1 Tuesday, 18 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.33 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 We are informed about the unavailability at this moment of

10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. The Chamber will consider what course to take and

11 presumably inform you about it this afternoon.

12 Then is there any other issue you'd like to address at this very

13 moment? If not, I'd like to ask the usher to -- yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if this

15 is the time to address the Chamber, but I have to say that I have just

16 received from the Prosecution a submission of 18 pages, and my colleagues

17 refer in them to documents which make part of Mr. Radinovic's report and

18 documents which represented during his testimony and the documents which

19 the Defence intends to produce. I do not know what will be the Chamber's

20 position with regard to this document, but today I am unable to discuss

21 this brief or any item of these documents, that is, I won't be able to do

22 it until I've gone through this statement, or shall I call it a brief of

23 my learned friends. I do not know what my -- how my colleagues define

24 this document. So I do not think that I could today really tell you what

25 our position is with regard to each individual document. I can do that,

1 of course, but I believe I will need at least two days to go through them.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I think this is part of the consequence of a lot of

3 documents being produced through this witness. And I do understand that

4 you can't just respond to that on this very moment, and I think it would

5 not be wise to do that because -- but we -- I received -- the Chamber

6 received a copy only a couple of minutes ago. So therefore, even the

7 Chamber would have to prepare more thoroughly. Yes.

8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Usher, could you escort the witness into

10 the courtroom.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Radovanovic.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Good afternoon as well. May I remind you that

16 you are still bound by your solemn declaration you've given at the

17 beginning of your testimony.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The cross-examination will now be continued.

20 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.

21 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

22 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]

23 [Witness answered through interpreter]

24 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]

25 Q. Madam, last night when we broke off I had asked you if you could

1 explain the importance of linking figures from the HSS survey to the 1991

2 census, and you answered by telling us about matching. I'd like to

3 quickly examine the methodology that you used in respect to linking and

4 your arrival at demographic rates. May I refer you to page 41 of your

5 report, which in -- page 41 in the English version. In the B/C/S version

6 it is in section 4.1, and it is your table 2.

7 A. I've found it.

8 Q. Now, in that table which you presented you purported to show your

9 own comparative survey of casualty rates according to the results of the

10 HSS 1994. And if we could look at the top column of your table here, we

11 see that you have applied the number 2963 for killed, 2573 for natural

12 causes, 11171 for wounded, and you applied that to the overall estimated

13 population of 340.000. Is that correct?

14 A. No, none of what you have just said is correct. None of these

15 figures are mine. These figures were taken over from Mrs. Tabeau's

16 report, and below the table you have the source, table 18 and table 1. I

17 did not attempt any matching at all.

18 Q. I'm going to ask you to listen carefully to what I'm asking.

19 Basically all I'm asking: If these figures that we see in your table 2

20 are the figures that you used from the Tabeau report. Are they?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. The figures for the deaths, those killed and those dying from

23 natural causes, can be found at page 47, table 18 and 19 of the Tabeau

24 report.

25 A. That is true.

1 Q. And there it is made clear that these are figures from HSS 1994

2 that are linked to the census of 1991.

3 A. That is true, sir.

4 Q. Very well.

5 A. But they were linked up in a completely wrong way.

6 Q. What you have done, in other words, is to apply the smallest

7 possible nominator for deaths, the linked figures to the largest possible

8 denominator, the population of the overall estimated population of

9 340.000. The question is: Is that a statistically sound approach, or is

10 it just something guaranteed to produce the lowest possible rates?

11 Shouldn't you have compared values that are logically related? For

12 example, the overall death rate to the overall population, or the linked

13 numbers of death of deceased persons to the population that was linked to

14 the 1991 census? Instead of finding the lowest figures for death and

15 applying it to the highest figure for population.

16 A. If I did that, then I would be also manipulating statistics. But

17 this figure for the killed, naturally died, and wounded, in the opinion of

18 experts represents matched figures. And I'm not going into that. Now we

19 are talking about 1991 census, so Mrs. Tabeau thinks that she's identified

20 them there from 1991 and 1994. When they are matched in such a way, I do

21 not think that this matching procedure is good. Again, it doesn't allow

22 us to establish what is properly identified sample.

23 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... About matching procedures,

24 whether the matching procedures by Tabeau et al. were good, bad, or

25 indifferent, that is not what the question is. The question is: Is it

1 logical, rational, and in proper statistical form to apply figures from

2 two different areas to get the rate? In other words, to use the lowest

3 possible figures for deaths, those that were linked to the 1991 census, to

4 compare it with the highest possible figure for population at risk?

5 A. It's not logical. Only it is the only statistically correct way.

6 What I am saying -- I'm commenting on the size of the population that

7 Mrs. Tabeau estimates, so nothing to do with the figures as such. So

8 we're dealing with one period of time, one thing is statistical estimate

9 yet the other one is a statistical finding. I'm doing it to show what

10 horizontal structure are indicating, because Mrs. Tabeau manipulates

11 vertical structures. So not only that it is logical, it is also

12 statistically the only correct way to do it.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. My associate says

14 that under "A" 14:46:28 it says "illogical." But you should ask the

15 witness because the witness said something else. I think she said this

16 was the only logical thing, to avoid any future confusion. My apologies.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understood from the translation as well that

18 you said, Madam Radovanovic, that it was the only logical way to do it and

19 the statistically correct way. Is that correct?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to add something to it. One

21 can take estimates into account. Yes, it is possible, but then I don't

22 think that it is the only statistically correct way.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just checking on what you said. Could you please

24 look on your screen --

25 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Page 5, line 4, your answer starts as it

2 appears on the screen "it's not logical," but it's our recollection that

3 you said it's the only logical way of doing it. Yes?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Correct.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, please proceed.

6 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

7 Q. Well, one could have compared the overall numbers for deaths to

8 the overall estimated population. One could have also compared the linked

9 numbers for deaths to the linked numbers of the population at risk.

10 Those --

11 A. If you consider the general figures for death are the figures that

12 we find in tables 1, 2, and 3, and if we take those estimates into

13 account, one could compare them, but it would serve no purpose because I

14 do not think they are good estimates, nor do we have good figures in

15 tables 1, 2, and 3. Statistically speaking - and I emphasise, I do not

16 think that the matching was correct - there was something that Mrs. Tabeau

17 called identified population.

18 Q. And that is your answer. Very well. The purpose of establishing

19 a rate, a death rate, for the indictment period involved a comparison with

20 a death rate for the population that resided in Sarajevo prior to 1992; is

21 that correct?

22 A. I didn't quite understand what you meant. If you are talking

23 about the comparison that Mrs. Tabeau made between 1991 and 1994 --

24 Q. I'll rephrase it. As a matter of statistical form, I suggest to

25 you that if one wants to compare the death rate for the indictment period

1 to the pre-indictment death rate, the appropriate procedure is to apply

2 the linked population from the survey to the linked numbers for deceased

3 during the indictment period.

4 A. Once again, I don't understand what you are saying. There are no

5 figures. That is, there are some estimates which are perhaps, known only

6 to Mrs. Tabeau, about the population which between 1992 and 1994

7 constituted a particular structure. But Mrs. Tabeau otherwise offers us

8 comparisons. In table 16 the mortality rate in Sarajevo in 1990-1991.

9 And in the next table she tells us phenomena within the front lines

10 between the 10th of September and so on and so forth. And in relation,

11 that is my assumption, because that is only statistically correct,

12 assumption, there are no absolute figures there. So here I see only

13 rates. So I presume those rates have to do with the estimated number of

14 the population in 1992-1994. Everything else would completely lack sense.

15 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you -- I've tried to understand the

16 question that has been put to you. And since you started your answer

17 saying "I don't understand what you are saying," so you're responding to

18 something which was not entirely clear. I do understand the question of

19 Mr. Stamp to be - but he'll certainly correct me if I'm wrong - that if

20 you want to compare a death rate prior to the wartime and during the

21 wartime and if you use for the death rate during the wartime linked

22 numbers of deceased people, that to establish the rate you should also use

23 the linked number of the population involved. And if I do understand him

24 well, he means to say that linking reduces the number of death you take

25 into consideration, and therefore in order to establish a death rate you

1 should apply then the linked number of the population involved as well.

2 That would also, as far as I understand, result in a reduced number

3 compared to the overall total population.

4 Is that a correct understanding of your question?

5 MR. STAMP: That is.

6 JUDGE ORIE: So that's what Mr. Stamp is asking you: Why do you,

7 for establishing a death rate, do you couple a reduced number of death

8 with a unreduced number of overall population? Could you please answer

9 that question then.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Because there is no -- the

11 linkage of the population for 1992-1994. There is only an estimate, which

12 is 340.000. And these 340.000 were linked with the cases of deaths by

13 violence or by natural causes or wounded and so on and so forth. So that

14 is, we have some -- so many inhabitants who are linked to the census of

15 1991, and then a particular figure is linked up with them, and it is said

16 from this sample that we have we linked it up with 1991, yet there is

17 nothing for 340.000 inhabitants to be -- to allow you to link those

18 figures, so that is impossible. And you cannot calculate the mortality on

19 the basis of the findings of the census of 1994 with the linked population

20 of 340.000. That does not exist. I don't know if I've made myself clear.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the question remains that if you say I

22 cannot link the number available to me, there is no possibility of

23 linking, so therefore there'll be no reduction, what sense it makes to

24 compare these figures that are calculated or established on a different

25 basis.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does, because there is an

2 estimated number of the population. And when you do these things, total

3 number of deaths is divided by the number of the population, average age

4 from the census, and then it is multiplied by 1.000 or 100.000, so -- and

5 that is how these things are done. The censuses are done every ten years,

6 but the mortality rates are done for every year. The census was in 1991,

7 but the death rates are calculated for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and so on

8 and so forth. We do not have the estimated -- we have the estimated

9 number of the population for the period, and it's 340.000, and we have the

10 mortality, and it is -- we know what that figure is. And for that period

11 the rates are calculated by dividing the total mortality with the number

12 of the population, that is, 340.000, then it is divided by 1.000 or by

13 100, and in this way you get the mortality or the wounding rate or

14 whatever. So the mortality can only be divided. There is no other

15 possibility. And if you do not have an estimated number of the

16 population, then it becomes difficult. But there is an estimated number

17 of the population. So this is, statistically speaking, absolutely

18 correct. Had I used anything else to use the population size of 1991 is

19 completely wrong.

20 MR. STAMP:

21 Q. Madam, I'll just suggest to you or indicate to you that the

22 matching rate is indicated in more than one places in the report by Tabeau

23 et al., for example, at page 15 of the establish version, at 81.3 per

24 cent, and it is a simple statistical exercise, a mathematical exercise, to

25 adjust 340.000 to find the amount that was linked. Do you agree with me?

1 Basically, if you know the matching rate, can one just mathematically

2 adjust 340.000 to find the linked population at risk? Can you listen to

3 the question, read it, and then answer it.

4 A. Will you tell me what page is it in the Serbian version,

5 because --

6 Q. It is at section 3.5, and it is at the third paragraph.

7 A. You mean the matching results?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. Is that what it's titled?

10 Q. Yes. It is indicated there that the matching results were 81.3

11 per cent. And all the question is: If one is aware of that, isn't it a

12 simple mathematical exercise to adjust the overall total population --

13 A. No, no, no. No, no, no. It's not -- no, it's not. It is a

14 simple mathematical manipulation. This is called the results of the

15 linking of the population, and Mrs. Tabeau says the wounded -- that the

16 wounded, killed, and died that we had were linked with the population

17 census of 1991, and she doesn't say how -- what were the results in

18 relation to the population of 1991. And 81.3 means of a possible 30.000

19 records, we linked 20.000 wounded and 5.000-something of those others. So

20 80.1 per cent is what was linked, rather than what they linked it with.

21 So I have to link 30.000, of them 80 per cent I found in 1991 and I say

22 I've linked 81 per cent. Yes, you did link 81 per cent of what you had,

23 but this is with regard to the -- to overall population. But it was

24 linked with 45 -- I don't know how many thousand people, so it could have

25 been only about 5 or 6 per cent. I can't tell you exactly.

