1 Monday, 21 June 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number
7 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry that Judge Argibay
10 won't be able to be with us today. So in accordance with Rule 15 bis, the
11 remaining Judges decided to continue the proceedings. As for the
12 scheduling this week and today, we are in Courtroom III. And tomorrow I'm
13 afraid we have to move to Courtroom II and we'll sit until 12.00, which
14 means we only have two sittings tomorrow. On Wednesday we'll remain in
15 Courtroom II. On Thursday and Friday, we are in Courtroom I with one
16 extra sitting each afternoon.
17 And, Mr. Lukic, I understand that Mr. Stojanovic is still in the
18 field. And according to our original plan, you probably know that we
19 should have a pre-Defence conference on the 23rd of this month, which is
20 next Wednesday. I just want to know whether your Defence team is in the
21 position to have this pre-Defence conference or not. If not, we could
22 find another time.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Stojanovic should be with us
24 tomorrow. He's coming back from the field today afternoon. So our
25 Defence team would be ready for this pre-Defence conference.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We'll see whether it could fit in our
3 Well, is there anything else that the parties would like to raise
4 before we have the witness? If not, could we have the witness, please.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
10 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
16 Yes, Mr. Karnavas, the witness is yours.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Judge Vassylenko.
18 Examined by Mr. Karnavas:
19 Q. Good morning.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. Could you please tell us your name?
22 A. My name is Svetlana Radovanovic.
23 Q. And could you please tell us your last name letter by letter.
24 A. S-v-e-t-l-a-n-a R-a-d-o-v-a-n-o-v-i-c.
25 Q. All right. Thank you. What is your occupation?
1 A. I'm a demographer and a university professor.
2 Q. Have you testified before this Tribunal as an expert in the field
3 of demography?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you please tell us what your assignment was in this
6 particular case.
7 A. To look at the report submitted by the Prosecution and to give my
8 own judgement on it.
9 Q. And do you have an overall expert opinion regarding the expert
10 report prepared by the OTP expert, Helge Brunborg?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Would you briefly tell us your overall expert report.
13 A. My opinion on the expert report?
14 Q. Yes. I would like you to give us an overall opinion of what
15 you -- regarding the expert report prepared by Mr. Brunborg.
16 A. I think that the report is superficial, that it is not objective.
17 And as such, I believe that it is unacceptable as a piece of scholarly
19 Q. What about the numeric results determined by Mr. Brunborg. Do you
20 have an opinion regarding that?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And what is your opinion?
23 A. I think that these results were obtained using the wrong
24 methodology and in a very subjective manner.
25 Q. Finally, do you -- can you tell us to any degree of scientific
1 certainty, that is within the field of demography, whether that report and
2 its findings could be used to determine the long-term impact on the
3 Srebrenica community resulting from the events that followed after the
4 fall of Srebrenica?
5 A. Yes. I think that this report cannot be used, nor can the results
6 obtained in the report.
7 Q. All right. Now, before we go into greater depth as to how you
8 reach your conclusions, I would like to first go over your background.
9 Could you please tell us about your educational background first.
10 A. I completed the faculty of philosophy in Belgrade, the department
11 of ethnology, after which I took my MA in demography at the geographical
12 college in Belgrade, after which I took a Ph.D. in demography at the
13 Belgrade University College of Geography.
14 Q. And could you please tell us a little bit about your hands-on
15 field experience in the field of demography.
16 A. I spent practically my whole career in the field, gathering data,
17 processing data. Do you expect me to tell you where I worked?
18 Q. Yes. The sorts of different positions that you've held over the
19 course of the years.
20 A. I worked in the republic bureau of statistics of Serbia for 17
21 years, and for the past 6 or 7 years I have been the head of the
22 department of statistics for the population, and I dealt with census and
23 vital statistics. I took part in three censuses. In two of these, I was
24 an expert of the inter-republic group for the realisation and
25 implementation of the census and for creating the methodological
1 solutions for the census. I also took part in creating the methodology of
2 collecting and processing data for vital statistics. That means
3 marriages, births, deaths, and divorce. I was also one of the creators of
4 a new service that was introduced into statistics in the late 1980s, and
5 that is the statistics of migration. From 1992 until 1999, I worked in
6 the institute of social sciences in the centre for demographic research.
7 And after this when the chair of demographics was established, I moved to
8 the faculty of geography and now I am the head of that chair.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. I will need to ask you to slow down a little bit so we don't
13 overtax our good translators.
14 Now, could you please tell us whether you have worked on any
15 special projects, other than the ones that you've discussed.
16 A. Yes, I worked on many projects. On the territory of the former
17 Yugoslavia and for the last five years, apart from the projects at the
18 university, I have been working on a project of the European centre for
19 peace of the United Nations, which is currently dealing with a part of
20 Serbia, that is Sandzak.
21 Q. And are you still currently working on that project or have you
22 finished working for it?
23 A. I am still working on the project.
24 Q. All right. Now, you said you hold a chair at the university.
25 Could you please tell us the subjects that you teach.
1 A. I teach introduction to demographics, the statistics of the
2 population, and ethnodemographics.
3 Q. Now, have you prepared a curriculum vitae regarding your
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. If I could now show you what has been marked for identification
7 purposes as D202/1. If you could just please look at it. This is an
8 English copy. I understand that your English is limited, but is this your
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, that will be --
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Madam Usher, regarding that.
13 Q. Now, if I could -- first of all, before we go any further, I would
14 like you to please tell us a little bit about demography. What is it?
15 A. This is a very complex question, but I will try to give a simple
16 reply. Demographics is the science dealing with the population. It's a
17 science because in the system of sciences dealing with the population, it
18 also has its own peculiar method, the demographic method. However, it is
19 a multi-disciplinary science because it also uses methods and knowledge
20 from many other sciences. It also uses statistical methods, historical
21 methods, geographical methods. It uses insights from medicine, geography,
22 depending on the goal of a demographic analysis.
23 Q. And for this particular task that was given to Mr. Brunborg and
24 for which you had to examine, that is, his work product, could you please
25 tell us what disciplines and experience would have been necessary to carry
1 out that task.
2 A. I think a multi-disciplinary experience was needed, in addition to
3 knowledge of statistics and statistical methods. Demographic knowledge
4 was needed, knowledge of the area, certain knowledge from geography.
5 That's the least that was necessary in order to do such an analysis.
6 Q. Well, you indicated statistics was involved. So I take it that's
7 a fairly standardised discipline, is it not?
8 A. Certainly, yes. It's a universal method.
9 Q. Well, for the particular region what we're speaking of, and that
10 is the former Yugoslavia, was there any particular experience or knowledge
11 that one would need in order to carry out the task at hand, the project
12 that he was given?
13 A. Certainly experience and knowledge about what statistics, that is,
14 the official statistical bureau of the country collected and what other
15 sources could assist in solving this complex issue; what surveys were
16 carried out; where to look for sources. You had to have experience that
17 would tell you which sources were entirely reliable and which sources were
18 of limited reliability, for example, when using certain sources of
20 Q. All right. Now, in this particular case, could you please list
21 for us, in general that is, the sources that were available for any expert
22 to carry out this sort of a project.
23 A. At least 17 sources. Do you want me to name each one of them?
24 Q. Well, if you could start with at least the most important and then
25 we can work down, because then what we will be doing is going to the
1 sources that were actually used to see which of the 17 were used. So
2 please tell us first of all what sources were available that an expert
3 could have looked at.
4 A. By your leave I would like to begin with the official sources, the
5 state sources, which are to be most trusted. Of the official statistical
6 sources there is the census of 1991; then there was the census of 2001
7 carried out in Serbia; there was a census carried out in 2002 in Serbia;
8 another census in 2003 carried out in Croatia; there were official
9 estimates of the number of inhabitants; official evaluation of the numbers
10 of inhabitants published by the statistical bureau of Bosnia-Herzegovina;
11 official information on the number of births, deaths, marriages and
12 divorces; then there were the unofficial sources. When I say
13 "unofficial," by this I mean that they were not done by the state bureau
14 of statistics, although the bureau took part of many of them, there was
15 the list of refugees in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996; there was the list of
16 refugees on the territory of the former SR Yugoslavia; there was -- just a
17 moment. There were lists in the municipalities on returnees returning to
18 their villages; there were sources done by various organisations, such as
19 the Red Cross, the Doctors without borders. And I think I have listed
20 them all, but I may recall some others later on.
21 Q. Okay. Now, I take it each of these sources has a particular
23 A. Absolutely, yes.
24 Q. Now, I don't want to go through all of these sources, but could
25 you please tell us at least in general the purpose for going to all those
1 sources in order to carry out a task such as the one given to
2 Mr. Brunborg.
3 A. First you have to know what information is available in each of
4 these sources, then you have to know what the quality of the information
5 is, then you have to know what methodology was used to collect and process
6 this information in order to be able to use it or reject it in your work,
7 in order to judge what to use, what is of assistance, and what to
8 eliminate and what is useless.
9 Q. All right. Of all the sources that you've outlined, could you
10 tell us a little bit about the reliability of these sources. Which are
11 the ones that you would find most reliable to start with?
12 A. Of all the sources listed?
13 Q. Well -- unless it would be easier to indicate to us which of the
14 sources are most unreliable. Either way.
15 A. The least reliable sources are those not done for statistical
16 purposes, those without a fixed methodology, and methodology is a very
17 complex matter. It implies where, how, and by what methods you collect
18 information. All sources that do not explain this and which did not have
19 high quality information as their goal, these are the least reliable. On
20 the other hand, all verified sources are the most reliable because they
21 imply an entire process which is well known in statistics. This is a very
22 extensive and onerous piece of work. And there are people who abide by
23 what is in this information. Lists done for ad hoc purposes are no one's
24 responsibility, not even the responsibility of the authors of the lists.
25 Q. All right. Well, if I could look at just two of the lists, the
1 ICRC list and the other list that was prepared by the physicians I think
2 without borders, that one, those two lists. Do you know whether a fixed
3 methodology was used?
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
5 MR. WAESPI: There is a Doctors without borders, or Physicians for
6 human rights.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Physicians for human rights. I apologise.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much.
9 MR. KARNAVAS:
10 Q. If we could look at those two lists, the one prepared by the ICRC
11 and the one prepared by the Physicians for human rights, that's the PHR.
12 Could you tell us whether a methodology was used and if it was how
13 trustworthy or reliable it is or would have been.
14 A. First of all, speaking professionally, it's called a list here but
15 it's not -- or rather, it's called a census but it's not a census in the
16 statistical sense, it's simply a list, a list which was not drawn up for
17 any statistical purpose. There does not exist, or at least I have not had
18 the chance of seeing it, a methodology, the methodology that was used to
19 compile these lists. And the same goes for Physicians for human rights.
20 There are questionnaires on the basis of which the information was
21 collected and which I could use to express an opinion, but the methodology
22 which was used to collect this information is something I have not had an
23 opportunity of seeing. One can draw certain conclusions indirectly on the
24 manner in which this information was collected, and these are not
25 traditional statistical methods.
1 Q. All right. First of all, on the methodology you indicated that
2 you did not have an opportunity to see it, if in fact one was used. Could
3 you please tell us whether you made any requests to the -- from the Office
4 of the Prosecution, their expert, to provide you with the methodology that
5 might have been used or might have existed for the ICRC or the PHR.
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And did they provide you with anything?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you know whether they have one in their possession, or is it
10 that they don't have one either, from which you can then conclude that one
11 does not exist?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. All right. Now, you talked about questionnaires were used.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. What's the difference between the methodology and the
17 questionnaire? And if you could factor this into your answer, can you not
18 look at the questionnaire and from that deduct the methodology?
19 A. I have to think about this. A questionnaire is a product of part
20 of methodological work. But when you look at it you don't know which
21 methodology was used in order to compile such a questionnaire. So from a
22 questionnaire you cannot see what the actual procedure was involved in
23 order to have this questionnaire filled out. So one cannot judge on the
24 methodology, or rather, on the way in which information was compiled.
