1 Wednesday, 26 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.24 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, can you please
7 kindly call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in and around are the courtroom. This is case number
10 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I'd
12 like to first welcome the accused. I would like to greet also the
13 counsel. I'd like to welcome Mr. Stringer, Ms. West, their assistants,
14 and all the people who are here to help us. We are 25 minutes behind
15 schedule as there was a technical problem which has now been solved.
16 I would now like to give the floor to the registrar who I think
17 has two IC numbers to give us.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution has
19 submitted its response to documents tendered by 1D and 3D via witness
20 Neven Tomic. This list shall be given Exhibit number IC 00895 and
21 IC 00896 respectively. Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Registrar.
23 Madam West you have the floor. You have one hour and 45 minutes left.
24 MS. WEST: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, and
25 everyone in and around the courtroom.
1 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
2 [The witness answered through interpreter]
3 Cross-examination by Ms. West: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Professor.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Do you have a copy of your report? Why don't you get that out.
7 Thank you.
8 Now you have, in your direct testimony, spoken about the 1991
9 census of which you were a part; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you would agree with me that when the interviewers went out
12 to collect the information from the residents, this was a face-to-face
13 interview; correct?
14 A. Yes. This is the interview method that is used.
15 Q. Thank you. You described situations in your testimony where
16 people were reluctant to give their JMBGs. What is the source of your
17 information for that?
18 A. I did not say that people were reluctant. I said that some
19 people provide their IDs, some didn't. Some went to work without leaving
20 their ID and you obtain information from household members who are at
21 home. One household member can provide data for all the other members of
22 the household. Very often, even in the 1991 census, companies would
23 issue everybody with certificates -- certificates as to where they
24 worked, what their IDs were, what was the name of their professional
25 activity, but it doesn't mean that everybody had it on them.
1 There was a recommendation for everybody to leave these pieces of
2 paper at home so as to enable their household members to provide correct
3 data, but I don't know whether everybody complied with that.
4 On the certificates that the employees of various companies were
5 issues, the key issue was the ID of the company that you worked in and
6 the line of profession that the company was involved in, because those
7 questions were something that people did not answer to readily, and
8 statistics found that key information for the analysis of the economic
9 structures in the state.
10 Q. But you anticipated my next question which regarded the people
11 who were employed, and so is it your testimony that if a person was
12 employed the company would actually provide a certificate with their JMBG
13 that they were supposed to give to the interviewer?
14 A. It's not like you say. The companies were supposed to issue
15 every employee in their hand. It was not submitted to their home
16 address. Primarily, this certificate contained the ID of the company and
17 the industry that the company belonged to, but I'm not sure whether those
18 contain the IDs of the citizens themselves. I'm not sure. The forms
19 still exist and I could check. The purpose of these certificates, or the
20 primary purpose, was not to provide the ID of the individual citizens but
21 the IDs of the companies and the industries that the companies were a
22 part of.
23 The issuing of these certificates by the companies would have
24 been pointless if it was done only to provide the citizens ID, because in
25 1991 every citizen in the former Yugoslavia
1 their identification document or their driving licence or their social
2 security card. So it was not the primary goal of such certificates
3 issued by companies to provide citizens with IDs. I'm not disputing the
4 fact that the form may have contained that as well.
5 Q. Thank you. When you came to the OTP in April of this year, you
6 had access to the OSCE voter registry database; correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 MS. WEST: Mr. President, may we go into close session?
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please.
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 35042-35045 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
7 MS. WEST: And if this exhibit could be taken off of e-court.
8 Thank you.
9 Q. Professor, you've given extensive testimony regarding the OSC
10 [sic] voter registry. Are you familiar with the eligible requirements?
11 A. You mean what OSCE required, the OSCE requirements?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. WEST: If we may have P 10735. That's in the second binder
15 as well. That is page 2 of the English, page 69 of the Serbian.
16 Q. If you look right in front of you, you'll see it. So this is the
17 general framework agreement for -- it's the Dayton peace agreement
18 regarding elections. It's what Dayton
19 And if you go to page 2 of the English, Article IV talks about
20 eligibility, and I'm just going to read that.
21 It says: "Any citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina aged 18 or older
22 whose name appears on the 1991 census for Bosnia and Herzegovina
23 eligible in accordance with electoral rules and regulations to vote. A
24 citizen who no longer lives in the municipality in which he or she
25 resided in 1991 shall, as a general rule, be expected to vote in person
1 or by absentee ballot in that municipality, provided that the person is
2 determined to have been registered in that municipality as confirmed by
3 the local election commission and the provisional election commission.
4 Such a citizen may, however, apply to the commission to cast his or her
5 ballot elsewhere. The exercise of the refugee's right to vote shall be
6 interpreted as confirmation of his or her intention to return to BiH.
7 "By election day ..." --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down. Thank you.
9 MS. WEST: Thank you.
10 Q. "By election day, the return of refugees should already been
11 under way, thus allowing many to participate in person in elections in
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The commission may provide an electoral rules
13 and regulations for citizens not listed in the 1991 census to vote."
14 So you would agree, Professor, that according to this Article IV,
15 in order to be eligible to vote per OSCE, you just had to be on the 1991
17 A. They to be citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina; they had to be of
18 age, over 18; and it was recommended for them to be on the census, but
19 that was not the absolute requirement. If they were not on the census,
20 citizens could bring two witnesses who themselves were on the census, and
21 prove that both that they were citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 that they could vote. Not only two witnesses, they could go to their
23 religious leader.
24 If you want me to, I can provide the OSCE instruction to see what
25 precedents were made. I -- one of the recommendations were that the
1 citizens were on the 1991 census; but if they were not, they could prove
2 that they were citizens. Would you like me to show you the
4 Q. No, Professor. I don't disagree with you on that, but I would
5 like to go back to this language under Article IV. And, here, it also
6 talks about something we were previously talked about, which is where
7 their vote should count, the choice as to where they want their vote to
8 count. Do you see that in here?
9 A. I agree with you. Citizens could vote wherever they wanted to
10 vote, providing that was approve by the commission, if there was
11 something in dispute. If they were in the same municipality in 1991
12 where they wanted to cast their vote in 1996, then they did not have to
13 go to the commission at all.
14 Q. All right. Professor, would you agree with me that where a
15 person wanted their vote to count is very different from where they
16 actually walked into an office and registered to vote?
17 A. I wouldn't agree with you. First, I have to go to an office and
18 declare my wish. On the assumption that I was in Mostar and that I was
19 currently in Sarajevo
20 when elections are announced, it would be only logical for me to go to
22 If not, then I express my wish to vote in Sarajevo." Then they will say,
23 "Yes, prove since when you have been in Sarajevo. Did you arrive in 1996
24 or after 1996?"
25 I have to be a declared permanent resident or I have to have a
1 refugee status, and I have to have a document proving that I was a
2 refugee who was not able to go back to their original place of residence.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor. I think we agree on this point, because as
4 you just explained, this person would want their vote to count in Mostar,
5 but they actually registered to vote in Sarajevo; right?
6 A. It's not always like that, I'm saying. That may be approved. I
7 may have my vote counted in Mostar, but I have to have a good reason, an
8 explanation. If I had moved out voluntarily, I don't want to go back to
9 Mostar, I'm a resident of Sarajevo
10 then I can apply to have my vote count in the place where I resided in
11 1991; but in the meantime, I could have changed my mind. I'm a refugee
12 of Sarajevo
13 There are all sorts of possibilities which I can explain before
14 the commission and the commission may grant approval or not.
15 Q. Thank you, Professor. I think we're very clear on that point.
16 MS. WEST: Let's move to Exhibit 10738, 10738
17 the -- page 7 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S.
18 Q. This is the OSC [sic] adjudication manual. This is the manual
19 that OSCE gave out to the people who worked for them and who worked for
20 the registration to help the employees understand what to do.
21 Now, particularly on page 4 of the English and then page --
22 excuse me, page 7 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S, it talks about
23 in-person registration, and this talks about in-person registration
24 outside the BiH. I'm going to read this and then we'll talk about it.