1 Q. Very well. Well, before we move on, let me just ask you one

2 question: You have in the second row of your table 2 used 100 as your

3 base figure for setting rates. And in your testimony and at various pages

4 in your report, you repeatedly criticise ET et al. for saying 100.000 when

5 you say 1.000 is the standard in the former Yugoslavia. I'd like you to

6 have a look at this document.

7 A. That's not correct. The table says the share of those who died of

8 natural death and the number of wounded in the population as it was

9 assessed, and then it says in the population of 340.000 the share of a

10 certain category is such and such a figure, et cetera. These are

11 percentages. They aren't rates. Rates are calculated on a base of 1.000

12 and 100.000. These are percentages, shares. I'm showing that

13 Mrs. Tabeau, with regard to her population estimate, found that there were

14 0.9 who died. Out of the total number of population in 1992 and 1994, the

15 number who died were 0.9. It was 0.7 for the wounded -- sorry, natural

16 deaths, 0.7 and wounded 0.3. These aren't rates of any kind. These are

17 percentages.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, I think Mr. Stamp -- what did

19 Mr. Stamp ask you in his last question? Do you remember that?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't repeat it literally, but the

23 question in essence was why did I criticise the rate on the base of

24 100.000 and the rate that I provided here was calculated on the base of

25 the figure 100. That was the essence of the question. I said that this

1 was not a rate, it's a percentage. I really can't read this, but there is

2 a question.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question of Mr. Stamp concerned overall

4 your report, not specifically this table, and your overall criticism

5 that --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He quoted table 2 because I wrote

7 something down, and unfortunately I always write something down.

8 MR. STAMP:

9 Q. Percentages is a figure out of 100, and you use figures out of

10 100. Here you criticise Tabeau et al. for using figures out of 100.000,

11 because you said that that is not done in respect to statistics in

12 Yugoslavia. Could you have a look at that document which I've just handed

13 to you.

14 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, it's P3781.

15 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

16 Q. It's a publication in the European Journal of Epidemiology by

17 someone, Dr. Jordanka Ananijevic-Pandey of the Institute of Social

18 Medicine, Statistics and Health Research, the Medical Faculty of the

19 University of Belgrade. And there's a translation at the back I'd like to

20 read a passage from the third paragraph. "They evaluate the level of

21 health before the war started, premature mortality from all causes in the

22 former Yugoslavia was analysed by republics and provinces for two periods,

23 1970 and 1990. The calculation of YPLL - and that is the years lost -

24 rates per 100.000 population 0 to 64 years, crude and age standardised was

25 obtained according to published methodology."

1 You might, madam, be involved in census statistics, but persons

2 involved in the statistics of casualties, victimology, epidemiology, as a

3 standard practice put figures out of 100.000. And in any case, is that

4 something that anyone can easily convert? If a figure is put out of

5 100.000, could one easily convert it to a figure of 100 or 10.000 or

6 1.000?

7 A. I am also involved in statistics. My masters was in mortality and

8 birthrates.

9 Q. I don't --

10 A. When I discussed --

11 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Matter of time. The

12 simple question. You could answer yes or no. Is that a simple

13 mathematical thing to convert figures out of 100.000 to figures out of 100

14 or figures out of 10.000? Is it simple, or is it not?

15 A. The question hasn't been put correctly whether the numbers on the

16 base of 100.000 can be converted to numbers on the basis of 10.000. Are

17 you asking me whether rates can be calculated on the basis of 100.000 and

18 on the bass of 10.000 and on the base of 1.000 inhabitants? Is that the

19 question you are putting to me?

20 Q. The question I asked you is whether or not one could make a

21 mathematical calculation of rates out of 100.000 into rates per 1.000 or

22 per 10.000. Can one do that?

23 A. Well, you can do everything, but the question is whether it makes

24 sense or not.

25 Q. Well, what we have here, madam, is a recognised Yugoslav scholar

1 in epidemiology, who was published abroad in important journals of her

2 field abroad, who uses figures out of 100.000 in casualties. And when

3 Tabeau et al., who are experts in their field that you are not an expert

4 in, use the same, you criticise them as dishonest. I suggest to you that

5 that is inappropriate criticism.

6 A. I think that the criticism is appropriate and you have shown me an

7 article by a respected expert. I think she is respected. But you haven't

8 provided me with a single figure. It just says that she works out a rate

9 on the base of 100.000 for the population the rate of which is between 0

10 and 64 years. You can use rates per 100.000, especially in health

11 matters. In epidemiology you have a situation in which you want to

12 represent the mortality of those who choke on food, because such cases are

13 very rare in mortality in general. You have four or five cases a year.

14 The figure used is a figure on the basis of 100.000. This is quite usual.

15 I didn't say that you didn't calculate rates on the basis of 100.000.

16 What I said is that in my opinion, Mrs. Tabeau manipulated the facts

17 because she used figures on the base of 100.000, because statistics in

18 Bosnia and Herzegovina that refer to mortality, official statistics, which

19 were her sources for 1991 and 1990, and she calculated averages on that

20 basis, these figures were on the base of 1.000. I'm not saying she can't

21 do this, but in this report she was manipulative because she used a small

22 number of cases to justify her conclusions. When you have a look at the

23 table that Mrs. Tabeau provides, on the basis of municipalities for 1991,

24 the number of cases is far lower, the number of mortality cases. The

25 number is far lower than the number of the wounded or killed in that

1 period.

2 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Answer the question, at

3 least to your satisfaction. Could you move on.

4 At page 24 of your report in the English version - and as from

5 here, I'm going to just ask you to answer my questions as directly as you

6 can. Listen carefully to questions and answer them as you can --

7 A. I apologise, but what is the page in the Serbian version?

8 Q. It's in section 2.1.2, funeral parlour Bakija as a source of

9 mortality data.

10 A. The funeral parlour Bakija, yes.

11 Q. And in that section you have a table of sorts that you used to

12 make some comparison with respect to the mortality of Muslims, and you

13 concluded that in the period according to your methods the mortality of

14 Muslims from natural causes was about twice as high as a death by killing.

15 And what basically you did was to find the total number of deaths from

16 killing in the PDS 1994 survey and subtract it from the total of deaths in

17 the Bakija survey. Now, as a statistician, could that approach be

18 justified when the report of Tabeau et al. makes it quite clear that the

19 two surveys do not overlap completely, that they overlap only to the

20 extent of 68 per cent?

21 A. What you say is not correct. That's not my method. These data

22 was taken from reports made by your experts, and I showed how illogical

23 they were. Please have a look at page 18 in the Serbian version.

24 Q. Madam, let's take it step by step. You took the number from

25 Bakija for buried Muslims for 6.266 and you subtracted the number 2.340,

1 which was the number in PDS 1994 for killed Muslims. So you took one

2 figure from a different independent non-completely overlapping source and

3 subtracted it from the total figure of the second source and you draw

4 conclusions from that as a statistician.

5 A. Your experts claimed that they used three reliable sources on

6 mortality. The Bakija source is a reliable source according to the

7 experts, and that source -- it says on page 18 of your expert's report

8 that according to the results from the Bakija source they were provided

9 with the figure 6.266 for buried Muslims. I say all right, I agree. And

10 then I take a source that shows the same figures, but it's the second good

11 source, it's the census, the population census of 1994. And that source

12 states that the number of killed Muslims was 2.340.

13 Q. Could you stop there.

14 A. Please.

15 Q. Could you stop there, madam. Now, on what basis do you say that

16 you take a source that shows the same figures -- on what basis do you say

17 that the HSS 1994 shows the same figures? Isn't it clear in the report

18 that these are two independent sources, that the HSS 1994 only matched the

19 Bakija to the extent of 68 per cent?

20 A. According to what your experts stated, these are two independent

21 sources that are used, above all when applying that method of catching and

22 catching again, and it's statistics that is a matter of comparing various

23 sources. It's a rule. Such comparisons are rule. The problem here is

24 that such sources are not good. And I'm showing that these various

25 sources which according to your experts are good --

1 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Listen. You've answered

2 the first part of the question that they are two independent sources.

3 The second part of the question is: Isn't it clear to you from

4 the report of Tabeau et al. that the sources overlapped only to the extent

5 of 60 per cent [sic]? Simple.

6 A. To whatever extent there was overlapping, they said that the

7 sources were reliable, and it's on the base of these sources that they

8 came to their conclusions in their reports. And on the basis of these

9 figures, they applied new methodologies used in demography and gave

10 assessments whether there is overlapping of 60 per cent or not, well, they

11 should have thought about this. First of all, the source is biased, it's

12 bad. Thirdly, it shows figures for those buried, whatever the location.

13 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Answer my question and

14 spare me. The other question is, and it's a simple question that you can

15 answer yes or no: Is the total number in the Bakija database for buried

16 Muslims identical to the total number in HSS 1994 for dead Muslims?

17 A. You're asking me a question that --

18 Q. Madam --

19 A. No, I can't just answer by saying yes or no for the simple reason

20 that the question doesn't make any sense. These are two independent

21 sources which are used by --

22 Q. Very well.

23 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to ask you -- there seems to be a lot of

24 confusion. I think the question of Mr. Stamp - but he'll certainly

25 correct me if I'm wrong - is that how could you compare the overall number

1 of people reported to have been deceased with the data contained in a

2 report of the -- at least the data of the Bakija funeral parlour which did

3 not bury all of the people that died? I think that's the question,

4 Mr. Stamp.

5 MR. STAMP: It is similar to the question.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. STAMP: Sufficiently similar.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the same way that Mrs. Tabeau did

9 this. If you say the source is reliable, I have such information, in the

10 statistics it's a rule, you make comparisons.

11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... To an example

12 to see whether we can agree. Let's just assume that we have a funeral

13 parlour, a small one, which has reliable data as to when people died or

14 what their status was, and they buried 1.000 people, and let's just assume

15 that a general survey of the population would give far higher numbers

16 because it covers the whole of the population and not just a limited

17 number of our small funeral parlour. Would it be of any use and did

18 Ms. Tabeau deduct the numbers from the total survey from the relatively

19 limited numbers of the small funeral parlour? I think that's the issue.

20 You say -- you have told us several times, and I do understand that you

21 say if figures are considered to be reliable you could use them. But

22 reliability of figures does not automatically mean that they cover the

23 whole population. They might be to some extent be comparable and to other

24 extents not comparable. And I think that's the question Mr. Stamp is

25 asking you, how you could deduct from the numbers that appear in a

1 relative -- in a not complete data source, how you could deduct from that

2 the numbers you found in a more extensive data source. That's the

3 question.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the same way that Mrs. Tabeau did

5 it. She said that she was matching them up.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But would you please see where she simply

7 deducts one figure from another.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the deduction isn't what's at

11 stake. The table is an attempt to demonstrate -- may I explain this?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What has been deducted here, it's

14 stated quite explicitly. I'm demonstrating how unreliable the sources are

15 because when Mrs. Tabeau says that her sources are reliable and says that

16 she matched the data up, and that's why I say Bakija is reliable and the

17 census is reliable. I just used numbers to show that this is not correct.

18 These are her figures. I didn't invent a single figure here. Whatever

19 you match up, it's not logical because when you take what you have in one

20 of the sources and what you have in one of the other sources, then the

21 number of deaths due to natural causes seems to be greater than what you

22 demonstrated to be the case. So what are you matching up? That was my

23 question. And the table shows that there were illogical matters here.

24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Just return

25 to my question. You said Ms. Tabeau does the same. Could you please

1 indicate where she does the same as you did on page 24, where you deducted

2 from the number of buried Muslims from the Bakija data the killed Muslims

3 from the 1994 survey.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mrs. Tabeau didn't calculate this in

5 the same sense. She doesn't give a single table -- provide a single table

6 from the Bakija source, but she provides figures in the text, and this is

7 also manipulation to an extent. If you have a good source, you should

8 demonstrate what you have managed to obtain on the basis of that source.

9 Have a look at page 18.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mrs. Tabeau uses the data -- uses

12 the Bakija source there. If you have a look at the last paragraph --

13 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm looking at it. Page 18, last paragraph.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 4, 4.1, the source -- the

16 database of the funeral parlour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The number in this database is

19 12.867, out of which 3.517 are marked with letter "B" for borac, that is

20 to say, soldier. And 9.350 recorded by the letter "C" for civilian.

