1 Thursday, 10 May 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here. From
10 the Defence teams I notice the absence of Mr. Sarapa and Ms. Condon and
11 Mr. Meek. Yes, Mr. Haynes, is Mr. Sarapa --
12 MR. HAYNES: Mr. Sarapa will be here after the first break.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. And Mr. Zivanovic?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Ms. Condon is working from the office. Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. And Mr. Ostojic.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Mr. President and Your Honours.
17 Mr. Meek will be here after the first break as well.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record also, Prosecution is represented by
19 Mr. McCloskey and present in the courtroom also is the Defence expert
20 sitting next to Mr. Ostojic.
21 The witness is also present. Doctor, good afternoon to you.
22 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, sir.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to proceed and hopefully finish within
24 a short time your testimony so you can go back to your beautiful Norway.
25 Mr. Ostojic.
1 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG [Resumed]
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Good afternoon, doctor, again.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. I'd like to clarify a couple issues that we discussed yesterday
7 and then talk about some of the tables in your conclusions section today
8 and I promise I'll speak a little slower and I'll pause before I give you
9 another question and after your answer so I apologise yesterday if I
10 overlapped with you, sir.
11 Sir, when we speak of these informational sources did you or
12 anyone in your staff ever examine the provider of the information which
13 was given to those sources?
14 A. Sir, I don't quite understand what you mean, "examine the
15 provider". I could mention each source. The missing lists were provided
16 by two international organisations. We did not examine the people but we
17 talked to many of them.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. The census were provided by the statistical office so we certainly
20 had contact with all the owners or the originators of the sources.
21 Q. I wasn't asking that but just so I understand it you used two
22 primary information sources that you discussed that's highlighted in the
23 first paragraph under your executive summary; the ICRC and the PHR,
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I classify, and correct me if I'm wrong, the other sources as
2 secondary sources that you utilised in your methodology that we discussed
3 briefly yesterday. But my question is this: With respect to the two
4 primary sources, namely the ICRC and the PHR, did you examine in their
5 data bank from whom they obtained the information which they ultimately
6 gathered upon which you relied? So the provider meaning the person who
7 gave the information to the ICRC or the PHR?
8 A. Certainly. We examined that and the information was provided by
9 family members in about 95 per cent of the cases for both these primary
10 data sources. We even looked at who of -- what kind of family member,
11 mother, father, grandparents, siblings, et cetera.
12 Q. And where can I find that analysis?
13 A. We only gave the summary figure, that 95 per cent were provide by
14 family members.
15 Q. But you did the analysis. What I'm interested to know is to
16 verify to an extent if it was immediate family members, if it was friends
17 or witnesses that may have identified a person last at a certain place,
18 because that's certainly a category you utilised in your report, or was it
19 distant family members?
20 A. As you know, sir, friends and -- are not family members. So they
21 were most of them were close family members.
22 Q. And I don't want to belabour the point, just one last time, is
23 that data available anywhere that we can examine at all?
24 A. I think there is a summary of it but we didn't do any detailed
25 analysis. We found it sufficient to notice that very high proportion,
1 almost all, 19 out of 20, were provided by family members and in most
2 cases, close family members. In some cases there were no family members
3 available to provide the information since they were also killed or
5 Q. Did you have family members, multiple family members, providing
6 the information to those sources?
7 A. That happened in some cases, I think, but this was detected and
8 possible duplicates we deleted.
9 Q. And what per cent was that, that multiple family members provided
10 the information?
11 A. I think in the last 2005 OTP list, I think there were about 24
12 records, something, where the information was provided more than once, and
13 not deleted by the ICRC.
14 Q. Now, let me ask you this: If DNA is the certain form of analysis
15 to determine death and identity of a person, as you described yesterday,
16 you say that there was approximately 7.660 members who supplied blood
17 samples, or people who supplied blood samples to this DNA data bank,
19 A. No, I said 7.849.
20 Q. Thank you. That's why I said about 7 -- okay, 7.849 people
21 provided blood samples to that data bank, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And I think you also said, and it's pretty well known, that in
24 order to obtain or confirm analysis through blood samples through DNA you
25 have to have more than one family provide a blood sample, correct?
1 A. Not necessarily.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please make a pause between
3 questions and answers, thank you.
4 A. Probability of a mistake, mistaken identity is much reduced if
5 there are more than one family member.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic and Dr. Brunborg, please slow down. I
7 mean -- it's the pause that you ought to allow between question and answer
8 and that applies to both of you. You're creating a lot of problems for
9 the interpreters. So please comply, both of you.
10 MR. OSTOJIC:
11 Q. Did you -- may I proceed, Your Honour?
12 Did you, sir, review and analyse the DNA blood sample bank, if you
13 will, or the information that contains those blood samples to determine
14 specifically the number of individuals that provided blood samples for
15 this identification process?
16 A. Sir, we examined all the information we obtained from ICMP, which
17 included DNA analysis reports on -- on profiles and links and cases et
18 cetera. We were not provided with any information on which family members
19 provided the blood samples, if I am not mistaken, but I'm not 100 per cent
20 sure about that. The ICMP is very protective about the data, which are
21 confidential naturally.
22 Q. I'm just pausing in order to comply, so when you're done, I'll ask
23 another question.
24 A. But that gives me time to add on.
25 Q. Of course it does. Sir, my question is: Do you know or did any
1 organisation provide you a specific amount of the number of individuals
2 that provided blood samples for this DNA identification process? Do you
3 have a fixed number or an approximate number?
4 A. I have heard it but I do not remember now. I went over the report
5 carefully again. I did not see a fixed number but I think there were on
6 average two or three per victim or per missing person.
7 Q. Okay. And if we have 7.800, sir, people providing blood samples,
8 mathematically although I know you're not a mathematician, wouldn't we
9 divide the 2 into the 7.800 and we can generally estimate that about 3.500
10 people gave blood samples, or I should say 7.800 people gave blood samples
11 for approximately 3.800 or 3.500 missing people?
12 A. Sir, I'm sorry, you misunderstood this. 7.800 missing persons as
13 reported by family members, for each of them, between two and three on the
14 average so that comes closer to 20.000 blood samples.
15 Q. That's what --
16 A. 15 or 20.000 blood samples in that order.
17 Q. It was my understanding, doctor, however, that the number of blood
18 samples was 7.800 blood samples. Are you telling me now that the blood
19 samples that were procured for this identification process was in excess
20 of 20.000?
21 A. I do not have the exact number. I never said there were 7.800
22 blood samples. I said there were 7.800 persons or missing persons for
23 whom blood samples had been obtained by -- from family members. Whether
24 the 15 or 20.000, in that order.
25 Q. And where can I obtain that information, if I wanted to have the
1 exact information?
2 A. You can object -- sorry, break. You can obtain that from ICMP in
4 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, you told us that you participated in a
5 census in, I think, four or five different countries. Can you share with
6 us what your role was in your participation in those censuses?
7 A. I did not say I participated in those censuses. For some of the
8 censuses, I did some analysis. For others censuses I participated in
9 planning the census.
10 Q. And can you describe for me what you did in the planning of the
12 A. In the planning of the census of Albania, for example, I looked at
13 possible links with registers. That was one of my roles there, and how --
14 we also looked at how it could be used to establish a population register,
15 which was eventually not done. I actually also was part of the
16 consideration of the census of Afghanistan, playing much the same role.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Sir, I want to discuss yesterday you mentioned
18 that you were aware of approximately or up to three ambushes involving the
19 column that was leaving from the Potocari area through towards Tuzla; do
20 you remember that?
21 A. We talked, yes we talked about that. I don't recall saying three
22 ambushes. I knew there were -- I know there were many ambushes. I've
23 read books and seen movies and videos and read reports about ambushes.
24 Q. Do you know how many people died as a result or a consequence of
25 those ambushes?
1 A. No. And it's not given in our report either. It is -- in the
2 report it is listed the number of people who were last seen in the forest.
3 Q. Okay. Take a look at page 3 of your report, on the second section
4 identified as "background", the first three lines. And there you talk
5 about these men who tried to escape by walking through the forest and you
6 say that many of them were killed on the way or after surrendering or
7 being captured. As a demographer, sir, first I'd like to know is where
8 you got this information from?
9 A. Well, much of this was documented in other trials also. So it is
10 well known that men -- were killed and I've also seen movies and some have
11 been recovered in graves with pathologists, have been confirmed that they
12 have been shot or killed in other ways. Whether they were killed in an
13 ambush or in some other way, I do not know.
14 Q. Okay. But you write down that they were killed, like you do on
15 the bottom of the page that we clarified yesterday in the objective of
16 your analysis. Would we want to change that to just say died or dead;
17 because you don't know the manner or the cause of death, correct?
18 A. It says several women, children and old men were also killed. I
19 think it's pretty clear now, history, evidence showed that several were
20 killed. It doesn't say all, it doesn't say many. It says several.
21 Q. I'm really referring to the sentence before that though. Not that
23 A. "Others were separated from their families in Potocari and later
24 executed." Is that the sentence?
25 Q. The sentence, the first one on that background section and I'll
1 read it, so you can focus with me on. It says: "When the enclave of
2 Srebrenica fell in -- on July -- 11 July 1995, a number of men tried to
3 escape by walking through the forest and many of them were killed on the
4 way or after surrendering or being captured."
5 Okay? That's the sentence I'd like to focus on?
6 A. Yes. I think that has been pretty well documented elsewhere.
7 Q. Okay. Well, tell me, doctor, how many were killed?
8 A. It doesn't say, and I don't have exact number. This was
9 background. It is not presented as evidence as such.
10 Q. So this in the background section should not be looked at by
11 anyone as evidence that you formulated any opinions based upon a
12 reasonable degree of certainty; correct?
13 A. Well, it's background. It is not -- it does not affect our
14 results because our results does not say anything about who was killed or
15 not how many were killed but we know of course, sir, we know that many
16 were killed since many have been exhumed from mass graves with strong
17 evidence from forensic pathologists that they were, for example,
18 blindfolded and shot.
19 Q. And I concede that point, sir and we've had the opportunity to
20 discuss with the anthropologists and pathologists no that evidence. But
21 quite a few, if not a greater percentage, of those were not blindfolded
22 and did not have bindings or ligatures on their hands. I won't debate the
23 issue with you. I just want to know, sir, how do you know that they were
24 killed or on the way or after surrendering, who provided you with that
1 A. This information I've read in other reports.
2 Q. Now, yesterday, we discussed a classification of combat or war
3 activities and one of the classifications that you have or two groups is
4 battle-related and non-battle-related. Can you tell me the significance
5 of the first classification, battle-related deaths, what's the
6 significance of that, since it appears in your article and you're
7 considered by some colleagues at least to be a forensic demographer?
8 A. Battle deaths is a military concept and it's also used in some --
9 it is used to give a total account, to -- excuse me, to say to define a
10 war or a civil conflicts. This is why it was collected. Definition of a
11 civil conflict is at least 25 battle deaths per year. A definition of a
12 war is at least 1.000 battle deaths per year. So that is one of the uses
13 of that concept.
14 Q. But isn't another use of the concept and the real use of the
15 concept to distinguish between battle-related deaths and
16 non-battle-related deaths is because battle-related deaths have perhaps a
17 legitimate and justified result?
18 A. Whether it's legitimate or justified, I will not say anything
19 about but, of course, as both of us know, it is not considered a war crime
20 usually to be killed in a battle.
21 Q. So battle-related deaths are not considered a war crime for both
22 soldiers and civilians, because you include both in your categorisation,
24 A. That is correct. I think I'm now you are leading me into thin
25 legal ice which I will prefer not to go deeply into.
1 Q. Okay. I'm just trying to understand your articles and your
2 thoughts on it because you've written several. Now, do you agree with me,
3 sir, that though, that you can have within a civil war both battle-related
4 deaths and non-battle-related deaths, deaths that occur whether a battle
5 didn't happen on a given day or week, correct?
6 A. Yes. But of course being a soldier and being killed is not the
7 same as being -- dying in a battle. A soldier could die in a car accident
8 or from disease. So somebody who is not a soldier could also die, could
9 die in an ambush. So it is -- there is not a one-to-one relationship
10 between being a soldier and dying in a conflict, and a battle-related
12 Q. To what extent in your analysis, since you make some of these
13 conclusions and what I consider to be broad statements, did you utilise
14 the office of the Prosecution and any other department such as the
15 military analysts that were creating this data to see if it was a
16 legitimate military battle death or a non-battle death?
17 A. Sir, as you know, we were not tasked to identify battle deaths or
18 not in this context, only the number of dead and missing persons so this
19 is purely written as background material for the setting.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think this has been gone through thoroughly
22 yesterday and today. Any further on this is really getting cumulative.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic? What do you have to say to that?