25 This cannot be judged on the basis of the questionnaire only. However,
1 when creating a methodology then you create a questionnaire as well, on
2 the basis of certain rules of course.
3 Q. All right. Well, we have two different lists and obviously it
4 would appear that the ICRC and the PHR were trying to compile a list of
5 missing persons. Could you not at least look at the two lists and see
6 where there might be some common ground, and then from there draw some
8 A. Well, what you said, they were trying to compile a list, et
9 cetera. It was said quite explicitly that they have completely different
10 objectives. The objective of the Red Cross was to collect names, dates,
11 to compile a list of persons that are considered to be missing. And then
12 in accordance with this list that they used Red Cross procedures in order
13 to try to find these persons. The objective of the Doctors without
14 borders at the very outset was to deal with persons who had been killed,
15 to deal with persons who are dead. So they have completely different
16 questionnaires. On the basis of these questionnaires, one may conclude
17 that their objectives are quite different.
18 Q. All right. Well, let's move on from those two lists. And I just
19 want to go back to your earlier answer where you talked about that you
20 would have looked at -- or that sources were available such as the various
21 census from Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which begs the
22 question: Why would you go to Croatia or Serbia and look at their census
23 or any other sources from those areas or countries in order to determine,
24 you know, the task at hand, that is, how many people are missing as a
25 result of the events surrounding Srebrenica?
1 A. Censuses record the entire population that is permanently present
2 in the area where the census is conducted. There are many questions
3 involved there, but inter alia, a census involves the following question:
4 Where did you move in from and when? On the basis of that question it is
5 important to establish the exact time and place that a person moved in
6 from at the time when you are conducting the census. That is the kind of
7 information that is collected in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
8 There is a bit of a problem, though, it is only the last place of
9 relocation that is registered. For example, I can move from the town of
10 Nis to Belgrade and then from Belgrade to Sarajevo. They would consider
11 me as a person who had moved in from Sarajevo. However, when people are
12 aware of that problem, that error, nevertheless, you can, at a given point
13 in time, get the number of persons who moved in from other towns, states,
14 et cetera, at the moment when you are carrying out the census. You know
15 the exact period when they moved in.
16 Q. What about the information itself? I mean, in conducting a
17 census, how reliable is that information? And I'm talking about the list
18 of information that is collected, generally collected, the name, date,
19 name of father, and then the personal ID number?
20 A. This information are not statistical data at all. They are
21 included in the census for non-statistical reasons. It's the name and
22 surname that is collected, the father's name, the number of the person ID
23 is never registered. There is another thing, not the number of the
24 identity card but the personal identification number, which is a
25 completely different number. This is not statistical data, and I can
1 explain why it is collected or not collected. This was never checked in
2 terms of correcting names, surnames, father's name, and things like that.
3 And after all, it's impossible to check all of that. However, personal
4 identification numbers were collected for the first time in the census of
5 1991 for a simple reason: In the territory of the former Yugoslavia the
6 idea was to have a single registry of the population. Since this personal
7 identification number consists of 13 digits and the statistics need the
8 first seven digits because they are the date of birth, then statistics
9 collects this regularly. The remaining six digits, which also have a
10 certain meaning, they constitute the region that you come from, also your
11 gender, and it's a kind of identification number. An attempt was made to
12 collect all of that in order to use it primarily, in order to compile this
13 register. All the other information, except for these two particular
14 pieces of information, involve a particular procedure of a higher control
15 of the census. That is to say, in the field and then this automatic
16 control, if I can call it that way, which is a complex affair, a logical
17 control, and so on and so forth. When the information compiled is
18 proclaimed official, then it is official and correct.
19 Now, what can be debated is the greater and lesser reliability of
20 certain features or of the entire census. There are some features that
21 you compile, for example, ethnicity or religion. These are criteria for
22 obtaining information -- I mean, the criteria are subjective. So, for
23 example, in one census I can say that I'm Montenegrin, and in another one
24 I can say that I'm a Martian, and I can declare myself or I don't have to
25 declare myself. So whoever seriously deals with statistics, demographics,
1 and ethnodemographics knows exactly what the limitations are in terms of
2 the information compiled. So once a census is verified by a state, it's
3 considered to be a successful one. And it is only with regard to certain
4 questions that it can be considered debatable, or rather, the extent to
5 which it can be considered acceptable, or rather, what the constraints
6 are, but then there has to be an explanation involved. Primarily, these
7 are features that are of a subjective nature. Most of the information
8 compiled in a census is documented, so it is not subjective information.
9 Q. All right. Incidentally you were using the 1991 census as an
10 example. Did you by any chance work on that census?
11 A. I was an expert in the inter-republican group for the methodology
12 of the census. And I was secretary for the bureau of the census and ex
13 officio, that is to say due to the office I held then in the office of
14 statistics, I was in charge of the census in Serbia.
15 Q. Was it mandatory, by the way, to participate in the census? Or
16 was this on a voluntary basis?
17 A. All censuses carried out in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
18 from 1921 until the present day, although these are separate states now,
19 there are laws on the censuses. And the laws consider censuses to be
20 mandatory. And in 1991 there were even sanctions that were envisaged in
21 case you didn't want to take part in a census. First of all, the media
22 has to inform the population that there is a census that is ongoing and as
23 a rule people participate in the census. No one is really opposed to it,
24 but it is a legal obligation, yes.
25 Q. All right. Now, on one of the sources, I'm not sure whether you
1 mentioned it or not, but what about the voter registration? Would that
2 have been one of the sources that would have been available to an expert
3 in order to carry out the task at hand, that is again, to figure out the
4 list of the missing people, both by identity and number?
5 A. I probably omitted to mention that, yes. Yes. Voter registers
6 are an auxiliary source of information, yes, and experts do have that
8 Q. How reliable is that source, keeping in mind your previous answer
9 with respect to census information?
10 A. Voter registers have a different methodology of compiling
11 information, if I can put it that way. First of all, these are lists that
12 register people who voluntarily apply to vote, and then they involve
13 names, surnames, and also these personal identification numbers ever since
14 they've been in existence in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. They
15 are not compulsory and I think that in most countries in the world it is
16 not mandatory to vote. There are lists of voters, but basically people
17 voluntarily apply to vote or not to vote.
18 Q. All right. What about vital statistics data? Can you comment on
19 that, particularly the reliability, keeping in mind the situation now as
20 it exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 A. Vital statistics data mean that you should collect information on
22 the number of persons who were born, the number of persons who died, the
23 number of marriages registered, and the number of divorces registered.
24 The former Yugoslavia was very proud of their vital statistics data
25 because this was a well-established service where there was practically
1 never any problem and indeed we had a high percentage of registration of
2 vital statistics. The problem with current vital statistics data of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina is that the methodology is not observed, the one that
4 prescribes that every birth or any other vital phenomenon should be
5 registered not where it actually took place, but at the mother's place of
6 permanent residence. For example, if I live in Srebrenica and if I give
7 birth in Tuzla, then in statistics the birth is registered in Srebrenica
8 as if it took place in Srebrenica. However, in view of the time involved,
9 this methodology was changed because there were different migrations of
10 the population. So now very often because there is no cooperation between
11 federal statistics and Republika Srpska statistics, there is no exchange
12 of information. For example, if somebody from Srebrenica gives birth in
13 Tuzla, according to the methodology, Tuzla would be duty-bound to send
14 this to the republican office of statistics in Banja Luka. Tuzla would
15 not do that for the most part. They'd send it either to the federation or
16 to their local statistics bureau. In addition to that, a new methodology
17 was introduced, precisely in view of what took place in Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina, namely that every inhabitant who lives in a certain town for
19 a year or longer registered -- registers vital statistics in that town.
20 What does that mean? For example, if I move from Banja Luka to Sarajevo
21 and if I have been living in Sarajevo for over a year, everything that has
22 to do with me will be registered in Sarajevo, not in Banja Luka. The same
23 goes for persons who are abroad. Now, this change of methodology, if I
24 can call it that way, meant that vital statistics data in the territory of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina have to be sought in several different places and in
1 different ways. They cannot only be based on officially published data by
2 one particular statistics office.
3 Q. Okay. Now, before we move on, I just want to clarify one point.
4 You said that there's no or little cooperation between the federation and
5 the RS bureaus of statistics, especially in this area where you talked
6 about, that is the registration of births. How do you know that?
7 A. Well, for example, you have federation bulletins and you have RS
8 bulletins, and you have a bulletin that is published by the agency. The
9 agency when it wants to display certain data, they say data in the
10 federation. And then they say what happened in Republika Srpska with
11 respect to the federation, and what happened in the district of Brcko.
12 When you have the federation bulletin, which in addition to registering
13 federation data, has information concerning things that occurred in
14 Republika Srpska, well, that means that all of that would have to be
15 registered in Republika Srpska and then we have something logical, and
16 then we'd add up the two, what happened in the federation and what
17 happened in Republika Srpska, then the total would be what happened in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But what they do is they register information for
19 the federation and then what happened in Republika Srpska.
20 Q. Incidentally, did you contact the bureau, the census bureaus, to
21 check out this information?
22 A. Yes. There are bulletins that are published and where all of this
23 is contained.
24 Q. All right. Now, perhaps we can -- before we go into the actual
25 work product of Mr. Brunborg, perhaps we could speak a little bit about
1 the concept of matching, what it is, why it is important, and how it is
2 accomplished. So please, what is matching first of all?
3 A. Matching is a classical statistical method or procedure what means
4 that items from one statistical group should be identified in another
5 statistical group. In order to carry this through, you have to have the
6 right key, that's what I'm going to call it, for this matching. This key
7 should be the personal identification number, if it's good, if it's right.
8 Now, what should this matching key be? For example, if my personal
9 identification number is whatever, my name is Svetlana Radovanovic, I was
10 born on a particular date, my personal identification number includes 13
11 digits, it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. Now, from a statistical group
12 which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I sent to the statistical group this information,
13 and then when they all match, when 1 matches 1, 2 matches 2, 3 matches 3,
14 4 matches 4, and 5 matches 5, then I can claim that that is
15 Svetlana Radovanovic, involving all the characteristics, including the
16 date of birth. So this is pure matching according to a certain key for
17 carrying this out. This key has to be invariable; it has to be standard.
18 Because any change of this key for matching makes it possible to engage in
19 guesswork, to speculate. If, say, I am Svetlana Radovanovic born on the
20 14th of November, 1949, if I exclude the date only, not the year, but only
21 the date, and if I sent it to the other statistical group and asked them
22 to find Svetlana Radovanovic, then you do not have a matching of all the
23 relevant items. They are going to find all the Svetlana Radovanovic's who
24 were born in 1949. Now, whether that was really me, it is up for you to
25 estimate then or assess. For example, in the census of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, as I did this particular work, I found three
2 Mrs. Radovanovics, one would correspond to me because she has the same
3 identification, the same year of birth, and the same name and surname.
4 Had I, by some grave misfortune, been on the list of the UNHCR or the
5 Red Cross and if I allowed this to take place, not with a firm matching
6 key but just on the basis of this information, they would have found me,
7 they would have found me for sure. Now, the question is to establish
8 whether this is really me or not.
9 In order to establish whether this is really me or not is not a
10 problem if you have auxiliary sources, on the basis of which you can have
11 this established. However, if these sources do not exist, if there is
12 only the name, the last name, and father's name, and date of birth and
13 place of birth, those are the only things that correspond to the census.
14 In that case, if you have only these three characteristics, you do not
15 have the possibility of carrying this through or you can just reach a
16 subjective conclusion whether that is the person concerned or not.
17 My point is that matching according to a certain key, a particular
18 key, is an excellent method; however, it has to be a very good key, it has
19 to be a very firm standard. If not, then the entire exercise lends itself
20 to arbitrariness.
21 Q. All right. Well, what if you are unable to collect all the data
22 for this perfect key, what then? What do you do?
23 A. I don't quite understand your question.
24 Q. All right. Well, you indicated that in this key you would look
25 for certain information in order to have the perfect match. What if you
1 are unable to make that perfect match? Do you have other keys developed
2 so at least you can have a margin of error?