21 These records covered the period from January 1992 to August 1996. The

22 number of records for 1996 is less than in the respective period in

23 1992-1995. In general terms, we have 11.546 records from the period from

24 January 1992 to December 1995. 3.414 soldiers, and 8.132 civilians, and

25 1.319 records covering the period from January 1996 to August 1996, (102

1 soldiers and 1.217 civilians) two records are illegible. Obviously the

2 year of death was erroneous.

3 Regarding the period from September 1992 to August 1994, the

4 respective numbers are the following: Total, 6.266 soldiers, 2.000 -- the

5 number of soldier, 2.024, and the number of civilians 4.242, so this is

6 the number that Mrs. Tabeau obtained after matching up. This figure, if

7 you use the figure from this source, from this table, it's the total

8 number of records for those buried, and these figures are provided by

9 Bakija since Bakija only buried Muslims and you can see this at the

10 beginning of the text. And the second report that is a good one, a

11 reliable one according to Mrs. Tabeau, and in demographic terms, in

12 professional terms this is quite correct, it's quite legitimate, I adopted

13 the number of -- the number of Muslims killed in order to arrive at this

14 number. And in terms of statistical methods, this is also a correct

15 procedure. I did this in order to see how many Bakija -- how many Muslims

16 Bakija buried, who had died due to natural causes, and then there is

17 something that is illogical because it seems that the number taken over by

18 Mrs. Tabeau - and she says that Bakija worked inside the front lines and

19 they buried Muslim there and so on - it turns out that Bakija buried a

20 greater number of Muslims than the total number that refers to all other

21 people, and this in my opinion is quite illogical.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the question was, of which you still did

23 not give an answer, why you disregarded that the Bakija is a more limited

24 source, not covering the whole population but only that part of the

25 population that would bury their dead through the Bakija parlour, why you

1 deduct from then the overall -- the report on the population in general,

2 so without limitations. That's the question. And you told us that

3 Ms. Tabeau does the same. And my question was: Where does she do that?

4 She does not do it in the part you just read to us. In one part she

5 limits herself to the Bakija data and does not compare them in whatever

6 way with the survey of 1994.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Statistically, demographically,

8 scientifically, and professionally, this is not justified. She is

9 duty-bound to compare them. If you are using different sources of

10 information, regardless of whether they agree or not, and if you say that

11 you are using different sources of information, well, if you do that, then

12 you are duty-bound to make a comparative survey of that, of those data.

13 And Mrs. Tabeau does not give us a comparative table from the sources

14 which she says she's used for this purpose except in the text, and I'm

15 trying to explain why she does not do it.

16 JUDGE ORIE: May I again ask you: The question was not again what

17 Ms. Tabeau did wrong but you are asked what you did on page 24. And

18 Mr. Stamp alleges that you deducted from a number of a limited population,

19 that is, the Bakija population, which does not claim to be -- Bakija was

20 not claiming to serve the overall population -- why you deduct from those

21 figures figures that relate to the overall population. That's, I think,

22 the question.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not deducting it from the

24 overall population but only the Muslim population. The source is Muslim

25 because Bakija buries only Muslims.

1 JUDGE ORIE: The overall Muslim population deducted from limited,

2 that is, Bakija, Muslim population. It doesn't change the question in a

3 fundamental way.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't do anything else because I

5 have the same sources as Mrs. Tabeau, that is, I am using Mrs. Tabeau's

6 sources to show that they are wrong. Had I done the expertise for the

7 Prosecutor's Office, I would have never done it in the manner in which

8 Mrs. Tabeau did. My source is the expert opinion of Mrs. Ewa Tabeau. And

9 I am not doing anything that I shouldn't do. I'm doing what one -- how

10 would you please should do it. If you say that you had three, five,

11 seven, half a source, but you have to show what those sources gave you;

12 otherwise, you get a completely wrong picture, that is, that you have a

13 wealth of data but what you conclude in the analysis needs to be supported

14 by good statistical documentation, and I put it to you that that was not

15 the case.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

17 MR. STAMP: Very well.

18 Q. Madam, I suggest to you that the statistical demographical

19 scientific and professional method of estimating natural deaths and killed

20 persons in the Bakija database would be applying the proportion, the

21 proportion of natural deaths and killed persons obtained in the 1994

22 survey to the total from Bakija. Statistically speaking and in -- and

23 professionally speaking you can only apply the proportion to come to a

24 reasonable estimate. And if one did so, this would not change the general

25 pattern of mortality presented in the report by Tabeau et al.

1 A. You're wrong, sir. Mrs. Tabeau does it in table 17, and that is

2 manipulation. She gives -- I don't know what the word used in Serbian

3 "omeri," does, but I suppose it means ratios, of the event rates, et

4 cetera, and again she gives only relative figures and does not mention any

5 absolute figures. And it's just --

6 Q. Madam, that is a completely different thing to what I suggested to

7 you. I'm just simply suggesting that to move across non-completely

8 overlapping samples or sources you ought as a scientific, as a

9 statistician, as a demographer, as a professional, to apply the

10 proportion, take the proportion of killed to the proportion of natural

11 deaths from one source to apply to the other to get an estimate, and that

12 is the proper way. That is only what I had asked. Could we move on

13 quickly.

14 A. You're wrong.

15 Q. Very well.

16 A. As a demographer -- you're suggesting to me the opposite. And

17 what you're suggesting to me is not correct. As a demographer, I knew

18 what I needed to do and that is what I did.

19 Q. One or two things very quickly, since time is of the essence. You

20 were shown 1928 by the Defence counsel. Could you have a look at it

21 again.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, there is a new set of documents which is

23 now numbered which will bear the number, Madam Registrar ...?

24 THE REGISTRAR: 1928A. It is the same document; however, the

25 pages within the document have been numbered from number 1 through to

1 number 132.

2 MR. STAMP: Could I have a look at it, please.

3 Very well.

4 Q. Now, when you were first shown that document, the Defence counsel

5 showed you the document, showed you also two pages which indicated should

6 have preceded the first page, the top page of that document, which the

7 numbers end with "77." And Defence counsel indicated that they would get

8 copies of that document, but I understand that they are not here.

9 I'd like to add the first two pages. And perhaps it could be

10 1928C, to the -- and if I might remind you. Yesterday this is what --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, I would like to remind you not to

12 write on any of the documents unless specifically asked to do so. Yes?

13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay.

14 MR. STAMP: I apologise. I think we are short some copies.

15 Having regard to the time, may we be allowed to proceed and we

16 will provide copies later? I think the Defence had shown her those front

17 pages on the first day the document was presented to her and had indicated

18 that they would provide copies.

19 JUDGE ORIE: That is my recollection as well.

20 Ms. Pilipovic.

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As far as I

22 remember, my colleague showed these two pages of the document. Pages 75,

23 76, which have to do with 98, and I think we have 77. I'll try to find

24 them.

25 MR. STAMP:

1 Q. Now, yesterday you made some comparisons and you indicated when

2 asked by the President that you were using that document, that is, the

3 document starting 00986275, containing figures in respect to sniping

4 casualties, conclude that the figures presented by ET et al. were three

5 times higher than the figure in this document.

6 The first thing I'd like you to do is to put on the ELMO the

7 document ending "275."

8 MR. STAMP: May I just indicate to the Court at the top of the

9 document written in hand is EXD157. That should not be a part of it. As

10 a matter of fact, this same document was tendered earlier in the case as

11 D157.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That's a recall of this document, in fact, is it?

13 MR. STAMP: I don't think the entire 1978 -- there's a confusion

14 in the document that I'm not even sure I understand, but I think D157

15 would be a part of some parts of 1928 and some parts of 1927. However,

16 the --

17 Q. Just look at that front part, madam, the section ending 6275.

18 It's on the ELMO to your right. What does it say?

19 A. "Survey of civilians killed and wounded by snipers between the

20 10th of September, 1992 to the 10th of August, 1994, identified so far in

21 the city of Sarajevo."

22 Q. Madam, the document is on the ELMO to your right. Does it not say

23 "survey of so far identified civilians killed and wounded"?

24 A. Yes. I am reading it. "The survey of so far identified civilians

25 killed and wounded due to sniping between the 10th of September, 1992 to

1 the 10th of August, 1994 in the city of Sarajevo."

2 Q. So the part so far should indicate to any professional who is

3 alert that the document is probably incomplete, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it,

4 madam?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Very well.

7 A. I do not --

8 Q. Very well.

9 A. -- Know whether it is complete or not.

10 Q. However, you used this document, the completeness of which you

11 know not about, to make comparisons to the survey of ET et al., and you

12 said that this document had figures for sniping victims killed and wounded

13 three times lower than those of ET et al. Look at the second page,

14 please, at 276 -- ending 276, I beg your pardon. What's the total number

15 of sniping victims killed?

16 A. When I said "no," I meant it didn't follow. I didn't mean no, it

17 was not complete. You were asked me -- I'm sorry. I'm just trying to

18 explain. Otherwise, you're right, I quoted three times more because it

19 has to do with the sum total. It should be by 30 per cent less for the

20 wounded and for the killed and almost twice as much for the wounded.

21 Q. Let us take it slowly. When you were first presented with this

22 document on the first day when you testified and you were also presented

23 with it the next day you testified, you said that having surveyed this

24 document you found that in respect to the figures given by Tabeau et al.

25 for killed civilians from sniping this document had three times less

1 figures. You did it on two occasions, the first day testified, yesterday.

2 You are now agreeing that you were wrong when you said that on two

3 occasions?

4 A. There are three times less in relation to the overall population.

5 But since here we have only the civilians, my view was --

6 Q. Madam --

7 A. -- That -- but I am trying to explain. Please.

8 Q. No. I just want us to understand certain things about these

9 figures. Did Ms. Tabeau et al. give figures of sniping victims for 253

10 and isn't the figure for -- I beg your pardon the figure given by Tabeau

11 et al. for sniping civilian victims is 253 and the figure given in this

12 document, which you told the Court was three times lower, is in fact

13 higher than the one given by Tabeau et al. Would you now agree with that?

14 A. I agree with that.

15 Q. Very well.

16 A. Because I was dealing with the overall population --

17 Q. Madam, madam, you did not carefully peruse this document up until

18 the time when you testified yesterday and the day before.

19 A. No, I went through the document very carefully, and I took out

20 from it all the places about what you wanted to know anyone had been

21 wounded there. My mistake was to take the wrong figure, and it can happen

22 to anyone. But I was very careful and I knew what it was about. Rather

23 than take figure 253, I took the figure of 566. I apologise. But it's

24 not the three times higher number for the killed but it is by 30 per cent

25 lower but is almost twice as -- the figure is almost twice as high for the

1 wounded.

2 Q. Madam, the two batches of documents that you were given -- that

3 you were shown in the last couple days by the Defence, do you know what

4 was the methodology used in collecting whatever information they might

5 contain?

6 A. I received the document from the Defence as a finished document.

7 Q. Do you know --

8 A. And I've had the opportunity as a finished document. Will you

9 define to me the way in which they came by this document. What do you

10 want me to tell you? How they collected data?

11 Q. Yes. Do you know how the information contained in any of those

12 documents was collected, whether persons went to organisations to get

13 them, whether they asked them to phone in, post in, how was it collected?

14 By what method did they collect the information?

15 A. But it has nothing to do with me. Sorry. I got the finished

16 material.

17 Q. No. No.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, the question is whether you know how

19 the data were collected. Either you know it; then please tell us. Or you

20 don't know it; then please tell us that you don't know. It's as simple as

21 that.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received the finished material. I

23 do not know how the information was collected.

24 JUDGE ORIE: The answer is you don't know.

25 Mr. Stamp, would this be --

1 MR. STAMP: Time?

2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you're asking for the time left

3 for -- I'll just ask the -- you used your time.

4 MR. STAMP: May I just ask a couple more questions with a

5 document? It would not be more than five minutes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider that during the break.

7 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until twenty minutes past 4.00.

9 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 4.35 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We resume a bit later than expected. That's because

12 the Chamber would have to consider a few matters.