25 It says: "The voter registration process in the federation and
2 within the borders of BiH. Voter Registration Committee staff will
3 verify illegibility, and applicants will complete scannable registration
4 forms in person at out-of-country voter registration centres."
5 Professor, my question is: Would you agree that this language
6 which suggests that in the BiH, people actually came to the office to
7 register to vote and the OSCE employee had to verify their eligibility?
8 In other words, people came in person themselves to register to vote?
9 A. These are voters in SRJ and Croatia
10 to do with the procedure that was in place in Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 The voters from SRJ or FRY and Croatia
12 send somebody in lieu of them, but that don't change anything.
13 Voters from the FRY, and I know that for a fact, who had
14 citizenship of Serbia
15 that they were also residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then they
16 would register to vote.
17 Q. And, again, if we go back to this language, it says that that
18 out-of-country registration that they're describing, and you're right,
19 parallels the registration process conducted in-country.
20 So I ask again --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: It says "essentially parallels." There's a
22 difference between "parallels" and "essentially parallels," and I suspect
23 the word "essentially" is there for a particular purpose.
24 MS. WEST:
25 Q. So, if I can ask, Professor, again, would you agree that this
1 suggests that in-country, people had to come in to register?
2 A. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, they did not have to come in person.
3 I suppose that the majority did come in person; but the way I understand
4 it, they didn't have to come in person. It was recommended. Whether
5 they all came in person or not is a different matter. And when you say
6 that it is essentially something that parallels the other process, it
7 does not have to correspond in temporal terms.
8 The process started -- lasted from October to December. To be
9 very precise, the process of registration lasts for two and a half
10 months --
11 Q. Thanks, Professor.
12 A. -- and it was --
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. WEST: We're going to move on I'll ask you to go to P 10737,
15 P 10737.
16 Q. It's binder 2.
17 A. Could you repeat the number?
18 Q. If you look on the screen, Professor, you'll see it.
19 A. Okay. Okay.
20 Q. So this is the OSCE citizenship verification subcommission form.
21 So, if we go to Article 17, you'll see that right in front of you, and go
22 to part 3, where it says: "If an individual's name is not found on the
23 1991 census as adjusted for use in the 14 September 1996 elections during
24 the voter registration period, proof of citizenship in 1991 will require
25 the individual to present ..." --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel is kindly asked to slow down.
2 MS. WEST: Thank you. My apologies.
3 Q. "... will require the individual to present during the voter
4 registration period either a certificate of citizenship issued prior to
5 1991 or a receipt issued by the appropriate municipal authority to
6 establish that he or she was recorded as a citizen in one of the official
7 municipal record books prior to the 1991 census. All such receipts shall
8 be subject to verification in accordance with the practices and
9 procedures established under the authority ..."
10 So Professor, this is what you were talking about earlier;
12 A. Correct. But this is only one part of it. The direct
13 recommendation is something that I will take out from my briefcase, and I
14 will show it to you.
15 Can somebody assist me, please. It says here: "How do you
16 verify the identity of voters, recommendation of what documents may be
18 MR. KARNAVAS: For technical purposes, it may be good to put it
19 on the ELMO and also to identify what the document is, the title of it.
20 So, Professor --
21 MS. WEST:
22 Q. Professor, can you identify what that document is?
23 A. Yes. It is the document that I sent to the Prosecution. It is
24 called the Manual for the Registration of Voters. It's from 1997. It
25 was published by the OSCE. I will read or perhaps somebody else can
1 read. I don't know.
2 Q. You can go ahead and read the part to which you refer.
3 A. "Each person registering must provide identification documents."
4 So I'm not going to read everything. The documents that may be used are
5 list here: Personal ID card, certificate of citizenship, passport, birth
6 certificate, certificate, and so on.
7 "Persons who do not have any of the documents -- identification
8 documents listed above may prove their citizenship by proffering a
9 statement that includes: First name and last name, address at the time
10 of the census, personal ID number, and present current address. The
11 statement must be made in the presence of one of the following: A
12 permanent judge, a cleric, a municipal official, or two persons whose
13 names are on the 1991 census."
14 So one of those persons must be present.
15 Q. Thank you. I'm going to focus on what you said early on. You
16 said that the documents that may be used are listed here: Personal ID
17 card, certificate of citizenship, passport, birth certificate,
18 certificate, and so on.
19 And, so, would you agree with me that the purpose of them
20 providing something physically, a piece of identification, as according
21 to this OSCE verification says - or it doesn't say, excuse me - is to
22 compare is to the 1991 census, so that the OSCE employee can compare that
23 ID to the 1991 census?
24 A. Madam, all the voters list, regardless of whether it's peacetime
25 or wartime, are always made on the basis of the database compiled on the
1 basis of the census, always. Now, if there was a war and if there were
2 movements of population, the census must be the basis, at least in the
3 former Yugoslavia
4 Now, if we were to set up the voters list in Croatia or for the
5 elections in Serbia
6 record each and every voter? You, first of all, have to know what the
7 electorate is, and you get this idea of what the electorate is on the
8 basis of the census.
9 How can somebody say that 70 per cent or 30 per cent of the
10 voters turned out for the elections? It is stated on the basis of the
11 voters list that were put together prior to the election, prior to the
12 vote, and those voters lists were put together on the basis of the
13 census. Of course, the voters list must be updated. Persons died and so
15 Q. Thank you. That's very helpful. And in this case in the 1997
16 election, 80 per cent of the electorate came out and registered; correct?
17 A. No, this is not correct. This is what your expert states, but
18 this is not correct. And if you look at her tables where she says that
19 she matched 42.000 and that the number of -- for the population in 1991,
20 that would be about 60 per cent, that's 60 per cent of --
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I think you misunderstood my
22 question. My question had to do with how many people came out to
23 register in 1997. Isn't it a fact that 80 per cent of the electorate
24 came out in 1997 and actually registered to vote? I'm not talking about
1 A. No, that is not a fact. Your expert claims that the voters lists
2 lack between 20 and 40 per cent of the voters. In the Blagojevic
3 response, which I also have here, this is what your expert claims.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you, madam. But let's go back to what you said
5 earlier, when you were talking about the electoral rolls being based on
6 the census. Would you agree with me, then, at every OSCE registration
7 office, the OSCE employees had both manual copies, physical copies of the
8 1991 census, and a computer copy of the 1991 census, in order for them to
9 make sure that the person who walked in the door had been on the census?
10 A. I don't agree with the terminology, but it may be a translation
11 issue. Registering -- voters are not registered on the basis of the
12 census. It is based on the individual records. In Bosnia and
14 is registering the voters is look for that person in the census, but
15 there is a whole series of problems that one encounters in trying to find
16 persons. There is a special note saying "Attention: Because of the
17 quality of the records for the first name and last name, there might be
18 problems with finding persons. If you do encounter this problem ..." --
19 Q. I think this must be a translation issue, because that wasn't my
20 question. My question was: When somebody registered in 1997, walked
21 into the door, isn't it a fact that OSCE had a copy of the 1991 census
22 there both in hard copy and on a computer? That's my question alone.
23 A. They had copies in the computer with first name, last name, and
24 so on. So not the entire census, just the first name, last name, and
25 some other characteristics, but they did have it. On the basis of the
1 1991 census, they were trying there to find the person who came to
2 register. Sometimes they would succeed and sometimes they would fail.
3 Q. Thank you. Let's just then in a general way talk about the
4 process that a person went through when they wanted to register to vote.
5 I'll describe it and you just tell me if you agree.
6 It would be: Step one, a person would go to the office; step
7 two, that person would give their name and give some sort of
8 identification that you describe; step three, the OSCE employee would
9 consult the census, whether on the computer or hard copy, to see if the
10 person standing in front of them matched up with the census; step four,
11 if that person is the same person, then it's a match and they can
12 register; but, step five, if they can't find that person on the census,
13 then there would have to be alternative ways for that person to ensure
14 that they were a citizen in 1991.
