1 Tuesday, 5th February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
6 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am.
10 All the accused are present. I notice the absence of Mr. Meek.
11 And the prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Thayer.
12 Yes. You would have noticed the absence of Judge Kwon. He's on
13 official business which I authorised, because we had planned to finish the
14 Prosecution case on the 1st and then it was a point of no return, and so
15 he won't be with us for the rest of the week. So we are sitting pursuant
16 to Rule 15 bis.
17 Any preliminaries?
18 Yes, Mr. Josse.
19 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, on Friday, after the Court's oral
20 decision in relation to the calling of Witness 195, I indicated, on behalf
21 of my client, that we needed some time to consider the issue of
22 certification. We do wish to apply for certification of that decision.
23 My oral submission will take no more than five minutes. I will make it at
24 whatever juncture today the Court feels is convenient.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse. Let me consult with my
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse, you may proceed now.
4 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, before I turn to the criteria under the
5 Rule itself, in effect these are the matters that we would wish to pursue
6 on appeal in relation to this matter:
7 Firstly, the failure of the Trial Chamber to give proper time to
8 the Defence of General Gvero to reply to the Prosecution motion in the
9 first place. In particular, by reason of that failure, the fact that it
10 prevented the Defence researching fully and properly factual and legal
11 matters that arose, in particular the issue of prejudice to the accused by
12 reason of the lateness of the motion and the lateness of the addition of
13 the name to the 65 ter witness list.
14 So far as the decision itself is concerned, the failure by the
15 Trial Chamber to apply the law properly in relation to the issue of
16 prejudice and, in any event, in other words, in the alternative, the wrong
17 use of discretion in relation to the same issue, namely, prejudice.
18 Thirdly, the failure of the Trial Chamber to allow the Defence
19 proper time to prepare for the witness prior to her testimony,
20 particularly bearing in mind the practice applied in this case hitherto in
21 relation to all or virtually all previous witnesses who have given their
22 evidence. And, finally, the over-slavish adherence by the Trial Chamber
23 to the existing schedule, to the grave potential detriment to my client.
24 So far as the Rule itself is concerned, as is well-known - and I'm
25 not going to spend very long on this at all - there are two hurdles that
1 an applicant needs to overcome. So far as the first hurdle is concerned,
2 it's either that the issue would affect significantly the fair and
3 expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial. It's
4 really the words "outcome of the trial" that we rely upon here. As has
5 been accepted by both the Prosecution and the Defence, and indeed the
6 decision itself used the words "important point," this is an important
7 issue, and as such it is beyond doubt one which we submit would
8 significantly affect the outcome of the trial, and therefore would benefit
9 from a resolution by the Appeals Chamber.
10 Of course, there's a second limb that we also need to overcome,
11 and that is in relation to an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber
12 may materially advance the proceedings. Firstly, we emphasise the rule
13 "may" in the Rule, so far as that is concerned. Secondly, so far as the
14 immediate resolution is concerned, it's important because it clearly is
15 going to affect how the Defence intends and will address the issue when it
16 comes to our turn. Our consideration would be completely different,
17 depending on whether or not this particular witness gives her evidence.
18 And we can test this another way, and that is in relation to our
19 application for the recall of certain Prosecution witnesses.
20 The Defence have stated categorically and have demonstrated, in
21 fact, that they weren't going to seek the recall of the witnesses on the
22 evidence on this point hitherto. However, the Defence have now said they
23 will seek the recall of these witnesses.
24 An immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber would materially
25 advance the proceedings in that regard, because it would clarify whether
1 those witnesses need to be recalled, and therefore the proceedings would
2 be much clearer. And in particular, in short, we say that if this
3 important issue was ruled upon at this particular juncture, namely,
4 whether this important piece of corroborative evidence should be called or
5 not, it would clearly affect the outcome of the trial and may undoubtedly
6 materially affect -- advance the proceedings.
7 In conclusion, could we submit this, Your Honour, and I know I've
8 said it before and I'm going to sound like a broken gramophone here, but I
9 make no apologies for it, extraneous considerations in relation to
10 scheduling and time restraints are exactly that, extraneous, and they
11 should play no part in the Trial Chamber's decision under Rule 73, which
12 makes no reference to scheduling considerations.
13 Those are our submissions.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Josse.
15 Mr. McCloskey or Mr. Thayer, would you like to respond? Very
16 briefly, please, not much longer than Mr. Josse.
17 MR. THAYER: Certainly, Mr. President.
18 Good afternoon to you and Your Honours. Good afternoon to
19 everyone. It will certainly be brief, because I wasn't aware that we
20 would be orally addressing this this afternoon.
21 Nevertheless, suffice it to say that it's the Prosecution's
22 position that the Defence has met neither prong of Rule 73, and in
23 particular I note the absence of any reference to the Trial Chamber's fair
24 and reasonable approach to this new evidence, which entails permitting the
25 technical reopening of the Prosecution's case prior to any Defence case
1 presented by the Gvero team, ultimately of course depending on the outcome
2 of the 98 bis proceedings. That measure -- that measure that the Trial
3 Chamber imposed in its oral decision of last Friday, I think, satisfies
4 all of these concerns. It permits this investigation to be concluded,
5 should the Defence in the end think that that testimony is even worth for
6 it to bring out. That avenue that the Court laid open, I think, defeats
7 any of the grounds upon which my friend is seeking certification under
8 Rule 73.
9 And once again, despite the prior notice of this issue, dating all
10 the way back to the first week of November, my friend has not presented
11 one wit of evidence either or authority in law or in fact about how he is
12 going to be prejudiced. It is speculative. He referred to grave
13 potential detriment. There has been no -- no authority cited to this
14 Court at all at any point on that issue. For that reason, I think the
15 certification motion, respectfully, should be denied.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Thayer.
17 We'll come back to you with our decision at the earliest.
18 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Judges. Good afternoon,
22 Mr. President, there are two issues I would like to briefly
23 address the Trial Chamber. The first one relates to the admissibility of
24 Exhibits 685 and 686, which are the narratives prepared by the witness
25 Richard Butler to which I referred last Friday. Mr. President, some of
1 the Defence team and possibly all Defence teams will be filing a joint
2 motion challenging the admissibility of the narratives prepared by Richard
3 Butler, and due to the fact that -- or due to the duration of his
4 testimony and the need to refer to this testimony in our motion, I hereby
5 apply and seek leave from the Trial Chamber to exceed the normal word
6 limit and to file a motion not exceeding 6.000 words.
7 Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to respond to that, Mr. McCloskey?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would object to the exceeding the word limit.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Permission is granted, Mr. Bourgon. However,
12 I'm sure Mr. Josse will agree with us, this is certainly not an extraneous
13 matter. It's in your own interest, considering the proximity of the Rule
14 98 bis to file this with the utmost clarity so that we can do our utmost
15 to decide it in good time for you to know whether these reports or
16 findings would be taken into consideration in the course of the Rule 98
17 bis exercise.
18 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 We have been coordinating over the weekend, and this motion can be
20 filed today, probably, but we wanted to be sure about the asking
21 permission to exceed the word limit before the motion is filed, in
22 accordance with the practice direction.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: That permission is granted. That's the first one.
24 You had a second one?
25 MR. BOURGON: The second topic, Mr. President, deals with what the
1 Trial Chamber ruled last week concerning the Prosecution's 92 quater
2 motion, that the impact thereof would not be considered for the Rule 98
3 bis purposes. I would just like to know, Mr. President, is: Can we
4 expect a ruling in writing on this issue? And the reason I ask is simply
5 because there might be the need to call some further witnesses for further
6 cross-examination, and this has not been addressed in the oral decision
7 that was given by the Chamber on Friday.
8 Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we made our position clear. For the purpose
10 of Rule 98 bis, it's as if we don't have on our table that motion at all.
11 In other words, there is no 92 quater evidence that are in the record and
12 that will be referred to by the Trial Chamber in reaching its decision.
13 However, yes, of course there will be a decision later on. I mean, this
14 decision that we are taking now, in other words, to keep that material out
15 of the records for the purpose of Rule 98 bis, we have decided it. I
16 don't think we need to put that in writing. You have our word. But then
17 there will be a written decision on the motion itself, after of course
18 having received your responses which you will take the normal time.
19 I mean, we are not restricting the time limits for the filing of
20 those motions. File them within the time limit and then we will decide
21 it. We will obviously not decide it before the Rule 98 bis exercise,
22 because the purpose of our previous decision was precisely that, that we
23 will give this matter, which is of importance, our absolute attention, and
24 then we'll decide it later on, when we are ready. Okay?
25 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
2 Before we bring in the witness, Mr. McCloskey and members of the
3 Defence teams, I refer you to Prosecution motion of the 31st of January,
4 seeking leave to amend the 65 ter exhibit list with two exhibits
5 pertaining to this witness. There are not going to be any protective
6 measures for this witness, are there?
7 Mr. Thayer.
8 MR. THAYER: No, there are not, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So Witness 192, Tomic, anyway.
10 Is there any objection on the part of any of the Defence teams?
11 All right, thank you.
12 So the motion is granted, Mr. McCloskey or Mr. Thayer. Who will
13 be leading this witness? I take it Mr. Thayer.
14 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we bring in the witness ...
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. In relation to the documents arising from
20 Butler's testimony, my original idea was to ask you, very briefly, whether
21 you anticipate a long debate or not, in the absence of which my intention
22 was to proceed today with the tendering process. I was not anticipating,
23 of course, what Mr. Bourgon stated earlier on, and that brings us to the
24 conclusion that it's better if we delayed the issue of the Butler
25 documents until we're finished with these three witnesses, which would
1 leave us then with the motion and any other matters that may be raised by
2 way of objection to the tendering of documents from both sides.
3 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President, and that sounds fine.
5 But just to make it clear, especially if there's a motion filed,
6 we have our big list of Butler exhibits. We also have his narratives and
7 his command reports on CD that are hyperlinked to the cited documents in
8 them, and so we always offer Mr. Butler's reports as well as his various
9 footnotes and citations, because without them the report doesn't make as
10 much sense. And so that's the matter at hand.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you, Mr. McCloskey. But considering the
12 procedure that we have adopted from the beginning of this case, there
13 should be no problems, because where there are objections that cannot be
14 resolved or which are tied, intrinsically tied to the motion that we are
15 expecting, then we can always MIF -- or MFI and admit the rest and we can
16 proceed, and then for the purpose of the Rule 98 bis exercise you will
17 know exactly where you stand. So we will deal with it in the practical
18 way that we have adopted so far. So you don't -- please don't expect any
19 particular complications or problems.
20 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
21 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 I would just like to confirm that the joint motion being prepared
23 addresses solely Exhibit 685 and 686, which are the narratives, and not
24 the other documents.