3 A. Oh, you can make as many keys as you want. That is something that
4 depends on how skillful you are, how experienced you are, if you can see
5 what happens, if the key gets wider. Yes, you can do that.
6 Q. And would it be part of the job of a demographer or a statistician
7 to keep track of the percentage of matching once you deviate from the
8 original key?
9 A. Well, professionally that would be honest because if you want to
10 be responsible for the correctness of particular data, then you would have
11 to say: This is on the basis of a correct key, this is what was done, and
12 this is how much was done. If due to a variety of situations I have to
13 make the key shorter or wider, then I say that if I have excluded one
14 particular feature then I get such-and-such results. If I exclude two
15 features, then I get such-and-such results, and so on and so forth. So
16 then you can follow the percentage of matching and you can see what it is
17 that you stand behind firmly and what is the percentage where you have to
18 have a certain degree of reservation, or rather, you assume that that's
19 the way it is but it does not necessarily have to be that way. That can
20 be followed statistically, too.
21 Q. Do you know, by chance, how many different keys the --
22 Mr. Brunborg, the expert of the Office of the Prosecution, had in this
23 particular case in order to come up with matching, this matching process?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Would you please tell us what was that number.
1 A. 71.
2 Q. 71 different keys. Now, in their work product, and we're going to
3 get to it in detail, from those 71 did they break down the percentage, in
4 other words, so you as a demographer or a statistician could see as the
5 key got shorter or wider how the figures changed?
6 A. No, that cannot be seen.
7 Q. Did you ask for it?
8 A. I asked for the keys to be given to me, yes -- or rather, I asked
9 for the criteria to be supplied.
10 Q. All right. Now -- and did they supply that to you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, I want to go through that right now, if we could, so we can
13 get this subject out of the way before we actually get to what they did.
14 So let me show you what has been marked for identification purposes as
15 D203/1. And again, it's in English, the text is in English, but I believe
16 you are -- if you could just look at the text, which is the first page,
17 and then if we go to page 2 and page 3. First of all, do you recognise
18 this document, Professor?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, turning to page 2 we see a table titled: "(examples of)
21 linking criteria for the 1991 census with the consolidated list of missing
23 Is this what you were referring to when you said there were 71
24 different keys used in order to make the perfect or perhaps the imperfect
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. And who provided you with this information
4 A. Mrs. Ewa Tabeau.
5 Q. And do you know what position she holds within the Office of the
7 A. I couldn't define it, but I do know that she is the chief
8 demographer in the Office of the Prosecutor. I don't know what her exact
9 title is, whether she's the head of a demographic unit or something else.
10 Q. And are you aware whether she has replaced or taken over where
11 Mr. Brunborg left off?
12 A. I heard that when Mr. Brunborg was testifying, but I don't know
13 anything further about it.
14 Q. All right. Now, in preparation for your work for the Defence,
15 that is the examination and analysis of the work product of the OTP
16 demographic experts, did you make a request of certain material to look
17 at, certain data?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was all of it provided to you, the information that you were
21 A. No.
22 Q. Would you please tell us what information or what data
23 specifically you were asking for - and I'm speaking of somewhat
24 importance, that is - what was it that you asked and was not provided to
1 A. I asked that all the questionnaires be put at my disposal, the
2 methodological instructions, and all the sources I mentioned, the vital
3 statistics, the published data on the number of the population, the census
4 of 1991 of Serbia, the census of 2001 from Croatia, 2002 from Serbia, to
5 put at my disposal lists of refugees from the SR Yugoslavia and Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina of 1996, and to put at my disposal the censuses of 1991, the
7 lists of the Red Cross, the lists of the Doctors without borders, and all
8 the accompanying documents that are well known in the profession.
9 Q. All right. What explanation was given to you for not providing
10 this information to you?
11 A. I didn't receive any explanation.
12 Q. Did -- go ahead. I'm sorry.
13 A. To be sure, there was a situation when my assistant and I arrived
14 here. We had a meeting with Ms. Ewa Tabeau and the Prosecutor.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
16 MR. WAESPI: That's not correct. I can clarify in
17 cross-examination. But there's a contradiction --
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, there's an objection. Let's hear. Let him
20 MR. WAESPI: Just about the questionnaires. Originally about half
21 an hour ago she said she received the questionnaires. Now she's saying
22 that she had requested and didn't receive it. I don't know whether it's a
23 misunderstanding or not?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Then why is an objection being raised, Your Honour?
25 He's got cross-examination; this is improper to be standing up. I know of
1 no system that allows two Prosecutors to be sitting there trying to
2 obstruct the process by standing up and saying a half-hour ago this was
4 JUDGE LIU: No, Mr. Karnavas, I think Mr. Waespi just wants to
5 make some clarification, if you can kind enough to put some questions for
6 the benefit of the Prosecution, I will be very obliged.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I was getting to it. There's no
8 need -- I don't need the help from these Prosecutors.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, just in case.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Just in case I will take that under advisement. We
11 will get to it. It was probably on the next question.
12 JUDGE LIU: Okay. You may move on.
13 MR. KARNAVAS:
14 Q. Now, you were talking about the one instance. So could you go
15 back to your answer and please tell us which instance you were speaking of
16 where you requested specific information and what, if any, if any,
17 explanations were given to you.
18 A. In my request saying what I wanted the Prosecutors to provide to
19 me, if possible, I included certain sources of information. All the
20 sources that were not used by the Prosecution, I asked these to be
21 provided to me. And there is a request saying: If you do have the
22 sources that you used, would you please provide me with their
23 questionnaires and methodological instructions so that based on these I
24 can draw my own conclusions about these sources. All the remaining
25 sources, apart from the key in order to look at certain numbers I may not
1 be familiar with, I did not ask for because I know these are the sources
2 very well. I am very familiar with them. I do not know the methodology
3 on the PHR and ICRC information, but I had never seen their
4 questionnaires, which is why I insisted on these. The rest of my request
5 pertained to the sources. I was provided with the PHR and ICRC
6 questionnaires and other materials I had not requested, but I was not
7 provided with the sources I requested. With respect to these sources I
8 requested, at a meeting with the Prosecutor and Ms. Ewa Tabeau, I raised
9 the question as to whether they had been provided and I was told they
10 hadn't. I asked why. I don't speak English, but they consulted each
11 other, they conferred, and then they told me that these sources were not
12 relevant. I objected to this and said that they were relevant and I
13 explained to the Prosecutor why I thought they were relevant. I never
14 said that I had not been provided with anything. I have been provided
15 with some things but not with others.
16 Q. Let's stick with this point right now. When this exchange was
17 taking place where you're asking for certain information as an expert,
18 would you please tell us whether there was a translator there available to
19 translate so you would understand what the Prosecutor was telling you.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in relation to the Prosecutor, could you please tell us how
22 far was Ewa Tabeau, the expert of the Prosecution? Was she on the phone
23 in some other building? Was she on another floor in the building? Or did
24 she happen to be in the same room?
25 A. We were all sitting around the same table. I couldn't tell you
1 how many centimetres away she was from me.
2 Q. Did Ewa Tabeau, the expert of the Prosecution, ever reply to you,
3 as opposed to going through the intermediary, that is the Prosecutor, who
4 would then have to go through the translator to get to you? Did
5 Ewa Tabeau ever directly give you an explanation, she being the expert for
6 the Prosecution?
7 A. No.
8 Q. All right. Now, did they ever tell you exactly the reasons why
9 they believed, that is -- and I say "they" because there were two of them
10 there, why they believe that the information you were asking was not
12 A. No.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. I have to say when I say "no," at one point - but I wish to stress
15 that my English is good enough for shopping but not for my professional
16 work - at one point I think that Ms. Tabeau said to the Prosecutor that
17 the sources I was looking for had been compiled after the expert report.
18 For example, the Croatian census of 2001 and the census of Serbia in 2002.
19 To this I responded by saying that the last Prosecution report was dated
20 2003 and that I felt, quite rightly, that this was relevant.
21 Q. All right.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I believe this might be a good time
23 for a break.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll take a break, and we'll resume at quarter
25 to 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Now, before we took our break we were talking about your requests
6 to the Prosecution expert and the response that you received. Now I want
7 to direct your attention to the text provided to you by the Office of the
8 Prosecution. And I'm -- this is D203 for identification. I want to read
9 a portion of it and have you comment on it. I'll be reading from the
10 first page, the third paragraph, the last two sentences.
11 It states here: "Thousands of manual controls and individual
12 decisions underlie the summary statistics included in our reports."
13 It then goes on to state: "The request to reproduce this work
14 within a few weeks is naive and not possible."
15 This is from the Office of the Prosecution expert dated 16 April
16 2004. First of all, could you give us your expert opinion with respect to
17 what their expert - I believe it's Ms. Tabeau - states that: "Thousands
18 of manual controls and individual decisions underlie the summary
19 statistics included in our reports."
20 What does that mean or how do you interpret that?
21 A. This means that they made subjective decisions as to who should be
22 entered on the list and who not.
23 Q. All right. Now, what about the last sentence, which is rather
24 stinging, might I add, where it says that: "The request to reproduce this
25 work in a few weeks is naive and not possible."
1 So here it would appear that the person who has stated that the
2 information that you have requested is not relevant, now she's saying that
3 what you are requesting is naive and not possible to do. Could you please
4 comment on that.
5 A. This is not a serious conclusion. I have shown that it's possible
6 to reproduce it.
7 Q. All right. And we will get to that. Now, you indicated that
8 there was a certain amount of subjectivity involved, in light of their
9 admission that individual decisions underlie the summary statistics
10 included in their reports. I would like you to look at the very last
11 sentence on this document, and that would be on page 3.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: If we could have the assistance of Madam Usher,
14 Q. This sentence coming after the 71 different ways which the expert
15 determined it would make its matches versus the one that you indicated
16 would be the most appropriate. And it states here - and I'll read
17 slowly - "the aim of all the linking procedures described in the table
18 above was to do the most systematic exploitation of links as were possible
19 by the nature of the data."
20 My first question is: Within the field of demography, the term
21 "exploitation" or "exploitation of links," is that acceptable
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you please tell us what that means.
25 A. Exploitation in the sense of using resources or sources of
1 information and so on.
2 Q. All right. Now, what if -- what about, I should say, what about
3 the way it's phrased here: "Exploitation of links as were possible by the
4 nature of the data."
5 Do you have an opinion with respect to this portion of their
7 A. The point is that they say "exploitation of links as were possible
8 by the nature of the data."
9 The term "exploitation of links" is something I can use when I
10 want to take a census from one year and then compare it with the census of
11 another year. Or if I want to use a census from Serbia for a household
12 and -- no, not Serbia -- one municipality and another municipality. So if
13 there is more than one link with more than one source of information, but
14 I have to have a precise key to do this. When I need an exploitation of
15 links because of multiple links due to the quality of the information,
16 this means I am not using a single key. I am constantly shifting this
17 exploitation and these links. So the point is that you cannot exploit
18 more than one link in a single source of information. You can have
19 exploitation of various sources. The term "exploitation" in itself is not
20 something that is not used. But if I understood the interpretation of
21 your question correctly, several links, in view of the quality of the
22 information and then you use 71 different keys, the way I see this is that
23 there is a huge possibility of exploiting in a sense that is not
24 acceptable. This has a connotation which again shows that this is
25 subjective, that the exploitation of links is used in a desire to arrive
1 at a certain number. So again, you are deciding whether this is or is not
2 exploiting one out of 71 possibilities; whereas, to do the job properly
3 you would need to exploit only one possibility, one key, one criterion.
4 Q. All right. Thank you. And again, I'm going to have to ask you a
5 speak a little slower. Well, in light of the fact that they have 71
6 different ways of determining matches and the subjectivity that you've
7 indicated that they readily admit in this paper that was provided to you
8 along with their 71 different keys, do you have an opinion as to how
9 reliable their final number is?