24 MR. OSTOJIC: This specific general area was but we've covered
25 many areas generally speaking. We have never discussed in his report
1 specifically on this page 3 under background, that first sentence that we
2 were discussing now. If that's specific to a general statement that we
3 made yesterday, I'll concede we did discuss the classifications that he
4 himself acknowledges, that Mr. Butler also includes and I think it's time
5 to go specific now, to analyse his report in that context. So I disagree
6 respectfully with my learned friend that that has been gone over.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think given the time that Mr. Ostojic has had on
9 these subjects that, I think, his time should be just about run out. I
10 don't know what he means, "going specific". The first paragraph -- the
11 first paragraph, "When the enclave of Srebrenica fell on 11 July a number
12 of men tried to escape by walking through the forest and many of them were
13 killed", is he contesting that? Why are we going over this and over this
14 and over this?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Our agreement is that we continue beating around the
16 same bush and we've been doing that for a long, long time. Especially
17 since you are not the first Defence counsel to cross-examine this witness.
18 And some of the questions you are putting have already been put by others,
19 and answered too. So if you could bring this to a conclusion, please,
20 Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: May I ask one more question, Your Honour?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, of course.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Am I correct, doctor, that you did not review or discuss with any
25 military analyst from the Office of the Prosecutor such as Richard Butler
1 to determine what -- whether any of the deaths that you identify and of
2 those that are missing were battle-related or non-battle-related?
3 A. That's correct. I knew Mr. Butler but it was not relevant for our
5 Q. Now, because of the Court's obvious ruling, I'll move on to
6 another subject. If I can direct your attention to page 15 of your
7 report, table 1 specifically, I'd like to examine the ICRC categories that
8 you have listed down there. Do you see them?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Category number 2 you have: "Still missing, with info on
11 death". Correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. What does that mean?
14 A. That means that there is a body that is linked to the body of the
15 missing person, has been found or identified somehow but it has not gone
16 through all the legal procedures, saying taken to the case -- the case has
17 not been taken to a court so that the death certificate has been issued.
18 This is when the relative is notified. That is when the ICRC closes a
20 Q. I see those categories there. But is this the ICRC categorisation
21 or is this your own? Because on the one immediately above that you have
22 "Still missing", and it doesn't say whether they have information on
23 death or no information on death. Then we have the closed cases which are
24 confirmed deaths of 2.054. So really my question focuses on the "Still
25 missing". Compare that to the "Still missing, with information on death".
1 A. For the "Still missing", there is no information beyond the one
2 provided by relatives about the whereabouts or the fate of these persons.
3 "Still missing, with info on death", there is information about body.
4 But it has not gone through the legal process. That is my understanding
5 and this is the definition given by ICRC, and they print different tables
6 for these cases, different cases.
7 Q. Categories?
8 A. Categories, yes.
9 Q. Turning your attention to page 23 of your report, table 7, just a
10 couple questions. I know were you asked this yesterday but I need to
11 clarify this point with the Court's indulgence and permission and the
12 Prosecutor's, of course. Under the unknown category you have 999;
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. [Speakers overlapping] male and 31 female.
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. What does that specifically mean? Let me tell you what I think it
18 means, and you tell me if I'm wrong or right and that might be easier,
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. That means that someone gave as a provider, information to one of
22 the two sources, an individual's name, and when you went and did this
23 match or linking methodology to confirm it with the census you were unable
24 to find that individual with any reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
25 A. Partly correct.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. In the PHR database, which includes more than 5.000 people their
3 ethnicity was reported so it's for the remaining between 2 and 3.000 that
4 information was captured from the census through linkage on an individual
5 basis. And as we discussed yesterday, for 13 per cent of the cases, we
6 were not able to link the missing list to the census for various reasons.
7 Q. Okay. I think I understood it a little. Turning your attention
8 to table 11, my confusion on table 11 is twofold, I think. It's on page
9 29. My first question is: The category that you have on the left side,
10 the age in 1995, do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you don't include any age for children under the age of 10,
13 which may, if you don't really study demography can mean one of two
14 things, one, that no one under the age of 10 was alive at that time or,
15 two, in my view, that the exclusion of all people who were under the age
16 of 10 was done so that you can inflate the percentages on the right-hand
17 side of the column, which is what statisticians and demographers may do
18 from time to time?
19 A. I'm sorry, sir. The reason is that there were no missing persons
20 under age 10, no reported. That is why we did not need that category. I
21 could have included it and put zero. The inflation of zero would still be
23 Q. But you're comparing this with the 1991 census population, are you
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And when you do that type of comparative analysis shouldn't you
2 include the entire group of all ages, if you're going to compare 1995 to
4 A. Yes. And we would have seen that zero per cent of the 1991
5 population of persons under the age of 10 were reported as missing.
6 Whether inflated or not. We remember, excuse me, that we inflate the
7 number of missing persons by 13 per cent, not the 1991 population.
8 Q. Do you think it would be a more reasonable approach to have the
9 absolute numbers for these age groups as they existed in 1991 for this
10 chart to be more complete, because we can get that information obviously
11 by looking at the census; correct?
12 A. Yes. I think that's available. I think it has also been printed
13 in one of our earlier reports.
14 Q. I didn't find it at all.
15 A. Did you find it in my article on this? "Accounting for genocide"?
16 I thought it was included there but -- no, we did not include the absolute
17 numbers there either, for limitations of space.
18 Q. What about the totality of the number? Would that influence or
19 impact the percentages that you've offered here to show as a percentage of
20 the whole, if you don't include the whole, you can get an inflated
21 percentage, correct?
22 A. Not the way here when it is zero in those age groups, it would not
23 influence the total.
24 Q. Okay. I respectfully disagree but we'll hopefully talk about that
25 at another time. Let me ask you about methodology?
1 A. I see that you're also not a mathematician.
2 Q. I'm not. I'm actually a lawyer. Let me talk about methodology a
3 little bit. You discuss and you call your methodology a match
4 methodology, both in your paper and in your report. I've seen from other
5 people such as Dr. Tabeau, that in fact she calls it a link methodology
6 and we discussed briefly that. I submit to you, sir, that your
7 methodology is not a match methodology but a link methodology and that the
8 reason you don't want to call it a linkage or link methodology is because
9 it has less reliability?
10 A. I think that terminology doesn't really matter whether you call it
11 linking or matching. We have used interchangeably. If you really go into
12 the terminology, maybe you find some -- you could find some difference in
13 the interpretation but it's really the same.
14 Q. Okay. I don't -- again, fair enough. The data that you used to
15 make the comparisons between the various sources were not matched because
16 you didn't have all the data or the same data from each of the sources,
18 A. The data were deficient. That is why we did not succeed in
19 linking or matching the whole population. Where we think there -- it
20 should have been close to 100 per cent linked.
21 Q. And that's a lot of information to digest but I think I understand
22 but my point is exactly that. I don't want to use the words
23 interchangeably. To match something, you would have five key features,
24 for example, that you utilised from a source. And then during your
25 methodology, you would see if you could match or link this person and you
1 can match them only if you have the five features that correspond to one
2 another; correct? That would be considered a match. A link would be if
3 you have five features from one source, and you try to compare it with
4 this other source and you can only link two out of those five. That would
5 be a link, would it not?
6 A. I do not agree entirely. I think what we are linking actually
7 is -- or is different records, to see if two different records are for the
8 same, are most likely for the same person and we are using different
9 measures, different variables, to see if it is likely or unlikely that
10 these two different records represent the same person or not. If, sir, if
11 you have a perfect system, like a good identification number system like
12 in the Nordic countries, there is no doubt. We use one variable, the
13 Nordic maticni broj to do the linking. We do not need to worry about
14 spelling mistakes in names, et cetera.
15 Q. Let me just look here, I had a couple other questions. Yes.
16 Still on page 29, it's table 11, but I want to move away from table 11 and
17 go to the bottom of figure 5. And although this may have been covered and
18 if the Court permits, I'll ask the question and I'm sure it may draw an
19 objection, although we didn't discuss it yesterday or today. You talk
20 about in that figure 5 on page 29, deaths from war related causes, do you
21 not? It's the very last line on that page.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. You talk about deaths from natural causes; correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And then if you flip the page you have other phenomenons. That I
1 suggest, sir, is another hint that, in fact, you as a forensic demographer
2 were placing in this report but yet didn't complete the analysis that we
3 so desperately need here in this courtroom. But what's the significance,
4 if you will, of identifying just as a broad category deaths from war
5 related causes in your demographic report?
6 A. These four bullet points are a discussion of the possible loss of
7 the population, 1991 population - there was a census in all of Bosnia in
8 1991 - here specifically in Srebrenica. And what could have happened to
9 those people who were enumerated there. Here we talk about Muslim men.
10 Now, they could go -- be -- go missing from in the conflict related to the
11 fall of Srebrenica, and die in that conflict, reported as missing. They
12 could die from natural causes. They could have left Srebrenica before
13 12th of July 1995. Or they could go fighting elsewhere. These were the
14 major reasons. Now, what we have looked at here is just those who went
15 missing and who are most likely dead. More and more evidence points in
16 that direction.
17 Q. Where would you --
18 A. And we see, if I may continue, we see then that of those men who
19 were 45 to 49, fully 50 per cent of those who were -- who lived in
20 Srebrenica in 1991 were reported as missing and are most probably dead.
21 Half of the Muslim men in Srebrenica in 1991 died most probably. That is
22 a very large percentage. When we do not consider those who were not
23 exposed to the risk of killing or execution or disappearing in July 1995,
24 because they were not there before Srebrenica fell, so the real percentage
25 is probably much higher.
1 Q. Can you show me where, in your work, that you actually broke down
2 these four bullet points to give us an indication as to what the
3 percentages were for each of those four bullet points?
4 A. I will very much like to do so, sir, but we have no information
5 about those other bullet points. I would like to make a full account of
6 the fates of all those who were enumerated in 1991 but we only have
7 indications about those who went missing in July 1995.
8 Q. Now, just couple more questions.
9 On your table 11 we talked about the need to have absolute numbers
10 from 1991 in that table. You'll agree with me - won't you? - that if we
11 know that in 1991 there was approximately let's say, I don't know, you
12 have 0.4 amount of people in Srebrenica for that category, which I don't
13 understand fully, either you have one or you have -- you can't have less
14 than one, but I'm sure a statistician or a mathematician could help me
15 with that better. But my question is: If you take the category in 1991
16 and in any given group you've identified here by age, 15 to 19, let's say,
17 in 1991 that age group 15 to 19, there were 100 people --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- what happens to that age group in 1995?
20 A. Well, first, it is four years older. Secondly, 31.7 per cent of
21 them were reported as missing and have probably died so about one third
22 went missing. The other two-thirds we do not know anything about.
23 Q. But what days are you using for that four-year period or to
24 categorise people being exactly 20 or 15 to 19? Because obviously some
25 can be 19 this year, and some can turn 19 the following year.
1 A. It says, "Age in 1995", so if they were 15 to 19 in 1995 then they
2 were 11 through 15 in 1991 so that is the number we looked at, the
3 original age group was 11 through 15.
4 Q. Sir, I asked you yesterday about the quality of the primary and
5 secondary sources that were used, and how significant that may be to
6 assess their credibility or reliability. And I have the same question
7 with the methodology you used, whether it's matching or linkage
8 methodology that you utilised. Isn't it important that the quality of
9 that methodology is important to assess the extent of credibility and
10 reliability and value if any we can have on the conclusions that you set
11 forth in your report?
12 A. Exactly, the methodology is very important, and I think we did a
13 pretty good job on that.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you very much, doctor. I look forward to
15 seeing you again. Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
17 According to the latest verification, I have the Popovic and
18 Miletic team who wish to cross-examine the witness. I see Ms. Fauveau
19 standing. Go ahead, Madam Fauveau. You've asked for 20 to 30 minutes.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau: [Interpretation]
22 Q. You spoke about the census in 1991 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Is
23 it true that in 1991, the information was collected for the census?
24 A. That is true. The census day, as we call it, the reference day,
25 was 31st of March.
1 Q. And the information that was collected in 1991 was published in
2 1995, because it took that long to process that information?
3 A. Partly correct. Some preliminary results were published earlier
4 but because of the conflicts, the first big volume was published in
5 Zagreb, in fact, on the basis of data from Sarajevo.
6 Q. And Zagreb is in Croatia, isn't it?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Did you ever envisage a possibility that the result of the census
9 that was published in Zagreb in Croatia could have been tampered with in
10 any way?
11 A. Of course, we considered that. Now, we did in fact have access to
12 the full data set with data on the 4.3 million individuals that were
13 enumerated and we made tabulations and compared with the Zagreb
14 publication and found very few differences. There were a few but very
15 minimal. It was mostly very much the same.
16 Q. Is it true that after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was
17 no census of the population, the Muslim and the Croatian population, in
18 the part called the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
19 A. That is correct. There are plans for holding a census, and the
20 statistical agency would very much like to do so. I met with them. It is
21 highly needed for planning purposes and other purposes, but the Office of
22 the High Representative does not allow it before certain political
23 conditions have been met, such as the return of refugees and displaced
24 persons. They are afraid that a census might in a way cement a population
25 situation that is not considered desirable.