13 First of all, the information that Mr. Piletta-Zanin is not

14 available for health reasons. As a general rule, lead counsel takes over

15 when co-counsel is not available. That's the general rule. The Chamber

16 is willing, however, in order to accommodate you, Ms. Pilipovic, and also

17 to give you an opportunity to consult with General Galic, to postpone the

18 hearing on the submission on rebuttal evidence until next Friday but will

19 not postpone the date on which we'll start with the --

20 Could we please wait for -- I apologise.

21 But at the same time, invites the Prosecution to prepare to start

22 perhaps with those witnesses that are available anyhow in The Hague, but

23 if there are other practical issues, they could be discussed perhaps

24 tomorrow. But the Prosecution should continue for its preparation to

25 start with the rebuttal evidence in the beginning of next week.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: That also means that if already the Defence could say

3 in respect of certain witnesses that they would not object, if they can

4 say that, they are invited to do that even before Friday. There might be

5 evidence which is not objected by the Defence. I see you're nodding no,

6 Ms. Pilipovic. But if that would be the case, then please inform the

7 Prosecution as soon as possible. The Prosecution should inform the

8 Defence even before Friday in which order they preferably would call the

9 witnesses so that we could start at the beginning of next week. So the

10 Chamber is willing to give you an extra opportunity to consult with

11 General Galic, Ms. Pilipovic, but as a general rule, I repeat, that is

12 that if co-counsel is not available, lead counsel is responsible for the

13 continuation of the proceedings.

14 Mr. Ierace.

15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the three witnesses who are locally

16 available are Roelof From, Linda Patrick and Jonathan Tait-Harris.

17 Roelof From is available to give evidence on Monday, and indeed we plan to

18 call him first. I can't imagine that the Trial Chamber or the Defence

19 would wish to hear from Linda Patrick, whose 92 bis statement merely goes

20 to identification and provision of some photographs shown to another

21 witness who was the subject of a 92 bis statement. And it may well be

22 that Jonathan Tait-Harris is also not required.

23 Mr. President, the remaining witnesses all have to be brought from

24 Sarajevo. And if we don't have a decision until Friday, it effectively

25 means that we have to arrange for them all to come up.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. IERACE: Before we know whether they're required or not.

3 Mr. President, whilst I'm on my feet, just very briefly. I've

4 given a courtesy copy of the filing to you through Madam Registrar. I

5 notice that I've included two pages 4. The first of those should be

6 withdrawn. There's an additional sentence added to paragraph 5 of

7 the -- which appears on page 4.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That's the explanation on your rebuttal evidence, is

9 that?

10 MR. IERACE: Yes. And in relation to the other document I've made

11 available, I've also provided a copy of that to the Defence and a B/C/S

12 copy. That is not intended as a filing but merely an aid to oral

13 submissions to be made in relation to the admissibility of Mr. Radinovic's

14 report, whenever that may be. So we certainly don't seek any written

15 response from the Defence or -- or formal consideration by the Trial

16 Chamber at this stage. It's simply to avoid 15 minutes of rattling off

17 numbers.

18 So Mr. President, coming back to the issue of the order of

19 witnesses for next week. A decision on Friday does that have unfortunate

20 and inevitable consequence that it may involve considerable expense and

21 inconvenience to a number of people.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That -- I do understand that it is expensive.

23 At the same time, losing time in court is expensive as well.

24 MR. IERACE: Yes, yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, the -- all the interpreters are ready to

1 assist us, the technicians are there, the courtroom is there, so it's not

2 a question of whether it's expensive or not but what would strike the best

3 balance as far as the costs are concerned.

4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, could I make some --

5 JUDGE ORIE: And apart from that, a case, of course, is not just a

6 balance of costs, although we always keep them in the back of our mind,

7 but it's also a matter of -- of proceeding towards what -- towards the end

8 of the case. That's also a legal issue rather than just an economic

9 issue.

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I wonder whether perhaps we could

11 finesse it to some extent. For instance, Witness G, I wonder whether his

12 attendance would be required. The position in relation to him is there

13 are some photographs taken of his back which are attached to the

14 statement -- the 92 bis statement of the investigator Jonathan

15 Tait-Harris. I wonder whether we really should be making arrangements for

16 him to attend simply to show his back and -- although, I suppose there may

17 be an issue of questions.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Up till this moment we have not had a full

19 opportunity to consider these matters. It's certainly not the case that

20 the Chamber stops thinking until Friday. We'll continue to consider the

21 matter. We'll -- but on the other hand, for final decisions we should

22 hear the Defence as well. Therefore, the Defence is invited to say when

23 there are no objections. But of course it's not -- we do not start -- we

24 do not stop reading, we do not stop thinking, and therefore it's -- I

25 could not exclude that some guidance would be given during the wait that

1 if the Chamber would give certain decisions, that at least the Prosecution

2 would not prepare in such a way that it would be counter-productive.

3 Ms. Pilipovic.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour, I

5 merely wish to say that the Defence is preparing its response to the

6 Prosecution's motion for rebuttal. However, today I've received a new

7 seven-page-long document in English and new material for

8 Mr. Veljko Zecevic [as interpreted] and some new material, that is, maps.

9 Having in mind that my co-counsel is helping me with the preparations and

10 work, since all this is in English, physically I'm not able to prepare our

11 complete position in such a short time. I can work without my associate

12 when I have time for full preparation. However, since I've received a new

13 document today which I cannot study and analyse, it can only be a problem

14 if I ask that the discussion about the rebuttal be done on Friday. So it

15 is a short period of time that I need to prepare in the absence of my

16 colleague. The material that I was given for Mr. Zecevic is again in

17 English. It is two pages. So the problem for me is the physical

18 preparation for our new position.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ask you: The Chamber received a courtesy

20 copy of Mr. Zecevic's statements first in B/C/S and only afterwards, I

21 think yesterday late, the English translation. But the B/C/S version was

22 available on from the beginning, if I am correct. And I understood

23 that --

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all right. But I'm just

25 talking about the new document that I received today, the one referring to

1 Mr. Berko Zecevic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Is it not a translation of the earlier document?

3 MR. STAMP: From what I see displayed there, that appears to me to

4 be the English translation of a part of the B/C/S document which was

5 already given to the Defence.

6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, this text is in English. This

7 document is in English, the one that I have.

8 JUDGE ORIE: If that would be a translation of part of the

9 document that has been disclosed to you by way of courtesy last Friday,

10 then this was rather for Mr. Piletta-Zanin than for you. But we could

11 compare that. Perhaps during the next break this issue could be

12 clarified.

13 MR. STAMP: Yes, I think it's the English translation of annex D

14 of the report, which was handed over on Friday.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. We could clarify that during the break.

16 The Chamber has --

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I can check that today. If I can

18 be provided with some information from the registry, I'd be grateful.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, we'll see how to solve that problem, but

20 we don't have to spend time on it at this very moment. The Chamber

21 decided that we would hear the parties Friday at quarter past 2.00 and

22 to -- well, to be as flexible as possible in preparation for the situation

23 that will exist. The Chamber also intends to give a decision, if it be

24 only orally, next Friday as well, so that there's no further delay.

25 At the same time, we all hope that Mr. Piletta-Zanin will recover

1 soon, Ms. Pilipovic, and I take it that you'll pass these good wishes for

2 recovery to Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. Your Honour, I am

4 working on my preparations and I will provide a written submission. The

5 Defence's position with regard to the rebuttal will be provided in a

6 submission, and I think that I will file it by tomorrow. But the

7 documents that I have received now and the new submission, which is seven

8 pages long and is in English, perhaps this will prevent me from doing this

9 immediately.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I wonder whether it would be of any use and

11 very exceptional to ask for some assistance, Ms. Pilipovic, that apart

12 from having a final translation of this document, that it could be

13 translated orally to you so that you at least have a -- an idea about the

14 contents of it, because I -- the Chamber does understand that you are

15 handicapped by the fact that you have no direct access to new English

16 documents. So perhaps you could arrange for that, that someone sits next

17 to you and reads the content of the document.

18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll

19 familiarise myself with the contents of this document, but I don't know to

20 what extent it will be possible for me to talk to General Galic about this

21 document. I think it's a new submission, and this submission my colleague

22 clarifies certain facts included -- contained in the previous submission,

23 but I can't discuss this matter off the top of my head. Perhaps that is

24 not the case. I don't know.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if it's any assistance to

2 Madam Pilipovic, I'm happy to arrange for a language assistant at a time

3 to suit Ms. Pilipovic to sit with her and read through the document, to

4 translate it orally while she takes note, if that would assist.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether you use this offer or not,

6 Ms. Pilipovic, it's there. And I do understand that --

7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. My assistant is here.

8 But it's not necessary. My young assistant is here, and he will inform me

9 of the contents of this document.

10 JUDGE ORIE: No. The only thing I wanted to prevent is that next

11 Friday we'd sit here and that we would be in the position that you have

12 had no sufficient access to these documents in order to respond to the

13 suggestions of the Prosecution.

14 I now do see - Madam Registrar was helping us - that the English

15 text you just received seems to be a translation of annex D of the

16 statement of Professor Zecevic, and that was in the original filing in

17 English was page 9190, ERN number of the original B/C/S version was

18 03266905.

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar will assist you if you want to find

21 out what document is exactly a translation of what.

22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think we could resume the examination of

24 the -- yes.

25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just before you do that, there is one

1 other remaining matter, the exhibits of the witness Richard Gray.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. IERACE: We could do that, if that's convenient, after this

4 witness finishes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: What the Chamber -- what the Chamber intends to do is

6 to deal as much as possible with whatever outstanding exhibits after we

7 finish with this witness. And there is a long list of other exhibits as

8 well, matters that we might have forgotten in the past. But the fifth

9 tape and the video sequences is also one of the issues that we'll deal

10 with after we finish this witness.

11 Mr. Stamp, you have an additional five minutes for this witness.

12 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Ms. Radovanovic

14 into the courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, you may expect a few more questions

17 from the Prosecution and then the Defence will have an opportunity to ask

18 additional questions.

19 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

20 MR. STAMP:

21 Q. Madam, you may recall that one of the documents that I showed you

22 and I read from, the publishers indicated that one of the major

23 organisations that has published guidelines in respect to conducting

24 initial demographic assessment in complex humanitarian emergencies was

25 Medecins sans Frontieres, otherwise HSF -- I beg your pardon, MSF. Are

1 you aware that they did a survey in Sarajevo during the period of the

2 conflict in Sarajevo?

3 A. I'm not aware of that.

4 Q. Could you have a look at this document. There's a translation to

5 the back. It indicates that "After exactly one year of war --" and if one

6 could turn to the front. This is up to April 1993. "Population movements

7 and the siege of Sarajevo MSF Holland has tried to get an overview of the

8 situation in Sarajevo." And they indicate thereafter that they conducted

9 a survey which covers fields including demography, including mortality.

10 I'd like you to have a look at page 2, where it spoke of

11 methodology. It is indicated: "On a few 'quiet' 3-5 April 1993, teams of

12 MSF-Holland conducted a household survey in the more or less safe areas of

13 Sarajevo, where about 65 per cent of the population is living. Thirty

14 clusters of seven households were selected at random" --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Would you slow down, Mr. Stamp, please.

16 MR. STAMP: I apologise. I will endeavour to do so.

17 Q. "On a few quiet days, 3-5 April 1993, teams of MSF Holland

18 conducted a household survey in the more or less safe areas of Sarajevo,

19 where about 65 per cent of the population is living. Thirty clusters of

20 seven households were selected at random, resulting in 210 households

21 surveyed." And in the next paragraph, "A compromise was sought between

22 the rapidity of the interview and the degree of detail of the answers."

23 And it say that is the questionnaire is presented at annex 7.

24 Firstly, this organisation could, for the purpose of an analysis

25 for a complex humanitarian situation, use a definition of territory which

1 is not standard to an analysis based on census methodology. Can you see

2 that?

3 A. Not this rapidly. I'd need the time to go through this carefully

4 because I have the methodology here and they are mentioning the sample

5 they used. They're not mentioning the procedure followed. That is the

6 difference. If you grant me a little time to read through this, I'll do

7 so. But naturally, I don't contest the fact that it's possible to use a

8 sample to do all sorts of things in statistics. I'm bringing into

9 question Mrs. Tabeau's sample because it was taken from totally unreliable

10 and biased sources. But I don't say that it's impossible to do this.

11 What's at stake is a sample.

12 Q. I was really asking about definition of territory in a complex

13 humanitarian situation. You see, they have used safe areas as their

14 definition of territory.