10 A. I do have an opinion, and I feel it is absolutely unreliable.
11 Q. And finally before I move to the next section, with respect to
12 keys, if I understand you correctly, when you say -- you would use one key
13 and here they have 71 keys, what kind of a result would you expect with
14 the more keys being used, in light of the individual decisions that are
15 being made in order to exploit the various possible links?
16 A. I didn't understand your question.
17 Q. All right. Let me put it -- phrase it a different way. They're
18 using 71 links. They've indicated that they have made thousands of manual
19 controls and individual decisions, and we also see that they're exploiting
20 a variety of links, as they put it: "As were possible by the nature of
21 the data," in other words, 71 different ways. What would you expect?
22 What kind of a figure would you expect? A high figure? A low figure?
23 Conservative? Liberal? However you wish to term it, if you could please
24 explain it.
25 A. Well, you may expect to get whatever you like. And if your
1 objective is to reach a high number, in view of the number of criteria,
2 you will of course aim at that high number when deciding who should be
3 included and who should be excluded. So you may expect a very high
4 number, in view of this large number of criteria. But there is something
5 else that is important here. It would be intellectually honest when using
6 such a large number of keys to give a statistical overview as to how many
7 cases you linked using one key, how many cases you matched varying two
8 characteristics, and so on and so forth, an overview like that would be
9 intellectually honest, because then it would be possible to tell which
10 information is correct and what the possibilities are and what the
11 reserves should be in accepting the remaining numbers. If you were using
12 a small number of characteristics, then it would be possible to decide
13 whether to accept this or not. If you're an expert or a layperson, then
14 you will have an idea of where to put -- where to draw the line and where
15 you can be absolutely certain that the data is correct.
16 Q. All right. Thank you.
17 Now, let's move on to another topic.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: And I don't believe I'll need that exhibit anymore,
19 Madam Usher.
20 Q. Before we look at the Prosecution expert's conclusions and results
21 and how they reached them, I would like to first have you explain to us
22 what it is that you did, what you examined, in order to reach your
23 conclusions, the ones that you have already stated, regarding the OTP's
24 expert reports and findings. So please tell us exactly what you did
1 A. What I did in connection with the material I was provided with?
2 Q. Well, in general, for this entire project.
3 A. Well, first I took the reports and then I asked around to get all
4 possible sources of data, all those sources, which had I been given the
5 task of compiling this report I would have been able to obtain and use in
6 compiling this report. After this, reading the report, I established what
7 the Prosecution used and what sources they used then. When reading the
8 report, I came across numerous problems, so I asked to be provided with
9 the material that the Prosecution had at its disposal because it was not
10 clear from the report itself. For example, how many matches were done, by
11 what method, how and why. I studied the methodology they used. I made an
12 effort to study the sources they used and familiarise myself with them
13 thoroughly. And then, I had the possibility of inspecting the materials
14 provided by the Prosecution here, in this building.
15 Q. All right. Now, did anyone assist you in this endeavour?
16 A. Yes, there were two assistants with me in order to look through
17 the material here.
18 Q. All right. And as I understand it, the OTP gave you access to
19 some of their data on the computer. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Just as an aside, could you tell us approximately how many hours
22 you were involved in analysing the Prosecution's work product in order to
23 arrive at your conclusions.
24 A. From the moment I received the report until I had overviewed the
25 material and written my own report. Is that the time span that you're
1 referring to?
2 Q. Yes. Just give us an average.
3 A. Well, I cannot do the exact math, but I really had a hard time and
4 I made quite an effort. It must have been at least 200 hours.
5 Q. All right. And how many days were you here in The Hague going
6 over the material that was made accessible to you by the Prosecution?
7 A. From the 15th until the 26th of April. I think so. Perhaps I
8 made a mistake. Would you allow me to look up the exact dates when I was
9 here? Is that an option? Can I look at it?
10 Q. Well, you can -- I don't need the exact dates. I just need how
11 many days just so we know -- because the Prosecution was rather generous
12 in making this available to you. So just days-wise.
13 A. I think it was 12 days. I think so.
14 Q. All right. Now -- and in your work, that is analysing the
15 Prosecution's experts reports and findings, were you tasked by any way in
16 trying to determine the actual number or trying to achieve a lower number
17 of actual matchings?
18 A. No. No. My primary objective was to check the quality of the
19 material, to deal with the methodology, not to go into actual figures.
20 Q. All right. Now, I would like to switch to the topic of what you
21 were able to conclude regarding how the Prosecution experts went about in
22 conducting their research and coming to their conclusions. So we're going
23 to focus on that. Would you please tell us, first of all, what sources
24 the Prosecution relied on.
25 A. Lists of the Red Cross, lists of doctors, the census of 1991, and
1 the voters registers of the OSCE of 1978.
2 Q. Is that it?
3 A. That's the only thing they used. Those are the sources that the
4 OTP used.
5 Q. All right. What about sources from -- I believe there was some
6 Mothers against genocide.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
8 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I obviously don't speak B/C/S. I don't know
9 whether she said 1978, but perhaps she could be asked again.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. At least from the transcript we see 1978.
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. The voter registration, which year was that?
13 A. From 1997/1998.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, in your opinion, were those sources
15 sufficient, the use of those sources, was that sufficient in order to make
16 an accurate or, let's say, reliable listing of the people missing and in
17 order to achieve a reliable figure of the people that were missing?
18 A. It was not sufficient.
19 Q. What other sources would you have used?
20 A. Existing ones? Which existing sources would I use in addition to
21 that? All those that I listed already.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Should I repeat all of that?
24 Q. I think we have it in the record, but if you want to list the ones
25 that are the most critical, that you think that were available to the
1 Prosecution, they could readily put their hands on and examine if, in
2 fact, they wanted to.
3 A. I am convinced that the OTP could have received every one of these
4 sources of information had they asked for them. I don't know whether they
5 asked for them or not, but all of these sources of information that I
6 mentioned and were not used I believe they could have and would have
7 obtained. I know for sure that they would have received all the official
8 statistics. There is no reason why officially published statistics would
9 not be made available. List of refugees are official statistics and also
10 a census is a public document. All public documents are official
11 documents, so I simply think that they could have obtained all the
12 necessary sources.
13 Q. All right. Now, in looking at their report and the information
14 that they provided to you, does the expert for the Prosecution provide any
15 concrete reasons as to why certain sources were considered but not used?
16 A. No. No. The Prosecution expert has not mentioned any possibility
17 of having looked at another source and then rejected it altogether. No,
18 not in a single word.
19 Q. Well, is there anywhere that would at least give us some comfort
20 that they were aware of these sources, in order to at least discriminate
21 which ones they would use as opposed to which ones they would discard?
22 A. Not in the report.
23 Q. Well, did they provide you any other material that would be in
24 there, perhaps, that they were aware of all the different sources that
25 they could have tapped into?
1 A. They did give me some other material, but they have nothing to do
2 with these sources that I referred to. And I also don't have any
3 explanations in writing or verbally, whether they were aware of this or
4 not. So I do not have any material and no one said to me why this was not
6 Q. All right. Is there anywhere in their reports or documents
7 provided to you, internal documents, that would give you the impression or
8 where you could reach a conclusion that they had consulted with local
9 experts so that they would know what sources were available?
10 A. No. There's not a single word about that in the report.
11 Q. In your particular field as an expert, could you please tell us
12 whether in conducting this sort of a project, keeping the task in mind,
13 would it be expected of the expert demographer/statistician to try to
14 identify and list all the available data?
15 A. That is a demographer's primary and foremost task. There are many
16 articles that were published dedicated to that particular subject.
17 Q. Would you expect to find in the report some sort of listing of
18 what, of the sources that were available, were used and the reasons why,
19 as well as the sources that were not used and the reasons why. Would you
20 expect that in a professional report from a professional demographer?
21 A. Absolutely. It is a question of intellectual integrity first and
22 foremost. And if somebody is engaged in science as such, then that is
23 part of using scientific equipment, as it were.
24 Q. All right. And would the fact that certain sources were available
25 and not used, would that help you then -- in checking the conclusion,
1 would that help you in discerning the validity, the reliability, the
2 integrity of the report?
3 A. Did I understand you correctly? You are asking me whether it was
4 mentioned in the report that certain sources had been consulted but then
5 rejected as irrelevant, would that have assisted me in reaching a
6 different conclusion about the Prosecution report?
7 Q. No. What I'm asking is: Would you expect to find that in a
8 report, in other words, what was -- what sources were available but the
9 reasons why they were not used, in order for you as an independent
10 examiner to evaluate the reliability and the integrity of the report?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. Do we have that in this case?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Were any reasons offered to you by the experts of the Prosecution?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Are any reasons offered in the report as to why they don't have a
17 listing of the sources or the reasoning of why they chose not to look at
18 certain sources?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Would you please tell us, if you could in somewhat a brief
21 fashion, in your expert opinion what limitations resulted from using
22 limited sources, the limited sources, that the Prosecution ultimately
24 A. What were the limitations that ensued from that? Is that what you
1 Q. Yes. Yes, by using only a selective portion of the universe of
2 sources that are available, what limitations would you expect or did you
3 find in their conclusions and findings?
4 A. First of all, this shows a certain superficiality. The limitation
5 is in the following: If you do not know of other sources and you reach
6 conclusions on the basis of only the things that you know about, you are
7 running a great risk of reaching the wrong conclusion. So these results
8 have to be received not only as highly partial and with a great degree of
9 reservation, but I must say straight away that there are very few
10 conclusions, very few professional conclusions, so each and every one of
11 these conclusions requires a great degree of reservation or
12 disassociation. It has to be taken with a great deal of reservation, all
13 of these conclusions, because you do not actually have a view of the
14 whole; you only see -- you only use one part, the poor part at that, to
15 draw a conclusion and a general conclusion, at that, about some very
16 serious and very important matters.
17 Q. All right. Now, I take it you had an opportunity to go over the
18 Srebrenica missing list that was prepared, have you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: And for the record, I'm referring to P729.
21 Q. In looking over that list, were you able to find any duplications?
22 A. Duplications, yes.
23 Q. Were you able to find examples, for instance, that you might be
24 willing to share with us with respect to where this subjectivity has crept
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. And perhaps this might be a good time for you to share
3 with us just some examples, keep them short, so at least we have an idea
4 of what you mean.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: And I do have copies for the ELMO.
6 Q. Now, if you would be so kind, you're going to have to read out the
7 number on the side of the page or the bottom of the page.
8 A. I will first point out what I call clear duplicates, namely cases
9 where there is no doubt that there was duplication. So, for example, on
10 page 955.
11 Q. All right. If we could put that on the ELMO -- now, you say 955,
12 where are you getting the number from?
13 A. On the side of the document that I got here. That's the list of
14 missing persons that was compiled by Mr. Brunborg and Mr. Urdal in the
15 year 2000.
16 Q. Okay. Now, which one are we referring to?
17 A. I'm talking about clear-cut duplicates. Please look at Halilovic,
18 Ahmet. Can I indicate it here?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. May I underline it?
21 Q. Yes, yes. Go ahead.
22 A. Halilovic Ahmet, born on the 23rd of March, 1951 -- 1953, rather,
23 father's name Omer, went missing on the 16th of July, 1995, in Kamenica,
24 Bratunac. I think that this is not controversial in any way; it's a clear
1 Then page 986, please -- I'm sorry. It's not 986, it's not 986,
2 it's 989, please. Could you please look at Husic, Jusuf, born on the 5th
3 of May, 1958, father's name Idriz, went missing on the 17th, Udrc Zvornik.
4 Underneath that Husic, Jusuf, and now the date of birth is unknown; only
5 the year of birth is known. The father is the same and the same date of
6 when he went missing. These may be two persons, but it can also be a
7 duplicate. Now, why do I think it's a duplicate? I mean, why can I claim
8 that that is as it is? If you look at the numbers here on the side, the
9 expert of the Prosecution says that this person, which does have a date,
10 the 5th of May, that he found this person on the Red Cross list and the
11 Doctors without borders list. Whereas, this other person Husic Jusuf was
12 found only on the Red Cross list. This person could not have been
13 identified on both lists, and that's why it's not a duplicate. And now
14 there had to be a visual evaluation and assessment.