1 Q. But at the same time, in Republika Srpska, there was some sort of
2 a census carried out?
3 A. Yes. I'm familiar with that, but I have not seen -- I have not
4 had access to the individual data from that census. Was there something
5 in 1995? Was there something? I do not recall the exact date but there
6 was some kind of a census. Whether it was conducted according to national
7 standards, I do not know.
8 Q. I believe that it was in 1997 [as interpreted], and what is
9 interesting, it is the fact that the census was carried out in Republika
10 Srpska and it wasn't carried out in the federation. And it was in 1996, I
11 believe it was recorded wrongly in the transcript. So does that strike
12 you as strange?
13 A. Not at all. Any government would like to have a census of the
14 population. So if they managed to do that, that is -- that's excellent.
15 But if I may add, that this was not a national census, it was a census of
16 a part of the country.
17 Q. And you never thought that a census was not carried out in the
18 federation because the authorities in the federation wanted to hide
19 certain information that might have been revealed by a census?
20 A. That did not strike my mind. In fact, I met with the director of
21 the statistical office. I met with the three-headed directors of the
22 statistical agency at the same time. One -- two from the federation, one
23 Croat and one Muslim and one Serb from the Republika Srpska, and we
24 discussed the possibility of the census. They all wanted that. And I met
25 also with the federal director separately. They all wanted very much a
1 census. Whether there could have been political pressure to avoid a
2 census, I have no idea but that was never my impression.
3 Q. I am sorry to keep you waiting. I'm waiting for the
4 interpretation to be over before I ask my next question. But in your
5 work, you never had an opportunity to discuss the census at the political
6 level, at a high political level, for example, with any of the ministers
7 or the Prime Minister or any such figures?
8 A. To hold a census was not really part of my mandate, but I -- but I
9 did not have that opportunity, that's correct.
10 Q. On 1st February of this year, when you testified in this Court,
11 you stated that you were involved in a new discipline that could be called
12 the demography of armed conflicts?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. And yesterday you have told us that your first task when you
15 started to work for the Office of the Prosecutor was to evaluate the
16 demographic facts of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
17 A. Yes. The translation should be the demographic implications or
18 effects of the war.
19 Q. Is it true that the demographic effects of a war or an armed
20 conflict also include immigrations, emigrations and the movement of
22 A. That is absolutely correct. It could also include births, and
23 marriages, and divorces, and splitting of families.
24 Q. Can we say that an armed conflict provokes any movement of people,
25 that emigration from a country is more pronounced during an armed conflict
1 or a war, as opposed to the state of peace? Just to be more precise, I
2 said migrations or any movement of people.
3 A. Yes. That's a normal case. If there are other countries that are
4 willing to receive people from the country that is in a conflict.
5 Q. And when you evaluate such movements, are you able to distinguish
6 between forced migrations and spontaneous migrations of the population in
7 a country struck by war?
8 A. That is very -- can be very hard. Now, of course, for people who
9 are received or taken care of by refugee organisations like the United
10 Nations High Commission of Refugees, then that is usually forced migration
11 but whether a person is migrating, say, even in Bosnia, to work in another
12 country or to seek refuge because he or she was feeling threatened or had
13 lost their house or job, it's difficult to tell.
14 Q. In any case, can we say that during a conflict or during a war,
15 one part of the population seeks to leave the area struck by the conflict
16 spontaneously, without being forced to do so?
17 A. Yes. If they can do so. Now, I can think of cases where they
18 were not -- it was not possible, in, say, Srebrenica in 1995 it was not
19 possible for the population in the town of Srebrenica to leave is my
20 understanding. Another area of conflict where it is difficult for
21 population to leave is of course Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, and we
22 can think of all the cases where many would like to leave and are not
23 allowed to do so.
24 JUDGE KWON: Can I clarify the transcript? Did you say, doctor,
25 it was not possible for the population in the town of Srebrenica to leave
1 or to live?
2 THE WITNESS: To leave, to depart from Srebrenica. There was a--
3 it was considered a safe enclave and the people were, they were supposed
4 to be protected, yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
7 Q. When you say that it was not possible to leave the area of
8 Srebrenica, are you aware of the fact that people did leave Srebrenica
9 before the 14th of July 1995? Before July 1995, without a date.
10 A. Some left, I think, and there were periods when there were people
11 were allowed to leave, there were periods where people were encouraged to
12 leave and other periods where they were told not to leave. There were
13 periods where they were -- they could not leave because there were guards
14 against it. So I do not remember all the period from 1992 to 1995 but it
15 was changing. There was also periods when people went into Srebrenica
16 from surrounding areas.
17 Q. And when you say that it was not possible to leave Srebrenica in
18 1995, what you actually mean is that it was difficult to leave Srebrenica,
19 not impossible?
20 A. Yes, of course.
21 Q. You have spoken about a part of the population that had arrived in
22 Srebrenica. Would you agree that people who had arrived in Srebrenica
23 arrived in 1991 and 1992 at the very beginning of the conflict?
24 A. I do not remember the history of all the flows and the local
25 events in that area. But if I may add, the data on the missing persons
1 show that many of the people who went -- reported as missing came from
2 other municipalities surrounding so they must have arrived in Srebrenica
3 before 11 July 1995.
4 Q. Is it true that you do not have facts or information that would
5 allow us to assess the ratio between the population that immigrated into
6 Srebrenica as opposed to those who emigrated from Srebrenica in the period
7 between 1991 and 1995?
8 A. That is correct. I wish I had.
9 Q. But, as you said it on the 1st of February, you believed that a
10 lot of Muslims left Srebrenica before 1995. This is what you stated in
11 front of this Trial Chamber on the 1st of February; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. On several occasions, you have stated and written in various
14 reports that the number of persons living in Srebrenica at the time was
15 40.000. That was an evaluation on your part and on the part of other
17 A. It was, as you said, an evaluation of United Nations, reported,
18 mentioned yesterday. It was not my evaluation. That was -- the 40.000
19 was the only figure I had. No breakdown, either breakdown by sex, age,
20 ethnicity, country of normal residence, et cetera.
21 Q. In fact, would it be your opinion that that number for the
22 greatest part is based on rumours, on stories more than anything?
23 A. I do not know the origin of the number, whether it was based on
24 lists for -- to get provisions for the isolated population in the enclave
25 or rumours or not. So I don't know how good that estimate is. As I said
1 yesterday, I've tried and talked to many people about the existence of
2 such lists but never been able to obtain any.
3 Q. Do you remember from the Blagojevic case, when you testified on
4 the 3rd of February 2004, that you stated that the 40.000 persons is based
5 on rumours? Let me read back the phrase to you -- the question was
6 whether there were 40.000 people in Srebrenica and your answer was as
7 follows: [In English] "That's what the rumours say."
8 A. Yes. That is approximately the same thing as I said now.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Is it also true that part of that number of
10 40.000 is estimated based on the estimates of various humanitarian
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This has been spent a lot of time on
13 before. This is really repetitive.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau, would you move to something
16 else, please?
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is very important for my client,
18 and I would like to ask Your Honours' leave to continue this line of
19 questioning, and I would also like to ask the Chamber to extend my time
20 because of the interpretation that is taking a bit longer, and I would not
21 like to be at a disadvantage as opposed to my colleagues who speak the
22 same language as the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: You will certainly not be allowed to put any
24 repetitive questions from now on, Ms. Fauveau.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I did not intend to
1 repeat my questions.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: But what you have asked the witness he has already
3 answered and possibly spent more than 45 minutes since he first started
4 giving evidence on cross-examination, and that was 189 minutes, 3 hours
5 and nine minutes, he spent on cross-examination so far, of which I reckon
6 one hour was spent precisely on the matters that you are asking him now.
7 He's given ample evidence -- I'm not here to argue, Ms. Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am -- I do not
9 intend to enter any arguments. I would like to show the witness a
10 document that has already been shown to him and I assure you I don't
11 intend to repeat my questions. I would like the witness to be shown
12 Exhibit number 2D3.
13 Could we show the witness paragraph number 3?
14 THE WITNESS: It is in front of me from yesterday. I was given to
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I would just like to clarify certain things. You said this was an
18 estimate. I'm not going to ask you that again. According to this
19 document, we cannot even determine whether this is an estimate from 1993,
20 the beginning of that year, or the end of that year.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This is extremely repetitive on an
22 issue that has -- the probative value of which was explained by this
23 witness. I think we can expect some kind of coordination on an issue like
24 this from the Defence so that we avoid this sort of repetitiveness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau, if the penultimate sentence of the same
1 paragraph that you refer the witness to says precisely, "In 1993 UNPROFOR
2 estimated the population of Srebrenica to be 42.000. By a process of
3 deduction, it can therefore be determined that approximately 17.000 DPs
4 are currently accounted for," how can you put to the witness that
5 according to this document, we cannot even determine whether this is an
6 estimate from 1993, the beginning of that year or the end of that year?
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise.
8 Mr. President, what I would like to know is this estimate of 40.000
9 people, this is not the people who have gone missing. This is an estimate
10 of the people that lived in Srebrenica at the time.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: He answered. I mean Mr. Ostojic himself asked him
12 questions on how he made his estimates, on the basis of which, and
13 Mr. Zivanovic -- not Mr. Zivanovic, Madam Nikolic yesterday asked him the
14 same question so where are we heading? I'm not going to let you have the
15 witness go through all these figures again one by one, once he has already
16 testified upon it.
17 I mean, if the witness happened to be one who wavers, who is
18 doubtful or is, or who doesn't know what he is testifying about, I could
19 tolerate that but he's been asked these questions repetitively already.
20 We have been very patient. Mr. McCloskey has been less patient than we
21 have been. We have been patient precisely because we don't like to
22 interrupt you as much as we can, but obviously there comes a point when we
23 have to set a limit.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think that
25 this particular question has been asked, but in any case, I'll move on to
1 another subject.
2 Q. Yesterday, you said that you spoke to UNHCR after having obtained
3 the list of persons who lived in Srebrenica before the fall of
5 A. Maybe something got lost in the translation. I had not obtained a
6 list of people who lived in Srebrenica in 1995, nor in 1993, as the
7 previous document referred to.
8 Q. I believe that we have a problem with the interpretation, you're
10 Yesterday you said, on page 85 of the transcript, that you
11 believed that you could address the UNHCR in order to be able to obtain
12 the list of people who had resided in Srebrenica before the fall of
14 A. At one point, I believe so, but the approaches from the Office of
15 the Prosecutor to UNHCR did not succeed in anything, in any concrete list.
16 Estimating the number of people in a population, say, based on head
17 counts, counts of houses, five or ten people in each house, is completely
18 different from having a list with a name and date of birth of everybody.
19 Q. Do you remember, when you testified in the Blagojevic case, on the
20 3rd of February and you said that the UNHCR did not wish to provide any
21 information concerning individual people?
22 A. That's correct. They want to consider the privacy of individuals
23 and also be considered a neutral organisation. So for a long time I could
24 not -- I was not allowed to contact UNHCR directly. It has to -- it had
25 to go through the Office of the Prosecutor.
1 Q. You said that you spoke to the mothers of Srebrenica. You said
2 that yesterday. Did you talk to them yourself or through somebody else?
3 A. No. Sorry, a translation again. Yesterday I said I talked to the
4 mayor of Srebrenica but I did in fact also meet with the mothers of
6 Q. The mayor of Srebrenica. The mayor of Srebrenica?
7 A. Yes. Yes, I met the newly elected mayor of Srebrenica in Tuzla in
8 1999, I think.
9 Q. Could you give us his name, please?
10 A. I'm sorry, I do not remember.
11 Q. And when you spoke to that person, did you talk to him as a
12 representative of the Office of the Prosecutor?
13 A. Yes. I think so.
14 Q. Did you record his statement? Did you make a note of what was
15 said during that meeting, a written note?
16 A. I think so, that it was included in my report from that trip.
17 Q. But you did not make an official statement or an official note of
18 that meeting, minutes of sorts?
19 A. No, particularly because it did not result in anything.
20 Q. On the 1st of February, this year, you said that the number of
21 those people who went missing in Potocari is over 2.000. Is it true that
22 the place where they went missing is based on the information that was
23 gathered by the Red Cross organisation?
24 A. That is correct, from family members of those who went missing.
25 Q. Is it also true that the Red Cross could not ask very exact
1 questions of the people who reported that members of their families went
3 A. I do not understand your question. I'm sorry.
4 Q. I'm referring to your report dated 12th February 2000, which is
5 Exhibit number P571, page 3.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This is a paragraph immediately above the title, "The quality of
8 the International Committee of the Red Cross" and you say in this
9 paragraph, "[In English] ICRC did not pose any precise question to the
10 families but defined Srebrenica-related victims on the basis of the story
11 given by the informant."
12 A. That is correct. Unlike the PHR, in the paragraph immediately
13 above, which asked specifically if the person in -- disappeared after the
14 fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. But also at the end of this paragraph
15 you just read, it says, "The story given by the informant usually starts
16 with, during the fall of Srebrenica or after the fall of Srebrenica."
