, part of them might have come from another

23     municipality.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And at the same time it might be that there is

Page 9959

 1     another number which doesn't match at all which I ignored.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  This doesn't mean I cannot make any other

 3     ethnic makeups, I can do all kind of makeups, this was the purpose to

 4     show the actual makeup as it became after the war versus as it used to be

 5     before the war.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And to the extent they had registered as voters.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that is correct.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Bakrac, I'm glad that

 9     Ms. Tabeau at least corrected some of my understanding and it's important

10     that the Chamber understands what the testimony is about.  Please

11     proceed.

12             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I'd rather

13     I have an expert to guide me, but there we are, I'm trying to wade

14     through the complex subject matter.

15        Q.   Madam Tabeau, to your knowledge, are voters registered used

16     anywhere in the world for the development of scholarly demographic

17     research?

18        A.   Yes.  Yes.

19        Q.   Is that a customary method?

20        A.   For the victims of war or regime, I would think it is not

21     surprising that this source is used.  For instance, for Cambodia, an

22     American demographer, well established, known demographer,

23     Patrick Heuveline used voters' register to estimate the number of victims

24     of the Khmer Rouge regime.  And it was a meaningful study that is

25     respected and was published in a good scientific journal.  The problem is

Page 9960

 1     that if you want to speak about sources on war victims, you can't keep in

 2     mind that these sources must be exactly the same as the sources on that

 3     in the peacetime.  In the peacetime we had the official death

 4     notifications that are obligatorily to be made within three days from the

 5     moment a person dies.  And there is a extended specific record of every

 6     death that is later processed in statistics.

 7        Q.   Therefore, Ms. Tabeau, if my understanding is correct and you'll

 8     correct me if I'm wrong, you say in such situation this method can be

 9     used, but do we agree that a voters' register is not an official basis

10     for the development of a demographic study?

11        A.   It is not an official statistical source, that is not made by

12     statistical authority, but you will be really surprised how many sources

13     and what kind of sources are used in demographic studies, in historical

14     demography, parish records, for instance, are often used, parish records

15     that is the church records which are a very rich source of information

16     about individuals, families, life histories of persons.  I don't think

17     that demography is restricted to standard sources like death

18     notifications or -- in migration research, migration is a phenomenon,

19     demographic phenomenon that is hard to document.  We don't have in

20     demography specific sources, systematic sources in which migration would

21     be reported.  Especially now in times of global movements of the

22     population.  Many people never register as migrants in the countries, yet

23     this doesn't mean that they didn't change the place of residence.

24        Q.   Can data about ethnicity be found in these voters' registers?

25        A.   No, they don't include ethnicity, but ethnicity can be

Page 9961

 1     transferred from the census through the individual links of the voters'

 2     records, the census records.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, there again the question surprises me

 4     because I think the report clearly explains what is the case, that is

 5     that you match personal details from persons in the voters' register with

 6     the 1991 census and since the 1991 census gives the ethnicity, that is

 7     the source of comparison, Ms. Tabeau, did I understand that well?

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's correct.  We always use the ethnicity

 9     as reported in the census.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clearly explained in her report.  So that

11     explanation would not be needed at all if there would be an ethnicity in

12     the voters' register because that would have created a perhaps totally

13     different picture.  Please proceed.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll move

15     on.

16        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, you said that when you took into account the data

17     from 1991, you took into consideration the population born before 1980.

18     Was it respect of 1991 everything taken into account which concerned

19     individuals who were of age in that year including the individuals who

20     were not of age in 1991, but could possibly be voters in the 1997

21     elections?  Perhaps I should simplify, I take it by the expression on

22     your face that I wasn't as precise that I should like have been.  I'm not

23     on the same expertise level as you are so I may even put a stupid

24     question to you.  What was the reason why the individuals born before

25     1980 were taken into consideration, let's start with that question and

Page 9962

 1     then we'll move on.

 2        A.   This is because of the second source that we use, the voters'

 3     register.  We use two registers 1997/1998 but de facto, the vast majority

 4     of records in our register is from 1997.  Actually, these two registers

 5     overlap greatly so there is a small number of records from 1998, we took

 6     all first registrations in 1997 as the core.  So the voters' register

 7     represents the situation as of 1997.  Now, in order to compare this

 8     population with the right population in 1991, one has to make a selection

 9     from the census in order to compare what is comparable and reject what is

10     not comparable, so that is why the restriction on the year of birth.