15 Also, I would like to draw your attention to -- now, is this 75?
16 I can't -- 015. I would like to draw your attention to Karic, Zuhrija,
17 male, born on the 7th of January 1961, father's name Zuhdo, went missing
18 on the 11th of July in Bratunac, and underneath that absolutely identical
20 Fifty-eight now, please. [In English] 058. [Interpretation]
21 Mulalic, Senad, born on the 11th of July, 1966, father's name Hajro, went
22 missing on the 12th of July. And then underneath that it says
23 Mulalic Senad, born on the 11th of July, 1966, father's name Hajro, went
24 missing on the 11th of July. The date when a person went missing is
25 obtained in the following way: When somebody wants to report a person as
1 missing, this person can say when he last saw him, when he last heard of
2 where he had been. The date when a person went missing is not a date one
3 can firmly rely on. So we cannot say that these people have been
4 identified as two completely different persons. This is again a clear-cut
6 Now, 139, please. Talovic, Mustafa, born on the 20th of April,
7 1935, father's name Musan, went missing on the 12th of July, 1995.
8 Underneath that, Talovic, Mustafa, same date of birth, the same name of
9 father, the same date when the person went missing, so it is a clear-cut
10 duplicate. However, I want to show you other examples. This is not
11 controversial. These are clear-cut duplicates, regardless of whether
12 you're conservative, liberal, whatever, this is an open/shut case. I
13 would like to show you now some other examples where you decide whether it
14 is the same person or not. And what you actually use in order to reach
15 that kind of decision.
16 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
18 MR. WAESPI: It's -- I just wanted to refer your attention to the
19 fact that it's the first time we hear of these corrections and they may be
20 the case. Looking at it, it looks quite obvious, I agree with her. But
21 it's neither in the 65 ter summary nor in the report we have received five
22 days ago. So I would like to get all the examples she has, which are
23 these mistakes, so we can do our job and try to investigate that.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: May I respond, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. --
1 MR. WAESPI: Or any conclusions she's giving in relation to these
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Karnavas.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. First let me point out
7 that I went to extraordinary lengths to make Professor Radovanovic
8 available to the Prosecution Saturday or Sunday if they wanted to meet
9 with him to go over her report to question her to prepare for
10 cross-examination, something that is extraordinary in this particular
11 Tribunal, where experts are not usually readily available. That offer was
13 Second of all, the Prosecution has had this report. This is their
14 report, in a sense, and they've had their experts. They placed this
15 report into the record and so -- we had the testimony, lengthy might I
16 add, of Mr. Brunborg. At that point in time he made certain claims. His
17 claims are also found in his report. Now we're finding -- we have an
18 opportunity here to rebut certain portions of the report; that's what
19 she's doing.
20 The other thing is, consistent with the testimony, we talked
21 with -- she indicated that one might need some expert knowledge from the
22 field in the particular region. The next set of examples are where
23 they're not readily available to someone who is not familiar with the
24 language of the culture, but there will be some explanations. So that is
25 why. So I have no problem in taking a recess and giving them the copies.
1 We don't have more than another five or ten examples to go through. I
2 don't intend to go through every single mistake in this report, but
3 frankly, frankly, first of all, this is direct examination, so there
4 shouldn't be any intervention at this point in time. If they need time
5 afterwards, additional time to run it by their own experts, they can make
6 that request. But at this point in time, I don't see how their objection
7 is relevant.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this issue is bigger than this one
10 witness. This expert's conclusions critical to this report are fine;
11 that's her job. But it's incumbent upon the Defence to put those in a
12 report that we can hear. This isn't just some conclusions; this is
13 fundamental problems in the report that we at the nth hour are having to
14 deal with. And that's called ambush and that's absolutely inappropriate.
15 This matter should be stopped right now. If there are any other
16 conclusions, she should either be prevented from giving them or in the
17 openness by which this court is run, we should be provided those
18 conclusions so we can be prepared to cross-examine. It's unheard of that
19 an expert would be called -- and especially on the face of the report
20 there are these criticisms directed towards our expert but no conclusions.
21 Now we see the conclusions. This is clear ambush; it can be called
22 nothing else. It undercuts the foundations of what we're trying to do in
23 this courtroom.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I need to respond to that.
25 JUDGE LIU: Very briefly.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: First of all, there is no ambush. I don't
2 understand what the gentleman is talking about, my learned colleague.
3 There is absolutely nothing about ambushing. We set out, at the very
4 beginning, to say that we're challenging Brunborg's report. Inclusive in
5 that report are his findings that this a true, accurate, and complete list
6 of missing people. Thirdly, the examples we've gone through are visible
7 to the naked eye; you don't need an expert. And these are being pointed
8 out. So I think it's all part of the process of challenging another
9 expert's report.
10 I have absolutely no idea of what Mr. McCloskey is ranting and
11 raving about. This is proper. And we're talking about some examples that
12 are in a report that they proffered, it is not a report that I brought
13 out, it is their report, and we're merely trying to now show that their
14 expert lacked certain knowledge and as a result duplicates crept into the
15 system, and it goes to the fundamental issue of Dr. Radovanovic's
16 testimony, and that is that they used a very subjective approach. We're
17 about to see how this subjective approach inflated the numbers. We're not
18 attacking the fact that a lot of people perished. We don't know the exact
19 numbers. That's not why we're here. We're here to challenge the
20 integrity of the Prosecution's expert witness in stating that this was a
21 proper method in recording -- in finding these people to be missing and
22 this is the actual number. Because as we -- that's our position,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that it is the right of the Defence to
25 call an expert witness to challenge the report submitted by the experts of
1 the Prosecution. But there is some differences between the ways to
2 approach it. We have heard some examples as for those names on the list.
3 I believe there are more are there. In this case, Mr. Karnavas, since we
4 have very limited time for using this courtroom, I believe that you have
5 shown us some examples already. As for the rest of those, I hope you
6 could furnish with the Prosecution as well as the Chamber in a list as
7 well as the conclusions by today.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Mr. President, we can do that; that's
9 not a problem. The problem is there are explanations. What we saw is the
10 ones that even the Prosecution should have been able to pick up on. We're
11 going to go through other examples where because of linguistic or
12 grammatical differences it's not visible to the naked eye but it would be
13 visible to a local expert. So I need to at least make a good effort, a
14 good-faith effort, to demonstrate three or four examples and then we can
15 provide the list. That's not a problem.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, you could -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: It appears from what Mr. Karnavas is saying there
18 are other specific examples. And of course this is what we need to see in
19 order to cross-examine. I mean, it's absurd to take her specific new
20 examples that should have been in a report and ask -- and require us to
21 have a continuance in order to determine and look at her research. This
22 is supposed to happen beforehand in any system. I can only conclude that
23 it's being waited at the last minute for reasons of strategy, which is
24 absolutely inappropriate. I don't know what other conclusions she may
25 make that she has not made in a report that is being saved for the case.
1 These are just the first few that we've come across --
2 MR. KARNAVAS: There's no research --
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: As I say, this is absolutely improper, it's caught
4 the Prosecution off guard, and we will move that this be stopped right now
5 and we get a proper report with proper conclusions on the specific items
6 we're using. Because this makes a farce out of the system.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I need to respond to that.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, very briefly.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: First of all, let me just contain myself, because I
10 find it rather absurd that when the Defence makes available their expert
11 to the Prosecution, professional Prosecutors would not even bother to come
12 and interview and go over their entire testimony. To me, that's
13 malpractice, but I'll leave that up to OTP. Secondly, there's no
14 research. We're not talking about putting something under the microscope
15 or going someplace. It's a matter of just going through the report and
16 pointing out some examples of duplicates; no research was involved. There
17 are no tricks hidden up my sleeves. All of this is transparent, all of it
18 was available, all of it was known to them that we are going to challenge
19 and show certain duplicates. That was known to them.
20 Now, if I was using some specialised method or going through a
21 particular report or source, I can understand them getting all upset, but
22 I'm using their document. And we're just going to go through some
23 examples where if they brought their B/C/S expert which they have,
24 demographer, they might be able to look and see and come to the same
25 conclusion. But this is not rocket science; it's a matter of looking at
1 the grammatical spellings and coming to some conclusions. That's what
2 we're talking about.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, first of all, I have to remind the parties that
4 before we deal with an expert witness this Bench has advised the parties
5 that everything should be in that expert report. So there's no need for a
6 lengthy direct examination. You just have to point out certain areas that
7 should draw the Bench's attention to it. This is the normal practice in
8 this Tribunal. I hope that both parties will abide by these rules and
9 practice. This is the first matter I would like to say.
10 Secondly, Mr. Karnavas, I think you should take one example of
11 each category of those mistakes and leave the others to the list you have
12 to furnish to the party and to the Chamber. But as a rule, Mr. Karnavas,
13 I have to tell you that you have to obey the rules we set as for the
14 direct examination of the expert witness. In most of the occasions, all
15 the questions should be concentrated on that report. And in many
16 occasions, we don't need, after all, the direct examination at all,
17 because everything should be there in the report. We are not the expert
18 in certain fields. You may be an expert in legal matters but not in
19 demographics. I mentioned that to the parties already.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. However, I think the Court needs
21 to understand and appreciate that we have limited resources. You cannot
22 ask a report to spend tons of hours when I don't have the money to pay for
23 this. We're at a disadvantage. We don't have in-house experts that can
24 spend seven years, as in this case, preparing reports. So I have limited
25 funds and I have to target them in a particular manner and because of the
1 technical nature of this, to produce a 100 or 200-page report would have
2 required a significant amount of money. And as you well know,
3 Your Honour, there is no equality of arms in this Tribunal. So in light
4 of that, how can I possibly abide by that? I'm trying to make the best of
5 what little I have. We have a compact report and we're going to take two,
6 two and a half sessions of the court and we're well within our period. So
7 I'm trying to do the best I can. And I certainly would agree with you
8 that I need to follow the Court's instructions, and I think I try to do
9 that on each and every day I appear in court.
10 JUDGE LIU: I think lack of resources is not an excuse, not a
11 proper excuse. A rule is a rule that everybody, no matter what the
12 situation is, has to abide by.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. If I can go through just
14 two or three more examples.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may move on.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. Professor Radovanovic, if you could show us just one example of
18 each, I think maybe there were one or two different categories that you
19 wanted to share with us, just by way of examples. We don't need to go
20 through all the errors that are in the report, in these findings.
21 A. I have already pointed out the clear-cut cases of duplication. I
22 just want to present two examples which are also duplicates, but it is
23 clear from the report that they were not aware that they were duplicates.
24 Please look at page 927. Comic, Salih, born in 1920, father's name Smail.
25 And then the same name Comic, Salih, year 2000, Smajo. Smajo is a common
1 nickname for people named Smail.
2 Q. What do you conclude by that?
3 A. That this is the same person and the father's name is the same,
4 but once the name is stated correctly and the other time it is the
5 nickname that has been entered. And also example 046, please.
6 Q. Before we move to the next example, because it seems that perhaps
7 the transcript is not quite as clear, with this example please tell us why
8 you think this is a duplicate and not two different people.
9 A. They have the same identification. The only difference is in the
10 father's name. It is common knowledge that in Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 people whose first name is Smail commonly have the nickname of Smajo. So
12 that in the first instance the father's name is written out properly in
13 full, and in the second instance, it is the father's nickname that is
14 entered. As for the date when the person was reported as missing, this is
15 not a reliable piece of information. As for the place, the locality, it's
16 the same, whether it's in the municipality of Bratunac, I assume it is. I
17 did not get a list of place names stating in which municipality which
18 village is located. There is another example of a grammatical nature.
19 Muharemovic, Husein, born on the 8th of May, 1928, father's name
20 Huse. And then the next person on the list, same name, same date of
21 birth, father's name Huso. In the B/C/S language, there are seven cases.
22 Huso, Huse, Husi, Husu, Huso, Husom, Husi. So this is a question of
23 grammar. Somebody says: What is your father's name? And he says Huso.