17 However this information was not provided to us by the ICRC. We would have
18 liked to have it.
19 Q. When it comes to the place of disappearance, this is based on the
20 information that was provided to you by the Red Cross, and this in turn
21 was based on the information provided to them by those who reported their
22 persons went missing?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. According to you and what you know, this was never checked, the
25 place of disappearance was never checked by anybody?
1 A. We checked it as much as we could. In several ways. We checked
2 where it was on the map, whether it was in the vicinity of Srebrenica.
3 And we compared it with the similar information in the PHR database.
4 Whether it was -- if it was far away from Srebrenica, a person who with
5 that place of missing would not be reported. Later, from the exhumations
6 data we know whether the person, whether this was the case or not, whether
7 they disappeared, this information was correct or not.
8 Q. And the place of disappearance could have been determined as the
9 place where the person who had been declared missing was seen for the last
10 time? Wouldn't that be correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. For example, if a person was seen for the last time in Potocari on
13 the 11th of July 1995, you did not have any information to confirm whether
14 that person had gone to the UN base in Potocari or whether that person had
15 continued walking through the forest in the direction of Tuzla?
16 A. That is correct, but my understanding is that people who started--
17 who walked, started walking, did that from the town of Srebrenica, not
18 from Potocari, where there were many soldiers who looked -- who guarded
19 the people who had collected there.
20 Q. When it comes to the date of people's disappearance, is it
21 possible that there is a percentage of error, for example, people
22 disappeared on the 14th and they were reported as gone missing on the 15th
23 or the 12th?
24 A. That's possible, but the definition is last seen alive, or it says
25 in footnote 6 on the document you referred to, last seen -- the place last
1 seen alive or there was an eyewitness. In some cases that was also the
2 case. I remember that this was in a conflict situation so it was not like
3 people just walking off to go home or anywhere. In footnote 5, it says -
4 sorry - "This could either be the date the informant him or herself last
5 saw the person alive, or a date based on the information provided by an
6 eyewitness through the informant."
7 Q. Is it true that the Red Cross list does not contain the names of
8 the persons who were declared missing? Or who reported that -- who
9 reported on the persons who went missing?
10 A. That's correct. They have the information, I believe, but they
11 are very protective about that kind of information.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Madam Fauveau, because this needs to be
13 cleared. Your question, as I understand it, you then corrected it as you
14 went along but it still is, as it shows up in the transcript, and I want
15 to make sure that the witness has answered your question as it was
16 corrected. Your question as it appears on the transcript is, is it true
17 that the Red Cross list does not contain the names of the persons who were
18 declared missing? This is the first question. And then we have or who
19 reported that -- who reported on the persons who went missing. The
20 witness's answer is: "That's correct, they have the information, I
21 believe, but they were -- are very protective about that kind of
23 So what did the Red Cross list contain? Did it contain the names
24 of the persons who went missing?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, but not of --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: But not of the informants.
2 THE WITNESS: No.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: But not of the informants. Does that make it clear?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you,
5 Mr. President.
6 Q. When it comes to the Red Cross list, do you know when the first
7 report was made on a missing person, when a missing person was reported
8 for the first time?
9 A. In -- on.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Bosnia --
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm sorry this is --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you were speaking at the same time so we don't
14 have in the transcript Mr. McCloskey's intervention and Madam Fauveau,
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to correct a question.
17 Q. What I would like to know: When was the first piece of
18 information collected about the missing persons? Was that very soon after
19 the events that took place in July 1995?
20 A. Yes. That's my understanding, when people started to arrive in
21 Tuzla, the ICRC started questioning people or people would come forward
22 and report family members as missing. This started very soon after 11th
23 of July. But as you know also, the ICRC had already started in 1992, in
24 the former Yugoslavia, to make reports on missing persons.
25 Q. And after that, the Red Cross updated that list on several
1 occasions and published those lists on several occasions after that?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. What I would like to know, for example, if a person was declared
4 missing in July 1995, immediately after the events in Srebrenica, which
5 had to do something with Srebrenica, and who reappeared in December 1995,
6 for example, would the person, the informant who reported that person
7 missing in the first place be obliged to come back to the Red Cross and
8 correct the original information and declare that person not missing?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you informed enough to be able to give an answer
10 to this question, Dr. Brunborg?
11 THE WITNESS: I can only say that I don't think people were
12 obliged but that they felt a moral responsibility and also that ICRC
13 collected information about survivors in many -- from many different
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
16 I think we can have a break now, Madam Fauveau.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have just one more question,
18 Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
21 Q. But you cannot exclude a possibility that certain people who were
22 on the original list reappeared and this was never registered so it is
23 possible that some of the names are still on the list although those
24 people did not really go missing?
25 A. That is, of course, possible. The first list we used was
1 published in January 1997. So one and a half years after the events. And
2 I think that most people who were in fact not dead and had reappeared
3 would be taken off the lists. And we have been very careful to compare
4 different lists and compare sources of survivors to eliminate people who
5 were survivors.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Mr. President,
7 I would like to thank you for your patience. I would like to consult with
8 my client, who has signalled to me that he wanted to consult with me, and
9 as a result of that, I might have an additional question after the break
10 but for the time being, this is it.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. If that's the case, you will have every
12 opportunity, Ms. Fauveau.
13 So we'll have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank you.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau?
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, I don't
18 have any further questions.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So let's move to Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. First of all, let me ask you about the
23 Red Cross lists and I only will have one question because my colleagues
24 have exhausted quite a lot of topics with regard to those lists. You said
25 that in 95 per cent of the cases, the disappearances were reported by
1 family members. Do you have any information as to whether these family
2 members had been with the missing person in Srebrenica at the time or were
3 those some other family members that had been out of Srebrenica at the
4 moment when that person went missing? Would you know that?
5 A. No. We have no information about that. As was described in
6 footnotes referred to, place and date of last seen could have been either
7 through a witness or observed by the family member itself. So I think
8 there are both cases. In most cases my understanding was that the family
9 members were with the person but in other cases they may not have been
10 with the person.
11 Q. In any case, you don't have precise information about that?
12 A. The Red Cross may have precise information on that but we do not.
13 Q. But you did not get an insight into the information that the
14 Red Cross has. You didn't inspect that information?
15 A. We requested all the information they had but we only -- they only
16 sent us what was publicly available anyway.
17 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to a different topic now. The
18 Srebrenica enclave was in existence for about two years and three months.
19 Could you please tell us, or make an estimate or perhaps be more specific
20 about it, whether the number of population in Srebrenica, from its
21 inception until its fall, rise, stay at the same level or decrease?
22 A. There was an increase from 1991. If this estimate of 40.000 in
23 1995 is correct, then I am -- it was something more than 30.000, I think,
24 enumerated in 1991 but that was for the whole of the municipality of
25 Srebrenica. I do not recall the estimate of -- from the census of the
1 town of Srebrenica.
2 Q. Perhaps my question was not quite clear. Let me repeat: What I'm
3 interested in is the period for the Srebrenica enclave, the town and the
4 villages around it, from April 1993, so not 1991, from 1993 until the fall
5 of the enclave in 1995.
6 A. I'm sorry, but we do not have any information about the exact
7 flows of the population size in that period.
8 Q. And you couldn't even give us an estimate on whether the
9 population figures rose, decreased or stayed at approximately the same
11 A. My impression is that it was increasing during that period because
12 of the inflow of people from surrounding areas.
13 Q. Do you know of any substantial inflow -- influx of the population
14 into the Srebrenica enclave from the time when it first came into being
15 until its fall?
16 A. No. I have no exact figures but the list of missing persons
17 include many people who resided in other municipalities in 1991 and most
18 likely moved to Srebrenica then after 1991. Probably during 1993, 1994
19 and 1995 period. But we have no exact information on that.
20 Q. Thank you. We have some other information that the enclave was
21 encircled from its inception and it was not easy to get into the enclave.
22 That's why I asked you if you could explain to us what is the basis for
23 your estimates that the population figures rose from the time when the
24 enclave was set up until its fall. But you gave us your answer at any
1 I also saw -- in fact, yesterday you answered and today you
2 repeated that from the international organisations and the BH authorities,
3 you had sought lists of people who had lived in the Srebrenica enclave
4 while it was in existence, and possibly from international organisations,
5 probably regarding the refugees that had been registered after the fall of
6 the enclave, but you said that you did not receive such information. If I
7 understood you correctly, you personally did not seek this information but
8 this was done through the Office of the Prosecutor. Am I correct?
9 A. That's correct but I also asked myself organisations and persons
10 who were knowledgeable about this. I really doubt the existence of such
11 lists. I don't think there ever existed complete lists.
12 Q. Could you please tell me who did you personally contact regarding
13 those lists?
14 A. For example, as I said, the mayor of Srebrenica, various
15 organisations in Srebrenica, I think I talked to the statistical office in
16 Sarajevo, the Office of the High Representative, the OSCE, the Red Cross,
17 a number of different -- some ministries, several ministries, the MUP
19 Q. And please tell me, in those talks, since you were told that no
20 such lists had been made and you realised that there were no reliable
21 lists, I assume that you were given some data as to the figures for the
22 number -- the number of people who were actually there but you did not
23 take these figures to be reliable because there were no such lists?
24 A. That's correct. This figure about 40.000 was mentioned several
25 times, but, as I said, I did not receive any lists, which is what we
1 needed really. We needed lists of people or names, not the total figure.
2 Q. Now I would like to ask you to look at Defence Exhibit 1D312.
3 This is a very short document. It has not been translated yet. It's been
4 submitted for translation but since it is very brief I will read it to you
5 and you will get the translation from the interpreter.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it in e-court or not yet?
7 THE REGISTRAR: No, it's not in e-court.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not in e-court, okay.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it's been submitted one or
10 two days -- in fact yesterday. So could we then please put this document
11 on e-court? I'm sorry, no. What I meant was -- could you please zoom in
12 so that we can see the document? Could you maybe zoom out?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: What perhaps is more important is that it is
14 properly focused because I can barely decipher the letters. I don't know
15 if it's the document itself which is blurred but...
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I think it's actually quite
17 clear. The copy is quite clear.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Congratulations on your eyesight. It means that
19 mine is going bonkers. Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Well, this is a document drafted on the 11th of January 1994. It
22 was addressed to the office of statistics of the Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina to the section for statistics in Tuzla, and the
24 district Defence Secretariat in Tuzla and it reads as follows: "On the
25 basis of your document number 031-01/3 dated the 7th of January 1994, we
1 hereby submit the data you requested. The number of the local population
2 in the municipality, 9.791. The number of local population dislocated
3 from their homesteads within the municipality, 10.756. And the number of
4 displaced population from other municipality, 16.708.
5 "Note, we submit the data you have requested for statistical
6 purposes and you should not be providing this information to international
7 organisations because we have the calculation based on the figure of
8 45.000 people.
9 "The President of the Presidency of the Srebrenica municipality."
10 Professor, I believe that you've not seen this document before.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. I'm not sure if you've ever been given these figures by the office
13 of statistics from Sarajevo, from Tuzla or from any of the ministries that
14 you've -- that you'd contacted but I assume that even if you had been
15 given these data you would not have thought them reliable because they
16 would not have been accompanied by lists of the persons who are counted
17 here; is that so?
18 A. That is correct. And moreover, I don't see how relevant these
19 are. This is for -- dated 7th of January 1994, fully one and a half years
20 before the events took place. So a lot could have happened between
21 January 1994 and July 1995. So in that context, I do not see what -- it
22 is not irrelevant but it's not of course a reliable estimate of the
23 population in Srebrenica in 1995, July 1995.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in any case talking of 37.255.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, that's
2 Q. Now, let's leave that aside. What I am interested in, this is a
3 figure that is not substantiated by a list and I understand your mistrust
4 as a scientist, as a scholar, but in my view, when you do research, you
5 can select the documents that you want to base your research and the
6 subsequent paper on. In this case, you were tasked with providing a
7 report for this Court; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And this means that your findings will be checked by the Court and
10 the information that you based your finding on; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In other words, that the Court may reach different conclusions and
13 may give probative value to some documents that you yourself did not
14 consider to be valuable; is that correct?
15 A. Well, in this case, no, because I never -- I've not seen this
16 document before. It also in your translation it said that this document
17 was -- these figures were not to be provided to any international
18 organisation and since I then worked for an international organisation I
19 was not provided with this.
20 Q. The reason why I showed you this document is because as for the
21 reliability of all the documents, all the information that you got from no
22 matter what source, you based your assessment of the reliability of -- on
23 the presence or absence of such lists, and I showed this to you because I
24 wanted to put it to you that perhaps there wasn't an interest on the part
25 of some party not to provide such lists to you and let me remind you of
1 something else. Yesterday, you told us that the federation MUP had a
2 list, but that you did not take it to be reliable because of the chaotic
3 situation in which this list had been made. Do you remember saying that?
