1 Tuesday, 1 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 11.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
6 Before we begin today's business, Mr. Tieger, as you know,
7 Mr. Robinson has informed the Chamber that he would like his motion to
8 exclude Sarajevo evidence to be resolved before the Prosecution case is
9 closed. While the Chamber does not necessarily agree that this matter
10 must be resolved before the Prosecution case is closed, it does see the
11 value in doing so if possible. Thus, the Chamber would like to know how
12 this matter is progressing. You told us last time that the meeting with
13 the Rule 70 provider was going to take place in the week of
14 17th of April. Did that meeting take place? If necessary, we may go
15 into private session.
16 MR. TIEGER: Well, why don't we move briefly into private
17 session, Mr. President, just out of an abundance of caution.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Could the Chamber move into private session
20 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I shall repeat my question for you.
24 So my question relates to your Croatia binding order motion. You
25 have now conducted two interviews, one with Mr. Tudjman and the other
1 with Mr. Zagorec. The Chamber would like to know what impact in your
2 view this has on your binding order motion, Mr. Robinson.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Having concluded those two
4 interviews, we are in a position to withdraw the motion for binding order
5 because we've been unable to establish that there are records in the
6 possession of the Croatian government that have not been given over to
8 JUDGE KWON: So your oral withdrawal on this matter is final one?
9 MR. ROBINSON: Well, if we come up with subsequent information
10 that leads us to believe that they do have records, we might wish to make
11 a second binding order motion, but it's final in the sense that you can
12 take that off your books as far as we're concerned.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. The Chamber notes that
14 that motion has been withdrawn.
15 Having said that, shall we bring in the witness.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
18 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West, please continue.
20 MS. WEST: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
21 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
22 Examination by Ms. West: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
24 A. Good morning.
25 MS. WEST: Mr. Registrar, may we have P04995, please.
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, when we left off last week we had just finished
2 speaking about your Sarajevo reports. And now we're going to begin to
3 speak about the Srebrenica reports. Now, the report you see on the
4 screen before you, this is your report from 2009 on Srebrenica; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And what was your task in writing this report?
7 A. This report was written to provide new evidence on the missing
8 persons from the -- related to the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995 and to
9 provide evidence about identifications of these individuals. As
10 particular class of identifications that we were looking at were
11 DNA-based identifications produced by International Commission for
12 Missing Persons, ICMP, in Sarajevo.
13 Q. All right. And this is an older report. This is not the most
14 recent one you've written; correct?
15 A. Yes, this is a report from 2009, a report that was marking ten
16 years of research into victims of the fall of Srebrenica. It is like, I
17 think, a ninth report in a series that we made. There is a more recent
18 one which is however of a different type than what we see on the screen.
19 Q. What was the main source used in writing this report?
20 A. This report is about missing persons. This is a very special
21 category of victims. These victims cannot be reported in official death
22 notifications, as they are missing. The source that was used for this
23 report is the ICRC list of missing persons, actually I call it a list but
24 it is a number of different lists compiled by ICRC. ICRC is the
25 International Commission for Red Cross, an organisation mandated to
1 collect information about persons going missing in all conflicts all over
2 the world and to trace these individuals in all possible ways to make
3 reports about the fate of these persons.
4 Q. And in the case of the events at Srebrenica, when was it that
5 ICRC first started taking information?
6 A. ICRC started collecting the reports about missing of individuals
7 directly after the fall of Srebrenica during the war in Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina. They were collecting information not only on Srebrenica but
9 on the entire conflict, entire war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Srebrenica
10 was just this major episode, major incident that they were also covering.
11 They published their first edition of the list for Bosnia in 1996.
12 Q. What other main source did you use in your report?
13 A. To make clear first that the first edition of 1996 is just one of
14 many next editions published by ICRC. So for this report, for 2009
15 report, we used the edition of 2005 and a separate list of ICRC missing
16 persons related to the fall of Srebrenica of October 2008. The second
17 major source used for this report was the ICMP list of DNA
18 identifications of Srebrenica victims, a list that was issued in
19 November 2008. And again, it is a list that has been updated
20 systematically by ICMP and recently we received yet another update, but
21 at that time we had the 2008 November update at our disposal.
22 Q. Besides these two sources, did you consult other sources?
23 A. Yes. The methodology applied here in this report, for this
24 report, was our standard methodology. That means sources like the 1991
25 census, voters' registers of 1997, 1998, and 2000 were used as a
1 standard. In addition to these two groups of sources we also used the
2 official registration of internally displaced persons and refugees in
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina as of 2000. This is a source which we briefly
4 called DDPR. And we also used a number of smaller contextual sources. I
5 want to stress that in order to study the victims of Srebrenica we
6 basically used on one hand ICRC records on the missing persons and on the
7 other hand the ICMP records of DNA identifications. These two were
8 cross-referenced, compared, and through this we were able to conclude how
9 many persons reported missing were as well identified by ICMP, meaning
10 that their bodies were exhumed from mass, entire, graves in the
11 Srebrenica area, their bodies were sampled, I mean remains were --
12 samples were taken from remains. DNA profiles were made and compared
13 with the profiles of the surviving relatives. So that's the core of our
14 work. All other sources were used for certain important purposes. Like,
15 for instance, the 1991 census was used as a major reference source to
16 validate information about missing persons. Sources on displaced persons
17 and refugees were used to eliminate possible survivors. Voters'
18 registers, 1997, 1998, 2000 with the same purpose, to find and eliminate
19 possible survivors. And smaller contextual sources were used to compare
20 the results obtained from the major sources with those from smaller
21 sources. What I mean contextual, we also used a source -- a smaller
22 source on displacement or on surviving population that became displaced
23 and et cetera.
24 THE ACCUSED: Excuse me, just for the sake of public there was
25 no -- any translation in Serbian.
1 JUDGE KWON: From when did you not hear the translation,
2 Mr. Karadzic?
3 THE ACCUSED: Her last few sentences.
4 JUDGE KWON: Just in case, could you repeat from voters'
5 registers 1997. From there could you repeat your answer?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
8 Did you hear the translation of my intervention?
9 THE ACCUSED: Yes, now I hear but for few sentences, last
10 sentences, I heard only English. And I suppose the public also didn't
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Could you repeat from there.
13 THE WITNESS: So I am repeating my last answer. In that answer I
14 summarised the main sources which we used to study victims of the fall of
15 Srebrenica were on one hand the ICRC list of missing persons and on the
16 other hand the ICMP DNA identifications of Srebrenica victims. We
17 cross-referenced these two in order to draw conclusions about how many
18 individuals reported missing were later found in mass graves and other
19 graves in Srebrenica area and identified through the DNA analysis of
20 human remains and of surviving relatives. Other sources that we used,
21 like for instance 1991 population census and voters' registers of 1997
22 and 1998 and 2000 were used as a standard -- as part of our standard
23 methodology. The 1991 census to validate information about individuals
24 reported missing, voters' registers, in order to find possible survivors
25 and eliminate them from our list of victims. Other sources, official
1 records of internally displaced persons and refugees and similar were
2 also used with the same purpose, to eliminate possible survivors.
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, doctor.
6 MS. WEST:
7 Q. Doctor, now --
8 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
9 At the end of your previous answer you referred to smaller
10 contextual sources. If you could explain it as well, just in case.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. What I meant in this case we also used
12 additionally a set of databases provided from authorities in Bosnia and
13 Herzegovina also on displaced persons and refugees from particularly the
14 Srebrenica area. We used them as additional source, not as the main
15 source, because the main source used was actually far broader and better
16 in terms of quality than this additional one.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
18 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. So, Dr. Tabeau, I want to now focus on the main sources which you
20 mentioned you cross-referenced for the purposes of this report, and
21 that's the ICMP list and the ICRC list. What was the methodology you
22 used --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Mr. Karadzic, are you following the proceedings in the language?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellency, I am following,
1 but I'm having problems related to my health condition due to this
2 ventilation. The air that is being blown onto my head is too strong and
3 too cold and I cannot afford to suffer again.
4 JUDGE KWON: I would like the Registry to look into the matter
5 again. I thought that has been resolved, but -- just a second.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE KWON: That will be resolved. If you have -- are suffering
8 from similar problem, please let us know. In the meantime, we can
10 Yes, Ms. West.
11 MS. WEST:
12 Q. The methodology that you used, was this the same methodology you
13 used for your other reports?
14 A. Yes, this is the same standard methodology, matching of sources
15 the individual record level which simply means that we trace individuals
16 between the lists we use in the analysis.
17 Q. Now, we already spoke about that methodology last week and I'd
18 now like to look at the results.
19 MS. WEST: If we can have 65 ter 23719, and this is the handout
20 that was given out last week, and specifically I'm looking at page 17.
21 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you have that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It's on the very top we have table 1. Can you tell us about this
25 A. This is a table summarising our update of the previous OTP list
1 of Srebrenica missing. The previous list is mentioned in this table as
2 2005 OTP list. On the top of this list there is a second category called
3 2008 ICRC list, for which we only see 29 additional cases not reported in
4 our 2005 list. So what is shown here is how we critically looked at what
5 we have done previously and expanded this result by using one more
6 additional list of ICRC missing persons from Srebrenica. This second
7 list is mentioned as the 2008 list and relates exclusively to Srebrenica
8 victims, exactly the same as 2005 list. So the overall total of missing
9 persons on the 2009 OTP list of Srebrenica missing is 7.692. That is the
10 first type of information included in table 1.
11 Q. And the second column of information that's labelled "number of
12 identified," does this refer to the ICMP list?
13 A. Yes. This refers to DNA identifications, positive
14 identifications of course, of persons reported at the same time as
15 missing individuals by ICRC. So we cross-referenced it to, linked the
16 records representing the same individuals, and are able to say how many
17 of those reported missing at the same time have been identified by ICMP.
18 So the overall total of positive DNA identifications out of 7.692 was by
19 2009 5.061, which accounted for 65.8 per cent of the OTP list.
20 JUDGE KWON: Ms. West.
21 MS. WEST:
22 Q. Dr. Tabeau, if you move --
23 MS. WEST: I'm sorry, Mr. President, do you have a question?
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I was waiting for the French translation.
25 I wonder if Dr. Tabeau has explained to us the meaning of an OTP
1 list. I may have missed it. How does it differ from ICRC report or
2 something like that? Yes, Ms. West.
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you talk about that, the difference between the
5 OTP list and the ICRC list, if there's any difference at all.
6 A. The ICRC list, the core list that was used for the OTP list, is a
7 broad list for the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, and obviously the
8 entire war period. It is not what we need for the victims of the fall of
9 Srebrenica. So using this core list as the basis for our work, we
10 extracted relevant records using two criteria. First of all, the place
11 criterion and second time criterion. Places considered to be relevant to
12 the fall of Srebrenica comprised Srebrenica municipality itself and a
13 number of other municipalities in this area, in total ten municipalities,
14 which is all discussed in the annex, I think first annex, to 2009 OTP
15 report. Time, of course, was also an important criterion. The persons
16 who went missing in July 1995 and also later in the months between August
17 and until December 1995 were also considered relevant. But as we will
18 see in few minutes there is a very clear time distribution of
19 disappearances that tells us that most of them occurred in July 1995. So
20 it is all discussed in first annex to the 2009 report. So the 2005 OTP
21 list or 2009 OTP list only means that we talk about a selection of ICRC
22 records relevant to the fall of Srebrenica and not about the entire
23 complete list for Bosnia and entire war period.
24 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you had mentioned earlier that there was a
25 65 per cent overlap when you did your comparison, and we can see that on
1 table 1; but can you now move down to table 12 and tell us how that table
2 is connected.
3 A. This is a table that is much more complex than the first one. It
4 is much more complex first because it shows the result produced by myself
5 and my team since the year 2000 up to 2009, but I suggest we focus right
6 now on the last row in this table that is related to the results reported
7 in the 2009 report. And the second reason for the complexity of this
8 table is that we go beyond the overlap of ICRC records and ICMP records,
9 and in this table we show as well how many non-overlapping records were
10 reported by ICMP as positive DNA identifications of Srebrenica victims.
11 So if we go to the first column of this table in the last row we see the
12 familiar number, 7.692, it is what we just discussed, the same number
13 from table 1. Next to it there is a column called "Srebrenica identified
14 (ICMP)." This is a separate information summarising the progress ICMP
15 made in DNA identifications completely independently from the OTP
16 efforts, our efforts, to quantify the victims of Srebrenica. So by 2009,
17 or rather, as based on November 2008, ICMP update in total they reported
18 5.555 positive identifications of Srebrenica victims. It's a large
19 number and in the third column we again show how many of these 5.555
20 overlapped with the OTP missing persons. So this number also familiar,
21 we just discussed it in table 1, is 5.061. That's the overlap of two
22 independent sources reported -- reporting on Srebrenica victims.
23 JUDGE KWON: Dr. Tabeau, yes, I have to admit this is rather
24 complex. Still, we see the table 1 in this monitor. We see the
25 "familiar" number 7.692 here, but there number of identified is 5.061,
1 but in table 12 you said identified numbers are 5.555 and 5.061 is the
2 number of overlap. I have difficulty in following that.
3 THE WITNESS: ICMP works completely independently from the OTP,
4 from ICRC, from anybody. So once a while they issue a list of DNA
5 identifications of Srebrenica victims. This list issued at the end of
6 2008 included 5.555 cases, persons. This is a list that can be compared
7 with all kinds of sources. We compared this list with our list of
8 missing persons from Srebrenica, from the fall of Srebrenica. If you
9 compare, you can see how many cases are identical, the same on both
10 lists, but you will also see that there are unique parts to the sources
11 compared. So the unique part in ICMP records obviously was there as the
12 overlap identified is lower than 5.555. It is not that we -- yeah, it is
13 just, you know, an exercise, you know, that we take independent sources
14 compiled by completely different groups and we did do it on purpose
15 because there is a lot of uncertainty in measuring or reporting victims
16 of war, and we want to make sure that all those who will be on our list
17 are also confirmed by other sources, by the ICMP in this case. And
18 obviously next to 5.061 there are other categories in this table. And if
19 we go, for instance, to the column called "new victims," identified
20 persons, new victims, this is one part of this unique part of ICMP, this
21 unique part of ICMP, that is not reported on our list of missing persons.