25 However, regarding the issue just raised by my colleague, we will
1 object to the handing over of such a CD assistance unless my colleague can
2 establish a clear link between every document used -- or that the links
3 with that CD with a Rule 65 ter number.
4 Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: The 65 ter number that links these documents is
7 the 65 ter number for the narrative and the command reports. They are
8 clearly on notice, have been on notice forever. These documents have
9 always been put into the evidence in the other trial. It's not an issue
10 of notice.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, let's not lose more time on this.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one other thing.
13 We had the large-size maps related to the small size that we had
14 provided you, and we have those now. I don't know if you want those, or
15 we can always bring them back, if need be.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Tomic.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Tomic.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You're about to start
21 giving evidence. Before you do so, our Rules require that you solemnly
22 declare that you will be speaking the truth.
23 Madam Usher is going to hand you the text of the solemn
24 declaration. Please read it out aloud, and that will be your solemn
25 undertaking with us. I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: MILENKO TOMIC
3 [The witness answered through interpreter].
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, I am hopeful that we will finish with you
7 today. Mr. Thayer will go first, and then he will be followed by all or
8 some of the Defence teams on cross-examination. Your duty is not to make
9 a distinction between Prosecution and Defence and to answer each question
10 that is put to you as precisely and as truthfully as possible.
11 Mr. Thayer.
12 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
14 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. I just ask you, if you could, just move your chair just a little
17 bit closer to the microphone, and that way it will pick up everything you
19 A. Thank you.
20 Q. Sir, would you please state your name for the record.
21 A. Milenko Tomic, son of Djordje.
22 Q. And how old are you, sir?
23 A. On the 30th of July, 1948.
24 Q. And would you please tell the Trial Chamber where you were born
25 and raised?
1 A. I was born in Tuzla, and I live in Zvornik.
2 Q. And how long have you lived in Zvornik, sir?
3 A. Sixty years.
4 Q. And you identify yourself as a Bosnian Serb; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please tell the Trial Chamber what you do for a living.
7 A. I'm a driver of trucks.
8 Q. And do you work for a particular company, sir?
9 A. I work for the company of Metalno in Zvornik.
10 Q. And how long have you been a driver for the Metalno company in
12 A. Thirty-nine years.
13 Q. Now, I want to turn your attention to the war and ask you what
14 kind of duties you performed during the war.
15 A. I was a driver, and for a while I was at the front line.
16 Q. And as a driver, sir, and, for that matter, when you were at the
17 front line, do you recall which battalion you were a member of?
18 A. While I was at the front line, I don't know. I was periodically a
19 driver, too.
20 Q. And when you were driving, as part of your military duties, do you
21 recall which battalion you were attached to?
22 A. That was the Standard barracks. That's where I belonged.
23 Q. Okay. And just to clarify this one point, sir, may we have 65 ter
24 3227 on e-court, please.
25 Do you see a document in front of you, sir, on the computer?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. And if we could scroll down just a little bit, you told us your
3 father's name was Djordje?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. There's an entry at line 24 --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- that refers to a Milenko Tomic, son of Djordje, and do you see
8 the name "Metalno" there?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. THAYER: Now if we could scroll back up to the top of the
11 document, please.
12 Q. Do you see that there's a reference to the R Battalion in the
13 heading there, near the date of December 15th?
14 A. Yes, that's what it says, yes, in the top part of the document, at
15 0800 hours, and above that it says "The R Company."
16 Q. Or "The R Battalion." Do you see that, sir? It may be a
17 translation issue.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. My question is very simple, sir. During your military service,
20 did you ever hear a reference to the R Battalion? And if so, do you know
21 what that "R" stood for?
22 A. When we were under work obligation, we would be assigned to the
23 barracks there to work for the army. That was the R Battalion.
24 Q. Okay. And just one last question on this. Do you recall what
25 that letter "R" stood for? What did that abbreviation refer to, if you
2 A. I think that whenever we were under work obligation and working
3 for a company, we would be asked to report to the barracks to the R
5 Q. Okay. Let's move on.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter adds the witness said "to the
7 military post there."
8 MR. THAYER: Okay.
9 Q. Could you describe for the Trial Chamber, please, the procedure or
10 how you would receive assignments from the Standard barracks?
11 A. When we were at the barracks, in the morning, if a trip had to be
12 made, one received a travel order and fuel. The boss, meaning the person
13 charged with these tasks, would issue us this assignment and we'd be off.
14 Q. Okay. And let's just back up for one second. Most of the time,
15 it's fair to say, you were permitted to work at your company, Metalno; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Well, yes, depending on the times, depending on the needs.
18 Q. And how were you notified, when you were at your company, that
19 your presence was required at the Standard barracks?
20 A. For the most part, it was either by a telephone or a courier would
21 come to the company, and then the bosses, who would be in touch with them,
22 would let us know that we had to report to the barracks, to the Standard
24 Q. And when you arrived at the Standard barracks, sir, to whom would
25 you report?
1 A. We'd report to the office of Radislav Pantic, where the drivers
2 would normally stay.
3 Q. And did you know Mr. Pantic before the war, sir?
4 A. Yes, I knew him. He worked with me in the same company.
5 Q. And do you know what position he held in the army, sir?
6 A. I don't know. I think he was the head of transports. He'd assign
7 different vehicles.
8 Q. Now, when you reported to Mr. Pantic at Standard, was there any
9 particular form or document which he would give you before you set out on
10 your assignment?
11 A. Only a travel order, nothing else.
12 Q. And during the war, sir, when you arrived at Standard to receive
13 your orders, did anyone other than Mr. Pantic issue these travel orders to
15 A. Sometimes somebody else would issue them, but most of the time it
16 was Pantic who did.
17 Q. Okay, sir. I want to turn your attention to a particular day and
18 to a particular assignment you received, and it's no surprise to anyone
19 here what that was. And I know and I can see that this isn't easy for
20 you, and I just want to ask you to, if you can, take your time when you
21 tell the Court what happened that day. And, sir, if at any time you feel
22 like you need a break for any reason, please do not hesitate to say so.
23 Okay? And I'll start my questions in a moment. I just want to make sure
24 you understand that.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Please, sir, tell the Court about this assignment you
2 received on this particular day. And if you remember the day, please tell
3 the Court, and just take us from the very beginning.
4 A. Truth to tell, I don't recall the date. But based on what you --
5 what I received, the travel order, I was able to see. It was on that day
6 that I received my travel order from Radislav Pantic and I set off.
7 When I arrived in the place called Pilica, I didn't come across
8 anyone at the centre there. I set off toward Kula, another small
9 settlement not far away from there. I was supposed to report to somebody
10 else there, but I -- again I found no one. I returned to Pilica.
11 On the way out of Pilica, along the main road, that's some 100
12 metres away from downtown Pilica, I came across a soldier who pulled me
13 over and told me that I should report outside the dom there. I followed
14 him and reached the dom. He told me to park the vehicle next to a side
15 door that was just there by the dom. Having parked there, I went with him
16 to a nearby house, where there was a lady who offered us a cup of coffee.
17 In fact, he had told me that we should have a cup of coffee there. I had
18 a cup of coffee and a couple of shots of rakija, of brandy, as well.
19 After a while, the man joined me again and said that we would be
20 able to set off in half an hour's time. I joined him without noticing
21 anything in particular. I saw that the sides of the truck, the tarpaulin
22 had been lowered without having been tied, in fact, and he said, "We're
23 going up there." I asked him what it was that we were driving there, and
24 he, after some hesitation, said that we were driving dead bodies.
25 Once we reached that place up there, what's it called, Branjevo,
1 he said that we should park there. As I was approaching that area, I
2 observed some individuals in civilian clothes. I parked there. He then
3 told me that there were some cattle barns there, that we should spend a
4 while there.
5 We came upon some workers who were feeding the cattle there. I
6 lingered with them for a while, had a couple of shots of brandy, and
7 talked to them.
8 Later on, on my way back, I didn't notice anything in particular.
9 I got into the truck, and he said that we should leave. I returned to the
10 very same spot where I was earlier on, parked the vehicle there, and he
11 took me once more to that lady, to sit there for a while and have some
12 more brandy. I engaged in a conversation with her, but she never said
13 anything about what was going on.
14 Roughly half an hour later, the man rejoined us and said that we
15 should leave once more. As we were on our way up there, I asked him
16 again, "Well, how much of it is there?" He really didn't tell me
18 As we reached the area up there and approached a site, I saw some
19 corpses lying farther away. I parked the vehicle in the reverse and went
20 to the barn again where I was earlier on. Around a half hour passed, and
21 in the meanwhile I had a couple of shots of brandy again.
22 We went back down there, and as we approached an intersection, we
23 were stopped. A soldier standing there told us, "You're off the hook.
24 You're not needed anymore." And at that point, he told me one, "One of
25 the sides at the back of your truck has not been lowered." I got out of
1 the truck, lowered the side, and then headed for Zvornik, leaving them
3 That's it.
4 Q. Okay, sir. I just want to follow up with a couple of questions
5 about what you've just told us.
6 When Mr. Pantic gave you the travel order this day, did he tell
7 you where you were to go?
8 A. Yes, he said that I should set out for Pilica and then Kula, and
9 that I was going to pick up the military.
10 Q. Now, when you encountered this soldier, you stated that you had
11 gone to Kula and then to Pilica, and when you were stopped by this
12 particular soldier, sir, can you describe anything to the Trial Chamber
13 about this soldier's appearance, his uniform, his age, anything at all
14 about this soldier that you recall?
15 A. Well, I think the soldier had the old uniform on of the former
16 Yugoslav People's Army. He was perhaps some 30 years of age. I didn't
17 know him.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the purpose of -- the ultimate purpose of
19 the question put to you by Mr. Thayer was intended to elicit from you
20 anything this soldier was wearing on his uniform that could identify his
21 rank or the unit to which he belonged. Did he have any insignia on the
22 uniform that you recognised?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he didn't have any insignia or
24 ranks on the uniform.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And during these times, did you ever or had you ever
1 seen other soldiers wearing the same kind of uniform, that is, the old JNA
2 uniform, or was it this -- was this the first time that you saw someone
3 wearing that kind of uniform?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think -- well, I had that old
5 uniform on whenever I was doing a job of work or something like that.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
7 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. So just to follow up on His Honour's question, how would you
10 describe, if at all, if you can, the purpose of the uniform that you saw?
11 Was there some special purpose that you associate with the type of uniform
12 that you saw this soldier wearing?
13 A. Well, probably these were uniforms one would wear when doing
14 physical work on construction sites, whilst carrying construction
15 materials and stuff like that.
16 Q. Now, during this first trip to the dom at Pilica, sir, or during
17 your second trip, did you see any other soldiers present in the area, in
18 addition to this one that you've just described?