24 Another question might be: Whose son are you? And he says of Huso, which
25 in B/C/S has the form Huse. All the other examples I have are similar.
1 So I will put forward these two.
2 Q. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, if we could -- if I
3 could ask you to please tell us: Had you been entrusted with this
4 project -- Professor, if I can get your attention.
5 A. [In English] Excuse me, I hear you. Excuse me.
6 Q. Had you been entrusted with this project to identify the number of
7 missing people and perhaps even identify if there was a long-term impact
8 on the Srebrenica community resulting from the events surrounding the fall
9 of Srebrenica, could you please tell us how you, as a professional
10 demographer, would have approached this task.
11 A. This is a very serious and complex job. If I were given this
12 task, I would first look for the census.
13 Q. Now, when you say "look for," or would you conduct one?
14 A. I would ask to conduct one. I wouldn't look for an existing
15 census. I would propose that the only way of obtaining correct results
16 would be to carry out a census. I'm not referring to a census in Bosnia
17 and Herzegovina but to a census in the area we are interested in. And
18 then I would first of all define the area of Srebrenica. The task of
19 carrying out a census in a limited area is not a highly complex task. It
20 doesn't require anything special. This census should be carried out
21 according to all the accepted standards and then you could abide by your
22 results and then you could be aware of all the advantages and
23 disadvantages of the methods you used.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. Excuse me. Is it important to explain what would be needed for
1 such a census.
2 Q. I was going to ask for that, but go ahead, if you want to lead me.
3 A. To put it briefly, you would need some preliminary activities,
4 then you would have to implement the census, and then you would need some
5 additional work after the census itself. The preliminary work would
6 involve - and I know for a fact because it's in the former Yugoslavia that
7 there are statistical circles all over the country. There is a network
8 and there are census circles within those, and this means that you can
9 carry out a census precisely without duplicating or missing out certain
10 areas. If we were to define the area, our work would be already partly
11 done because there is an existing network of census areas. Depending on
12 who was requiring us to carry out this census, we would see whether we had
13 to conduct a complete census or one involving only a certain segment.
14 Q. If you could slow down a little bit, please. Please.
15 A. It's a question of temperament.
16 Q. I can understand that.
17 A. I won't go into the whole procedure, but you would have to work
18 out a methodology. You would have to spell out clearly how you would ask
19 for information, the manner in which you would obtain this information.
20 You would have to train the people taking the census. And this is always
21 done in any census. You have to train people as to how they will collect
22 the information. You have to control the whole process, monitor it, then
23 you have to gather the information. And then you have to process the
24 information obtained; you can do this by computer, you can sort it, you
25 can check it in various ways, and so on and so forth. So the process from
1 the setting of the task through the implementation is not very long. It
2 does require funding, especially if you are familiar with the way this is
3 implemented in practice. And especially if you are not dealing with large
4 numbers. When I say "large numbers," I am referring to three
5 municipalities or five municipalities or just one. So when we define the
6 area we are interested in, it would depend on that. In my personal
7 opinion with media support explaining the significance of the situation
8 and the issues we are discussing, I am sure that such a census would be
10 Q. All right. Well, first of all how much time are we talking about?
11 I mean in this instance we know from 1997 until present the Office of the
12 Prosecution has been working on this and updating their lists. Now, we're
13 talking six to seven years. Would it take six to seven years to conduct a
14 census for the Srebrenica area once we define what that area was?
15 A. No, no.
16 Q. Well, what are we talking about?
17 A. No. Even if we define Srebrenica as covering the entire Bosnia
18 and Herzegovina, in my experience you would need not more than six to nine
19 months from the first step starting to talk to people, find staff, update
20 all the statistical areas, testing the questionnaire to see whether it's a
21 good one, informing the population, initiating a media campaign,
22 explaining to the people why this is important because these people are
23 all over the place, the implementation of the census would not take more
24 than two weeks. When I say "implementation," I mean the actual listing of
25 people. Because if I takes 15 days to make a list of all the people in
1 the country, then certainly -- of course I have to say it can't be done by
2 one man. You need a team. You need between 20 and 30 people conducting
3 the survey if you want it to last for a shorter period of time. And then
4 the analysis and processing of the data would depend on whether you have
5 listed 30.000 or 130.000 people, but technology is so advanced these days
6 that it can't take long. The entire census of the population of Serbia
7 which is over 7 million and the survey involved not just inhabitants but
8 also households and so on, three books have been published in the year of
9 the census. If you're also making inventories of farms, households, and
10 livestock, so on, this is very complex. If you were to do a census with
11 only essential questions, which doesn't mean that the questions in the
12 general census are not important but it includes questions which could be
13 avoided in this kind of list that we are talking about, you would only be
14 interested in the population in its biological or economic
15 characteristics. So whatever you agree on, and therefore you reduce the
16 time that you need to implement the census. Because when you come to a
17 household and you have to take an inventory of the living quarters, the
18 inhabitants, the livestock, you sometimes need an hour to fill in the
19 questionnaire. But if you have a questionnaire of 10 or 15 questions, you
20 need just 20 minutes for a trained person to finish the job, maybe not
21 even that long.
22 Q. All right. Thank you. That was rather comprehensive. If you
23 could keep your answer -- your next answer and answers shorter, we would
24 all appreciate it. How much cost are we talking about?
25 A. I can't say. I might be able to draw a comparison. In 1989 I led
1 a census for the Serbian academy of arts and sciences in an area in Kosovo
2 and Metohija called the Sirinic municipality. This area has between 16
3 and 17.000 inhabitants and about 16 villages. And this census, taking
4 into account all the professional work it involves, cost then about 15.000
6 Q. Was that back in 1989?
7 A. In 1989.
8 Q. Okay. All right. Thank you. Now --
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, are you going to change the
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I think this may be a very good place, Your Honour,
12 to --
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll have a break, and we'll resume at 12.30.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Judge Vassylenko.
18 Q. Professor Radovanovic, if we could just finish off where the one
19 topic that we were talking about, and that is the census. You indicated
20 that you would have conducted a census, albeit limited, for the area of
21 Srebrenica once that area would have been identified. Could you please
22 tell us why? Why would you choose a census and how would a census allow
23 you to then determine how many people were missing or the identities of
24 the people missing, and also how those missing people impacted the
25 community of Srebrenica.
1 A. A census is the most reliable source of information, of course
2 depending on how it is carried out. I take as my point of departure the
3 fact that it can be carried out properly. That is why I would decide to
4 carry out a census. Each and every person is registered individually. I
5 would have to sort this out with the person who is commissioning the
6 census. Are we going to carry out a general consensus or are we just
7 going to look for the number of missing and killed persons only? I mean,
8 if anybody would ask for my opinion I would opt for a general consensus
9 with respect to missing and killed persons. This can be dealt with my way
10 of a questionnaire, certain questions, and certain features are sought
11 anyway. And also documents are required.
12 Q. Well, how would you account for those who had moved out of the
13 area, had moved out of Srebrenica?
14 A. What is of decisive importance is to make the census you're
15 carrying out as popular as possible. There has to be a media campaign.
16 The population has to be informed about the fact that a census is taking
17 place, why it is done, what kind of a census it is and what the ultimate
18 objective of the census is. I am deeply convinced that everyone wishes to
19 have the actual truth established and that a very large number of people
20 would take part in such a census. If you're asking me whether it would be
21 a problem to have persons living abroad take part in the census or persons
22 living in some other area. Is that your question?
23 Q. Well, that could be part of my question.
24 A. That can be solved, too. There are different ways of carrying out
25 a census. In the area where I live and work, direct polls take place,
1 that is to say, people visit homes and go from one household to another.
2 But there are other well-known methods, doing it by post so people can
3 mail their information. Then other methods are well-known, too. Of
4 course, once you introduce such a method, then you need to have documents
5 accompanying that particular method, too. So there are ways of doing
6 this. I mean, I don't want things to seem too simple. When one
7 familiarises oneself with the situation, with the public opinion, the
8 social climate, the wish that actually exists, all of that can be
9 established and then the method can be determined and also the
10 requirements. But that is the customary approach, because even when you
11 are applying classical methods you have to support it with a media
12 campaign so that the population would know what it's all about. And then
13 you information the population what the information sought will be and why
14 it is important.
15 Q. Now, let's -- just one last question. Would it have been
16 realistic or realistically possible for the OTP or another organisation to
17 have conducted a census in this case, in light of the situation in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially with respect to Srebrenica?
19 A. Yes. I'm surprised that the OTP didn't do that for a simple
20 reason, I repeat, it is not that complicated or that difficult.
21 Q. All right. Now, let's assuming -- let's assume that a census was
22 not a choice for whatever reason, they didn't have the money, they weren't
23 interested, they couldn't carry it out, there was no political
24 will -- whatever the situation is, what would be the next approach you
25 would have taken?
1 A. First of all, you have to tap all the information sources that you
2 have available. Among existing sources of information, you can make
3 particularly good use of OSCE voters registers. We use 1997/1998 here,
4 but there were those that were compiled in 2000. Then also you can use as
5 a basis or even as a guideline the census of 1991. You can also use all
6 accessible official statistical information, along with all the
7 limitations they have. But you can try to overcome these limitations
8 because you know what the problem is. In my opinion, you can make very
9 good use of the lists that are made for returnees, quite simply, because
10 they are looking for their property. And of course they are providing
11 supporting documents. They can be in the Netherlands at this point in
12 time, but they are looking for their property in Srebrenica, they are
13 putting forth claims, and there are records of all such persons. If you
14 are referring to what I would do in terms of the effect on the community
15 itself and if I did not have the right kind of lists and a census -- is
16 that your question?
17 Q. Well, that's -- we're going to get to that, but first I want to
18 stick with this overall project, and I'm asking you specifically, you as
19 the expert, how you would tackle it. Now, you've told us you would look
20 at all the available sources. Assuming that you did that, could you
21 please tell us how the matching would have been carried out.
22 A. I can say that I've already looked at all the available sources,
23 the ones that I mentioned here, except for the census of Croatia. I've
24 had a look at everything else, and now you're asking me how we would carry
25 out the matching?
1 Q. Yes, so at least if somebody were interested in seeing your
2 approach, we would have it on the record.
3 A. The methodology would have to be adhered to strictly. So matching
4 has to be carried out according to a very firmly established key. I would
5 not allow myself any guesswork, yes, no, whatever. There has to be a
6 firmly established key, and the results of that key would be the results
7 that I would support. And I would say: That's the way it is, and I claim
8 that all of this is correct. As for everything else, there are
9 limitations and there is this possibility of guesswork. So I would go by
10 a firm statistical principle, and that is a firmly established key that
11 cannot be changed.
12 Q. All right. But assuming that you used this firmly established
13 key, would you not be limiting yourself and perhaps erring on the very
14 conservative side? In other words, the numbers would be low and not
15 necessarily reflect the actual number of missing people?
16 A. We have not understood each other well. I would stand by the
17 results of a firmly established key, and I would show variance. What
18 happens if you change the key and if you change it from a particular point
19 of view then you get the following possibilities. If you change two
20 features of the key, then you get the following possibilities. And I
21 would proceed in that direction. So if you would ask me to carry out this
22 project, I would tell you: This is what the possibilities are. This is
23 what I am responsible for. This is what I say is correct. And these are
24 the other possibilities with such a margin of error, such-and-such a
25 margin of error. And that involves guesswork, too. I'm trying to say
1 that I would be responsible only for the information for which I could say
2 that it is correct. Because it was based on correct methodology and
3 correct principles. I would nevertheless portray all the existing
5 Q. All right. And just to make sure that I'm clear, on that -- on
6 the ones you would match based on the firmly established key, that would
7 be the number of missing people that you would say 100 per cent in your
8 opinion were missing, and then the percentage would perhaps change as you
9 went down with the variables, the key variables. Is that what you're
10 telling us?