22 So they have extra 213 cases that we were unable to put on our list
23 because ICRC didn't have them.
24 JUDGE KWON: Still difficult to follow.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, may I have --
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
2 THE WITNESS: -- a graphical example.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: We should bear in mind the interval between the
6 English and French translation. We should put a pause.
7 If you see the number 5.555, which is Srebrenica identified, so
8 those parts that are not overlapping overlapped with the next number
9 which is 5.061. So those, about 500, are already identified. Are they
10 not new victims, all of them?
11 THE WITNESS: Not all of them, not all of them for a simple
12 reason that there is this matching process between ICRC records and ICMP
13 records. For a group of records, 213, we are sure we cannot match them,
14 we cannot see any similar cases or the same cases on our list. But there
15 is another category excluded overlap which actually relates to less
16 certain matches. So we have made some matches but we are uncertain about
17 how well they represent our victims between these two lists. So we
18 actually excluded them all together from the analysis because there is
19 uncertainty there and we leave this group for later. Perhaps there will
20 be more results that will help us improve our matching in a later time.
21 But for now we know for sure that 213 are new.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes. I think I now understand the
23 mathematics. So to put it -- I may put it like this. Please correct me
24 if I'm wrong. 5.555 minus 5.061 equals 281 plus 213?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
1 JUDGE KWON: So if you could explain to us again when this
2 overlap is to be excluded.
3 THE WITNESS: Overlap is excluded if we are not convinced that
4 our matches are true matches, that they make it possible to say that two
5 records, one from ICRC, one from ICMP, describe the same individual.
6 There is a certain degree of similarity in these two compared records,
7 but we cannot declare that this is highly reliable and highly likely that
8 this is one and the same case. So we just exclude them for now, but with
9 time we expect there will be better information about these cases that
10 perhaps will make it possible for us to report them as true matches.
11 This kind of matching issue can be better understood if we think of ICMP
12 records with multiple names, first names, like, you know, if brothers
13 were killed or sons and father, sometimes they are reported jointly in
14 one record and this record has three different names. In such cases ICMP
15 does not include at some stages date of birth of these victims, and for
16 us it is important to have the information about the date of birth, or at
17 least year of birth, in order to declare matches as good matches.
18 JUDGE KWON: Does your report -- part of your report, main
19 report, deal with this matching exercise?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, there is an annex which actually
21 discusses quite a degree of detail of our matching methodology in the
22 context of ICMP records.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 THE WITNESS: If I may look for the number.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West, if you could be kind enough to show
1 us an example how that matching exercise is being done in terms of this
2 excluded, overlap, and new victims.
3 MS. WEST: Okay. Just for the record, this is explained in
4 annex 6.6 and that is page 102 of this particular report; that's the
5 matching part --
6 JUDGE KWON: Third page from the last.
7 MS. WEST: And, Mr. President, when we look at the actual Excel
8 spreadsheet we can give you an example of that.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 MS. WEST: And that will happen in one moment. Thank you.
11 Q. But, Dr. Tabeau, just to stay on this table so we can get to that
12 spreadsheet, I want to focus on the number 7905. Please tell us what
13 that number represents.
14 A. This number we can find in the last row in the column called
15 "Accepted victims (integrated)." This is a third-last column. It is an
16 important column because it integrates two numbers. One is the number of
17 missing persons plus the number of new victims identified based on ICMP
18 identifications. This is the number 213 reported in table 12 which we
19 just discussed. So these two numbers, 7.692 plus 213 new victims gives
20 7.905, and this is the new overall total of Srebrenica victims on the
21 2009 OTP list.
22 Q. When you gave that number back in your 2009 report, at the time
23 was ICMP giving you information that joined Srebrenica victims with Zepa
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So this number represents both Srebrenica and Zepa; is that
3 A. Yes, it's correct. It's mainly Srebrenica, though, because for
4 Zepa the number at that time, as far as I remember, was 103 victims --
5 well, generally Zepa is a totally different scale than Srebrenica.
6 Q. All right. And when we talk about your most recent results we'll
7 separate them as well. But if you just look down to figure 1 you spoke
8 earlier about time of disappearance. Tell us about this chart.
9 A. This chart is showing the distribution of going missing by
10 calendar month in 1995. The date of disappearance is reported by ICRC.
11 It is just one of the two major items, one is date of disappearance, one
12 is place of disappearance. So from this chart, figure 1, we see that a
13 vast majority of victims disappeared in July 1995, as of course expected.
14 Q. And the source of this information is ICRC; is that right?
15 A. Yes, it's correct.
16 Q. We can turn the page of the handout --
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 Can you go back to table 12. What does the excluded potential
19 survivors number mean? Does it have any impact on accepted victims
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I may, of course not. The excluded
22 potential survivors are excluded and are not granted in the numbers
23 reported under accepted victims integrated. They are shown here to
24 summarise our efforts related to our searching for potential survivors.
25 We found a number of such records, studied them, cross-reference in
1 several sources like, you know, starting with the census, further voters
2 register 1997, 1998, and 2000, records of displaced persons and refugees,
3 and based on this analysis these 12 are excluded. Once ICRC reports a
4 very small cases alive. So that means exclusions. So one of these cases
5 excluded is just this kind of ICRC alive person.
6 JUDGE KWON: So to understand it correctly, does this 12 -- I'm
7 sorry, I correct. Is this 12 included in Srebrenica missing number,
8 i.e., 7.692?
9 THE WITNESS: It's not. It's not included in any list of
10 victims. This is just a separate category, separate category not
11 included in Srebrenica missing, not included in new victims, not included
12 in accepted victims, not included in ICMP identifications. It is just
13 excluded. It's not there. Only exists as this separate number. In the
14 list that is attached with the 2009 report these 12 victims are reported
15 in a separate annex as exclusions.
16 JUDGE KWON: Then was this 12 included in the original ICRC list?
17 THE WITNESS: At some point they were but not -- you know, ICRC
18 basically produces a list not only for Srebrenica but also for the -- for
19 other episodes. Anyway, they were included but now we identified some
20 overlap with sources on survivors and they are excluded.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I was wondering if this number has
22 nothing to do with this Srebrenica missing, why this appears on this
23 table at all.
24 MS. WEST: Thank you.
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, did you put this number here to show that you, OTP
1 demographic unit, has done ongoing work with contextual sources to
2 exclude any survivors?
3 A. Yes, this is to address these activities in my unit.
4 Q. So we were just talking about time of disappearance, figure 1.
5 If we turn the page the next page in e-court we look at figure 3. Does
6 this regard place of disappearance?
7 A. Yes. Figure 3 reports on the place of disappearance. This
8 figure shows a selection of places, the largest places reported as the
9 place of disappearance. It's rather a clear picture. A few places, like
10 five places, including Potocari, forest, Kravica, Konjevic Polje, and
11 Kamenica, these five places alone are responsible for a very large
12 percentage of disappearances. As a matter of fact, actually it is only
13 five municipalities where almost all these references can be located.
14 These places here in figure 3 are smaller than municipalities. They are
15 concrete places, like Potocari such a place.
16 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 11435 -- excuse me, it has a P
17 number already, P04996. And if we can have e-court page 3 and 4.
18 Q. Dr. Tabeau, attached to your report itself, did you also include
19 the list of names themselves?
20 A. Yes, there is a long list of names attached with this report.
21 What I'm seeing on the screen actually is the first page of introduction
22 to this list. This page explains the six components of the list.
23 Q. All right. And you had just mentioned when we were talking about
24 that excluded number of 12, excluded potential survivors, and we see on
25 the screen before us the parts, do those 12 people, are they listed in
1 one of these parts?
2 A. Yes. There is part 5 which is the list of exclusions, 12 cases
3 reported in table 12.
4 Q. Now, if we looked at this in hard copy, this actual appendix is
5 quite thick so we're not going to go through it, but can you tell us
6 within these parts do you have an actual listing of the names that are on
7 your missing list, missing persons list?
8 A. Yes. This is what is listed here in parts 1, 2, 3, which are the
9 major components of our list. Part 1 is the records that enter our 2009
10 list from the previous, 2005 OTP list. Part 2 are additional ICRC
11 records, the 29 that we discussed in the beginning of today. Part 3 are
12 the new names of victims, the 213 names that we identified from the ICMP
13 records. Part 4 are less likely matches, uncertain matches. These are
14 the 218 which we don't count in our statistics as victims. Part 5 are
15 exclusions that we don't count in our statistics on Srebrenica victims.
16 And part 6 are cancelled records of cases alive coming from ICRC as a
17 source. So it is a very long list of almost 8.000 names that is attached
18 in this annex. We list them using first name, father's name, surname,
19 date of birth, or just year of birth. For ICRC records we are able to
20 tell exactly the date of disappearance, the place of disappearance. And
21 for those cases that have been matched with the ICMP records, we are able
22 to insert additional information about the protocol number of this
23 victim, the protocol number meaning the reference number of this victim
24 identification report, and the name of site where the remains were
25 exhumed from.
1 Q. Thank you. In your explanation you mentioned 218 which we don't
2 count in our statistics as victims. In fact, did you mean 281?
3 A. Yes, yes, absolutely.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Q. I'd now like to move to the report -- the updated report for the
7 Karadzic case.
8 MS. WEST: If we can have 65 ter 23710, please.
9 Mr. President, for this report we will go through the
11 Q. Now, you recently came to the OTP a few weeks ago, and when you
12 came what was your task?
13 A. My task was to study the latest update of ICMP on Srebrenica
14 identified persons and cross-reference this update with the OTP records
15 of missing persons and assess the overlap between these two lists.
16 Q. To assess that overlap, did you use the matching approach?
17 A. Yes. The methodology used in cross-referencing was exactly the
18 same as I have always used for these demographic reports.
19 Q. We're now going to move to Sanction to show the spreadsheet and I
20 would ask that this not be broadcast.
21 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I understand the decision from last
22 week in regard to the ICMP material. That information is included here.
23 So for the time being I ask that this not be broadcast.
24 Q. So, Dr. Tabeau, in front of you we see a spreadsheet, a
25 spreadsheet that the Trial Chamber is familiar with. Can you tell us the
1 origins of this?
2 A. The origin of this spreadsheet is the ICMP submission,
3 January 2012 submission, on identifications of Srebrenica victims. This
4 is a selection of main cases only. ICMP reports, actually both, the main
5 cases and reassociations. And for each main case -- for a main case
6 there can be one, two, or even more reassociations, but in this
7 particular spreadsheet if we go to the right a little bit then we will
8 see that only main cases are included.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. This one is from Srebrenica that we can see from the name of this
11 particular sheet at the bottom.
12 Q. Now, on this spreadsheet the Trial Chamber sees two new columns
13 that were not on the original ICMP spreadsheet and that's column O and P.
14 Under O it says B-A-Z, BAZ (OTP 2009) integrated and then 2009 new & less
15 certain integrated.
16 Did you add this information to the spreadsheet?
17 A. Yes, I included this extra items. And they report on the results
18 of my matching exercise. In the column O the so-called BAZ number is
19 reported or B-A-Z. BAZ is the standard name for a record identification
20 number or case identification number in the ICRC lists. Having this
21 number makes it possible to search through the ICRC lists, any list ever
22 published, and check information about this particular person, on the
23 circumstances and time of his or her disappearance.
24 Q. So the BAZ number, is that just the ICRC identification number
25 just as protocol ID number is the ID number for ICMP?
1 A. Yes, this is this same kind of number.
2 Q. And under column O when we see a BAZ number, what does that
4 A. This means that a link has been established between the latest
5 ICMP update of Srebrenica, the one from January 2012 and the ICRC records
6 included on the latest OTP list. The latest OTP list is the one of 2009.
7 Q. So any time the Trial Chamber sees that column filled in, does
8 that mean that there's a match between ICRC and ICMP?
9 A. Yes, this is correct.
10 Q. So now going back to the President's question in regard to how
11 you made the match, can you tell us, can you walk us through that process
12 by looking through this spreadsheet and I'll go back to the beginning of
14 A. So if we look at the information included in this spreadsheet we
15 have in column B the names of this particular victim included, that means
16 family name, father's name, and the first name of this victim. In the
17 column C there is the date of birth, and this is -- these two together is
18 a good characterisation of this person which we can use to search for
19 this person in any other source, including the population census but most
20 importantly the ICRC records. ICRC as well works with names, so also in
21 the ICRC if we search for this person there will be family name, father's
22 name, first name, date of birth, and additional information items related
23 to the disappearance of this person.
24 I want to draw Your Honours' attention to one thing. We are
25 searching in a very limited environment in this particular case. What I
1 mean by the limited environment is that on one hand there is this
2 detailed list of people selected from ICRC records of whom we know that
3 they were reported as missing as Srebrenica victims and here is another
4 limited environment. This is the Srebrenica victims that is reported --
5 that are reported by ICMP. So having these two -- these two limited
6 environments if we compared them, if there is a person born on the same
7 or very close date because there are mistakes in that dates with the same
8 names, although there might be differences in the spelling, it is a
9 highly probable match that this is the same person represented in both
11 Q. So if we go back to your column, every time -- under O every time
12 we see that BAZ number have you done a matching process and come up with
13 a link?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But now I also see in this case record number 3 under O there's a
16 blank. Was there no link for that particular record?
17 A. Yes, not in the ICRC component of the OTP list.
18 Q. If we look at column P we see some information for that record.
19 It says 2009 ICMP new and there's a number. Tell us about that
21 A. Yes. So in case of no match with ICRC, there is still a
22 possibility that a victim was included in the 2009 OTP list. In the new
23 records that were reported separately, in a separate annex, in a separate
24 list part 3 of our list. So in order to distinguish between the matches
25 with ICRC and the new records on the 2009 list, in column P this
1 information is inserted for the confirmed cases.
2 Q. Then do you also consider record number 3 to be a match?
3 A. Yes, the third line, but record number 2 --
4 Q. Sorry.
5 A. -- I would like to be specific. Yes, this is the second person
6 reported in this spreadsheet. It is a match. Yes, it is a match with
7 the previously included new cases, the 213 cases.
