1 Monday, 22 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good afternoon to everyone in this courtroom.
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President and Your
12 Honours, good afternoon. It would be appropriate if we can briefly
13 address the Chamber at the end of the hearing today, perhaps for two or
14 three minutes, regarding procedural matters. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I noted down two or three minutes. And I take
16 it that these are matters that will require a response from the
17 Prosecution as well, so better put down four to six minutes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it is possible. Perhaps
19 necessary, perhaps not. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We will see. We first will have to deal with the
21 documents in relation to the testimony of Mr. Karavelic.
22 Madam Registrar, could you please guide us through the documents.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3728, a set of 26 maps.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, first Mr. Ierace.
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, is that 26 maps or 27?
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is, no doubt, 26.
4 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]... on one map.
5 MR. IERACE: I am grateful, Mr. President. I stand corrected.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence
8 object to the tendering of the 26 maps for the following reason: First of
9 all, these are maps that were pre-marked carefully by the Prosecution. We
10 know that as a general rule, pre-marked maps, as such, are not admissible
11 and we have seen that in these maps, everything was there already, and the
12 witness could just confirm what was already there. So that seems quite
14 Now, the following point is that these maps seem quite artificial.
15 They don't really correspond to real topographical, geographic maps.
16 Their scale was not what it was, due to enlargement. As you have seen, it
17 was very hard to find one's bearings on there, although I know the Chamber
18 will manage to do so, because of the enlargement and because we have lost
19 the scale. So that is the reason why we are asking your Chamber to reject
20 the tendering of these maps, first because it was too prepared, too
21 pre-marked first of all --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I press the tender of the maps. I note
24 that during cross-examination it was not put to the witness that any part
25 of the confrontation line was incorrect and given that the accused would
1 well know the confrontation lines, it can therefore be safely assumed that
2 the confrontation lines, as corrected by the General, are, in fact,
3 correct. In relation to the other information on the maps, the position
4 of the victims of the various incidents, that is the point of impact of
5 the bullets and the shells, there is evidence before the Trial Chamber to
6 cover that and likewise in relation to the source or possible sources of
8 In other words, everything in the map is now the subject, each of
9 the maps, is now the subject of evidence. As to the basis that the maps
10 are difficult to follow, I do not understand that submission. It was not
11 suggested to the witness or to the Trial Chamber that there was any aspect
12 of the maps that could not be followed. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President I have to oppose
15 what has just been said. I clearly said to your Chamber, I don't know,
16 when I don't have the reference, because I believe that I was taken aback
17 here. I said to the Chamber, be careful, take care of the scale. These
18 maps are not usable as such and today this is a quite large obstruction.
19 We are challenging a map per se. We haven't done it, but we did mention
20 the scale. I wanted to mention that the HQ maps, the Main Staff maps that
21 we produced, even these maps were rejected by the witness as having been
22 made by people who were not professionals. That is where we stand. Thank
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although it seemed to be a rather different
25 issue. It was the markings on the map, rather than the maps themselves
1 that the witness said might have been done unprofessionally. But,
2 Mr. Ierace, may I ask you one thing: Questions have been put in respect
3 of the confrontation lines that were pre-marked, especially the witness
4 was asked whether they were drawn correctly. So to that -- in that
5 respect Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I am a bit surprised to hear that everything
6 was there already, because the question was whether it was there correctly
7 or not.
8 But, you also noticed, Mr. Ierace, that the Chamber did not allow
9 to ask any questions on, at least not on potential sniper positions since
10 the Chamber was of the view that the witness had had ample opportunity to
11 look at it, so that it might have contaminated his recollection, if he
12 would have had any. Nevertheless, you, it seems, the Prosecution seeks
13 the full information that contains of the maps to be admitted in evidence.
14 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, I would regard that as a separate
15 issue. One issue being whether the information on the map is in
16 accordance with the various victims, the police officers and so on. The
17 second and separate issue is whether the witness was able to give
18 independent evidence which was open to contamination because of the
19 pre-markings on the map. So I would respectfully submit to you that the
20 ruling of the Trial Chamber on that second issue is quite separate and
21 does not affects the admissibility of that information. If anything, it
22 explains the -- it demonstrates the basis of the Trial Chamber's decision.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will give a decision after this or the
2 next break, but at least soon on the admission in evidence and whether it
3 will be a full admission or whether after. So, Madam Registrar, these 26
4 maps, a decision will follow. Then, we are about to --
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3644.VK3, map; Exhibit P37 --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
7 just ask which map this is. Could I have more precise information
8 regarding which map this is.
9 May I ask if I can confer, please. Thank you.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No objection. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So it is a pre-marked map, so the rule is not as
13 general as --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. That's the reason why we
15 conferred, knowing that it was a pre-marked map, in order not to waste
16 time for anyone. That's why we decided not to raise an objection. Thank
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then P3644.VK3 is admitted into evidence
19 THE REGISTRAR: P3727, series of five maps, marked by witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's then admitted into evidence.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3735, B/C/S, receipt on temporary
22 confiscated personal effects, P3735.1, English translation.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that we did not
25 receive this document in English. Is that a translation or not?
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... translation, yes.
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't think we received it
4 in English.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It says English translation and it starts with
6 "Collective Shelter Centre."
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Ierace let me know
8 when he forwarded it to me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think at the very moment of providing the document,
10 but if there is another --
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will focus on
13 the translation, but perhaps we could leave the question for now, perhaps
14 I could let you know about our position a little later on. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you would tell us whether there is any objection,
16 perhaps later today, then, especially, then in respect of the translation.
17 The original would not be objected by the Defence? I mean,--
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. The original will
19 probably be all right, but the translation could raise problems. But
20 because I haven't had the opportunity, I will have a look at it now and I
21 will let you know. Thank you
22 JUDGE ORIE: So the B/C/S version and that is number?
23 THE REGISTRAR: P3735.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence and a decision will be
25 taken on the translation into English.
1 THE REGISTRAR: P3736, receipt dated 09/05/1992, signed by Vahid
2 Karavelic in B/C/S. P3736.1, English translation.
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it the same is true for the original and
4 B/C/S is it needs no objection and the translation still has to be --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know whether we
6 received the translation, but apparently not. I don't know whether we
7 have had the translation or not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I considered it more or less to be one document, but
9 it is a second page --
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, we received it now, yes.
11 Thank you. So same position, yes. Thank you.
12 Mr. President, regarding the English translation of the first
13 document that we received, I can already say that this is now -- I can say
14 that, as usual, there are errors here and I am very surprised that the
15 Prosecution can make such a mistake. When you see the original in
16 Serbian, you can see very well that "Mitrovica" has been added in hand and
17 it hasn't even been translated in English. So either we translate
18 everything, or it has only been done partially. I will have a look at it
19 in its entirety and will let you know. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would give your comment on the document as a
21 whole and we see that a part is stricken out and the handwritten addition
22 is not added in the translation. Next document would be, Madam Registrar?
23 THE REGISTRAR: D143, certification dated 12 July 2002; D143.1,
24 English translation; D144, B/C/S, decision from Presidency, dated 18
25 August 1992, Sarajevo; D144.1, English translation; D145, order Sefer
1 Halilovic, dated 09 October 1992 in B/C/S; D145.1, English translation;
2 D146, order dated 12/12/1993 in B/C/S; D146.1, English translation; D147,
3 order dated 02 October, 1993; D147.1, English translation; D148, order
4 dated 18 September 1993, D148.1, English translation; D149, order dated 16
5 February 1993; D149.1, English translation; D150, order dated 3 April 1994
6 D150.1, English translation; D151, report situation in zone of
7 responsibility for period from 11 January to 12 January 1993; D151.1
8 English translation; D152, order 25/10/1993; D152.1, partial English
9 translation; D153, document in B/C/S containing various maps.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise. But since it was
13 a little swift and we were not able to follow it, what we said for the 26
14 maps in relation to sniping incident, is the same position that we are
15 stating for the five maps regarding the shelling incidents. The objection
16 that we formulated is exactly of the same type for those five maps. Thank
18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, in relation to that, I would simply
19 make the observation that the Defence is inconsistent in not objecting to
20 Exhibit 3644.VK3, because that was not only pre-marked, but pre-marked
21 with the assistance of others.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to respond, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you
23 don't want to. May I ask one question in relation to D Exhibit 153.
24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I cannot read everything that is on the first
25 page of that document, but it seems to relate to a time period between the
1 1st of December 1992 until the 4th of April 1993. At the same time, on
2 the second page, I find entries which reads, 13/06/1993, which --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That is correct,
4 Mr. President. That is correct. I noticed it and I believe that the very
5 last addition was made afterwards, after the dates were put on the maps.
6 So the first note is less precise than the key itself, which gives a more
7 precise chronological scale.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that someone must have forgotten
9 to change the front page, perhaps, and yes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Most probably. Someone
11 probably didn't add these differences because the previous key of the 8th
12 of January 1993 seems to be covered by the latest date, which is the 4th
13 of April 1993.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That is the reason why, among
16 others, I had photocopied the key so that it was possible to see that
17 there was a problem with the date, that could be raised.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the second problem with the key is, I noticed on
19 the original that there are nice colours on the key and nice colours on
20 the map. Would there be one way or another to provide the Chamber at
21 least with even where it just for these portions with a coloured version
22 as well and perhaps the Prosecution as well, so that we at least are able
23 to read what is in front of us, which it is totally impossible --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I will do
25 it. The idea was to go through the witness and raise dates, but you can
1 see that the witness rejected the map as having been made by someone who
2 is incompetent. But we will make copies in colour so that we can give
3 coloured copies to the Chamber and to the Prosecution. It will not happen
4 immediately, but very soon. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, in relation to the tender of the
7 Defence documents the only one that I would object to is the purported
8 certificate in relation to the prison. The Defence relied on that
9 document in order to directly contradict the witness's claim, that he had
10 been brought before a court in Belgrade. I object on the basis -- on two
11 bases. Firstly, the certificate purports to only relate to his detention.
12 It makes no comment as to whether he was tried in Belgrade. Secondly,
13 even in that respect, it does not name the prison where the search was
14 carried out. Indeed, it does not even identify whether there is only one
15 military prison in Belgrade because "A" or "the" is missing for the
16 reference to the military prison.
17 Therefore, my objection is that the document relates -- the
18 document does not have any probative value. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace. I think we will have to --
20 yes, Ms. Pilipovic.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence just
22 wanted to respond to the objection of my learned colleague, moreover,
23 because the certificate was issued by the military court which was the
24 only one competent in this area, which was the only one that could have
25 tried Mr. Karavelic. The reason why the Defence would like to have this
1 document admitted is because Mr. Karavelic had said that he had been tried
2 and he had been sentenced.
3 MR. IERACE: That is exactly my point. The document does not say
4 he was not tried, it does not say he was not sentenced. It simply says he
5 was not detained at some unknown, unstated prison.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Karavelic stated
8 that he had been convicted in the situation when he provided the
9 statement, and when he said that he had been convicted, that means that in
10 the period from the 28th of April until the 9th of May, that he was
11 subject to a court proceedings and that he was convicted. And this is the
12 reason why we are providing this certificate in order to show that he was
13 not brought into custody nor was he serving a sentence in the military
14 investigative court in Belgrade. That would be the only institution which
15 could have tried Mr. Karavelic and kept him in gaol. From the certificate
16 which the Prosecution provided, it is evident that he was in the
17 collection centre in Sremska Mitrovica. So that was the document that
18 does not show that he was taken into custody, nor that he was brought
19 before a court, or that he was sentenced.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the parties seem to disagree. We will have to
21 take a decision on the objection. We also will do that after the break.
22 We will take the appropriate time to decide.
23 I think we dealt with all of the documents by now, Madam
24 Registrar. Just to inform the parties, it might be that a lot of
25 objections all might have been made, that we even may take until tomorrow,
1 and that there is nothing urgent at this very moment, so that we can
2 better read your objections and better prepare our decision.
3 Then, Mr. Ierace, may I take it that the Prosecution is ready to
4 call its next witness which --
5 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. That will be Ewa Tabeau taken by
6 Mr. Stamp. Might I be excused for the last 15 minutes or so in order to
7 be present for the matter to be raised by the Defence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please escort expert witness
11 Tabeau -- yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just to simplify the work of
13 the Chamber, the two English translations that were given, handed over to
14 us, are almost acceptable. The only thing that I have indicated is the
15 point that I raised on the first document, on the first page, there is a
16 word missing which you will find in the original text. Thank you.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau. Before giving evidence
19 before this Chamber, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to
20 make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth
21 and nothing but the truth. The text will be handed out to you now by the
22 usher. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
24 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, please be seated.
1 Ms. Tabeau, we usually all put on our headphones, because there
2 might be interruptions in a language that you don't understand. Perhaps
3 you do understand all languages.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then it would be preferable for you to have your
6 earphones on. You will first be examined by counsel for the Prosecution.