4 I think it's at page 85, line 11.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to the form of the question. These are
7 getting long and confusing. The witness is making a best effort to answer
8 what he thinks is being asked and this is creating confusion in the
9 record. I've not been objecting to it but if we can get short, concise
10 answers, I think we could get through this -- questions and answers.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Could you come to your question,
12 Mr. Zivanovic, and then we'll see whether it's clear enough or whether we
13 need you to explain it further.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Yesterday, you stated here that you had been given a list from the
16 BH federation MUP. It's a list for the population in Srebrenica. But
17 that it was your assessment that the list was unreliable because it had
18 been made in a chaotic situation, to paraphrase what you yourself stated
19 at page 85, line 11, if I'm not mistaken.
20 A. But I do not think that I said that I got a list for Srebrenica.
21 MUP provided me with some lists of the population of Bosnia, but no
22 particular list for Srebrenica, as far as I can remember, and no
23 particular list for Srebrenica 1995, July. Moreover, what I looked at,
24 the MUP register or list were not that good, I think. That was my
25 impression in general.
1 Q. And was this list submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor, the
2 list that you assessed to be unreliable? Did you have any opportunity to
3 actually look at it?
4 A. Well, I got a file, electronic file, with -- through the Office of
5 the Prosecutor on some part of the population of Bosnia. I do not
6 remember what date they referred to. No, this is too long ago and we
7 found out -- quickly decided that this was either of a little relevance or
8 of poor quality. One reason could be that many variables were missing and
9 it was very limited.
10 Q. You also received from international organisations and national
11 bodies, some assessments or claims as to the number of population that
12 were not substantiated by lists; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct, yes.
14 Q. What I want to point to, in order to remove any doubts about your
15 findings, perhaps it would have been good if you had appended the
16 documents that you yourself did not consider to be reliable or relevant,
17 and enabling us and the Court to assess their value. Don't you think that
18 it would have been a good idea?
19 A. Well, we cannot append or include everything received. Then we
20 would have to include thousands and thousands of pages. You have to focus
21 on what we think is interesting and relevant and of good quality, and for
22 the estimation of the number of dead or missing after the fall of
23 Srebrenica, these are the lists that were not relevant or not useful or
24 not sufficiently good quality.
25 Q. Could you please tell me now whether the decision not to include
1 the list that you deemed to be irrelevant in your report or not to base
2 your findings on the data that you considered to be unreliable, was made
3 by you or was this done in accordance with certain conditions or terms for
4 your expert report that was made to you by the Prosecution?
5 A. It was done -- these decisions were made by me consulting can
6 colleagues on the basis of my professional experience as to the relevance,
7 et cetera. For example, you mentioned lists. We had a list of the
8 complete census of Bosnia, with 4.3 million records. Are you indicating
9 that we should have included those 4.3 million records, appended that to
10 our report?
11 Q. No, no. You don't have to repeat that. You've already stated
12 that. Thank you. That's not what I meant. I was talking about some
13 documents, and some data, that you assessed to be unreliable but you may
14 have given us the opportunity to look at them and to assess them and I
15 assume that you would then decide not to include something on the same
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This -- counsel has had every
19 opportunity to request whatever he wanted from us for years now and has
20 not. So the implication in that question is inappropriate.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Zivanovic? Or
22 do you wish to pass on to your next question?
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no. I got from the
24 Prosecution everything that they disclosed to us. I didn't know what I
25 should ask. I thought that they had disclosed to us everything that was
1 related to this report. I don't think that every time we get a piece of
2 evidence from the Prosecution, we don't have to then ask them to give us
3 all the other things that they held back.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: But I think basically we need to --
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But let me move on.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Still, once you have stated what you have stated, I
7 think we need to make one thing clear, that we are talking here of good
8 practice for the purpose of the survey or study that was conducted by the
9 witness, and you're suggesting that good practice would be that such a
10 report would contain n the form of appendix, not only the documents that
11 he and his team would have relied upon but also all other documents that
12 they would have completely discarded as being unreliable. I don't know if
13 there is any such good practice that would cover also what you have
14 suggested. I mean, perhaps, the witness can enlighten us on that. I am
15 not an expert on the kind of studies, surveys, that they conduct, so
16 perhaps you can clarify this.
17 Do you know of any practice in your field where those sources that
18 are considered to be unreliable, discarded, are also appended to the
19 report, together with the sources that you choose to rely upon?
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I think you give a very good summary of
21 that. It is not good practice and not considered scientific practice to
22 include something that is irrelevant. It's considered irrelevant.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic?
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clarify, I think
25 there is -- should be a distinction drawn between appending numerous data
1 and merely for purposes of thoroughness and completeness. I think the
2 question with your permission should be: Should he include in the report
3 or is there a practice to include in the report other sources that
4 they've, because of their decision, decided not to rely upon and not to
5 include it, but to say we've identified several other sources, we feel
6 they are not reliable, but here are the sources that we have identified.
7 And then we would have asked or he can identify in his report why they
8 were not so reliable. I think that would be the more clearer question for
9 this witness.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly different from the way Mr. Zivanovic put
11 it. Do you wish to comment on that, Dr. Brunborg?
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, but it is not scientific practice to
13 include or even mention reports that were of no relevance or not used at
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Zivanovic, perhaps you may
16 proceed to your next question.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Could you please now look at another document. That's 1D314. I
19 hope it is in e-court. But let me give you the English version because
20 it's been translated, just page 1.
21 Could you please look at paragraph 3 -- no, I'm sorry, first of
22 all, you will see that this is a document of the 8th Operations Group of
23 Srebrenica, the date is the 9th of September 1994. It is addressed to the
24 2nd Corps, the security department in Tuzla. It's a weekly report.
25 Could you please look at paragraph 3? 3(a), just (a). Second
1 sentence, which reads, "A mass exodus from the enclave is underway. About
2 1.200 people have left the enclave in the last seven days, of whom
3 one-third were not armed."
4 You did not take this document into account, did you?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: When is this document dated, please?
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 9th of September 1994.
7 THE WITNESS: Sir, I've never seen this document before.
8 Moreover, I don't see how these documents have any bearing on the number
9 of missing and dead connected with the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Let me give you my view of the situation and it is very simple.
12 It's easy to take the number of the population that used to reside
13 there --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to personalising. His view is not
16 relevant. If he wants to put a view into the question, but constant
17 personalising especially this late in the day is not helpful.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we can live with what Mr. Zivanovic
19 has in mind to ask. Proceed --
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'll rephrase.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness has made a statement which you don't
22 agree with, can you just put the question to him, trying to confront him
23 with what you think -- what you believe should have been the answer?
24 [Microphone not activated] Relevant matters as they might relate to the
25 Srebrenica events?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. My first question: The number of the population in Srebrenica in
3 July 1995, is that relevant for your findings, for your report, before the
4 fall of the enclave, that is?
5 A. To a very limited extent because I was asked to estimate the total
6 number of missing and dead persons, not a proportion of those who were in
7 Srebrenica before the fall of the enclave. If I'd been asked that,
8 that -- then it would have been relevant but that was not my task.
9 Q. If I understand you correctly, your task was just to collate the
10 list of the missing persons and compare that list with the census results?
11 A. No. I was not tasked to compare it with the census. That was
12 something I thought of myself, that it would be a very useful tool. I was
13 asked to check the lists of missing persons and add -- combine different
14 lists and check the quality and come up with the total number as well as a
15 list of all the individuals that had been reported as missing, and that
16 list, with 7.775 persons, I believe, was appended to the 2000 report in
17 the Krstic case.
18 Q. Would I be right in concluding that two things were not asked from
19 you: Firstly the number that resided in Srebrenica before the fall of the
20 enclave, and the number of people who left Srebrenica after the fall of
21 the enclave? These two things were not asked from you?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
1 According to my records, there are no other Defence teams that
2 wish to cross-examine this witness. If I am wrong, but I am not, then
3 Mr. McCloskey, do you have any re-examination, redirect?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
6 Dr. Brunborg, you're free to go back to the fjords of Norway. We
7 are finished with your testimony. I thank you once more for having
8 returned to continue and finish your testimony after your first visit on
9 the 1st of February. You will receive the attention you need from our
10 staff to facilitate your return back home. On behalf of everyone, I wish
11 you a safe journey back home.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, if we can also ask that
15 Professor Radovanovic be excused as well and if the usher can assist in
16 escorting her out we would be grateful.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And I also wish to take this opportunity to
18 thank you, Madam, for having come over and assisted so capably the various
19 Defence teams that have asked you for your help. And I'm sure we will see
20 you again. Thank you.
21 Madam Usher, perhaps you can escort her too.
22 I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
23 Exhibits? Mr. McCloskey?
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, we have the list that's been
25 handed to everyone. It's the accurate list.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I have two pages here. I don't think I
2 need to go through each and every one of these exhibits unless someone
3 asks me to. This, I take it, has been circulated amongst the Defence
4 teams. Are there any objections to the admission of any of these
5 documents from any of the Defence teams? Mr. Zivanovic?
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would like to
7 tender 1D312 and 1D314 in the bundle of 3A. I apologise.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't just have better eyesight than I do but
9 you also work at a faster speed. We will come to your document, to your
10 exhibit. For the time being I'm just restricting myself to the
11 Prosecution exhibits. Any objection from the Defence teams? We hear
13 One question to you, Mr. McCloskey. Having a cursory look at
14 them, I take it that none of them needs translation. Is that correct?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: They should not, no.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think they should but I just want a
17 confirmation from you. Mostly they are lists and reports and charts.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. This is mostly Mr. Brunborg's
19 work product or international agency work.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The registrar will surf through these documents and
21 make sure that none need to have translation, none need to be translated
22 otherwise they will be marked for identification. Failing that they will
23 all be admitted accordingly as Prosecution exhibits by our staff. Thank
25 Mr. Zivanovic, unless you've changed your mind, I take it that you
1 have one document you wish to tender? Two?
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] One in its entirety, 1D312, and
3 the other part only partly, paragraph 3(a) of 1D314.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Don't you think we also ought to have
5 the heading so that we have the date and what the title of the document
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It will be the first part of the first page, if it
9 has a heading because I don't know if it has a heading. We just saw it.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be more convenient
11 to have the entire document admitted because it's not long. I don't want
12 to create any problems when it comes to the understanding of the context.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Does anyone object to that? Mr. McCloskey?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: No I agree, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. So these two documents are
16 being admitted. The first one I think still requires translation. Is
17 that correct, Mr. Zivanovic? You yourself have said that you handed it
18 over for translation.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. And I will check what's
20 happened. I asked for the translation yesterday and I'm sure it's
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey?
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just wanted to check the origin or where these
24 documents came from. Were these Prosecution collection? I didn't --
25 wasn't able to see ERN numbers or --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the source of that document, please,
2 Mr. Zivanovic?
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D312 is not from the Prosecutor's
4 collection. This was obtained from our investigator from Banja Luka
5 through the Commission of Republika Srpska for Cooperation with The Hague
6 Tribunal, and the other has been taken from the IDS.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey, it means that the Commission of
8 Republika Srpska for Cooperation has not handed you all the documents it
9 should. Am I correct in that interpretation?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, they may have and we may have it and we'll
11 check our sources. If there is something else we will get back to
12 Mr. Zivanovic.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: If you have it, it needs to be disclosed in a proper
14 manner, please. I take it that you -- if you inquire further you should
15 find it. So we can close the chapter on Dr. Brunborg's testimony and move
16 to the next witness. I take it Mr. Ostojic, you don't have any documents?
17 You do not wish to tender any documents.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, the document we used is already in
19 evidence so we have no other documents to tender at this time.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. And Madam Fauveau? Thank
21 you. And Madam Nikolic?
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] The same for us, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
24 Mr. Elderkin?
25 MR. ELDERKIN: Good afternoon, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, and welcome back.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: I wonder if I might say something briefly before
3 the witness is brought here?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: In open or in private session.
5 MR. ELDERKIN: In open session. He's testifying without
6 protective measures.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: It's simply to say that we were advised a short
9 while ago by the witnesses unit that when they were with the witness early
10 this afternoon, he seemed rather overwhelmed and at that stage they
11 weren't sure if he was in a state to testify. Now, I've spoken to him
12 and, with a translator, and he seems to be okay and is happy to come in
13 here to testify but I would say that he, during proofing, had seemed
14 pretty nervous.