8 Q. Now if everyone looks at the bottom of the screen we see separate
9 tabs. One's for Srebrenica, one's for Zepa, and one's for exclusions and
10 inconclusive. Starting after your 2009 report, did ICMP start to deliver
11 the information on these victims separately, meaning victims for
12 Srebrenica, victims for Zepa?
13 A. Yes, it was not that long ago that ICMP started to distinguish
14 between victims of Srebrenica and Zepa. At the time of making the 2009
15 report this was not yet the case. Only later, I think end of 2010 or so,
16 they started to -- presented this distinction.
17 Q. All right. So I've just clicked on the Zepa tab. This regards
18 the list for Zepa victims; is that right?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. Now I'm clicking on exclusions and inconclusive. Please tell us
21 about this list.
22 A. This is -- these are also new categories introduced not too long
23 ago but by ICMP. They simply started reporting some exclusions or
24 inconclusive cases. If we go to the right, a little bit to the right of
25 this spreadsheet -- so in the column ICMP comment we can read the
1 justification of why this particular victim should be considered an
2 exclusion. This has nothing to do with DNA profiling and matching. It
3 has rather to do with the information that ICMP teams collected from the
4 family members of these victims during the process of collecting blood
5 samples. There are a few cases of exclusions, I think in total nine
6 cases and some more separately inconclusive cases, but it is always
7 thought that the rationale for declaring a case an exclusion or an
8 inconclusive case relates to this extra information obtained from the
9 relatives of the victims. Well, if we go again to the top to the column
10 R, to keep the column R, yes, then in the ICMP comment there is a case of
11 two brothers, one missing from 1992, another from 1995. If we go to the
12 left then we will see that this is a record with two first names. It is
13 two men reported jointly under this protocol number. As it is often
14 thought that ICMP cannot distinguish on the basis of the DNA profile
15 between the two brothers, they don't know who is who, but they do know
16 from the relatives that one went missing in 1992, another in 1995. But
17 what I can do in such situation, I can search for both brothers and I can
18 check which of the two is included as a Srebrenica missing person and I
19 can search for the other brother and I can make sure that the other
20 brother is not included in the ICRC missing persons. This is what I did
21 in this case and obviously we have a record of the right brother on our
22 list and not of the wrong brother. So if we create a link between the
23 right brother and this particular record we still counted this person
24 only one time, no more than just this one time.
25 Q. So is it fair to suggest that these exclusions and inconclusive
1 cases are ones that you specifically did some work on to make sure they
2 were correctly included or not?
3 A. Yes, that is what it means. I studied all these cases one by one
4 and in the column match with 2009 OTP list and decision, these are the
5 two columns, I summarised the results of my work. All together I think,
6 as far as I remember, I suggested five cases should be possibly
7 reconsidered by the OTP or by myself and should be taken off from the OTP
8 list. And in total I think there were nine exclusions and 18
9 inconclusive cases.
10 Q. So now I'd like?
11 JUDGE KWON: What is a PIP?
12 THE WITNESS: PHR, I think or -- oh, PIP, yes, yes, yes. PIP is
13 the short name for Podrinje Identification Project. Podrinje
14 Identification Project is an organisation, as a matter of fact, operating
15 in Tuzla, in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Actually it was established by ICMP and
16 funded long time by ICMP. Now they are funded also by the government,
17 and are mandated to work on their identification of Srebrenica victims.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 MS. WEST:
20 Q. And now I'd like to go to the results. If we can go back to the
21 handout to the last page, page 19. 65 ter 23719, page 19. And here we
22 have two tables, and these are tables with which we're familiar. It's
23 the same set up that we saw from your 2009 Srebrenica report. And under
24 table 1, the second column, you see number of missing 2009 and for total
25 7692. Is that the same number that we spoke about earlier?
1 A. Yes, it is the same table, only now it has been expanded. It has
2 two additional columns at the right side. The second-last is called
3 number of identified 2012 and the last column is per cent of the overlap
4 between the 2012 update and the OTP list from 2009.
5 Q. All right. If we can just do that in reverse. We see on the
6 bottom line 7692 and then 5061. Those are from our earlier table;
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And the new number you just gave, 6241, is this the updated
10 number for the most recent ICMP list?
11 A. Yes. This number is the -- coming from 2012 ICMP update. The
12 number 6.241 is the overlap of this latest update of ICMP with the number
13 7.692. It used to be much lower. It used to be 5.061 as of 2009 report.
14 Now it is 6.241, which gives us an overlap of 81.1 per cent.
15 Q. And for those 6.241 records were lines that we would see on the
16 spreadsheet if we looked at it. For each of those records would there be
17 a box filled in with a BAZ number or with a previous ICMP number?
18 A. Yes, there would be such a box and in particular it would be the
19 BAZ box available for every of these 6.241.
20 Q. If we can move below this to the next table, table 12, again this
21 is familiar. But I want to go to the second-to-last column, new victims
22 identified 2012. And we see a number there, 116. What is that number?
23 A. This is the victims that I was unable to confirm on any component
24 of the 2009 list of Srebrenica victims, and therefore they are listed
25 here as additional new cases from the 2012 update.
1 Q. And is this similar to what you did in 2009, where we see the
2 column labelled new victims identified 2009 and you came up with 213?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So to get to the last column, 8.021 --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- what numbers do you have to consider?
7 A. In order to obtain this number we have to take 7.905 previously
8 accepted Srebrenica victims, once again 7.905, and on the top of it I am
9 taking the 116 new cases from 2012. And the result is 8.021 records
10 representing both Srebrenica and Zepa victims.
11 Q. And do you know how many of the 2012 ICMP records regard Zepa?
12 Strike that. Let me ask you another question.
13 If we take this number 8.021 you just said it includes Srebrenica
14 and Zepa. If you subtract the Zepa cases, what's the number for just
16 A. The number for Srebrenica, I think from this number we would have
17 to subtract 116 cases.
18 Q. Okay --
19 A. Coincidentally -- well, it's the same number as new cases, but it
20 is not the total new cases -- Zepa cases. Well, once again, 8.021,
21 8.021, is the new overall number of Srebrenica victims and Zepa victims
22 jointly, obtained from the integration of the latest ICMP update from
23 2012 with the previously obtained number, which was 7.905. These 8.021
24 cases covers both, Srebrenica, the fall of Srebrenica, and the fall of
25 Zepa. Zepa is a small incident compared with Srebrenica. In these 8.021
1 cases there are only 116 cases that are related to Zepa. It is
2 consistent with the ICRC reports on the missing persons from Zepa.
3 Already as of 1999 ICRC reported that the number of missing persons from
4 Zepa was 118. We have 116 out of 118 in our list.
5 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I'd like to tender the 2012 report,
6 which is 65 ter 23710. And I'd also like to tender the associated
7 spreadsheet, and I would like that to be under seal for the time being,
8 65 ter 23712.
9 JUDGE KWON: Before we do that, one further question about new
10 victims 2012, Dr. Tabeau. You told us that they are the victims that you
11 were not able to confirm on any component of the 2009 list of Srebrenica
12 victims. I don't think I understood that part. Where did that come from
13 at all?
14 THE WITNESS: These new cases come from the ICMP update of
15 January this year. As previously, this update has been compared by
16 myself with the previous OTP list and the previous ICMP update. So I
17 identified a number of cases that are not included previously at all, not
18 in the previous ICMP data, not in the ICRC used for the OTP list. It is
19 just like new victims, which can be understood perhaps more easily if we
20 think about how is it possible that ICMP can report on new victims
21 different from ICRC reports. Yes, it is possible. It is that the
22 reports each of these organisations obtains goes -- is from the actual
23 families of the victims. Some families contacted both ICRC and ICMP. In
24 the case of ICMP they even donated blood for the identification. Some of
25 them, however, a small number would go exclusively to ICRC and some of
1 them would go exclusively to ICMP. So if we think of how is it possible
2 that, you know, there is still this new category, new records reported by
3 ICMP, the answer is: Yes, it is possible. It is possible. Which
4 relates to the way these organisations operate and how in -- for months
5 provide information to each of these organisations.
6 JUDGE KWON: So originally these 116 people were not included in
7 the ICRC list?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is what I'm saying.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Any objections to the admission of these two reports,
11 Mr. Robinson?
12 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit them both. Putting the latter one,
14 the spreadsheet, under seal provisionally. Shall we give the number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 23710 will be
16 Exhibit P5004. 65 ter 23712 will be Exhibit P5005 under seal.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
18 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I'm changing subject matters at the
19 moment. Is this the time for a break?
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll have a break for an hour and resume at
22 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West, please continue.
25 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, on Thursday you discussed a statistical formula, it
2 was the capture recap -- is that working?
3 A. Yes, it's working now. Thank you.
4 Q. So we were discussing the capture/recapture formula, which was a
5 formula to estimate the overall size of a population when you couldn't
6 actually count individual people. You were asked by the Trial Chamber if
7 you could come up with a more simplified form of the formula to make it
8 more digestible. Have you been able to do that?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. Can you tell us about that.
11 A. For this I need to use ELMO. I prepared an example.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 Go ahead.
14 A. I am using an example of ducks which is because first
15 applications of this method were made among others for ducks. Actually
16 in 1930 there was an interesting paper published for ducks. So ducks is
17 an example of a wide population. We don't know exactly how many are
18 there. Sometimes we have the impression that there are very many because
19 they are extremely, extreme noisy. And in order to know more about how
20 many are there outside in a park or in a natural area it is possible to
21 make an experiment which is designed to provide the unknown size of the
22 population of ducks. I have on ELMO an example in which we see three
23 circles. The biggest one is white inside and represents the entire
24 population of ducks living in a park. This is what is unknown, how many,
25 and this is what we need to know. In order to estimate this unknown
1 number we take two samples from the population, two samples of ducks.
2 The first one is the yellow one. The yellow represents the first
3 sample. There are 200 ducks selected. Every single of the 200 gets a
4 tag on her leg so they are all marked. All 200 have a tag that we can
5 follow later and we let them go back to the wild. So the proportion of
6 the yellow circle to the big white circle is the first one that we need
7 to keep in mind. The sample size of the first sample, yellow circle to
8 the big white circle, that is one proportion we have to think of.
9 So sometime later we take another sample of ducks, this is the
10 green circle. The green circle comprises 150 ducks. When we catch them
11 we check whether they have this tag or not. For a number of them we saw
12 that, yes, there were 30 of them with this tag. The proportion of the
13 tag ducks that is represented in my drawing with the light green colour
14 to the entire sample -- second sample, which is 150 ducks, is the second
15 one that we need to remember. The assumption of this method is that
16 these two proportions are equal, are the same. That means the yellow
17 circle to the big white one is the same as the proportion of the 30
18 tagged ducks to 150 selected in the second sample. It's just a simple
19 equality of two proportions that are used to draw the formula, which is
20 given below. So N1 is the first sample, N2 is the second sample, N12 is
21 the overlap of the two samples, is the overlap of the two samples. If we
22 make these two proportions N1 divided by N and we say it is equal to the
23 proportion calculated as N12 divided by N2, these two proportions give us
24 the formula at the bottom, which I will write down perhaps the two
25 proportions in order to make it more explicit. The first proportion,
1 yellow circle, N1 divided by the big white circle, divided by N, equals
2 the light green area of the green circle divided by the size of the
3 entire green circle. After a simple change, transformation of this
4 equality, we obtain this formula, from which we can calculate the unknown
5 size of the population of ducks, which is in this particular case 1.000.
6 There is also another rationale behind this method. This other
7 rationale originates from the probability theory. In the blue box here
8 I'm showing a very, very old formula for the probabilities of independent
9 events, event A and event B. So the probability of a joint occurrence of
10 two events, A and B, according to this formula, equals probability of the
11 first event, A times probability of the event B. So the A and B events
12 are nothing different but these two samples, yellow and green circles on
13 my drawing. And the probability of the joint occurrence of the event A
14 and B is an overlap of the two sources -- two samples. It is the light
15 green area on the drawing. And under the formula I just put the numbers
16 to express the probabilities. And after again a transformation of the
17 numbers we end with exactly the same formula for the unknown N, as
18 previously discussed.
19 There is one important assumption to this method. There are few
20 more but one is really very fundamental. The two samples are
21 independent, which in case of the sources that were used in the Sarajevo
22 reports, one source being the Bakije funeral home and the second source
23 being the Sarajevo household survey, we can with confidence conclude that
24 these two sources were statistically independent because reporting a
25 victim in one source did not change the chance of the same victim being
1 reported in the second source.
2 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, could you give me an example of sample in
3 this case. First N1 in this case, yellow ducks, could you give me an
4 example of such sample. This is not the whole ducks living in the park.
5 THE WITNESS: No, no.
6 JUDGE KWON: But could you give me some example to concretely
7 understand that.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. So in order to create such a sample a person
9 would have to go and catch the ducks one by one to end with 200 ducks in
10 the sample. Having caught all these ducks, 200, we know for sure that
11 this isn't the complete population of ducks because there are many, many
12 more of course. So that is how the sample was created.
13 JUDGE KWON: Having caught these ducks from where?
14 THE WITNESS: From a natural environment like a large park we can
15 think of, for instance, The Hague with all its parks as the environment
16 from which we will caught the ducks.
17 JUDGE KWON: We are doing this exercise in order to know the
18 number of total ducks that are living in the park?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: So a certain individual went to a park and caught
21 every duck that were in the park at that point of time?
22 THE WITNESS: But if it would be all ducks --
23 JUDGE KWON: All ducks, yes, yes.
24 THE WITNESS: -- in that park it wouldn't be a sample. It would
25 be perhaps a sample but representing a larger environment than just this
1 park, right. So the wide population we have to, of course, be specific
2 about what is the wide population that we are approximating or
3 estimating, you know, the size of. In this particular example I am
4 saying a park, what is this park, whether it is just one park in
5 The Hague like, I don't know, Rosarium, for instance, park. Rosarium
6 park is just one of the parks in The Hague but there are more parks in
7 The Hague that this area is kind of -- you can even work, you know, these
8 green parts will take you from one park to the next. So it is not just
9 this park that this population of ducks is living in. They will be
10 living in all parks in the neighbourhood. This would be the natural
11 habitat for these ducks, and in order to know how many are there in this
12 natural habitat we have to estimate because we are unable to go and to
13 catch every single duck living there.
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well. If you could further expand on the
15 concrete example, green sample, that means there would be another park.