7 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
8 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours.
9 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
10 Examined by Mr. Stamp:
11 Q. Could you begin by stating your full name?
12 A. My name is Ewa Maria Tabeau.
13 Q. And what is your occupation, could you tell us briefly?
14 A. I am a demographer. My professional educational background is
15 statistics and econometrics. I graduated in 1981 in Poland from Warsaw
16 School of Economics and started working shortly afterwards first in a
17 small research institute at Statistics Poland, later, one year later at
18 the Economic University of Warsaw.
19 Q. Thank you. We could probably get to that in more detail, but
20 could I get you straight to the point.
21 Did you conduct some research into the casualties which occurred
22 in the city of Sarajevo during the period of 1992 to 1994?
23 A. Yes. We completed a project in which we produced certain
24 statistics, related to the city of Sarajevo in this period.
25 Q. Were you in charge of that project?
1 A. Yes, I was in charge of this project.
2 Q. And were the -- could you tell us the names of the major persons
3 involved in this project.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down and pause
5 between question and answer. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, may I also ask you to make a brief pause
7 between the question, before starting the answer. Otherwise, the
8 interpreters will have difficulty in following you.
9 THE WITNESS: Of course, yes.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. May I put it this way, did Marcin Zoltkowski and Jakub Bijak --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Before interfering, I first heard no. Please tell me
14 what you have to say. That could never start with the word, no. Yes.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no, Mr. President. I was
17 saying no which was a say of saying that we were saying no to this kind of
18 questions and this is the kind of question we would like to object to.
19 Easily, this was a leading question phrased directly in this way. Thank
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First of all, if you want to object Mr.
22 Piletta-Zanin the usual way of doing this is saying "I object to the
23 question for these and these reasons," and not saying, "no."
24 The second issue is, is it in dispute, could we reasonably expect
25 that witness would be given the answer of those she would work with
1 together because Mr. Stamp indicates these names? I mean, objection
2 against leading questions are taken seriously, but should not the
3 objection against the leading question be taken seriously as well.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. The
5 Defence is objecting for the following reason: Is that it doesn't know
6 the names of the persons that could have been associated with this study,
7 with this report, and in terms of experts, the Defence has had very
8 important things hidden from it and that is the reason why the Defence is
9 not tolerating leading questions any more.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, on page 3736, the title page of
11 this report, doesn't it mention three names?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, that is true.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Because what you just said is that the Defence
14 doesn't know the names of the persons that could have been associated with
15 this study, with this report, in terms of experts, and the Defence has
16 very important things "hidden" from it. I thought that you were asking
17 for these names, Mr. Stamp, is that right?
18 MR. STAMP: Yes, I was trying to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, having heard the reasons for your
20 objection, I fully do not understand it and it sounds rather frivolous.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it may happen
22 that there will be other names that will be mentioned and that is the
23 reason --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then wait until these other names might come up and
25 then make an objection, but not the way you did it. This time you not
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 using the time -- of the Prosecution to its case.
2 MR. STAMP: I am grateful, Mr. President. Perhaps I could do it
3 this way. With your leave, Mr. President, could I show to the witness the
4 document designated Exhibit P3731A which was filed on the 14th of May,
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Stamp.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Does that document contain a summary of your professional
9 qualifications and experience?
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. And does it also contain a summary of persons who worked on this
12 project under your -- I beg your pardon. May I withdraw that. Does it
13 also contain a summary of the professional qualifications of persons who
14 worked under your supervision on this project?
15 A. It also contains professional qualifications of the co-authors of
16 this report, and this is Marcin Zoltkowski and Jakub Bijak. There were
17 also other persons working on this project with me who are not the authors
18 of this report, but these were people who were giving us different types
19 of technical support in the course of the project. They are not mentioned
20 in this document.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. STAMP: Could the document now be taken and could the witness
23 now be shown the document designated Exhibit 3731.
24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Stamp, I take it that this document is the
25 same one that we had before, the report, had this one?
1 MR. STAMP: Yes.
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Except that it has one more page, 118, but it
3 is a blank page.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the blank page bears no number, which is the
5 second page of the bundle.
6 MR. STAMP: If I am correct, that we are referring to a blank page
7 at the end of the document? May I --
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, it has been copied from --
9 MR. STAMP: Double-sided and reproduced --
10 JUDGE ORIE: And on every page which is not there -- is nothing
11 written on the back of the page, that we get a blank page for that. And
12 also at the very end, one numbered blank page which is numbered --
13 numbering at the bottom of the page is 118 which is very much empty.
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The original that I have -- has the same page
15 blank, so don't worry about it.
16 MR. STAMP: I am informed that --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Everything is clear now.
18 THE REGISTRAR: May we have that copy back, please, Mr. Stamp.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing that could create some confusion,
20 Mr. Stamp, is that this empty back page, 118, bears no number at the top,
21 so, therefore, for the Registry, it will certainly create problems, but
22 not for the Chamber at this very moment.
23 MR. STAMP: Very well.
24 Q. Could you Madam, tell us what that document is in front of you?
25 A. This is our report that is titled as mentioned in this document,
1 "Population Losses in the Siege of Sarajevo, 10 September 1992 to 10
2 August 1994." It is the demographic report we prepared for this case.
3 Q. And does it contain six annexes?
4 A. It contains, as mentioned in the table of contents, six annexes
5 and eight sections. First section is the executive summary of the result.
6 Q. If you could have a look at page six of the report and the second
7 to the last paragraph of that page. It is indicated that you completed
8 two lists of casualties of the siege. One, a list of the persons killed,
9 and two, a list of the persons wounded. Were those lists copied into CD
10 format or on to compact disk?
11 A. Yes, we made a copy of the list, an electronic copy of the list on
12 a CD, on CD-rom. There were, I believe, two CD-roms, one with killed and
13 one with wounded persons.
14 Q. And would you be able to identify these lists if you saw them?
15 A. I believe so. I made some printouts from my electronic database
16 and I have the printouts with me. So it is possible to compare the two
18 MR. STAMP: We have the list here, Mr. President, and we propose
19 to show the witness the electronic printout and have her direct us as to
20 where she would like to check. However, there is one comment that I
21 would like to make and I am not sure if perhaps it should be made in the
22 presence of the witness. It is in respect to whether or not we delivered
23 the lists in one or two CDs. She has been a little bit equivocal as to
24 whether or not it was one or maybe two CDs. I don't know if I could
25 address that issue now.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MR. STAMP: It is really a matter whether we forwarded that list
3 on one CD or we had separate CDs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the issue could be dealt with --
5 MR. STAMP: Just to announce to the Court that the two lists were
6 forwarded on one CD.
7 Q. Would you be able to identify your list if you would be able to
8 peruse the CD?
9 A. Yes
10 MR. STAMP: Could you assist the witness to change her screen to
11 video evidence.
12 Q. The picture on the monitor I have here is very clear, but on the
13 other one which, I think, is being broadcast for all the parties, it is
14 very blurred. I don't know whether an adjustment can be made to the
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- under the computer evidence button, it is
17 relatively clear. Of course, it is not under the video evidence, that is
18 the mistake I made last week, Mr. Stamp, so feel free to make the same
20 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
21 Q. Could you direct us as to where we should go, up, down or page
23 A. Could you please put to view into normal view. More to the left,
24 please. Okay, 100 per cent. And more to the left, please, to let me know
25 the first name. Yes. Would you please don't move the screen.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So back to the left again, I understand.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. If you go down to the last page of the
3 list. No, this is still page second of 181. I believe this is the list
4 of wounded persons. The first one is a different document, I think, yes.
5 Yes. Please -- that is correct. If you could now move to the end of this
6 document, to the last record of this document. Yes. Move the cursor.
7 That's correct. This is the list of killed persons. Right. That is very
8 correct, good. This was at the beginning of the list of killed persons, I
9 could see the same names in my printout and on my screen. If you could
10 please go to the list of wounded persons, please, this is the second list.
11 Yes. And move to the left, yes. Entirely to the left so I can see the
12 beginning. Yes. And please go down now. Yes. Thank you.
13 So I think this are the same lists, Your Honour.
14 MR. STAMP: I am just trying to find appropriate exhibit number.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The appropriate what number?
16 MR. STAMP: Exhibit number. Could the CD, for the time, be marked
17 P3729. If I can have the transcript, the text. And for the ELMO, which
18 one will I then take, in the case that I will be showing something.
19 MR. STAMP: Now, could you assist me to hand the witness a document
20 designated P3731B.
21 Q. Madam, is that an addendum to the reports setting out the
22 procedures and results of the final search for -- conducted for duplicates
23 in the list of killed and wounded persons?
24 A. This is the addendum to the demographic report. This addendum is
25 devoted to additional checks we made to find even more duplicates, but I
1 can only see the text. I don't see the list attached with the text.
2 Q. So that is the addendum.
3 MR. STAMP: Could the witness now be shown Exhibit 3730.
4 Q. And could you tell us what that document is?
5 A. This is the list that was attached, that is attached with the
6 other addendum.
7 Q. And it is a list of?
8 A. It is a list of possible duplicates that we identified in this
9 additional check for duplicates. So it is not that all of them are
10 duplicates, it is that part of these names on this list are possible
12 Q. It is a list of possible duplicates of those killed?
13 A. Of those killed and wounded, I believe. This is -- it is, I
14 think, this is only list of possible duplicates for killed. The last page
15 I have is 14. It is incomplete.
16 Q. Thank you. Could you have a look at Exhibit 3730A.
17 MR. STAMP: Could that be handed to her.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is the second list, list of possible
19 duplicates for wounded persons. Only that I have 30 pages here. In my
20 document, and the last page here is 26. The number is exactly the name.
21 It is a matter of how it has been printed out. So the last records and
22 the records before is the same as in my text, so it must be complete in
23 this case.
24 MR. STAMP:
25 Q. You said in respect to the previous document that I gave you it
1 ended at page 14?
2 A. Yes, 14.
3 Q. And the next one that I gave you, does it begin at page 15?
4 A. Yes, yes. This is correct. There is different page numbering in
5 the copy I have of this list and in the copy you showed me right now. So,
6 but I believe because the names were the same in the beginning, in the
7 middle and at the end of the list, I believe that these are complete
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Could you tell us what was the primary source of that and
11 information that you used for your research and project?
12 A. We used several sources. The primary, the most important source
13 was the Household Survey, Sarajevo 1994, which is a survey conducted by a
14 group of academics in mid-1994, in Sarajevo. Actually, it was during the
15 conflict and the situation was certainly not normal at that time in
16 Sarajevo. But despite all difficulties, this group prepared a very large
17 survey and conducted the survey, ultimately, 1994, and complete a huge
18 quantity of information that could be used for a report like this one that
19 we are presenting today to this Court.
20 Q. What was the area of the survey or covered by the survey?
21 A. The survey -- perhaps, I will begin by saying that the survey was
22 prepared by, I say it, academic professor, affiliated at the Sarajevo
23 University. They actually spent several months on developing a survey
24 questionnaire and preparing all procedures necessary to conduct such a
25 huge survey. It was meant to be -- it is like a census population, census
1 like a complete survey in which they would collect information from every
2 household living at that time in the free territory of Sarajevo. By the
3 "free territory" they understand the area within the confrontation lines,
4 within the front lines as was set up by mid-1994.
5 The survey was discussed with statistical authorities who were
6 still active in Sarajevo to a certain extent at that time. And finally
7 was conducted by help, with help of local communities in Sarajevo. As I
8 said, it was, the survey was meant a complete population survey. Every
9 household planned to be reached by the survey interviewers.
10 I know from the director of the research institute who prepared
11 the survey questionnaire and later took the responsibility of the survey,
12 Professor Cekic, that they distributed 120.000 questionnaires, knowing
13 that every questionnaire was meant for one household, this gives us a huge
14 population of more than 300.000 individuals who actually were living in
15 Sarajevo at that time and who were planned and finally largely were asked
16 questions from the survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted with
17 help of local communities, I said, from Sarajevo, from areas within the
18 confrontation lines. Local communities are small administrative areas.
19 We included a list of local communities that were participated, they
20 participated in the survey, in end of our report. This is annex number 1,
21 I believe.
22 In annex 1, page 52, there is a list of local communities that
23 were covered by the survey and these local communities, the staff working
24 in this local communities actively engaged as survey interviewers, in
25 collecting the information from the households. On the list, we see 89
1 local communities. This is, at the same time, this list must be seen as a
2 survey area, as the area within the front lines, the free territory of
3 Sarajevo. This is the expression used by the authors of the survey, not
4 mine, the expression. This is the territory which was accessible to the
5 survey interviewers, where they could reach the households, people living
6 in the town, in the city.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Now, you spoke of the institute --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel.