11        Q.   So if my understanding is correct, you took into account in

12     respect of 1991 those individuals which would in 1997 and 1998 have the

13     legal age for voting; is that right?

14        A.   Yes, that is correct.  So the children were not taken for the

15     analysis.

16        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, with the caveat that I tried to read your report as

17     carefully as possible, I don't think found the following:  Can you tell

18     us what is the number of inhabitants who were 18 and above in 1991, what

19     was the number of such inhabitants or percentage, and how many

20     individuals did you take into account who were age 13, 14, 15 or 16 only

21     because you knew that they would be eligible to vote in 1997 or 1998?

22        A.   I think that I must explain to you that it is a longitudinal

23     study that we did, right?  So we work regarding voters, they are matched

24     with the census.  How can I explain this?  I'm not sure I do understand

25     your question correctly.  So it's the restriction on age that make it is

Page 9963

 1     possible for me to extract a subgroup of the population in 1991, a

 2     subgroup in 1991, from which the voters originate.  A large group of them

 3     becomes the voters, registered voters which I have in my source.  So I'm

 4     still working with the same group of people.  I'm extracting records from

 5     the census that all potentially will become the voters in 1997/1998

 6     right.  And in the census I take all of them, all potential voters, then

 7     I match them.  Some are lost because they are not matched and that's it.

 8     This is how I make the statistic, I'm not sure I answered your question

 9     but that's the meaning of longitudinal and individual data, so the

10     matching goes forth and back, it is still the same group, comparable

11     group of individuals.

12        Q.   So all the individuals whom you included in your calculations for

13     these five municipalities were individuals who were on the population

14     census records back in 1991 and bearing in mind all the aspects you

15     referred to, you matched these individuals against the 1997 voters'

16     register, including the category which was to become of age and eligible

17     to vote in 1997 and 1998?

18        A.   Yes, yes, that is the meaning, yes.

19        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, as for potential voters, did you also take into

20     account the individuals who were back in 1991 aged 75 or above, or did

21     you also have this upper age threshold in terms of the 1991 census?

22        A.   No, there was no upper age limit.  So some probably died, some

23     became war victims and died, but these numbers are not considerable

24     especially not the number of deaths.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Just for my understanding, Ms. Tabeau, is it well

Page 9964

 1     understood that those of 75 year old in 1991 who had died before 1997

 2     were just among the 20 per cent you could not match.  They were just not

 3     there anymore.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Probably because they were not registered, they

 5     were not registered, they were not among the voters and they were not

 6     matched and rejected.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Was the registration of voters, was that done in

 8     1997 itself, so it couldn't be that someone would register in 1995 as a

 9     voter -- no, no, we are talking about those who actually qualified in

10     1997, early 1998 as voters and had registered as such?

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes, yes, yes.

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, so you did include a number of individuals who were

14     on the 1991 census records as citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but had

15     died a natural death by 1997/1998 and were not on the voters' register,

16     so did you take such individuals into account and if so what is their

17     percentage?

18        A.   Well, I said that we didn't control for deaths, that means if

19     somebody died, the person was not registered as a voter, it was not

20     included in statistics.  Who knows how many died during the war, there is

21     no complete registration of natural deaths.  There is a number of war

22     deaths which is also uncertain but at least we have some ideas.  So I

23     could make a guesstimate, but I don't really want to speculate because

24     the numbers we are talking about wouldn't have impacts on these

25     statistics anyway.  They wouldn't be shown as displaced persons anyway,

Page 9965

 1     that is simply not the case.

 2        Q.   Ms. Tabeau, I'm nearing the end of my examination.  Now, I have a

 3     couple of questions left.  Kindly tell me if you included in your report

 4     the individuals who before the war went to work abroad and as you know,

 5     they were kept on the list of citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and who

 6     reported in 1997 having come back from abroad to vote in the elections,

 7     did you include them in your report and did you qualify them as refugees?

 8        A.   Actually, we studied this issue in detail, and there is one annex

 9     in the report in which the analysis is explained.  If you could please

10     refer to annex B4, B4, page 80 in the English version.  So you see that

11     we actually studied this issue thoroughly because those persons who left

12     the country before the war, before the war, could create certain bias in

13     our statistics.  But obviously the number of such persons who could have

14     introduced bias in our statistics is very small.  As you will see in this

15     annex there were about 28.000 of such persons who as a matter of fact

16     didn't have a significant impact on the ethnic composition and not on the

17     numbers of displaced persons and refugees.  The error that is because of

18     this small number is less than 5 per cent in the displacement statistics.