15 Would you agree with me generally what I just described was the
17 A. Generally speaking, yes. But when you say something like that,
18 you infer that the OSCE official managed to find Svetlana Radovanovic
19 with that name. Perhaps, he was unable -- they were unable to find
20 Svetlana Radovanovic because it says "Svelana" or "Sjelana"; but then,
21 based on some other identification markers, they can determine that they
22 actually did find me in the --
23 Q. Thank you, Professor.
24 A. -- census. So it is the duty of the official --
25 Q. Thank you. That being the case, is it then fair to conclude that
1 in 1997 or 1998, OSCE was the very first organisation to do a matching of
2 the voters electoral rolls with the 1991 census?
3 A. In 1997 and in 1998 in Bosnia
4 been there, it was -- if it had been peace, there would be electoral
5 commissions that would do that. It just so happened that it was OSCE.
6 Q. And would you agree with me that OSCE, as result, acted as a type
7 of filter for the matching that OTP later did?
8 A. Not a chance, no.
9 Q. Okay. Let's look at examples then. When you came here in April,
10 when you came to OTP, you had access to all the data that -- upon which
11 OTP based their results; correct?
12 A. I had voters lists, yes.
13 Q. Okay. So, in regard to my question yesterday as to whether a
14 match to the JMBG would be ideal, you said: "It would be the best, most
15 reliable method, but not ideal, provided that the personal ID number is
16 unique and correct. It is unique as the name suggests, but it also needs
17 to be correct. It is the most reliable key for matching, having again a
18 numerical key but of a different kind."
19 I then asked: "Had the OTP used the personal identification key
20 only, and that was the only never they used, would you disagree with the
21 results if it was based on that and just that entirely?"
22 Your answer, Professor, was: "The matching method, now we have a
23 problem with the key. If the personal ID number had been used as the
24 key, and if it had been reliable and correct numbers, then the data would
25 definitely be more reliable."
1 Professor, my question now is: With that testimony in mind, do
2 you recall that the OTP matching technique resulted in 142.204 names that
3 they matched up? They literally matched 142.204? Do you recall that
5 A. I remember, but they did not use the JMBG but the name, the last
6 name, and so on and so forth. If matching was also done with JMBG as the
7 key, it doesn't say how many matches were found according to that key. I
8 know what -- only what your expert stated. She stated there was matching
9 according to name, last name, and ID number, and so on and so forth. And
10 if that is the case, how many were matched according to the ID number?
11 Q. Professor --
12 A. That would give me some reliability. I could say, okay, this is
13 now a reliable result.
14 Q. Now, you had the capacity to run this test as well, and what
15 percentage of the 142-plus thousand came from a match from the JMBG, and
16 just the JMBG?
17 A. Madam, that was not my task at all. I'm not trying to prove any
18 figures here to anybody.
19 Q. Professor, would your opinion of the OTP report change if you
20 knew that 85 per cent of the 142-plus thousand linked names were matched
21 using just the JMBG?
22 A. First of all, I doubt that there were so many correct JMBGs in --
23 of citizens in the eight municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina
24 Herceg-Bosna. It would be a precedent. According to what I know, there
25 were major mistakes all over Bosnia
1 of the JMBGs in the eight municipalities of Herceg-Bosna were correct,
2 which doesn't mean that it has 13 digits, and if 85 per cent of the JMBGs
3 in the census were also correct, I would consider this a very high degree
4 of positive matches.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. WEST: We're going to look at P 10761, and may we go into
7 private session, please.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 35060-35075 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I may be heard for two minutes.
19 on page 36, line 24, Judge Trechsel indicate that I pretended,
20 and I understand that this is perhaps a linguistic issue. I understand
21 Judge Trechsel's English is his second or third of the many languages
22 that he speaks, but I do wish to make sure that the record is rather
23 clear. When I stand up and object, I'm not trying to pretend anything.
24 I make submissions. I make them in good faith. I'm not trying to lie,
25 cheat, or to do anything that is inappropriate. So I just want the
1 record to reflect that.
2 I apologise for raising my voice, but that was the issue that
3 obviously got under my nerve, the issue or suggestion that somehow I was
4 pretending. Again, I want to make sure that you know that I don't
5 pretend. I make submissions. I am a member of a bar. I'm considered an
6 officer of the court. We do have certain ethical obligations, and one of
7 the obligations of a lawyer is to be forthright and honest with the Trial
8 Chamber at all times.
9 So I just want to make sure the record is clear. I can only
10 think that Judge Trechsel was not -- did not mean that somehow I was
11 lying to the Bench. It could be just a terminological issue due to
13 That's all, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You're absolutely right, Mr. Karnavas, 100 per
15 cent. It's a linguistic, intercultural problem.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Ms. West, you have 42 minutes left, I've been told by the
19 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Professor, you have your report directly in front of you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, in your report, on page 26 of the English - it's page 24 of
23 the B/C/S - you note that the sample that OTP used, in it, the share and
24 change of rank of the Muslim and Croat population related to the overall
25 population in 1991 and in 1997 and 1998 have not been significantly
2 My question is: In this regard, are you noting that overall in
3 the area that we're talking about the ethnicity proportions did not
4 change, they about stayed the same?
5 A. It's not I who says that; it's your witness, your expert. In the
6 part of her analysis which I quoted from, she says that this is
7 interesting because there were no visible changes in the ethnic
8 structure. I can pinpoint that part. I can tell you where she says so.
9 I quote her in my report.
10 According to the results provided by your expert and according to
11 the table that I drafted for the total area of Herceg-Bosna, the changes
12 are not visible.
13 Yesterday, or the day before, we discussed the shares, 44.4 and
14 54.6. If you remember, let's not go over the same grounds again. There
15 are no radical changes in the shares of particular ethnic groups in the
16 overall population of Herceg-Bosna.
17 Q. And, Professor, that was the bigger point you were trying to make
18 in that discussion of 22 per cent or 10 per cent. It's that there's no
19 significant change overall; correct?
20 A. No. What I was saying was that your expert used non-demographic
21 indicators in order to represent the change in ethnic structure to be
22 bigger than it was actually as a matter of fact. She claims that a share
23 of Croats rose by 22 per cent. But when you take into account
24 demographic indicators, it is not correct that their share rose by less
25 than 10 per cent. I believe 9.8 per cent.
1 In other words, your expert used indicates -- indicators that
2 referred to the percentual change of the per cent, which means that one
3 figure rose in relation to another figure by 22 per cent based on a
4 non-demographic indicator.
5 Q. But when we talk about the overall ethnicity of the area, that is
6 not something that distinguishes changes in ethnicity within
7 municipalities, does it not?
8 A. That can be seen as having been done by your expert for every
9 municipality. There are myriads of tables there with myriads of
10 repetitions; however, she never presented an analytical table. It is
11 certain that things differed from one municipality to the next when it
12 comes to the ethnic structure.
13 I must say that these changes were the result of what your
14 experts -- expert believes that are good matched numbers. In statistical
15 terms, the good matched number is beyond comparison with the statistical
16 results of 1995, because in her comparison, your expert is mixing apples
17 or pears or apples and oranges.
18 Q. Now, you had just indicated that, on line 9 and 10: "It is
19 certain that things differed from one municipality to the next when it
20 came to ethnic structures."
21 Now, let's talk about that. I'm going to ask you to look at
22 P 10752, and we'll put this on Sanction. So it should come up on the
23 screen in front of you.
24 Now, Professor, this is one of the OTP tables that regards
25 exactly what you noted, the certain ethnicity changes within
2 I'll ask you this: Isn't it true that in 1991, of the area of
3 which we speak, there were eight municipalities that had a relative
4 majority of an ethnicity and six municipalities where there was an
5 absolute majority; however, by the time of 1997, all 14 of those
6 municipalities had absolute majorities? Isn't that true?
7 A. According to this data, yes.
8 Q. Okay. So, when you made statements in your direct testimony
9 regarding the lack of an overall change or overall difference of relative
10 rank of ethnicities, you were not looking at the municipalities
11 individually internally, were you?