10 MR. STAMP: I beg your pardon.
11 Q. In respect to the institute which conducted this survey, were they
12 directors of that institute of one ethnicity or one the academic directors
13 of mixed or different ethnicities?
14 A. Well, I know that there was a scientific board responsible for the
15 substance and all also technical organisational aspects of the survey.
16 This board consisted of a number of academics, a number of professors who
17 at the same time, some of them were engaged in some other activities. The
18 ethnicity of this group who was mixed, so there were Muslims, Serbs, and
19 one Serb, actually, as far as I remember, and some Croats in the board.
20 And I believe that the authors of the survey made a lot of efforts to
21 ensure that there wouldn't be any bias related to the ethnic composition
22 of the population covered by this survey. They made a lot of effort to
23 reach also minority groups. We know that the Muslim population was the
24 minority group in Sarajevo, before the war, and most likely during the
25 war. But it was one of important aspects of this survey to reach every
1 ethnic group, not only the Muslims living in Sarajevo.
2 Q. You attached a copy of the questionnaire used in the survey in
3 annex 2. Could you comment on the quality, in terms of statistical
4 science of the questionnaire which was used?
5 A. The questionnaire is attached here in two versions, one is the
6 original B/C/S version. It is attached in annex 2, page number 56 and 57.
7 This is the B/C/S version. And next we attached also the translation of
8 the questionnaire, pages 58, 59. From these two pages, I will be, of
9 course, focussing on the English version of the questionnaire, on the
10 translated version. I said that the survey was meant as a population
11 census, but the questionnaire cannot be seen as the one that is usually
12 used in population census. The question in census are much more complex,
13 longer. There are many items that are related with each other.
14 This is a short and simple questionnaire. We have questions
15 related to personal details of the person who is being questioned here:
16 Name of the person, address, some questions about moving, whether the
17 person moved during the conflict period or not. We have questions related
18 to demographic events, important demographic events related to the
19 conflict. We have question related to the killed persons, wounded persons
20 to persons who actually were detained during the conflict, invalids and
21 handicapped because of the conflict, live birth, still birth, some
22 information about housing, type of housing, conditions in the house. And
23 finally, last question related to a completely different issue, to victims
24 or persons who suffered during the Second World War unrelated to this
25 conflict we are discussing in our report.
1 The questionnaire is short as compared with questionnaires used in
2 censuses. It is simple. Questions are formulated very obviously.
3 Especially I know from colleagues with whom I worked in the B/C/S version.
4 So there is -- it was not difficult, I believe, to understand the
6 In addition to the questionnaire, every household received an
7 explanation of the questions. So from the explanations, they could see,
8 they could learn even more about the intentions of the authors of the
9 survey, what type of information was to be collected and all related
10 details were addressed in this additional document.
11 Q. Now, would you say that a survey of this -- sorry -- a
12 questionnaire of this type - notwithstanding that it is not of the same
13 length as one that would normally be used in a population census - would
14 it be adequate or inadequate for the purposes of the project to study
15 casualties during the period 1992 to 1994?
16 A. Generally, it is very good that the questionnaire is rather
17 short. Respondents are more likely to respond properly to short
18 questionnaires and simple questions than to questionnaires which are
19 complex and long. So I think for this type of survey and this type of
20 material that we used in our demographic report, it is actually very good
21 that it is a short and relatively simple questionnaire.
22 Q. Could you give us a brief overview of the work done to sort the
23 results of this survey into it a database for your scientific project?
24 A. We -- as I said earlier, the authors of the survey distributed
25 120.000 questionnaires. They collected back approximately 85.000
1 questionnaires. So that is a certain degree of nonresponse, which is
2 normal in every survey. This degree, about 30 per cent, is relatively
3 low, if you think of the period, the situation in Sarajevo, but generally
4 in every survey of this type, not regular census, but just a survey, this
5 type of nonresponse, it is fairly acceptable.
6 We, of course, did not computerise all material, available
7 material, because it is a huge quantity of questionnaires, 85.000. We
8 selected a number of questionnaires from the original material. Only
9 those questionnaires were events like killing, wounding, and some personal
10 information about the respondents were selected and computerized. We
11 ended with a database in which we had approximately 40.000 records. And
12 these records were records of killed and wounded persons, altogether,
13 these are complete material, survey material. It is not what is -- all
14 these records, the 40.000 are not necessarily are relevant to the
15 indictment period and indictment area. But in the first step, we selected
16 a number of questionnaires, all events reported, killing and wounding, and
17 computerised everything. Then starting from there, we cleaned the
18 information. We excluded records that were incomplete or wrong, unrelated
19 to the indictment period, indictment area. And in that, with a database
20 which is discussed here in this report and this database includes less
21 records, of course.
22 Q. Approximately how many --
23 A. How many records in the database --
24 Q. I was about to withdraw that question. But you can go on.
25 Approximately how many records are used in the final database?
1 A. If you could please refer to the report to page 4, executive
2 summary, to table 2. If someone could --
3 MR. STAMP: Could you assist her with the ELMO.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please assist Ms. Tabeau.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I am referring to table 2. I said in
6 the beginning we had 40.000 records. What I mean by one record is
7 information, record of information about one person. This is a person
8 that was either killed or wounded. In this database we have only persons
9 who experienced these two types of events. In the beginning we had
10 40.000, approximately. It was more than that. We, after eliminating
11 duplicates from this database, we ended with 37.057 records, which then we
12 checked from the point of view of the period and area when they occurred.
13 In this study, we used 20.151 records. Here, in this column, we see an
14 overview of how many wounded persons, how many killed persons, and how
15 many natural deaths are included in this database. These records are all
16 related to the period from 10 September, 1992 to 10 August, 1994 in the
17 area, the cover is the area within the confrontation lines, front lines,
18 in Sarajevo as seen by mid-1994.
19 So for the wounded persons we see 12.919 records; killed persons
20 3.798; and in addition to all these extraordinary deaths, we see a number
21 of natural deaths which is 3.433 records.
22 MR. STAMP: 3.400 and how many records.
23 A. 33 records. That is what I said. I said we only collected --
24 Q. Before you go on, can you confirm that number. 3.400 and?
25 A. 33 records. 34, I am sorry. I am seeing 34 and saying 32 -- 33,
2 Q. You were going on, now, please.
3 A. I am very sorry. Yes.
4 Right. I was explaining that I said we included only records of
5 killed and wounded persons, but we also apparently included records of
6 those who died naturally and we did it on purpose. Cause of death is an
7 important indicator which allow -- which helps, makes it possible for us
8 to distinguish between violent deaths or conflict-related deaths and
9 natural deaths. So without having natural deaths in our database, we
10 wouldn't be able to estimate the number of killed persons. So we didn't
11 study natural deaths as such, but we included these records in order to be
12 able to distinguish between conflicts-related, violent deaths and natural
14 Q. Thank you. Now, in your report you speak of linking. Can I ask
15 you to explain how one could confirm the accuracy or reliability of these
16 records of the database by linking or otherwise?
17 A. We did speak about linking or in other words, matching records
18 with each other, records from different sources. What does this mean?
19 Linking or matching is generally looking for information about one, the
20 name persons, and the person is reported -- why the person is reported in
21 different sources of information. Next to the Household Survey Sarajevo
22 1994, we used several other sources of information. About killed persons,
23 for instance, we used the business records of the Bakija Funeral Home.
24 This is the same type of information, deaths. We also used a source
25 called Mortality Database, established by the Muslims Against Genocide, an
1 organisation operating in Sarajevo. Again, this is the same type of
2 source, information about killed persons is reported in this source. We
3 also used other sources about surviving population. We used population
4 census 1991, population census. We also used a list of others, just to
5 confirm whether a person survived or indeed died during the conflict.
6 By linking, we mean matching or linking information about the same
7 persons from one source reporting deaths, with the population census.
8 These are the two different sources, population census on one hand, a
9 source like Sarajevo Household Survey on the other hand. Linking is
10 important in this case, because population census is a complete population
11 survey. Every person who lived at the time of survey in Sarajevo is
12 reported in that census. So if you -- if we are able to find a given
13 person, reported as death, for instance, killed or naturally died, in
14 household, Sarajevo Household Survey, if we are able to find this person
15 in the population census, we can be sure that this is a real person, that
16 this person, indeed, lived in Sarajevo before the conflict started, and
17 this way we can just confirm the identity of that person.
18 So matching plays a very important role. It is just a
19 confirmation of identity and actually, also a way we can show to what
20 extent the source we use in analysis, in our analsis is reliable. So this
21 is why linking is a very important part of our analysis.
22 Q. Having done the linking or as you call it matching, with these
23 various sources, did you come to a conclusions to reliability of the
24 results of the Household Survey, Sarajevo 1994?
25 A. We obtained matcing rate, approximately 81 per cent, which is
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 relatively high. On higher matching rates can be only obtained for
2 sources in which "maticni broj," personal identification number is
3 included. For instance, in the voters register such a number is included,
4 then the matching rate can be even higher than 80 per cent. It was not
5 the case with Sarajevo Household Survey. So obtaining the matching rate
6 higher than 80 percent, 81 per cent is actually very good. It is a good
7 indicator of the reliability of this source.
8 Q. Thank you. I would like to move on from there, but before I do,
9 may I quickly ask you to look on a document and comment on it.
10 MR. STAMP: Can the witness be shown Exhibit D27 and while you are
11 being shown -- while it is being brought to you, Madam --
12 Q. May I just --
13 MR. STAMP: I should advise that it an exhibit which is being
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, the document has not been filed under
16 seal, but bears an "R" number. So if there has - or are we talking about
17 a totally - no, no, I see that you have something totally different in
18 your hands as the Registry. Perhaps this is the right moment to have a
19 break for half an hour so that upon return, all the problems will be
20 solved. We will adjourn until a quarter past 4.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I take it that all the confusion about the
24 exhibits have been solved and I see now something similar in the hands of
25 the Registry, Registrar. Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
1 You may then proceed, Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: Before I do, should I indicate for the record, the
3 date and time it was received in evidence or would the exhibit number be
5 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps what is most important is that you indicate
6 short what document it is and that perhaps reminds once more to the --
7 MR. STAMP: This is a list of persons buried that was tendered
8 through the witness Fuad Sebajraktarevic filed on the 18th [Realtime
9 transcript read in error "10th"] of February 2002.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be put on the ELMO because perhaps not
11 everyone has it.
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, Mr. Stamp, which is the exhibit number?
13 MR. STAMP: D27. Thank you.
14 Q. Have you had a look at that document, Madam? Can you say what it
16 A. It is a list of names with, I believe, date of birth, date of
17 death, sex, status, civilian or other, and placed the last column here,
18 with the place of an event. So it looks like a list of names of, most
19 likely, dead people.
20 Q. Can you say where this list was taken from?
21 A. It looks very familiar to me, at least I recognise the names of
22 the variables in this printout. It is most likely a page from the Bakija
23 database, business records collected by the Bakija Funeral Home, I
24 believe. These are the same variables names, so on.
25 Q. Would the list on this page, as you see now, would it be in the
1 same order as it is in the Bakija database?
2 A. It is all about the order of records in the database. Records can
3 be sorted in very many different ways. There is also one variable
4 indicating the ordinal number of a record. In the database, this is the
5 first column, this one. Both here, "Re. Broj." These numbers here are
6 not ordinal, as you see. So this suggests that these records has been
7 sorted in a particular way and it is very easy to figure out in what way
8 in this particular case. Because the place, which is probably the place
9 of burial, given in the last column is all the same. It is Kobilja Glava.
10 Probably the selection was made by using this criterion, the same place of
11 burial, Kobilja Glava. This is a selection of records from the database.
12 Q. So if I understand you correctly, could you just tell me if I am
13 correct. One could sort on the basis of the last variable place?
14 A. Yes, yes, of course.
15 Q. And create this list from the database?
16 A. Yes, it is possible, yes.
17 Q. But having regard to the fact that these numbers are not ordinal
18 or they are not consecutive --
19 A. Because they are selected, they have been selected. So only a
20 certain records have been selected. This is why. This is the reason for
21 these variable not having subsequent numbers.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, may I ask you, you said that the documents
24 was filed on the 10th of February or --
25 MR. STAMP: Submitted in evidence on the 18th of February.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the 18th it says. On the transcript it says
2 the 10th, when we had no court session so I had some difficulties in
3 finding it. Thank you.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. Now you referred to a variety of sources, which you collected data
6 from for your studies. Are there sources, all of them exhaustive and if
7 they are not, are they large enough to support a study of the nature of
8 the one you conducted?
9 A. Well, the sources about killed or wounded person are never
10 exhaustive because this is a very special event, being killed or wounded,
11 and the event occurs always in a conflict situation, not under peace. It
12 would be very unusual to possess complete information, complete sources,
13 about these types of events. So, the sources that we used for this report
14 are all incomplete, but one of them, Household Survey, 1994 is very very
15 large. It was meant to be complete, that it is not complete is because of
16 the special circumstances that actually were there at that time.
