1 Tuesday, 16 December 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everybody in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have appearances,
11 please, starting with the Prosecution.
12 MR. SAXON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
13 Honours. Ms. April Carter and Ms. Carmela Javier for the Prosecution,
14 and I'm Dan Saxon.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And for the Defence.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good afternoon. Tina Drolec, Chad
17 Lukic, and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith for the Defence of Mr. Perisic.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, Ms. Carter will call the next witness.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. Carter.
21 MS. CARTER: The Prosecution calls Dr. Helge Brunborg.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, sir. May the witness please make
25 the declaration.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated. Madam
5 MS. CARTER: May it please the Court.
6 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG
7 Examination by Ms. Carter:
8 Q. Dr. Brunborg, what is your area of expertise?
9 A. My area of expertise is my demography.
10 Q. Can you please describe the field of demography?
11 A. Demography is the science that studies population change and
12 population composition and the components that affect population size and
13 composition, and the most important components are births, deaths, and
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Carter, wouldn't you like the witness to
16 place his name on record?
17 MS. CARTER: Certainly, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, will you please state your name for the record?
19 A. My name is Helge, first name, H-E-L-G-E, Brunborg, last name,
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 MS. CARTER:
23 Q. You were describing --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could call the speak all the speakers kindly be
25 asked to pause between questions and answers to allow for the
1 interpretation to continue. Thank you.
2 MS. CARTER:
3 Q. I'm certain that you heard that --
4 A. Sure.
5 Q. -- we've been prohibited from speaking over each other. Probably
6 the best way to handle this is -- for both English speakers is that if
7 you will wait until the transcripts stop flowing before you answer the
9 Sir, what education and training have you received to develop
10 your expertise?
11 A. I have a masters degree from the University of Oslo
12 from the University of Michigan
13 Q. What are those degrees in?
14 A. Both are in economics but with a strong -- large part being
15 demography, especially at the University of Michigan
16 to the University of Michigan
17 Q. Specifically, sir, how does that training and education relate to
18 the field of demography?
19 A. Well, I studied economics and demographic methods, demographic
20 history, and all the aspects of demography that you need to know about,
21 especially methods, are important.
22 Q. What type of methods did you study?
23 A. Mathematical methods, making projections, making estimates,
24 statistical methods, but later I also learned through my work special
1 Q. And what of those trainings and special methods have you learned
3 A. I'm now -- I've worked mostly at Statistics Norway, and we rely a
4 lot on administrative records or data from different administrative
5 sources where one important issue to link data from different sources to
6 make an analysis.
7 Q. How long have you been employed in this profession?
8 A. More than 30 years. 30, 35 years.
9 Q. And in this 30 or 35 years, have you ever been called upon to
10 study demographics with relation to war victims?
11 A. Yes. I was called -- I was asked to work here in 1997, and I
12 applied for a job here.
13 Q. What role did you serve here at the ICTY?
14 A. I was asked to -- well, I was first seconded and later hired for
15 one and a half years, full time. I was asked to study the demographic
16 consequences of the armed conflicts in Bosnia.
17 Q. Did you later have any sort of specific focus, or did you remain
18 solely in the armed conflicts in Bosnia at large?
19 A. I started mid-1997, and in late 1998. I -- or early 1999,
20 because I continued as a consultant, I was asked to study the number of
21 missing and dead related to the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.
22 Q. Have you been asked to produce reports in relation to the fall of
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought the question had been: "Did you later
2 have any sort of specific focus, or did you remain solely in the armed
3 conflicts in Bosnia
4 MS. CARTER: Yes, Your Honour. I can clarify a bit further.
5 Q. Sir, in 1997, what was your specific focus?
6 A. My focus was to study the demographic consequences of the
7 conflicts in Bosnia
8 so many numbers floating around on -- say on the number of deaths, that
9 ranged from 20.000 to 328.000, and which number could be relied on, so
10 they felt the need for somebody with some experience and expertise on
11 population statistics and demography.
12 Q. And when you're are referring to the statistics between 20.000
13 and 328,000, are you referring to Bosnia at large?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, your work predominantly has been focused on Srebrenica in
16 the past few years. How did you stop working on Bosnia in large and
17 specifically focus on Srebrenica specifically?
18 A. Because the office of the Prosecutor gave priority to that, and
19 most of this was work -- was actually done after I went back to Norway
20 So it was done as a consultant, and a lot of work was done of my research
21 assistants here who were based here, and I communicated -- I commuted and
22 we communicated by e-mail and by telephone. So that is why, then, I was
23 attached to the Srebrenica case.
24 Q. Okay. And when you said you had consultancy with persons here at
25 the ICTY, who were those persons?
1 A. The first one who worked was Henrik Urdal of Norway. He was once
2 my student, and the second was Torkild Lyngstad, also Norway. He was
3 also my student, at one stage.
4 Q. Once you began focusing on Srebrenica, were you asked to produce
5 any reports?
6 A. Yes. I was asked to produce a report in early 2000 in the trial
7 against Krstic. I produced two reports, actually.
8 Q. To date, how many reports have you produced before the ICTY?
9 A. I think seven or eight on Srebrenica and two on Kosovo.
10 Q. I'd like to move on to your methodology in producing these
11 reports. When producing a report such as the ones that are -- have been
12 admitted before the Tribunal, what is the first step that you must take?
13 A. Of course, the first is the problem what are -- what do we want
14 to study? What is the subjects? And I was told it was mainly how many
15 were killed in the fall of Srebrenica on 12 July 1995; and secondly, I
16 had to look for data sources that could illuminate this; and the third
17 was what kind of methods and how to scrutinize these data sources and to
18 do the analysis and come up with the reliable figures.
19 Q. Since you've already stated what the study was supposed to be
20 related to, can we now move on to the sources that you used?
21 A. Yes. I said that there were for all of Bosnia the figures of a
22 number of deaths varied tremendously, and the figures for Srebrenica also
23 varied from, say, 10, 15.000. My approach very early already in 1997, to
24 study the consequences in Bosnia
25 because it is much more difficult to lie or to cheat about data on
1 individuals. If you rely on numbers in newspapers and so, other reports,
2 you cannot be sure what the source is, how they were collected, if they
3 are not double counting and so on, but if you have the name and date of
4 birth and the particulars of every victim, then you can be much more sure
5 that you have good data.
6 Q. What sources did you use in order to determine who these
7 individuals might be?
8 A. On Srebrenica, I was told that the -- the international committee
9 for the Red Cross, the ICRC, had collected data on missing and dead in
10 Srebrenica from the family members of those who went missing. That was
11 the most -- that was the primary source for that.
12 Q. Were there any secondary sources that you used?
13 A. Yes. I also learned that an American organisation, Physicians
14 for Human Rights, PHR
15 data on missing persons, although for a different purpose. They wanted
16 to use those data who identify people who were exhumed in graves, whereas
17 the ICRC collected data to help locate family members, preferably
18 surviving family member.
19 Q. Since 1997, have you relied upon any other sources in order to
20 produce reports?
21 A. Yes. It's important to see who lived in Srebrenica and
22 surrounding areas before 1995, so we got hold of a copy of the census in
23 1991 with data on every individual that was enumerated in 1991, 4.3
24 million for all of Bosnia
25 survivors were, so we got hold of copies of voters lists for all of
2 Security and Cooperation in Europe
3 many trips to Bosnia
4 mostly minor sources of varying quality, such as, if you allow me, a
5 database collected by the Muslims against genocide, lists of dates and
6 names on tombstones, hospital records, displaced persons, dead soldiers,
7 lots of different records. Some of these were discarded as being of
8 little interest, not adding anything, or being of poor quality or being
9 irrelevant for other reasons.
10 Q. Once you identified all of the data sources upon which you were
11 going to rely, what methodology did you implement in order to analyse
12 these documents?
13 A. Well, first we had the list of missing persons. Actually, we had
14 two different versions from the ICRC, so we had to merge these and weed
15 out duplicates. So one individual was only represented once. We also
16 have the list from the PHR
17 ICRC. We then had the list for all of Bosnia. Then we needed to define
18 who was related to the -- for the events in Srebrenica in 1995, so we
19 defined then that only deaths occurring after or people who went missing
20 - reported missing, I should say - after 1st of July, 1995, until the end
21 of 1995 should be included; and only people who were reported [Realtime
22 transcript read in error, "deported"] as going missing in - was it
23 approximately - eight municipalities in Srebrenica and surrounding
25 Q. Is there a certain name for the methodology in which you used?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise. I believe that there is on line
3 13 a typo, and I believe it should be "... only people who were reported
4 as going missing...", not "deported."