19 A. There were some perhaps six soldiers wearing the same uniform,
20 without any insignia, who were working. I didn't see anybody else.
21 Q. And you described this one soldier who accompanied you on these
22 trips as being perhaps in his 30s. Do you recall the general age of the
23 other soldiers that you saw around the Pilica dom when you were there?
24 A. The other ones were older than him, between 50 and 52 years of
25 age. He was the youngest among them.
1 Q. You described this door at which you parked your truck at the dom
2 as being a side door, sir. Do you remember how you physically parked your
3 truck at that door? In what direction?
4 A. I parked it slant-wise, and I drew a sketch of it, slant-wise with
5 the back side facing the door.
6 Q. Now, sir, on this second trip that you took to Branjevo, when you
7 saw the bodies, can you describe in just a little bit more detail how it
8 was that you came to see these bodies, and can you describe for the Trial
9 Chamber approximately how many you saw? We know that you weren't counting
10 them, but can you describe, in general terms, how many bodies you saw
11 there at Branjevo?
12 A. When I got out of the vehicle, I saw them lying on the ground next
13 to the back side. I don't know how many of them there were; five or ten.
14 I didn't count them. When I saw those civilians eating there, holding a
15 slice of bread and sausage in their hands, I just couldn't bear to watch
16 that. I felt sick and had to get away.
17 Q. When you were told that you weren't needed anymore or that your
18 services weren't needed, where did you go next with your truck?
19 A. I drove toward the barracks, and on the way I dropped by some
20 bars, had a couple of shots more, and then finally drove to the barracks.
21 Q. Where did you leave the truck, sir?
22 A. I left the truck on the parking lot where the trucks were normally
23 left. I left the keys and the travel order in the cab of the truck and
24 went home.
25 Q. And do you recall being told to do anything with your truck after
1 you had transported these bodies?
2 A. When I closed one of the sides at the intersection there, I
3 realised that the back side of the truck had been all muddied and bloodied
4 over, and I knew I should do something about it. But with all the alcohol
5 that I had drunk earlier on, I wasn't able to do it. I went home.
6 Q. Just a few more questions, sir.
7 You referred to a sketch that you drew, and you drew that sketch
8 back in November, when the investigators first met with you; is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And we'll look at the sketch in a moment, but before we do: Do
12 you remember generally what you drew on that sketch?
13 A. I drew the main road, the dom, the nearby houses, the entrance,
14 and the parked vehicle.
15 MR. THAYER: Okay. May we have 65 ter 3226, please. And if we
16 could magnify it just a little bit, please. Great, thank you.
17 Q. Sir, do you see this document in front of you on your screen?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. You recognise what that is?
20 A. It's the main road between Zvornik and Bijeljina and the side road
21 which takes you up to the village, the memorial site, and the cultural
22 hall or the dom, as well as the truck, TAM 130.
23 Q. Okay. I'm just going to ask you to explain these just a little
25 You mentioned the Zvornik-Bijeljina road. Is that what's depicted
1 at the bottom of the sketch with the arrow leading from Zvornik, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if we look at the left-hand portion of the sketch, you've
4 marked a large rectangle with the initials "DK." What does that stand
5 for, sir?
6 A. Dom Kultur or Culture Hall.
7 Q. And below that there is a little sort of circle or smaller area
8 you've indicated right below the rectangle of the Dom Kultur. Can you
9 tell us what that is? It looks like --
10 A. The memorial site.
11 Q. Okay. And you've already told us you wrote in "TAM 130" next to
12 where your truck was parked; is that correct?
13 We need an audible -- a "yes" or "no" just so we can pick it up on
14 the transcript, sir.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And I see there's a little "V" with a period on this sketch
17 of the Dom Kultur that you drew. What does that "V" stand for?
18 A. I don't see that.
19 Q. Okay. Do you see where you've drawn the truck?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Just to the left of the truck --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Can't we show it to him? Yes, there.
23 MR. THAYER:
24 Q. Do you see the little --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no.
1 MR. THAYER:
2 Q. Right there, sir, there's a little "V" and a period. Can you just
3 tell us what that "V." stands for?
4 A. I think I wanted to mark a door there, and I put a "V" with a dot.
5 Q. Okay. And if we just move across this little sketch, to the right
6 you've drawn another rectangle with the letter "K," "U," and a "C." What
7 is that, sir?
8 A. "Kuca," "house."
9 Q. Okay. And which house is that, sir?
10 A. Where I went to have coffee and brandy.
11 Q. And right below that, sir, you drew another rectangle with a
12 couple of initials in there. What is that?
13 A. A store.
14 MR. THAYER: Okay, thank you. I think we're done with this
15 exhibit. Oh, and if we could just scroll up a little bit. A little bit
17 Q. Do you see some writing in the lower right-hand corner there, a
18 date of November 15th, 2007? Can you tell us what that is there in the
20 A. I wrote that, and my signature is there.
21 MR. THAYER: Okay. Just one more document to show you, sir.
22 If we could have P00295 on e-court, please. And we'll be looking
23 at page 581 of the original B/C/S, and that would be page 583 of the
24 English translation. But I'd like to work with the B/C/S original, as
25 it's an original document.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: So no broadcasts. This document is under seal.
2 MR. THAYER: Okay.
3 Q. Sir, do you see the document in front of you on your computer?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Can you just tell the Trial Chamber, generally, what is this type
6 of document that you're looking at?
7 A. It's a travel log. You receive that with the vehicle when you're
8 supposed to carry out some work.
9 Q. And do you see, on the right-hand portion of this document, where
10 it says: "Vehicle work log" and then the number "221667;" do you see
11 that, sir? I just want to orient you on the document.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. I just want to ask you some questions as we move down, line
14 by line, on this page. Okay?
15 Oh, I'm sorry, can we scroll back up? Not that fast.
16 There is an entry, if we scroll to the right, please, and now
17 we're looking at the very top of the screen on the right-hand side,
18 there's an entry of 15 July until 31 July 1995. Do you see that, sir?
19 A. Yes, I do. The first date is the date of my arrival in the
20 barracks, and this vehicle log was valid until the 31st of July.
21 Q. And if we look at the line right underneath that, there's a
22 reference to a TAM 130. What is that, sir?
23 A. It is the type of vehicle.
24 Q. And can you just describe what kind of vehicle that is, please?
25 A. It's a freight vehicle, six metres in length, metal chassis, 2.3
1 metres in width, with a tarpaulin.
2 Q. And if we go down a couple more lines, there is a little box that
3 refers to the rank, first name and last name. Do you see your name there,
5 A. I do. It says "Tomic, Milenko."
6 Q. And let's move down a little bit to this larger box with a number
7 of columns. And do you see a column that is headed "Date," with a series
8 of dates underneath it?
9 A. I do. Those are the dates when the vehicle is being refueled.
10 Also specified is the amount of fuel, and then you sign.
11 Q. And do you see the entry for the 17th of July, 1995, sir?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. And if we go all the way to the right, to the last column, there
14 is an entry headed: "Manager's Signature." Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Okay. Now, if we can, let's scroll to the left of this document.
17 I want to show you the left-hand side. And if we can scroll up just a
18 little bit, please, to capture the top. There we go, okay.
19 Now, do you see, on this left-hand portion, an entry for the 17th?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. And if we look in that middle column, where it says: "Condition,"
22 what does it say there?
23 A. The middle column?
24 Q. Yes. If you're looking at the line that's number 17, and do you
25 see the column --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- Okay, that says: "Condition" at the very top, do you see the
3 entry on that line 17? Can you read that?
4 A. I can't. I can't read that. However, I can read where it
5 says: "Signature."
6 Q. Okay. And do you recognise any of those signatures there?
7 A. I recognise that signature as that of Radislav Pantic.
8 Q. Okay. If you would, sir, with Madam Usher's help, I would just
9 ask you to take this pen that's attached to your computer, and if you
10 would circle where you see Mr. Pantic's signature in this column. If you
11 see it more than once, please circle those entries as well.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Does he recognise the other signature?
15 MR. THAYER:
16 Q. Sir, did you understand His Honour's question? Do you recognise
17 the other signatures there?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Okay. Sir, if you would just, on the lower left-hand corner of
20 this document, if you would just place your initials and today's date,
21 which is the 5th of February, 2008.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. And then we'll save the document and be done with it. And just
24 your initials, too, sir, is fine.
25 A. [Marks]
1 MR. THAYER: Thank you, sir.
2 If we could save that, please. Okay, thank you.
3 Let's move to the next page of this document, and it will be the
4 next page in both B/C/S and English. And if we could again work with the
5 B/C/S, please.
6 Q. Sir, this is my last series of questions for you.
7 MR. THAYER: And if we could -- that's fine, actually, just where
8 it is. Thank you.
9 Q. Sir, I just want to ask you first: Working from left to right --
10 well, let me back up for a second. Just to orient yourself, this is the
11 flip side of the document we just looked at; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if we look at the first column, do you see where it
14 says: "Date"?
15 A. The 17th of July, 1995.
16 Q. Okay. The third column in from the left indicates what, sir?
17 A. The route I drove.
18 Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about that, as long as you're -- we're on
19 there. What does it say there, sir, under: "Route" for the 17th of July?
20 A. The first one was for military purposes, Zvornik-Pilica-
22 Q. And do you recognise the handwriting in this column number 4
23 under: "Route"?
24 A. Column 4 route, that is my handwriting.
25 Q. And is it your handwriting for every entry there, sir?
1 A. All of it is mine, all of the routes and kilometres, that is.
2 MR. THAYER: Now, if we could scroll over to the -- all the way to
3 the right.
4 Q. Do you see the final column all the way to the right, sir?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And do you recognise any of the signatures there in that column?
7 A. I only recognise Radislav Pantic's signature.
8 Q. Okay. And I just ask you again, if you would, to take that pen,
9 and if you would, sir, please circle where you see Mr. Pantic's signature.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And what does this column indicate? What is its heading, sir?
12 A. "User signature."
13 MR. THAYER: And if we could scroll back over all the way to the
14 left, please.
15 We have to sign it. Okay.
16 Q. Sir, if you would please, again put today's date, 5 February 2008,
17 and your initials. Anywhere on the document is fine.
18 A. [Marks]
19 MR. THAYER: And if we can save it, we'll be done with it, and
20 then we'll have to scroll over to the left.
21 Q. Now, sir, looking back at the column to the far left of this
22 document - thank you, Madam Usher, I think that's it for now - again
23 focusing your attention on that left column where it says: "Date" --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- under the date of 17 July 1995, what is the next entry that
1 you've put in there? What is the date of the next --
2 A. The 20th.
3 Q. And what does that indicate to you, sir?
4 A. The 20th of July, it means that I drove on that day as well.
5 Q. And after this day on the 17th, when you drove to Pilica and Kula,
6 do you recall when it was that you saw Mr. Pantic next?