15 A. I can't find that. If you could indicate where I could find this.

16 It says, "In more or less safe parts," and they took a random sample.

17 They didn't say they were going from house to house, as in the case of the

18 census used by Mrs. Tabeau. They didn't compile a list of all the

19 households that had such cases. They were in "more or less safe areas"

20 and they had a sample of 30 groups in which there were seven households.

21 They couldn't have made any mistakes there. 30 people were given the task

22 of visiting seven households. They would return with this material in the

23 evening. They'd need a few days for this. And then they'd say, "Look, we

24 have obtained -- we've found 909 people in these households." And this is

25 not something I would contest, these samples that are used in statistics.

1 Q. If you look at page 11 in section 4.2.

2 A. I don't have page 11. Sorry, where is it? In my report?

3 Q. There should be a translation of page 11 at the back of your

4 document. Do you have that?

5 A. No.

6 Q. There's a translation headed --

7 A. Or I can't find it.

8 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... "4.2 Mortality." There

9 you go.

10 That is the page beginning, "/Prevod sa engleskog jezika" 4.2,

11 mortality. And there they give a mortality rate for the year period that

12 they studied of 0.63 per 10.000 per day, confidence interval 0.32 to 0.96.

13 And in the next paragraph, it is indicated that the mortality rate is

14 extrapolated to the population of Sarajevo which was assessed at 350.000,

15 and it would mean 8.050 deaths per year, of which 4.600 deaths would be

16 because of violence.

17 Madam, it is clear that -- well, would you agree with me, firstly,

18 that the organisation MSF is a reputable international organisation in the

19 field of international humanitarian matters including statistics and

20 demography?

21 A. I can't agree with that because I know very little about that

22 organisation with respect to carrying out statistic and demographic

23 research. I haven't had the opportunity of viewing any study made by

24 theirs, any study that wasn't for internal purposes. So I'm not able to

25 have an opinion on this.

1 Q. And I suggest to you that the reason why you're unaware of it and

2 can't put forward an opinion is because the area of demography and

3 statistics and epidemiology in international humanitarian crises is alien

4 to you because your expertise is in census, the census domain of

5 demography.

6 A. And I say that you are not right. I work for a university that

7 has a demography department. I'm the head of the department for

8 demography and I lecture in three subjects. The first one is called the

9 statistics of the population, and that includes census statistics and

10 vital statistics. The second subject is called demography. And the third

11 subject is called ethnodemography. If this doesn't mean that I am

12 sufficiently qualified, then I can say that I have published over 50

13 scientific articles that deal with demography, mortality, birthrates, and

14 the smallest number has to do with population censuses because for me the

15 results of censuses served as a basis for applying statistics and

16 demographic methods in demography. In addition to that, often participate

17 in projects of the European University for Peace. I am interested in

18 demographic matters, mortality, birthrates, and the dynamics of population

19 movement. And apart from that, I am also participating in two projects at

20 my university at the moment. One is called "Population Migrations," and I

21 am the head of a subproject --

22 Q. Madam --

23 A. I am just trying to tell you what my qualifications are.

24 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... In your answer you have

25 not really addressed the distinctions I was making. I was referring to a

1 particular area of demography that I am suggesting you are clearly not

2 familiar with it. I am not saying that your experience in demography

3 generally is incomplete, but whether you have expertise in the particular

4 area of demography that we are concerned with here.

5 Q. Lastly --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Is this will really be your last question,

7 Mr. Stamp. Five minutes are --

8 MR. STAMP: Indeed. Indeed.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. STAMP:

11 Q. I'll put it this way: Assuming that if one converts the mortality

12 rate given by Medecins sans Frontieres for the first year of the war to a

13 rate per 100.000 per annum and the result would be approximately -- not

14 approximated, it would be exactly 2.099,5 for 100.000 per annum or 4.599

15 for 1.000 per two years, it would indicate that their rate is higher,

16 about twice as high, as a rate given by Tabeau et al. at page 40 of the

17 report. Assuming -- assuming that my mathematics is correct when you

18 convert it, would that not indicate that apart from the fact that the

19 rates were higher in the first few months and the first year of the

20 conflict, it also indicates that Tabeau et al. were correct when they say

21 that they -- that their study was done to find the absolute minimum

22 possible casualties? It's a long question, so perhaps you could read it.

23 A. I can't read it because I don't know English, but I think I've

24 understood the essence. You are asking me to compare pears and apples.

25 You have provided me with a document which refers to the year 1993, and it

1 was a sort of pilot research carried out on a sample which wasn't taken on

2 every single day in the course of 1993 but it was a sample that consists

3 of 30 clusters of seven households. And Mrs. Tabeau -- I really have

4 nothing against them, I'm not saying that MSF and demographers don't know

5 how to do the calculations, but this is a different matter. I don't say

6 that rates per 100.000 are used, but this is a different matter, and it's

7 far more correct procedure. They've provided the daily rate and this is

8 quite correct. And then they say the confidence interval. They have

9 provided certain restrictions. They said what the confidence interval

10 was. And Mrs. Tabeau did not do this. She has a period of time which is

11 far more extensive, and I am not criticising Mrs. Tabeau for having used

12 rates per 100.000. What I am saying is that the justification that it's a

13 small number of people, this isn't correct, or rather, the rates are not

14 based on reliable information, on reliable sources, because they

15 are -- the sources are biased, they are not complete, et cetera. And this

16 is data that Mrs. Tabeau uses and cites as the sources that she has used.

17 This is what we are discussing. I have nothing against this report. I am

18 not claiming that it's not a good report, and I'm not saying that you

19 don't use rates per 100.000, but I'm just saying that the procedure -- I'm

20 just contesting the procedure and the method of Mrs. Tabeau.

21 Q. Thank you, ma'am.

22 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours, for

23 your patience. May it please you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Pilipovic, is there any need to re-examine

25 the witness? The Chamber would very much like to finish with this witness

1 today. We also would like at least to make a start with the --

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one question. And yes, Your

3 Honour. Your Honour, I have one question.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 Re-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:

6 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Radovanovic, in the course of his

7 cross-examination the Prosecutor suggested, I think, that the data on the

8 basis of which Mrs. Tabeau compiled her report come from a questionnaire

9 and not from the census and you denied this. Do you remember that?

10 A. Yes, I do. I claim that this information is from the census.

11 Q. Can you tell us why you made such a claim.

12 A. Well, apart from the word where it says that it seems like

13 it -- it appears -- that it looks like a questionnaire, that the census

14 looks like a questionnaire, the word "questionnaire" doesn't appear

15 anywhere again but the word "census" is used in the tables. But I know

16 it's a census. I got the original questionnaire where this research was

17 carried out. Could you have a look at annex 1 in the Serbian version.

18 Could you have a look at the questionnaire, at the poll.

19 The questionnaire is as follows: It says "questionnaire" or

20 "poll for recording the households in the free areas of the city of

21 Sarajevo in 1994." It doesn't say -- it says "questionnaire."

22 Q. Do you have Mrs. Tabeau's report in front of you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Could you have a look at page 56 in the Serbian version.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Does it say "questionnaire" there?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Could you comment on items 3 and 4.

4 A. Yes. This shows how amateurish this study was, and it shows that

5 the census-takers, if there were any such people, they didn't know what to

6 do, they didn't know how to proceed. I assume that this questionnaire was

7 selected in order to be a valid questionnaire. And if you have a look at

8 question 3, it says "members of households who are now living in the free

9 areas of the city of Sarajevo." And the head of the family household

10 should be listed, and here you have five members of the household listed.

11 The fifth member is Dzedovic Meho, Suhrija. Have a look at question 4.

12 "Members of family households who are -- took refuge or, rather,

13 displaced outside of Sarajevo or remained in the territory of the Republic

14 of BiH which is under the control of the aggressor." And then it says,

15 "Dzedovic Meho, Suhrija and then you have other information. So Dzedovic

16 Suhrija was at the same time in Sarajevo - you can see this in question

17 3 - and at the same time she was a refugee. You can see that in question

18 4. So she was in two places at the same time, and this is physically

19 impossible.

20 And if I may, I would like to draw your attention to another fact:

21 The questionnaire here discusses the matter of the status of civilians and

22 soldiers or combatants -- civilians and combatants. Mrs. Tabeau regards,

23 this treats this as if it was civilians and soldiers. So I think that

24 this was an amateurish project and that is also because the term

25 "combatant" and "soldier" in Serbian and Bosnian language don't have

1 exactly the same meaning. In armed conflicts a soldier is always a

2 combatant, but a combatant might be a soldier but is not necessarily a

3 soldier, and it is my opinion that the purpose of this questionnaire was

4 to gather combatants regardless of the fact -- regardless of the fact

5 whether they were soldiers or civilians. I think she said that they were

6 soldiers -- Mrs. Tabeau said they were soldiers because if you compare

7 this to a more reliable source of information, and that is the list of

8 those killed in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then the number of

9 those killed will be significantly lower than the number for

10 soldiers -- or rather, than the number provided by Mrs. Tabeau.

11 Q. [No interpretation]

12 MR. STAMP: Sorry, there's no interpretation of what is now being

13 said.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Oh, we are -- I'm sorry.

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. You said that when polls are conducted that control is conducted

17 directly in the field. Have you ever come across information that such

18 control was done in the field during the polling?

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Is there all right now, for my

20 learned friends?

21 MR. STAMP: Oh, that's fine. That's fine.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe we received

24 the answer, namely that the witness has not found the information that

25 this was subjected to the control in the field.

1 Q. Wasn't that your answer?

2 A. Yes, it was.

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions for

6 you.

7 Questioned by the Court:

8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

9 [Interpretation] Madam, I would like you to explain to me a

10 paragraph, a passage which I failed to understand. I'm referring to

11 paragraph D called "Main conclusions" in English, and it is on page 5.

12 A. I've found it.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I will quote it in English. You

14 said: [In English] "[Previous interpretation continues] ... On the basis

15 of which absolute values on the total population and its structures, the

16 relative calculation was made. All the relative calculations were made on

17 the basis of 100.000 inhabitants, although this is nonsense." And then

18 you said, "this manner was being employed in order to intensify the

19 impression and to present the event as a major and more significant one."

20 [Interpretation] So my question is: When one uses this method,

21 how can one amplify the result?

22 A. No. No, that does not happen. But one simply gets a different

23 picture, rather than have the mortality 5 per 1.000, it says it's 500 per

24 1.000. That is the only difference.

25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] You mean not per 1.000 but per

1 100.000, but the percentage is the same.

2 A. It is the same, but it is presented differently, and this is what

3 the difference is, if I may be allowed to explain. When, for instance,

4 you are presented it per municipalities, you have the municipality of

5 Vogosca, which has a population of 24, 25 thousand, and now you say that

6 the mortality rate in Vogosca is, say, 500, which means that per

7 1.000 -- per 100.000 population, the mortality rate is 500 and there are

8 24.000 inhabitants in Vogosca. Demographically and statistically it is

9 correct, but it serves no purpose because Vogosca will have 100.000

10 population at the end of this century or perhaps it won't. So it is

11 better to say that the rate is 5 per 1.000, that is, that one takes 1.000

12 inhabitants. I'm saying that the manner of presentation did -- was not

13 appropriate because of the number that we have.

14 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But the result is the same, if I

15 understand properly and therefore, it cannot lead to any confusion.

16 A. Yes, the result is the same. It cannot result in any confusion.

17 I merely thought that this was the manipulation with the manner of

18 presentation.

19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, but this is a value

20 judgment. You are not contesting it as such. You are simply interpreting

21 it no different, that is, basing it on your personal impression.

22 My second question, please: You told us that the samples that

23 were used in the Tabeau et al. report were based on the number of 85.000.

24 And bearing in mind that in every household there are four persons, one

25 arrives at a total figure, at the total population. So my first question

1 is: Does one use -- if we say that every household has four members, is

2 it in contradiction with the rules normally applied, with standards

3 normally applied in your discipline? Or let me explain it further. When

4 this -- when the Medecins sans Frontieres drafted their report, they found

5 that the population was roughly the same as the size of the population

6 indicated in Madam Tabeau's report. So I deduce from that that to start

7 from an assumption that a household has four members does not mean a

8 deviation, that that is correct to use that. Would that be right? What

9 is your impression and what is your opinion about the size of the

10 household?