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see "reported" on line 13, Mr. Guy-Smith.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I see "deported."
7 THE WITNESS: That is correct. Reported.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are looking at different screens then or in
9 different courtrooms.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry. The sentence begins with the word
11 "... and only people who were..." and the word that I'm referring to in
12 my screen is -- on line 13 is "... deported as going missing in..."
13 MS. CARTER: Respectfully, Your Honour, it appears that the
14 LiveNote that we're receiving through e-court is different than the
15 LiveNote that we're receiving through our own individual PCs. The one
16 that Mr. Guy-Smith is looking at does in fact say "deported," so the main
17 screen coming through that's being reported out into the audience does
18 say "deported."
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm happy to deal with whatever line it is. It's
20 either 13 or 14. The word that I'm concerned about is "deported." I
21 believe that the witness said "reported," although I'm not sure.
22 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, reported.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You're looking at line 14 -- what you are
24 talking about is at line 14. Okay. Fine. And only people who were
25 deported as going missing, or reported as going missing, where it says
1 "deported." Yes. May the correction be made, please.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I take in hand that I should probably skip a line
3 if I jump up again.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not necessarily. Depends which screen we're
5 looking at.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. We'll see.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Carter. You were asking a question.
8 MS. CARTER: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Sir, you indicated that -- or I was beginning to ask you, was
10 there a name for the type of methodology that you used in order to
11 analyse the missing in Srebrenica?
12 A. It is called record linkage, since we have data for -- from
13 different sources covering samples that include -- often include the same
14 individuals. We need to make sure that we do not include one individual
15 twice. We can also match records from widely different sources, say,
16 such as the census 1991 and the missing in 1995, widely collected --
17 widely different, large sample and a small sample, and the purpose of
18 matching these - we call it matching - is to find out, for example, if
19 the people who were reported missing in 1995 actually lived in Bosnia
20 1991 and that they were real persons and they were not -- these were not
21 made up for political or other reasons.
22 Q. The first question I would like to ask with regards to record
23 linking is, is this method used other places beyond the research that
24 you've completed?
25 A. I used it myself in other circumstances in Norway where it is
1 widely used.
2 Q. How is it used?
3 A. It is much easier to use because we have unique identification
4 number. There are errors sometimes in that number in a country like
6 countries, the Netherlands
7 use it based on social security number to, say, link data from different
8 sources, tax data, income data, security data and so on. And it is also
9 used to study conflicts, say, in Cambodia
10 used a similar method. It has been used for many years in historical
11 demography, developed by the French historical demographer Louis Henry,
12 where you had, say, in the 17th century, you had data from parish
13 records, from church books on baptisms, confirmations, marriages, deaths.
14 And you see the same name, say, John Smith in 1740, you see being
15 baptized; you see the same name in 1795, John Smith. Is it the same John
16 Smith? So you have to collect, compare data, and then do this to
17 reconstitute the families. That is the term. And it's based on record
19 Q. Okay. Now, specifically for your work here at the ICTY --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
21 MS. CARTER:
22 Q. Here at the ICTY, what specifically did you do in order to match
23 those records?
24 A. We -- since in the former Yugoslavia
25 identification number called "matic nibroj," [phoen] but it was not
1 recorded for everybody in the census. It was not recorded at all by the
2 ICRC or PHR
3 not rely on that alone. We had to rely on name and date of birth, and if
4 that was not enough, place of birth, place of residence and so forth, and
5 father's name also.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: How is this unique identification number work,
7 sir? Can you just explain that?
8 THE WITNESS: In Yugoslavia
9 census. And so a number is assigned to each person in the population in
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this a national identity number?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. In some countries, it includes
13 information such as a date of birth and gender and sometimes region. I
14 believe in United States, the social security number is just a serial
15 number. It doesn't include any information at all, so they are different
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Carter.
18 MS. CARTER:
19 Q. If a person did not possess this personal information number, how
20 did you match and make certain that you didn't have any duplicates in the
21 list of missing for Srebrenica?
22 A. If we compared two lists, to databases and saw that the first
23 name, family name, father's name, date of birth, place of birth were
24 identical, absolutely identical, we concluded that this was the same
25 person, and if, also, there was nobody else with the same particulars,
1 unique, what you'd call a unique match.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: But where do you get all this data from?
3 THE WITNESS: Sir, in the 1991 census, the data was recorded. In
4 the numeration, people were -- enumerators went around and as in the
5 regular census, they asked for each household, the recorded names and
6 date of birth and so on.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And how did you find out about those people who
8 were born after the 1991 census but before the massacre?
9 THE WITNESS: We did not.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So there is that margin of error.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. Fortunately, there were very
12 few if any children under the age of 4, 4 and a half, that are missing.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do you know that?
14 THE WITNESS: Because the census was take on the 31st of March,
15 1991, and the fall of Srebrenica was on 12th of July, 1995.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then those children who are 3, or 3 and 4, were
17 eventually not accounted for?
18 THE WITNESS: That is true.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Carter.
20 THE WITNESS: If I may, there were no children -- the youngest
21 person that was reported as missing from Srebrenica was a girl, age 8.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: True, but that's relying on reports from people.
23 You are not relying --
24 THE WITNESS: That is relying on -- yeah, on victim's families
25 that reported.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. And if a victim's family didn't report,
2 then you have no knowledge about that person.
3 THE WITNESS: That is true, and, also, if a whole family --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is dead.
5 THE WITNESS: -- was killed, then you had no -- so these are most
6 probably under counts of the number of missing.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm still interested to find out from whom or from
8 which institution you went to find the data about date of birth, baptism,
9 unique identification number. The person is dead with his ID card, and
10 the birth certificate, we don't know where it is.
11 THE WITNESS: That is true. So for the ICRC list of missing
12 persons, this information was reported by family members of the victims,
13 most often wives and mothers and other relatives. But they often did not
14 know or have these certificates. They did not know exactly, remember,
15 when was, say, my father born. They remember the year most often, but --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But could they remember his unique identification
18 THE WITNESS: No. No. So it was not included in the ICRC list,
19 but in the census, then people -- many people say -- I think 60 percent,
20 had papers showing the identity number, and they could then report that
21 to the enumerator who wrote it down. That is how it happened.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you are saying that in fact it's a 60-percent
23 certainty, that there could be 40 percent unaccounted for?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. But then for these people,
25 the 40 percent, we have other information such as first name, family
1 name, father's name, date of birth, and place of birth, so we have a lot
2 of information.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I go back to my question. Where do you find that
5 THE WITNESS: We got it from the Federal Statistical Institute in
7 census was taken in March 1991. It was computerized and put on a big
8 file that we got a copy of.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: For entire Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is correct. A very valuable source of
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may proceed.
13 MS. CARTER:
14 Q. Now, sir, you've enumerated two batches of people, the first are
15 those persons with the personal identification number, as well as a group
16 of people who had full data such as the first name, last name, father's
17 name, place of birth. Are these the only persons that you've included in
18 your count of the missing from Srebrenica?
19 A. No, because sometime after the fall of Srebrenica, other
20 organisations started collecting data, first the Physicians for Human
21 Rights, the PHR
22 by ICTY, and when they exhumed people with certain clothing, teeth, and
23 so on, they could relate that to the information collected from the
24 victim's families and later through DNA
25 data appeared on exhumed bodies. That is these bodies were identified
1 with name -- by name, and most of these names were found on our list of
2 missing persons. But they were -- in addition -- there were some
3 additional persons that were identified, a few hundred that were not
4 reported as missing.
5 Q. Now, you've indicated that you had a number of sources which
6 you've received data from. How did you ensure that you didn't have
8 A. Through the same record linkage. For example, we compared the
9 list of missing persons to the post-war lists of voters, because in
10 principle, a person cannot be -- cannot both be missing and registered to
11 vote. Then something is wrong. So we thought that if a person had been
12 listed -- reported to vote, registered to vote, in principle that person
13 could be a survivor and not be missing anymore, but for some reason he or
14 she did not report that they were survivors.