16 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry, this was my mistake.
19 So the second sample is a second measurement. So, as Your Honour
20 noted, at some point in time we go and take the first sample and then we
21 put them back and let them mix again with the remaining ducks. So we
22 wait some time and we go again. We can go to exactly same place. So
23 from the same environment we pick another sample and it is justified to
24 expect that we will end with a different sample, largely different, not
25 entirely different though. There will be this overlap, light green area
1 which is marked here. And the same, you know, it is a very good
2 illustration of the relationships between sources on victims. Sources on
3 victims are very different from regular statistical sources like the
4 population census. Population census would represent the white circle
5 here, right. It would be all of the people. But because of war the
6 statistical system is most likely not operating the usual way. We don't
7 have all reports on what time deaths and especially about victims like
8 missing persons of whom we don't have death certificates at the time they
9 were gone missing. So we have samples. We have several samples, samples
10 that often largely overlap. But there will be also this unique part in
11 every sample. In this particular case the light green area is the core,
12 the overlap, and the dark green is the unique part to the second sample.
13 And the yellow part, non-overlapping part of the first sample is the
14 unique part of the first sample. This is quite a normal situation in the
15 analysis of victims of conflict. This is why it is very important to
16 analyse more sources than just one and check the overlap and check how
17 many are in the core, in the overlap, and how many victims are in the
18 unique parts.
19 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I take it then, Mr. Karadzic, will be
20 asking you many questions about the applicability of this principle to
21 the victims.
22 Mr. Karadzic, to understand you correct, although I note the
23 absence of your expert, Dr. Pasalic, are you challenging this principle
24 itself, capture and recapture principle in statistics field?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Absolutely. I'm going to
1 demonstrate why.
2 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
3 Let's continue, Ms. West.
4 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE BAIRD: But, Doctor, before Ms. West proceeds, let me thank
6 you very much indeed for simplifying the situation, making it more
7 digestible and the ducks. Thank you very much.
8 THE WITNESS: With pleasure. Thank you very much.
9 MS. WEST: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Dr. Tabeau, the other day there was the discussion about - you
11 were present for it - about certain items that had been disclosed and one
12 of the items that Mr. President asked about was your list, your flagged
13 list, of the 1991 census of those people who became displaced. That
14 flagged list, is it your practice to disclose the results of the steps
15 you took along the way? In other words, did you disclose that list to
16 the Prosecutors to hand over?
17 A. Well, I think the practice in cases like this one is, first of
18 all, to provide all the sources that have been analysed in my reports and
19 provide reports discussing -- that are discussing the results. In
20 addition to this, there is the practice of providing extensive annexes in
21 which details of the methodology are disclosed as well. In addition,
22 there are references in terms of published books, articles, where the
23 same methodology is described. I think I am sure that also in this case
24 this practice has been followed, and I am sure I remember myself certain
25 dead-lines from the time I worked in the OTP for disclosing this element
1 I just mentioned. And it was, for instance, for reports. I had a
2 dead-line in May 2009, early May 2009, to submit all the reports that are
3 now presented in this case. And at the same time I am sure that
4 Mr. Karadzic received copies of everything. It's been a long, long time
5 that all these necessary materials were provided.
6 MS. WEST: Mr. President, in answer to your question the other
7 day as to whether the flagged list was disclosed, the answer to that is
8 no it was not. However, both sources were disclosed.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 MS. WEST: Thank you.
11 Mr. President, there are four addendums to the Galic report that
12 have not been admitted. I've spoken to Mr. Robinson and the Registrar
13 has those numbers. Mr. Robinson has no objection and I would ask -- I
14 would tender those four addendums as well.
15 JUDGE KWON: Could you give us the --
16 MS. WEST: Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: -- 65 ter numbers.
18 MS. WEST: The first one is 65 ter 23695; second, 23696; the
19 next, 23697; and the last is 23698.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 Mr. Robinson.
22 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President, we have no
23 objection, but I hope you won't use that against us when Dr. Karadzic is
24 asking for a little bit more time because we are saving the Prosecution
25 some time in direct examination by doing that.
1 JUDGE KWON: That will all be admitted. Let's give the numbers.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Very well they will be admitted as Exhibits P5006
3 through P5009 respectively, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 MS. WEST: Lastly, Your Honour, I would tender the handout which
6 is 23719.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I think it may be convenient to follow the
9 Any objections, Mr. Robinson?
10 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: That will be admitted as Exhibit P5010.
12 MS. WEST: And also, Mr. President, may the Prosecution upload
13 the diagram the doctor had presented in the last explanation and tender
14 that as well?
15 JUDGE KWON: With Doctor's notation.
16 MS. WEST: Please.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be admitted.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5011, Your Honours.
19 MS. WEST: I have no more questions.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. West.
21 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency. Good
23 afternoon, Excellencies. Good afternoon to everyone.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Tabeau.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Once again I would like to express my gratitude to you for having
3 met with the Defence team and I am sure it will be helpful in reaching a
4 better understanding. I am also thankful for your thorough approach in
5 explaining the statistics to all the parties to these proceedings. On my
6 part I am going to do my best to put questions to you that can be
7 answered with either a yes or no, and of course you are at liberty to
8 choose which answer you're going to give me.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now have the last
10 document put on the ELMO once again. Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, am I right if I say that this relates, these samples
13 and their interrelations, pertain to the park which is the largest
14 ellipsis of the three?
15 A. Yes, this is true.
16 Q. Thank you. Is this park a contained or a closed system without
17 any entry or exit points?
18 A. Well, for this particular population of ducks, they can move but
19 they would remain within the area studied as there wouldn't be birth and
20 migration out of the area or deaths. The measurements were actually made
21 closely one after another.
22 Q. But still within the confines of this particular park?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Would the result be affected in any way whatsoever if
25 the ducks were to move to another closed system, another park, which was
1 not the subject of investigation and vice versa, if other ducks would
2 migrate to this park?
3 A. If they moved to another environment, it of course will affect
4 the estimation.
5 Q. Let me not even ask you about the love life of the ducks. What
6 if those ducks were to get drunk, to start killing each other, would that
7 have any impact at all?
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Karadzic, it would have an impact on the
9 ducks, but I mean a drunk duck or a dead duck is not alive and healthy
10 duck. But it seems to me that what we should be concentrating on is the
11 mathematical principles and not the mating or drinking habits of ducks.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellency, let me remind you that
13 when talking about Freud you spoke about the love life of eels and the
14 principle is the same, is it not? They're just nuances that have to be
15 altered. Can this be applied to human population in view of the fact
16 that hazardous behaviour like drinking or murders or killing each other,
17 and so on and so forth, are things that are quite common among people
19 THE WITNESS: If I may answer this. Now, first of all, Sarajevo,
20 the area studied in the two Sarajevo reports, where the estimation was
21 done also using capture/recapture, it was the closed population. That is
22 very important observation that actually makes it possible to apply this
23 method. It is a closed population in the sense that Sarajevo was blocked
24 for long time and it was not possible for the population to cross the
25 front lines to go out and to come back whenever they wanted. So the
1 population that we studied is a closed population, and this is the
2 population that was questioned in order to provide reports about the
3 victims in the Sarajevo households there. Bakije operated within the
4 same closed area and again collected reports on victims from dead
5 population within the front lines, the population that was exposed to
6 risk of being killed.
7 Moreover, those who reported actually were the survivors and they
8 were household heads who actually had a good overview of all what
9 happened to these families during the conflict and during the time the
10 Sarajevo population was closed from the outside world by the front lines.
11 So from this point of view it is actually the assumptions of this method
12 are very well satisfied and I'm not worried about moving, migration,
13 these kind of things because these are not the sources that can give bias
14 to the capture/recapture estimates.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Thank you. We're still talking about the principles of the
17 methodology, and what about this situation? What if there were a tunnel
18 between this park and another park and what if there -- the tunnel were
19 used by thousands of ducks who were crossing from one park to the next?
20 Would that be something worth knowing?
21 A. Well, there was a tunnel in Sarajevo, we all know that, and it
22 was used to provide aid to the people living in the city from the airport
23 where the aid was delivered. Well, I'm not aware of huge, massive
24 migration through the tunnel out of Sarajevo, or, even more impossible,
25 into the Sarajevo that was under siege and attacked by shelling and
1 snipers. So I don't think it is a realistic scenario.
2 Q. I'm a bit confused, Dr. Tabeau. Are you saying that food arrived
3 in Sarajevo through the tunnel from the city airport? Is that what you
4 have just told us?
5 A. Well, I said there was a tunnel in Sarajevo connecting the part
6 of the city under siege with the Sarajevo airport. What was transported
7 via the tunnel I am not aware in detail because I cannot be. I wasn't
8 there and I wasn't taking reports and I wasn't studying this part of the
9 siege. So the tunnel was there is a very well-known fact. It has been
10 reported by media very frequently. Even recently by BBC there is a
11 wonderful report about Sarajevo also about the tunnel there.
12 Q. Thank you. I wouldn't say that it was you who are to blame, but
13 it would be your hosts in Sarajevo who did not inform you about the fact
14 that the aid for Sarajevo passed through the Serbian territory, through
15 the streets, and that tunnel was under Sarajevo and that it connected
16 Hrasnica and Sarajevo and that you could easily enter Sarajevo or leave
17 Sarajevo and people indeed did that as much as they wanted to. So there
18 was a connection between the two, but let's leave that aside and move on.
19 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I would move to strike all of that.
20 It's a statement. She already made a comment that she's not the person
21 to talk about what's coming in and out, and this is just a statement
22 without any question at all.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 Let's move on, Mr. Karadzic. [Microphone not activated]
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Then I have a question. If it is correct what I'm saying, would
2 you say that Sarajevo or the largest circle was as closed as you assumed?
3 A. Well, as I said, the population couldn't move freely across the
4 front line and go to the rest of the country and back any time they
5 wanted. I am aware of it, but I didn't study it in my report. So if you
6 need evidence on the population movement in this period in this area,
7 then I'm afraid it's not my reports that can provide you with this
9 Q. Thank you. Just another subquestion. On Thursday you mentioned
10 that you had visited the front lines in Sarajevo. When was that?
11 A. I think it was around the year 2001.
12 Q. Thank you. Did you see two positions along the front lines, the
13 Serbian position on one side and the Muslim position on the other side?
14 Did you see two parallel trenches running parallel to each other?
15 A. At that time, you know, in 2001 around that time I couldn't see
16 trenches and parallel trenches. It was long after the war ended.
17 Q. However, if that was once a confrontation line, what were the
18 parties to that confrontation? There must have been ones on one side and
19 the others on the other side; right?
20 A. There are always parties to any confrontation, but I thought that
21 I'm here to speak about statistics and victims and not about parties to
23 Q. With all due respect, Dr. Tabeau, on Thursday you said that the
24 Serbs had been on hilltops from which they had a good view and they could
25 shoot from there. However, if you had indeed visited the confrontation
1 lines along the hilltops and if you could see that there was 10, 20, or
2 50 metres between the trenches, then I would suggest that the Muslims
3 were on the same hilltops; right?
4 A. Well, let's put it clear. I am not a military expert and I would
5 not comment on the trenches and positions of the armies. It was -- it is
6 not my area simply, you know. It is -- I might have said that the Serbs
7 were there on the hilltops. That is a very well-known fact and I don't
8 think I am making, you know, a discovery here, but that's all I can say.
9 My goal, my objective and task, was to provide statistics on victims.
10 And moreover, I think when making my statistics I clearly distinguished
11 between civilian victims and military victims. So it is not that I'm
12 saying that there were no military victims and that only exclusively
13 civilians were killed. There were both, civilian and military victims.
14 It is all in my reports.
15 Q. Thank you. Should I be dealing with the matters that you
16 mentioned and that would fall under the category of explanations for your
17 statistical calculations in interpretations thereof and if that is taken
18 into account then I have to deal with that. But if you were only dealing
19 with figures and somebody else should be dealing with implications then I
20 will abandon that topic. But we will come to that. Let me go on and --
21 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Probably on Friday to my question
22 you answered this way -- let me put it this way. I posed a question
23 about your conclusion about the deliberate targeting of the civilians,
24 and I asked you:
25 "Does the location of the army have any impact or effect on such
1 result if the -- for example, if an army is located in the middle of
2 civilian population. Does it have any effect on that, Doctor?"
3 And in the course of answering the question, you said:
4 "I believe it does matter where the army is located ... yes.
5 For shelling there is a separate analysis in the report and I compared
6 the victims of shelling for both civilians and soldiers, and the
7 conclusion is not different for this particular category. So these are
8 two different patterns, I think. As for the location of the army, the
9 VRS was located, of course, on the hills with an excellent view on the
10 town down the valley, so I think it was a perfect location for shelling
11 of any victim."
12 Probably, Mr. Karadzic has in mind in posing those questions
13 whether such location has any impact upon your conclusion. Any
14 observations, Doctor?
15 THE WITNESS: I stand, of course, for everything I said last week
16 and what Your Honour just quoted. And, well, what I tried to say is I am
17 not a military expert to comment on the position of the armies, parties
18 to this conflict. That is one thing. The fact that the VRS army was
19 located on the hills is a very well-known fact that I am sure also in
20 this case has been or will be or, I don't know, is discussed I believe by
21 military experts. So in my view in my report what I am trying to do, I
22 didn't study the armies, their positions and their activities. I studied
23 information on victims, on their causes of death, and on the patterns --
24 of the patterns of killings for both civilians and military victims. I
25 compared the patterns and I draw conclusions as to whether these patterns
1 were similar and proportional or not. And based on the study of the
2 patterns and causes of death my conclusion is that civilians most likely
3 were targeted and there had to be a different force, a different
4 mechanism, that was killing civilians and soldiers during the siege.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. We'll have to deal with your conclusions then, but let's complete
9 our duck topic. Would it be better if 200 were recaptured, for example,
10 and then to see what the overlapping was or does it make any difference
11 at all? Can you just tell us briefly.
12 A. Well, of course the numbers can change. It is not -- that the
13 numbers I gave in the example are once and forever. It does matter what
14 is the overlap and what are the unique parts, what are the sample sizes.