17 But the number of distributed questionnaires, collected back
18 85.000 questionnaires, gives us a total population of we estimate 340.000
19 individuals, which is a very large population. And we remember that this
20 population which is about 70-75 per cent of the prewar population of the
21 whole Sarajevo, in terms of six complete municipalities. So this is the
22 area we are speaking about is not six complete municipalities, only part
23 of the six municipalities. So this gives us a very large population in
24 this area. Close to being complete, in my view. So the completeness, I
25 would say, of the major source used for this report is rather high.
1 Q. When you say "only part of the six municipalities in Sarajevo,"
2 which part are you referring to?
3 A. I am referring to the part within the front lines, which was the
4 survey area, and we know that this area consisted of six municipalities,
5 but not entire municipalities, only parts of each of the six
6 municipalities below to the area that we call "within front lines area."
7 Q. Thank you.
8 Now, the Household Survey, Sarajevo 1994, was conducted on the
9 basis of the use of questionnaires. And I take it that there may be a
10 possibility of double reporting of events which you described as woundings
11 or killings, for the purpose of this survey. Could you briefly describe
12 to us what procedures yourself and your team adopted in order to remove
13 duplicates, if any?
14 A. Duplicates are always present in this type of sources. Why?
15 Because the reporting is different than is usually done in normal times.
16 We collect information about demographic events, in vital statistic
17 system, normally, we say. The population has the obligation to report
18 vital events like death or birth, to vital events office. These events
19 are then registered officially, and this information is later used to
20 compile aggregate statistics, numbers of births, deaths, marriages,
21 divorces. We deal here with a survey in which respondents were just asked
22 by interviewers to report certain events. They didn't have the obligation
23 to prove that these events indeed occurred by showing, for instance, death
24 certificate to the interviewers or a different document, legal official
1 Q. May I just ask you to slow down a little bit for the record.
2 A. I am sorry.
3 So when respondents are asked, the report events the way they
4 remembered them. Moreover, certain households can repeat certain
5 information about the same events and why? Because respondents sometimes
6 don't understand what is the difference between a household and a family.
7 Household sometimes is a different thing than a family. People tend to
8 remember deaths in their family, than deaths in their household.
9 Household is just a small unit that lives together and shares house and
10 food. And families are -- can live in different places and not necessary
11 share the house and the food with each other.
12 So, certain events like death, which is a very important event in
13 people's life, can be reported by different people and in this way, the
14 same information about the same event is reported in a database twice or
15 even more times. We always check for duplicates, we correct, we eliminate
16 duplicates from our databases. We do this using information about
17 persons. In section 3.3 of our report, I refer to page -- I am referring
18 to page 13, 13, of the report, section 3.3 is titled "Duplicate Removal."
19 We described in this section what has been done to eliminate duplicates.
20 In brief, we compare records within the database use a number of criteria.
21 Here in the last paragraph at the bottom of this page, the criteria or
22 items say from the database are listed. We compare first name, last name,
23 initial of father's name and year of birth. This is first -- very first
24 step. A number of records had been removed once we applied this
25 criterion, more specifically, we removed 2.798 records from the database.
1 After having compared all records from point of view of the criteria, of
2 the items I have mentioned.
3 In the second step, we actually used similar items in our
4 comparison, in our check for duplicates, last name and year of birth, but
5 only three first letters of a first name. This is because of possible
6 spelling mistakes in the names. To find as many duplicates as possible,
7 we just restricted our search only to the first three letters of the first
8 name. And here we had found 338 records that had been removed from the
10 We continued our set for duplicates in the matching process. And
11 during the matching process we had found another 15 duplicates that had
12 been removed from the database. All these checks discussed in these
13 sections must be seen as automatic procedures that can be applied by
14 running certain programs through the database. In addition to this
15 automatic checks, we searched for duplicates manually, and this is
16 described to the addendum to the demographic report, where the checks were
17 based on even more fussy criteria, like a certain percentage of
18 contractors to be identified in compared records.
19 Q. More what type of criteria?
20 A. Fussy criteria. It is that only we specified a percentage, more
21 specifically 75 per cent of characters in the name had to be identical in
22 the records in order to list them as possible duplicates. This type of
23 criterion implies that later, once we have a list made, we must go through
24 the duplicates, probable duplicates and compare every two records with
25 each other to see whether these are indeed duplicates or not at all. This
1 again because of the spelling mistakes.
2 Q. Now, you indicated that there were two lists of duplicates, of
3 possible duplicates from the final procedure adopted to find duplicates.
4 Well, I think the title speaks for itself. These were the lists that were
5 created from that final process of searching for duplicates?
6 A. The list attached with the other.
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Yes. These are the lists of possible duplicates, but we actually
9 are unable ourselves to indicate whether we deal with duplicates or
10 different persons. It is that we would need more information about
11 persons in order to be 100 per cent sure that the persons indicated,
12 listed in the addendum are the same persons. So only on the basis of
13 first names, father's name, last name, and the date of birth and the date
14 of event, it is sometimes very difficult to say whether the event, death
15 or wounding, occurred to the same person or to two different persons.
16 We tried to indicate a number of duplicates that we thought were
17 100 per cent duplicates. And I -- we discussed these numbers in the
18 addendum in section 2 -- in section 2, generally searching results
19 separately discussed for killed persons and wounded persons. We commented
20 the results of these additional check for duplicates. In section 3.3, we
21 concluded that we ended with an estimate of 77 to 188 additional
22 duplicates on the Sarajevo killed list, which means that there is no more
23 than 5 per cent duplicates left still in the list. And for the wounded
24 person, the percentage was only 1 per cent, even less than four killed
25 persons. So, this fraction of possible duplicates still present in the
1 lists that we are touched with the major, with the report. This low per
2 cent, in my view, low per cent of possible duplicates, means that the
3 results that we discussed in the report wouldn't change significantly,
4 once these additional duplicates would be excluded from the analysis.
5 So, if someone would like to redo the analysis, but first of all,
6 exclude the possible duplicates, the results would largely remain the same
7 as we discussed -- as they are now in the report.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 Now, could you tell us what were the most important results or
10 findings that you made in respect of casualties within the siege lines of
11 Sarajevo during the indictment period?
12 A. I would like then to refer to the report itself, to the executive
13 summary --
14 Q. And please go a little bit more slowly.
15 A. I am sorry, I will try.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. Section 1, executive summary, table 1. On page 3. In this table
18 we show the major finding of our study. We show the findings for the
19 killed and wounded persons, separately. We show statistics that are
20 related to all casualties. This is the first part of the table, the part
21 on page 3. And on page 4, we include an additional small table, in which
22 we show statistics related to a civilian casualties only. So it is just a
23 continuation. The part on page 4, is a continuation of table 1 from
24 page 3.
25 What is really essential in this table, I am not going to discuss
1 every single number in this table, I would like to summarise the major
2 findings, really the most important findings only. We obtained for
3 killed, 3.798 killed persons. This number are all casualties, civilians
4 and soldiers. If we speak about civilians, then on page 4, we see the
5 total number of civilians are killed during the indictment period, in the
6 area within the front lines. We see the number 1.399. We then see that
7 there were 670 women among those killed. I am speaking now about all
8 killed. Civilians and soldiers. 670 women. And then 295 children at age
9 from birth until age 17. I am still on page 3, first part of the table.
10 I am looking at age now. At age interval 0 to 17 years, we see
11 the number of 295 children. And we also see here 85 elderly persons, at
12 age 70 or more years. So which gives quite a high number of casualties
13 that are the most vulnerable groups, say, in the society. The same
14 numbers for civilians are women 617, 617. I am now on page 4. The
15 addition of the continuation of table 1 on this page. 617 women. If we
16 still remember the number 670, all women killed, and now we are seeing 617
17 civilians. So this mean simply almost all women killed were just
19 If we move now to the age groups and look at age 0 to 17 years, we
20 see the number 267 children. 267. It used to be -- it is 295 for all
21 children killed and 267 children civilians. It is sometimes the case that
22 a child age 17 is reported as a soldier. I will explain later how it is
23 possible that children, also children at that young age can -- were
24 reported in different places as soldiers. If we look at age 70 plus, we
25 see that there were 83 elderly persons, civilians killed during the siege.
1 Next information, important information included in table 1 is the
2 year of event. We see events grouped by calendar year. We have totals
3 reported for 1992, 1993, and 1994. 1992 is actually not a full year.
4 1994 is not a full year either. 1994 is only represented by four months.
5 It is September -- starting September. And 1994 --
6 Q. I beg your pardon, which number is represented by four months
7 starting -- which year?
8 A. 1992, Four months: September, October, November and December.
9 1993 is a full year, all 12 months, and 1994 is the period from January to
10 August. Again, it is not a complete year. So if we recalculate the
11 numbers reported in table 1 and show the numbers as daily numbers or
12 monthly numbers, for 1993, we obtain 11 casualties were day. This figure
13 can be found in our report on page -- on page 27 in table 5. Page 27,
14 table 5, in the second part of this table, daily numbers of casualties, we
15 see for 1992 the figure 10.48 which is approximately 11 casualties per
17 For 1993, we see 5.71 casualties, approximately six per day. And
18 for 1994, two casualties 2.09, it is approximately two casualties per day.
19 Q. And you observe that it is noted below there that in 1994, June is
20 the last month included?
21 A. Yes. June is the last month included because in July and August,
22 the reporting was very much incomplete. Most of the questionnaires were
23 collected in the month of May and June, so it doesn't really make sense to
24 include July and August while -- for calculating this type of means,
25 average values for statistics like that.
1 So the same pattern actually is seen in the same table 5, page 27
2 for civilians. Most deaths daily are observed in 1992, almost four per
3 day, and 1993 is the second year, two per day, 1994, was the last, one
4 person per day.
5 We also were able to present information about causes of death.
6 In table 1, page 3, we show - and page 4 for civilians - we show cause of
7 death. For -- I should explain the classifications of "causes of death"
8 used in this report. Normally, in normal times, there is an international
9 classification of causes of death of disease, causes of death, used in
10 compilation of these type of statistics. This, of course, this
11 classification, international classification of causes of death cannot be
12 used in surveys like the Sarajevo household survey. Why? Because
13 respondents who report causes of death, report causes death actually are
14 very uncommon in normal times, and there is no codes for killing as such,
15 conflict-related killing in the international classification, of causes of
16 death. There are certain codes for violent deaths, but in no way normal
17 people respondents participating in this survey are able to report proper
18 cause. They just reported cause of death the way they saw it. So what
19 they saw was, for instance, sniping or shelling or being killed by bullet
20 from a gun. Or being killed in execution or they saw someone who died
21 after being tortured. So this were the causes of death reported in the
23 There were also other causes, causes that are reported in normal
24 times like accidents, different types of accidents, including traffic
25 accidents, for instance. We tried to not to change the causes reported by
1 the respondents. We tried to stick, as much as possible, to their
2 reporting, especially regarding different types of firearms. Whenever
3 shelling was reported explicitly as cause of death we kept this as a cause
4 of death. Whenever sniping, again, we kept it as a cause of death. There
5 were certain causes which were reported more specifically, someone --
6 there was a shooting and someone was killed in shooting. So in this case,
7 of course, it is impossible to assign a cause of death like sniping or
8 shelling. We actually invented a general category, other types of
9 firearms, that was used in situations like this one.
10 Q. Did you come to any ratio in respect to the civilian casualties
11 and the soldiers during the period?
12 A. Yes. We estimated that one civilian, but perhaps I would like to
13 finish the causes of death first because I didn't mention the major
15 Q. Very well.
16 A. In table 1, we reported major causes of killing --
17 Q. Please slow, slowly if you can.
18 A. Yes. In table 1 we report three major causes of killing. On page
19 3, 4, all casualties and on page 4, for civilians only. For all
20 casualties, it is shelling, sniping and other firearms that were the three
21 most important causes of death. We see the number of casualties who died
22 because of shelling. This is 2.160. And altogether it is about 49 per
23 cent of all those who were killed in this period. The 49 per cent is not
24 discussed -- not shown in this table, but it is shown in the annex of this
25 report, and more specific tables in which - and figures - in which we show
1 these fractions. Sniping was the cause of death for 699 casualties and
2 other firearms for 529. So it is sniping, 16 per cent of all casualties
3 and firearms, 12 per cent.
4 For civilians, the three most important, most significant causes
5 of death.
6 Q. What percentage of --
7 A. The percentage for sniping was 16 per cent and for other firearms
8 12 per cent, approximately.
9 Q. I am having a look at the cause of event at table 1 at page 3.
10 A. Oh, it is indeed I mentioned different percentages. I am sorry.
11 Q. Could you put that table on the ELMO, please.
12 A. Yes, I have made a mistake. I was reading wrong numbers. So it
13 is -- yes. It is this percentages that I was -- I should have referred
14 to. I am very sorry. It would be for shelling 56.87. For sniping 18.40.