15 The other thing that could happen is that the -- somebody cheated
16 when registering to vote, to -- for political reasons, other reasons, or
17 there could be just an error or mistake.
18 Q. Now, is the methodology that you've just listed the methodology
19 that you've used for all reports that you produced in relation to
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. We have also -- if I may, also looked at other sources.
24 Sometimes we do not mention the sources because we find that they're
25 either of poor quality or it is covered already or irrelevant, such as
1 Muslims Against Genocide. We have also looked at lists of displaced
2 persons, dead soldiers names on tombstones with date of death, et cetera.
3 So we have tried everything that we could to find out if there were
4 survivors amongst the missing or if there were more missing or if there
5 were -- some of them were dead.
6 Q. On 12 February 2000
7 the Number of Dead and Missing in Srebrenica"?
8 A. That is correct.
9 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders this report, 65
10 ter number 1374, into evidence.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter 1374 is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P404.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 MS. CARTER:
16 Q. Sir, on 2 May 2000
17 Missing, Persons Reported Missing After the Takeover of the Srebrenica
18 Enclave By the Bosnian/Serb Army on 11 July 1995"?
19 A. That's correct.
20 MS. CARTER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter number 1375 into
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1375 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
23 given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P405.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MS. CARTER:
2 Q. On 12 April 2003
3 the Number of Missing and Dead from Srebrenica"?
4 A. That is correct.
5 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter number
6 1376 into evidence.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1376 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
8 given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P406.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MS. CARTER:
12 Q. On 25 January 2004
13 Addendum to the List of Missing Persons from Srebrenica"?
14 A. That is also correct.
15 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter number
16 1378 into evidence.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1378 is admitted. May it please be given an
18 exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P408, Your Honours. 407, I
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MS. CARTER:
23 Q. On 25 August 2004
24 Report, Blagojevic et al, IT 02-60, Regarding the Report on the Number of
25 Missing and Dead From Srebrenica"?
1 A. That is correct.
2 MS. CARTER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter number 1377 into
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P408.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 MS. CARTER:
9 Q. On 16 November 2005
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. With regard to the last Exhibit which
11 is P480.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: 408.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry. P408. My document indicates that
14 it's strictly confidential and to remain sealed. Does that still remain
15 the case?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel speak up, please, for the benefit
17 of the interpreters. Thank you.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you hear that, Mr. Guy-Smith?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I did not.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Interpreter? The interpreter says please
21 speak up for their benefit. Bring your mic closer, sir.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to P408, my copy indicates that it is
23 labelled at strictly confidential, to remain sealed. I wonder whether
24 that is still the case or not.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Carter, do you want it under seal, ma'am, or
1 do you want it just as an exhibit?
2 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, the document can go in as a public
3 exhibit with the exception of I'd have to double-check to see if there
4 are any ICMP reports or graphs.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's ICMP?
6 MS. CARTER: I'm sorry. The International Commission for Missing
7 Persons produces quite a bit of data, and that does have privilege
8 attached to it. I don't believe this report has any attached to it
9 because all records that I have seen is that it's allowed to be a public
10 exhibit, but I do want to double-check that before making a definitive
11 answer to the Court.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you rather, then, have it under seal until
13 you've checked?
14 MS. CARTER: That sounds fine, Your Honour. Yes, please.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit P408 under seal, please.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. P408 is under seal.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 MS. CARTER:
19 Q. On 16 November 2005
20 and Dead from Srebrenica, the 2005 Report and List"?
21 A. That is correct.
22 MS. CARTER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter number 1379 into
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: So admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P409.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MS. CARTER: And finally, on 21 November 2005, did you produce a
4 report entitled "Identified Persons Among the Missing and the Dead From
5 Srebrenica, an Addendum to the Expert Report, Missing and Dead From
6 Srebrenica, the 2005 report and list"?
7 THE WITNESS: That is also correct.
8 MS. CARTER: Prosecution tenders 65 ter number 1381 into
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P410.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 MS. CARTER:
15 Q. On 21 November 2005
16 missing from Srebrenica?
17 A. Approximately 4.000 missing. If you -- no, sorry. 2.694.
18 Excuse me. 7661 were on the OTP list of missing from Srebrenica. Sorry.
19 Q. Now, you've obviously given some lower numbers. What were the
20 other figures that you were giving that were related more to the 2.000s?
21 A. Sorry for the confusion. The lower number, 2.694 persons, were
22 the number of persons that had been confirmed dead through DNA analysis
23 done by -- through reports from the ICMP, the International Commission
24 for Missing Persons.
25 Q. How did these reports --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. Now, these are confirmed dead as a
2 result of what incident actually?
3 THE WITNESS: These people -- there have been a number of
4 exhumations of mass graves in the Srebrenica area related to the fall of
5 Srebrenica, and when these -- a new mass grave is found, it's
6 investigated, exhumed, the bodies or the remains of the bodies are
7 collected, and tests are taken from the bones. There's DNA analysis,
8 which is then compared with the DNA
9 close family members. And so if there's a close family member, then you
10 can see if there's a match.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. I'm going to object. That's outside
12 of the area of this gentleman's expertise as to how DNA works.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: In fact, the answer goes beyond my question. My
14 question was simply, confirmed dead as a result of what incident? And
15 all I wanted to know, when you say, as of 21st November, 2005, 2.694
16 people were confirmed dead.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that the total number of people that were
19 confirmed dead as a result of the Srebrenica incident of the 10th of July
20 or 11th of July, 1995?
21 THE WITNESS: No. It was the total number confirmed dead at that
22 point in time based on the report from ICMP received sometime before
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait just a second. Let's try to listen to each
25 other and focus on the question. I want to know whether this number,
1 2.694, was the total number as at 21st of November, 2005, confirmed dead
2 as a result of the incidents of the 10th and 11th of July, 1995.
3 THE WITNESS: That is correct. That is my understanding of this
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Sorry, madam.
6 MS. CARTER:
7 Q. Are you aware of the location from which the bodies that the DNA
8 testing was performed on, where that location was?
9 A. Where the bodies were exhumed from?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes. I've seen reports on this. I haven't seen any mass graves
12 myself, but my understanding is that they were exhumed from sites related
13 to the incidents in Srebrenica where -- sites close to executions,
14 places, for example.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to object. That answer is
16 none-responsive. "Are you aware of the location from which the bodies
17 that DNA
18 not given us a location. He is speculating. And I think with regard to
19 the question that you asked earlier, Your Honour, specificity is of some
20 critical moment at this point in time.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Carter.
22 MS. CARTER:
23 Q. Sir, where were the bodies exhumed from?
24 A. From mass graves in many different places. I remember some
25 names. Kravica, there were several mass graves, but I do not remember
1 all the names. These have been presented in previous cases to -- at the
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Once again, I'm going to object. What has been
4 done in previous case is a different matter. Unless he has personal
5 knowledge of that, he is not competent to testify with regard to what
6 occurred in previous cases. If he can once again cite us to specific
7 testimony and specific locations, I have no objection whatsoever, but the
8 speculative nature of this testimony is objectionable.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Carter, where are your witness's reports?
10 Why doesn't he look at his reports?
11 MS. CARTER: Certainly. He actually has his reports in front of
12 him, and I would invite him to refresh his recollection.
13 THE WITNESS: Sure. I'm happy do that. I'm looking for a list
14 of all the sites and -- let me see. I'm looking at -- let me see.
15 Excuse me. I don't remember if there was a list of all the sites in the
16 2005 report or whether that was collected -- was given in other reports.
17 Let's see. It refers to Dean Manning's testimony in Popovic on 10 to 12
18 December 2007, a report I've read, which lists all the mass graves with
19 the number of exhumed bodies from each mass grave. I obviously don't
20 know -- remember the names of all those sites, but there were a number of
21 sites with, as I said, the number in each grave that has been exhumed and
22 identified. I hope that answers the question.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could you give me a page and reference number,
24 please. Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. In -- let me see. Sorry. I was now
1 referring to a report, another report, submitted by Ewa Tabeau and Arve
2 Hetland on 11 January 2008
3 MS. CARTER:
4 Q. Sir, for a bit more clarity, with regards to these persons that
5 you identify as 2.594 [sic], how did those persons relate to your missing
6 list of 7661?