19     So it is a fairly acceptable level of error in statistics.

20        Q.   Dr. Tabeau, let me conclude, with all due respect, your expertise

21     is primarily that of a mathematical demographer; is that right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   In substance, your report and your study constitutes a

24     statistical and mathematical overview of the size of the population

25     without going into much detail into the reasons, the underlying reasons?

Page 9966

 1        A.   I said earlier today, I didn't study the causes for population

 2     displacement.  It is just a measurement of the displacement that I

 3     studied.

 4             MR. BAKRAC:  [Interpretation] Dr. Tabeau, I thank you and I

 5     apologise if my questions were not professional enough and if I taxed you

 6     in any way with my inexpert questions.  Thank you, Your Honour, those

 7     were all the questions I had.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.  Mr. Jordash, are you ready

 9     to cross-examine the witness.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by

12     Mr. Jordash.  Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

14        Q.   Good afternoon.

15        A.   Good afternoon.

16        Q.   I think just so that I'm clear, what we've established amongst a

17     number of things is that your - I'm dealing with the first report, the

18     IDP refugee report - your report doesn't deal with what happened between

19     1991 and 1997, it's just looking at what was the situation in 1991, what

20     was the situation in 1997/1998?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   Let me take you to your report, page 35, where you --

23             MR. JORDASH:  This is P1657.

24        Q.   You, in paragraph 2 make the comment that:

25             "The 1992, 1995 conflict in Bosnia is an example of a

Page 9967

 1     humanitarian emergency in which a large civilian population was affected

 2     by war and cruel attempts to restructure the ethnic composition of the

 3     population, leading to large scale population displacement, deterioration

 4     of living conditions, severe health problems, and increased mortality."

 5             Now, I just want to pick up on some comments that you made in

 6     response to my learned friend Mr. Bakrac just before the break in which,

 7     forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appeared to suggest -- you appeared to

 8     go further than that and make comments concerning the non-accidental

 9     reasons for that displacement.  Did I understand you correctly?

10        A.   I didn't say -- I wouldn't say non-accidental, I would say I

11     cannot agree that the usual causes of migration like educational

12     migration, socio-economic migration, that includes work migration, we can

13     say operated during the war period and caused these large numbers of the

14     displacement.

15        Q.   You wouldn't, would you, proffer an opinion concerning whether

16     displacement was due to the war conditions generally as compared to, say,

17     an ethnic group forcibly transferring another population out of a region?

18        A.   As I said, I didn't study the causes and I can only say I see the

19     causes as most certainly different from usual and this is where my

20     expertise ends with regard to causes of migration, yes.

21        Q.   And "usual" is a reference to peacetime as compared to war time?

22        A.   Yes.  Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   Yes.  Your opinion is that this is a displacement which is not

24     usual in peacetime, it is characteristic of a war situation?

25        A.   Most definitely not of a conflict -- not of a peace situation but

Page 9968

 1     of a war situation.  If you think of the entire country Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina, then it is about 50 per cent of the population who at the

 3     end of the war became displaced.  We are speaking of 2.2 millions of

 4     people who were displaced.  So that's the scale.  It cannot be seen as

 5     regular migration, peacetime migration.

 6        Q.   Right.  I don't think you and I are disagreeing about that.  What

 7     I was looking at is whether you were trying to offer further opinion

 8     concerning whether these displacements that you record were the result of

 9     a specific activity during a war situation?

10        A.   I don't think I was looking for such an explanation.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12        A.   In my report, yes.

13        Q.   Am I also correct in reading your report as not being able to

14     cast comment on whether the displacement was the result of voluntary

15     movement following the Dayton Agreement?

16        A.   I didn't make any statements of this kind in the report.  But

17     what would be the voluntary movement following the Dayton Agreement, I

18     wouldn't really know.

19        Q.   Populations deciding they would rather live in the Federation

20     rather than in the RS?

21        A.   Well, I didn't comment on this in the report.

22        Q.   But that was part of the Dayton Agreement, wasn't it?  Certain

23     areas designated to be governed by one ethnic group or religious group

24     compared to other areas in the Federation?