7 A. Three days later, I think.
8 Q. When you saw him the next time, did you say anything to him about
9 this assignment that he'd given you on the 17th?
10 A. I asked him why he had sent me to do that. He never replied or,
11 rather, he said, "Well, I didn't know about it either."
12 Q. Okay. Now, sir, my last couple of questions here, and I want to
13 just test your recollection a little bit on this.
14 MR. THAYER: Your Honours, I think in following the Appellate
15 Chamber's most recent decision on working with a witness's recollection
16 and challenging the recollection, I'm going to ask the Court to permit me
17 to refresh this witness's recollection with a prior statement to test his
18 memory on this issue.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's keep this short, Mr. Bourgon, please.
21 MR. THAYER: And, Mr. President, any further -- I would just
22 suggest that any further discussion may be outside -- may need to be
23 outside the presence of the witness.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Then I think the witness can leave the courtroom.
25 We'll hear the submission, and then we'll have the break soon after.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon. Briefly, please.
4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 I would just like to know which decision of the Appeals Chamber my
6 colleague is referring to. If it's the decision that I have in mind,
7 there's a procedure set in that decision, which is that he must first ask
8 the witness whether the witness remembers what he wants to talk about. It
9 would be useful if we would know exactly the question my colleague intends
10 to ask the witness, as well as the answer he intends to get, and that will
11 allow us to know if the procedure is being followed.
12 Thank you, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You are perfectly right. Basically, I think he's
14 referring to the decision, last week's decision of the Appeals Chamber
15 with regard to impeaching one's own witness, but at this stage I don't
16 think we have arrived at that. We're just dealing, as I see it, at least
17 so far, unless I'm convinced of the contrary or of anything else, that
18 counsel would like to inquire into the possibility of getting the
19 witness -- refreshing the witness's memory in relation to this last answer
20 that he has given, if I understand you well.
21 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, you do understand me well. However, I
22 do intend, depending on what the answer is, to challenge the credibility,
23 but --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We come to that at the right stage, I mean, not now.
25 Now, I don't think you need the Trial Chamber's permission to put to the
1 witness a prior statement of his, if the sole purpose of that is to try
2 and refresh his memory.
3 MR. THAYER: Understood. I just wanted to raise it before we went
4 down too far.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: The Appeals Chamber decision doesn't come at this
7 Anyway, shall we have the break now, and in the meantime perhaps
8 even discuss amongst yourselves, because I don't know what your question
9 is going to be, and maybe if you discuss it with counsel, things can work
10 out easier.
11 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, if he can tell us the question, it
12 will be much easier.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Anyway, we'll have a 25-minute break, and your
14 time is soon over in any case.
15 MR. THAYER: Absolutely, Mr. President. It's my last question.
16 --- Recess taken at 3.39 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
19 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Good afternoon again, sir.
21 A. Good afternoon.
22 Q. Before we took the break, you told us that when you next saw
23 Mr. Pantic, that you complained to him about the assignment, and you said
24 that he told you that he didn't know, either, what you were going to be
25 doing up there. I want to ask you first, sir: Do you recall, back in
1 November, just this past November, when you met with the OTP
2 investigators, do you recall being asked about when you saw Mr. Pantic a
3 few days after the 17th of July; do you recall being asked those
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Now, do you recall what you told the investigators, back in
7 November, Mr. Pantic's response to you was when you complained to him
8 about the assignment he had given you?
9 A. I think that during that conversation, he told me, "I didn't
10 know," and then he turned around and left.
11 Q. Okay. But my question to you right now, sir, is, and please focus
12 on the meeting you had with the investigators back in November: Do you
13 remember now exactly what you told the investigators, back in November,
14 Mr. Pantic telling you?
15 A. I do think that -- well, I think he turned around and left. I
16 can't say exactly.
17 Q. Okay. Well, what I'd like to do, sir, is -- we don't have this on
18 e-court, but I have the two pages from your witness interview from back in
19 November, and I'd like to, if we could, maybe put this on the ELMO.
20 Can you see that on your screen, sir?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I don't know about you folks,
22 but I can't see anything on my screen.
23 MR. THAYER: Yeah, we have a blank screen here, too.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I still can't see anything.
25 MR. THAYER: Okay. Well, to save time, maybe I'll just ask the
1 witness to read what's in front of him into the record. That way --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you give him the statement in B/C/S?
3 MR. THAYER: He has the B/C/S in front of him.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
5 MR. THAYER: Just to save time, if the witness could just read
6 what's marked there.
7 Q. Sir, do you see a little orange highlighting at line -- I believe
8 it's --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Thayer, I will feel more serene if you show it
10 at least to one or two of the Defence team counsel before --
11 MR. THAYER: Okay. I've indicated to my friends what the cite is.
12 It's page 24, line 11, through page 25, line 8.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, the --
14 MR. THAYER: There we go.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think you have to raise it up a little bit.
16 Scroll up. Okay, okay, okay, that's fine.
17 MR. THAYER:
18 Q. Sir, do you see that on your screen? The "TB" is the initials of
19 the investigator who was asking you questions, and the "MT" is you
20 answering the questions?
21 A. Yes, I understand.
22 Q. Okay. And do you see where you say -- you told him: "Why did
23 you send me there?" And you were asked what was his response. That's at
24 line 16?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. And do you see your answer?
2 A. I do. "Why did you send me there?" And then his answer. What
3 can I tell you, what else can I tell you? He turned his back to me and
4 then left. That's what I said.
5 Q. And then the next question is: "Did he even say one word?" And
6 your response was --
7 A. He said nothing.
8 Q. Then you were asked again, a couple of lines later: "Did he
9 comment somehow?" And do you see your answer: "He just turned and left"?
10 A. Yes, he turned and left.
11 Q. And do you see, further down, where the question is: "Did he ask
12 you any questions regarding his task?" And your answer was: "He didn't
13 ask anything." Do you see that, sir?
14 A. What number is that, 27?
15 MR. THAYER: If you can scroll down just a little bit more.
16 THE WITNESS: I said: "Why did you send me there?"
17 MR. THAYER: And if we could turn to the next page. Just a little
18 bit further to the top. There we go.
19 Q. There's a question: "Did he ask you any questions regarding his
20 task?" Your answer was: "He didn't ask anything."
21 A. Nothing.
22 Q. The question is: "Just turned around and left?" Yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And your answer was: "And then the next order was just -- issued
25 the order and you take it, and he -- that's it. No comment."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. THAYER: We're done with this. Thank you, Madam Usher.
5 Q. Now, sir, when was the last time you saw or spoke with Mr. Pantic?
6 A. Before I was to leave for here.
7 Q. Approximately how many days before you were to leave for The
8 Hague, sir?
9 A. A day or two, perhaps. I can't be specific.
10 Q. And when you spoke with Mr. Pantic on this occasion, did you tell
11 him about the fact that you were coming to The Hague soon to give evidence
13 A. Yes, I told him that I was going to go to The Hague.
14 Q. During this conversation, sir, did he tell you anything or say
15 anything to you about the order he gave to you on the 17th of July?
16 A. Well, yes. He told me that he had not known about it, either.
17 MR. THAYER: Okay, sir, thank you. I don't have any further
18 questions for you at this time.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 Mr. Haynes.
21 MR. HAYNES: I'll say, so that we can save a little time, with the
22 possible exception of Madam Nikolic, I know that nobody else has any
23 questions, bar me, so I will go first, and it may well be that Madam
24 Nikolic has no questions either.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Haynes.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Tomic. My name is Peter Haynes, and I
3 represent Vinko Pandurevic.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm going to see if my mathematics is correct. At the time the
6 war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you would have been about 44 years
7 of age; is that correct?
8 A. Possible.
9 Q. And by July of 1995, you'd have been just short of your 47th
10 birthday; am I correct about that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Very well. Well, you've given us your date of birth as the 30th
13 of July of 1948. We can perhaps all work it out. But from what you tell
14 us, had you by then spent in excess of 20 years working for the same
15 company, Metalno?
16 A. Well, I don't know. I started working for Metalno in 1974, I
18 Q. For how long of that period of time did you work with Radislav
20 A. I must have worked for at least ten years before that, I believe.
21 Q. And what was your --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Because it's not clear, before what? Ten years
23 before what? You said "for at least ten years before that." Before what?
24 Mr. Tomic, look at me. It's me who's asking you the question.
25 Maybe it's the transcript, maybe I didn't understand you well, but
1 Mr. Haynes asked you for how long of that period, that 20-odd years, in
2 other words, did you work with Radislav Pantic, and you said, at least
3 according to our transcript: "I must have worked for at least ten years
4 before that." Before what?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before the start of the war.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay, that's clearer.
7 Yes, thank you, Mr. Haynes.
8 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Tomic.
9 Q. And what was your working relationship with Mr. Pantic? Was he,
10 like you, just a driver, or was he your boss in some way?
11 A. He was my boss. He was my superior.
12 Q. Now, I want to ask you just a couple of questions about Metalno.
13 Metalno is a company that makes metal construction objects, isn't it, like
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But as part of its operations, it has a fleet or had a fleet of
17 about 17 lorries in 1995, didn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And just so we can clear this up, the lorry that is described, the
20 TAM 130 that you were driving in Pilica and Kula, was a lorry that
21 belonged to Metalno, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, I just want to clarify a few things about your war history.
24 You were actually a mobilised soldier for about six months between
25 1992 and 1995, weren't you?
1 A. But of course. I was mobilised, yes.
2 Q. But the rest of the time, you were demobilised, you were working
3 for Metalno as a driver throughout the whole of that three-year period,
4 weren't you?
5 A. I was working for Metalno, and that was part of my work
6 obligation. I was occasionally called away when needed.
7 Q. Thank you very much. Well, I'll come back to that. Can we get to
8 the day that you've told us about. Is it your recollection now that
9 Radislav Pantic did not tell you the purpose for which you were sent to
11 A. He assigned me to go to Pilica. He gave me a travel order and
12 told me to drive soldiers.
13 Q. Thank you. And just so that we're clear, the days prior to that,
14 had you been working for Metalno?
15 A. Yes. I believe I was at the barracks as of the 15th.
16 Q. Now, were you the only lorry driver that was sent to Pilica on
17 that day?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You've told us about some men in military uniforms you saw near to
20 the Pilica cultural dom. I want to ask you this: They were unarmed,
21 weren't they?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And during the course of that day, and I fully understand why, you
24 had a lot of alcohol to drink, didn't you?
25 A. Well, not that much, really, at the beginning. But later on, I
2 Q. Did anybody tell you you couldn't do that during the course of the
4 A. No, nobody told me anything.
5 Q. And I want to clarify one thing you said in your interview back in
6 November. You said at one stage you ran away. Did you mean you ran away
7 from the cultural dom at some stage during the day?