7 A. They have been found. All those names have been found on our
8 lists --
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. -- are missing.
11 Q. And when you developed that list, you had indicated to the Court
12 previously that that list was developed partially based on the reports of
13 family members and other persons that these people were missing from
14 Srebrenica at or around this time; is that correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Okay. So the persons that have been identified through DNA
17 testing, you are indicating that they are also persons who have been
18 identified as missing around the time of Srebrenica; is that correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Okay. How did these reports --
21 JUDGE DAVID: May I ask one question in relation to the
22 connection between forceful dislocation or migration and the concept of
23 missing persons. When you report about missing persons, does that
24 include only those who have been confirmed dead or includes also those
25 who have perhaps forcefully migrated?
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it does not include those -- it only
2 includes those who are believed to be dead. At the beginning, very few
3 of them were confirmed dead. But it does not include those who were
4 forcibly removed if families knew about that. Only those -- so if a
5 family was forcibly removed but other relatives knew that they were
6 forcibly removed to somewhere else, they would not report them as
7 missing. But the purpose of the ICRC list is to help in locating family
8 members because in a chaotic war situation then often they lose contact.
9 This was also before mobile telephones were common. It was not -- before
10 internet. It was not easy to locate people when they had lost contact.
11 JUDGE DAVID: Second question. You have presented us with a
12 methodology, and you say that statistics were very important. Is that a
13 sort of inferential statistics considering the number that a given
14 population existed at the time and then the number of that decreased
15 population at another point in time? What I'm saying is that we are
16 confronted here with many figures. One, those who have been exhumed and
17 identified, 2.694, your own figure of missing persons of 7661, and these
18 two figures are different in nature because one refers to a strictly
19 confirmed death identified and exhumed, and the other, 7661, is a figure
20 derived from investigations related to the census, other means of ...
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the 7661 is based on reports from
22 family members, but only -- but we have checked to eliminate duplicates,
23 and we have checked to see whether these are real persons, and we found
24 most of them, not all, but we found I think about 83 percent on the 1991
25 census. So you are correct. These are of a different nature. But the
1 smaller figure supports the bigger figure because we started out with 66
2 confirmed deaths in 2000. It has now grown to almost 3.000, and it is
3 still growing. Reports come from the ICMP on new identified deaths all
4 the time.
5 JUDGE DAVID: Now, there is a perhaps a third type of figures,
6 those who come from comparing two populations at a different point in
7 time, and then you specify those that may have been caused by natural
8 death according to the rate of death during a given time, you know, and
9 then out of that, you see the deviation between the situation in the
10 census versus to the real number in reality; is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS: That is correct. And initially, that was my -- the
12 approach I was thinking about, comparing population -- pre- and post-war
13 population size, but --
14 JUDGE DAVID: Have you applied any kind of a statistical measure
15 like chi-squared in your first report to see the deviation between these
16 two figures?
17 THE WITNESS: No. My studies on this is not based on the
18 inferential statistics. It is not based on parabolistic distribution.
19 It is based on purely on individual cases that we have added together.
20 JUDGE DAVID: So at no moment in your studies you adduce
21 inferential statistics to project decreases in population?
22 THE WITNESS: Not at all.
23 JUDGE DAVID: Okay. Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to do this to you, Madam Carter, but
25 I've got one or two questions to also clarify.
1 Sir, the number 2.694, is it a part of or additional to 7.661?
2 A. It is a part of.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And as it increases, does the 7.661 also decrease?
4 THE WITNESS: No --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: As you confirm a person dead and he was missing,
6 you've got to reduce on that side and increase this side.
7 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you do reconcile the two as you go along?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, but in addition, every time new reports come
10 to ICMP, if there are a few additional names that were not on our list of
11 missing persons because they were not reported as missing, so it --
12 there's a small difference between, say, 100 and 200 that has been added.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm talking about reconciliation of the missing
14 and the dead.
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Of course, a person cannot be both missing
16 and dead. You are absolutely correct. So then we strike off missing and
17 change the status to dead.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Carter.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please refrain from
20 overlapping for the benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
22 MS. CARTER:
23 Q. Sir, you had indicated that when you initially began this study,
24 you had I think you said 66 persons confirmed dead, and now we are moving
25 into mid-2000s. Can you explain to the Court to the extent that you know
1 why these numbers are increasing?
2 A. They are increasing because there are new exhumations, because
3 there are -- there's ongoing work on DNA
4 absolutely correct. This is not my area of expertise, but I've sort of
5 tried to understand the basics of it. I cannot tell you any details on
7 understanding is also that in recent years, it has been automated.
8 Previously, DNA
9 there's a lot of computerization that goes on, so this work is much more
10 efficient. There's several issues that complicate this. One is that
11 there are bones found in many graves, the so-called tertiary -- secondary
12 and, also, tertiary graves, and often the -- sorry, it's very
13 time-consuming. That's all I can say.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't want you to go into the area that the
15 Defence is objecting to. I think you've answered Madam Carter's question
16 to the extent that it had been put.
17 MS. CARTER:
18 Q. Sir, based on this trending from 2000 through 2005, do you
19 anticipate this number to stay the same, to decrease, or to increase?
20 A. I expect very strongly that the number of dead -- confirmed
21 deaths will increase and the number of still missing will decline. As in
22 2005, approximately one-third, 31.5 percent to be exact, of the list of
23 missing persons had been identified as dead. It will certainly increase.
24 Q. You've also indicated that ICMP continually produces reports.
25 Are you aware of any additional reports since 2005?
1 A. Yes. There have been several, and we are in the process of
2 analysing those reports.
3 MS. CARTER: Okay. I'm going to consult with co-counsel.
4 [Prosecution confers]
5 MS. CARTER: At this time, the Prosecution passes the witness.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Carter. Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Before I ask you any questions, I want to make
9 sure that I'm being heard, that I'm speaking loud enough. Could somebody
10 in the interpretation -- if you could just tell me.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Close enough to the microphone. That's the trick.
12 Loud doesn't help.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. I'll keep that in mind.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. I want to start off by seeing if I can understand some relatively
17 basic information. You obtained data from a census that was done in
18 March of 1991, correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. The data that you obtained from that particular census included,
21 in no particular order, the names of individuals.
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. First name and last name.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The sex of the individual.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. On occasion, the ethnicity of the individual?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The date of birth, if I haven't said that.
5 A. I may add the father's name.
6 Q. Okay, father's name. And on occasion, there was a unique
7 identification number.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Okay. Is that the sum total of the information that existed in
10 that particular database? Are we missing anything?
11 A. Yes. You are missing some educational attainments.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Economic activity, religion, language, mother tongue. I don't
14 remember if there's a question -- there's a question, I think, on number
15 of children ever born to the women, because the purpose of a census is
16 really to map the population with regard to a number of demographic and
17 social factors. Names are not -- are reported to make sure that
18 everybody is counted. It's not part of the statistical exercise.
19 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the 1991 census, the next time that
20 you received what I'm going to call for the moment - and bear with me -
21 purely objective information would have been when you were looking at the
22 voter lists in 1997; is that correct? When I'm saying "purely objective
23 information," I'm doing that from the standpoint of it's information that
24 contains no particular, let's say, familial concerns with it.
25 A. Yeah, you might say that. I also received minor data, databases,
1 minor collections of varying quality.
2 Q. And with regard to the information that you received in 1997, the
3 information concerning voter lists, could you tell us a little bit about
4 what information was contained with regard to those voter lists?
5 A. There was first name, family name, in some for large number but
6 for all cases the unique identification number, date of birth, sex, I
7 think municipality of birth or municipality of residence at least. The
8 municipality they were registering in to vote, the municipality they
9 wanted to vote for. So there were four different municipality numbers
10 recorded in the voter's list.
11 Q. Now, with regard to those two databases alone, and we'll discuss
12 the other databases that you used, but with regard to those two databases
13 alone, then you would have a number of factors that should match with
14 regard to individuals, let's say, who are for the moment not missing?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And those would be first name, family name, date of birth, sex,
17 and to the extent that you have a unique identification number, those
18 would be kind of large factors upon which could you rely in order to make
19 a determination of what extent of the population still remained from the
20 1991 census. Is that a fair statement?