15 Other firearms 13.93.
16 Q. And that is in respect to the overall casualties?
17 A. Yes, yes, yes.
18 Q. And you have the percentages in table 1 at page 4 --
19 A. For civilians.
20 Q. -- For civilian casualties?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. At 66.62 for shelling and 18.08 for sniping?
23 A. Yes, that is correct, other firearms 7.22.
24 Q. Would you or would you not say that the proportions of persons
25 killed by shelling and sniping overall is quite similar to the proportions
1 of civilians killed by sniping and shelling?
2 A. Well, it is for civilians, the fractions are at least for
3 shelling, I see is 60 -- almost 70 per cent while for all casualties it is
4 57 per cent so it is a much higher fraction for civilians than for all
5 casualties jointly for shelling. The second fraction is similar, the
6 difference is minimal. The next one is other firearms higher for all
7 casualties. But the first one, shelling, is significantly higher for the
8 killed persons, civilians.
9 Q. You had or I had asked if you had come to any conclusions in
10 respect to the ratios of civilians killed and soldiers killed?
11 A. We estimated --
12 Q. And wounded.
13 A. Yes. The ratio of killed civilians compared to killed soldiers
14 was 1 to 1.7. We discussed this ratio specifically on page 27 for killed
15 persons. This is table 5. The ratio 1 to 1.7 is just an overall number.
16 In table 5, we show ratios for monthly and daily casualties in every year
17 of the indictment period for 1992, 1993, and 1994, separately. So the
18 ratio is highest for 1992 in this table and for monthly numbers, it is 1
19 to 1.84 and for daily numbers, it is 1 to approximately the same 1.83.
20 Q. Now, --
21 A. For wounded -- well, I actually didn't have the opportunity yet to
22 say anything about wounded persons. The patterns for wounded persons are
23 similar as those that I have discussed for killed persons. The numbers,
24 absolute numbers are --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No problem with the French
2 booth, but, Ms. Pilipovic tells me that the Serbian booth is having
3 trouble, and she is having trouble following it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I was already listening to the French booth who seems
5 to be able to follow you, which is a bit surprising. But the B/C/S booth
6 seems to have difficulties. May I again ask you to slow down.
7 THE WITNESS: I am very sorry. We are speaking about ratios of
8 between killed civilians and killed soldiers. I mentioned one ratio,
9 which was 1 to 1.7. Perhaps it is also helpful to refer to table 5 to see
10 exactly what I mean by a ratio of 1 to 1.7 or 1.8. Here we have figures
11 that show us the ratio calculated using the monthly numbers, monthly
12 number of casualties, and these ratios are shown here by year, 1992, 1993,
13 and 1994. So for 1992, we have one civilian killed per every 1.84
14 soldiers. For 1993, we have one civilian killed per every 1.77 soldiers
15 and for 1994, we have one civilian killed per every 1.24 soldiers. The
16 results obtained on the basis of daily numbers of casualties are very
17 similar. These are the results.
18 I don't think we -- oh, yes, we discussed the ratio.
19 MR. STAMP:
20 Q. In respect to the wounded persons --
21 A. Wounded persons. It is now page 31 that I will be referring to,
22 table 7. This table is exactly the same as the one for killed persons.
23 The ratios are given in the last column. Again, monthly and daily number
24 of casualties for every year, 1992, 1993, and 1994. And so we see that
25 the ratios, although the numbers, monthly and daily, are much higher for
1 the wounded persons than the numbers we saw for the killed persons. The
2 ratios actually are similar. So for 1992, we see the highest ratio. 1
3 civilian per every 1.85 soldier and slower ratio for 1993 and the lowest
4 for 1994.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 If I may take you back to table 1 at page 3 of the executive
7 summary. In the middle of the page, you report the findings in respect to
8 overall killed and wounded as a result of the -- or a reported in HSS94.
9 And immediately below that you give a finding on the basis of an external
10 definition in which the numbers of civilians are slightly higher and the
11 numbers of soldiers are slightly lower. Could you explain briefly, if you
12 can, the methodology behind that procedure.
13 A. First set of figures, stated as reported in the HSS94, I am
14 speaking now about this figure shown here -- I am sorry. This set of
15 figures was obtained exclusively on the basis of responses from the
16 survey. In the questions, I think 5 and 6 as far as I remember, 5 was the
17 question in which killed persons were reported, and 6, wounded persons,
18 there was an item -- a subsection related to the status of the person who
19 was killed or wounded. The respondents had to report one of two
20 categories, whether the person was a civilian or the person was a soldier.
21 It was also possible that they indicated that they didn't know the
22 status. This definition is used here as reported in HSS94.
23 The respondents didn't have to prove to their interviewers the
24 status of the killed and wounded persons. No documents were required,
25 just self-reporting, status as seen by the respondents. We were in a
1 situation that was, from our point of view, much better from the
2 statistical, say, point of view, was much more reliable. We had at our
3 disposal lists of fallen soldiers for -- from the ministries of defence in
4 the Federation on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. These lists
5 were complete. We have 28.000 approximately, names on the list from the
6 Federation and approximately 14.000 names of fallen soldiers from
7 Republika Srpska.
8 The coverage of this list is the whole country, in both cases, the
9 whole Bosnia-Herzegovina. By linking these lists with other sources with
10 the census that we used in our project, we were able to compare those
11 reported as soldiers, killed soldiers, fallen soldiers in the Sarajevo
12 household survey and how they were reported on this official list. And
13 this is what is meant here as external definition. For all these persons
14 who had been linked, who have been linked the population census, we could
15 check how were they reported and whether they were reported on the list of
16 fallen soldiers.
17 If a person was reported as a fallen soldier, we assigned the
18 status soldier to this person. If the person was not reported as a fallen
19 soldier, we assigned the state of civilian to this person. For the 20 per
20 cent of those who were unlinked, approximately 20 per cent of the HSS
21 population. Unlinked, we just kept the original responses from the
22 survey. This resulted in new numbers of killed civilians and soldiers.
23 We see that the number of civilians is higher and number of soldiers here
24 is lower, compared with the previous definition. The differences are
25 approximately 300, a little more than 300. We can check the differences
1 specifically, I think in that report. Yes. It is on page 27, the second
2 paragraph on top of the page, last sentence is reporting that the number
3 of killed civilians is higher than previously by 333 and number of killed
4 soldiers lower than previously by 319 persons. So the difference is
5 between actually -- if we would only have two categories, civilians and
6 soldiers, the difference would be exactly the same compared the previous
7 numbers. But we also had a number of persons reported as unknown status
8 by the respondents, and we were able to link these persons with the census
9 we could add them by using external definition of status.
10 So we ended with these two numbers, 333 and 319.
11 Q. So tell me if I am correct, the 20 per cent where the status was
12 unknown in HSS94, you linked that with the list of fallen soldiers
13 produced by the government to come to the external definition?
14 A. Once again, I will say we linked 80 per cent of the respondents
15 HSS94, Sarajevo household survey 80 per cent with the census. For those
16 80 per cent, we could compare whether they were reported on the lists of
17 fallen soldiers.
18 Q. I see.
19 A. So. If they were reported as fallen soldiers, only for those
20 reported as fallen soldiers, on the official lists, we applied this
21 category "soldier." For the rest we just assumed they were civilians,
22 because they were not included in the official list of fallen soldiers.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. This is what we have done and this is the external definition.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask a question, Mr. Stamp, so that I
2 perhaps do understand you better. If the official list which shows
3 someone as a soldier that died, and when the household survey -- no, let
4 me put it the other way.
5 If the official list would not show someone as a soldier that
6 died, and if in the household survey it would be indicated that that same
7 person died as a soldier, would that mean that you would qualify him not
8 as a soldier?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is correct. We would qualify this person
10 as a civilian because that person was not reported officially as a fallen
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But whether he, in fact was a combatant or no?
13 THE WITNESS: This is a different story. We, in our report, don't
14 use the term "combatant." We use the term "soldier" because we know how to
15 understand this term.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: We don't know how to understand the term
18 "combatant." In fact, in the survey, soldiers, the status of soldiers was
19 reported. So we know that there were soldiers and civilians and it was
20 the same of the official lists of fallen soldiers that were provided to us
21 by the ministries of defence. Whether they died in combat as combatants
22 is a different question. We don't have information to answer this
24 JUDGE ORIE: Did you have any specific information about the
25 reliability of the registers of the defence, for the military authorities,
1 as to who belonged to their armed forces?
2 THE WITNESS: I believe that these documents are very reliable,
3 the ones provided to us by the ministry of defence by both parties. Why?
4 Because these were lists that were also used to provide families with
5 post-mortem benefits, at least this is what we know from the authorities,
6 from our meetings with the authorities there. So this list had to be
7 reliable, I believe.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your additional information.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. In section 7 of the report, you proceeded to estimate overall
11 numbers of casualties. Can you briefly, if you can, explain, why was it
12 necessary to proceed in that way?
13 A. The numbers discussed in the report in sections 1 through 6, were
14 just aggregate statistics obtained from one source, main source, Sarajevo
15 Household Survey. We, as I said, it is a large source, but it is
16 incomplete and the numbers that we presented in our report are also
17 incomplete. These numbers must be seen as minimum numbers, minimum means,
18 at least numbers, and the actual numbers are lightly higher than that.
19 Therefore, we decided in section 7 to present an estimate of the unknown
20 overall total and this total is shown in table 18 on page 47.
21 The method that we applied in this estimation is a standard method
22 that has been used in statistics for very many years. It originally was
23 used in estimating size of animal populations, populations that are
24 difficult to count. So it was necessary to develop a tool that could be
25 used for this type of situations. But it was many years ago since the
1 first time this method was used for the first time.
2 The method is described in details in the annex, annex number, I
3 believe, 5 or 6. It is annex 6 in which we can find all technical details
4 related to the method. In brief, the method is applied to, in this case,
5 two samples, two sources of information. One source is household survey,
6 1994. The second one is the Bakija Funeral Home database. In the method,
7 we analyse the overlap of the two sources and the nonoverlapping parts of
8 the two sources, and on the basis of the analysis of these parts of the
9 sources, we produce a number that gives us an impression of the unknown
10 overall total.
11 Q. And could you tell us what the unknown -- please -- I would prefer
12 if you would not refer to that other document. Could you use the report.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And refer to the unknown overall total?
15 A. The unknown overall total reported in table 18, estimation was
16 only done for killed persons. We didn't have sources to do the same for
17 wounded persons. The overall total is 4.352.
18 Q. Which page are you at, please?
19 A. 47, page 47, table 18. Once again, the estimate total is 4.352.
20 All the groups are included in the estimation. We also show the ethnic
21 composition of this overall total compared with the number, our number,
22 obtained from Sarajevo household survey, that was 3.798. The estimated
23 total is higher by 554 persons. And again this result must be seen as a
24 minimum difference, at least 554 persons were killed in this period, in
25 Sarajevo. And the reason that I am saying that this is a minimum number
1 is that we only use two sources, one is Sarajevo Household Survey, second
2 one is Bakija Funeral Home, but there are more sources and more records of
3 killed persons that we have not included in this analysis. There were
4 good reasons that we didn't do that.
5 But, once we would include more sources and analyse more sources,
6 the estimated overall total would be higher than what we presented here.
7 Q. Briefly, in respect to the date of event, death or wounding, can
8 you comment upon the accuracy of the results in HSS94?
9 A. The date was carefully checked, we checked carefully, every --
10 perhaps not literally every date of event -- but when we started to work
11 with this data, we made frequency distributions of every single variable
12 in the database including the date of death for killed persons, for
13 natural deaths, for wounded persons, date of wounding. And we looked
14 carefully at the dates that appeared in the frequency distributions. We
15 analysed dates that were outlined, that were irregular for some reason.
16 Whenever it was possible, we corrected these dates because there were
17 mistakes, evident obvious mistakes, entry mistakes, for instance.
18 So the date, if unknown, incomplete, was -- or incorrect, was
19 excluded from the database and the record was excluded from the analysis.
20 But I understand that your question is rather related to the way dates
21 were reported by the respondents? Yes. And it is, of course, difficult
22 for me to make an assessment to what extent the respondents reported dates
23 of events correctly. I believe that certain dates were reported slightly
24 differently. There were shifts, probably, in terms of days, few days.
25 Why? Because persons who reported these dates were relatives and people
1 usually don't recall every date very specifically.
2 So, there are perhaps differences between the reported dates and
3 actual dates of certain events but I wouldn't expect that the differences
4 are very large, like months or years difference. It would be very
5 unlikely if we were to see this type of situation. I also believe that
6 death is a very significant, very meaningful event in people's life. And
7 they remember these type of events very well, and rather specifically. So
8 I think that if there are differences, there certainly are certain
9 differences. I wouldn't expect these differences would be significant and
10 would change the numbers we presented in this reports. The timing perhaps
11 could be slightly different, especially daily timing of death or wounding.