11 A. I have nothing against it. I accept it. Mrs. Tabeau's

12 assumption, I accepted it, and that is the figure that I addressed, the

13 total population 340.000. But Mrs. Tabeau in contrast with those other

14 reports has an assumed area which has not been statistically defined. She

15 says "within the front lines," and she mentions 89 neighbourhood, local

16 communities, and she observes a different period of time, that is, the

17 period of time between 1992 and 1994. And she also has the following

18 information: She say that is the UNHCR say that is in all six Sarajevo

19 municipalities in 1998 there were 72.000-something refugees. We are

20 looking at an area which is smaller than all six Sarajevo municipalities

21 and in which an average household was --

22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand your point of

23 view. Thank you. Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd like to put a few questions to you. May I

25 perhaps give you a small piece of paper just to clarify my question to

1 you.

2 Could you please put that on the ELMO.

3 I'm trying to draw your attention to a situation that did not

4 exist but just a hypothetical one. We have a small funeral parlour, a

5 smaller one than the Bakija, and let's just assume that the data are

6 reliable but the same would be true if the data are not reliable. In a

7 relevant time and in a relevant period of time they buried 2.340 Muslims.

8 If the PDS 1994 tells us that on the totality of the population covered by

9 the PDS in the same relevant time and in the same relevant period 2.340

10 Muslims were killed, would that justify the conclusion that no

11 Muslim -- where it says "no one" it should say "no Muslim" -- died from

12 natural causes in that relevant time, relevant period?

13 A. I am not quite sure I fully understand the question, but I do not

14 think that it should follow. Why not? Because the sources of information

15 are different.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 A. And neither source is good. If we assume --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let me just stop you.

19 A. Very well.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just assume that the sources are good. So we

21 have a funeral parlour and they inspected every and each individual person

22 buried, and the PDS 1994 was perfect. Would this conclusion -- could that

23 be drawn from the data given?

24 A. It wouldn't be statistically accurate. The difference here is

25 zero, therefore it means that no one died of natural causes. But that

1 would automatically tell an expert that something was wrong with some

2 source. Because if we look at it from a purely mathematical point of

3 view --

4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Take my example

5 and tell me what is wrong with the sources. It's a perfect registration

6 by the funeral parlour, and it's a perfect - well, whether you call it

7 census or - let's just assume for the sake of argument that it's perfect.

8 Would this be the conclusion?

9 A. I can't -- I don't understand what it says here, but I assume that

10 the first is Bakija and the second here is the census of 1994. And now

11 you tell me Bakija buried --

12 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm not saying it's Bakija. I just said to you

13 it's a hypothetical. Call it funeral parlour X, not Bakija. It's a

14 smaller one, in fact, than Bakija. Let's just forget about the existence

15 of Bakija. This is a smaller funeral parlour which in this area would

16 bury Muslims. Then again, my question is: Would this be a conclusion

17 that could be drawn from these figures?

18 A. If you are not a demographer, then yes. And if you are, you start

19 wondering, and that is where I must insist, because the calculations show

20 that it is zero.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 A. But you have to know -- may I continue?

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 A. Regardless of what that funeral parlour is called, it buries

25 everybody in the same area as is covered by the census or not.

1 JUDGE ORIE: It's a small funeral parlour. There are others. And

2 there are --

3 A. It covers the whole area that is covered by the census.

4 JUDGE ORIE: They bury people from that same area from all parts

5 but not all of them because there are other funeral parlours who do bury

6 the other persons who died.

7 A. Very well. So this is the first source which is doubtful. The

8 second one is the population census. So I ask you: Where did you get to

9 2.340? What was the source of it? Because that is another hypothesis,

10 that you need to have the two overlap, and it's only apparent -- only

11 apparently nobody died from natural causes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: The assumption is that the registration by the

13 funeral parlour was perfect, they -- well, they photographed every person,

14 uniforms as well, they got full information, they know exactly whether

15 it's a man or a woman, all is perfect, and the same for the PDS. They

16 double-checked three times all the information. Would this then --

17 A. But my question is: How many persons in the PDS were killed and

18 buried by this funeral parlour? Is there a duplication? If 2.340 were

19 killed, according to the PDS, then the assumption is that none of them

20 were buried by this small funeral parlour, that they were all buried

21 elsewhere.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that to you --

23 A. And that is --

24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not suggesting that to you. Part of those

25 killed --

1 A. No, no, no. I'm just asking. I'm asking. A demographer must ask

2 questions.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I'll give you an answer. A number, a higher number

4 or smaller number, but a considerable number of those killed were buried

5 by this funeral parlour.

6 A. The assumption that 1.340 of those 2.340 were buried by this

7 funeral parlour, then the remaining 1.000 - the remaining 1.000 - in all

8 likelihood died of natural causes because we do not know where this 1.000

9 is buried.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 A. That is why one needs more information if you are to say one thing

12 or another.

13 JUDGE ORIE: But on the basis of what we see here, we cannot draw

14 the conclusion that no one died from natural sources because the

15 population served by the small funeral parlour will have been a smaller

16 one than the total population. Is that correct?

17 A. I don't think I get your point. Could you please be more

18 specific.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I say that on the basis of the assumptions we

20 made you cannot conclude that no one died from natural causes because

21 the -- not everyone was buried, not every Muslim was buried by this small

22 funeral parlour.

23 A. All I can conclude is how many probably died but not how many

24 exactly. If I know the assumption, how many Muslims were killed, and then

25 I have another assumption which says those killed Muslims can be buried

1 only here, there's no other place, only this small funeral parlour, that

2 is -- well, that's what I'm saying. That is the source.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 A. A killed Muslim may not be buried anywhere else. He must be

5 buried by this funeral parlour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 A. Because that is the case we have here.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the conclusion would be true.

9 A. Correct. Then one could differentiate between possible natural

10 deaths and how many are violent deaths. And I think the whole confusion

11 is that I didn't explain it. The condition is the source. The one who

12 buries Muslims, there is no other side which might be burying Muslims.

13 Killed, died of natural causes, wherever, he will always be buried by

14 Bakija. There is nobody else or in the majority of cases.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about Bakija yet. I'm just talking

16 about --

17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Okay.

18 JUDGE ORIE: But --

19 A. No. I'm referring to this. So the condition must be that nobody

20 may be buried by anybody else. Only this is the way in which we can

21 differentiate.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... If my small

23 funeral parlour would bury all Muslims that had been killed in the

24 relevant time, relevant period, only then we could conclude that no one,

25 no Muslim, died from natural sources. Do we agree on that?

1 A. If the figures are identical, then yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Now may I take you to page 24 of your report.

3 A. I don't know what page it is in --

4 JUDGE ORIE: It's the Bakija -- I think it's page -- let me just

5 have a look. It's page 14 --

6 A. I've found it. 2.1.2.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would like you to concentrate on what you

8 have written under "A," and I would like to ask you a few questions. The

9 first one is: Did Bakija bury all killed Muslims in Sarajevo?

10 A. Mrs. Tabeau says - and that is the only source I have - because I

11 don't know. I've never heard of Bakija. And she says --

12 JUDGE ORIE: The question: Where does Ms. Tabeau say that all

13 killed Muslims were buried by Bakija?

14 A. No, she doesn't say all. She says the majority.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So let's -- let's just -- yes. So --

16 A. Let me find that. May I?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we do agree that Ms. Tabeau does not say

18 that they were all killed -- they were all buried by Bakija.

19 Now we have -- let's just assume that the PDS 1994 is correct and

20 Bakija is giving reliable information. That would mean that your

21 conclusion that the probably death by natural causes would be only a

22 logical conclusion if all killed Muslims would have been buried by Bakija.

23 I think that's the exercise we just did on my smaller funeral parlour,

24 isn't it? Therefore, is the conclusion you draw in respect of 3.926

25 reliable if we have to assume that Bakija did not bury all of the killed

1 Muslims?

2 A. You mean whether the figure of 3.926 is accurate or whether the

3 conclusion is accurate?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the conclusion is not accurate, I would say

5 the number would not be accurate either unless by any coincidence,

6 according to a different system, you came to the same conclusion.

7 A. The conclusion is accurate if we accept the assumption that this

8 figure is accurate, regardless of whether they buried all the killed or

9 not. The company buried so many Muslims, regardless of whether they were

10 all killed. So I think that the sample is wrong. The principle is all

11 right, but whether the figure is all right, that is ...

12 JUDGE ORIE: But I think that with our smaller funeral parlour we

13 just came to the conclusion that it would only be correct to deduct one

14 from the other if all killed Muslims would be buried by my smaller funeral

15 parlour. That was one of the preconditions for drawing these kind of

16 conclusions, isn't it?

17 A. Yes, that's right. But in that case, this is the number -- the

18 overall number of the killed Muslims. I suppose that there would be more

19 natural deaths, so that if not 2.340 killed Muslims were buried by Bakija

20 but only 1.000, that is, if half of those killed were buried elsewhere and

21 half by Bakija, then the difference shows that the natural mortality is

22 higher than shown here. It is irrelevant whether all the killed Muslims

23 were buried by Bakija or not. It is irrelevant in this case.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You just told us on the basis of my smaller funeral

25 parlour that it's of high relevance for the conclusion whether all killed

1 Muslims were buried by Bakija. That is to say, whether the PDS 1994

2 covers the same population as the Bakija funeral, that would mean that

3 they would have buried all those people who were subject of the PDS 1994;

4 isn't that true?

5 A. No. We said in the beginning if we have the sum total, then we

6 said if one half of those Muslims were not buried by this small funeral

7 parlour, the difference between those who were buried and that other half

8 who were not buried there would be those who died of natural causes. And

9 if we have such identical figures, that holds true only if they were all

10 buried by this small funeral parlour, then we have no natural deaths.

11 Perhaps you don't understand me. What does matter is which share of those

12 buried are the ones who were killed. That is important. Is that share

13 higher if we are talking about a different area, or perhaps a smaller

14 share if we are talking about a different area? So what is important is

15 whether we're dealing with one and the same area.

16 JUDGE ORIE: So you should calculate the degree to which the

17 Muslims covered by the PDS 1994 were buried by the funeral parlour in

18 order to draw conclusions. Did you do that on page 24? I see that you

19 just took the number of those buried by Bakija without making any

20 adjustment as to what part of the population would be served by the Bakija

21 funeral parlour.

22 A. You have to bear in mind that I took the figures out of the expert

23 opinion and I took the highest possible figure, that is, the possibility

24 that they were all buried there. And in that case, the mortality rate of

25 natural causes is such. Had I taken one-half only, then the natural

1 causes would account for even a larger percentage. But what I said, the

2 assumption is that they were all -- that all Muslims were killed, and then

3 I got smaller natural mortality. Had I taken it that the half of those

4 killed were buried by Bakija and half of them elsewhere, again the figures

5 would be different. Had I taken -- I mean, these are all the assumptions.

6 These are only guesses. And I'm sure of this. If they're all here, then

7 the probability that I will go round is lesser.

8 JUDGE ORIE: So this calculation is based on the assumption that

9 all killed Muslims were buried by Bakija; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 A. It is, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any reason to accept on the basis of the

14 report by Mrs. Tabeau that all killed Muslims were buried by Bakija?

15 A. Sorry. Can I have a second.

16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Before. I

17 think you then said that it was not, it was only a major part.

18 A. Yes, a major part or majority. I just want to check because I'm

19 not sure. Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So not all of them. It could be 60 per cent,

21 it could be 70 per cent, it could be 80 per cent. And do you agree that

22 that then would have to be taken into consideration if you make the

23 calculation you make under A?

24 A. You need to bear in mind that the calculation was done to show

25 that the sources of information were wrong. I was not trying to show what

1 was more fair, what was more just, and that is why I didn't use any other

2 calculating method. Had I assumed that 60 per cent of the Muslims who

3 were buried there, rather than 100 per cent, then I wouldn't get anything

4 in order to change the expert report because this lady says so many were

5 buried there. And I am reducing the probability that the natural causes

6 account for more per cent if I take that this is 100 per cent. I wouldn't

7 get this difference that the natural causes would be 3.126. It would be

8 less had I not taken that not all the Muslims were buried there. And from

9 that point of view the figure here does not give us other variants. What

10 if 20 per cent were buried there? What if 30 per cent were buried there?