25        A.   I think it would be wrong to believe that all this migration took

Page 9969

 1     place after the Dayton Agreement.  There are many documents, contextual

 2     documents, which I had opportunity to study, even though I didn't discuss

 3     them in the report which suggest that the migration was taking place in

 4     the war period.

 5        Q.   No, and I'm not suggesting all the movements did take place, but

 6     your report doesn't really comment on whether Dayton Agreement

 7     consequences or consequences during the war?

 8        A.   No, I didn't look at this.

 9        Q.   Now, can I ask you to please turn to page 31 of P1657.  I think

10     just following on from what we've been discussing, looking at the

11     statistics at the bottom of the page, in the period 1991 to 1997, the

12     share of Serbs in the RS parts of Stanisic-Simatovic area increased from

13     52.5 to 92.5, i.e., by 76.4 per cent, and over the page, just looking at

14     that paragraph and the next paragraph and I think you've given the

15     statistics of -- I'm looking at the 95.3 per cent offered at the bottom

16     of the page, the share of Muslims decreasing in the Serb -- RS part of

17     the Stanisic-Simatovic area and over the page the share of Serbs

18     decreasing in the Federation part by 99.3 per cent.  Are there

19     differences between those two figures statistically relevant?

20        A.   Why would we compare these figures?  I don't know, I didn't look

21     at the significance of the differences.

22        Q.   You didn't?

23        A.   I didn't, no.  But this is not the point that to compare the

24     differences, because I think the point is to measure what happened and

25     express this in quantitative terms, this is why I didn't test the

Page 9970

 1     significance of the differences of the change.

 2        Q.   Can we have a look at page 25 then, please, just for some

 3     clarification for my understanding.  Looking at Sanski Most on figure 10,

 4     could you just explain in straightforward terms what the figure 10

 5     represents in relation to Sanski Most?

 6        A.   It is the -- as the title says, the percentage of Serb displaced

 7     persons, both IDP's and refugees as of 1997/8 in relation to the entire

 8     population of Serbs.

 9        Q.   So does figure 10 suggest, I might be wrong about this I'm not --

10        A.   It's the number of 99.6 which is mentioned just above the figure,

11     right, the dark part of the map.

12        Q.   So 80 to 100 per cent of the Serbs who were living in the

13     Federation part of Sanski Most were displaced?

14        A.   Exactly it is 99.6.

15        Q.   Right.

16        A.   That would be the interval you mentioned, 80 to 100 per cent.

17        Q.   Now, you also made the point that you considered that -- excuse

18     me for paraphrasing, that overall movements of populations were occurring

19     at the same time and likely to be parallel processes.  Why do you reach

20     that conclusion?

21        A.   Why do I reach this conclusion?  Because I believe that the push

22     factors, push factors were operating in the same time.  Only that the

23     direction of movement caused by the push factors was different for the

24     Muslims and other non-Serbs and the Serbs.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Can I just have a moment, please.

Page 9971

 1                           [Defence counsel confer]

 2             MR. JORDASH:

 3        Q.   Let me just clarify, you're suggesting when you say parallel

 4     processes, parallel processes happening at some point between 1991 and

 5     1997 or parallel processes which are actually happening at the same time,

 6     say for during particular incidents?

 7        A.   Well, first of all, let me clarify, I did not study the exact

 8     timing of the population movements because there is no data to study such

 9     a thing.  So the data describes the status in 1991 and compares with

10     1997/1998.  So what I can think of which is not surprising, it is just a

11     straightforward thinking, is that certain factors were pushing out the

12     population and forced them to move, all population, all ethnic groups.

13     It is hard to imagine that these pushing factors were rapidly different

14     at different moments of time, although it is not impossible, I would say,

15     right?  What I mean by parallel is the movements as such of the

16     population, as measured using the data I had at my disposal.

17        Q.   Right.  So your opinion in this regard -- well, let's stake

18     Bosanski Samac -- sorry, let's take Sanski Most.  It's the Prosecution

19     case that in May of 1992 the Serbs attacked and took over Sanski Most.

20     And so then moving forward in mid-1995, I think it's the Prosecution case

21     that the Serbs were pushed out of Sanski Most, so your analysis of

22     parallel processes would be in 1992, it's likely there was a transfer of

23     non-Serb population out of Sanski Most, the parallel process is in 1995

24     the Serbs are pushed out of Sanski Most?