21 A. Yeah, that's a fair statement, but they are not missing, of
22 course. There are also natural deaths, emigration, and all kind of other
24 Q. I understand.
25 A. And errors, don't forget.
1 Q. Right, right. With regard to the 1991 census, that particular
2 census, could you tell us what the error rate was concerning the data
3 that was compiled in terms of that census? Do you understand what I mean
4 by error rate?
5 A. No. You need to define the error rate.
6 Q. Sure. By error rate, I mean, to what extent is the census that
7 you were given in 1991, that database, a completed accurate census of the
8 number of people who were in the area in total?
9 A. That is not known because to do that you need to have -- do a
10 what is called a post-enumeration survey, which I don't think was done,
11 or use some other method to really determine the number of people who
12 were not enumerated. There -- always, some are missed. That is always
13 the case. United States has going very far into estimating the error
14 rate or the proportion, the coverage, and they have all kinds of
15 post-enumeration service because then, say, the taxes depend on the
16 population size and transfers.
17 Q. Without taxes, no infrastructure, and we know where that leads.
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. With regard to the post-enumeration numbers, could you explain to
20 us very briefly, and then we're going to take a break, what occurs? How
21 does that come about.
22 A. In the post-enumeration survey?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Then a sample is reinterviewed. So there are new -- I think
25 usually new enumerators go to the same households. They select a few
1 areas, and they go to the same, and they ask the same questions again,
2 and they ask -- and they compare to see how complete was the previous.
3 There's another issue, and that is also whether it's the de jure or de
4 facto population that is enumerated. Is it the people who are actually
5 found in the house or in the place on the census day? Should it include
6 people who are temporarily absent? Should it include workers who -- say,
7 people who are temporarily in Germany
8 different countries have different principles.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Is this an appropriate time to take a break, or
10 am I early?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's not yet. You are too early, 15 minutes
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, great. I was a bit worried. I looked at the
14 clock, and I was making a mistake.
15 Q. You've mentioned de jure and de facto population. With regard to
16 the census that was taken in 1991, one of the factors that was in fact
17 occurring at that time in 1991 was that there was a certain percentage of
18 the population - and I don't know what that percentage was; I'm hoping
19 you might be able to help us here - that was absent from
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, correct?
21 A. I believe so, but I do not know the percentage.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not that particular piece of
23 information, the percentage that was absent in 1991 with regard to the
24 census that was done, was accounted for in that census, and by that I
25 mean, are the people who are recognised in the 1991 census, people who
1 are in fact in situ in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or are they those people that
2 you've referred to who may be doing temporary work outside of the country
3 or may have actually moved permanently outside of the country but have
4 not yet been registered as having moved outside?
5 A. My impression from studying says -- this is in the former
7 there was a tendency to include people who are temporarily absent,
8 sometimes for long periods, perhaps permanent. But if a person -- a man
9 is asked, who are the members of your household, he would tend, then, to
10 list all his sons, also those that lived abroad for a long time.
11 Q. Part of that is a cultural issue with regard to the manner in
12 which the people living in that particular region perceive family?
13 A. Exactly, yes.
14 Q. Now, independent of the issue of that percentage, which is an
15 unknown percentage, as I think you've explained, were you able to make a
16 determination with regard to the 1991 census as to whether or not there
17 were any unique factors of identification with regard to - and now I'm
18 going to use this in a generic sense - the area known as Srebrenica; or
19 was the census that was done with regard to all of Bosnia-Herzegovina the
20 same as with regard to Srebrenica?
21 A. There was one census for all of Bosnia, and it was -- enumeration
22 was done by -- for each municipality, is optional, and there was also --
23 each municipality was divided into smaller areas called "kru" [phoen] or
24 something, I believe, so then they divided using maps, all of each
25 municipality, including Srebrenica, into smaller areas. Then one or more
1 enumerators had the responsibility to cover their areas and include --
2 enumerate everybody.
3 Q. And based upon your analysis of the 1991 census and the data that
4 you received from that census, could you tell us what -- two things. One
5 is, what are the towns or areas that comprise Srebrenica -- Srebrenica
6 region as a whole; and two, what was the population of that area in 1991?
7 A. Well, it's awhile since I worked on this. I got it in 1997, but
8 I think -- well, of course, yeah, Potocari as one part, so there were
9 several -- municipality of Srebrenica
10 Srebrenica, and smaller places, Potocari was one of them. And I do not
11 recall the names of all others. I've been to Srebrenica and travelled
12 around, but I do not recall them. I'm sorry.
13 Q. Okay. And with regard to the issue of the population of that
14 particular area, can you help us with that?
15 A. Well, it's 34, 35.000 in the municipality. The total population
16 was something like that.
17 Q. I recall in a previous time you testified there had been rumours
18 of as many as 40.000.
19 A. That is a different number, Your Honour.
20 Q. I'm just a lawyer, but thank you very much for the...
21 A. The 1991 census -- that was 1991 figure. I think when -- the
22 40.000 figure may have referred to the number of people believed to be in
23 Srebrenica before the fall of Srebrenica.
24 Q. Okay. Very good.
25 A. And that is not known with any certainty.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is 35.000?
2 THE WITNESS: That is the size of the population that was
3 enumerated in Srebrenica municipality in -- on the 31st of March, 1991
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the difference is that 31st of March, 1991, to
5 the fall of Srebrenica? The difference between 35.000 and 40.000 is
6 accounted for by that time lapse, sort of?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, but many things happened between March 1991
8 and July 1995.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm saying.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. So it went up and down. There were people
11 leaving Srebrenica. There were people entering Srebrenica. There were
12 people who were born, people who died from natural causes, people who
13 were killed, so all kinds of things.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. With regard to the period after March of 1991 up to July 1st of
17 1995, for that period of some approximate four years, did you receive any
18 objective data of a demographic nature?
19 A. No. I went -- I've asked for -- I went to Tuzla. I went to many
20 places and asked for it. I did not receive anything.
21 Q. So with regard to the post-census pre-your study period, we have
22 no raw information or objective information concerning births, deaths,
23 population movement, or -- let me stop there for the moment.
24 A. That is correct. The statistical offices of -- both in Banja
25 Luka and Sarajevo
1 certificates of births and deaths, et cetera, and they have computerized
2 those and made some statistics. I am not familiar with those statistics,
3 since it did not really affect my work very much.
4 Q. Okay. With regard to the issue of deaths between 1991 and, once
5 again, the beginning of July 1995, you received no hard data concerning
6 the manner of death, and by that I mean was somebody killed as a result
7 of conflict, did somebody die of a disease, or did they die of old age or
8 an accident, correct?
9 A. We have received something. There -- as I said, there has been a
10 computerization of deaths by the statistical office in Sarajevo. So we
11 have received some information later, after -- I don't remember the year,
12 but it was after my -- I started this work.
13 Q. Okay. With regard to -- with regard to that information, can you
14 tell us as you sit here today as to whether or not you can identify all
15 of those deaths as being deaths which are distinct from the work that was
16 done by the ICMP?
17 A. I don't understand your question. I'm sorry.
18 Q. Okay. It was badly phrased. I apologise. What I'm getting at
19 is, can you explain for us whether or not the recognition of death -- of
20 dead bodies by the ICMP that was done, which we're are going to talk
21 about in a moment, that all the deaths that occurred between 1991, the
22 time of the census, and the beginning of July exclude all of the ICMP
24 A. That is my understanding, yes.
25 Q. When you say that's your understanding, have you received
1 documentation to that effect, or is that something that you obtained as a
2 general understanding in terms of the work that you've done?
3 A. I've received documentation, because the ICMP data are based on
4 mass graves related to the fall of Srebrenica --
5 Q. All right. So --
6 A. -- and it's dated.
7 Q. Okay. You are making some assumptions there, which I'm happy to
8 talk with you about, but I just want to make sure, first of all, whether
9 or not you'd received documentation that excluded whatever those
10 particular deaths are from the ICMP work that was done, and you say
11 you've received documentation to that effect?