15 Q. Thank you. You provided an example here and you gave us the
16 months of March and April as temporal boundaries. Is it significant at
17 all? Is there a constant leading to the exact results when time
18 intervals are longer? Would the time interval be significant at all when
19 we are talking about capture and recapture?
20 A. Well, the March and April from the example were given to stress
21 that this is a separate moment at which these two samples were taken. In
22 case of Sarajevo reports, one of the sources, Bakije funeral home, was
23 completed over a number of years starting in April 1992 and continuing in
24 the course of war and the other one was a one-time survey. It was,
25 however, retrospective survey that was meant to collect information about
1 all cases of killings and wounding since the beginning of the siege until
2 the moment of the survey. So I don't think that the March and April from
3 my example do play any role in my actual work. In my view these two
4 sources that are used in the Sarajevo reports both describe the same
5 population and there is nothing that could -- could be spoken up for one
6 source being completely different and uncomparable with the first source.
7 Q. Would the result be different, for example, if we take the
8 Sarajevo population and if the capture and recapture period were six
9 months, a year, two years, or even three years? How would that reflect
10 on the Sarajevo population?
11 A. Well, I want to explain there is nothing like capture/recapture
12 period. It is just the samples that I used for the capture/recapture
13 estimation. What matters is what is the coverage of the samples, whether
14 they are comparable and can be cross-referenced, and my answer is yes
15 they are comparable, they can be cross-referenced, the overlap can be
16 identified, and the assumptions needed for this method are fulfilled.
17 This is why I used these samples in the capture/recapture estimation.
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Karadzic.
19 This will not be counted as your time, Mr. Karadzic.
20 Ms. West, with the assistance of Dr. Tabeau, could you show us
21 the page in her report that applies to capture/recapture to the Sarajevo
23 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
24 JUDGE KWON: Microphone.
25 MS. WEST: Annex 6.6, I'll give you the page number.
1 JUDGE KWON: Could we upload that item.
2 MS. WEST: This would be in e-court -- this would be
3 65 ter 12130. E-court page is probably 58.
4 THE WITNESS: If we could move to the next page. Table A6.1 is
5 what we should be looking at.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: This estimation is only made for the period from
8 1st of April, 1992, to the 9 September 1992. That's the Karadzic
9 Sarajevo report. In order to make this estimation records were extracted
10 from each source relevant only to this period. We have Sarajevo
11 household survey 1.707 cases of Muslims both killed in natural deaths.
12 And then we haves move to Bakije and there is 1.576 cases of both again
13 killed and natural deaths of Muslims. These two sources, samples, are
14 100 per cent comparable. One was collected at mid-1994 backwards which
15 was retrospectively collecting all information about persons killed or
16 natural death during the siege. And the same is with Bakije. There is
17 nothing here like two periods or time interval or anything that would
18 diminish the correctness of these two samples and the possibility to
19 cross-reference them and compare it. There is the overlap in the last
20 row of this table which tells 1.039 cases were reported involve samples.
21 So what Mr. Karadzic just told us about period of drawing the samples
22 does not apply to this situation at all.
23 JUDGE KWON: 1700 is a number of deaths that can be found in
24 household survey?
25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
1 JUDGE KWON: And 1500 is number found in Bakije?
2 THE WITNESS: Correct.
3 JUDGE KWON: And there is an overlap of 1.000 numbers?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: In that case, total number of deaths is 2.5 million?
6 THE WITNESS: No.
7 JUDGE KWON: No. I'm sorry, 2500.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what we obtained too.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Yes, back to you, Mr. Karadzic.
11 Thank you, Ms. West and Dr. Tabeau.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Could you please explain the first figure of 1.707. Does it also
14 include Christian households, both Serbian and Croatian?
15 A. Sarajevo household survey included all people who lived within
16 the front lines. So obviously all ethnicities that were there are in the
17 survey records.
18 Q. Thank you. Would you say that Bakijes buried Christians?
19 A. Of course not, it is a Muslim funeral home. But for this reason
20 the whole capture/recapture started by taking Muslims from both sources,
21 so extracting relevant records from household survey Sarajevo as to end
22 exclusively with the Muslims and same with the Bakije funeral home. I
23 want to mention ethnicity comes from the 1991 population census, from the
24 links with the census.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you know that in Sarajevo there is a funeral
1 parlor which only deals with atheists, i.e., there's only atheists of all
2 religions and ethnicities?
3 A. It might be so, but I didn't look for this and I didn't use this
5 Q. Let us say that the Bakije funeral parlor had a good record of
6 all the bodies that they buried. What about the Muslims that were not
7 buried by the Bakije funeral home? Is there comparable grounds or
8 grounds to compare because there is a list of households, the second list
9 is of the bodies that the Bakije funeral home buried, the third would be
10 a list of persons buried by other funeral homes? How do you make your
11 calculations from that?
12 A. We rather opted for using two sources of which we knew were very
13 well suited for these type of analysis. Bakije is the largest funeral
14 home in Sarajevo with a long history and burying Muslims. It is a very
15 good source for this kind of analysis. So what we have done we have
16 completed the estimation for the Muslims and then extrapolated this
17 result over the other ethnic groups which is a very justified assumption
18 because we don't discuss here in the case of Sarajevo a case of ethnic
19 cleansing. So there is a very good reason to assume that the same
20 extrapolation can be done for other ethnicities as what we produced for
21 Muslims from capture/recapture.
22 Q. In your opinion is this formula applied to valid or invalid
24 A. Well, of course it is in the case how we did it is applied to
25 valid variables, valid samples; otherwise, why would I be presenting it
2 Q. I'm sorry. In my understanding a sample is one thing and a
3 variable is another. Is this applied to valid or invalid variables?
4 A. Well, then perhaps you tell me first what is a variable you are
5 talking about and what is your definition of validity of this variable.
6 Q. We'll deal with that when the time comes. Tell me, does this
7 include any coefficient pertaining to age, average age of the population?
8 Were death rates taken into account? Could you apply any of that to this
10 A. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I can tell that in
11 the capture/recapture estimation we didn't use any age distribution.
12 Q. Thank you. Am I supposed to understand this in the following
13 way, that this is not longitudinal, that it is not diachronic, and that
14 it has nothing to do with time? Is that right? What does that mean that
15 at one point in time there were 1700 and as far as Bakije is concerned,
16 1500. Which period are you referring to? What are the dynamics
17 involved? What was it that you inferred on that basis?
18 A. I mentioned the time-frame for this estimation earlier today. It
19 is as in the title of the table A6.1. It is the period from
20 1st of April, 1992, to 9 September 1992. That is the time-frame for the
21 number, the estimated number produced.
22 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that perhaps this method could be used
23 by a bird institute or in the case of human beings an institute for
24 demographic research? Do you believe that this kind of method would be
25 applicable in matters related to criminal law?
1 A. Actually I can tell you with certainty that capture/recapture and
2 several other methods related to capture/recapture is one of the major
3 methods for estimation of unknown numbers of victims of war. It has been
4 used in several other areas of study and there is a whole area of
5 application called multiple system estimation where the number of samples
6 goes beyond three and simple formulas like this one cannot be easily
7 proposed. So there is a log linear modeling analysis that was applied
8 for this kind of study. So I think capture/recapture is the way to go
9 when it comes to unknown numbers of, among others, victims of war. This
10 method has also been applied many times in epidemiology for estimation of
11 HIV patients, for instance, or for drug addicts that are also a category
12 that is very hard to measure and several other phenomena that cannot be
13 directly observed and measures. So actually, what we have been doing
14 here is very much in line with a broader field of analysis related to
15 unknown population sizes.
16 Q. Thank you. Have you testified in any other court of law apart
17 from this one, and you testified here 17 times. Did you testify anywhere
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. Thank you. Except for epidemiological or demographic studies
21 that do not have criminal law applications, has this method been applied
22 anywhere else? Has it been accepted in legal practice, as it were?
23 A. I can't tell whether this method has been accepted in legal
24 practice related to epidemiology or other areas. I think -- I wouldn't
25 think that in other international criminal tribunals a similar type of
1 result were produced and tendered in evidence in other cases. What we've
2 been doing in this Tribunal is actually unique, I must say. On the other
3 hand, other tribunals, like for instance the Khmer Rouge trial
4 in Phnom Penh, are in a much more difficult position because sources that
5 are available for the estimation of war victims are not available to the
6 same extent as it is the case in the former Yugoslavia. From this point
7 of view the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a very exceptional case.
8 There is a lot of information, high quality often information that can be
9 used to propose this kind of measures like counts of victims and
10 estimated more complete numbers. It is a very unique situation, I think,
12 Q. Thank you. Now we're coming to the objective. The objective of
13 this research of yours primarily dealt with Muslims, right, the
14 percentage of the Muslim population and displaced persons, refugees, and
15 so on; isn't that right?
16 A. No, it is not right. I think all ethnic groups were included in
17 my reports, especially in the municipality reports in which measures of
18 population displacement are presented, all ethnic groups are included.
19 The same is with Sarajevo, all ethnic groups are included and the same is
20 with Srebrenica. Only in the case of Srebrenica it happens that almost
21 all victim were of Muslim ethnicity and were men. So this is a result
22 but has nothing to do with our approach when it comes to ethnicity. I
23 think in all the reports every ethnic group is represented.
24 Q. Thank you. We'll get to that. So what was the objective? Can
25 you tell us briefly what the objective was and also can you tell us
1 whether you attained that objective.
2 A. Well, the objectives of course were different in all these
3 reports. In the municipalities report the objective was to measure the
4 displacement of the population, the displacement related to the war in
5 these territories. Displacement in terms of both internal displacement
6 and external displacement. In Sarajevo reports the objective was to
7 quantify the number of victims of the siege and analyse basic
8 distributions of these victims. The objective was as well to propose
9 estimates that could be used to assess the degree of incompleteness of
10 the minimum numbers that were produced from our sources. Finally, in the
11 Srebrenica reports the objectives are also different. Srebrenica is a
12 very special case. We study a particular group of victims, the missing
13 persons, of whom we have very good reasons to believe that they were
14 killed, they didn't die natural deaths as their bodies are often exhumed
15 from mass graves and other graves. So the objective was to check, to
16 investigate, how many of them were there related to the fall of
17 Srebrenica and how much we know about the fate 15 years after the war
18 ended. And obviously in the course of time we have learned a great deal
19 about the fate of these people, as today after 15 years we can say 81.1
20 per cent of all the missing persons have been identified. We know the
21 DNA profile. We know where the bodies were. Families of many of them
22 were able to bury them in their own graves, family graves, so that that
23 were the objectives.
24 Q. Thank you. Since you've given such an extensive answer let us
25 try to complete one thing with regard to the things that you talked about
1 today. These 116 persons were added subsequently, like the 200-something
2 who survived. Were they at one point in time an integral part of the
3 list of missing persons?
4 A. No. The whole point is, as I discussed this several times today,
5 sources on war victims overlap and largely so, but there are also unique
6 parts of these sources that bring new information to the general picture
7 of victimisation. The new cases, 116, 213, are the unique records from
8 the ICMP from DNA identification process of victims of Srebrenica. For
9 this reason they are reported as new and additional cases because we
10 couldn't confirm we couldn't find them in ICRC records.
11 Q. And the persons who are now considered to be survivors, were they
12 ever part of the statistical mass of persons who were considered to be
14 A. Yes. At some point early in time they were, but the purpose of
15 our investigation of cross-referencing our list with sources on survivors
16 is to exclude such cases. So in the course of time we were able to
17 confirm them as, for instance, records of refugees or displaced persons.
18 This is the reason that tells us something is wrong here and this is why
19 we have these 12 exclusions from our records.
20 Q. What's the total number of survivors found in this entire mass of
21 almost 8.000 persons who are recorded as missing?
22 A. Well, this is the 12 records that are listed in the table, so
23 that is the entire mass of possible survivors. So the thing is that, you
24 know, if you work with records of missing persons, the hope that the
25 person at some point will be found alive is really very, very small. So
1 it is -- for missing persons what we see is as a general rule almost,
2 these persons are found in the mass graves, other graves exhumed and
3 identified. It is for Srebrenica on the first place but also for other
4 episodes of war. So as I'm saying missing persons is a very, very
5 special category of victims.
6 Q. Can we now say that the process of establishing the number of
7 survivors has been completed or can new survivors still be discovered?
8 A. Well, I think that what could be done has been done, but every
9 time when there are new victims, like the 116 or 213, for these new
10 records a search is always done and a comparison of these records with
11 sources on survivors, in order to see whether possibly for these new
12 cases there is an overlap with sources on survivors or not. But because
13 these new records are coming from ICMP, that is, a source reporting on
14 DNA identifications of victims, again the chance that they would be found
15 on survivors lists is nil, simply not possible. Sometimes it might
16 happen that the record of such a victim will be seen in the record of
17 refugees or displaced persons, but then it is very likely that a mistake
18 is in the survivor record. It happens sometimes and it can be clarified
19 by questioning the family of such a person.
20 Q. Thank you. In your opinion, who reported missing persons for the
21 most part or in most cases or exclusively, if you will? Actually, who
22 could have reported that a certain person was missing?
23 A. ICRC, that is, the source that we used for the list of missing
24 from Srebrenica, have always been extremely selective when it comes to
25 the respondents. The only accepted reports on a missing person from the
1 family of this person, it is just the standard way they operate. It is
2 not possible for them to accept any report of going missing. In order to
3 produce a very reliable list of missing persons they have to follow very
4 strict procedures about how to collect this information, and this is what
5 they do. So respondents must be the family of a victim. Further
6 information must be relatively detailed. So it's impossible to drop just
7 a name and that's it. People have to be more specific about it. ICRC
8 uses a standardised questionnaire to collect answers from their
9 respondents. So there is a lot of attention paid by the ICRC when
10 collecting the data.
11 Q. Thank you. I'd kindly ask you to try to be as belief as
12 possible. I'll try to put questions that can be answered by a mere yes
13 or no.
14 Was a mechanism established involving some obligation on the part
15 of a person who reported someone missing, did that person then have to
16 say if that person was found that the person was no longer missing?
17 A. I am unaware of a mechanism that ICRC put in place. It was, I
18 believe, up to the families to go back to the ICRC and tell them whether
19 or not this person was confirmed alive.