25        A.   No, my thinking is not as you mentioned.  My thinking is much

Page 9972

 1     simpler.  I just measure what I can measure, and parallel for me means I

 2     clearly see that non-Serbs are moving out from Serb-controlled

 3     territories and Serbs are moving out from the federal territories.  That

 4     would be the territories controlled by the federal government.  Of course

 5     at different moments of times these controls were probably different over

 6     territories, but as I'm saying, I measure what I can measure and I don't

 7     discuss what I cannot measure.  This is as simple as that.

 8        Q.   Are you aware of a refugee crisis arising from the Serbs being

 9     pushed out of Sanski Most in 1995?

10        A.   The crisis meaning what?

11        Q.   Meaning --

12        A.   That they were living in large numbers, I mean, the Sanski Most

13     FBiH-controlled territory, what do you mean by this crisis?

14        Q.   Let me show you an exhibit.

15             MR. JORDASH:  65 ter 1D01635.  It's a proposed exhibit, I guess.

16     It's page 46 of the English and page 46 of the B/C/S.

17        Q.   And for your information, this is a diary or said to be a diary

18     written by -- well, said by the Prosecution to be a diary written by

19     Mladic, who obviously you must have heard of; am I correct?

20        A.   Obviously, yes.

21        Q.   Page 46, which -- and just for your orientation the entry is

22     dated the 22nd of September, 1995, and if we look at page --

23        A.   I see the 25 of September -- of August, sorry.

24             MR. JORDASH:  We should be on, I hope, page 46 of the English at

25     least.  And bottom 5273.  Yes, that's right.

Page 9973

 1        Q.   And I hope that is matched by page 46 on the B/C/S.  But just

 2     looking at the English, look at the bottom there:

 3             "By assessing the wave of refugees we can observe the change of

 4     mind after the 150.000 refugees from the RSK and the 120.000 refugees

 5     from Prijedor and Sanski Most ..."

 6             Did you hear about that?

 7        A.   Well, I'm reading this for the first time in my life, this

 8     particular paragraph, there is a mention of 120.000 refugees from

 9     Prijedor and Sanski Most and --

10        Q.   Have you seen things to corroborate that?  Have you read

11     documents in your studies which corroborate that number?

12        A.   First of all, I don't know what is the source for the number.

13     This is one thing, how was it obtained, I have no idea.  So I have right

14     now no opinion about this particular number, how reliable it is, how

15     close to reality it was.  As I said, in my report, I did look at

16     contextual sources, some of them are included in the report.  Some are

17     not but the statistics I prepared in the report are based on other

18     sources and it is not so that every source will be 100 per cent

19     consistent with another source, that's the whole thing about statistics

20     on war victims, and displaced persons is just one type of war victims.

21        Q.   Let's put aside the exact number, these things are perhaps not

22     close to the event exact science.

23        A.   I am afraid not, you know, because if you look at the population

24     size of Sanski Most Serbs and Prijedor, how one could come to 120.000

25     Serb refugees from these two municipalities only?

Page 9974

 1        Q.   I guess it would depend on who was living there at the time?

 2        A.   We have the census to check how many lived there at the moment of

 3     the census.

 4        Q.   At the moment of 1995 we don't have a census, do we?

 5        A.   No, we don't, that's correct except for the Banja Luka census and

 6     Sanski Most is part of it.  So is Prijedor and I still don't think this

 7     120.000 is consistent with that statistic.

 8        Q.   Have you read contextual sources which do cast a light on the

 9     refugee crisis which this seems to be referring to?

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly pause between questions and answers,

11     thank you.

12             THE WITNESS:  I don't know what contextual sources.  You gave me

13     one example, I said, no, I'm unaware with this one example you gave me.

14             MR. JORDASH:

15        Q.   I'm asking you to consider from your broad experience, the wide

16     range of material you must have read over the years, whether you have

17     heard at all about the refugees which fled from the attacks in September

18     of 1995 in Sanski Most?  If you haven't, then that's fine.

19        A.   Yes, yes, this is what I wanted to say.  I did not study this

20     particular episode of the conflict.

21        Q.   So --

22        A.   So I did study sources, but not particularly related to this

23     particular episode.

24        Q.   So you can't provide any assistance in what the situation might

25     have been?