15 It's the first time, I think, that he's travelled this far abroad
16 and I just wanted to draw that to your attention and also to lead on from
17 that to say that while talking with him, he indicated that insofar as his
18 memories are not clear and that maybe he will need to refresh his memory
19 that he would be more comfortable to him if his statement or relevant part
20 of his statement were to be read back to him rather than him reading it on
21 the computer screen himself. As far as our proofing has gone, it seems
22 that it's maybe something we would have to ask the Court's permission to
23 do and therefore I thought I would raise this at the outset.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Elderkin. Are there any
25 remarks from the Defence teams? Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
1 MR. BOURGON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. As long as the
2 proper procedure is followed and that the witness seems not to remember
3 something and then my colleague makes a proper application, of course we
4 will not object for the witness to be reminded of his statement but not
5 without first going through the motion of at least ensuring that it is
6 something that indeed he does not remember. Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you and what I suggest we do first,
8 following what Mr. Elderkin has pointed out, is for you, Madam Usher, or
9 Madam Registrar, we'll have a short break, if you could make a contact
10 with the victims and witnesses representative, who is assisting the
11 witness, and report back to us if there is anything they wish to alert us
12 to or if he's in a condition to testify. Either of you. It could be
13 Madam Usher. Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could be excused for just one moment?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes?
18 MR. HAYNES: I just thought I should add something to this debate.
19 We have kindly been provided with notes of Mr. Elderkin's proofing session
20 with this witness and I'm perfectly happy to see how we go along but this
21 is the position as I understand it: He has seen his witness statement
22 during the course of a proofing session and he has said that he does not
23 now recollect much of what is in there. So that's the position that we
24 are at. It's been shown to him in a room probably in a hotel and he says,
25 I don't remember that.
1 So the Prosecution aren't going to be taken by surprise if he says
2 it again now. He's already told them he doesn't know what's in his
3 witness statement. So I think we ought to be aware of the position we are
4 at at the moment.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Very good point, Mr. Haynes. I think we will need
6 to hear what the witness has to say about that, because anything could
7 have happened since he was proofed by -- he may have looked at the
8 statement again and refreshed, jogged his memory or he may still suffer
9 from loss of memory or lack of memory. Yes, Mr. Elderkin?
10 MR. ELDERKIN: I may say two things. One is that we were
11 initially unsure how well the witness could read. He says that he can
12 read reasonably well, but insofar as he's gone over his statement it's
13 been done orally rather than -- with him reading it.
14 The second point is insofar as we provided a proofing note to the
15 Defence it's incorrect to say that he's substantially forgotten a lot of
16 the statement he made. There are some changes he had identified. Apart
17 from that I would rather elicit from him what he has to say.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Elderkin. Let's not assume anything
19 because we still have to see the witness walk in the courtroom, make the
20 solemn declaration and then it's your task to start putting questions to
21 him. If he shows loss of memory on the events, well, I think we are all
22 experienced here to know how to proceed, and to what limit one could go.
23 Beyond that, I don't think there is a solution.
25 One question before we proceed. Did you consider whether it's the
1 case of reminding the witness of his rights under Rule 90 or 90(E) or not?
2 MR. ELDERKIN: It was not something that I had done,
3 Mr. President, but if Your Honours would like to go ahead.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no. I'm asking. I have no reason on the
5 basis of the scanty information that we receive --
6 MR. ELDERKIN: To be cautious, I would say yes, if we could do
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Bogdanovic.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm the Presiding Judge and on behalf of my
14 colleagues, Judge Kwon, Judge Prost and Judge Stole, I wish to welcome you
15 to this courtroom where you are going to give evidence. Let's hope that
16 your evidence doesn't last long. We'll do our utmost to make it come to
17 an end as soon as we can. In the meantime, I need to tell you something
18 which is very important. Our rules require that before you start giving
19 evidence, you make a solemn declaration, you enter to a commitment with
20 us, in a solemn manner, that you will be testifying the truth as we
21 proceed. The text is being handed to you by Madam Usher. Please read it
22 out. Let's hear you read it out.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: JEVTO BOGDANOVIC
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, sir. Please make yourself
4 Is this the first time you are testifying in this Tribunal,
5 Mr. Bogdanovic?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the first time. Either here or
7 in Yugoslavia.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You must be pretty excited. And nervous.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's good to hear. That's good to hear. We will
11 try to make your life as simple as possible here. Still everyone is doing
12 his duty and there will be several lawyers that will be putting questions
13 to you. The first to go will be Mr. Elderkin and I know that you have met
14 him already. He shouldn't take much -- too much time to finish his
15 examination-in-chief. He will then be followed by some of the Defence
16 lawyers, who also are not expected to take a long time. So if things go
17 well, you should be out and returning home pretty soon.
18 As we go along, you will be asked questions, as I explained. Now,
19 from what we have read, you seem to have lived a part of the events that
20 this Trial Chamber and this trial is interested, is concerned, with. And
21 since I only know part of the information, the rest you will be telling
22 us, I have an obligation to explain one very important right that you
23 enjoy under our rules, namely that, although I have told you that you will
24 be asked questions by various lawyers and you need to answer those
25 questions, there may be times when questions are put to you which, if you
1 answer, may prove detrimental to you, may expose you in your mind, at
2 least, to possible criminal proceedings.
3 I don't know if this is the case. Let's hope that this is not the
4 case. But if it is the case, if there is any question that is put to you
5 that you would prefer not to answer because in your mind it could expose
6 you to problems later on, then you are free to ask the Trial Chamber to
7 exempt you from answering such questions. Now, we will consider, of
8 course, what you would have to say and we will take a decision. The
9 decision may well be to accept your request and exempt you from giving
10 evidence or we may not agree with you and we order you to give your
11 answer. If we do order you to give your answer, however, that answer,
12 whatever you state, will then not be possible to use in any proceedings
13 against you. Is that clear?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Are we ready to go?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Elderkin.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Examination by Mr. Elderkin:
20 Q. Good afternoon, sir. First of all, please say your name.
21 A. Jevto Bogdanovic.
22 Q. How old are you, Mr. Bogdanovic?
23 A. 68.
24 Q. And you identify yourself as a Bosnian Serb; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Where were you born and raised?
2 A. In Gornja Pilica, Zvornik municipality.
3 Q. And you still live there?
4 A. Yes. That's still my residence.
5 Q. And you've been a farmer all your life; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I want to ask you about the war in the 1990s in Bosnia, and to
8 start, can you say in what unit you performed your military service in
9 that war?
10 A. In the battalion. I don't know the name of the unit. There was
11 the Lokanj Battalion and the Pilica Battalion. I don't know the name of
12 the units. And I was in the work platoon.
13 Q. And was your battalion part of any brigade?
14 A. Yes, the Zvornik Brigade.
15 Q. You said you were in the work platoon. Who was the platoon
17 A. Yes. Radivoje Lakic.
18 Q. And do you know what his rank was?
19 A. He was a captain. This is the rank that he had obtained from the
20 former army when he served in the army.
21 Q. Can I ask, did your workers platoon generally work in one
22 particular location?
23 A. We prepared food for the troops, and when necessary, we went to
24 the front lines to dig the trenches there.
25 Q. And the place you prepared food for the troops, did it have a
2 A. Food? You're talking about food?
3 MR ELDERKIN: I'm not sure if the translation is going correctly
4 but I may lead on this small point?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Mr. Bogdanovic, look at me.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Not at Mr. Elderkin. At me. Right opposite. Here.
8 You've just explained to Mr. Elderkin that part of the workers -- works
9 platoon was to prepare for the troops and, when necessary, you also went
10 to the front lines to dig the trenches there. Mr. Elderkin wants to know
11 in which place you and your colleagues used to prepare food for the
12 troops. In which place? Where would that be?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We prepared food at Branjevo and
14 then they took the food up there to be distributed, up there at the
15 trenches, Duge Njive, and various other places.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We didn't get the names of
17 the places.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Are the names of the places important, Mr. Elderkin?
19 MR. ELDERKIN: No.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to your next question, thank you.
21 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you.
22 Q. I'd like to ask a few questions about how you actually performed
23 your military service day to day. Did your commander have a roll call
24 every day?
25 A. You mean of the work platoon?
1 Q. Exactly.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where did he do that?
4 A. At the farm in Branjevo.
5 Q. And at any particular place at the farm?
6 A. At the farm?
7 Q. Was there a particular building or place at the farm where the
8 commander carried out the daily roll call?
9 A. There was the infirmary there, and there were also three barns
10 there where cows and pigs were kept, and we had the roll call at the
12 Q. Can you describe where in relation to Captain Lakic's house this
13 infirmary was?
14 A. Where? What do you mean? The location of what? You mean the
16 Q. I want to ask where the infirmary, where roll call took place, was
17 in relation to Captain Lakic's house.
18 A. 50 metres. That's where the infirmary was. That's where the roll
19 call was done. And his house was quite close to this area.
20 Q. Thank you. What happened if someone didn't report for work at
21 roll call?
22 A. Well, he'd send the police officers to get him. He'd make a phone
23 call. They would come. And then they would put the man in prison.
24 Q. Do you remember if these police officers you mention were civilian
25 or military police?
1 A. Which ones? No. It was not the military police.
2 Q. You mentioned just now there were some barns where cows and pigs
3 were kept. Were those animals raised by people in the workers platoon?
4 A. No. They -- these were the employees who worked there at the
5 farm. They fed these livestock and they had tractors and they grew the
6 crops. And we took only one plot of land where we grew crops for the
7 purpose of the military.
8 Q. Where in relation again to Captain Lakic's house was the area
9 where you grew crops for the military?
10 A. Well, it was very close, in the immediate vicinity, of Lakic's
11 house, just across the road.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Elderkin, I hate to interrupt, but I'm -- it's
13 just a suggestion that I'm making. Perhaps we could again simplify the
14 whole process for the witness. We have seen maps and also other documents
15 that give an indication of where the various buildings that you are
16 referring him to were situated. That includes also the approach roads.
17 Perhaps if we -- that is readily available, we could resort to that and he
18 can point them out and it will be easier for him.
19 MR. ELDERKIN: With your indulgence, Mr. President, in fact I can
20 move just to two or three simple questions that do with buildings. I
21 don't need to identify on a map which I think may cause problems but
22 simply then to follow up with those.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. It was just a suggestion.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you very much.
25 Q. You mentioned animals being raised by employees of the farm.
1 A. Pigs, yes.
2 Q. Did members of the workers platoon help raise any pigs?
3 A. No. No. We grew cabbage, peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco,
4 and then we took all that up to the kitchen by tractor and there we
5 prepared food for the troops.
6 Q. Was there a part of the farm -- or a farm of which the Branjevo
7 Military Farm was part that belonged to Agroprom?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did the workers platoon use any Agroprom buildings for storage or
10 for taking their meals or for any other activity?
11 A. No, no. None of our stuff went into the barns or was put in
12 storage there. We simply picked the vegetables and we transported it up
13 to the kitchen.
14 Q. And where did you eat your own meals? Was there a particular
16 A. At Branjevo, in front of the infirmary. We would get half a loaf
17 of bread per person and one tin, one to two tins of meat.
18 Q. Concerning your work at the farm, can I just ask you if you
19 normally returned to your home at the end of each working day?
20 A. Yes. After 3.00. Our working hours were from 7.00 until 3.00.
21 And we spent as much time at Branjevo as the troops in the trenches, in
22 two shifts.
23 Q. I want to ask you now about a new topic. And please, if you can
24 now focus on July of 1995. First of all, do you remember learning that
25 Srebrenica had been taken over by the VRS?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you remember whether that event occurred on or around a
3 particular holiday?
4 A. It was the 12th of July, St. Peter's Day.
5 Q. Do you recall receiving an order a few days after St. Peter's Day
6 to go to a school?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And where were you when you first heard about the order to go to a
10 A. I was at home, and then I was told that I should go to the school
11 because some people had been brought there.
12 Q. Who was it who told you this order?
13 A. Radivoje Lakic sent some people from the workers platoon, two men
14 came and said, "Well, Radivoje Lakic sent us. Some people had been
15 brought to the school."
16 Q. Do you remember who those two men were?
17 A. Stevo Ostojic and Rajo Jurosevic. They were together with me in
18 the workers platoon.
19 Q. Which school were you ordered to go to?
20 A. To Kula.
21 Q. And do you know if that school has any other name?
22 A. Nikola Tesla. That's the Nikola Tesla school. And it's popularly
23 known as Kula or the tower, because there is a tower standing there. It
24 was built hundreds of years ago.
25 Q. Once you had been given the order, did you go to the Kula school?
1 A. We? No, we did not. We just stood there at the door to prevent
2 them from escaping.
3 Q. From the time you received the order at your home from your two
4 colleagues, did you then go from home to the school?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When you arrived at the school, did you see other members of your
7 workers platoon there?
8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. Did any members of the works platoon go with you to the school?
10 A. I beg your pardon? Well, perhaps the reason for the fact that
11 they were not there was because it was closer for them to get there from
13 Q. Was your commander, Captain Lakic, at the school?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you see any other soldiers at the school, whether you
16 recognised them individually or not?
17 A. I didn't recognise any of them. I didn't even know what brigade
18 or company they were from. But there were soldiers there.
19 Q. When you arrived at the school, what were you told to do?
20 A. Well, to put them on buses so that they can be taken -- driven
22 Q. Were you given orders when you arrived to stand guard?
23 A. Yes, yes. We stood guard there at the school, so that these
24 people could be put on the buses, and then driven some place else.