8 A. No. I never entered the cultural hall, the dom, at any point. I
9 didn't know what was in there.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey -- Mr. Haynes, if you could please
11 repeat your question, because I don't think it got to the witness as it
12 should. He's answered a different question.
13 MR. THAYER: And, Mr. President, if I may, if there's -- if
14 there's a specific cite to the interview transcript where there is a
15 discussion of him running away, that might help as well.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
17 MR. HAYNES: Well, I'll move on for that -- from that. I may come
18 back to it. It's not a particularly significant point.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
20 MR. HAYNES:
21 Q. You were shown a document, and I'll show it to you again, by
22 Mr. Thayer. It's P3227.
23 Could we have that in e-court, please.
24 Do you remember seeing that document a few minutes ago, when
25 Mr. Thayer was asking you questions?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you understand what that document is and how it comes to be?
3 A. Well, these were probably the drivers who were part of the reserve
5 Q. But it's a document ordering your mobilisation, isn't it, on the
6 15th of December of 1994? Do you remember how long the task was you had
7 to perform on the 15th of December of 1994; a day, two days, something
8 like that?
9 A. Believe me when I tell you that I don't know.
10 Q. But apart from the periods when you were lawfully mobilised, you
11 worked for Metalno, didn't you? You were under their direction? The
12 purpose of this order is to place you under somebody else's direction or
13 command. Do you understand that?
14 A. I don't understand.
15 Q. Well, let's have a look at another document of precisely the same
16 nature, a bit more relevant; 7D722, please.
17 Do you see this is a precisely similar document, dated the 15th of
18 July of 1995?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. HAYNES: Can we go to page 5, please.
21 Q. Can you see there are a list of people from your company, Metalno,
22 at page 5, apparently mobilized on the 15th of July of 1995?
23 Can it be --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly.
25 MR. HAYNES: Can it be scrolled down so he can see this, and the
1 top of the next page, please.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
3 MR. THAYER: Just for the record, when I briefly saw that first
4 page, I think the date is actually the 17th of July. I stand to be
5 corrected, but I saw something that said "17 July," not "15 July."
6 JUDGE AGIUS: It was both, both dates.
7 MR. HAYNES: It was both. It's an order confirming those who are
8 mobilised on the 15th.
9 Q. So can you read those numbered 127 to 142?
10 A. Am I supposed to read it out?
11 Q. No. Just tell me if you see your name there.
12 A. I don't.
13 Q. So it appears that whatever your former boss might have asked you
14 to do, he didn't do it with any lawful authority, did he, Mr. Tomic?
15 A. Well, I don't know how it came about that he issued me this
16 assignment, but from what I can see, the people listed under "Metalno" are
17 not drivers, so I don't know.
18 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. Tomic. I have no further questions
19 for you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Haynes.
21 Ms. Nikolic, do you have any questions?
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Two or three questions, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
24 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tomic. My name is Jelena
1 Nikolic, and I represent the Defence for Mr. Drago Nikolic.
2 I have two or three questions to put to you in relation to the
3 17th of July 1995 and in relation to the events you've told us about
5 You knew Mr. Drago Nikolic by sight from Zvornik?
6 A. Yes, I knew him, but not that well.
7 Q. You knew what he looked like?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In the course of the 17th of July, when you were issued with the
10 assignment at Standard, and later on in Pilica and in Branjevo, did you at
11 any point see Drago Nikolic in any of these places?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you have any contacts with him?
14 A. No.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Your Honours, I have no further questions of this witness.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am.
18 Just to confirm that none of the other Defence teams have any
19 cross-examination. All right.
20 Mr. Thayer, is there re-examination?
21 MR. THAYER: No, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
23 Mr. Tomic, I told you in the beginning that we would finish with
24 your testimony. We have even finished earlier than I expected, so you're
25 free to go. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish to thank you for
1 having come over to give testimony, and on behalf of everyone, we wish you
2 a safe journey back home.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Exhibits. Mr. Thayer.
6 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, in addition to the three exhibits
7 which were listed on our list of exhibits distributed a couple of days
8 ago, I note first that 65 ter 295 is already in evidence, so we won't be
9 offering that. But 3226 and 3227, PIC00200 and PIC00199, the latter two
10 being pages from the transportation records, these do not need to be under
11 seal, although the whole document previously was placed under seal. These
12 particular selections can be made public, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 Any objections? Mr. Haynes.
15 MR. HAYNES: I'll speak vicariously. No objection to that, and I
16 don't imagine anybody else does. No.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
18 So these documents are admitted.
19 Mr. Haynes.
20 MR. HAYNES: 7D722, the mobilisation list for the 17th, relating
21 to the 15th of July.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have --
23 MR. THAYER: No objection, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: No objection, so that is admitted too.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So it will be MFI'd for the time being,
2 pending translation thereof.
3 MR. HAYNES: I do wonder whether that is really necessary. It's
4 only a list of names.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: But why did you agree on the substance of the
6 document, in other words, what kind of a document it is? I see no
7 objection. I have no problem. Do you have a problem with MFI'ing it or,
8 rather, admitting it rather than MFI'ing it?
9 MR. THAYER: No, I don't, Mr. President. I'd always rather be
10 safer than sorry and see the English translation, but I really have no
11 objection to it coming in now.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, we'll admit the document. If there are
13 problems later on, will you please bring them to our notice and we can
14 reverse the order and MFI it until a proper translation has been carried
16 Okay. The next witness, Ewa Tabeau.
17 Now, Defence counsel, please, going through your estimates, I
18 notice that you have asked for an hour and 55 minutes. In reality, we had
19 only considered an hour and a half, so you need to restrict yourselves to
20 that. And then if there is justification for going beyond by a few
21 minutes, we'll do what we did last time.
22 Mr. Soljan, you have 30 minutes, and I hope you will keep within
24 [The witness entered court]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, madam.
2 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm the Presiding Judge, and I wish to welcome you
4 to this Tribunal. It's very kind of you to come here at such short
5 notice. We will be proceeding with your testimony straightaway and
6 hopefully try and finish -- conclude today so that you can go home.
7 Ms. Soljan will go first. She will be followed by the various
8 Defence teams. But before you start giving evidence, you need to make the
9 sacramental, solemn declaration that we have here, which you are being
10 handed now. Please read it out aloud, and that will be your solemn
11 undertaking with us that you will be testifying the truth.
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. Please make yourself
17 Ms. Soljan.
18 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours. Given the time constraint
19 we have in presenting this witness's testimony, I just ask you for
20 permission to just lead her on a few preliminary matters.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Permission granted under the usual conditions. If
22 there is an objection, we'll go back on our permission.
23 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I need a little help with the
25 transcript. I can see it now, thank you. I didn't have the transcript.
1 Now I have it.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, madam. And if there are any problems
3 with your headphones or anything else, please don't hesitate to let us
5 Ms. Soljan.
6 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Examination by Ms. Soljan:
8 Q. Madam, please state your full name for the record.
9 A. I'm Ewa Tabeau.
10 Q. Now, you have submitted a CV titled "Professional Qualifications
11 of Ewa Tabeau." Is this information in your CV up to date?
12 A. Not that I see it in front of me, but I'm speaking about the
13 document I submitted together with the report, then yes it is.
14 Q. This the document dated 17th of December, 2007, and it's Exhibit
15 65 ter 3158.
16 Now, you have a Ph.D. in mathematical demography from Warsaw
17 School of Economics in Poland; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it's correct.
19 Q. And you are a demographer by profession?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. Since 2000, you've been working at the ICTY as project leader of
22 the Demographics Unit?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And, briefly, what does your work in the OTP, in the Demographics
25 Unit, entail?
1 A. My work and the work of the unit is related to studying
2 demographic consequences of the conflict -- 1990s conflicts in the former
3 Yugoslavia, in particular in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As part of our
4 responsibilities, we make -- I personally make expert reports for use in
5 court, but there are also other responsibilities; for instance,
6 maintaining information system on victims of the conflict, killed persons,
7 missing persons, displaced persons, et cetera.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, you mentioned the writing of reports. Did you
9 produce a report on 11 January 2008?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 MS. SOLJAN: And if the usher could please place on e-court
12 Exhibit 65 ter 3159.
13 Q. Do you recognise this document, Dr. Tabeau?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you tell us what this is?
16 A. This is the January 2008 report. This is the Srebrenica Missing
17 2007 Progress Report on the DNA-Based Identification by ICMP. That's the
18 title of it.
19 Q. And can you tell us what the purpose of this report was, please?
20 A. This report is an updated version of the report that was initially
21 presented in November 2005. I'm referring to the report dated 21st of
22 November, 2005. Similarly to the first report, this report as well
23 summarises the statistics on the DNA-based identified persons related to
24 the fall of Srebrenica in 1995. The report is made based on information
25 provided by the International Commission for Missing Persons in Sarajevo,
1 and that was the main source for this report.
2 Well, this was perhaps the major goals, summarising the statistics
3 on the identified persons. The second goal was, as well,
4 cross-referencing the list of identified individuals provided by the ICMP
5 in October 2007 with our OTP list of Srebrenica missing persons. By
6 saying "our OTP list," I mean the list that was provided to this Trial
7 Chamber and to Defence counsels in 2005, and Helge Brunborg testified in
8 the beginning of 2007 about this list and the report.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, you noted that you were cross-referencing the
10 ICMP October 2007 list with our OTP list of Srebrenica missing persons.
11 Were these your only sources in producing the report?
12 A. Well, we basically used three lists for making the 2008 report.
13 One was the 2005 OTP list of missing. The second was the 2007 ICMP list
14 of the identified individuals. And in addition to this, we also studied a
15 third list, the list of unique DNA profiles, also provided by ICMP.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Okay. Now, if we could show on e-court, please,
17 page -- or, rather, P03002A. And if there could be no broadcasting of
18 this, please.
19 Q. Do you recognise this list, Dr. Tabeau?
20 A. Yes. This is the ICMP list of identified individuals, the main
21 list which includes names of identified persons.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. If we could just briefly move on to
24 Q. Do you recognise this list, Dr. Tabeau?
25 A. Yes. This is the second list, the list of unique DNA profiles,
1 also provided by ICMP.
2 Q. And did you use this second list in the production of your most
3 recent report?
4 A. We didn't. There are no names included in this list, so there is
5 nothing that we could use in cross-referencing with other sources.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, before we go on to summarising of the results of
7 your report, could you please provide us with a brief summary -- or of the
8 methodology used in producing your report?