Page 9975

 1        A.   Based on my report?

 2        Q.   No, no, based on your knowledge.

 3        A.   Not immediately, I couldn't.  No.  Not immediately.

 4        Q.   You would be able to though if we were to come back, or if you

 5     were to come back?

 6        A.   I don't know.  I would start a search and see what I could find.

 7     But the problem is that finding is one thing and assessing is another.  I

 8     am afraid assessing of -- assessment of sources is an important issue,

 9     you know.

10        Q.   Okay.  Well, for now, nothing --

11        A.   I would need more time than just one day or something to bring

12     assessments, say.  Sources plus assessment.

13        Q.   For now, nothing then comes to mind.

14        A.   Not immediately, no.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             MR. JORDASH:  I notice the time, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have to consider how to proceed tomorrow.

18     I'm thinking about, of course, the next witness waiting.  I'm sorry,

19     Ms. Tabeau, we are talking about the next witness, but for scheduling

20     purpose we cannot avoid that.  Mr. Groome.

21             MR. GROOME:  The next witness is in The Hague and is ready to

22     appear tomorrow.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ready to appear.  Of course we are thinking about

24     whether that witness can be concluded, Ms. Tabeau, perhaps I simply

25     explain to you, that whether or not we'll continue to hear your evidence

Page 9976

 1     or whether we would prefer to start with another witness who has to

 2     travel and which we would very much like to conclude this week is a

 3     matter still under consideration.

 4             How much time you would need for the next witness?

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we have the witness scheduled for three

 6     hours.  I think I've' taken every reasonable measure to try to reduce

 7     that time with a number of mechanisms.  I hope to be substantially less

 8     than that, but I'm really reluctant to give an estimate other than to say

 9     I think I will be substantially less than the three hours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  So which brings some two hours in my mind.

11             MR. GROOME:  I think, yeah.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  On my mind, not yet on the clock.  Yes.  Could I

13     hear from the other Defence teams.

14             MR. JORDASH:  It is very difficult to assess, as Mr. Groome has

15     said he has taken many measures but those measures necessarily put work

16     on us.  So we've been served yesterday with a 22-page exhibit chart with

17     detailed comments upon it which we haven't even had the chance to go

18     through.  The witness I think is going to make some various comments

19     about intercepts which we are not precisely sure of at this stage.  And

20     so it's -- I wouldn't like to say less than three hours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Mr. Bakrac.  Mr. Petrovic.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with every possible

23     reservation my best guess would be three hours as well.  Perhaps it's

24     going to be shorter than that, but perhaps we'll even have to ask you for

25     some more time.

Page 9977

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What about using Friday morning instead of a

 2     housekeeping session?

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I think I would prefer that to a housekeeping

 4     session.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you would prefer that.  Yes.  Mr. Petrovic.

 6             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Likewise, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do therefore see that you both are available

 8     Friday morning, is that the right conclusion?  We'll seriously consider

 9     that also in view of the witnesses we'll have to travel back.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Keeping in the back of our mind that we might keep

12     the Friday morning and we have a day scheduled for a housekeeping session

13     early next week, that leads the Chamber to give us guidance to the

14     parties that we like to conclude the testimony of Ms. Tabeau tomorrow and

15     Mr. Jordash time needed for that?  May I urge you to ask Ms. Tabeau about

16     what is in her report and not to spend 70 per cent of your time on

17     identifying what is not in the report.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Point taken, Your Honour.  I think no more than 45

19     minutes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Which brings you well over the estimate of one hour.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Actually, Your Honour, I don't want to take up too

22     much time.  If I could say 30 minutes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- if you could conclude your

24     cross-examination in 30 minutes.  Mr. Farr, how much time do you think

25     you would need to re-examination?  For you the same is true, let's ask

Page 9978

 1     what we cannot read in the report and not what either we can read in the

 2     report or what doesn't appear in the report because if it isn't there

 3     then it's not there.

 4             MR. FARR:  It would be just a few minutes, Your Honour, if

 5     anything.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Few minutes.  That's taken.  Then we would like to

 7     see you back tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Ms. Tabeau.

 8     I would like to instruct you that you should not speak nor communicate in

 9     any other way with anyone about your testimony either given today or

10     given tomorrow and there's a fair chance that we would conclude hearing

11     your evidence in a little bit over half an hour.  We stand adjourned and

12     we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the 8th of December at quarter past

13     2.00 in this same courtroom.

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.

15                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of

16                           December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.