12 A. Not correct, no. I looked at every municipality individually,
13 but the problem is as follows: For the years 1997 and 1998, the data was
14 combined by your expert at her own will, rather than using a proper
15 methodological solution. I provided an analytical table not having any
16 other data, but the combination of your expert, to show that at the
17 general level there were practically no changes.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'm going to --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you -- I'm sorry, Ms. West.
20 Could you indicate what the course of this table is.
21 MS. WEST: Your Honour, this is the PowerPoint presentation the
22 OTP used in Ewa Tabeau's expert testimony, and it is Annex A1 of the OTP
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. So it's Tabeau.
25 MS. WEST: It is Tabeau, yes.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm not sure it's in evidence, though, Your
3 Honour. I understand it was rejected by the Trial Chamber. So I may be
4 incorrect, but I'm told this was rejected by the Trial Chamber. So if
5 that is the case, then I would object to this table being used for any
6 further testimony.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll check. We'll check. I
8 can't remember at this stage.
9 Witness, I have one question. I'm a bit lost, I have to say.
10 Take a look at Mostar, Srpski Mostar. In 1991, we have 55.6 per
11 cent of Muslims. In 1997, we have 98.3 per cent of Serbs. Is that
12 really possible?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is also a key methodological
14 problem. If you calculate in this way, then, yes, it is possible.
15 However, there is a problem which is looking at the data according to the
16 new administrative territorial division. This new administrative
17 division was introduced in 1996 or 1997. It divides the Mostar
18 municipality into eight individual municipalities, and every border
19 between the two of these eight municipalities, in this case, for
20 Dr. Tabeau, means resettlement or a change of ethnic structure.
21 People may have remained in the same place but are now divided by
22 borders. And if you have heterogeneous settlements or
23 heterogeneous-ethnic structure, those are usually concentrated, and one
24 line can move that concentration, and you end up with a new municipality
25 with a totally new composition of the population. What you see here is
1 this Srpski Mostar. This Srpski Mostar, with regard to the entire
2 municipality of Mostar, I believe it represents less than 1 per cent of
3 the total population.
4 Now, if you take into account such a small percentage or such a
5 small figure, and you represent them in figures -- in percentages without
6 presenting absolute figures, then you obviously get a mathematically
7 correct representation which excludes many other elements, which might
8 draw your attention to the fact why this is so.
9 Much more reliable -- reliable information would be obtained if
10 she did it according to the administrative and territorial division that
11 was in place in 1991.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
13 [Interpretation] Let's take the example of Mostar-Jug. In 1991,
14 we have 49 per cent of Croats, it seems. Then there's a sharp increase
15 in 1997, up to 96 per cent. But looking at this table, somebody else
16 could wonder when did that sharp increase occur. Was it in 1993 or was
17 it after 1993?
18 For a demographer, can a table provide that type of information?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No table of this type can be
20 found in the report. There's no way for you to say this happened in
21 1993, this happened in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and so on and so forth.
22 Dr. Tabeau did everything for the period between 1991 and 1998;
23 however, she does not offer a single sentence or a single way or a single
24 source of data to establish what was happening between 1991 and 1997 or
25 1998. She cannot say this happened between 1991 and 1992, this happened
1 between 1992 and 1993. In other words, there's no way, because there are
2 no sources of data that would lend themselves to doing that.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed, this table had been
4 rejected by the Trial Chamber, but it may be used, of course, to test the
5 credibility of a witness. Otherwise, yes, indeed, this table had not
6 been admitted.
7 Please proceed, Ms. West.
8 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Ma'am, you just indicated that OTP used what I can term as the
10 post-Dayton municipalities, instead of the 1991 municipalities for the
12 Isn't it true, ma'am, that OTP is not the only organisation that,
13 when determining returning refugees and displaced peoples, used the
14 post-Dayton municipalities?
15 A. Well, the question is, Who is doing what? Many are using the new
16 administration, but are not using the 1991 administrative division to
17 show what happened in the intervening period. Now the whole of Bosnia
18 and Herzegovina
19 demographer, if you want to have comparative data and if you want the
20 data to be comparable, then you use those elements that you are certain
21 will yield the result that you need.
22 Your expert turned the 1991 division into the new division. It
23 is very difficult, because you have to take the census circles out, and
24 this is a very complex task.
25 Then something that did not exist, such as Mostar South or Mostar
1 North, you first have to go to the statistical circles, to the original
2 material. As a rule, those are the actual forms. They probably don't
3 exist because they are destroyed after three years. So you have to go to
4 the material that you have in the -- on the magnetic media, storage
5 media. Then you --
6 Q. Thank you, Professor. Let's move on.
7 You spoke yesterday about the War Hospital records, and I'd like
8 to show you P 10752. It will be Sanction as well, and that's P 10752.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's the one we just had, I think.
10 MS. WEST: I think, Your Honour, the document that you have in
11 front of you on Sanction is the one to which I'm referring, and I'll
12 ensure that the record's correct about the exhibit, but it is the
13 document in front of you.
14 Q. Professor, you personally examined the War Hospital
16 A. Well, I can't say that I personally did it. I acquainted myself
17 with what this data source looks like.
18 Q. Let's look at page iii of your report, and it's page iii in the
19 B/C/S as well.
20 It says "Work performed," number 1, you talk about your
21 colleagues, and then you say: "In addition, I've personally examined the
22 death registers, about 500 pages ..." --
23 THE INTERPRETER: There is too much background noise, so the
24 interpreters cannot hear the speakers.
25 MS. WEST:
1 Q. Again, it's under number 1, and you said: "In addition, I
2 personally examined the death registers, about 500 pages, and the
3 registers of the Mostar War Hospital
4 So again, Professor, do you have a memory of personally examining
5 these records?
6 A. Yes. I do recall that I examined them, but I did not produce any
7 results from the records.
8 But let me tell you what it means, "personally examine." In
9 order for me to acquaint myself with the data source used by Dr. Tabeau,
10 I went through all the materials, but I did not obtain any results from
11 that. Let me show you what my examination looked like, what it boiled
12 down to. If I may put one document on whatever this machine is called.
13 Q. Professor, I'd like to move on. I asked you whether you
14 personally examine them. You said, yes. Now you're describing that. I
15 think the Court, unless it wants more testimony on this issue, we should
16 move on.
17 So my next question is: In regard to those records, OTP found
18 that 49 people were killed from gunshots, 214 were killed from shelling,
19 209 from unknown, and the total being 472.
20 Professor, would you agree with me that OTP produced these
21 numbers from counting? There's no matching going on. They went through
22 records to record who was killed by gunshots, who was killed by shelling.
23 It was actually a counting method.
24 A. I will agree, but there are persons who were killed in traffic
25 accidents and suicides among those who are listed here.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. This figure is not large, but there are some.
3 Q. Thank you. That was not my question.
4 Professor, I'd like to move on to something that we've talked a
5 little bit about and it's the proportion method, and this is something
6 that you discussed in your report. If you can go to page 11 of your
8 MS. WEST: This is page 12 of the English. Page 11 in the B/C/S,
9 page 12 in the English.
10 Q. You wrote: "We note that the proportion method is not used and
11 has never been used in scientific ..." --
12 A. I can't follow you. I really can't follow you. I don't see
13 where you're reading. If it's at page 11, there's not a single sentence
14 that begins the words "I notice ..." Maybe it's an interpretation thing.
15 It says: "The first procedure boils down to simple
16 arithmetic ..." Is this at the beginning of page 11 in B/C/S?
17 Q. Professor, go to the paragraph that starts "The second
18 procedure ..."
19 Do you see that? It's the second paragraph.
20 A. Yes, okay. Yes, I see it.
21 Q. "We note that the proportion method is not used and has never
22 been used in scientific expert research for population migrations. It
23 was occasionally used in statistics until the 1990s, only in the
24 evaluation and sorting of data about unknown age structure. But upon the
25 United Nations' recommendations, it has been eliminated from expert
1 research because of the unreliability of the results obtained by its
3 Professor, what is the source of the UN recommendation? Can you
4 cite me a manual or a handbook?