12 But I don't think that the number, summary statistics that we discussed in
13 this report, especially overall numbers would change dramatically, if we
14 would correct the dates, somehow, in some way.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 If I may take you back to page 3 of the report. You were asked if
17 the official list would not show someone as a soldier that died and if in
18 the Household Survey it would be indicated that the same person died as a
19 soldier, would that mean that you would qualify him not as a soldier?
20 A. This is on page 3, you said of the --
21 Q. I beg your pardon. I was just putting the question you were
23 Q. If the official list would not show someone who was a soldier
24 that died and if in the household survey it would be indicated that the
25 same person died as a soldier, would that mean that you would qualify him
1 not as a soldier? To which you answered yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is that answer applicable to the 20 per cent which were not
4 match to the census?
5 A. It is not. The 20 per cent who were unmatched, are reported the
6 same way as they are in the survey. So this remains exactly the same as
7 in the survey. My answer only applies to the 80 per cent of those matched
8 with the census.
9 Q. And that would explain the difference in number between the HSS
10 results and the external definition?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 MR. STAMP: May I just have a moment.
14 Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours. That is the
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Stamp. Is the Defence ready to
17 cross-examine the expert witness?
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes indeed, Mr. President,
19 however, considering how difficult this task is and how long it will be,
20 we would like to ask for your leave, if we can do it as a shared task,
21 half by Ms. Pilipovic and half by myself.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Chamber usually allows you to do so, under
23 the conditions well known to the Defence.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
25 could start now? Thank you.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Madam Tabeau.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. Madam Tabeau, I am going to ask you some general questions to
5 start with. What is a sniper?
6 A. Well, I am not going to give you an answer, because I am not an
7 expert. I am here as demographer.
8 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you.
9 You marked in your report, each time you marked a sniper shot,
10 then killed -- there was other firearms or shelling. What allowed you,
11 since you used percentages, to distinguish between firearms, other
12 firearms and sniper fire?
13 A. I tried to explain in this court that we tried to not to change
14 the original responses obtained from the survey. So we just followed the
15 original material and only, if there were small differences in wording, we
16 actually recoded certain categories to obtain one the same name, shelling
17 or sniping --
18 Q. Madam Tabeau, I am sorry, I am going to interrupt you for quite a
19 full time. Madam Tabeau, would you agree with me to consider that no one
20 on your side checked if this was truly sniping or not?
21 A. No one checked because it was impossible to check. It is the
22 survey that is the source discussed in this report. And the responses are
23 those from the respondents. So we never even tried to check whether it
24 was -- what was a sniper, whether it was a sniping or a different cause.
25 Q. Madam Tabeau, thank you.
1 And if you can answer more slowly to start with, and briefly, but
2 before the break, let us consider that the precise data that you give us,
3 the figures that you give us, the sniping figures are random by necessity?
4 A. I don't think they are random by necessity. They are as reported,
5 as perceived by the respondents at that time, the time the survey was
7 Q. Madam Tabeau, if I define for you 100 cases of sniping and there
8 were, perhaps, only 5 or 6 of them, technically speaking, and that you did
9 not check that, would you still persist in saying that your figures are
10 not random in their result?
11 A. Well, I think that we are speaking about two different things.
12 Randomness is one thing and about the other thing is whether one is
13 allowed to change the original material. In my view, we are speaking
14 about the second problem. We have not tried, at least, did our utmost
15 best not to change the original survey material. And the figures in the
16 report are as reported in the survey. And it is not about randomness, how
17 respondents --
18 Q. Madam Tabeau, I must interrupt you. Could you please repeat the
19 question that I asked you, my own question that I asked you, could you do
21 A. I can read it from the screen.
22 Q. No. No, no.
23 A. [Previous translation continues]...100 cases. This was the
25 Q. Yes that was the question, without reading it, please.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is time for a perfect break
2 now is it --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
4 MR. STAMP: I was about to ask the court if they would not allow
5 the counsel to argue with the witness, just to ask questions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think that's a fair
7 observation. I have listened to the testimony of the witness until now.
8 I have listened to your questions and I think there was no reason
9 whatsoever to ask the witness to repeat your question, and I would insist
10 that the Defence asks questions and not enter us into a debate with the
11 expert witness. We will have a pause a bit later, so please continue.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Q. Madam, did I understand you correctly if you told me, according to
14 the either 61 per cent of sniping or 18 per cent of sniping, are you
15 telling me that they are correct, absolutely correct, although you did not
16 check, whether yes or no, this was truly sniping. Is that what you are
18 A. Well, I am saying that based on the survey we obtained certain
19 numbers of killed persons because of shelling, because of sniping. And
20 these numbers are reported in table 1 in executive summary and also
21 repeated in the text. This is all I am saying.
22 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.
23 But, Madam Tabeau, would you agree with me, to consider, yes or
24 no, that if the figures you were given, for instance for sniping are false
25 to start with, that obviously then can be concluded that your own
1 conclusions would then be affected by those false results that you were
3 A. Yes, it is correct. This is also the case with every survey.
4 Q. Yes. But I just wanted to hear you say it.
5 Madam Tabeau, I would now like to focus on an important matter.
6 In this survey which is your principal source, there are two categories.
7 There is a soldier on one side and then civilian on the other. We agree
8 on that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You stated somewhere in your report that whoever was bearing a
11 weapon would then be considered as a soldier. Do you remember that? Is
12 that what you said?
13 A. I don't recall how exactly I expressed my thought, but I was
14 speaking, at least my intention was, about common way of or perception of
15 a soldier at that time in Sarajevo. Well it is what I -- well, heard
16 sometimes in -- from people in Sarajevo, that soldiers were just those who
17 had guns and this is all I can --
18 Q. Very well. Very well, Madam.
19 Could you please remind me if you know, when did the war start in
21 A. Well, if you are going to obtain a historical testimony from me,
22 this is, again, incorrect, because I am not a historian.
23 Q. It is completely correct, Madam. Could you please -- I will tell
24 you later why. Could you please tell me, when did the war start in
25 Sarajevo? Could you please answer?
1 A. You can refer to the report presented, historical reported by a
2 historian, so I am not going to --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
4 ask for your assistance.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Am I right in saying that you say it is beyond my
6 expertise to answer to the question when the war started in Sarajevo?
7 THE WITNESS: Well, it is not a field of demography, this is not a
8 question for a demographer to answer this type of questions. This is why
9 I don't want to give any answer on that, but this doesn't mean I have no
10 idea. I mean, the war started in Sarajevo, but I think it is important
11 that historians will define such dates and not demographers.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, sometimes if you would have specific
13 knowledge on that, which is not hearsay, for example, since you happen to
14 be present at the first day of the war, then, of course it might be
15 something that you are an expert witness. That means that you are, I
16 would say, mainly answering questions as an experts. But if, by any
17 chance you would have some specific knowledge as a witness, which, of
18 course, can happen, then you should have to answer the question. So if
19 you have any specific knowledge as a witness, I would like you to answer
20 the question. If you say it is all hearsay and I am not in a position to
21 analyse what I heard, not being an historian you are not -- I do not urge
22 you to answer that question.
23 THE WITNESS: I can answer this question referring to the date
24 that we discussed in our report. And I believe there were incidents in
25 Sarajevo earlier in 1992 than from September 10, 10th of September. And
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 we observe killed persons in earlier months, say starting in April. So
2 this is what we see in the statistics from the survey. This is my answer.
3 If we would define the beginning of the war as the day when the first
4 person was killed, then I can answer this specifically by looking and
5 searching through my database, when the first report -- death report was
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 Q. Madam, could you please answer with a yes or no as much as
11 possible, did you take into considerations these events, that is, the
12 breakout of the war in your chronological tables?
13 A. I still don't understand your question.
14 Q. Very well. I will rephrase it.
15 Madam, did you take into consideration for your statistical
16 calculations, did you take the beginning of the breakout of hostilities in
17 Sarajevo, yes or no?
18 A. If we want to take a look at the earlier events, I must take a
19 different document out.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Ms. Tabeau, if you are using --
21 THE WITNESS: I don't remember, I don't remember when the first
22 death was reported. If you want me to give a very specific answer I have
23 to look for it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing that I would like to ask you, is that
25 if you consult any other sources, to tell us that you would have to
1 consult that source and then, of course we will either -- we will then
2 give a decision and it is clear for everyone then in this courtroom on
3 what basis you are giving your answer. Yes.
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the witness has testified that by consulting
5 some of the underlying data, that she would be able to tell you when,
6 according to the methods she used, the first casualties occurred. Do you
7 want her to consult these --
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. What I
9 would like, if that is possible, that the witness tells me, and I am
10 surprised that she doesn't know it, if she can tell me now, how much would
11 these facts, taking into consideration, that is, and Madam I will rephrase
12 my question.
13 Q. You gave two figures earlier and I marked them. This is 6.055
14 victims which is from the period from the 1st of January 1992, until the
15 30th -- let us say until September of 1994. And then you rectified this
16 by a second list of data, by starting with the 10th of September 1992 and
17 then you went until the 10th of August 1994, which is exactly the period
18 that we are interested in here, and which comprises 3.788 victims or
19 casualties. If my numbers and my figures are correct. Is that so, Madam?
20 A. Well the numbers are not fully correct. But you are referring to
21 table 2 and so you could have asked this question much more directly. I
22 indeed indicated, a number, a large number of deaths in the period from
23 January 1992 until the year 30th of September 1994. We can --
24 Q. Madam, very briefly, if my figures are incorrect, then I agree
25 that this is 3.798 and not 3.788, but as for other -- the other figures
1 that I quoted, 6.055, I believe that that is correct, that is one figure
2 that I remember?
3 A. Yes, this is correct. Yes.
4 Q. So, these two figures are correct. Thank you.
5 Now, I am going to come back to the first of these two figures,
6 6.055, which is a correct figure. This figure covers the entire period,
7 that is included the period of January, February, March until September of
8 1992. We agree on that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 Now, Madam, did you make a statistical distinction between the
12 months, January, February, March, and then months, April, May, June, Jul
13 within the framework of this study, yes or no?
14 A. The months, I mean, you mean 1992, February, March, April, May,
15 June, July, 1992, these are the months?
16 Q. Exactly and even January?
17 A. I didn't study these numbers because they were outside the
18 indictment period. So it is not a report about the casualties of the
19 siege as such --
20 Q. Madam Witness, I am going to have to stop you. You just told me
21 that the figure, 6.055 casualties or victims, is covering the period from
22 the January 1992, yes or no?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Very well.
25 So I am going to take this period from January 1992 until the end
1 of August 1992, yes or no, could you please tell me, did you make a
2 distinction between the first three first or even four first months and
3 the following four months, yes or no?
4 A. I didn't study these months from February until July in my report.
5 I showed, however, the total for the period from January 1992 until the
6 end of September 1994 in order to show how many records were excluded from
7 my report.
8 Q. Yes, Madam. Thank you. I understand.
9 Now, however, would you agree with me that if we consider that the
10 war which is the case broke out about May 1992, and if we also consider
11 there were fewer deaths in January, February, March, April, even early May
12 1992, compared to later when the hostilities started, would you agree with
13 me to consider that the ratio of victims, the ratio of victims was a lot
14 higher in the first -- the following three months rather than in the first
15 five months of the year, that is, in June, July, August, even July and
16 August 1992?
17 A. I didn't calculate the ratio for the first months. So I cannot
18 answer your question. I cannot compare because one part is missing, the
19 ratio for the month February, March, April and April -- and May, sorry.
20 Q. Madam, would you agree with me to consider that the difference
21 between the two periods that we are looking at, that interest us, that is,
22 the period covering and the period for the figure 6.055 and the figure
23 covered by the figure 3.798, and possibly some 2.007?
24 A. Something like that term.
25 Q. Are you saying yes?
1 A. I think so. It is --
2 Q. Thank you very much.
3 It is precisely 2.077. Now, would you agree with me, Madam, that
4 this figure corresponds to about more than one-third than all of the
5 victims that you have mentioned, that is the 2.0777 is equal to a little
6 more than one-third of the 6.055?
7 A. Yes it is.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if this would be a suitable
10 moment, or if you wanted two questions --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Two questions.
12 Q. Madam, would you agree with me to consider that the third of all
13 of the victims of this war happened in the period between the 1st of
14 January and September 1992? Since we are talking about this?
15 A. [No audible response]
16 Q. Thank you very much. Would you agree with me, this is my second
17 question before the break, because in this first period, January to
18 September 1992, only the months which followed the month of May, 1992,
19 were the months of war, it was these months, these few months that they
20 are the months which accounted for more than one-third of the victims that
21 you counted in Sarajevo during your work; yes or no?