9 A. The report -- the methodology used for producing this report is
10 our standard methodology which was also used for our previous report, the
11 2005 report. Details of this methodology are discussed in the 2005
12 report. Basically, the methodology relates to, first of all, studying and
13 assessing the quality of information that we used for our report and,
14 secondly, in using the matching methodology for cross-referencing the
16 Well, matching methodology is basically comparing records from two
17 lists using names of individuals and the date of birth, and by doing so,
18 seeing whether there is a satisfactory degree of consistency between the
19 compact records, and if there is so, there is a satisfactory degree of
20 consistency, two records from two different lists can be declared as
21 representing one and the same person.
22 Q. So specifically referring to the sources you were using to produce
23 the report, what were the records you were actually using in your matching
25 A. We were cross-referencing two lists; on one hand, the OTP list of
1 2005, the list of Srebrenica missing individuals, and, on the other hand,
2 we were using the ICMP list of identified individuals. We were comparing
3 some parts of information available in both lists in declaring matched
5 Q. And, specifically, what type of information was this?
6 A. As I said earlier, these were names, first name, father's name,
7 family name of these individuals, and in addition to the names, also the
8 date of birth.
9 Q. Now, how did you control for duplications or how would you make
10 sure that a person identified on one of your lists was not appearing
11 multiple times?
12 A. Well, checking for duplicates is part of our standard procedure
13 for assessment of sources. With regard to the 2005 OTP list of missing
14 persons, we have done several thorough checks before the 2005 report was
15 completed. With regard to the ICMP list, we have run several criteria.
16 There is a list of this criteria, there were eight criteria used for
17 running checks, duplicate checks.
18 This list is discussed in the 2005 report, and so also in this
19 case we used exactly the same criteria. One of the criteria was comparing
20 duplicated names without looking at the date of birth, and of course later
21 studying all available information about candidate duplicates. And having
22 done this, we concluded there were no duplicated records in the ICMP file.
23 Q. Were you also in contact with the ICMP regarding the information
24 you obtained in October 2007 from the ICMP?
25 A. Yes. We saw that there were a number of deficiencies in the ICMP
1 records. One of the deficiencies, perhaps the major one, was that a
2 number of records reported by the ICMP represented three associations
3 without the main case associated with them, so this was one of the
4 problems. There were also other problems. Some deficiency protocols
5 numbers, for instance, were seen. We contacted the ICMP and requested a
6 clarification with regard to the deficient records and such a
7 clarification was obtained shortly afterwards. Using the clarification,
8 we were able to correct the affected records and to proceed with good
10 Q. Thank you. Now, Dr. Tabeau, let me direct your attention to some
11 of the major conclusions reached in your report, and this is at -- in your
12 report, so 65 ter 3159, at page 3, ERN 0626-5767.
13 In your report, Dr. Tabeau, you state that the total number of
14 records in the ICMP update is 6.609. What does this number refer to?
15 A. This is the overall total of all records in the ICMP file, one
16 record representing one case, ICMP case. However, the 6.609 records don't
17 represent the same number of individuals. This is related to the fact
18 that the ICMP file contains two types of cases. The first type are main
19 cases, representing different individuals. The second type are
20 re-associations, that is, bone-to-bone matches. The main cases are, of
21 course, positive DNA identifications that can be documented with
22 associated protocol which -- whose number is available in the ICMP file.
23 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what the number of main cases was,
24 according to your analysis?
25 A. The number of main cases is 4.263. This number represents
1 different individuals in the ICMP file. This number should be seen as the
2 number of individuals identified through the DNA analysis as of 4th of
3 October, 2007. And the other records, the remaining records, that is
4 2.346, is the number of re-associations. These are records related to the
5 main cases.
6 Q. Now, the next number you mention is 3.837. Can you explain to us
7 what this number means?
8 A. This number should be seen in the context of the 2005 OTP list of
9 Srebrenica missing. On this list, we reported 7.661 individuals. The
10 number of 3.837 names are records of identified persons reported by the
11 ICMP, that at the same time also reported on the OTP list, 2005 OTP list
12 of missing. This is simply the overlap of these two lists.
13 Q. And what percentage of the ICMP list were you able to match
14 therefore with the OTP missing list?
15 A. This number represents 90 per cent of the ICMP records, and at the
16 same time it represents about 50 per cent of the records of the missing
18 Q. And can you explain to us what happened with the remaining 10 per
19 cent of the ICMP list?
20 A. The remaining 10 per cent, that is 426 records, are composed of
21 two types of records. One type is a group of matches that we call
22 "less-certain matches." That we call these matches less certain is
23 related to the fact that what could be matched actually were only the
24 names. The date of birth was unavailable to most of these records, either
25 on the ICRC part or the ICMP part. So even though we saw the names
1 appearing on the OTP list, we were unable to declare these matches as
2 final matches. We -- in the future, perhaps, when the date of birth will
3 become available for these individuals, we will be able perhaps to
4 finalise the match matching.
5 There were 261 such matches. It's perhaps important to note that
6 the date of birth in the ICMP file is usually unavailable for records with
7 multiple names. These names -- what I mean by that is in one record, for
8 instance, three different first names, with the same father's name, for
9 instance, and the same surname, and this simply means that ICMP, based on
10 the information they have available, was unable to distinguish between
11 these three individuals. The ICMP has, in many cases, three or two or four
12 different DNA profiles, but is unable to associate the profiles with
13 particular persons. In such cases, the date of birth is not reported.
14 And in the ICRC data, also some dates of birth are unavailable, so
15 in such cases the matching was not possible.
16 Q. Okay. And can you tell us about the remainder of the 10 per cent
17 of the ICMP list?
18 A. The last group is 165 records. These are records that remain
19 unmatched. We couldn't find these individuals on our OTP list of missing
20 persons, and therefore we list them separately in our report, in our annex
21 to our report. We consider these records as new and additional to the OTP
22 list of Srebrenica missing.
23 Q. Okay, thank you. Are there any other numbers in the executive
24 summary that you refer to?
25 A. Well, there are a few other numbers. For instance, we refer to
1 the statistics that were produced at some point in 2007 by Dean Manning.
2 He also, in his report, gives some statistics on the identified persons.
3 For instance, his number of individuals identified, and whose remains were
4 exhumed from the sites he included in his report, is 3.252, and this is a
5 number that is lower from the number we presented in our report. Well,
6 there are certain differences in the approaches, his approach and our
7 approach, and these can be explained. Basically, he has been very
8 conservative, and he only worked with a number of gravesites related to
9 Srebrenica, and to -- actually our approach was based on studying data,
10 all data that were provided by the ICMP.
11 Q. Now, you mentioned that your report contained two annexes. Can we
12 please have 65 ter 3159A on e-court, and if -- it's under seal. And, in
13 particular, page 5 of this report -- of this annex. If there's a problem
14 calling it up, I also have a hard copy.
15 Dr. Tabeau, can you explain what this annex is, what this list
17 A. This is annex 2 of our report from January 2008. In annex 2,
18 there are two parts. This particular page comes from part 1. Part 1
19 contains basically the records listed on the 2005 OTP list of Srebrenica
20 missing. A large portion of information on this page is exactly as
21 reported on the 2005 list of missing. By saying "large part," I mean all
22 data items except for the two last columns. The two last columns are
23 called protocol number of ICMP and the gravesite, and these two columns
24 come from the ICMP data set provided to us in October 2007. Basically,
25 this is what we see on this page. The rest is as reported in the 2005 OTP
1 list of missing.
2 Q. And can you please explain what it means when the last two columns
3 do not have anything in them, in other words, when there is no protocol
4 number and no gravesite indicated?
5 A. The blank cells mean that, in most cases, the persons have not yet
6 been identified by the ICMP. In some cases, this also means that the
7 persons might have been identified, but we were unable to match these
8 records as definite matches and present the results on this list.
9 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Could we please have page 191 of this
10 same exhibit.
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you explain briefly what this part of the annex
13 A. This is also annex 2 to our report, part 2 of the annex. This
14 particular page lists -- includes records of additional individuals not
15 reported on the OTP list of 2005, and this can be seen from the last
16 column, where the status is indicated as a new name.
17 Q. And do you know why this name would not have appeared on the
18 OTP -- 2005 OTP missing list, which for the record is P02414?
19 A. Well, it is possible that certain families reported their missing
20 relatives to the ICMP and didn't report them to the ICRC. Well, from
21 experience we know that there is no one-to-one relationship between
22 different lists of missing persons. There is always a large -- a large
23 common part, and none of the overlapping parts of these records would be
24 no overlapping records reported only to the ICMP.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, Dr. Tabeau, you made reference to Mr. Manning's
1 work, and did you participate in any way in the creation of his report?
2 A. Well, I wouldn't say we participated, but we were involved in this
3 project. Our involvement was related mainly to reviewing the annexes to
4 Dean Manning's report. As I said earlier today, there were a number of
5 deficient records in the ICMP file that we clarified with ICMP and
6 corrected later in our databases, so we were reviewing -- we had reviewed
7 annexes to Dean Manning's report by checking whether the information he
8 included in his report is all correct and doesn't contain any errors.
9 Q. Okay. And as a last question to you: Do you have an explanation
10 as to why his number of total individuals found in ICTY gravesites of
11 3.252 together with 758 no-name profiles is different from your overlap of
12 3.837 individuals?
13 A. Well, it is different because his analysis is designed based on
14 certain gravesites that he includes in his report. He only looks at
15 gravesites that contained human remains exclusively related to Srebrenica.
16 There were no mixed remains in these sites. These are sites known to ICTY
17 and accepted by ICTY as such. And this is why his number is lower than
18 the number we present in our report.
19 I think it is from the ICMP data we can see that there were also a
20 number of additional gravesites reported for identified individuals. It
21 is possible that in some of them, the remains were mixed also from other
22 episodes or incidents of the conflict. But we accepted all the ICMP data
23 and used all of the data in our analysis in cross-referencing with the OTP
24 list of missing. That's the difference.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
1 Your Honours, I have no more questions.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am.
3 Who is going first? Ms. Nikolic.
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Thank you, Your
6 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau. My make is Jelena
8 Nikolic, and I appear on behalf of Mr. Drago Nikolic. I have a few
9 questions for you, which I hope will make it easier for me to understand
10 your approach to this report of 2005 and 2007.
11 If I understood your testimony today well, the only source you
12 used for your new report of the 11th of January of 2008 is the ICMP list
13 which had been forwarded to you in October 2007. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is the only new source that was used.
15 Q. Can you confirm that the ICMP list is an official document which
16 can be used to ascertain the identity of persons and to ascertain data on
17 the death of those persons?
18 A. Well, I don't know what you mean by "an official," but it is
19 certainly a document that is at some point shared with legal authorities
20 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show P3002B, or
22 3D269. I think we have it in e-court under both of these designations.
23 3D269. I would ask that this document not be broadcast.
24 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I believe you are familiar with this letter. It was
25 sent to the OTP by the ICMP.