20 Q. Thank you. Is there a mechanism, or rather, is there an
21 obligation on the part of the family to do that every now and then, to
22 say that a person remains missing or to say that a person reappeared in
23 the meantime. Or rather, to be more specific, once a person is reported
24 as missing for the first time, is there any established mechanism and
25 obligation on the part of the person who reported that to update the
1 information provided?
2 A. I would say that probably there is no such obligation to the
3 respondents. However, ICRC co-operates closely with ICMP. They exchange
4 information. And ICRC, as far as I know, is also updated by ICMP about
5 their identifications. By again comparing the lists, ICRC can categorise
6 the missing persons into still missing persons, missing persons with a
7 known place of death, missing persons dead, closed cases, and exclusions.
8 This is actually how the ICRC provided us with their lists in 2005 and
9 recently, more recently, in 2008. So I would think there is an effort,
10 systematic effort at ICRC to update the information they have. On the
11 web, for instance, only records of still missing persons are included,
12 not all the records, not the closed cases, but just still missing
14 Q. Thank you. I cannot give you an exact page reference now, but
15 I'm sure that you're going to recognise this assertion of yours. When
16 you say that the reliability of sources is rather satisfactory but not
17 comparable to usual statistical sources, what did you mean by that?
18 Would it have been better had you had the usual statistical sources?
19 A. The usual statistical sources that I used, by the way, in my work
20 as well, this is the 1991 population census that we used. We also used
21 DEM-2 mortality databases that were compiled by professional
22 statisticians. DEM-2 mortality databases were those used for the
23 Dragomir Milosevic report. Well, what is different when a statistical
24 authority compiles a source, these are people who are trained to do this
25 work. They know about how to collect information, how to develop
1 questionnaires to be used in surveys, how to process this information.
2 They know about cleaning the data. They know about elimination about
3 duplicates and about cases that are incomplete. So if a statistical
4 authority makes a source, obviously the quality of information is better.
5 However, ICRC, not being a professional statistical authority, in my
6 view, has done a lot of effort to produce reliable information. And as
7 far as I can compare, you know, ICRC versus other sources that I have
8 been using, I can tell that ICRC is a reliable source of information.
9 Q. But do you agree that it would be a good thing if two phenomena
10 were to be compared from identical sources. To be more specific, for
11 example, you compared the 1991 census and the voters register from 1997
12 and 1998. Are they the same kind of sources?
13 A. Of course not because voters register is just a source made for
14 different purposes. However, in the case of Bosnia in 1997 and 1998
15 election, voters register is nothing else but a subset of the census
16 data. Actually, the requirement for a voter to register to vote was that
17 the voter had to be enlisted in the -- on the 1991 census on the first
18 place. So from this point of view for the purposes of my work here, I
19 mean the municipalities report, the voters register is a very good source
20 to use.
21 Q. I kindly ask you to give me answers that are as brief as
22 possible. Was the census compulsory? Did a citizen have to be
23 registered in 1991?
24 A. All persons living in Bosnia had to participate in the 1991
1 Q. And what about voting, did a citizen have to vote? Did a citizen
2 have to apply to vote?
3 A. Well, no, it is a voluntarily process, the registration to vote.
4 So the answer is no, not everybody had to vote, only those who wanted.
5 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that the elections in 1996 were closer
6 to the events of 1991 through 1995 than was the case in 1997 and 1998?
7 Also, thereby they would have been a more accurate indicator?
8 A. They were closer in time, but not more accurate. The 1996
9 election is reported by OSCE in their reports as being characterised by
10 cases of fraud and misusing the voter's name to acquire majority in
11 certain municipalities. Secondly, it is also reported that for this
12 particular election, 1996 election, that the list of eligible voters
13 contained mistakes. It was sorted, not according moreover -- not
14 according to the JMBG but other characteristics. And it was extremely
15 difficult for the voters to find their name on this list. So in effect
16 of this procedure, very deficient procedure, many thousand of voters were
17 unable to vote and participate in the elections. So there are very good
18 reasons for not using the 1996 voters register, and instead to use
19 1997/1998 which are known of being very good high quality with a very
20 high participation rate of 88 per cent.
21 Q. But the OSCE was in charge of these elections as well, so are you
22 trying to say that in 1997 and 1998 there were more voters than in 1996?
23 That would be less favourable for those who are championing genocide.
24 A. Well, if we -- so the 1996 election register could not be used
25 for very good reasons. So we had to use 1997/1998. Whether the numbers
1 produced would be better from the 1996 voters' register, I don't think
2 so. If you think about the process of returns then you can easily
3 imagine that between 1996 and 1997 some people must have returned to
4 their homes. So this only means that they are not listed in our
5 statistics as displaced persons. So if you think how conservative or not
6 conservative our statistics based on the 1997 voters' register are, I am
7 telling they are more conservative because of the returns process.
8 Q. But why did you decide on that? Why didn't you carry out an
9 analysis including 1996 and then leave it up to the Chamber to decide?
10 Who made a decision to exclude the 1996 election data?
11 A. Well, I think the decision was made in the demographic unit here
12 in the Tribunal and we in co-operation with the OSCE who actually
13 provided us with the voters' records. And I think my role is not to
14 propose and make analysis that by definition are wrong and biassed.
15 Instead, my objective is to make and present analyses that are reliable
16 and meaningful. So using the 1996 voters' register is not consistent
17 with this objective.
18 JUDGE KWON: However, as a matter of fact, were there more voters
19 in 1996 election than in 1997 and 1998 election?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't think there were more because many were
21 unable to register. And moreover, there were cases, and frequently so,
22 of fraud, that voters registered for certain municipalities and they
23 shouldn't. There were like duplicate registrations which inflated the
24 numbers in the register. So these are serious biases and, well, it's not
25 a good source to be used in this kind of analysis.
1 JUDGE KWON: In answering the question because the Chamber does
2 not know which numbers so it's very difficult to follow. So in terms of
3 result 1996 election has more voters?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly. I can check the number to
5 tell whether more or not. Disregarding the number, the problem is that
6 there is a bias in the voters register. So if people registered for
7 certain municipalities and were not entitled to, how can I distinguish
8 between those who were entitled and those who were not but committed an
9 act of fraud. And also I see it is unable to pin point and flag these
10 kind of cases. So this is very deficient source. This is what I am
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that the interpreters are
13 perplexed as well because we didn't receive the interpretation of the
14 last answer, but I would kindly ask the Chamber to arrange for the
15 voters' register from 1996 to be provided to us.
16 JUDGE KWON: It's not for the Chamber to intervene at the moment.
17 Consult your legal advisor.
18 We'll take a break for half an hour and resume at 3.35.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.04 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 3.38 p.m.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Dr. Tabeau, when it comes to OSCE, did it annul the 1996
25 elections and did it issue an official report to the effect that the
1 elections were irregular?
2 A. Well, I don't think I have a complete translation, but just to
3 double-check. The question is who made this report, what organisation?
4 Q. No, no, no. I will repeat. We're talking about OSCE, did it
5 declare the elections irregular or did it at least issue an official
6 report? I'm talking about the 1996 elections that were carried out under
7 the supervision of the OSCE.
8 A. Yes, they made their report in which they summarised problems
9 around the 1996 elections. So what I'm saying about problems is coming
10 from that report. There were problems related to the fact that voters
11 could choose for any given municipality, disregarding where they lived
12 before the war in 1991. So there was no close -- no procedure in the
13 election registration that was checking the place of residence in 1991.
14 It was possible to register for any municipality, and people were abusing
15 this situation. This is discussed in this OSCE report related to
16 activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996 and in which there is a
17 separate long chapter about problems around 1996 elections.
18 Q. If you ask me, there are always problems with elections in the
19 Balkans. Were the elections declared null and void? Did OSCE declare
20 the elections irregular and renounce them as such?
21 A. I am not aware of a statement, official statement, that would be
22 declaring these elections completely invalid, but -- well, I would have
23 to double-check if it was the case. As of now, I am unaware of such a
25 Q. Thank you. I would appreciate it very much if you would prepare
1 for tomorrow information as to whether people voted even from America and
2 elsewhere, if ballots indeed arrived in sacks full of ballots. Did
3 people vote wherever they wanted to vote or did they only vote in the
4 municipalities where they were registered in 1991? In any case, I'm sure
5 that you were informed and do you think that the 1997 elections were
6 general elections for municipal authorities across Bosnia and
8 A. Yes, that were municipal elections.
9 Q. And if I put it to you that the 1997 elections were only for the
10 parliament of Republika Srpska after Mrs. Plavsic walked away from the
11 SDS and decided that there would be a snap election for the parliament of
12 Republika Srpska, did you know that? Were you informed about that? Did
13 you check that if you were informed about that?
14 A. It might be so that that was the case. What I know is that
15 mainly these elections, 1997, were for municipal parliament.
16 Q. In all of Bosnia?
17 A. In the entire Bosnia.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm afraid that that wasn't the case. Do you know
19 that the snap election happened after arguments among the Serbs and that
20 Muslims were not too keen to vote in that election, therefore they didn't
21 register at all?
22 A. Well, I don't want to comment on the snap elections because I
23 didn't study it in particular. But from what I can see from the register
24 that I received from OSCE for the 1997 election, it is a complete
25 register in the sense that the entire country is covered, both
1 Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all
2 ethnic groups are represented there.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you know that Muslims and all Muslim parties in
4 1996 election of 83 MPs in the Assembly of Republika Srpska won 18
5 places, and a year later only 14 places?
6 A. I am not aware of these numbers and I didn't study the results of
7 elections, you know, especially in 1996. I don't know that, no.
8 Q. But that directly points to the fact that the 1997 list of voters
9 was much shorter in the Muslim segment than it was in 1996 because if you
10 had to have about 18- to 20.000 people per MP, four MPs less represents
11 about 55.000 to 60.000 Muslim voters who did not vote for their own MPs
12 in that year.
13 A. Well, sir, what I can tell you about the 1997 voters' register,
14 it comprises 2.5 million individuals from the entire country, and I
15 wasn't particularly interested in the municipalities they voted for. I
16 was interested in the municipality where they registered to vote. So it
17 is the physical location of the registration to vote that interested me.
18 Why? Because I took it as a good approximation of the place of residence
19 at the time of 1997 elections. So how they voted, for what
20 municipalities, it really didn't interest me at all.
21 Q. And what if they did not register or if fewer of them registered
22 in 1997 than in 1996, would that have -- be significant for your research
23 because a register or a list of voters is your second bench-mark value
24 with regard to the 1991 census that was compulsory?
25 A. Yes. If they did not register to vote, they were not included in
1 my study. I only studied those who registered to vote, and there were
2 2.5 million of registered voters in 1997 elections. That is one thing.
3 If you said -- if there were fewer of them registered in 1997 compared to
4 1996, what kind of problem it creates for me? It doesn't create any
5 problem at all because, as I said, 1997 gives more conservative numbers
6 of displaced persons than 1996, more conservative meaning smaller,
7 lowered numbers, more conservative numbers of displaced persons. And
8 speaking of 1997 election and voters' register versus the 1991 population
9 census, yes, you are right. Population census is complete. It is not a
10 sample. It is a complete record of the population at the outbreak of the
11 conflict. 1997 voters' register is a sample of this population. It's a
12 very large sample, 2.5 million individuals out of initially 4.4 million
13 in 1991. It is such a large sample that in statistical terms this is
14 huge, it is massive. It is much, much, much more than what I need to
15 produce reliable statistics. In my report I produced minimum numbers,
16 minimum numbers. This is at least numbers not complete numbers.
17 Complete numbers are higher than what are presented as the minimum from
18 the sample, from the actually observed data.
19 Q. Two and a half million adults who had the right to vote in
20 respect of 4 million and 400.000, this obviously surpasses the customary
21 rate of minors by far, does it not, of those who do not have the voting
23 A. Well, you are saying population of age 0 up to 17 versus 18 or
24 older - just double-checking that this is what you mean.
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Yes, of course. The 18-plus population, it's much larger than 0
2 to 17, the minors, indeed.
3 Q. What is the specific rate, or rather, what is the natality in
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina per 1.000 inhabitants? You did take that into
5 account, did you not, when you tried to establish the number of those who
6 were born before 1980?
7 A. Well, the rate has nothing to do with distinguishing the
8 population eligible to vote in 1997 and the rest of the population. It
9 is a method of taking those born before 1980 who become 18 in 1997 and
10 are illegible to vote. I don't work with rates, aggregate rates produced
11 by statistical authorities because I am using a micro data set, micro
12 level data set. I work with records of information about persons. Every
13 record represents one individual. It is a micro level study. I don't
14 need to use any aggregate level rates.
15 Q. You covered the whole of the population of those who were born
16 before 1980 and you did not study any patterns, representative pattern,
17 nor did you do any calculations. You simply applied the list of those
18 who were born before 1980; right?
19 A. Yes, it is like extracting records and making a long list of
20 those who became eligible to vote in 1997.
21 Q. Did you take into account everybody, all persons, or did you
22 extract a sample from the totality of the population?
23 A. Well, I explained already 1991 is a complete population survey.
24 If I take from the census all persons born before 1980, then, as a matter
25 of fact, I take one segment of the population which is complete for the
1 ages that it includes, and of course it doesn't contain any other persons
2 that are excluded because of their age. It is not a sample. It is a
3 segment of the population extracted according to the age criterion.
4 Q. So you did not need the register of voters. You could simply
5 follow those who existed in 1980; right?
6 A. If I would just follow them, then what kind of results could I
7 produce? I had to look at the voters and cross-reference them with this
8 segment of the population reported in the 1991 census in order to be able
9 to study whether they became displaced or not. So my starting point is a
10 segment of the 1991 census, a segment that is related very strictly to
11 the voters of 1997 election, as the voters most certainly can be found in
12 my segment of the 1991 population. It's a longitudinal approach. It is
13 just micro level tracing individuals throughout the time and the sources
14 which report on these individuals.
15 Q. Thank you. We'll come back to that when we talk about
16 municipalities. I want to go back to Sarajevo for a brief moment. Were
17 you an investigator in the OTP?
18 A. No, I wasn't an investigator. The name of my post was
20 Q. Very well. But were you then an investigator working at the post
21 of an OTP, or rather, were you a researcher?