5 A. Yes, I can. Before a census is taken, the international
6 organisations and the United Nations that have a population department
7 send to all the countries recommendations that have to be taken into
8 account when a census is taken --
9 Q. Professor, thank you.
10 A. -- things that should be taken into account.
11 Q. Thank you, Professor. That's not responsive to my question.
12 My question was: Can you cite me a manual or a handbook? You
13 said, Yes. What is the name of the manual or the handbook?
14 A. "Recommendations for the Census around the year 2000."
15 Q. Okay. But you did not footnote it in your report, did you not?
16 A. No, because I'm not quoting from it. I simply say that in
17 accordance with the recommendations that were in place in 1990s, the
18 distribution method, at least when it came to determining the age
19 brackets of the population, should not be use. So I did not make a
20 direct quotation. Those were just the recommendations, the
21 recommendations that were valid for the former Yugoslavia. I cannot now
22 say whether the same recommendations are in place in the USA or
24 Q. Professor, that's not what you said. I'm going to read this
25 again. You said: "We note that the proportion method is not
1 used ..." --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. "... and has never been used in scientific expert research of
5 population migrations. It was occasionally used in statistics until the
6 1990s," and then you describe the age structure.
7 Then you say: "But upon the UN recommendations, it has been
8 eliminated," eliminated, "from expert research because of the
9 unreliability of the results obtained by its application."
10 So my question is: Can you give me a cite as to where it's --
11 how the United Nations, when the United Nations said you shouldn't use it
12 any more?
13 A. I've already told you. "Recommendations for the Census done
14 around the year 2000." But this does not pertain to the first part that
15 you just read, and that is that it is not known that the proportion
16 method is used in professional and expert research. That's not the UN
17 recommendation. Scientific and expert research --
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... let's go to --
19 A. -- is guided by professionals, by experts --
20 Q. Let's go to P 10758, P 10758. This is the UN handbook on
21 migration, binder 3, but it will come up in front of you.
22 MS. WEST: It's 10758. Thank you.
23 Q. This handbook is from the UN website, and it was downloaded last
24 week. I'd like you to look at B/C/S page 3, and it's the English page 5.
25 This excerpt says: "In addition to household registers, the
1 amount of information ..." --
2 A. Well, I don't have the text in front of me.
3 Q. One moment, ma'am. There you go. Follow along.
4 "In addition to household registers, the amount of information
5 collected by governments for other purposes may be useful in estimating
6 migration. In the United States, base data on migration streams between
7 States is obtained from tax records. Because a substantial majority of
8 American households file tax forms each year, and because they are
9 required by law to enter their social security numbers and current
10 address, computers are able to match records for adjacent years and count
11 the number of movers (See Wetrogan and Long, 1990).
12 "However, because low-income persons are not required to file tax
13 forms, and because persons entering the labor force or entering the
14 country may not have filed in the previous year, only about 80 per cent
15 of the population are covered by matching tax records for adjacent years.
16 Although migration rates are based only on matched records, when these
17 rates are applied to the total population, it is assumed that the
18 uncovered population moves at the same rate.
19 "Wetrogan and Long, 1990 compared these rates with census and
20 current population survey rates for comparable periods and found the
21 differences were small."
22 Professor, you would agree with me that what this UN handbook is
23 talking about when it says, "Although migration rates are based on only
24 match records when the rates are applied to the total population,"
25 specifically in regard to that, that's talking about the distribution or
1 proportion method, is it not?
2 A. Yes. That is the distribution or the proportion method, but it
3 has nothing to do with the method applied by your expert.
4 Q. Thank you. And would you agree with me, Professor, that it would
5 be unusual for the UN to advocate this method on their website if they
6 did not recommend it?
7 A. What the UN is doing has anything to do with the official
8 publication of the data relating to population statistics. I did not
9 deny the proportion method. It exists, it is in use, but a scientific or
10 an expert work, at least to my knowledge - and I'm not familiar with all
11 the literature - explaining the migrations, in particular forcible
12 migrations, never used the proportion or distribution method, for a very
13 simple reason: Because you know in advance what you will get when you
14 apply this method, in particular --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that is not --
16 A. -- if you operate with very small numbers statistically speaking.
17 MS. WEST: That is not responsive to my question.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: It is very responsive because we're dealing with
19 two different situations. One is in the United States, for instance,
20 which is the example, people moving voluntarily. Another one is a
21 situation where you had a war. People moved during and after the war,
22 and there are two different reasons. That's the explanation why the
23 witness is saying one cannot be compared with the other, and she should
24 be entitled to provide a full explanation.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may. I think it
1 might be useful in order to clear up this matter which is very important.
2 In the section which my learned friend Ms. West quoted from our
3 expert's paper, it's quite clear that she's speaking about a
4 non-representative sample and about data obtained from a
5 non-representative sample, which are then distributed on a larger set,
6 quite unlike the example that is brought up by Ms. West, which speaks
7 about a representative sample of 80 per cent, which is then distributed
8 to the overall population.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Witness, on this issue
10 about the proportion method, the Prosecutor is showing you a document
11 stemming from the United Nations. Apparently, it's used in the United
12 States of America
13 is checked by tax forms being filed, in which case you can deduce a
14 number of facts.
15 Now, of course, this document can lead to discussions, but
16 Mr. Karnavas made an objection that one should not confuse between
17 regular migrations and voluntary migrations and forcible migrations; and,
18 therefore, you cannot apply the same method in the case of a forced
19 migration or a voluntary migration.
20 Now, you, madam, who are the expert, what do you think about
21 that? Can method be applied to any type of migration, or should it
22 consider the question of forcible migrations with more precise analysis
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The method can be applied to all
25 kinds of migrations. The only question is, What sense does it make? You
1 see here a segment of data which is small, and then on the basis of the
2 proportion that you establish there, you extrapolate onto a larger case.
3 So you have 100 cases, and you extrapolate to 400 cases; 140.000 cases to
4 200.000 cases, and you considered all of them to be forcible. This is
5 not true, because out of all the cases, regardless of the reliability,
6 you can have both voluntary and forcible migrations, and yet you assume
7 that all of them are forcible and you do the opposite.
8 You do not use a bigger sample numerically speaking, but you use
9 a sample that is smaller and which is highly debatable. You apply the
10 proportion method transposing the results to a sample which is twice the
11 size; and, of course, your results is twice as large.
12 An expert who uses this, who has 10 per cent or 20 per cent of
13 known -- known cases or known facts, and then extrapolates to the 80 per
14 cent of the facts that are not known, knows that she will get a higher
16 We yesterday spoke about 135 causes of death that are known, and
17 then this is extrapolated to 404 cases. So, instead of having 70 people
18 as victims of the shelling, the expert estimates that it's 303 victims of
19 shelling. This is entirely unreliable method for migrations or for any
20 other kind of --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Professor, I've got a
22 very concrete case that I'd like to give you, and please tell me as a
23 demographer how you would have dealt with this particular case in very
24 concrete terms.
25 Let's imagine that in a given village, let's say village X,
1 people in the village learn that the village Y, which is 50 kilometres
2 away, was caught by an armed forces, and that the inhabitants of the
3 village from X, who are 50 kilometres away, decide to leave village X
4 because they think that they may also be subjected to some risks and that
5 there may be some shelling and that they may be caught and captured.
6 Therefore, these people leave village X.
7 Now, the demographer who might look at this situation from the
8 point of view of forcible migration, now, do you think that the
9 inhabitants of village X would be count as forced migrants; or would they
10 be considered as voluntary migrants?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is a very complex
12 question as far as I'm concerned, because we know who forced -- the
13 forcible migrants are. There's a definition. It's either a refugee or a
14 displaced person who was forced to move out.
15 But if I were to answer to your question the way I understand it,
16 it is very important to know how long these people remained elsewhere,
17 whether they fled for just one, three, or five days, and then went back.
18 If they fled because of some fear, it was their personal motivation.
19 They were motivate by their fear to leave.
20 So the direct answer to your question would require me to know
21 some other elements, whether it lasted for a longer time, whether the
22 fear was justified. Probably, well, all fears in war are justified.