12 A. Yes. I could also add that some -- we have received data sources
13 that for a few cases indicate that some deaths may have occurred before
14 -- or missing may have occurred before beginning of July 1995.
15 Q. Sure.
16 A. But with -- after further investigation, we conclude that most of
17 those did not occur, say, if they are found in a Srebrenica-related mass
18 grave. They could not have occurred before. There are a few
19 inconsistencies remaining that are being investigated.
20 Q. And with regard to -- with regard to the statement that you just
21 made, which is "... if they are found in a Srebrenica related mass grave,
22 they could not have occurred before." I take it that there what you are
23 doing, and understandably so, is that you're relying upon the conclusions
24 that have been made by other individuals who are experts in other fields,
25 for example, anthropologists or, for example, pathologists who engage in
1 the work of DNA
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. I also understand that witness statements are important on when
5 the graves were established.
6 Q. I want to now discuss the next data source that you've mentioned
7 to us, which is the data source after 1991, which you've indicated, and I
8 believe there were two major ones. One is the ICRC data source, and the
9 other was the PHR
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The ICRC data source is a data source where you received - once
12 again, help me; if I'm wrong, please let me know - you received
13 questionnaires that were filled out from individuals, be they family
14 members or friends, who related the fact that people that they knew were
15 now missing or dead.
16 A. Almost correct, Your Honour. We did not receive the
17 questionnaire. We received a database in electronic format containing
18 some but not all of the information recorded on those questionnaire.
19 I've seen empty questionnaires, that ICRC would not send us the totality
20 of information, and neither would they send us the hard copies.
21 Q. They wouldn't send -- that was because some privilege issues that
22 they felt -- some privacy issues that they felt that they had.
23 A. Privacy and neutrality issues.
24 Q. Okay. The information that you did receive from them, that
25 information included, as I understand it, some of the identifying
1 characteristics that we've already talked about before.
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And sometimes there was more, sometimes there was less. It all
4 depended on the questionnaire that was filled out.
5 A. Mm-hm.
6 Q. And then what did you is you took the ICRC database -- or data,
7 sorry, and you compared it with the 1991 census as well as the 1997 voter
8 roles. Is that a fair statement?
9 A. Yes, but I would say that the -- yes, it is fair, but the first
10 thing we did was to do a consistency check and the quality check of the
11 ICRC itself, because we received several different versions, and we had
12 to make sure that there was no overlap and duplicates are eliminated.
13 The same with the PHR
15 Q. Understood.
16 A. And for the first study, the 2000 study, we had not linked the
17 whole database or missing persons to the census yet because it was
18 complicated. That was done later. But we did link it to the voters list
19 to look for possible survivors.
20 Q. The 2000 report was --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The 2000 report was ICRC 1997 voter list, correct?
23 A. ICRC 1997 -- no, 1997, 1998, both.
24 Q. Sorry, okay.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would that be a convenient time?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Would this be a convenient time?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That would be.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perfect.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come
5 back at 4.00. Court adjourned.
6 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 3.58 p.m.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
10 Q. I want to return for a very quick moment to the figure you
11 mentioned of 83 percent, which I believe dealt with the 1991 census.
12 First of all, am I correct in that regard?
13 A. Yes. That was the OTP 2000 list of missing persons, which was
14 then linked to 1991 census, and we managed to link successfully with the
15 correct certainty 83 percent.
16 Q. So there is a 17-percent -- there's a 17-percent float there?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the - as you call them - identified
19 dead, as I understand it, we have a figure now of 2.694 --
20 A. Mm-hm.
21 Q. -- individuals that were found, as far as you understand, in a
22 number of mass graves.
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Okay. With regard to that particular figure, as you sit here
25 today, can you give us any further information with regard to, first, the
1 cause of death?
2 A. Well, first I would say that there -- 103 of those were not on
3 the list of missing persons. They are additional. That is the first. I
4 was perhaps unclear on that earlier today.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. The cause of death is not my expertise.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. I know that they are found in mass graves.
9 Q. All right.
10 A. And that many of them were shot, but I have not looked at all of
11 those cases.
12 Q. With regard to --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt. I'm not quite sure I
14 understand the witness when he says the first -- "103 of those were not
15 on the list of missing persons. They are additional..."
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I would be happy to explain
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you could.
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah. We received from ICMP 2.694 cases of
20 identified dead persons found in Srebrenica related graves, and those --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And they came from the missing list?
22 THE WITNESS: Of those, 2.591 were also found on the missing
23 list. So there's strong evidence that there is a high degree of overlap
24 between the ICMP lists of identified persons and the -- ICRC and also OTP
25 lists of missing persons. But in addition, 103 people found that had not
1 been reported to ICRC or, actually, some of them reported but we excluded
2 them to be on the safe side because date of death and place of death or
3 disappearance was unclear at that time.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You added a further confusion for me now.
5 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Sorry.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're saying all those -- of those 2.691.
7 THE WITNESS: 94.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. You said of the 2.694, 2.691 were also
9 found on the missing list.
10 THE WITNESS: 2.591.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: 591.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Because it was not typed in. Now, what is
14 the difference? Is the difference between those two 103?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And you say those -- or those 103 were not
17 on the list; you don't know where they come from?
18 THE WITNESS: Some of them were excluded by us because there was
19 some uncertainty as to the date when they went missing and the place
20 where they went missing. So we excluded to be on the safe side.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
22 THE WITNESS: Some were never reported by their relatives as
23 missing, perhaps because the whole family was killed.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH:
1 Q. With regard to that number, you've told us that you cannot tell
2 us the cause of death. Can you tell us whether or not they died during
3 battle or not?
4 A. I cannot. That is up to the anthropologists to decide. I only
5 know that they were found in mass graves, and many were found blindfolded
6 or shot in ways that do not indicate armed battle; but otherwise, I do
7 not know.
8 Q. As a matter of fact, they were also found -- some were found with
9 actual ligature on them too.
10 A. That is also the case.
11 Q. Can you tell us as you sit here today, what is the number of
12 confirmed dead, and we'll get to that in a minute, but the number of
13 confirmed dead that were blindfolded?
14 A. I do not know, sir.
15 Q. Okay. And similarly, I take it that it would be fair to say that
16 you do not know with regard to the issue of any ligature that they may
17 have had near the body, correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And similarly, you could not say with regard to -- because you
20 said people were shot, you could not tell us as you sit here today the
21 place where they were shot or the entry of the wound that was fatal,
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Okay. Now, what I'd like to do for a moment, if I could, is I'd
25 like to go to your 2000 report, which has been identified as P404. Do
1 you have that in front of you, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Great. And in that report --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't have it. It would be appreciated if it
5 could be shown on the screen.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have -- it was going be the first page
9 where it says "Background." We have to wait for a moment to make sure it
10 comes up on the screen. Excellent.
11 Q. And looking at the -- at the area that's called "Background," in
12 "Background," you have a statement here, and this is something that I
13 believe that you've been questioned about before on more than one
14 occasion with regard to where you obtained the particular information
15 that is set forth in the background part of your report.
16 A. That was obtained from the team working on Srebrenica --
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. -- as well as my own readings of books and on the fall of
19 Srebrenica, as well as listening to testimonies or in other trials, say
21 Q. Now, are you -- as you sit here today, are you contending that
22 this particular information and background is a fact which is that a
23 number of men tried to escape by walking through the forest and many of
24 them were killed on the way --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Carter.
1 MS. CARTER: Your Honour, I believe we're entering territory
2 that's going in contradiction with the agreed facts between the
3 Prosecution and Defence. I understand that he may want to test the
4 knowledge of Dr. Brunborg. However, we do have an agreed fact between
5 Defence and Prosecution that thousands of Bosnia Muslim prisoners
6 captured in the area around Srebrenica were summarily executed from 13
7 July to 19 July, 19 --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Would you mind slowing down. Thank you.
9 MS. CARTER: [Previous translation continues]... and thereafter.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are asked to slow down.
11 MS. CARTER: And thereafter, many were buried among mass graves.
12 Goes on to say that VRS units participated in and organised comprehensive
13 effort to conceal the killings by reburying in isolated locations, bodies
14 exhumed from --
15 THE INTERPRETER: This is not much slower. I'm sorry.
16 MS. CARTER: I do apologise. Bodies exhumed from their original
17 mass graves. And so to the extent that the Defence counsel would like to
18 test Mr. Brunborg's personal knowledge, I certainly have no objection.