11 A. Correct. A firmly established key means that I would say all
12 which is based on the firmly established key are persons who are missing
13 with 100 per cent certainty, but that's not the final figure. How big the
14 final figure is, I don't know. But then you have the following figures
15 with such-and-such a margin of error. This final number would not mean
16 that that was the exact number, the absolutely correct number. What I
17 would produce is a figure that would be the least possible figure but one
18 that can be established with certainty.
19 Q. All right. Now, would you make use of the two lists that were
20 compiled by the ICRC and the PHR? Would you at least incorporate or
21 somehow utilise those lists along with all the other sources?
22 A. Yes. I would use the Red Cross list for sure and I would reject
23 the list of Physicians for human rights.
24 Q. All right. First of all, why would you reject that list?
25 A. In addition to the fact that it has a completely different
1 purpose, it has an enormously large number of duplicates because it
2 collected information for some other purposes. And then when they decided
3 to collect the others is something I really don't know. But if you look
4 at that questionnaire, it has over 200 questions, different questions.
5 This number of duplicates is due to the fact that you have the possibility
6 of receiving information that is firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand,
7 fourthhand whatever. And if you can establish what clear-cut duplicates
8 are, because I looked at this list, there is a countless number of
9 clear-cut duplicates. If you're interested, I can find this figure in my
10 notebook; I can tell you exactly what the number is. Then you can see on
11 the basis of these clear-cut duplicates that, for example,
12 Svetlana Radovanovic was reported by her mother, brother, spouse, so on,
13 and they all live in the same house, in the same household, at the same
14 address. So it's not a problem to throw out clear-cut duplicates when
15 they're there. On the one hand it would be the work of Sisyphus; and on
16 the other hand it would be sheer guesswork. What would happen if two
17 different persons reported the same person to be missing but with a
18 different nickname or with a different date of birth, in that case it
19 would lead to guesswork. And therefore, if I were to be engaged in such
20 an effort I would reject the list of Physicians for human rights
22 In addition to that, if that is important at all, and I think it
23 is, the list of the Physicians for human rights was never published
24 anywhere. I don't know if it was ever made accessible to anyone except
25 for some very special purposes. So in terms of what they compiled, I
1 don't know whether anybody is held responsible, whether anybody stands by
2 these results, whether anybody can provide additional information, whether
3 anybody supports these lists.
4 Q. All right. Now, you indicated you would, however, use to some
5 extent the ICRC list. So please first tell us why and then tell us how.
6 Why and then how.
7 A. Well, the Red Cross list is a certain guideline. It has many
8 shortcomings from a statistical point of view; let's be quite clear on
9 that. Its first shortcoming is that methodologically it is incompatible
10 with any official statistics, like taking a census. It requires first and
11 foremost for you to come and to report a person missing. Again, several
12 persons can come and report that one person is missing and at several
13 different places at that. So people can report such missing persons not
14 because they want to have duplication, but simply in different places
15 there are offices and that's where people go to. So it has many
16 deficiencies and it can be used with a great deal of constraint; however,
17 it can be used as a guideline. Because if I study that list properly, if
18 I study it well, if I establish what its shortcomings are, and if I
19 establish that there is a certain number of persons that cannot be brought
20 into question -- I mean, let's make one thing clear, I'm not saying that
21 the entire list is wrong. If I know that - although I don't think this is
22 sufficient - but if I know that it was updated on several occasions and
23 that the main problem of this updating is that you do not have the
24 obligation of reporting to the Red Cross that a certain person who was
25 reported as missing was found alive and well, there is a high degree of
1 professionalism involved in Red Cross work, they are not there for the
2 purpose of statistics. They have a different job, but I would use their
3 list as a guideline, as I said.
4 Q. Okay. You say "as a guideline," but how? Concretely?
5 A. In which way you mean -- I do not understand the question well.
6 If I do not have any information whatsoever, if I do not have any data, am
7 I supposed to find the number of missing persons? If I do not have any
8 other sources, how do I come to a number that is the number of missing
9 persons. Is that what you're asking?
10 Q. No. What I'm asking is this: You indicated you would look at all
11 available sources. One source you said you would exclude is the PHR list.
12 What I'm asking is: In addition to all the other available sources, how
13 would you use the ICRC list concretely?
14 A. It would be the only list that registers missing persons.
15 Q. All right.
16 A. So if I'm not to engage in guesswork, if I am to accept only that
17 which is accurate, if I see to what extent it was updated, if I have other
18 sources and if I have the possibility to compare, and if I can use a
19 firmly established key for matching, I have to accept the list; it's the
20 only one. But if I say as a guideline, if I see on this list that there
21 are 7.000 persons and more than that - if you need the exact figure I will
22 look it up - if I see that so many persons were registered as missing
23 persons, that is not to say that I believe that it's a good list and that
24 all these 7.000 persons who went missing are on a list that is absolutely
25 correct, that is the correct figure involved.
1 Q. All right. But why can't you take the ICRC list and take the PHR
2 list and superimpose them to see where you have matches and at least you
3 can have a starting point there. Can you do that?
4 A. That could be done. That's what I did. Let's be clear on that.
5 I'm not saying this just off-the-cuff, why I would reject it. When
6 looking at both lists without any interventions except for deleting
7 clear-cut duplicates, that which was established beyond any doubt
8 according to a firm key, there would be about 580 persons. That is to
9 say, that on the list of the physicians and on the list of the Red Cross,
10 there is certainly a match of 580 persons. It is the same 580 persons
11 that figure on both lists. All the rest would require a change of key.
12 And then I would say: Well, perhaps this person that is on the
13 physicians's list is indeed the Svetlana who is on the Red Cross list. So
14 I decided that a far more valid list was the list of the Red Cross, not
15 the PHR list.
16 Also, the Red Cross list records a larger number of persons and
17 also in a well-established organised fashion. Although, please, this is
18 not statistics. It is not a statistical method. The PHR lists that I had
19 the opportunity of seeing, have existed since 1991 or 1992. If one
20 insists on exact figures, I can look at my notebook if you wish. In 1991,
21 1992 there are two cases, in 1993, there 7 or 8, in 1994, 10; in 1995
22 [Realtime transcript read in error "1998"], there were 6.000. Obviously
23 this was not a continuous procedure involving recording, but it was at a
24 given point in time and for particular purposes. And that's when the
25 organisation recorded, or rather, registered these persons.
1 Q. All right. Now, let's move on.
2 A. Can I just say one more word. I think that it is important.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. The expert of the Prosecution says that they use both lists
5 because the two support each other. The Prosecution expert also says that
6 due to different objectives and different intentions, both have many
7 mistakes. This support of these lists is something that I thought was
8 wrong on the part of the Prosecution expert. That is what led me to have
9 a look at this, and that is why I carried out direct matching. I did not
10 see what the Prosecution expert saw.
11 Q. Okay. Incidentally, just to go back to your earlier answer, you
12 say -- on the screen at least, on the record, it says with respect to the
13 PHR list, 1993/1994, and then it says 1998. Did you mean to say 1995 or
14 is it 1998, which of the two?
15 A. No. 1995.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: That would be on, I believe, it's page 66, line 8,
17 for the record.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you.
19 Now, as part of the protocol in conducting this project, would you
20 keep detailed records as to what you did, why you did it, what you
21 accepted, what you rejected?
22 A. Well, if the project is understood as a job not an academic
23 discussion, then that is an obligation. This is to say that if you are
24 doing something, then you absolutely have to follow what you're doing step
25 by step and to record what you are doing. In my line of work - when I say
1 "my line of work," I mean statisticians and demographers - we do not take
2 people's word for this and that; you have to document what you did through
3 your work. Everything I do I do on the basis of documents, and I keep
4 these records. And if I do not have records, then I have a good
5 explanation of why it is not relevant for that particular question.
6 Q. All right. And incidentally, how many years of experience do you
7 have in demography in this field that we're talking about?
8 A. I started my career in statistics, the statistics of the
9 population. And from this there followed overall statistics and
10 demography. Demography cannot do without population statistics. I have
11 been active in demographics since I published my first paper in 1977 or
12 1978. This was a purely demographic paper, not a statistical demographic
13 paper. So we can say it started in 1978. But I have been dealing with
14 the statistics of the population and demographics throughout my career.
15 Q. All right. Now, I want to go to the next issue. Had this been
16 part of the project, that is for you to determine the long-term impact on
17 the Srebrenica community resulting from the events following the fall of
18 Srebrenica, again keeping in mind that you would not do the census which
19 you found the most ideal way, could you please tell us how you would have
20 tackled this particular problem. How would you have approached this
22 A. First, I wish to point out that there would be limitations. My
23 conclusions and my opinions would have limitations, because I would not
24 have at my disposal sufficiently high quality data. There is no data.
25 This means that you can only use certain sources which you evaluate as
1 good or bad. If I am in a situation in which I have to do this, I would
2 certainly first of all see what the possibilities are with regard to
3 sources. And I would make a selection of sources. I would have to use
4 voters lists because this is the only post-war piece of information;
5 however faulty and defective, it's the only one that exists. I am aware
6 of its limitations, so I would constantly bear those in mind. I would
7 also have to use the census, which when working on a task like the one you
8 described is of limited value. Because with respect to the census of
9 1991, even if nothing had happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
10 situation would not be the same in 1995, let alone if there was a war in
11 the meantime. So these would be the two fundamental sources which I would
12 have to use willy-nilly. As for the overall vital statistics with all the
13 limitations of the statistics and the lists of returnees, which could be
14 used as a guideline as to migrations but also of very limited value. So
15 in order to evaluate something of this kind, I would have countless
16 reservations. And I'm not sure that I would dare come to a firm
17 conclusion saying this happened or did not happen. What I could do would
18 be to say: Well, we can say that perhaps now there is so much of this and
19 there was so much of that before. For example, when I was looking at the
20 voters from the Srebrenica municipality, matching this with the census, I
21 could say: Well, I found 12.800 or so voters. And I know exactly where
22 these voters are. When I say 12.800 or so, I am referring primarily to
23 the Muslim population. I know exactly how many voters registered to vote
24 in Srebrenica, how many registered to vote in other towns in Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. The only thing I don't know exactly - and I can only assume
1 because I did not have the codes - is how many registered to vote abroad.
2 I have a number, but I cannot assert with any certainty that this was done
3 well because I don't have the codes for the voters abroad. And then I can
4 say with full responsibility that on the territory of Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina the number of people who registered to vote in the various
6 municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Srebrenica is about
7 13.000. I even have the exact number. I can say exactly how many women,
8 how many men, how many of them in the municipality of Srebrenica, how many
9 in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Prijedor, Banja Luka. The only thing I cannot say is
10 exactly how many registered abroad. Of course, when I say this I say this
11 with another reservation. My method of finding these voters was through
12 matching, using the personal identification number. It is common
13 knowledge that the personal identification number is not good quality
14 information and that over 40 per cent of them in the census of 1991 are
15 wrong. So what have I done? About 60 per cent of the good personal
16 identification numbers is something that I have put together with the
17 voters register, which is about 2 and a half million people and which
18 again is not of very high quality. Those voters who are matched with the
19 personal identification number is what I got as a result, and that is
20 about 13.000. So one should bear in mind that there may be more of them,
21 but the personal identification numbers are wrong. I can say with
22 certainty that on the OSCE list there are at least 13.000, the number I've
23 just mentioned. And I don't know what the percentage is of the people I
24 have found as compared to those I have not found.
25 Q. All right. Now -- and again I'm going to ask you to keep your
1 answer a little bit shorter. In looking at the impact to the community of
2 Srebrenica, assuming that you defined what is Srebrenica, could you
3 identify, for instance if looking at the impact, how many births, how many
4 marriages, how many returnees, would there be a way of gathering that
5 information and maybe using that information as a basis of seeing how the
6 community changed from 1995 to, say, 2004, 2003, or thereafter?