23 Whether those people were able to go back at one point or whether they
24 all remained as internally displaced persons, well, in order to be able
25 to give you a full answer, I would have to know more facts, because they
1 can be forced to migrate or voluntary. But what is important to know is
2 whether, stricto senso, forcible migrants.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right.
4 So, in my case, it's complex question, and a demographer would
5 really have a hard time answering the question. He or she would have to
6 look carefully into all the circumstances in order to make his
7 conclusion. Is that what I'm supposed to deduce from your answer, ma'am?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, in particular if a
9 demographer has in front of them the OSCE instruction, saying that both
10 voluntary and forcibly displaced persons are displaced persons. The OSCE
11 takes into account that there were situations where somebody may have
12 left their home voluntarily. So not all migrations are classed as
13 forcible migrations, and this is done when voters are registered.
14 A demographer must be aware of the complexity of the situation
15 and must be aware of the definitions of various phenomena and events that
16 they are dealing with and studying them; in particular, when comparisons
17 are made.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Over to
19 you, Madam West.
20 MS. WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd to look at --
21 I'd like to look at P 10727, P 10727. It's page 29 of the English and
22 page 1 of the B/C/S.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will I see it in front of me on the
24 screen? That's easier that way.
25 MS. WEST:
1 Q. Professor, have you heard of Jean Paul Sardon? He's the French
2 demographer who testified for Serbia
4 A. I heard of him. I'm not familiar with his work.
5 Q. Okay. I'm just going to read a portion of his testimony from the
6 ICJ, and then ask you a question. It's entitled "The Victims of the War
7 in Bosnia-Herzegovina." It's under number 1.
8 It says: "Estimating the number of victims for this conflict is
9 a matter so sensitive and so emblematic of the inter-ethnic conflicts
10 that accompanied the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, that it is more
11 often treated emotionally and as a topic calling for rigorous scientific
13 "All sorts of figures are circulating, selected according to the
14 sensibilities of those who cite them, without their feeling it necessary
15 to test their validity or even simply check their source." Then there's
16 a table of a number of sources and some numbers.
17 And after that, he testified that: "Thus, we have seen the
18 estimates of the number of persons killed and missing blossom, ranging
19 from 20.000 to 328.000, a quite extraordinary ratio of 1 to 16. Most of
20 these estimates circulate without anyone knowing exactly what their
21 sources are or on what basis they were calculated - assuming that they
22 were not the result of some form of spontaneous generation.
23 "The first observation that can be made on analysing these
24 estimates is that their level depends to a large extent on the ..." --
25 A. I don't see that portion now.
1 Q. You have it in front of you now?
2 A. Yes, I do. Thank you.
3 Q. "The first observation that can be made on analysing these
4 estimates is that their level depends on to a large extent on the
5 geographical origins of their authors. Estimates made in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina are always much higher than those from outside the
7 country. The average of the local estimates is in excess of 247.000 as
8 against less than half that figure, 118.000, for the average of the
9 foreign estimates. This is relatively common in situations of this type:
10 The victims' side always overestimates its losses. In addition, most of
11 the local figures take into account the increase in the death rate due to
12 the deterioration in living conditions during the war.
13 "Unfortunately, whether the figures were produced inside or
14 outside the former Yugoslavia
15 authors reached them. This is not generally stated at the time of the
16 publication; however, there is a limited number of methods that can be
18 "Using debt statistics supplied by the Sarajevo institute of
19 public health.
20 "Comparing the expected population inherited from the last
21 census, 1991, and the estimated current population.
22 "Combining these two methods."
23 MS. WEST: The next page on the English.
24 Q. "The main problem in such work is the lack of critical appraisal
25 of the quality of the sources used, in particular the death-rate data
1 generated by the Institute of Public Health. We know that these greatly
2 overestimated the number of deaths due to double counting.
3 "Among all the estimates to which we have had access, one is
4 conspicuous for its quality, and that prepared -- that is prepared by Ewa
5 Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, demographers attached to the office of the ICTY
7 Professor, my question is that: Although you have a poor opinion
8 of the report in this case, do you concede that qualified experts in the
9 field would disagree with your assessment of Ewa Tabeau's work?
10 A. Well, I cannot agree to a question that is phrased in this
11 manner. I do not agree with Dr. Tabeau's work in terms of the reports
12 that she submitted.
13 Now, as for the assessment for the overall number of victims, she
14 gave an interview in our papers where she denies that The Hague Tribunal
15 actually established this figure at 200.000, 300.000. She provided an
16 estimate. Well, she has lots of data sources, and I think that her
17 estimate is the most realistic one.
18 Now, when it comes to her expert reports --
19 Q. If we can go back to my question, and my question --
20 A. I apologise. I probably did not understand your question. Could
21 you please be more specific.
22 Q. Do you concede that qualified experts in this field would
23 disagree with your assessment of her work? The answer to that question
24 is a yes or no. Do you concede that?
25 A. I don't.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I don't --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't. I have to say, if you
4 will -- I have to say why I don't concede.
5 MS. WEST: Mr. President, the question was does she concede. She
6 does not. That's fine. The Prosecution has no further questions.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I can do redirect. I can do redirect.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
9 Q. Perhaps you would be so kind, Professor, to provide a fuller
10 answer to the question posed. So go ahead. I know the Prosecution is
11 not interested in the answer, but we are.
12 A. First of all, this is not my evaluation of the work of
13 Dr. Tabeau, the overall work that Dr. Tabeau did. This is about the
14 evaluation that the most objective evaluation was given by Dr. Tabeau.
15 In other words, the Prosecution in asking me whether the gentleman who
16 evaluated the work of Dr. Tabeau, and the answer is no.
17 However, he says that her estimates, amongst all the estimates
18 that he lists, are probably the most correct one, and I agree with that.
19 These estimates are probably the most correct ones. I did not deal with
20 the estimates. However, I'm not saying this is the evaluation of the
21 work of Dr. Tabeau. Maybe one particle, maybe one tiny part of
23 Q. I have a few more questions to ask you. You were asked a
24 question as far as how you were able to -- whether you had examined the
25 book from the hospital, the hospital books. You said, Yes, and then you
1 wanted to show how you went about in examining the records. You were
2 reaching for something, and then you were cut off.
3 Again, we are interested to see how exactly you examined those
4 records. Could you please show us?
5 A. I must say this: I was asked to look at the data sources, to
6 evaluate these data sources that may or may not be use by a demographer.
7 I would like to show you how a data source looks like and what served to
8 come up with all the figures and causes of this.
9 I have a page from a death registry in Bosnia.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: If you could put it on the ELMO.
11 Q. If you could be so kind as to explain what this -- where this
12 document is from. We'll have to give it an IC number at some point. So
13 where is this from, and then please proceed by explaining it to us.
14 A. This originates from the book of the Mostar War Hospital
15 took from the demographic department of the OTP. This is just one page,
16 and that book has quite a few pages. There are a lot of problems because
17 some pages are missing and so on and so forth.
18 I brought this as an example. As I was looking at this, I was
19 making my decisions about the value and the reliability of this source of
20 data. If you pay attention, you will see that we're dealing with the
21 names and family names of people who were admitted to the hospital, that
22 only their name and last name and the year of birth is entered, and some
23 are also characterised as soldiers and others as civilians.
24 Then there are also diagnosis that the attending physician
25 entered. I am not a doctor, obviously. I'm not a physician. Although I
1 tried to translate some of the diagnoses, I found it difficult.
2 Whether these diagnoses are also the causes of death according to
3 Dr. Tabeau, I don't know. She distributes her data according to the
4 causes of death. I'm sure that she had a doctor's assistance, but I
5 wouldn't know.
6 What I'm trying to say is this: Even good experts, physicians,
7 would have a hard time interpreting these Latin diagnoses. I believe
8 that if you -- if you are considering the causes of death, then you have
9 to list that you were assist by a physician or you have a certificate of
11 Second of all, there are a lot of empty columns under the title
12 "Diagnosis." For example, here, there is nothing here. Nothing has been
13 entered under the title "Diagnosis" next to this name. However, there's
14 also -- I apologise. There's also the year of birth missing. You only
15 have the name.