22 A. Well, it is what you have proven already.
23 Q. Thank you very much.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Now the break can happen.
25 Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until 10 minutes past 6.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you may proceed.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Madam expert, very briefly, would you agree in thinking with me
7 that more people died during the war than people die in peacetimes, that
8 seems to be obvious?
9 A. Yes, of course. But I would also like to comment on table 2 that
10 we discussed just before the break because I believe that you -- your
11 understanding of figures in table 2 is not fully correct. So the
12 conclusion we have drawn about the data --
13 Q. I have to interrupt you, Madam, if you don't mind. The conclusion
14 I may draw is of no relevance. Figures are relevant and the figures will
15 come on the basis of my questions.
16 If your position was not right or that's important for you to
17 explain, but my own conclusion is of no relevance.
18 A. So may I proceed with my explanation?
19 Q. Please do.
20 A. Well, I would like to explain to everyone in this court that in
21 table 2, there are three types of figures presented. I am speaking about
22 table 2, page 4. Thank you.
23 We, first of all, present the general overall total. This is the
24 complete survey material, this is 7.057 records. Then, we, starting from
25 here, cleaned the data and carefully checked every single item by
1 completing frequency distributions and eliminated from this database all
2 records that were irrelevant to the period starting in January 1992 and
3 ending in September 1994. The events reported, which remained in the
4 database were still covering an area that is not the area within the
5 confrontation lines. So in the next step, starting from here, 32.703
6 records, we eliminated from this total all events that were reported for
7 the area that was different than the area within the confrontation lines.
8 And we ended, for the period from September 1992 until August 1994, in the
9 area within the confrontation lines, with this total and this number of
10 killed persons.
11 So the difference is not necessarily what you think that the
12 difference between these two numbers of killed persons, 6.055 and 3.798,
13 is related, first of all, to the period, but also to the area studied.
14 And why the area of killed persons was different than the area within
15 front lines. We should all keep in mind that Sarajevo, that there were
16 huge population movements in Sarajevo --
17 Q. Excuse me for interrupting.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness explains at this very moment why
19 one of the conclusions you have drawn in your question were not correct.
20 And I think, if you draw these conclusions and ask for confirmation, that
21 the witness could explain why they are not correct because we might have
22 drawn similar conclusions. On the other hand, Ms. Tabeau, it is, until
23 now you gave a clear explanation. If there is anything to be added,
24 please do so. On the other hand, the Defence is under some time
25 restraints, so in general, I would say, if they indicate that at a certain
1 aspect they are not seeking any further information, then you would please
2 follow the Defence. But, here, I think, if you want to finish or to
3 complete your explanation, please do so.
4 THE WITNESS: I was going to say that there were several thousands
5 of displaced persons in Sarajevo who moved into the town and escaped the
6 moment of the survey in the town. And these people reported killed in
7 their families and these killed persons, of course, were not killed within
8 confrontation lines, but in other areas.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well.
11 Witness, would you agree to say that the figures of 6.055 and
12 3.798 are right?
13 A. These figures are as obtained from the Sarajevo survey, so this is
14 statistics from the survey.
15 Q. Therefore, regardless of the population movements, you would agree
16 in saying that indeed a good third of the casualties intervened in the
17 period that is not covered by this trial, which is the period from January
18 to late August 1992. Is this right or not?
19 A. No, it is not. Because for the whole conflict, sir, we estimate
20 that the overall number of casualties more than 100.000. So this is
21 irrelevant, how many thousands of killed persons --
22 Q. I only talk about Sarajevo, Madam. And these are your figures.
23 Okay, if I am not able to count, but your figures tell me this. We are
24 not talking about hundreds of thousands of casualties. I am mentioning
25 your figures, Madam. Am I wrong in counting the way I did and if I made a
1 mistake, well, you have to prove it to me and if it is not the case, you
2 have to conclude that my conclusions are right. Are they right or not?
3 A. They are not right. They are wrong.
4 Q. Tell me.
5 A. The problem is that your interpretation of this table is wrong. I
6 showed in this table why the total we reported -- the total of killed
7 persons we report for the indictment period is 3.798. We obtained this
8 total by adjusting the survey statistics and excluding a huge number of
9 records to end with the proper number of killed persons. Your
10 interpretation is wrong because you take the excluded records as the
11 records relevant, somehow, to the siege of Sarajevo, which is wrong.
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Madam, I'm sorry. Madam, could you explain to
13 me the difference between the first column, that is, the column "All," and
14 the other one, the following one.
15 THE WITNESS: The first column is a complete survey material.
16 This is everything, everything that we obtained in our database after the
17 computerisation of the survey material had been finished. This is all,
18 entirely all what we had in the very beginning of our work. Starting from
19 here, we cleaned the data, and very thoroughly, every single variable and
20 excluded all records that were irrelevant to the indictment period and
21 indictment area. And what I am showing in this table here, is a step that
22 actually is irrelevant to the indictment period, and the indictment area
23 as well. This is a period starting in January 1992 ending in September
24 1994, and the area that is covered by this statistics is larger than the
25 area within the confrontation lines. So after excluding these records of
1 those killed in different countries, for instance like Croatia, who died
2 overseas, there were such cases. We ended with this total. These deaths
3 and wounded persons were observed in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period
4 January 1992 until September 1994.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I am sorry. I still cannot follow you. The
6 first column is the Household Sarajevo survey.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The second one is from the 1st of January
9 until the 30th of September.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Which is the difference between the two except
12 that you clean up some things?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes. There were deaths and wounded persons reported
14 in 1991, for instance, that is the difference. So it is not --
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In the first column?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, in the first column, and there are no such
17 events reported in the second column here.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: And then between the second column and the
19 third one is only the date.
20 THE WITNESS: Date and area. Two things, date and area of the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Did I understand you well that from the first column
23 to the second column, you would exclude all casualties abroad, that means,
24 Croatia, Italia, whatever, but that it is still not limited to Sarajevo,
25 there are still casualties in other cities, areas, municipalities, so it
1 is not yet restricted to Sarajevo within the -- within the confrontation
2 lines. And then to the third category, you corrected both as far as the
3 time was concerned, as well as the geographical limitations of your
4 research was concerned.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is very correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least that I -- I hope I understand. Please
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Madam, if this is right, does this mean that all the graphs that
10 you produced including the date of the 1st of January 1992 are, in part,
11 wrong because inevitably they would deal with events that are outside
12 Sarajevo. Is that so?
13 A. Did I draw timing for all the months starting -- beginning 1992?
14 I must check this because, to be honest, I don't see it here, at least not
15 for wounded persons.
16 Q. Fine. We shall check but I don't want to waste time. Now that we
17 have understood this --
18 A. See starting September 1992, I am sorry.
19 Q. So they all start as of September 1992?
20 A. Yes, yes, yes.
21 Q. Fine, thank you.
22 Witness, let me go to other questions, issues of definition.
23 Earlier, you mentioned the fact that you took in these definitions,
24 sniping, shelling, other firearms. You indicated how you identified a
25 soldier by definition. Going back, how far did the lists go in time, the
1 army list.
2 A. Excuse me, I don't understand the question. How far did the list
3 go in time, calendar time, you mean?
4 Q. Well, if you --
5 A. [Previous translation continues]... period?
6 Q. I shall rephrase the question. So going back in time, you were
7 given lists in 1994. Which period, which time period did they cover? How
8 far into time did they go back?
9 A. Yes. So I understand --
10 MR. STAMP: May I? I guess I don't understand it either and the
11 witness seems to indicate that. Which lists given in 1994?
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness was about to answer the question.
13 So it seems that after being reformulated, that she understands the
15 THE WITNESS: I want to be sure that my understanding is correct.
16 I understand your question is related to the reporting in the survey, what
17 period was reported by the respondents in the survey?
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to -- I understood the question of
20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin to be that when you received information of soldiers
21 that had died, so that was information from the respective armies, how far
22 these data went back? Were they from the 1st of January 1992 or from 1991
23 or? Well, up to how far they went back. Did I understand your question
24 correctly? Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] As usual, perfectly, Your
2 THE WITNESS: Well, I cannot -- I am unable to mention specific
3 date when they started, but generally, the lists cover the conflict
4 period, which I would generally mention as starting early 1992 until the
5 end of 1995. So it is --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, do you know when the army was created?
8 A. Well, I think in the case of Sarajevo, I think you -- what you are
9 probably thinking of is the Territorial Defence, that we didn't see army
10 in the first months of the conflict, and Territorial Defence only. I have
11 lists of fallen soldiers, official lists of fallen soldiers --
12 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, I am sorry. Do try to answer my questions. If you
13 don't know, just tell so. But do you know as of when the army was
14 officially created?
15 A. Not exactly.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Before the army was created, there were
17 indeed other structures. Could you tell us briefly whether these
18 structures were the Territorial Defence, and on the other hand, the Civil
20 A. Well, I certainly, I am aware of the existence of Territorial
21 Defence in Sarajevo and of Civil Defence as well. But if you are asking
22 me whether members of these two structures are reported in the lists of
23 fallen soldiers, to be sure, I don't know, 100 per cent, I cannot give you
24 my answer.
25 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.
1 Madam, so it is theoretically possible, that members of, for
2 instance, the Territorial Defence were not reported practically as such in
3 the lists that were given to you by the government as being lists of
4 soldiers, that is, of the soldiers who were in the lists of those killed
5 in action?
6 A. It is possible yes, theoretically speaking, yes.
7 Q. Thank you very much.
8 Mrs. Tabeau, we know that at the time, at the beginning of the
9 war, there were very few uniforms, few distinctive signs or insignia, and
10 I will take a specific -- I will give you a specific example. Let us
11 imagine a civilian or an alleged civilian who is working near a
12 confrontation line on a machine which could be -- on a field machine which
13 could be worked by the army and this machine is targeted and the driver is
14 wounded or shot at. This hit, this victim, is this particular person
15 considered to be a civilian or a soldier?
16 A. Well, it is not a question to me, but to the respondent who
17 reported this death.
18 Q. Very well.
19 A. We can not distinguish between those who died in combat and not in
20 combat and what is the meaning of combat. It is just how things were
21 reported. This is what we showed.
22 Q. Very well. When brings us to a question which Mr. President
23 asked, there were only two formal distinctions, soldiers and civilians on
24 the other side, but there was no way of allowing you to know if they were
25 equally combatants. Is that correct?
1 A. Equally combatants --
2 Q. I am just talking about your report. Not your report, I am
3 talking about the survey, the actual survey, the one that you call HSS, I
4 believe, HSS94?
5 A. Well, if I understood you correctly, probably there were civilians
6 reported as soldiers and soldiers reported as civilians in both ways of
7 the survey. But for us who studied the responses only, it is impossible
8 to assess what is the scale of these --
9 Q. Very well.
10 Mrs. Tabeau, would you agree with me in considering and I believe
11 that this is obvious in your work, that there were many more victims,
12 wherever they were, in 1992 than in 1994?
13 A. Well generally for Bosnia, that is your question --
14 Q. No, Madam. I am talking about generally for your work, your work
15 in on Sarajevo.
16 A. I think generally it is 92 in the relative terms, relative
17 measures are telling us that casualties were more frequent in 1992 than in
19 Q. Very well. Now, according to your figures s it true that we have
20 an average of 10 casualties per day in 1992 on average, which goes down to
21 two casualties in 1994 approximately is that correct?
22 A. Some approximate figures are like that, yes.
23 Q. Madam, mathematically speaking, when General Galic took over the
24 command and when he handed over to somebody else, that is in August --
25 from August 1992 -- September 1992 to September 1994, could we agree in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 considering that the situation was four times more dramatic in 1992, even
2 five times more dramatic in 1992 than it was in 1994?
3 A. These are the figures, but at the same time I must say that --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP: I am objecting to the phrasing of the question as to
6 what is more or less dramatic. Perhaps, it could be phrased a little more
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Yes, indeed.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Casualties is considered to be dramatic by
11 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, I will withdraw
14 Q. But that the situation simply presented five times more victims at
15 the time that General Galic took over his command than when he handed it
17 A. The frequency is indeed as you said, how frequent the casualties
19 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.
20 Madam, I would like to come back to the situation in 1992. Did
21 you know, yes or no, whether in 1992 in particular was it difficult to
22 tell apart on the outside between civilians and combatants, and I am
23 talking about combatants, because in 1992 we don't have soldiers. So did
24 you know that at the time?
25 A. What do you mean by -- tell apart? Distinguish, this is the word?
1 Q. Yes, yes indeed, yes. Not how you could distinguish it, but did
2 you know whether in 1992, it was very difficult to distinguish civilians
3 from the military, speaking from a point of view of what they were
5 A. Well, I read certain books and from the books I know that it was
6 probably difficult. Probably, there are studies of this by historians.