1 A. Yes, I am.
2 Q. Does it state clearly that the list of October, the list of
3 missing compiled by the ICMP, is secret, since there are still cases
4 pending, awaiting confirmation by local authorities?
5 A. Yes, this is what it says.
6 Q. If I understood Mr. Parsons' testimony well -- excuse me. When a
7 process of identification by DNA methods is concluded, such results are
8 checked by anthropologists, pathologists, and other team members. At what
9 point in time is the final death certificate issued ascertaining the
10 identity of that person, the cause, manner and time of death?
11 A. It's a question, if he --
12 Q. Are you familiar with the procedure?
13 A. Yes, I am familiar with this procedure.
14 Q. Only after the procedure has been completed, it is only then that
15 we can consider a file or a case closed, and it is only then that we can
16 receive the final death certificate ascertaining the fact that the person
17 is deceased and the person's identity.
18 A. Well, I believe you are right, but -- okay.
19 Q. As a demographics expert, did you have any means to check the
20 reliability of data and DNA analysis results from the ICMP lists?
21 A. Well, if you -- you're asking about me checking the quality of DNA
22 matching and the methodology the ICMP uses for this, then the answer, is
23 of course, no, this is not my area of responsibility and expertise, but I
24 did check the quality of the statistical information of the -- reported in
25 the ICMP file, and I can comment on this.
1 Q. Thank you. When going through the proofing that was done with you
2 for this testimony, on the initial list compiled by the OTP of missing
3 persons in Srebrenica in 2000, in your demographics office you used many
4 more sources to come up with the final number of those who went missing
5 that went beyond the sources mentioned to us now?
6 A. Well, first of all, I wasn't involved in compiling the 2000 end
7 list, but I'm aware of the 2000 report by Helge Brunborg and Henrik Urdal,
8 and they just used the ICRC list of missing persons for compiling the list
9 of missing.
10 Q. As far as I know, they used both the census of Bosnia-Herzegovina
11 from 1991, as did you for your report of 2005. They used voters' lists
12 from 1997 and 1998, the PHR base, database, and so on and so forth. Do
13 you agree with me that those sources were used as well to make the reports
14 of Helge Brunborg in 2005?
15 A. Yes, these sources were also used, but the list, as such, was
16 compiled mainly based on the ICRC lists of missing persons, several
17 versions of the ICRC lists. The census, the voters' registers, were used
18 so as to validate certain records selected, Srebrenica missing, and to
19 eliminate possible survivors from the list of missing.
20 And I should have mentioned PHR as the source of the list of
21 missing. This list was used together with the ICRC list, indeed.
22 Q. Or, rather, to determine the identity and to make sure that, to
23 use the term "phantoms," did not appear on the list, people who actually
24 never existed?
25 A. Yes, this is what I just said. The census, voters' list, were
1 used to eliminate survivors, if there were any, but from this point of
2 view I don't think the approach we used for the 2005 list was different.
3 Q. Concerning your report of the 21st of November, 2000 --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Nikolic please repeat the exhibit
5 number and the date.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic, the interpreters would like the exhibit
7 number and the date. Thank you.
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Thank you. The report
9 of the 21st of November, 2005, Exhibit P2416, pages 9 and 10 in the B/C/S.
10 In the English, it is pages 9 and 10. Exhibit 2416, that is fine.
11 Q. You quoted the criteria -- you mentioned the criteria that you
12 used for matching the names of individuals. I can wait for the entire
13 text to appear. I think we have page 10 in the B/C/S. Can we go to the
14 next page and to page 10 in the English version so that we could arrive at
15 that part of the report. It is table 4. This is what I want to discuss.
16 I wanted to ask you this: The five criteria are mentioned there,
17 when it comes to matching, is that correct, or rather five keys, five
18 criteria you used? First of all, if the names are similar. You had five
19 autographic criteria; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, we used five criteria for matching, yes indeed.
21 Q. Out of which -- or let's say the fourth criterion is the first
22 four letters --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Nikolic please quote at a slower pace.
24 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I will read out the criterion number
25 4 from your report. The first three -- first four letters, the first
1 letter of father's name, year of birth, plus/minus five years.
2 Q. Is that one of the criteria you used?
3 A. Yes, it is, yes, for selecting candidate matches. It is not a
4 criterion for declaring the true matches. It's a selection of candidates,
5 potential possible matches.
6 Q. According to table 4, the number of possible and accepted matches,
7 according to that criterion, out of 252 candidates, you have 249 accepted
9 A. Yes, this is -- this is what we read in table 4, and I would like
10 to comment on this.
11 For all these potential matches, we checked the records back in
12 the census and compared whether there were more candidates -- more
13 individuals with the same names and similar date of birth. And if there
14 were not, we proceeded to declare a match. If there were more than one,
15 we didn't declare a match. That was the procedure, first selecting
16 candidate matches, assessing the matches by linking the records with the
17 census information, and studying all available information about missing
18 persons, and only then, after completing this procedure, making decisions
19 about whether or not a potential match can be seen as a true match.
20 Q. And so we have table number 4 in your report of the 21st November
21 2005; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, this is table number 4 in the report.
23 Q. Did you apply the other criteria for matching up to 71, which uses
24 only initials of certain people to establish any possible matches?
25 Perhaps we could show 3D142 to Ms. Tabeau so as to make my point
1 clear, so that she could understand my question.
2 Ms. Tabeau, are you familiar with this document?
3 A. Yes, I believe I am. This is, as the title says "Examples of
4 Linking Criteria" for the census records with the list of missing persons.
5 Q. Those are the same criteria used by the OTP when matching names
6 and data for individuals?
7 A. Well, these are particular criteria that were used in the matching
8 of the census with the list of missing persons. I believe -- I don't
9 remember which version of the missing persons list was it, but, well,
10 these criteria were used. And of course similar criteria are used in
11 matching other sources.
12 The table we just discussed only lists five criteria, while the
13 sources that are matched are also different, it is not the census, and
14 only ICMP list, right, with the Srebrenica missing persons records. So it
15 is not that we always used the same 71 criteria in any matching. This is
16 what I'm saying.
17 Q. Thank you. The five criteria we mentioned, can we use a
18 statistical term? Could we call them keys used to establish matching?
19 A. Well, I don't know what is the meaning of the word "keys" that you
20 just used. Just five criteria, matching criteria, that we used to match
21 two lists, the ICMP list and the list of missing persons.
22 Q. Criteria can be changed using the same sample and same material
23 within the same statistical process. That is allowed, I presume.
24 A. Well, ideally, matching should be done on one numeric
25 characteristic which is unavailable in the two lists that we were
1 matching. In the absence of this one numerical characteristic, like
2 personal identification number, there is a need to use alternative
3 criteria. Alternative criteria, of course, on the first place must
4 include names and the date of birth, and this is what we had available in
5 both lists. This was the common part in the Srebrenica missing persons
6 list and in the ICMP list of identified individuals.
7 These common parts could be compared, and we did compare the parts
8 by using the five criteria discussed in the 2005 report. That we didn't
9 use 71, it can only mean that possibly we under-matched the two lists and
10 "under-matched" means that the overlap of the two lists might be even
11 bigger than we reported. That means that more identified persons were
12 included in the OTP list, in fact.
13 Q. I would kindly ask you to tell me this: Since you used the same
14 criteria in your report of the 11th of January as well, we do not have any
15 insight into what the degree of overlap there was in your latest report of
16 the 11th of January, 2008, and the tables were not drawn up the same way
17 they were in the report of the 21st of November, 2005. Is that correct?
18 A. There is no such a table in the January 2008 report, but I can
19 assure you that we used the same criteria. However, we've been more
20 conservative this time in declaring true matches. That means that the
21 less-certain matches that we included separately in this report might have
22 been declared as final matches, that we did it too. That is the meaning
23 of "under-matching," actually.
24 Q. However, we have no figures that would tell us something about the
25 application, as you said yourself. As regards your report of the 11th of
1 January, 2008, which is P3159, page 7 - could we please bring that up in
2 e-court, 7 in B/C/S and 5 in English - it is table 1. It says: "Review
3 of Type of Information" or "Overview of Data Items Provided in the October
4 2007 Update of ICMP, on DNA-Based Identifications of Srebrenica Victims."
5 Below the table, I believe you have it in English, you say:
6 "Date and place of disappearance are both related to the fall of
8 The date of disappearance has one value for all identified persons
9 related to the fall of Srebrenica. "The 11th of July, 1995," in quotation
10 marks, disregarding the actual date of disappearance or death of victims.
11 "We therefore did not use the date of disappearance in any
13 Is that correct?
14 A. When it comes to date of disappearance as reported by ICMP, we
15 didn't, because of -- for the reason that you mentioned. The ICMP is not
16 interested in things like data of disappearance or place of disappearance.
17 They do the DNA matching and identification, and this is what is the
18 crucial part of information for them.
19 Q. During Mr. Parsons' testimony, we were told that they entered the
20 date of disappearance as received from the families of those disappeared.
21 Therefore, such data was unreliable.
22 A. As far as I know, they just created this item based on the
23 information from the relatives, but it doesn't mean that the relatives
24 provided exact date of disappearance. They provided information about
25 whether or not a person went missing in the fall of Srebrenica of 1995.
1 Q. What source did you use based on which you established that the
2 victims went missing in the duration of 1994 and in relation to the events
3 in Srebrenica, having in mind your report and what you've just said?
4 A. Well, we used the ICRC list of missing persons version of 2005.
5 This is the source that we used for the compilation of our 2005 list of
6 Srebrenica missing. So the date of disappearance that is presented in the
7 annex, annex 2 to our January report, comes as originally reported by ICRC
8 in their list and as reported in our report of 16th November 2005.
9 Q. And it made its way on to the ICRC list based on the information
10 provided by the families and based on the questionnaires that were filled
11 out for every missing person?
12 A. I believe that that's the source for the date of disappearance
13 reported by ICRC.
14 Q. Can you tell me, how many of those who went missing on the OTP
15 list, for whom you claim went missing in 1995, actually had the date of
16 disappearance or death going back to 1992, 1993, or 1994?
17 A. Well, when it comes to the persons listed on the OTP list, the
18 date of disappearance was the criterion as to whether to include a person
19 in this list or not, so I'm pretty sure that there are no 1992s, 1993s,
20 1994s. It is all 1995, July to December 1995.
21 Q. Did you compare this OTP list with the list of ABiH soldiers, such
22 as found in the archives of the demographics department of the OTP?
23 A. No, we didn't. This is a list of missing from Srebrenica, so if a
24 soldier would be missing, it would be still a missing person on the list.
25 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show a Defence
1 exhibit to the witness. It is 3D -- I'll try to use the shorter version,
2 Your Honours, since I have two versions, but I'm trying to steer clear of
3 long lists. It could be 3D299. This document contains two pages.