25 Q. Do you remember who told you to stand guard when you got to the
2 A. Well, how should I know? There were some soldiers there. They
3 lined us up there, and they told us that.
4 Q. Did your commander himself tell you anything?
5 A. No. You mean Radivoje?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. No, he did not.
8 Q. Where did you go to stand guard? Can you describe in relation to
9 the school building, if possible?
10 A. At the entrance, at the door.
11 Q. Is this door on the side of the road or the side away from the
13 A. Towards the -- towards the road. There is a large iron gate, and
14 that's where they were put, and we guarded them there. And then outside
15 of the window, there was the security.
16 Q. From the position where you were standing guard, could you see
17 into the school at all?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you see people inside the school?
20 A. Yes, because the windows are pretty low. So we could see them
21 quite easily.
22 Q. How many people could you see inside?
23 A. Well, how should I know? I didn't count them.
24 Q. Would you say there were few people or many people, or can't you
1 A. Well, it was quite crowded and they were -- when they were loaded
2 on the buses, the buses were crammed too, so I can't really tell you.
3 Q. What kind of clothing were these people wearing? Were they
4 military clothing or were they wearing civilian clothing?
5 A. Civilian clothing. They were in -- some were in their underwear,
6 vests. Some wore their boots. Whatever they happened to have on. But
7 they were civilians, yes.
8 Q. And how were these people arranged inside the school? Were they
9 standing or seated?
10 A. They were seated.
11 Q. Do you remember what the temperature was like that day, the
13 A. Maybe 20 degrees. It was a warm day.
14 Q. What were the conditions like for the people inside the school?
15 Do you know?
16 A. Well, they were thirsty. They were hungry. We gave them some
17 water through the window for them to drink and so on.
18 Q. Do you know how these people had been brought to the school?
19 A. By bus.
20 Q. Did you see any buses then?
21 A. Yes. I saw four buses on my way from my house, and that's where
22 they were put on and taken from there.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think this needs some clarification. The buses,
24 the four buses that you saw on your way from your house, which direction
25 were they going to? Were they going to the direction of the school at --
1 Kula school, or were they coming from that direction?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know where they had
3 come from but they were leaving from the school towards the hall. That's
4 what I think.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: That the answer is still
6 not quite clear.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I intervened, Mr. Elderkin, because your question
8 was directed as to whether he knew where they had been brought from or how
9 they had been brought over to the school. He's your witness. I give him
10 back to you.
11 MR. ELDERKIN: I'm grateful for your assistance, Mr. President.
12 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, you just said that -- now, talking about the buses
13 leaving the school -- that they were leaving from the school towards the
14 hall. Which hall do you mean?
15 A. I'm talking about the hall in Pilica. So they were taken from the
16 school to Pilica.
17 Q. Again talking about this afternoon that you spent on guard at the
18 school in Kula, do you recall seeing any bodies that day in or around the
20 A. Yes, around the school, nine bodies, dead bodies. That's what I
21 stated in 2005, when I gave my statement.
22 Q. Where were these bodies, if you can describe again, in relation to
23 the school?
24 A. 50 metres from the school, to the left.
25 Q. And what happened to those bodies?
1 A. To the left of the road, 50 metres from the school.
2 Q. What happened to those bodies?
3 A. Well, they were put on a tractor-trailer and taken away. When the
4 live ones were taken away, then the dead bodies were put on the
5 tractor-trailer and also taken away.
6 Q. Who was lifting those bodies into the tractor-trailer?
7 A. We did. They forced us to do that, to put the bodies in there,
8 and then they made a man to drive the tractor.
9 Q. While you were on guard that afternoon?
10 A. We, we, the locals. We loaded them. And then this man drove the
11 tractor away.
12 Q. Thank you. While you were on guard, did the prisoners leave the
14 A. Yes. They were leaving, slowly, and we stood there, stood guard,
15 lest they should escape, and they simply put them away, put them there,
16 two by two.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One question, Mr. Elderkin, hasn't been covered.
18 There were three of them from the workers group that went to Kula school,
19 the witness, Stevo and Rajo.
20 Mr. Bogdanovic, were you armed? Were you given a weapon? Were
21 you given a weapon?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So you were sent to guard these prisoners without
24 carrying a weapon?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Elderkin.
2 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Finally, the day that you were on guard, what time did you go home
4 that day?
5 A. At around 4.00 p.m.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: Mr. President, the next set of questions I have
7 concern the following day and a discrete set of events. It would be
8 worthwhile having them all in one block. I'm not sure if the five minutes
9 is a bit too short. It won't be much more.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: As you wish, Mr. Elderkin.
11 Mr. Bogdanovic, we are going to have a short break, which will
12 give you time to rest a bit. And then we will continue. Madam Usher, if
13 you could kindly escort the witness.
14 One matter, I wanted to alert you to before we break.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: About half an hour ago we finished the exhibit
17 process, tendering process, in relation to Dr. Brunborg, and we admitted
18 all the documents that were tendered. It's being suggested to us that
19 P02416, P02417, P02418 and P02422 should be admitted -- should be kept
20 under seal. Is there any opposition to that?
21 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic?
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau?
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So those four documents, I don't need to
2 repeat the 65 ter number, will be kept under seal. Thank you.
3 We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank you.
4 --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Elderkin. You may proceed.
7 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, I'd like to talk to you now about the following
9 day, the day after you were on guard at the Kula school. That next
10 morning, did you go to work at the Branjevo Military Farm?
11 A. Yes, yes, I did.
12 Q. And did Captain Lakic have a roll call that morning?
13 A. Yes. He had a roll call and said that we should go there because
14 some people had been brought there.
15 Q. Where was it that he said you should go?
16 A. He said that at the infirmary, which was our assembly point. This
17 is where we all got together.
18 Q. And when he spoke to you at the infirmary that morning, where was
19 it that he told you you had to go to that day? What place?
20 A. That we should go to Pilica because some people had been brought
22 Q. And did you go to Pilica?
23 A. Yes. And he actually went there with us.
24 Q. And as well as you and Captain Lakic, did the other members of the
25 work platoon go with you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you remember any of their names, the ones who came with you?
3 A. Maybe two or three of them, because there were some other people
4 from other villages and I don't remember them.
5 Q. Could you tell us the names that you do remember?
6 A. Jovan Ilic, Rajo Jurosevic and Stevo Ostojic. These are the three
7 names that I know. And Vojo Lakic.
8 Q. As you walked from the Branjevo Military Farm to the Pilica Dom
9 that morning, do you remember seeing anything unusual along the side of
10 the road or near the road?
11 A. We saw some dead bodies, people who had been shot to death.
12 Q. Where did you see those bodies?
13 A. As you go from the farm towards Pilica.
14 Q. Can you say how many bodies you saw?
15 A. About 10 bodies.
16 Q. And what kind of clothes were they wearing? Again, were they
17 civilian clothes, military clothes?
18 A. Civilian.
19 Q. When you arrived at the Pilica Dom -- sorry, if I could rephrase.
20 Being from Pilica, is the dom a building that you know well?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What was this building normally used for?
23 A. Well, it was a youth hall and some shows would be presented there.
24 Q. What kind of rooms were there inside the dom?
25 A. It was quite simple. There was just one hall, kind of a sports
1 hall or a gym, just one room.
2 Q. That morning, when you arrived at the dom, were there any soldiers
3 there other than your works platoon colleagues?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you tell what kind of soldiers they were, for example,
6 infantry or military police or civilian police?
7 A. They were soldiers. I don't really know what unit they belonged
8 to, what battalion. How should I know?
9 Q. What were those soldiers doing when you arrived at the dom?
10 A. Well, they were securing the area. They didn't allow the locals,
11 the villagers, to get in there.
12 Q. And for the securing operation, could you see who appeared to be
13 conducting it or who was in charge, the civilian authorities or the army?
14 A. I couldn't tell you. We just loaded and took things out of the
15 hall. I don't know who was in command of the overall operation there.
16 Q. Other than your works platoon colleagues, did you recognise
17 anybody else there?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Was your commander, Captain Lakic, there?
20 A. Yes, he was. He was there for as long as we were.
21 Q. And when you arrived at the dom, did Captain Lakic give you any
23 Is that okay? Can you hear okay now?
24 A. Yes, yes, I can hear.
25 Q. I'll ask my question again. When you arrived at the dom, did
1 Captain Lakic give you any orders?
2 A. Yes. He ordered us to load the dead bodies on to the two trucks
3 that had arrived.
4 Q. Can you explain to us how you carried out this loading? Where the
5 trucks were, what it was you did to get the bodies into these trucks?
6 A. The trucks reversed to the -- into the gate and then we put some
7 planks on and we -- we put the bodies on. We reversed the truck to the
8 gate, put two thick planks and then the two of us would grab each body,
9 one would grab the arms and the other one would grab the legs and then we
10 would just load them on to the truck.
11 Q. I just want to ask you about the trucks. Can you describe them,
12 their size, the kind of vehicle they were?
13 A. They were yellow. They were tipper trucks. I don't know if you
14 know that. They are used to carry gravel, that kind of cargo.
15 Q. Do you know who was driving the trucks that day?
16 A. I don't know. I don't know who drove the trucks.
17 Q. Who else was carrying the corpses with you?
18 A. I beg your pardon?
19 Q. Apart from you, who was also carrying the bodies into the trucks?
20 A. Well, the workers platoon. There were 12 of them and I don't know
21 why it is that not one of them wants to admit to that fact. It will turn
22 out in the end that I was the only one who was doing that, that I was the
23 only man there doing that. And yet there were 12 of us.
24 Q. Sir, I know this subject matter I'm talking about this day is
25 difficult, but please say at any point if you do want to have a break.
1 I'll continue to ask questions but please let me know if you want to have
2 a few minutes.
3 You talked about loading corpses into the trucks.
4 A. Well, if you want to make a break, you can go ahead. But...
5 Q. Would you like to, sir?
6 A. I beg your pardon?
7 Q. Would you like to have a break?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogdanovic, look at me.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, don't ask me. If you want,
10 you just do whatever you want. Don't make a break on my account.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed. And Mr. Bogdanovic, if you at
12 any time feel tired or you wish us to stop, we will do that.
13 MR. ELDERKIN:
14 Q. Where were the corpses --
15 THE WITNESS: I'm not tired.
16 MR. ELDERKIN:
17 Q. Where were the corpses you were loading? Were they inside the dom
18 or outside?
19 A. They were inside the dom. They were piled up on each other, just
20 lying there scattered all over the place.
21 Q. Was anyone alive in there?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were their bodies of men only or were there bodies of men and
25 A. Only two women, only two women.
1 Q. The bodies that you saw, were they dressed in military clothing or
2 civilian clothing?
3 A. The bodies, civilian, civilian clothing. They were all dressed in
4 civilian clothes.
5 Q. From what you saw inside the dom that day, did it appear to you
6 that those people were killed in the dom or somewhere else?
7 A. In the dom.
8 Q. This next question, it may not be easy for you but I would ask if
9 you could please describe the condition of the bodies that you and your
10 Pilica-Lokanj Battalion colleagues from moving out of the dom. Please,
11 could you tell the Judges, even if it is difficult for you, what the
12 condition was of these bodies?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon?
14 MR. BOURGON: I just wonder this is relevant.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. I mean, I don't know what he is
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think for the time being we need to proceed
19 and then if it obviously turns out not to be relevant we'll stop. Yes,
20 Mr. Meek?
21 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honour, I think he's already
22 answered the question when he said that the bodies were dead. And to go
23 any further than that, the Prosecution is just trying to raise sympathy
24 and inflame --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let us direct the orchestra.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.
3 Mr. Bogdanovic, I think I will read out again the question that
4 Mr. Elderkin put to you. It's a very simple one, if you can answer
5 it. "What was the condition of these bodies that you saw there at the
6 Pilica Dom?" You have already told us that they were dead, all dead.
7 What else can you tell us about how --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, some were curled up, some were
9 stretched out. There was this huge pile and they were piled up, one over
10 another. They were dead.
11 MR. ELDERKIN:
12 Q. How was it that you and your colleagues carrying the bodies were
13 able to keep going with that kind of work that day?
14 A. It was close. The trucks reversed all the way to the door. We
15 then mounted two wooden boards from the door to the truck, and then we
16 dragged the body up the wooden boards.
17 Q. Were you drinking anything that day to sustain yourself?
18 A. Yes. We did.
19 Q. Where was your commander, Captain Lakic, during this time?
20 A. He was there, close to us.
21 Q. Do you recall approximately what time of the day it was that you
22 finished this work?
23 A. 3.00 p.m.
24 Q. When you were drinking that day, could you say what it was you
25 were drinking?
1 A. Rakija brandy.
2 Q. Where did you get that?
3 A. Neighbours, the locals, brought that to us. We drank for courage,
4 to be able to sustain looking at the blood and the bodies, and the brains
5 of the people.
6 Q. During the course of that day, did you hear anybody mention a
7 number of how many bodies were in the dom?