16 So on its own, this document is a very contestable source of
17 data. It really makes you decide to choose only the cases that you
18 really can prove are reliable.
19 In her report, Dr. Tabeau mentions a number of others. She says
20 a number of pages misses. She says pages from 190 to 215 are missing.
21 However, since she assumed that these pages also contained wounded, she
22 also calculates how many persons could be on the missing pages, and she
23 adds them to the total number of wounded that she found on the pages that
24 are there, those who are wounded and those who died of their wounds.
25 Q. Is this an acceptable scientific method recognised within the
1 field of demography?
2 A. An expert demographer has to arrange, that's his duty, to arrange
3 his source of data in order to obtain at least a minimally reliable
5 Dr. Tabeau does not evaluate this data source as an acceptable,
6 but, rather, says that it is ridden with problems, but I still accept it
7 acceptable. I don't agree with her. I don't know what is the degree of
8 reliability that she attaches to it, if you take into account there are
9 pages missing, if you don't say, or at least you don't say in the report,
10 who was it who interpreted the diagnosis for you, the diagnosis that you
11 claim with the clauses ever death. I don't understand anything about
12 these diagnosis. They may be lethal, they may not be lethal, but I don't
13 know. I would need an expert to help me.
14 Q. Okay. I have two or three more questions. One had to do with
15 the census. As I understand it from your testimony on direct
16 examination, there was optical scanning done, and that's how it was all
17 computerised, of all the forms that were filled out from the fieldwork;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes. Optical scanning was carried out.
20 Q. And I believe that you said that Bosnia-Herzegovina was one of
21 the republics that actually had the names that were scanned along with
22 the forms.
23 A. Yes. I saw this here in The Hague actually.
24 Q. Now, do you know whether the instructions given to those who went
25 out in the field to actually fill out the names and the forms --
1 MS. WEST: Objection.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: I haven't finished the question.
3 MS. WEST: Your Honour, actually, I think it's -- well, excuse
4 me. Please finish the question.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. Do you know whether in filling out those forms, there were any
7 particular instructions on whether they should use Cyrillic, or the Latin
8 script, to use capital letters? Were there any instructions so you have
9 a uniform approach?
10 MS. WEST: Objection, Your Honour. This is beyond the scope of
11 the cross. We didn't discuss the optical scanning or the Latin script at
13 MR. KARNAVAS: The fact that she didn't mention optical scanning
14 doesn't mean that it is beyond the scope. There were lots of questions
15 with regard to the names and to the changing of the names, and how the
16 demographic department of the OTP took it upon themselves to change
17 names. So it is well within the scope, especially considering that at
18 some point there was further discussion as far as the OTP experts
19 deciding on the basis of names one's particular ethnicity.
20 So I think it's well within the scope, Your Honours, if I could
21 get a ruling.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, please answer the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were
25 two letters, the Latinic script or the Cyrillic scripts. Both could be
1 used equally. There was no recommendation as to what you could use.
2 There was just one recommendation. There were little boxes, and just one
3 letter could be entered in one box.
4 Q. Were they required to use capital letters? Were they required to
5 use capital letters, or could they write in the forms however they
7 A. There was no recommendation. I find this a rather strange
8 question. Nobody actually provided you with a recommendation as to how
9 you should write. You could use any script. You were not supposed to
10 enter two letters in one box. That would be that.
11 Q. Okay. Now, based on the optical scanning, were then the names
12 typed on a particular roll, or was it just left to the scanning as far as
13 to the records?
14 A. They were left in their original form as they were scanned.
15 Q. Okay. And afterwards, they were not typed in any way to make a
16 list of who was -- who was on the census, as far as the names were
18 A. You never do that in statistics. A name is not statistical
19 information. In statistical terms, nobody is interested in names. In
21 names; Montenegro
22 Q. All right.
23 A. I can't guarantee about Croatia
24 Q. Do you know whether all the names were legible and all the names
25 were correctly spelled when they were optically scanned? That's the
1 essence of my question.
2 A. According to the original material, there were a lot of mistakes.
3 Some were legible, some not. Some had signs instead of proper letters.
4 There were a lot of mistakes.
5 Q. And how were those mistakes corrected, if you know? How was a
6 determination made that the -- to make sure that all the names were
7 correctly spelled?
8 A. According to the OTP's experts wrote, it was done with the help
9 of experts for the names of the region.
10 Q. All right. But my question was: Was it ever done officially in
11 1991? That's what my question is.
12 A. Are you referring to statistical bodies?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. If that's the case, I repeat, nobody ever controlled, corrected,
15 or was at all interested in the names.
16 Q. All right. Now let's go on -- well, let me just go back to
17 the OTP. As I understand your previous answer, the OTP did through their
18 experts make attempts or did, in fact, try to figure out the correct
20 Do you know whether this is an acceptable practice within
21 demographics; and, if so, are there any particular standards?
22 A. I've never heard of any such thing. I can't even believe that
23 there are standards, how to correct a wrongly written name. I don't even
24 believe that there is a methodology for checking whether the name was
25 entered correctly, unless you went out and collected all of the ID
1 documents and compared them with what you have in your statistical books.
2 Q. Do you know whether at least the OTP made a list of all the names
3 that they thought were found to be questionable and corrected? So where
4 at least we have a list of those names that we can sort of separate from
5 ones that were known versus the ones that needed to be corrected, did you
6 find such a list by them?
7 A. No. I don't know if the OTP, indeed, has such a list or not.
8 Q. All right. Now, going to your -- one of the issues, it would
9 appear on cross-examination from your answers, was you took exception to
10 the quality control, if I could use that term, in a sense with the
11 matching. You were shown, for instance, Mirsad Halilovic I think was the
12 name, and shown that there was 89.9 per cent matching.
13 Then, as part of your answer, you indicated that while some
14 numbers, some of the JMBG numbers, could be matched, other keys were used
15 for other names in order to do matching. In other words, where numbers
16 were not available, other keys were used.
17 Do I have your testimony correct, if I ask my next question?
18 A. Well, you understood me correctly. If there is no JMBG, what was
19 used were names and last names. But we don't know if anything at all was
20 done with regard to the JMBG, so I really am not in a position to say.
21 Q. Well, let me go step-by-step. It usually helps. In addition
22 to -- I should say, aside from the ones that they were able to match with
23 the JMBG numbers, did the OTP keep records, so you can make a
24 determination as to how they did the other matching, who was matched by
25 other procedures other than the JMBG, so then you could look at those
1 names and see whether the matching was done correctly?
2 A. As far as I know, the answer would be no. There's no single
3 report with a reference to something of that sort having been done.
4 Q. And as I understand your testimony, you indicated that in order
5 to augment the numbers, they kept changing the key in order to get more
6 matches, to create more matches, to augment the numbers; is that correct.
7 Do I understand your testimony correctly?
8 A. Yes, in this case, in order to augment the numbers. There are
9 also cases when the numbers were reduced. It all depended on what they
10 wanted to achieve.
11 Q. All right. Well, specifically with respect to the keys, the
12 different keys that were used in order to make the different sorts of
13 matching, is there anywhere in their records that you can look at as a
14 demographer and you can say 30 per cent or 40 per cent were matched by
15 simply looking at the JMBG numbers; 20 per cent were matched by this
16 other method, only data of births; 10 per cent were match in some other
18 Is there anything of that sort for you then as a demographer to
19 look at and examine so you would know exactly how they arrived at a
20 particular number, at the final result?
21 A. There is no reference to that matching statistics in any of the
22 reports that I've had an occasion to read.
23 Q. All right. Just one last question: As a demographer if, if you
24 were going to take that approach because of the sources that were
25 available and the limitations within the sources, would a demographer --
1 would it be part of the demographer's work to keep track of those sorts
2 of records so that the event somebody else wanted to look at and do a
3 quality-control check that would be -- that information would be
5 A. Yes, that would be a professionally correct approach.
6 Q. One last question: With OSCE, we looked at -- we looked at one
7 paragraph, and we were told that people went out and gathered information
8 or people that were actually taking the information.