19 But if they're trying to now go in contradiction to the agreed facts, I
20 would have objection to that, Your Honour.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, to be very clear, I certainly am not going
22 in contradiction to any facts that have been --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Agreed.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, there's a difficulty with the whole issue
25 of agreed facts because -- which is to say that -- which is to say that
1 the underlying factual recitation that was made by my colleague is not
2 incorrect. The characterization of whether or not it is an agreed fact
3 or it is a fact upon which we are going to ultimately request that the
4 Chamber find to be adjudicated is another matter because this is
5 something that we still are in negotiations about, something that we've
6 been in negotiations since the time of the pre-trial, and unfortunately
7 has not yet been resolved. But I take my colleague's point, and I'm not
8 challenging the underlying information. I am in fact, rather, testing
9 the doctor's personal knowledge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: But then I don't know why you are doing that.
11 Isn't this an expert witness?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: He is.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Now, he is not an expert -- he is not a
14 fact witness.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: If it's of no use to the Chamber, then I won't do
16 it. Very simple. I'll stop this line of inquiry, and since you've asked
17 the question, you've made the point, I have no reason to continue with
18 this line of inquiry.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: You're welcome.
21 Q. In terms of -- in terms of the study - and I put that in the
22 plural - that you have performed, to the extent that you have taken into
23 consideration the issue of the movement of individuals during the time of
24 conflict, do you have any hard data with regard to how many people moved
25 between the census in 1991 and 1992? And I'm going to ask you the same
1 question for each year up to 1995.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. You have included in your reports at various times
4 information concerning identification based upon DNA testing; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that is information, what I'm saying here, is the information
8 that you received concerning DNA
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Which is that ICMP concluded that based on their tests, a certain
11 bone or certain remains were identified as belonging to a particular
12 individual, correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Okay. You have not -- in terms of the study that we have before
15 us, you have not included in that any discussion with ICMP concerning
16 some of the objective concerns that exist with DNA-testing, such as
17 degradation of a sample.
18 A. My co-author Ewa Tabeau has had extended communication with ICMP
19 on the methodology they have used.
20 Q. I understand that. My question is, with regard to that, you have
21 not dealt specifically with the issue of degradation of samples, have
23 A. No.
24 Q. You have not dealt with the issue of mixed samples, have you?
25 A. Mixed?
1 Q. Mixed samples.
2 A. Yeah, with bones for different --
3 Q. Correct.
4 A. The ICMP deals with all that, of course, and I understand that
5 it's a great challenge when you find a heap of bones to sort them out.
6 Q. Absolutely.
7 A. It is very time-consuming because if it has been -- a body has
8 been removed once or twice, then they can -- maybe a pile of bones, and
9 they have to in principle take a DNA
10 is very time-consuming and difficult.
11 Q. With regard to your understanding, once again, with regard to
12 your understanding to the extent that you relied on it in your reports,
13 with regard to your understanding of DNA-testing as it stands, is it your
14 conclusion based upon a layman's position, obviously, because you're not
15 an expert, that the infallibility rate of the ICMP is such that you can
16 rely upon their conclusions?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, I know you said as a layman, but do
18 you really expect an answer to that question, Any answer that can help
19 you with anything?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, to the extent that in his reports he relies
21 upon conclusions made concerning DNA --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: To that extent, then the answer does help because
24 it also gives the Chamber a very clear understanding of what he is able
25 and not able to conclude. However, once again, if the Chamber is in a
1 position where --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: As I understand it, he is a layman in DNA, okay?
3 He receives information from the DNA
4 reliable from our -- in our professional opinion. He uses that
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, he actually goes a bit further sometimes in
7 some of his -- he --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: He goes further to assess the reliability of the
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: He, as a matter of fact, explains the process of
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's the reason why the question arises.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you are allowed to go. As I say, we haven't
15 received this document. We are seeing it for the first time today, and
16 we haven't read it as a result, so you may go ahead.
17 THE WITNESS: Can you refer to the page, please.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH:
19 Q. Sure.
20 A. And document.
21 Q. Yeah. I'm referring to P409.
22 A. Dates?
23 Q. The date is 16th of November, 2005, and I'm referring to page 11.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that's the one, two --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope we are getting that on the screen. Thank
3 MR. GUY-SMITH:
4 Q. One, two, three, four, fifth paragraph in which you describe your
5 understanding of DNA
6 distinct DNA
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that is -- it is from there that my question was generated.
9 A. If I may, what was your question again?
10 Q. Which is that you're satisfied about the infallibility of the
11 ICMP procedure.
12 A. Reasonably well but not hundred percent for two reasons. One
13 that there is a very small probability that there is a false match. In
14 fact, we mentioned that there is a probably of. 9999 or a false match of
15 .0001, which would mean that one -- in 10.000 cases, you would get one
16 mistake. That is the first. The second is that it is human to make
17 errors, so even an institution like ICMP where I'm sure that they have
18 very strict procedures to check the quality, there may be human and other
19 errors that they may mix up something. So generally, we trust it to a
20 very high degree, but we also check for, say, duplicates, and we check
21 for date of birth, et cetera.
22 Q. Sure. My concern, really, is with your understanding -- with
23 what your understanding is, your actual knowledge is of the testing that
24 is done, and I think we talked about one thing, which is degradation.
25 You have no idea of what standards they use at the laboratory; you have
1 no idea of how the testing occurs; you have no idea of what the
2 qualifications of the individuals who test; but you are satisfied that
3 that they have a very strict procedure.
4 A. Yes. My understanding is that is according to international
5 standards, and it's state-of-the-art technology.
6 Q. Okay. Have you ever in terms of dealing with issues concerning
7 identification of individuals been made aware of the number of mistakes
8 that exist within the testing for DNA?
9 A. No, but I -- no, I'm not a specialist on this. But I know of one
10 situation where you cannot resolve a test, and that is if you have two
11 twins and they have -- their genetic material is identical to their
12 parents, so you cannot distinguish between two monozygotic twins.
13 Q. Surely.
14 A. That is one issue which can cause a problem for us.
15 Q. And I take it that with regard to the issue of secreters, that's
16 not something that has come up in terms of your studies where you have
17 secreters who are testers as how it could affect these particular issues.
18 A. I don't know anything about that. I'm sorry.
19 Q. Very well. Okay. Then I won't pursue it any further.
20 If I'm understanding your testimony accurately, what you can tell
21 us at this time is that 2.694 individuals have been identified to your
22 satisfaction as dead.
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Above and beyond that, there are a series of questions and
25 ponderables that exist in terms of the circumstances, as I asked you
1 before, and I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseam, the circumstances
2 of their death.
3 A. That is true, but beyond that there are also several thousands of
4 cases that are coming up through more recent reports.
5 Q. I appreciate that. But as we sit here right now.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. You know, what you're talking about will happen in the future is
8 not proof for purposes of what's happening here today. I'm trying to
9 deal with what we have today that we can have in hand so that the Chamber
10 has an understanding of the hard evidence to the extent that it is hard
11 evidence with regard to this particular issue, right?
12 A. Yes. But could you repeat your statement?
13 Q. Which is that you are not able to give us any further information
14 other than the fact that you have 2.694 individuals who have been
15 identified as dead. You cannot -- correct?
16 A. Yes, but I would say that there are -- there is some evidence
17 corroborating this. One is that they are found in mass graves. The
18 other one is they have also been listed independently as missing in
19 connection with the fall of Srebrenica. So these two, they support each
21 Q. And as you identify the fall of Srebrenica for purposes of the
22 discussion we've had here today, you've identified it as being the 12th
23 and 13th of July. Is that accurate?
24 A. Yes, but many of the deaths occurred later, and some were
25 reported as missing before a few, because, well, the relatives hadn't
1 seen them.
2 Q. With regard to the deaths that occurred before or the missing
3 that occurred before, you are not in a position to tell us as you sit
4 here today whether those missing individuals are missing as a result of a
5 battle-related death.
6 A. But we did not include anybody with a reported date of missing
7 before 1st of July.