7 Q. Very well. Now my question is whether you have included in your
8 calculations any mathematical key which would allow us to take into
9 consideration such probable error factor?
10 A. It is impossible to take any measures to prevent from this type of
11 situations. We even didn't have a question in the survey which would
12 indicate the clothes people were wearing at the time, I think it is far
13 beyond the survey question --
14 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Tabeau.
15 Therefore, the answer that I understand from you is that you based
16 yourself 100 per cent on the figures that were given to you by the
17 institute. Is that correct? And on army lists.
18 A. Well, we studied the sources as we do with other sources and as we
19 do always in statistics and demography. So I studied certain sources and
20 obtained certain figures based on these sources and this is how my figures
21 in this report must be seen.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you have now approximately four to
23 five times stressed again and again that if all women would have been
24 reported as men, and if all men would have been reported as women, then,
25 of course, the analysis would give a result which would not reflect the
1 actual situation at that time, at that place. I think this has become
2 abundantly clear. So please proceed, but try to avoid repetitious
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
5 Q. Madam you spoke of the institute which was -- which did the
6 survey, but there is no name. Can you give us the name of the institute,
8 A. I believe the name is mentioned in the report.
9 Q. Yes, I know that it is in the report. But you, yourself, you did
10 not state it here.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... the evidence,
12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. We don't have to, otherwise the witness would have to
13 read the whole report, which of course is not --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I insist, I insist, Mr.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... specific reason,
17 but then not because it has not been pronounced, but because you have a
18 specific reason for that. I do not --
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I insist.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
21 so I take it there is a specific reason why you want to know whether Ms.
22 Tabeau knows by heart the name of this report or do you want her to read
23 it from the report?
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Whatever she wishes. That
25 does not matter. It is because I have questions to ask in relation to the
1 institute which carried the survey out.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, in the --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed.
5 THE WITNESS: In the annex where the questionnaire is included on
6 page 58, we read that it is translated title -- I am reading the English
7 version, Institute for the Research of Crimes against Humanity and the
8 International Law. That is the name.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well.
11 Wasn't there another institute, Madam, which was called, the
12 Institute against Muslim Genocide?
13 A. I mentioned this organisation. This is not a research institute,
14 just an organisation, a group of people who was very active directly after
15 the war, collecting information about victims.
16 Q. Very well.
17 I can conclude from this research institute's name that it was
18 created ad hoc, that is, that the census was an ad hoc census that was
20 A. You are now speaking about the institute?
21 Q. I am talking about the institute on one hand, and the survey, the
22 questionnaire on the other.
23 A. I don't think it is -- we can call this group an ad hoc group. It
24 is a research institute that was created in 1992 and still exists today.
25 And I don't think that this was an ad hoc survey. I would disagree,
1 strongly disagree. I know that they have conducted several other surveys.
2 This is just one of the surveys. I believe the largest one.
3 Q. Very well.
4 Mrs. Tabeau, what was the objective of this survey? What was its
5 aim of this survey, of this census?
6 A. The objective was collecting information about suffering of
7 Sarajevo during the conflict.
8 Q. And to be done what with?
9 A. This -- most people in this institute are historians. It was just
10 for record, for history, not to be studied in reports like the one we made
11 for this court.
12 Q. Did you never speak about the objective, about the aim of this
13 survey, of this questionnaire with the people who, let us call them, those
14 who found the institute?
15 A. The founders of the institute, I didn't speak with the founders of
16 the institute --
17 Q. But those who fathered this research project, those who authored
19 A. I did speak with the authors of the project and those who
20 supervised the project and also involved in the project. And the
21 objective, I mentioned to you, history, record, historical record is the
22 one they mentioned --
23 Q. Very well. Thank you.
24 I am going on to another line of questioning. In the
25 questionnaire, in the survey, there are questions on the site of the
1 incident, whether somebody was wounded or killed, that is, if they are
2 injuries or deaths. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Did you, yourself, or did you see these questionnaires with your
6 own eyes; yes or no?
7 A. The questionnaires, original questionnaires --
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. Yes, of course, I have seen --
10 Q. Let us speak about the indications more precise of the locations,
11 rather than the very general indications of the locations. Let us speak,
12 for instance, like you give Dobrinja or Stari Grad. Are there more
13 precise indications of the locations in question?
14 A. It was an open question in the survey questionnaire and the
15 respondents were encouraged to report place of event, as specifically as
16 they could. Mostly, they were able to indicate the local community where
17 this event occurred. For our purposes, local communities are perfect way
18 of reporting because these are small areas can be regrouped into
19 municipalities and then we can show our results also from municipalities,
20 as well as for the whole area within the front line control from the front
21 lines. But --
22 Q. Very well.
23 A. There were records where places were indicated more generally or
24 more specifically than a local community.
25 Q. Very well.
1 But, Mrs. Tabeau, my question is the following: When you had
2 these indications of the locations, of the sites did you try and create a
3 subcategory, that is, locations that were very near military targets or
4 positions held or combat areas?
5 A. Well, I first of all, didn't try to recode the locations from the
6 point of view from the military lines in Sarajevo. It was for me that I
7 had a list of local communities, 89 local communities, that, for me,
8 constituted the survey area. The survey -- the area was originally
9 defined by the authors of the survey. So whatever population was
10 accessible to the authors of this survey and interviewers, the population
11 was questioned, and interviewed and we obtained responses from this
13 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, I apologise, this is just a question of a matter of
14 time. Did you, yes or no, try to create subcategories, that is, injured
15 near combat areas or military targets; yes or no? If you haven't done
16 that, just tell us no.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 Doctor Tabeau, if I -- and then I have to assume that your report
20 does not take into consideration, therefore what we call in military
21 terminology, "collateral damage?
22 A. No, it is --
23 Q. Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: My question would be, first, if you are talking about
25 collateral damage, the first question would be whether any distinction
1 would have been made anyhow between any justified military killing or
2 wounding or unjustified. And when I read the report, such a distinction
3 is not made. So if that distinction is not made, how could you even talk
4 about collateral? So the proceeding question, I think, unless I am not
5 correct in my understanding, Ms. Tabeau, but does not appear in the
7 THE WITNESS: No, not at all.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But I
10 just wanted things to be clear. Are we going on until 7.00.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, you asked for two to three minutes and I
12 calculated another two to three minutes for the Prosecution. I see Mr.
13 Ierace is coming in. So if this would be a suitable moment for a break.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will continue for another
15 two or three minutes with your leave. Thank you.
16 Q. Yes, I will come back to what we called the "duplicates," Doctor
17 Tabeau. You tried to eliminate duplicates, but would you agree with me in
18 saying that, among other things, to count deaths, if you have initial
19 errors between civilians -- fighting civilians and fighting soldiers,
20 then, of course, this would have an impact on the conclusions in your
22 A. What do you mean specifically? In every survey, there is a
23 certain degree of wrong responses. But it works both directions. There
24 is over-reporting and under-reporting. So it is -- I don't know what you
25 want to know exactly.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. I had in mind the fact that you did not have information on
2 fighting civilians. In other words, if you lack information on fighting
3 civilians, they are not to be considered as civilians or civil civilians,
4 therefore this risks compromising the conclusions in your analysis. It is
5 just a question of principal. Please do answer.
6 A. At the same time I can think of soldiers visiting their families
7 and being killed by bringing water. So this is what I meant by saying
8 that is a certain misreporting. But this works always in both directions.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think we can
10 stop today at this juncture. We probably should resume tomorrow morning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau we have a few procedural issues to discuss
12 and we have only 8 minutes left for that. So this would, for today,
13 conclude your testimony. Mr. Stamp, Ms. Tabeau will be called, when
14 exactly? Is it tomorrow?
15 MR. STAMP: Tomorrow.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't looked enough through your new schedule.
17 So we expect you to be in court again at a quarter past 2.00 in the
18 afternoon, Ms. Tabeau, and the usher will now escort you out of the
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 MR. STAMP: May I inquire as the witness is leaving, so we can
23 update our schedule, if we can be told --
24 JUDGE ORIE: First, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, asked for two or three --
25 yes, you asked Mr. Piletta-Zanin how much time the cross-examination would
1 still take.
2 MR. STAMP: And how much time the court has made available.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there any idea on how
4 much time the cross-examination in view of the Defence would take?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are going to check in a
6 minute. We are going to have a look again at the questions put so far.
7 We do not know as yet, but it is going to take some time, because we have
8 several questions to put --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let me indicate to you that the Prosecution took two
10 hours. I think two hours and two minutes. Perhaps three minutes. So
11 could you -- if you could please indicate that at the end of this hearing,
12 then now you asked for two or three minutes on another issue. Yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. My firm
14 received a phone call last Friday, Friday night, after the meeting. We
15 wished everybody a good weekend. And we were wished a good weekend. And
16 we were told that expert witness Kovacs was going to be heard again. I do
17 not know whether this is an official decision by your Chamber, but I take
18 it it is, in this respect.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is the decision of the Chamber that, well,
20 there is perhaps a slight difference between the French and the English
21 language. You are talking about "re-entendu" and I think the Chamber gave
22 the message that the Prosecution could recall, that is of course the first
23 step before you can hear again a witness.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
25 take down that this witness might be called again to be heard again and
1 this is the very reason why we want to address you now. First thing, we
2 would like to receive a written decision from your Chamber so that we can
3 look at it, and possibly seek an appeal certificate under Rule 73(B), I
5 Second thing, and we never had time to say so, in actual fact, we
6 were never able to check the entire report. Never did we receive the
7 entire report until last Friday, I believe. What I mean is, a report with
8 its translation. And inevitably we are going to need some time to do all
9 of this. Third thing, I am surprised to hear from the Prosecution that it
10 has nothing to do with it, while anybody will see that if two documents
11 bear different dates, in the original and in the translation, of course,
12 we have nothing -- we don't have the same documents and we wasted a lot of
13 time, not out of an error made by the Defence. And we would like to ask
14 you as soon as we have a reasoned decision from you, because we had never
15 received the documents before the date as is established by Rule 94 of the
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 Mr. Ierace.
19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I don't know whether a response is
20 really required, but without reiterating what I said last Friday, that
21 explanation was given in closed session. I am happy for the hearing this
22 afternoon to be in open session. I asked for closed session, so as to
23 preserve the position of the Defence in any cross-examination they may
24 wish to engage in with Doctor Kovacs on Thursday. Essentially, we are
25 talking about an additional two or three pages which the Prosecution will
1 propose to tender on Thursday, that is, the complete translation. I
2 appreciate that the Defence submits that it has been disadvantaged, to
3 some extent, by these developments, but by the same token, I think it is
4 clear from the explanation that I gave last Friday, that, although this is
5 of no comfort to the Defence, that it is not the fault of the Prosecution
6 either. Naturally, we will do everything we can to assist the Defence in
7 preparing itself for any further cross-examination that it wishes engage
8 in on Thursday. I propose that on that day, Dr. Kovacs will simply be
9 recalled, will, I anticipate, identify his full report and then he will be
10 available for any further cross-examination that the Defence wishes
11 engage. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Without giving any further details at this very
13 moment, we had -- the Chamber had hardly any opportunity to discuss the
14 matter any further than last Friday when we communicated our decision that
15 the Prosecution could recall the witness. I think that the Chamber will
16 further consider the details of what has just been suggested by
17 Mr. Ierace, whether that would be the course of action. But, at least,
18 the Defence should prepare as good as it can, for a course of action as
19 suggested by Mr. Ierace. That means that questions to be put to Dr.
20 Kovacs on the missing pages, that that is one of the options that are
21 there and of course that would be the option that would take most of the
22 preparation. So apart from all the other legal issues, because we are
23 very well aware of what the Defence has asked us, but we have to consider
24 that, but if the Defence would at least prepare for such a situation, we
25 will then further consider -- I think it will be tomorrow morning -- what
1 exactly will be the course to be taken next Thursday.
2 Perhaps even we would ask further comments from the parties for
3 three or four or five minutes tomorrow. We have had no opportunity yet to
4 discuss the matter in any further detail. But if the outcome would be
5 that further questions may be put to Dr. Kovacs on the missing last few
6 pages of the report, both parties, not only the Defence, but, of course,
7 also the Prosecution should prepare for that.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very quickly. I am aware of
11 time. But the Defence has to underscore that the first time when it
12 translated the document into Hungarian, it focused on the conclusions.
13 Taking into account the latest development, we will have to look again at
14 whether the entire document matches in both languages, and this is going
15 to take a lot of time. And that would be at the expense of the other
16 cross-examinations that we have to conduct in a similar way.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... that you have a
18 specific interest in checking whether the translation which is there is
19 correct or not, and more special this time than you had at earlier
20 occasions. That's quite understandable.
21 We will adjourn until tomorrow quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
23 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
24 the 23rd day of July, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.