7 A. There is a method of gathering this information, but this
8 information is of limited value, the vital information, because not
9 everything is registered in Srebrenica itself. One should go to Tuzla to
10 check how many women from Srebrenica gave birth in Tuzla but their
11 permanent residence is in Srebrenica. You have to go to all the places
12 where you know that there are people from Srebrenica who were in the
13 population of Srebrenica in 1991, regardless of whether they left in 1992,
14 1995, or 1996, you have to find these people and you have to see how many
15 live births there were among them, and this is certainly possible. I'm
16 not saying it is easy, but it is possible. Also, you have to use the
17 lists of returnees. People register, people look for their property, they
18 go back to their homes. Some people don't come back; they go elsewhere,
19 although they used to live there. But municipalities do keep records of
20 this so that you can evaluate certain migration movements. It's hard to
21 find the people who left in the meantime because they are not registered
23 Q. All right. So if I have it right, are you telling us that just by
24 looking at the raw data of the records in the Srebrenica municipality, one
25 could not make a fair, reasonable, and realistic assessment as to the
1 long-term impact that occurred in Srebrenica as a result of its fall back
2 in July 1995?
3 A. Yes, I thought I'd explained this. I said with many limitations
4 and reservations, but yes, that's precisely what I wanted to say.
5 Q. And do I have it right that with the census perhaps, some of those
6 limitations could be overcome and you could perhaps get to a more
7 realistic understanding of the impact to the community?
8 A. With a census, yes.
9 Q. All right. All right. Now, if you -- as an expert with what
10 would appear to be some 30 years of experience, do you have an opinion as
11 to whether the manner and method used by the OTP experts used in this case
12 is acceptable within the field of demography?
13 A. It is not acceptable in this case. Although the method does
14 exist, only here, in this case, it has been compromised. The method of
15 matching is a standard method. The method of collecting sources and
16 evaluating those sources is, again, standard procedure for demographers.
17 However, the way it was done in this case is something that I think has
18 compromised the whole procedure.
19 Q. How could you characterise it if you say it is not acceptable
20 within the field of demography?
21 A. This is not demography. This is statistical exhibitionism.
22 Q. Would you please explain that to us. What do you mean by that?
23 And maybe you could show us some -- a concrete example.
24 A. If you are guided by a desire to obtain certain results and if you
25 have the possibility of making subjective evaluations in the whole
1 procedure, then a professional demographer might call it manipulation.
2 And I do have an example, by your leave, which I think is pure statistical
4 Q. Okay. And where would we have to go for that particular example
5 so we can put it on the screen and we can display it to the public and to
6 the Prosecution?
7 A. In the Prosecutor's expert report of 2003, and this example
8 applies to the same table as drawn up in 2000, as the Prosecution expert
9 has practically not introduced a single new table since 2000, except for
10 perhaps table number 1, but that's open to discussion --
11 Q. One moment, please.
12 A. [In English] Okay.
13 Q. If you can wait. Because I need to make sure that the record
14 reflects that now we are showing P726/A, an exhibit -- Prosecution
15 exhibit. If you could please -- and I want to go through this step by
16 step so it becomes crystal clear what you mean by statistical
17 exhibitionism. First of all, what chart are you looking at, what table,
18 so we have the correct page?
19 A. [Interpretation] Table number 2, a report of the 12th of April,
20 2003, and I wish to mention that this same table is also found in other
21 reports. And this is why I feel it is statistical exhibitionism.
22 Q. Again, if I may just -- if you may -- I want to walk you through
23 step by step. If we could put this on the ELMO --
24 A. [In English] Okay, okay.
25 Q. And this would be on the third page with the last numbers 584.
1 Okay. Now, could you please tell us what exactly you mean when you
2 say -- what's the problem with this particular table, this chart? It
3 looks nice.
4 A. [Interpretation] This table is, first of all, unprofessionally
5 presented. It provides only some relative indicators, but it does not
6 show the absolute numbers on the basis of which these relative indicators
7 were provided, especially if these absolute numbers are not found in any
8 published official or unofficial publication. Because the Prosecution
9 expert got the age breakdowns and cohorts on her own from the materials of
10 1991, although there are officially published data on this. However, the
11 Prosecution expert does have the right to produce this, but it would be
12 correct then to show on the basis of what this was done.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. What I can check here, for example, is certain rates, on the
15 assumption that if I trust everything that the Prosecution expert has
16 done. The cohort of births in 1905 according to the Prosecution expert,
17 and this is persons aged 76 to 90, in 1995, 5.1 per cent of these persons
18 in relation to 1991 went missing or died. In their lists, which have been
19 officially published, the Prosecution expert does not have a single person
20 born in 1905. Did this expert then use some other data in addition to the
21 data that is referred to here, the master list? Also, for persons born in
22 1915, the proportions of the missing or the fatality rate is 14.9. I
23 assert with full responsibility that in the list there is not a single
24 person born in 1915, in the published list. As for the rest, I was unable
25 to check this because it is a very big job. But in view of the fact that
1 I do not have the absolute number and that I cannot make any other
2 comparisons, this is exhibitionism.
3 Q. All right. Now, is this useful --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Karnavas.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. Now said it was exhibitionism. Is it useful exhibitionism at
8 A. Statistically.
9 Q. Okay. Now, do you have another example?
10 A. I could also comment on table number 1.
11 Q. All right. Now, before you get to table number 1, just to get
12 back, the example that you were talking about earlier regarding the
13 cohort, the first column, that was in 1905, and not 1995. Is that
15 A. No, no. Please. Born in 1905 and 1915. These are the two
16 examples I gave. Persons aged 86 to 90 and 76 to 80.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: And that was for the record a correction on page
18 72, line 2.
19 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to the other table and --
20 A. Table 1, that's from the same report.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. These are missing men by municipality of residence in 1991.
23 Q. What's wrong with it? Again, it's nice. It looks like a nice
24 little table here.
25 A. Well, it does look nice; exhibitionism can look nice, especially
1 if it's picturesque. What does this table show? It shows that a
2 distribution was carried out of missing persons, of persons who died, by
3 municipality of residence in 1991. We have no idea, although there is
4 official data available, what the population was in 1991. And then, we
5 are shown that this is 100 per cent. And then you can divide up the
6 numbers and add them up as you like. And what is characteristic here or
7 intellectually dishonest? In the preceding paragraph, the Prosecution
8 expert says: I managed to match 87 per cent of the persons. Out of
9 7.000, they matched some 6.000. In the table, however, it appears that
10 100 per cent of the persons have been distributed by municipality. The
11 Prosecution expert also says on the assumption that by municipality of
12 residence in 1991, there is a similar number of matches. Did the
13 Prosecution expert manage to match 3.000 persons in Srebrenica? Or 500?
14 Or 2? This table only appears to show something, but statistically it
15 does not show the essential information. And I apologise if the word I'm
16 using is a very harsh one, but I do feel that this is exhibitionism.
17 Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity by any chance --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
19 MR. KARNAVAS:
20 Q. Did you have an opportunity by any chance to read Mr. Helge's
21 articles that he published as a result of his work for the Prosecution?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Without going to the articles themselves, they were discussed when
24 he was being cross-examined, but I want to ask you one particular question
25 with respect to his reference as to genocide and ethnic cleansing, those
1 sorts of terms. Is that part of demography as you know it and understand
2 it, having been in the field for 30 years?
3 A. No. Demography deals with changes and showing changes and their
4 causes and possibly the reasons for the changes and the manner in which
5 they took place. It is for others who decide whether this is genocide,
6 ethnic cleansing, or whatever; it's not up to a demographer to make these
8 Q. All right. Now, for the better part of this morning, we've been
9 dissecting Mr. Brunborg's work and perhaps him as well in the field of
10 demography. Could you please tell us whether you did any of the things
11 that you have asserted he should have done. Did you, in other words,
12 carry out a census or look at all the available data in order to perhaps
13 come up with another figure, albeit you didn't have the seven years that
14 he had or the Office of the Prosecution had?
15 A. Yes. Yes, I did.
16 Q. What did you do exactly?
17 A. I was in the field. And wherever I was able to find official or
18 unofficial statistics, I consulted all the available sources and looked at
19 all the available information. I read certain things, listened, observed.
20 I don't know what you expect of me. I did this for my own reasons, not
21 because of Mr. Brunborg, but because I wanted to be sure that I did my job
23 Q. You weren't prevented by snow on the road, by chance, from getting
24 to a particular location, which Mr. Brunborg was, which is why he never
25 visited the statistics bureau of the RS?
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the reply.
2 MR. KARNAVAS:
3 Q. What was your response?
4 A. No, I was not prevented. The weather was very nice when I went
6 Q. Okay. Well, it does change occasionally. Now -- but you did not
7 carry out a census, did you?
8 A. No, I didn't.
9 Q. Could you please tell us why you did not carry out a census, since
10 in your words, in your findings, that would have been the most appropriate
11 manner in which to both identify the number of missing and also what
12 impact to the community, the Srebrenica community, the events would have
14 A. I didn't carry out a census for the simple reason that I do not
15 have the resources. I as an individual, unless I'm employed by an
16 organisation which can open doors for me, I cannot do this. Had I had
17 resources available, I could have done it. I could do it tomorrow if I
18 had the available resources.
19 Q. All right. Now, you're not here by any chance to tell us that a
20 large number of people did not perish as a result of the atrocities that
21 occurred following the fall of Srebrenica, are you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right. Finally, in carrying out your work for the Defence,
24 did you prepare a report?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Let me just show you for the record what has been marked as D204,
2 if you could just look at -- I am handing you one in English and one in
3 B/C/S or Srpski. The English version was officially translated and
4 revised. Is that your report?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I take it there's some addendums to the report with respect to
7 certain footnotes?
8 A. I don't understand the question.
9 Q. With respect to footnote 16 and I believe maybe footnote 45,
10 there's some attachments to your report that you provided to us for the
11 benefit of the Court?
12 A. Yes, yes, I have that. Yes.
13 Q. And just finally, to clarify one matter, Helge Brunborg, the
14 Prosecutor expert, he's a man, is he not? As opposed to a woman?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Because the original translation, the initial translation, kept
17 referring to him as a female, but he's not. It's a man?
18 A. That has nothing to do with me. It is a man.
19 Q. All right. Thank you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: At this point in time, Your Honour, I have no
21 further questions.
22 Q. Thank you very, very much, Professor Radovanovic. Mr. Jokic's
23 lawyer may have some questions, I'm sure. The Prosecution would probably
24 like to speak with you. I would be most appreciative if you could be as
25 full and complete and forthright with them as you have been with me.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
3 Mr. Lukic, do you have any questions to put to this witness?
4 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. We don't have any questions for this
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 Well, Mr. Waespi, my proposal is we stop here for today and
8 tomorrow you could have your cross-examination as a whole. Is it --
9 MR. WAESPI: Yes, very much so. Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE LIU: How much time do you estimate?
11 MR. WAESPI: It won't be that long, certainly not more than a
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
14 Well, Witness, thank you very much for today's testimony. And
15 tomorrow we have to call you back for the cross-examination. I have to
16 warn you, as I did with other witnesses, that while you are in The Hague
17 you are still under oath. So do not talk to anybody and do not let
18 anybody talk to you about your testimony. Do you understand that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand that.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. The usher will show you out of
21 the room.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, some scheduling issues. We just received some
24 information that a subpoenaed witness will arrive on Wednesday so that we
25 could not have the pre-defence conference on that day. And as for next
1 week, I believe that there may be some field investigations by the Defence
2 team. So we'll have the pre-Defence conference tomorrow from 4.30 to
3 5.00. It won't be long. And the procedure is as the -- Mr. Blagojevic's
4 Defence conference, that is the Bench will ask some questions about the
5 witnesses. And if there is any other matter that party would like to ask
6 for the help of this Bench, they could just raise it. So tomorrow we'll
7 have the pre-defence conference from 4.30 to 5.00. And on Wednesday,
8 we'll sit in Courtroom I from 9.00 to 1.45. We hope we could finish that
9 witness for one day. And on the Thursday and Friday, we'll have an extra
10 sitting, which means that we have an afternoon sitting for two days, that
11 is in Courtroom I.
12 Any questions or are there matters that the parties would like to
13 raise? It seems to me there are none, so the hearing is adjourned for
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 1.38 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
17 the 22nd day of June, 2004,
18 at 9.00 a.m.