8 Q. Well, if you have a reported date of the 1st of July, then
9 there's a -- we have a 10-day period --
10 A. But there was, I think, less than 40 people, very small number.
11 Q. Who were reported missing during that period of time?
12 A. Between 1st and 10th of July.
13 Q. Who were reported missing?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. So it's a small number.
17 Q. Fair enough.
18 A. And some of those dates could be wrong.
19 Q. Okay. Now, when you say that's a small number, you're talking
20 about that what happened is whoever reported that information reported
21 that the individual went missing during that discrete period of time,
22 correct, between the 1st and 10th of July?
23 A. I think they mentioned a date, but in some cases it was the last
24 -- date of last being seen alive by somebody known to the family.
25 Q. Okay. And then you said it was also missing after the two dates
1 that you mentioned.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that went up to what date?
4 A. End of 2005.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. But the number dropped dramatically, so it -- most of them were
7 in July and August, very few after August.
8 Q. Okay. With regard --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly pause between
10 question and answer and avoid overlapping. Thank you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise.
12 THE WITNESS: I apologise, too.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH:
14 Q. With regard to the individuals who were reported missing after
15 the two days that you have mentioned here to us today, the 11th and 12th
16 of July, I take it we are in the same situation that we were in with
17 regard to those who were missing before, which is you cannot tell us
18 whether those deaths were battle-related deaths or not, can you?
19 A. In principle, no. That is correct.
20 Q. Okay. And you have mentioned that you went all the way up to
21 what year?
22 A. End of -- 31st of December, 2005.
23 Q. So what percentage of the individuals who were reported missing
24 fall within the period of August 1st through and including 2005?
25 A. Then I need to consult the report.
1 Q. Please do.
2 A. It may take some time because I don't remember exactly when that
3 was mentioned. It could be 2004 report, it could be 2000, so if you
4 allow me. I think I'm getting there.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. Report dated 25th of January, 2004.
7 Q. That would be P407.
8 A. Mm-hm. It says -- on page 20 in the English version, it says
9 that 1993, .5 percent, table 5 was reported missing in July. But it says
10 300 and something. Oh, this is the addendum, sorry. This is the
11 addendum. That is why the total number is only 321. These are
12 additional to the previous, but anyway, 4.7 percent went missing --
13 reported as missing in August; 1.6 percent in September; 0.3 in October.
14 So more than 90 percent, and that is true for the main body, too, I
15 think. 95 percent were reported as missing in July 1995.
16 And may I add that we took a very conservative approach, but we
17 have later -- bodies have been found in mass graves and identified, cases
18 which we had excluded because they were reported as missing, for example,
19 in April 1995, but they were found in mass graves together with bodies
20 that had been executed after 12th of July. So it -- which indicates that
21 sometimes the relatives reported the wrong date or there was some mix-up.
22 Q. You've used the word in your last answer "executed," and you as
23 you sit here don't know who was executed or not. What you know is that
24 -- what you know is that you have a number of bodies that are dead and
25 you have a number of people who are missing, correct?
1 A. Yes, but since they are found in mass graves, then --
2 Q. You draw a conclusion that mass graves --
3 A. Well --
4 Q. Excuse me. Let me finish. You draw a conclusion that if there's
5 a mass grave, that the bodies are that found in the mass grave are bodies
6 that are non-battle-related bodies.
7 A. Well, I may be entering into legal territory, but previously the
8 date was referred to agreed --
9 Q. No, that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you something
10 else now, sir, which is your assumption is that if there's a mass grave,
11 the bodies that are found in a mass grave are bodies that are
12 non-battle-related bodies, correct?
13 A. If many of them are found blindfolded, then --
14 Q. That's not my question.
15 A. I cannot be sure, of course.
16 Q. Thank you. And finally, just so we're clear, with regard to a
17 definition of terms for Srebrenica victims, you have included
18 municipalities which border the Srebrenica area, but they were in Serbia
20 A. Very few. I think very few cases.
21 Q. But you included three municipalities, correct?
22 A. I think so.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you very much. I thank you for your time.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith. Madam Carter, any
2 MS. CARTER: Briefly, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 Re-examination by Ms. Carter:
5 Q. Dr. Brunborg, you were just discussing the idea of the reported
6 missing. I think that can take on a number of different interpretations.
7 Are you testifying today that those who were reported missing between 1
8 July and 10 July that were saying that is the time that they were taken
9 or something had happened to them or something different?
10 A. No. I'm only saying that they were reported as missing by some
11 family member, and that was often the last time they were seen alive by
12 the family member or by somebody who knew the family. It does not imply
13 that they were killed on those dates.
14 Q. Okay. And in opposition, you also had indicated that you were
15 looking at people after July and through the end of the year as being
16 reported missing. When you're referring to that group of bodies or
17 persons, what do you mean by "reported missing"?
18 A. The same thing. Although, I'm not quite sure what the relatives
19 meant. They often decided to report someone as missing quite late, say,
20 in August, September, October, and whether the date is then the date of
21 reporting the missing person or the date that they last saw the person
22 alive, it couldn't be the date they last saw them alive. I think it is
23 mostly the date of reporting.
24 Q. Okay. And you also indicated at transcript page 54 line 8 that
25 you were looking at these dates through the end of the 31st of December
2 A. I meant 1995. I am sorry.
3 Q. Okay. Not a problem.
4 And then the last topic I'd like to cover with you, earlier today
5 you were asked about the 83 percent matching between your missing list
6 and that of the 1991 census, and then a term was used by Defence counsel
7 of a 17 percent float. What I'm trying to determine is, what does a 17
8 percent float mean to you?
9 A. To me it means that it is unresolved because we did not have
10 information to match up all of them. We did not -- there were 17 percent
11 that we did not find on the 1991 census. One reason could be that they
12 did not live in Bosnia
13 were not enumerated at all, or there was a mistake in the census, but
14 most of this because there is lacking information, misprints of names,
15 date of birth wrong, et cetera. I think that is the major reason.
16 MS. CARTER: Okay. That is remainder of the questions I have for
17 the doctor. Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Carter.
19 Thank you very much, Doctor. That brings us to the conclusion of
20 your testimony and we just want to take the time to say thank you for
21 taking the time to come and testify. You are now excused. You may stand
22 down, and travel well back home.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are welcome.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not have another
3 witness prepared to testify today. It expects to have witness MP-277
4 ready tomorrow.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much. I'm trying to remember
6 a housekeeping matter that I wanted to raise. There is an urgent motion
7 by the Prosecution and I wanted to find out from the Defence what the
8 reaction might be. I can't remember the motion.
13 MR. SAXON: Excuse me, I'm sorry, Your Honour, could this --
14 perhaps we should go into private session.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I was about to ask that.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's do that.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I was about to ask that.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's do that. May the Chamber please move into
19 private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 2581-2582 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Madam Carter.
13 MS. CARTER: The Prosecution has verified the status of Exhibit
14 P408, and it does not need to be under seal. It can be an open document.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Madam Registrar, can we
16 unseal the sealed P408.
17 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, because of potential time pressures that
19 exist, we have received a copy of the Prosecution's motion with regard to
20 the issue of provisional release. We are in full agreement with those
21 provisions, if the Chamber is, that are suggested by the Prosecution,
22 have no objection to any of them whatsoever, and also would indicate that
23 we believe that the lion's share of those provisions have already been in
24 effect, in one fashion or another -- we were specifically dealing with
25 the issue of surveillance. I know that every time that I was at my
1 client's home, there was a police officer or two outside surveilling. I
2 watched him sign a document at least on two occasions that I was there.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: On a 24-hour basis?
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I didn't go there at 3.00 in the morning and I
5 don't know whether it was 24. I've been told -- I've been told that it
6 is, but I think this probably needs to be confirmed. I usually do the
7 3.00 in the morning work at home, not with my client.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is all. You had something to raise? Okay.
11 Well, we adjourn to tomorrow in the afternoon same courtroom, Courtroom
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe that we are starting a little later
14 tomorrow, are we not? That's what I saw on the schedule. I believe
15 there's a judgement before us.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: There is a judgement before you, yes, a contempt
17 judgement before us. Thank you so much for reminding me. I think we
18 start at something like 3.45. Court adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.42 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 17th day of
21 December, 2008, at 3.45 p.m.