11 Because it makes no sense, for the simple reason that it will only

12 exacerbate the differences, and I believe it shows simply that the sources

13 are bad, that the sources on which all the assumptions and statistical

14 conclusions are based, these sources are poor.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I have some difficulties in understanding that if you

16 make calculations which do not consider the data given by the Tabeau

17 report, one of these data being that the majority but not all of the

18 Muslims, were buried by Bakija, that you could make a calculation which

19 ignores part of the data of the Tabeau report in order to demonstrate that

20 the sources of the report are wrong.

21 A. Well, I have then to address very many assumptions. When it says

22 the majority of Muslims were buried by Bakija, what is the majority?

23 Anything that is above 50 per cent. It is not said the majority of 80 per

24 cent or 90 per cent. Once again I say if I take it the majority is all,

25 I'm not making a major assumption that such can account for more. Had I

1 taken 60 per cent, 70, or whatever, this is making guesses because nowhere

2 does it say what the majority means. Had I taken even the assumption that

3 it was only 50 per cent, then the difference, that is, in favour of

4 natural causes would be much higher.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that we could easily read that on the

6 basis of these data you should not make such calculations because the data

7 is insufficient to do that. Ms. Tabeau didn't do it. That's -- I mean,

8 you are making the calculation. She did not. In a similar way we asked

9 you several times where she makes similar calculations as you do. I

10 didn't find it in the report. But let's not enter into a debate. You

11 have answered my questions thoroughly.

12 And is there any question that would have come up on the basis of

13 the questions by the Chamber? If not, then the concludes your testimony

14 in this court, Ms. Radovanovic.

15 You've been here for a couple of days. It took a long time.

16 You've answered all the questions put both by the Defence and the

17 Prosecution, by the Chamber, put to you. We thank you very much that

18 you've come the long way to The Hague. We apologise that you had to stay

19 longer than expected under sad circumstances in your country. We wish you

20 a safe trip home again.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 Mr. Usher, please escort Ms. Radovanovic out of the courtroom.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 [The witness withdrew]

1 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn -- yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I merely wanted to

3 say that the Defence has completed its case at this stage in our

4 proceedings, with regard to witnesses.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it -- yes, because I take it that we -- we

6 still have to deal with the exhibits, and that would be part of your case

7 as well. But --

8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That, yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: But that is understood.

10 We will first adjourn, and then deal with the exhibits, until

11 quarter past 6.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 5.55 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 6.19 p.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could we please start first with the

15 exhibits introduced through the last expert witness.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1927, bundle of documents with the first

17 page bearing ERN number 00982900, in B/C/S; D1927A, the aforementioned

18 exhibit with the pages numbered from page 1 through to 105; D1927.1A,

19 English translation of page ERN 00985639; D1927.1B, English translation of

20 page ERN number 00982954; Exhibit D1927.1C, English translation of page

21 ERN number 00982953; Exhibit D1928, bundle of documents, the first

22 document bearing number 00986277, survey of so far killed and wounded

23 civilians in sniping activities in the town of Sarajevo from 06/09/1992 to

24 10/08/1994; D1928A, the aforementioned exhibit with numbered pages

25 starting from 1 through to page 132; P3774, forced migration and

1 mortality; .1, B/C/S translation; P3775, demographic assessment techniques

2 in complex humanitarian emergencies; .1, B/C/S translation; P3776,

3 political killings in Kosova/Kosovo March to June 1999; .1, B/C/S

4 translation; P3780, report of a household survey in Sarajevo, Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina April 1993; .1, B/C/S translation; P3780A, questionnaire

6 Sarajevo; .1, B/C/S translation; P3781, brief report, premature mortality

7 in former Yugoslavia; .1, B/C/S translation; P3782, two-page document,

8 first page bearing ERN number 00986275 and 00986276, both in B/C/S.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any objections to these documents?

10 MR. STAMP: Not an objection, just a query. In respect to the

11 first two -- or could we call it the first four exhibits, that is, 1927,

12 1927A, and 1928, and 1928A.

13 JUDGE ORIE: The two bundles.

14 MR. STAMP: The two -- what is now four bundles.

15 JUDGE ORIE: It's now four bundles, yes.

16 MR. STAMP: Are we to consider them as completely in evidence or

17 are we entitled to refer only to the pages that were discussed by the

18 witness?

19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, the documents have been tendered by

20 the Defence. What was your attitude?

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our position is that

22 documents 1927, 1927A, 1928, and 1928A are integral parts of the document

23 1927. Except that these documents have translations.

24 JUDGE ORIE: What would you expect the Chamber to do with those

25 parts not translated?

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence expects

2 that the Chamber will decide that the untranslated parts, that is, in

3 these translations we showed that the parts which are not translated are

4 also integral parts of that same report, which is a document 1927; and

5 likewise, in the document 1928. We, for technical reasons, we simply were

6 unable to translate all these documents, but the document 1928 is -- the

7 expert addressed it in her expert opinion.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: We will give you a decision on that, Mr. Stamp,

11 specifically to what extent these documents are integral parts of the

12 evidence.

13 Are there any other objections? If not, then the other documents

14 are admitted into evidence. So not yet 1927 and 1927A as a consequence

15 and the same for 1928 and 1928A.

16 Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the registrar has

18 suggested that we are suggesting through General Radinovic we would like

19 to produce documents following the bar table and under numbers -- so

20 statements of experts which are D1917, D1918, D1919, D1920, D1921, D1922,

21 D1923, D1924, and D1925.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if I -- perhaps I

24 should have -- say whose finding it was alongside every number.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the registrar will lead us through that,

1 but I would ask her to limit herself to the expert reports and not yet to

2 the documents to be tendered from the bar table because I do understand

3 that, although we have not thoroughly studied it, that the summary

4 explanation of the Prosecution also deals with documents tendered in this

5 way by the Defence. I see --

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I would -- for example, I see on page 14 of

8 your explanation, Mr. Ierace, that exhibits tendered from the bar table no

9 objections. So I'd rather deal with all the Radinovic documents at the

10 same time rather than -- we should have an opportunity to hear and perhaps

11 first read what the Prosecution has told us in this respect. So

12 therefore, I would first like to concentrate on the expert reports.

13 Madam Registrar, could you ...

14 THE REGISTRAR: D1917, expert report Janko Vilicic; D1918, expert

15 report Kosta Cavoski; D1919, expert report Slavenko Terzic; D1920, expert

16 report Jelena Guskova; D1921, expert report Dusan Dunjic; D1922, expert

17 report Svetlana Radovanovic; D1923, expert report Blagoje Kuljic; D1924,

18 expert report Milan Kunjadic; D1925, expert report Radovan Radinovic.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These expert reports and the admissibility of

20 these expert reports has been largely discussed. As far as my

21 recollection goes, there is a last request not to admit finally the

22 Radinovic report. I think we should first study that thoroughly and hear

23 what the Defence has to say on it and then give a final decision. The

24 main reason, I think, why these expert reports are mentioned at this very

25 moment is for the technical reason that they were not, as all the expert

1 reports from the Prosecution were, were formally tendered into evidence.

2 So the decisions in respect of these reports stands as they are, and we

3 still have to give a decision on a new request where the Radinovic report

4 was admitted into evidence to exclude parts or the whole of that report.

5 Then I would like to take the parties back to, I would say, not

6 ancient times but at least in the past. The parties have been provided

7 with lists of documents of exhibits still outstanding, if I am well

8 informed. So let me first go through that list.

9 We first have D1815, which is a pseudonym sheet in relation to

10 Witness DP30, which is tendered to be admitted under seal. No objection.

11 It's then admitted under seal.

12 Then we have P3769, also introduced through Witness DP30, which is

13 photo of sniper rifles. I do not hear any objection, so therefore that is

14 also admitted into evidence.

15 Then one of the outstanding issues was in relation to Prosecution

16 document 3766, 3766.1, and P3766A and P3766A.1 under seal, introduced

17 through Witness DP30. That is a transcript of an interview of Witness

18 DP30 with OTP representatives. On the 10th of December the Trial Chamber

19 has expressed that it would consider admission of the transcript if

20 certain conditions were met. As far as the Trial Chamber is aware, the

21 documents have not been received by the Trial Chamber.

22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, we're now in a position to tender the

23 transcript of the interview in the format that the Trial Chamber required.

24 Pardon me, Mr. President. I would therefore seek to tender P3766B and

25 P3766B.1.

1 Excuse me, Mr. President.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MR. IERACE: And I think -- well, Mr. President, if you require

4 copies of the cassette tape recorded interview, we have those as well.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The audiotape was one of the conditions. So I

6 think the Chamber would consider admission of the transcript if it would

7 receive the audiotape of the interview, the transcripts in English and

8 B/C/S as seen in court and annotated by the witness, the transcripts of

9 the original words spoken, sometimes called a mixed transcript, and an

10 official translation of the mixed transcript. I think that the Defence

11 should have an opportunity first to look at it and then it would be unfair

12 to ask you to express yourself on this very moment.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: A decision on 3766B and B.1 and the audiotape will be

15 taken after we have had an opportunity to review the documents just now

16 tendered.

17 There is still a document pending that is D1818 and the same

18 number .1, a translation introduced through Witness DP2. It's a statement

19 given to the national authorities by a person who is not the witness. The

20 admission of this document is rejected on the basis of lack of relevance.

21 We then have document P2754, a UNMO daily SITREP relating to

22 sniping from the house for the blind, introduced through Witness DP17,

23 which was already introduced although not formally tendered through

24 Witness van Baal.

25 Yes.

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I don't

2 know who DP17, the witness is at the moment, but I can't remember what

3 this document is. I'd just like to check it. P2754?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would need more time, Ms. Pilipovic,

5 then take your time.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Since there is no translation attached to it,

8 Ms. Pilipovic, if you would like to consider it further.

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That's what I assumed. That's why

10 I wanted to check this. And I will say what my position is on Friday.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the same would, I take it, be true for

12 Prosecution Exhibit 2759, which is similar, also introduced through

13 Witness DP17.

14 Then the next exhibit would be D185A, introduced through the

15 Witness Vorobev. It was a map provided by the Defence after the

16 completion of the testimony upon the request of the Chamber.

17 Madam Registrar, what is it? Number D185A? Yes. Then

18 it's -- since it's requested by the Chamber, it's admitted into evidence.

19 The next would be P3785, report of the Secretary-General on the

20 fall of Srebrenica, introduced through Witness [redacted]. Ms. Pilipovic, I do

21 not hear any objection; therefore, it is --

22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it was just

23 one page from that document, but I can't remember right now, and I think

24 that document was in English too, but I'm not sure, 3785. Perhaps my

25 learned colleague will be of assistance.

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it was indeed -- excuse me. It was

2 indeed in English, and my recollection is that there was more than one

3 page that was relevant in order to place in context -- yes, thank you,

4 Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think we started concentrating on one page

6 but that we ended with the total document. It's not one page, as far as I

7 can see. It is -- yes, we, I think, finally what was tendered was the

8 document with the UN number A54549, report of the Secretary-General

9 pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35, the fall of Srebrenica.

10 It's my recollection that the context should be clear. Pages 31 and 32 of

11 that document, which is paragraph D, deals with Markale massacre and

12 disagreements on the use of air power, and it's there where some results

13 of UNPROFOR investigations are presented. And one of the issues also was

14 the footnotes that were contained in those pages, and therefore the pages

15 108 and 109, these are the pages with the footnotes, are part of the

16 document as it has been tendered. So we finally now have five pages

17 covering the whole paragraph on the Markale massacre and disagreements on

18 the use of air power, page 31-32, and footnote pages 108 and 109.

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to have

20 a look at that document if I may and in fact you of the Defence's position

21 on Friday, because I think that there was another report of that kind.

22 I'm not sure. I'm not sure what resolution that report related to.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll give you an opportunity to express

24 yourself since it's only an English text, P3785.

25 Then we have one document which has not been formally admitted

1 into evidence, although it's a Chamber exhibit; that's C1. That's the

2 original of Prosecution Exhibit 2506B, which is a medical certificate.

3 The Chamber has requested this document, and it is now formally admitted

4 under C1.

5 Then, Madam Registrar, it becomes so complicated that I would like

6 to ask you to guide us through a number of documents, and that is, I would

7 say, the videotapes. That's P3793A, or am I now making a mistake?