22 A. I had a post within the OTP, but it wasn't a post of an
23 investigator. I rather think it was a research position called
25 Q. Thank you. Did you obtain your Ph.D. after that?
1 A. After, after I was -- I started working at the OTP, no. I
2 obtained my Ph.D. years before.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you know Mr. Robert Donia and did you collaborate
4 with him?
5 A. I know Mr. Donia but we never co-operated. We occasionally met
6 during my work at the OTP at the times he was visiting the office.
7 Q. Thank you. If we take Sarajevo as a park, let's use this
8 metaphor, what kind of fluctuation of population would be significant in
9 your view that would warrant the application of the capture/recapture
10 formula? 1.000? 2.000? 10.000?
11 A. Well, it is not about the fluctuation of the population; it is,
12 you know, about the victims, the number of victims. And when it comes to
13 the reporting of victims in both sources that I used in
14 capture/recapture, there are practically no fluctuations. That is the
15 nature of the sources as such. The thing is that having these two
16 sources I restrict my study to the relevant victim records, victim
17 records that died during the siege period as defined in the Karadzic
18 Sarajevo report or the next one and within the front lines in Sarajevo.
19 So there is no fluctuations here other than that my samples are really
20 samples. I can't be sure that each of these samples is complete. I know
21 they are incomplete. They are just samples.
22 Q. Thank you. But you take a sample which should represent the
23 whole up to 0.05 per cent margin of error; is that correct?
24 A. This is -- this error margin you mentioned has nothing to do with
25 sample selection, but, you know, the issue you are mentioning,
1 fluctuation of the population, would have been relevant if I studied a
2 different phenomenon, if I studied a disease in a population, and then
3 there would be a migration out and in, there would be birth, then this is
4 relevant fluctuations, of course. But I didn't study diseases, I didn't.
5 I studied a completely different variable, as you said yourself. This is
6 the victim number, that is my variable. And if we speak of a closed
7 population as the one within the front lines in Sarajevo, both sources
8 are not disturbed by any fluctuation. This is the nature of the sources,
9 as a matter of fact.
10 Q. But, Dr. Tabeau, does the number of the fatalities or the
11 casualties can be compared with the number of the population and is it
12 expressed in relative numbers?
13 A. Yes, you are right. In the Galic report we calculated the rates
14 as well, and for this a complex procedure was used starting with defining
15 what segment of the Sarajevo population covered by household survey
16 Sarajevo was the original as the one who lived there in 1991. And
17 approximately 85 per cent of the population covered by the household
18 survey Sarajevo was the original as in 1991 census. For this we made a
19 pilot study, selected approximately 5.000 questionnaires from a few areas
20 in Sarajevo, questionnaires that were selected disregarding whether or
21 not deaths were reported, just a complete population of 5.000 was picked
22 out. And based on these questionnaires, we studied the distribution of
23 population in Sarajevo household survey. As I said, 85 per cent was
24 original 1991 population; 15 per cent was new population, who this or
25 another way came into Sarajevo and stayed there within the front lines at
1 the time of the survey. Only the original population was taken for the
2 calculation of rates, and only the deaths - I mean the killed
3 people - reported from the original population were taken for the
4 calculation of the rates. So it is just narrowing down the material
5 obtained from Sarajevo household survey, narrowing it down to work with
6 unbiased information and using this information for the calculation of
8 Q. I would like for us to finish this issue regarding Donia.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the number
10 slowly. Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. While we are waiting, can we agree that --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 21434, 65 ter. This is a book
14 about Sarajevo written by Mr. Donia. Can we have page 3, please. We
15 need the paragraph in the middle that begins with:
16 [In English] "According to ARBiH estimates over a million
17 person-passages were made through the tunnel from July the 30th, 1993,
18 until the end of the war."
19 [Interpretation] And then further on he speaks about the
20 transportation of fuel, food, et cetera, et cetera.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Did you know that there was such a high frequency of traffic
23 along this tunnel? And if that is true, one can easily say that actually
24 Sarajevo was not under siege at all?
25 A. Well, this passage is mentioned, first of all, started in July
1 30th, 1933 [sic], that is one thing, not in the initial episodes of the
2 siege. And secondly, person-passages, what does it mean actually?
3 Passage? Where did it end? Where did they go when they were leaving the
4 tunnel? So passages just, you know, for me, one way and back perhaps,
5 one and back, one and back. The same person can make thousands of
6 passages this way and back. So it doesn't tell me anything about it at
8 Q. But did you know that the tunnel was so busy that so many persons
9 were going to and fro? It doesn't say exactly, but obviously people
10 travelled in both directions and that tunnel was not part of a closed
11 system; is that right?
12 A. Well, it says, you know, this passage in the book about
13 person-passages, person-passages, not about persons who were leaving the
14 town through the tunnel and moving out from Sarajevo elsewhere. If you
15 go down more to the end lines of the same passage, you know, it tells you
16 what was transferred through the tunnel. So obviously the traffic was
17 two ways. This is how I read it. It was busy, indeed, but on the other
18 hand if the Sarajevo was cut off from the outside world, it is obvious
19 that ways had to be invented for providing aid to the people who lived
20 there. But I don't want to make comments on this because I really didn't
21 study the traffic in the tunnel and who was doing this, how frequently,
22 for what purposes. Obviously there is a description of it in the book of
23 Mr. Donia, and perhaps this can serve as a source on this.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have these three pages
1 admitted into evidence?
2 JUDGE KWON: Ms. West.
3 MS. WEST: I don't have any objection.
4 JUDGE KWON: That will be admitted as a Defence exhibit.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2249, Your Honours.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. We'll come back to Sarajevo. Please, the research that you did,
9 was that a scientific research that was designed in advance in terms of
10 specific procedures and sources to be used in the process?
11 A. Of course it was scientific research in which decisions were made
12 about sources and methods and procedures, and in the course of this
13 research actually many, many activities were taken to guarantee reliable
14 results of it.
15 Q. I am sorry, it wasn't interpreted. I asked you whether that was
16 a scientific and empirical research or whether that was research
17 conducted on the basis of the data collected from various sources. Did
18 you, yourself, design the scientific and empirical research and did you
19 decide the manner in which the data were to be collected and then you
20 processed them statistically; or were you just given the data collected
21 from various sources?
22 A. I want to stress, nothing is given like that and used like that
23 to produce good, meaningful result. So in order to propose meaningful
24 research, a lot of effort is done to identify right sources and the ways
25 of processing these sources and produce the results. So there was a
1 careful preparation, a very careful preparation of every single report
2 written for this case and other cases. That I used sources compiled by
3 others, like 1991 population census, I can only say I'm extremely happy
4 the census existed, that professional statisticians prepared the census,
5 conducted it and made census files, that I am able to use this census the
6 way I am using it. I am extremely happy that I have the opportunity to
7 use voters' registers in the absence of the next census in Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina. And for the purpose I'm using the voters' register, this
9 source is as good as any other professional statistical source. I am not
10 using voters' register to estimate measures that don't make sense when
11 estimated from this source. I am using it for a certain purpose and for
12 this purpose it is justified to use this source. So I see nothing wrong
13 in using information compiled by others, especially if I make sure that
14 the way of compiling this information is professional and acceptable for
15 research purposes.
16 Q. Thank you. I'm not attacking you. Let us just establish the
17 facts. So you believe that a census is a statistical fact. Now, as for
18 the rest, are those statistical facts of the same order like voters'
19 registers and other lists, are they or aren't they?
20 A. Well, census is exceptional among all sources that exist. So
21 voters is of course a different type of source. Well, whether it can be
22 compared with the census, obviously not, because the coverage, the
23 content, the way of making the source is different. But it doesn't mean
24 that we have to disregard the voters' registers as completely useless for
25 our purposes, on the contrary. I can assure you that these are good
1 sources for this type of research as we did.
2 Q. Well, with all due respect, Dr. Tabeau, we are here adding pears
3 and oranges. In your report, you say the reliability is for the most
4 part satisfactory although it cannot be compared to the usual statistical
5 sources. If you made a comparison between the voters' registers from
6 1996 or 1997, those would be the sources of the similar or identical
7 order. But you had to take the data from 1997 when the Muslims were
8 actually not interested in participating in the elections, and therefore
9 no comparisons can be made, although you did make a reservation here by
10 saying that they cannot be compared with usual statistical sources. Now,
11 this causes concern with me. Why do you say that this is incomparable?
12 Why did you use that term in your report, the term that is now becoming a
13 part of a criminal procedure?
14 A. Yes, voters' registers are not comparable with the census, as the
15 methodology of making them is not the same as the one of the census.
16 However, voters' registers are nothing less than a sample of census
17 variables. It is just a sample of basic variables from the census, 1991
18 census, that the OSCE received from the statistical authority. The
19 variables provided included the names, the date of birth, the place of
20 residence in 1991. That is what was needed for the OSCE to make a
21 voters' register, a voters' register that could be used by the eligible
22 voters to check whether their names are there. And that is what was done
23 in Bosnia in 1997 elections. So voters' register is different from the
24 census. Census reports on many more variables than just the three I
25 mentioned. It reports about ethnicity. It reports about religion. It
1 reports about the education, marital status, children. It reports about
2 place of birth, about the place of residence, about the profession, about
3 the employment, about the housing, about the agricultural farms. It's
4 huge. It is unique. That is the census. We don't have all these
5 variables in the voters' register. Voters' register is a simple register
6 with names, JMBG, date of birth, place of residence, not good enough to
7 make a statistical study of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
8 1997, by all means not good enough to take it as a list of registered
9 voters who can be compared with the census records and studied from the
10 point of view of their displacement. These are the differences between
11 these sources.
12 Q. Thank you. I am currently disregarding different variables that
13 the register does not comprise. What I'm primarily interested in is the
14 number. Do you know that in our country people have to be registered
15 again and again for each election and that in many cases people simply
16 don't register themselves and don't feature in the voters' registers?
17 A. I'm not sure what is the question, but if it is whether the
18 voters' register is incomplete then the answer is yes, it is incomplete.
19 Only those who registered are there in the register.
20 Q. Thank you. Let us just finish the previous question. Was there
21 any difference between what you did and the data that you obtained or
22 obtained by other sources for various purposes and is it different from
23 research that you set up in advance in terms of standards and procedures
24 that would govern the collection of data and after that you proceeded
25 with the collection of data? Would that constitute two different ways of
1 research and which would be your preference between the two? Would you
2 prefer to have standards set up in advance? In other words, that would
3 be a longitudinal research that would produce the data collected on the
4 basis of your design.
5 A. Well, to keep it short, the question is whether there exists
6 something like a perfect research design and how far I ended from this
7 perfect design. Well, when it comes to the study of displacements,
8 ideally I would like to use the second census, post-war census. However,
9 I don't have it and even today I don't have it. What I selected, the
10 voters' register, is an excellent replacement of what is unavailable. So
11 the other alternative that exists is not to do anything at all. I
12 believe that what has been done with the voters' register and the 1991
13 population census is of high scientific standard and is reliable.
14 Moreover, there are sources that can be compared, independent sources,
15 and results can be confronted. I did such a comparison and I can tell
16 that this study based on voters' register does not significantly differ
17 from the official registration by UNHCR of displaced persons and
18 refugees. When it comes to victims, ideally we would all like to see a
19 complete list of all victims with all kind of details and the name of the
20 perpetrator next to each victim. That is the ideal that we are all
21 looking for. This ideal doesn't exist. It's very challenging to produce
22 a list that could be covering a part of this ideal, a pattern that can be
23 produced based on existing sources. I believe that in all these studies,
24 Sarajevo studies, and in Srebrenica we have come very close to this ideal
25 in terms of numbers, not in terms of perpetrators. This has never been
1 the subject of my report. But in terms of numbers, I think we are very
2 close and sources that we used are also highly reliable and meaningful.
3 Q. Why was then this study performed based on other sources if you
4 say that you had official registrations made by the UNHCR? Were there
5 any flaws in that UNHCR registration that led to it not being applied in
6 this instance?
7 A. Well, I think UNHCR can themselves testify about what they have
8 done. So the whole point of this study we made is to make an independent
9 study based on good sources and compare the results with the work of
10 UNHCR. So that's the essence of this work. We work with primary
11 sources, we work with names, we have applied a careful approach I think a
12 good methodology, and this is why it is worthwhile to do this kind of
13 work and to present results as completely independent to what UNHCR has
14 been doing.
15 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that the Defence should understand
16 this to mean that the OTP and their services are more objective in their
17 approach to this problem than the UNHCR?
18 A. Well, first of all, I am an expert for the Prosecutor -- for the
19 Prosecution, but in my opinion I am working to provide the true picture
20 of what happened. And I have been doing this the best way I can by
21 studying always all ethnicities, complete areas, complete time episodes.
22 I work with many sources. I cross-reference the sources. I confront the
23 sources with each other in order to present as independent picture as
24 possible. I don't consider myself working for the Prosecution or for
25 anybody else. I am -- my role is to provide an independent opinion on
1 what happened. It happened that I was part of the OTP 11 years long;
2 that is correct.
3 Q. [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, could you repeat.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Maybe we shall -- back to this issue later on. Let me ask you
8 this: There is no dispute between us that the bureau of statistics is
9 fully qualified and competent to carry out census. Now, as for the
10 sources who collected the data that you used, are these sources -- have
11 equally valid credentials? Are they certified?
12 A. Well, I don't know exactly what you mean, "certified,"
13 credentials. I used the ICRC list of missing persons, ICMP list of
14 identifications, Sarajevo household survey. I think these are -- yeah,
15 international organisations, very well-known, and who operating -- has
16 been operating for very long time, especially ICRC, and I believe this is
17 the best credentials as I can have for these sources. Yeah, I also use
18 Sarajevo household survey, a survey that was conducted by a local -- by
19 group of local researchers in Sarajevo. And I actually checked the
20 questionnaire they developed and the procedures they used for completing
21 the survey, but the computerisation of these questionnaires and data
22 processing, cleaning of the data, everything was done here by my unit and
23 others who were involved in projects with me. So even though the
24 questionnaire was developed down there, in Sarajevo, first I see this is
25 a good questionnaire; second, I received the original questionnaires for
1 my processing, I arrange everything myself according to good standards.