9 Do you know whether those who were actually collecting the
10 information for OSCE, whether they were internationals or whether they
11 were domestic?
12 A. I don't know, because I can't tell from the instruction who it
13 was, but I know that internationals organised everything and provided
14 recommendations and monitored the process. Whether any foreigners who
15 spoke B/C/S entered data or not, I can't say, because there's no
16 reference at all.
17 One more thing that I would like to add: When I'm saying
18 entering data, I mean interviewing people. Who was it who then
19 transferred data onto the magnetic media and the rest of the process? I
20 suppose that it was OSCE people who did that.
21 Q. Okay. When you say "OSCE people," are you saying were they
22 internationals or nationals or both?
23 A. I don't know if there were any nationals in OSCE, but there may
24 have been. But when I say "OSCE," I mean foreigners, internationals.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions. Thank you very much.
2 MS. WEST: Your Honours, may I have one question on re-cross.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: There is no re-cross, Your Honour. In our system
4 here, there is no recross. In fact, the Prosecution has been very firm
5 that the party who calls the witness has the last word. I'm certainly
6 not inclined to do redirect on redirect examination.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll confer with my colleagues.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. West, Mr. Karnavas is right
10 as far as the principle is concerned; however, the Trial Chamber, in its
11 decision, has said in exceptional circumstances. What are the
12 exceptional circumstances in this case which would justify an extra
13 question on your part? Could you please explain?
14 MS. WEST: Yes, Your Honour. In this case, the way it's been
15 left with the Trial Chamber is that there's substantial information
16 that's out there that was either not even considered by the OTP or was
17 not shared by the OTP. I refer specifically to page 66 starting with
18 question 10.
19 My question would only be whether this witness ever asked for
20 that material. I think it would provide some clarity for the Chamber.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm still not clear what exactly she's making
22 reference to, Your Honour. She had plenty of time on cross-examination.
23 We made it very clear on direct examination that we provided documents to
24 the OTP which they should have used after, all these years, having a
25 specialised unit, with all the millions of dollars being poured into,
1 that my witness had to purchase the material and provide it to them. So
2 this is not an unknown factor. I certainly don't see on page 66 what the
3 reference is, and how the Trial Chamber somehow is at some disadvantage.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I confer once again with
5 my colleagues, if I understand correctly, Ms. West, the question you'd
6 like to put to the witness is to know whether the expert, the witness,
7 has asked or not information from the Office of the Prosecutor; that is,
8 supplemental information, in particular information on several elements.
9 Is that the only question you were planning to ask?
10 MS. WEST: This is it, yes.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Professor, you heard the question from the Prosecution. Could
14 you please answer this very technical question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are talking about the
16 matching statistics, then -- did I understand the question properly, the
17 matching statistics?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. West.
19 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Further cross-examination by Ms. West:
21 Q. The question is in regard to the matching statistics that
22 Mr. Karnavas asked you about, and, specifically, to be clear, the
23 question had been --
24 A. I understand if you are talking about the matching statistics.
25 In the Srebrenica case, I asked from the demographic department
1 to provide me with the matching statistics and all the criteria that were
2 matched. I received 71 criteria that were used for matching. That was
3 in 2004. And then in 2008 or maybe 2007, I even mentioned that in my
4 report. I received an answer from the demographic department that
5 thousands upon thousands of cases were out there for which visual method
6 was used for matching.
7 So there was no concrete answer given, and I have it in my report
8 in one of the footnotes. I can read it out to you. I have in my
9 possession a document in which the OTP says that, in thousands upon
10 thousands of cases, they used visual method in order to determine what
11 could be matched.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. West, this answer, is it
14 MS. WEST: Well, I guess I should ask further.
15 Q. Do I understand that your answer is no? Because your answer is
16 in the Srebrenica case. In this case, did you ask for this material; and
17 is that answer no?
18 A. In this case, I did not ask because the method would be the same;
19 and if I received an answer, would it make sense for me to repeat the
20 request. All expert reports prepared by Dr. Tabeau use the same method
21 with regard to the ethnic structure; and in all of my reports, there is
22 an objection precisely to that fact, that there's no statistics provided.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Professor said that she
24 hadn't asked for those documents, because in the Srebrenica case, the
25 answer that you describe on page 69 had been provided to her.
1 Professor, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to
2 thank you for having spent this week with us to testify in this case.
3 You are now free to go back home, and I wish you well.
4 I'd like Mr. Usher to take you out of the courtroom.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and good-bye.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As everybody knows, we will
8 resume our work on the 12th of January since Mr. Karnavas completed
9 examination of all his witnesses apart from the expert witness.
10 The expert witness is scheduled to testify on the 12th of
11 January; is that correct, Mr. Karnavas?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: That is correct, Your Honour.
13 I do have one matter I wish to raise. It's just a technical
14 matter. This Friday we are due to provide our motion with all the --
15 concerning all the documents. There's about 15 or 1.600 documents that
16 we will be moving in by way of motion, and, of course, we have to prepare
17 the relevant explanations.
18 We are just about finished. But just to be on the safe side, we
19 would like a one-week continuance, or if we could have until next Friday
20 to file, just to be on the safe side, we would appreciate it. We don't
21 believe that anybody would be disadvantaged. Our initial date that we
22 had chosen was based on the fact that we would be finishing our entire
23 case by the -- by this particular date. Now it looks like we'll be
24 finishing on the second week of January, so I don't think anyone would be
25 disadvantaged or prejudiced by a one-week extension.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes, we're talking
2 about 1.600 documents, and, of course, you have to meet all the criteria
3 as set in our guidelines.
4 What does the Prosecution think about this?
5 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, the Prosecution have no objection
6 to the extension of time for the Defence, on the condition that the Trial
7 Chamber grant some additional, some significant additional time to the
8 Prosecution to prepare its response. I'm recalling, and, obviously, the
9 Prosecution submitted large document motions, the Prosecution did not
10 object at the time to giving the Defence additional time to prepare their
12 This is happening over the holidays as well, and staff are going
13 to be -- are going to be leaving the Tribunal and going home for the
14 holidays. So if we could possibly get until mid or even late January to
15 file a response to the document motion, then certainly there's no
16 objection to counsel's filing it a week late.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will confer with
18 my colleagues.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges have just conferred.
21 We will grant Mr. Karnavas' application, and we will give you a one-week
22 extension. You can, therefore, file your motion not this Friday but
23 Friday next week. Since there will be many pages, because there are many
24 documents, the Prosecution has until the 20th of January, 2009, to file
25 its response.
1 As I indicated, we will resume our proceedings on January
2 the 12th. We will hear the last witness for Mr. Karnavas. Then the week
3 after, we will hear the first witness for Mr. Stojic's Defence. We've
4 received a work plan for the months of January, February, March, and
6 As regards April, the last witness scheduled, since the 13th of
7 April is a holiday and since it is customary for the Chamber to take a
8 few days off because it's in the very middle of the first half of the
9 year, the witness scheduled will be postponed to Monday, April the 20th.
10 There will be no hearing on the 14th, on the 15th, nor on the 16th of
11 April. So we will move that witness to the week after, and it will be
12 better for that witness anyway, because otherwise he would have had to
13 come back on the Monday after, because you said you would need four days
14 while we had only three available that week. So it will be, of course,
15 very good for the witness as well.
16 Mr. Scott, Mr. Stringer, do you have any issue you'd like to
18 MR. STRINGER: No, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence, no?
20 As you know, we have a few decisions pending on pending motions.
21 They'll be ready momentarily, and we're going to focus on these
22 decisions. We'll met at the beginning of next year. I wish everybody
23 good work, because there is a lot of work to be done for everybody, very
24 important work. We'll make all the necessary arrangements to present you
25 with all the pending decisions as soon as possible, so that we can start
1 fresh at the beginning of next year with all the decisions rendered,
2 apart, of course, our decision on the motion to admit a certain number of
3 documents, because we'll have to wait for the Prosecutor's response
4 before we can make a final determination.
5 See you soon.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.38 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th day
8 of January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.