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We now come to what I would like to call the

10 Gray exhibits. We -- I think the major issue was the videotapes, rather

11 than anything else. And if I am well informed, it was D348/20, to which

12 the Prosecution wanted first to enquire into the source. I think that's

13 the matter of the fifth tape as a potential source of one of the sequences

14 on that videotape.

15 Yes. Ms. Pilipovic, yes.

16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Your Honour, the

17 Defence has realised that there was a fifth tape. We only found that

18 later. I think that the problem of that tape arose because initially

19 there were four videotapes. Mr. Gray came to see me in my office. It's a

20 small office, and he worked with my colleague on occasion. As far as I

21 can remember, one tape had no purpose whatsoever, and I think that that is

22 where the problem arose. I know that there were BBC tapes which have been

23 disclosed. I don't know whether there were four BBC tapes; I can't say

24 that at the moment. But as far as I have understood this, we believe that

25 these tapes were of value. And I think that there was some confusion

1 because it was a problem to provide cassettes that could be of use to our

2 colleagues and to the Defence, cassettes that were of value, of

3 importance. I think that this concerns a cassette on which you could see

4 football matches for the entire duration of the tape. So in fact there

5 were always four cassettes. I think that's the situation. As I have

6 said, I didn't discuss the matter in detail with Mr. Gray, but I know that

7 there were four tapes that were of importance, four quality tapes, and

8 there was one that was useless so to say, and I think that's where the

9 problem arose. Perhaps some cassettes got mixed up, but the essence of

10 the matter is the -- the substance of the matter is that four cassettes

11 were important. I don't think there was anything on the tape -- on one of

12 the tapes that would have anything to do with the area that we are

13 interested in. I didn't review -- I didn't view all the tapes entirely,

14 but I did receive some copies from my colleagues.

15 JUDGE ORIE: If you would not mind that I stop you, Ms. Pilipovic.

16 I think the issue is whether the compilation tape produced by the Defence

17 would find any objections from the Prosecution and the Prosecution had

18 difficulties in expressing itself because it didn't know where the first

19 sequence came from. Meanwhile, I take it that the tape you're talking

20 about has been disclosed to the Prosecution? That's a different issue,

21 I'm afraid.

22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the fifth tape has been disclosed to

23 the Prosecution, Mr. President, and I don't object to the tender of the

24 Defence compilation tape. You may recall, Mr. President, that when the

25 first two clips, if I could call them that, or first clip of that tape was

1 played, I immediately inquired through you of the Defence whether that

2 indeed was on one of the four tapes they had disclosed.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. IERACE: And I was assured that it was. I was repeatedly

5 assured that it was. I was repeatedly informed that we had received all

6 of the tapes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you, Mr. Ierace.

8 MR. IERACE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's quite clear that one of the parties, as

10 I said at that time, caused a bad weekend for one of the other parties and

11 it was still unknown at that very moment which one caused the bad weekend

12 for the other one. I think this is what you're referring to at this

13 moment, also looking at the clock, the most important for the Chamber to

14 know is whether viewing the fifth tape would have any consequences for the

15 admission of the tape initially tendered.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the --

17 JUDGE ORIE: You said it was not?

18 MR. IERACE: It was on the fifth tape.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it's not --

20 MR. IERACE: But I don't object to it. But there is another

21 issue.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the first has been settled. This fifth tape

23 does not cause any objection to the admission of the compilation.

24 But the other issue, is Mr. Ierace?

25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the other issue is this: The fifth

1 tape comprised, I think, altogether some 12 BBC clips. Had that been

2 disclosed to the Prosecution, it would have been the subject of

3 cross-examination of Mr. Gray. There is no remedy to that situation we

4 now find ourselves in. Having denied the existence of the fifth tape, we

5 received it well after the witness had returned to New Zealand.

6 Mr. President, I have arranged for three of those clips to be

7 placed on a -- a blank tape, and I have a transcript of those clips. I

8 seek to tender it. The relevance is that it goes to establishing a

9 pre-indictment campaign of sniping and shelling and the infliction of

10 terror on Sarajevan civilians.

11 Mr. President, perhaps at this stage I could hand up a copy of the

12 transcript which will give you some idea of the contents and provide a

13 copy to my learned colleague to perhaps be translated to her by her

14 assistant at some stage so that we could consider this further. Thank

15 you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Pilipovic.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to point out

18 that the cassette number 5, as my colleague says, but I think that it's

19 part of cassette 4, I'd like to say that I don't have a copy of that tape

20 in order to be able to view all of this. I provided my colleagues with

21 the original of the cassette.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a copy made, Mr. Ierace?

23 MR. IERACE: There isn't a full copy of the video. Perhaps that

24 could be passed to Madam Registrar or perhaps it could be -- I have no

25 objection to it being returned to the Defence on the understanding that

1 once they've viewed it, until this issue is settled, it could then be

2 passed to Madam Registrar, given the history of the matter. We still

3 haven't received, Mr. President, a credible explanation as to why that was

4 not provided when it should have been provided. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: What I suggest is that the original, for the time

6 being, remains in the hands of the registry. This prevents any later

7 debate on whether the excerpt made by the Prosecution would be -- would

8 contain parts of that other tape. We could not check any more once it has

9 been given back to one of the parties. There seems to be some difference

10 of view in respect of the relevance of certain parts. I would,

11 however -- I don't know how difficult this is with this tape. I would

12 very much like to have a copy of that original tape, even not in evidence,

13 to be kept by the -- perhaps marked for identification, kept by the

14 registrar. I would like to give an opportunity to Ms. Pilipovic to see

15 exactly what parts are tendered now. That means that you would now

16 receive at least the tape containing the three parts that the Prosecution

17 intends to tender so that you could at least see what that is and also

18 look at the transcript of it so that the Defence is in a position to

19 express itself next Friday on the issue. The original is where?

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, but I would also

21 request a copy of the original cassette.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Once -- we could ask to -- first of all, the

23 original will be returned to you, and we could ask whether meanwhile a

24 copy could be provided. But from these tapes, as you might remember, we

25 are not always sure how much time it takes to copy them. That depends on

1 the system used.

2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if it assists my learned colleague,

3 perhaps I should indicate that I have not edited any of the three clips.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. IERACE: So they are completely whole.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So apart from that they are clips and therefore

7 not the entirety of the tape, you didn't edit in whatever way the clips

8 played.

9 So Ms. Pilipovic, for the time being you have to do with the three

10 clips selected by the Prosecution, and as soon as a copy of the original

11 tape has been made, the original will be given back to you so that you can

12 look at it. This is not to say that there will be another opportunity for

13 you after this whole history to tender parts of it. But we'll see. You

14 just to start with can look at it.

15 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, the video is P3783 and the

16 transcript is P3783A.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I then think that apart from that we still have

18 to give a decision on this last video that is introduced not through a

19 witness for the reasons set out by the Prosecution, that all the other

20 Gray documents have meanwhile now been dealt with, because the

21 others -- the total list were admitted on the 7th of March.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE ORIE: And we have to take a formal decision now on D348/20.

24 That is the compilation tape tendered by the Defence with the different

25 sequences on it. And an opportunity has been given to you, Ms. Pilipovic,

1 to make whatever objection you would have with respect to the compilation

2 video of the Prosecution, which was 3793A, because you had not seen it at

3 that time. I think it was provisionally admitted into evidence. But an

4 opportunity was given to you to make objections, once you had viewed it.

5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I will inform you of my position

6 on Friday. But could I have a copy of the videocassette by tomorrow in

7 order to check whether it's from that-- whether it's from that cassette.

8 In spite of -- given the fact I trust my colleague.

9 JUDGE ORIE: It had been given to you already. The compilation

10 video was tendered. But at the moment where you had had no opportunity

11 yet to review it. And therefore, since the Prosecution told us that these

12 were just their selection of sequences, that it was admitted into evidence

13 because they were played in court, those sequences, but you would have an

14 opportunity to look at it and make any objections if you would deem

15 necessary to do so. So one opportunity has been given. Yes?

16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I understood

17 that. But I just said that I wanted a copy of the original cassette that

18 my colleagues used to make this transcript and these compilations. That's

19 how I understood this.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the originals were your originals.

21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar draws my attention to the possibility

23 that you are confusing the compilation tape that has been given to you

24 today, which is a compilation of three sequences that the Prosecution

25 found on the tape that could not be found before, and the compilation tape

1 provided earlier.

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That's clear to me.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The one that they disclosed and

5 the one that we have viewed here. Yes, I have understood it now. There

6 are two cassettes. The first one that was shown when Mr. Gray was heard

7 and the copy I have been given now has to do with the cassette that was

8 provided to my colleagues later on.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] But I will inform you of my

11 position with regard to all the tapes on Friday, since my colleague dealt

12 with this. I remember viewing these tapes, and I will express my position

13 then.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the last issue we still have is a --

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we had the issue of the Dunjic documents where

17 the Defence would consider which would be tendered, and I do understand

18 that all these documents are tendered, Ms. Pilipovic. These are mainly

19 sketches, I would say, and --

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour, I

21 suggested to your associate to have all those sketches marked with one

22 number.

23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll make it one set then. But then we should at

24 least --

25 Yes, Mr. Mundis.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, Madam Registrar just showed me the

2 bundle. I would also call to the attention of the Chamber that included

3 within that bundle are some excerpts from a book in B/C/S. And again, we

4 have the situation where we do not have English translations of a number

5 of pages, I would think four or five pages that are included in that

6 bundle, and we would simply ask for the Defence position with respect to

7 what the Chamber should do with those documents for which there's no

8 English translation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd also like to get

11 a copy of this whole set of documents. As for the rest, we shall have the

12 translations by Friday and we shall give them to our colleagues.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll wait with the final decision until

14 we have received the translation of those pages of a book.

15 Then perhaps we should not start with that. We have one document

16 which is the -- is the --

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have a document that has been shown to

19 several witnesses, a document which initially was incomplete, page 2

20 missing. It is the report of the meeting with the presidents of the

21 municipalities containing strategic goals, and a lot of attention has been

22 paid to the fifth objective. We had an incomplete version. We had a

23 translation related to the incomplete version but attached to the complete

24 version we had one with one stamp, we had one with two stamps. We'll

25 finally give a decision on that on Friday as well. And we'd like to -- if

1 the parties could just very briefly put down on paper their position in

2 respect to that document in all the versions we've seen until now.

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we did as ordered by

4 the Chamber, and we made a submission stating the Defence's position with

5 regard to the documents, how to put it, both the first and the second. I

6 can only check the date on which we filed -- on which we filed it, but if

7 need be we shall write it again.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I do -- no, no, no. I do remember. You have argued

9 that the second copy would show that the authenticity of the document is

10 doubtful and that for that reason that it should not be admitted into

11 evidence. We -- if there's any submission to be made by the Prosecution

12 in respect of that document - but I think there was a response

13 already - but we'll deal with the matter next Friday because it's now five

14 minutes past 7.00.

15 Yes, Mr. Ierace.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, we have not yet formally tendered the

17 documents that went -- that were shown to the witness Richard Gray.

18 The -- I don't know how you want to handle that, whether we do that or

19 work on the basis that what documents he was shown are tendered. If it's

20 the latter, Mr. President, there was a personal letter that was shown to

21 him with a number of annexes. I would simply say in relation to that

22 document that only those parts upon which he was examined or

23 cross-examined should be tendered.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would be what number, Mr. Ierace?

25 MR. IERACE: Perhaps I could indicate that on Friday,

1 Mr. President. We don't have --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll deal with that on Friday as well.

3 MR. IERACE: Yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps with the assistance of Madam Registrar we

5 could make a short list of those issues that are still outstanding so that

6 we can deal with it on Friday and that we don't forget anything.

7 We will then adjourn until next Friday at quarter past 2.00. And

8 just to clarify the situation, at this moment apart from a few decisions

9 that had to be taken, the Defence case has been closed, apart from those

10 issues. We explained to the parties how we would proceed, that what

11 we -- that was after one week -- one week after the closure of the Defence

12 case. But of course we took a bit more time on the last expert witnesses,

13 and we'll therefore try to continue with rebuttal evidence, if any, next

14 Monday, as I explained before.

15 We'll adjourn until next Friday, quarter past 2.00, same

16 courtroom.

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

18 at 7.10 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,

19 the 21st day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.

20

21

22

23

24

25