2 So I don't think we have a problem here as well.
3 Q. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am not dealing with Sarajevo
4 only. I'm asking you in principle. For instance, if, for example, a
5 music society were to come up and give you their information and when we
6 use the word "music society" or singing society, that means that there's
7 nothing binding involved. For example, who is this, PIP, the
8 Podrinje Identification Project, are they certified for working on
9 statistical methods? Are they competent? Are they objective? And has
10 that been confirmed anywhere?
11 A. That is Podrinje Identification Project that you mentioned is not
12 a source I used. It is just an organisation down there, in Bosnia, who
13 works together with ICMP on the identification of victims. What matters
14 for me is the ICMP itself, International Commission For Missing Persons,
15 who are certified, I am sure, and there was probably another person from
16 ICMP to tell about the certificates they have. But for me what mattered,
17 I had the occasion to visit ICMP several times in the course of my work
18 at the OTP. I had the opportunity to check personally how they work,
19 what kind of procedures are in place. For the whole process from, you
20 know, taking samples from the remains, sending them to the lab, DNA
21 profiling, you know, putting into the database, the same with the blood
22 samples of the relatives, how the matching is done, how the coding is
23 done, how the storage is done. So I could have assessed this for myself,
24 and that is, in my view, the best certificate in my eyes, you know, about
25 the reliability of this source. But of course the methodology ICMP uses
1 is a worldwide standard, so it is not that they invented the method of
2 DNA profiling and matching; they just use the methodology. And I use the
3 results of the matching.
4 Q. I was not referring to the ICMP, although I think that at that
5 time even the ICMP hadn't had an international licence. However, we had
6 their witnesses here as well. This is what I'm interested in, though,
7 that is the extent to which you relied on sources. Now let us look at
8 something else. As far as municipalities are concerned, you did some
9 research on demographic trends in relation to the consequences of war, or
10 rather, causes and consequences of war in 27 municipalities and then
11 especially within that context in nine municipalities. Do you know how
12 many municipalities exist in Republika Srpska or do you accept, rather,
13 that there are 62 of them?
14 A. Well, I don't remember the exact numbers, but if you are telling
15 me 62, I accept this number. I will check it, though.
16 Q. Thank you. So is it the task of the Prosecution or was it the
17 task of the Prosecution - and within that context your task as well - to
18 provide evidence on lawful or unlawful action taken by the Serb
19 side - and myself in particular - in relation to a certain area?
20 A. Sir, I said earlier in my testimony that I didn't study causes of
21 migration, and of course I didn't study all lawful or unlawful actions of
22 yourself or anybody else. It is not part of my report.
23 Q. Thank you. But this is what I'm interested in now. What do
24 these 27 municipalities mean? Are they a sample for all of
25 Republika Srpska? Or even more, for the entire area that we had under
1 our control during the war?
2 A. The 27 municipalities were selected according to the indictment
3 of this case. This is initially as it was presented at some point, at
4 the time the report was made. So it is not a sample. It is just the
5 area covered by the indictment of the case, Karadzic case, that is
6 studied in our municipalities report.
7 Q. Thank you. But you expressed all results in relative terms as
8 well, didn't you?
9 A. As percentages, you mean. That the change in the ethnic
10 composition was expressed in percentages. But still, you know, I used
11 both absolute terms and relative terms in relation to the 27
12 municipalities selected in accordance to the indictment of the Karadzic
14 Q. Since you're a statistician and a demographer, would you have had
15 a different result if you added to the 27 municipalities a 28th one, for
16 instance, Gradiska and as a 29th one Srbac, and as a 30th one Derventa,
17 say all of those municipalities, then the entire autonomous region of the
18 Krajina that had 18 or more municipalities itself. What would the result
19 be given that sample, or, rather, given this mass that would be looked at
21 A. Well, the numbers that I present relate to the 27 municipalities.
22 If I change this number, if I add new municipalities, the numbers must
23 change obviously because the calculation will be done for a new area that
24 is different from the 27 municipalities.
25 Q. Thank you. Out of these 27 municipalities, if we were to take
1 nine municipalities where the fiercest fighting took place and where the
2 denouement was the most dramatic then these results become even more
3 dense, isn't that right, I mean they're even more convincing as claimed
4 by the indictment?
5 A. I think that it doesn't work like this. You know, if we ask the
6 question how many persons became displaced from the area of 27
7 municipalities versus nine out of 27, so that obviously for nine
8 municipalities the number will be smaller than for 27. That is as simple
9 as that. Ethnic composition might be then showing more dramatic changes
10 for the nine municipalities, of course. If these were -- municipalities
11 were -- these events, as you call them were dense. But it is not that we
12 were making a selection in our report. We make a report consistent with
13 the indictment area, and there is no manipulation here with the number of
14 municipalities. The indictment says 27 municipalities. We take 27 and
15 make an analysis for the 27. And the other day last week there was a
16 mention that seven have been dropped out of 27, so it would be good to
17 see the picture for the 20 municipalities instead. That is how it works.
18 What comes out is just the result of the analysis.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court
21 chapter 3 are the main findings. They have to do with Croats --
22 actually, it's all the same to me. Any map of these municipalities, say
23 number 5 from this chapter. I'm calling this up not because of the
24 Croats but because of the image itself. For instance, we can also have
25 number 7 from chapter 4. Any one of them. We just need to see the map.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You are certainly informed that I was president in all of
3 Republika Srpska; right?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P4994, page 5 within this number.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do we agree that I was president - I mean that I was
7 president - in all of these municipalities, even in those that in Dayton
8 we handed over to the Federation; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the coloured one
11 enlarged. We don't really need the Serbian version.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Dr. Tabeau, since I have been accused of systematic persecution,
14 a system that was applied in Republika Srpska, do you believe -- for
15 example, look at the west, Dubica, it is north of Prijedor, 009; then
16 Gradiska, also to the north of Prijedor; then Prnjavor, then Srbac, these
17 are just four municipalities closer to the Sava River up there. Had you
18 included them, what would this system of persecution look like
20 A. Well, I don't know that, but if you want and you ask me then I
21 can recalculate some statistics for you for the entire Republika Srpska.
22 But I don't think that entire Republika Srpska is part of the indictment.
23 Q. But if it's a system that is involved, if I have been accused of
24 systematic behaviour based on a system, does it not mean that in some
25 municipalities they did listen to me and in others they did not? And did
1 they obey me in the municipalities where there hadn't been any
2 persecution, or did they obey me in the municipalities where there hadn't
3 been any persecution?
4 MS. WEST: Objection.
5 JUDGE KWON: It's not for the witness to answer that question.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, I just want to comment on the figures for
7 Republika Srpska. They are available from the report, municipalities
8 report. On page 66, for example, in table 2BH, there is an overview of
9 the minimum number of displaced persons for the entire country Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina with the division into Republika Srpska and the Federation.
11 And there is a similar table for the estimated number of displaced
12 persons and refugees which is next page, 67, and there is the change in
13 the ethnic composition on page 65. So pages 65, 66, 67 contain these
14 statistics. So I'm not hiding anything. Whatever I have, I present in
15 this report. So there is a context for the figures for 27 municipalities
16 in terms of the figures for Republika Srpska as a whole. Well, I don't
17 think the picture is so dramatically different really. The numbers of
18 displaced persons are larger, though, and very much so.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. But you certainly do not deal with displaced persons only. You
21 also deal with the density of the events concerned, and if we look at the
22 framework involved it is of crucial importance to look at things in their
23 entirety. One of the key values involved is the total area because it is
24 expressed in real terms.
25 A. I can only say it's all there, it's all there, the 27
1 municipalities, the entire Republika Srpska, it's all there in the
3 Q. Do you believe that establishing the density of events in nine
4 municipalities in 27 municipalities is insignificant from the point of
5 view of this criminal case and from the point of view of the indictment
6 for the purposes of which you worked? Is the density of the developments
7 concerned of significance?
8 A. Well, I don't know exactly what do you mean by "density," in
9 terms of relative measures certain percentages are presented in the
10 municipalities report. That's the only relative measure that is
11 discussed there. So I think this is the density, I guess, you referred
12 to. And if I have to answer whether it is right to show these densities,
13 meaning the fractions of displaced persons in various configurations, the
14 answer is, yes, it is 100 per cent correct to calculate such percentages
15 for every municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the entire area of
16 political entities, Republika Srpska and Federation, and for any other
17 area composed of selected municipalities. It all depends what is -- why
18 these statistics are needed. In this case, the calculation is presented
19 for 27 municipalities because this is how the indictment area was
20 defined. If the area would be larger, like the entire Republika Srpska,
21 we would be including consequences that are not necessarily -- that would
22 be not covered by the indictment, which would be completely unjustified
24 Q. Thank you. Please focus on chapter 2 of your report with the
25 annex for this case, the main findings that pertain to Muslims, so I'm
1 looking at 2.1. And you say in 27 municipalities included in the
2 indictment the share of Muslims decreased from 41 per cent, as it was in
3 1991, to 32.8 per cent in 1997, or, rather, the decrease was 19.9
4 per cent. First of all, do we agree that the share of Muslims in the
5 general population does not depend only on trends involving the Muslims
6 but also on trends involving others, the arrival of Serbs in this area,
7 does it decrease the percentage of Muslims that are there?
8 MS. WEST: Mr. President, this is e-court page 9.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Now to the question about the trend. Well,
10 there is no trend in my report. There is this one 1991 population as
11 reported in the census and ethnicity is reported as of the moment of the
12 census, and it is from -- coming from an open-ended question, so
13 everybody tells what he or she thinks he or she is, end of story. There
14 is no trend. So the ethnic composition is calculated on this given
15 moment of time. And the same is done again for 1997. The whole point is
16 about, you know, movements of the population, that certain groups moved
17 out, certain other groups moved in in a given territory. So if the
18 ethnic composition is shown on two different moments of time, then there
19 is a change, a change which has nothing to do with any trend in a report
20 being of ethnic or anything like that because still the same definition
21 of ethnicity is used. It is just the two -- these two ethnic
22 compositions summarise the change that took place between the two moments
23 of time. And if one group is gone and replaced by another group, this
24 will be seen in the change of the ethnic composition.
25 Q. However, if one group hadn't left and the other group increased
1 its numbers, does that affect the structure?
2 A. Of course this will be reflected in the structure.
3 Q. Thank you. So 41 per cent and 32.8 per cent is the share of the
4 Muslims in the general population in these 27 municipalities; right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Thank you. Then taking into account all the things that can
7 affect this, including Serbs moving in, for instance, we cannot just take
8 it for granted that 19.9 per cent Muslims left; rather, perhaps more
9 Serbs moved in. Right?
10 A. Well, I think the beauty of this report is said that you have
11 numbers of the population movement for every ethnic group. So these are
12 the displacements, for Muslims, and Serbs, Croats, others. So on one
13 hand there is this change in the ethnic composition, but on the other
14 hand you just go to figures related to the displacement which are
15 discussed in paragraph 2.2 and 2.3 in the same section.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. So for my ...
18 Q. We'll get to that, Ms. Tabeau. We'll get to that. So does this
19 mean the following: That in these 27 municipalities in 1997 there were
20 67.2 per cent non-Muslims, that is to say Serbs and Croats, if we're only
21 looking at point 2.1?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. How did you calculate the 19.9 per cent, on the basis
24 of absolute numbers or did you subtract 32.8 from 41 per cent and then
25 did you calculate the percentages of percentages?
1 A. It's the relative difference, this is how it is called in
2 statistics, it's the difference between 41 per cent and 32.8 per cent
3 divided by 41 per cent. It is a relative difference, a relative
5 Q. Thank you. Would it -- wouldn't it be more accurate to use
6 absolute numbers and then to base the percentage on the difference in
7 absolute numbers?
8 A. Well, we don't do this with absolute numbers because for 1997 it
9 is a large sample but a sample. So if we look at the absolute numbers,
10 this could be misleading. Some people could take the absolute numbers as
11 the size of the population in 1997, which is not true. It is just a
12 sample. So it is much more correct to work with just percentages.
13 Q. But please take a look at this. 41 per cent and 32.8 per cent
14 are percentages that have to do with the general population, whereas
15 19.9 per cent are percentages within the Muslim community itself; right?
16 A. Well, it is a change in the fraction of Muslims between 1991 and
17 1997. That change expressed as a percentage, it is almost a 20 per cent
18 decline, almost 20 per cent. That's it. I -- what is the problem here?
19 I really don't understand. It would be of course easier to look at 1.000
20 versus 2.000 or 10.000 versus 50.000. Of course it would be, but we
21 don't have complete numbers for the 1997 population so we have to live
22 with percentages.
23 Q. Thank you. However, I'm trying to say the following: When Serbs
24 move into Serb areas, that could also change the share of Muslims in the
25 general population; right? And we cannot say there are less Muslims in
1 the general population by 19.9 per cent?
2 A. The 19.9 per cent is the change in the ethnic composition, in the
3 fraction of Muslims, in the fraction of Muslims in 1997 as compared with
4 1991. And in terms of absolute numbers, we don't know how many Muslims
5 left in 1997 in these 27 municipalities. We can only tell a minimum
6 number of Muslims living in these 27 municipalities. That's all we can
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, it's time to adjourn for today, but
9 before doing so just shall we do the calculation here.
10 Doctor, 41.0 minus 32.8 is 8.2.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE KWON: That should be exactly 20 per cent, why 19.9
13 per cent?
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I have to recalculate if it is not
15 exactly as Your Honour thinks it should be, yeah.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
17 Yes, Ms. West.
18 MS. WEST: May I just quickly do some corrections to the
19 transcript, Your Honour, please.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 MS. WEST: Page 60, line 12, there are two times where the
22 witness said DEM-2, D-E-M-2. On the transcript, it's too, t-o-o.
23 Page 62, line 3, there is a blank. It should be JMBG, J-M-B-G. Page 63,
24 line 24, the words should be "deficient," not "definition." Page 55,
25 line 2, it should be "counts of victims," not "kinds of victims." And
1 then page 77, the witness was talking about that the voter registration
2 was not good enough to make a study in 1997, but in line 20 she said by
3 all means good enough to take it as a list of registered of voters, if
4 there's any disagreement on here.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. West.
6 We continue tomorrow morning at 9.00. The hearing is now
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.01 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of
10 May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.