8 A. I heard somebody on the road saying that there were 550, but we
9 ourselves did not count.
10 Q. But based on your work that day, does that number seem a
11 reasonable number to you?
12 A. Well, it does. It should.
13 MR. ELDERKIN: Excuse me for one moment, Mr. President, if I could
14 ask my colleagues.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. ELDERKIN:
17 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, thank you for talking about that day for us. I
18 just want to ask a few more questions, back in the more general period, to
19 do with your work at the Branjevo Farm, and I want to start by asking if
20 you remember talking to myself, my colleagues, in the last two days and
21 talking about the work and the places you worked at the farm?
22 A. What do you mean? After those days? When?
23 Q. Do you recall talking with me and some of my colleagues yesterday
24 and today about your work?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes?
1 MR. HAYNES: I'd just like to know where this is going.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Where is it going, Mr. Elderkin? So far we
3 haven't had any indications of -- why don't you go straight to the point?
4 MR. ELDERKIN: I can explain where it's going certainly,
5 Mr. President. The location of the killings that took place at the farm
6 took place in certain areas. We want to know --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go straight.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: If I could in that case ask for a photograph which
9 is in page 212 of Exhibit P02103 to be shown to the witness.
10 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, please could I ask you to look --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- at the photograph that should be appearing on the screen in
13 front of you?
14 A. Yes. You mean this photo? This is Branjevo.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me --
16 A. Branjevo, the farm, Ekonomija.
17 Q. In the photograph, did you see there are two long, low buildings
18 at the left-hand side of the photograph. Can you say what --
19 A. These are the barns, the cow-sheds and this is the
20 Bijeljina-Zvornik road. And this is where the road forks off towards the
21 farm buildings.
22 Q. And are these buildings on the land of the military farm?
23 A. No, no, they are not.
24 Q. What were these two barns or stables used for, do you know?
25 A. For cattle and for pigs and for horses. That's where they were
2 Q. Do you remember if members or any other member of your workers
3 platoon went to these buildings ever?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did they do in these buildings?
6 A. In this building here, we stored corn, maize and this is the
7 garage, their garage.
8 Q. Were you talking about the single building to the right, sir?
9 A. This is where we cleaned the corn and this is where the pigs were
10 and this is where the cattle was.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need the usher's assistance. Let's start
12 more or less from the beginning. Can he, with the gadget that they had
13 given you, point, mark, the two buildings that you said were the places,
14 the cow, the barns, the cow-sheds.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you put an X on both of them?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will I be able to do that? [Marks]
18 Ah, I am. And you want me to put something here as well?
19 MR. ELDERKIN:
20 Q. If you could use perhaps a circle for the other building. I'm not
21 sure I'm seeing anything on -- could you tell us first, Mr. Bogdanovic,
22 the two buildings marked with X, you told us that workers would go to
23 those buildings to raise cattle, those are the two with the X you've
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And there is a third building in the picture, just to their right.
2 Could you tell us what that building was used for by members of the
3 workers platoon?
4 A. This one here? This one here?
5 Q. If could you draw a circle there, I think it is that one.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. What did the works platoon use that building for?
8 A. They didn't use it for anything.
9 Q. Who did use that building?
10 A. Only -- the workers who used to serve things on the farm used it.
11 This is the Semberija agriculture combine who gave us three or four
12 hectares of land to use to grow crops on that land for the military, that
14 Q. And can you see on this photograph, or can you say in relation to
15 this photograph, otherwise the place where you used to eat your lunches?
16 A. When it was raining, we used to eat here where this door is. This
17 is where we took shelter from the rain. The cattle was here and if it was
18 raining we would go find shelter over there. And this is where the
19 tractors and other agricultural machinery was.
20 Q. Would you please mark with an arrow the door you mentioned just
21 now where you said you'd eat in the rain?
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. And finally, I don't need to ask you any more to use the magic pen
24 but could you tell us how far it is from these two barns to the infirmary
25 or to Captain Lakic's house?
1 A. About 150 metres.
2 Q. Excuse me for one moment.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. ELDERKIN:
5 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, thank you very much. You should be asked to sign
6 your name?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Just his initials would suffice. Just your
8 initials, please.
9 THE WITNESS: What kind of letters?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, J for Jevto and B for Bogdanovic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Top left or right, wherever you like.
13 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we require today's date?
15 MR. ELDERKIN: If Mr. Bogdanovic wouldn't mind writing it.
16 Otherwise --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could put 10, 5, 07, that's today's date,
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bogdanovic. And thank you,
21 Mr. Elderkin.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. We've got 15 minutes to go. I have on
24 my list the Popovic, Beara, Nikolic and Pandurevic teams that have asked
25 for 20 minutes each. Let's start with you, Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have no questions, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I have also noticed Ms. Fauveau on -- you asked for
3 ten minutes?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We don't have
5 any questions for this witness, but I would like to ask for five minutes
6 before we adjourn to raise an issue.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Beara team?
8 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. President. We have no questions for this
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Nikolic team? Mr. Bourgon?
11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions for
12 the witness.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. And if you could stop, limit yourself to
14 about eight minutes?
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Doesn't mean to say if you're not finished you will
17 not continue tomorrow. Don't misunderstand me.
18 MR. BOURGON: Thank you.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bogdanovic.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. You've been asked questions by the Prosecution as to how difficult
23 it was for you to remove these bodies from the dom on that day. But the
24 Prosecution failed to ask you the most important question. I suggest to
25 you that either yourself and the people that were with you, you had
1 absolutely nothing to do with those bodies that were in the dom at that
2 day; is that correct, Mr. Bogdanovic?
3 A. What do you mean? What connection are you talking about?
4 Q. I'm simply suggesting to you that you don't know who killed those
5 people and you had nothing to do with those killings. You were just asked
6 to go and carry bodies, nothing else?
7 A. No connection whatsoever. Of course, no.
8 Q. That's what I thought was important for you to mention, that you
9 had nothing to do with that, because the Prosecution failed to ask you
10 that question.
11 Now --
12 A. None whatsoever.
13 Q. And my next question is you mentioned something about seeing some
14 bodies at the school the day prior to that?
15 A. Yes, at the school.
16 Q. And you said that you were forced to carry those bodies on to some
17 kind of a truck or a trailer.
18 A. Yes, a tractor-trailer and they were driven away, nine pieces,
19 nine human bodies. I don't know what to call them.
20 Q. And those people, Mr. Bogdanovic, who forced you to do that, those
21 are the soldiers that you didn't know who they were; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I don't know who they were, what brigade, who they were. I
23 don't know who brought them there.
24 Q. Now, the bodies that you saw going to -- going to the dom on the
25 second day, you mentioned seeing ten bodies in the field. I take it that
1 you also had nothing to do with the death of these people; is that
3 A. We saw that in the morning on the way to the dom, and on the
4 following day, when we came to load them, they were gone when we came from
6 Q. And you have nothing to do with the death of these people, do you?
7 A. No, no.
8 Q. You don't know when or how they were killed?
9 A. They were not killed by anybody from Zvornik, the battalion or --
10 I don't know. I really -- I don't know where they came from. I haven't a
12 Q. And you yourself, Mr. Bogdanovic, you never went into that school,
13 did you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Now, you mentioned in response to a question by my colleague that
16 you could see some people inside the school, just like you knew -- can you
17 confirm whether this was on the ground floor or the first floor that you
18 could see people through the window?
19 A. The first floor.
20 Q. So if you can just look at me for one moment, on the first floor
21 meaning -- Mr. Bogdanovic, here. So when you say first floor, I mean you
22 were looking up through the window, is that what you mean by looking at
23 the first floor?
24 A. The first floor is the ground floor actually. And they were all
25 on the first floor, in the gym. They were not on the upper floor. And
1 that's why we could see them. The windows are quite large so we could
2 look at them.
3 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Bogdanovic. I have no further questions.
4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much. Mr. Haynes, do you have any
7 MR. HAYNES: Yes. And I think I can probably do it in five
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
11 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, was your home very far from the school in Pilica,
12 this Kula school?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. About how far was it?
15 A. To my house? A kilometre and a half.
16 Q. And what about Stevo Ostojic and Rajo Jurosevic? Did they live
17 near to you?
18 A. No. They are a bit further.
19 Q. So that I understand the position, they came to your house and
20 asked you to go to the Kula school; is that right?
21 A. Yes, because there were some people who had been brought there and
22 so on and so forth.
23 Q. And was that of some concern to the people who lived nearby to the
24 school and in the area you lived in?
25 A. But of course. Of course it was of concern.
1 Q. And were you and Stevo Ostojic and Rajo Jurosevic worried about
2 what might happen to people who lived nearby, including your own families?
3 A. Of course we were worried.
4 Q. Now, do I take it that on that day, you were not required to go
5 and report for duty at Branjevo Farm?
6 A. We did and then Lakic told us to go to have a rest and then we all
7 went home.
8 Q. Let me ask you this: Did you regularly report for work at
9 Branjevo Farm on a Sunday?
10 A. Yes, regularly. But we didn't work on Sunday. We worked for as
11 many days as the troops were on the line, and if they were on the lines
12 for five days, we worked for five days. We worked in two shifts, 12 men
13 in each shift.
14 Q. So on occasion, it would be usual for you not to report for work
15 on a Sunday and there would be nobody working at the farm; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you recall whether the day when you went to Kula school was a
18 Sunday or not?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Just one or two more questions, please, if I may. Did you only
21 prepare food at the farm for the soldiers in your own battalion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you very much.
24 A. The Pilica Battalion and the Lokanj Battalion. We dug potatoes,
25 we drove those potatoes to the kitchen, we cooked them, and then we either
1 used horses or tractors to distribute the potatoes and food from one
2 trench to another. That's what we did.
3 Q. Thank you for that very full answer. And is it right that in July
4 of 1995 you still regarded yourself as being part of the
5 Pilica-Lokanj Battalion rather than any other?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Lastly this: Two questions. When you were in Pilica at the dom,
8 it's right, isn't it, that the dead bodies represented a health hazard and
9 a risk for the people who lived nearby there?
10 A. But of course. And we did not have any protective means, no
11 gloves. I came home covered in blood. I burnt my clothes. There was
12 nothing else for me to do.
13 Q. And the people who lived nearby were very grateful that you were
14 doing this and they gave you rakija to fortify you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when you were there, I think you recognised some of the men in
17 uniform as being the policemen who regularly came to get you if you didn't
18 report for work, didn't you?
19 A. I didn't know them. I did not recognise any of our men. I don't
20 know which brigade or battalion brought them over there. I don't know who
21 they were.
22 Q. Mr. Bogdanovic, thank you very much.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Do you have a re-examination?
24 MR. ELDERKIN: No, Your Honour.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Bogdanovic, you told us about the nine bodies
2 that you saw at the Kula school. Could you just tell us what kind of
3 clothing those bodies had on? Was it military clothing or civilian
5 A. Civilian, civilian clothing. Boots. But they had lost them
6 probably during the night when they were running and when they took these
7 people away finally they had to drag the bodies away as well. I don't
9 JUDGE PROST: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bogdanovic. Thank you for coming to
11 give evidence and on behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish you a safe
12 journey back home. Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
17 like to inform the Trial Chamber that the document that my colleague,
18 Mr. Zivanovic presented, which is 1D112 [as interpreted], for which the
19 Prosecutor asked for the source, this is in the Prosecutor's collection
20 under the number DA176530. But I would like to raise the following issue.
21 How come that this document has not been disclosed to us? Several people
22 who resided in Srebrenica, and the Prosecutor says it is not important how
23 many, it may not be important but we are talking about two facts on which
24 decisions were made in the cases of Blagojevic and Krstic which were
25 accepted as accepted facts in this case.
1 Under 2, this document refers to the humanitarian aid and the
2 humanitarian aid had to do with the counts in the indictment relative to
3 my client. I know that the Prosecutor has a totally different concept
4 with regard to Article 68, Rule 68, that is, and I know that some
5 documents do not relate to that rule. However, irrespective of that, I
6 believe that this document should have been disclosed to the Defence and
7 now what I would like to ask the Trial Chamber to do is to order the
8 Prosecutor to investigate how long they've had that document and also to
9 disclose to us any other document relative to the number of people who
10 resided in Srebrenica before its fall and all documents relative to the
11 humanitarian aid. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau for that information and
13 request. I think, Mr. McCloskey, we can adjourn today because our time is
14 over, but we expect you to come back with your reaction to the issues
15 raised by Madam Fauveau, and also, if possible, inform us whether you are
16 aware of other documents, maybe in the same collection.
17 Madam Fauveau, just to make sure, it is 1D312, isn't it, not 112?
18 MS. FAUVEAU: Yes, Mr. President, 1D312.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. So we'll revisit this
20 tomorrow morning. We are sitting in the morning tomorrow. You will all
21 recall that. We'll have our next witness and then we can break for the
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We only have one witness left, as you may
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of May,
3 2007, at 9.00 a.m.