4 Could we have both documents on the screen at the same time so
5 that Ms. Tabeau could compare.
6 Q. While we're waiting for the document to appear, I think,
7 Ms. Tabeau, that you are convinced that the demographics team of the
8 Defence worked at the OTP in 2007, at their premises, and you provided a
9 number of documents to them which they used in their demographic analyses;
10 is that correct?
11 A. Yes, there was a Defence team in 2007 working with the sources.
12 Q. Pursuant to their findings, we now have these two tables. The
13 upper one is a list of the OTP. Below, we have a list and examples from
14 ABiH database.
15 I apologise. I did not ask to go into private session, but in any
16 case this should not be broadcast, and I'll try to avoid mentioning any
18 In the first column, according to your OTP list on the 13th of
19 July, we have those who went missing in Kamenica, according to the
20 official data of the Army of B and H that the OTP has in its archives.
21 The same person went missing on the 10th of January, 1994, as a member of
22 the ABiH for unknown -- with an unknown cause of death in Bratunac.
23 A. Well, is it a question? This is what it says here in this table.
24 Q. There are nine such examples here of individuals who are listed on
25 the OTP list as missing, as victims who went missing in Srebrenica in
1 1995, who, according to the official BH Army records, which you have in
2 your possession, went missing prior to 1995 in other areas, and to be
3 precise in the period between 1992 and 1995. How could you compile a list
4 without consulting that source first?
5 A. Well, you might not know this, but in his 2000 report, Helge
6 Brunborg wrote that he was asked to compile a list of missing from
7 Srebrenica. This was his task, and this is what he did and what we
8 followed up on. While we didn't cross-reference this list with fallen
9 soldiers or other sources unknown, that is because it is not a list of
10 known deaths and missing persons. Our OTP list is a list of missing
11 persons and exclusively missing persons.
12 In the example you are showing here, I see that the cause of
13 death, at least for the cases that I see on the screen, is unknown or
14 missing. This might mean that the date of disappearance is the date that
15 these individuals were last seen. This does not contradict the fact that
16 the persons later died during the fall of Srebrenica, so that is one
18 The second observation is that, well, I believe there were a
19 number of inconsistencies in the lists of military personnel fallen during
20 the war, and I remember at some point we contacted the Ministry of Defence
21 and asked for a clarification on a number of cases, not in the context of
22 our project on the Srebrenica missing list, but in the context of other
23 projects, and corrections were provided to us, and dates of this kind,
24 1993, 1994, were corrected to be 1995. So this is why I believe it would
25 be necessary to first try to obtain a clarification of these cases from
1 the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to declare the cases as
2 inconsistent on the OTP list.
3 Q. Madam Tabeau, you believe that the OTP list, based on the raw DNA
4 data, is more reliable than the BH Army records, in terms of the dates of
5 death and the years of death, which you also ascertain on the basis of an
6 individual's statement as to the time of disappearance?
7 A. Well, I believe that ICMP data is very reliable, and the selection
8 of the records for the list they provided us was based on studying the
9 sites, gravesites, whether or not the sites were related to the fall of
10 Srebrenica. And in addition to this, they also have in their databases
11 information from the relatives of the missing persons, and from this
12 source they can see whether or not individuals were reported as missing
13 during the fall of Srebrenica. So it is like a double-check they use to
14 compile the list of identified persons related to Srebrenica. That is the
15 reason for me to believe that this is a very reliable source.
16 Q. A moment ago, you told us that the ICMP was not interested in the
17 date of disappearance or the date of death, that they were only dealing
18 with DNA analyses?
19 A. This is very correct. I don't obtain date of disappearance and
20 place of disappearance from the ICMP, but through linking of sources on
21 the individual level. The information about the place and time of
22 disappearance is available as reported to the ICRC, also by a reliable
23 source, by the relatives of the missing persons.
24 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that it is
25 time for a break, and I'll only have a couple of questions left before I
1 finish my examination. Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: May I -- thank you, madam.
3 May I have an indication from the other Defence teams,
4 Mr. Zivanovic or Madam Tapuskovic?
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was supposed to
6 examine Madam Tabeau. I asked for some 15 minutes. However, Madam
7 Nikolic has already exhausted some topics I wanted to deal with, and it is
8 quite possible I will have no questions of this witness.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, madam.
10 Mr. Ostojic.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 We adopt the same position. We've reserved 15 minutes, but we'll
13 look at it and hopefully we'll have no questions of Dr. Tabeau.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 Mr. Lazarevic.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, we reserved 15 minutes, but I believe
17 that I'll be able to complete my cross-examination for five to ten
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
20 Ms. Fauveau.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President ...
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And Gvero and Pandurevic, I take it no
24 MR. SARAPA: We don't have questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 We shall do our utmost to finish with your testimony, madam,
3 Thank you. Twenty-five minutes.
4 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Can we please call up document 3D02 [as interpreted]. And before
9 Madam Tabeau is shown the document, I have one question.
10 Q. Are you familiar with the letter that was sent to the Office of
11 the Prosecutor?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, could counsel repeat the exhibit number.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] 3D302, the letter from the Federal
14 Commission on Missing Persons, Mr. Masovic, dated the 28th of December,
16 Q. Are you familiar with the letter and with the exchange that the
17 OTP had with the Bosnian authorities or, rather, the local authorities in
19 A. No, I'm not familiar with this letter. And regarding the
20 exchange, I don't -- I don't know what are you talking about.
21 Q. "Exchange" is what I said, the exchange of letters and not the
22 extent. But please look at page 1 of the letter, where Mr. Masovic
23 informs the OTP about the number of victims that were exhumed -- found and
24 exhumed from the service in 2007. Since your findings partially rely on
25 those of Mr. Manning, I wanted to know if you were aware of this figure of
1 929 exhumed individuals, 474 of whom were identified in the area where the
2 column was moving.
3 A. Well, I -- first of all, not seeing the entire letter, just the
4 first few lines of the letter, but from the first lines I already can see
5 I'm unaware of this letter, I haven't seen the letter. And if these
6 statistics you mentioned come from the letter or related materials, that I
7 must say I'm unaware of them.
8 Q. Thank you. Before the break, whilst we were discussing the
9 soldiers who were killed and who were listed on the BH Army records, which
10 contains detailed information in relation to each and every one of them,
11 including the personal identification number, you'll agree with me that
12 these lists originate from the files of the Office of the Prosecutor, do
13 they not?
14 A. Well, the source is the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I think that these records, it was my
16 impression, were extracted from this source. But you know better than me
17 what was the -- what of the three lists was used. And we have the list of
18 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in our office, indeed.
19 Q. Which refer to 30.000 soldiers killed; is that right?
20 A. About 28.000 names were reported, with a few duplications, in the
21 federal list. This is only one of the three lists. There are two more,
22 VRS and HVO have their own lists.
23 Q. These lists, in statistical and demographic terms, contain all the
24 data, first and last names, father's name, personal identification
25 numbers, and so on and so forth; is that right?
1 A. They do include the data items you mentioned and some information
2 such as cause of death and place of death or disappearance -- sorry place
3 is not included. Date of death is included, not place of death or
4 disappearance. And some other items as well.
5 Q. Those were the lists we discussed previously and which you said
6 Mr. Brunborg did not consult while compiling his November 2005 report?
7 A. Well, this is what he didn't use. He didn't use a number of other
8 sources that report on the so-called known deaths, the most important ones
9 being the database on wartime deaths of the Federation of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina with altogether 75.000 records, and another one of the RS
11 authorities with 65.000 records, and this is related -- the purpose of the
12 Brunborg project and all following projects was compiling the list of
13 missing from Srebrenica. This list shouldn't be seen as a complete source
14 of information on all individuals that were killed or disappeared in the
15 fall of Srebrenica. It is just the list of missing persons, and of course
16 some dead persons as well, but those dead were first reported as missing
17 to the ICRC.
18 Q. These sources which you mention were not consulted, had they been
19 consulted, the nine cases we looked at indicate that there is a large
20 number of individuals who died before 1995 and who nevertheless got it on
21 to the OTP list of persons related to Srebrenica?
22 A. Of course, it is not true that a large number of individuals on
23 the OTP -- any number of individuals on the OTP list are reported as dead
24 in earlier years, not in 1995. Well, I don't know, how can you draw this
25 conclusion based on nine cases of which you are absolutely uncertain as to
1 the quality of reporting of information? And, yeah, this is, I think, a
2 very misleading conclusion. You may not do that.
3 Q. I agree with you. Those were only nine illustrations, and there
4 is over a hundred such cases. But let me continue with my examination.
5 When you were drafting your 11 January 2008 report, were you, as a
6 demographer, duty-bound to use, except for the raw ICMP list, also the
7 official sources such as the records of death by relevant official bodies?
8 A. Well, I don't understand what are relevant official bodies, but
9 this is perhaps not so important. The purpose of the whole exercise was
10 to cross-reference the OTP list of missing with the records of the
11 identified persons of the ICMP, and this is what we did in this report,
12 and this is what we present in terms of statistics and some basic
13 demographic distributions in the January 2008 report. So we didn't have
14 the purpose of including any source available or unavailable, just the
15 list of identified persons.
16 Q. In other words, you did not use the minutes ascertained in the
17 death of the Cantonal Courts of Tuzla, Zenica, and so on and so forth, all
18 those documents; you only used individual segments that are normally used,
19 but only some of them of those that are normally used to ascertain the
20 death of a given individual? For instance, a copy of the register, this
21 is something that I would consider an official source.
22 A. I don't understand the question. I can only repeat: We wanted to
23 cross-reference missing list of OTP of 2005 with the DNA-based
24 identifications of the ICMP, and this is what we did and this is what we
25 presented. Perhaps you can rephrase your question.
1 Q. Did you consult the clinical -- the voters' registers of 2006 [as
2 interpreted], perhaps, to ascertain that the lists match, or was the
3 purpose of your exercise merely to make the ICMP list an official one?
4 A. Well, what is register of 2006, we don't --
5 Q. I apologise. It wasn't entered into the transcript properly. What
6 I meant was the 2006 voters' registers of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 A. Well, as you know, from the 2005 report on the list of Srebrenica
8 missing, we did use, when compiling the list of missing of 2005, the
9 population census, three voters' registers, 1997, 1998 and the 2000
10 register, and we used SOL records of the internally displaced persons and
11 refugees of 2000, the official register of these individuals, in order to
12 eliminate possible survivors from the OTP list of missing. But once the
13 list was finished, we didn't do much work on it, any work on it, we just
14 used the list as it was compiled in 2005 for the purpose of
15 cross-referencing the list with the latest ICMP list of identified
17 So, in fact, in some way, these voters' registers, registers of
18 IDPs and refugees, the census, are all there, are all there, through the
19 OTP list of missing, but not that we used these sources in the context of
20 the ICMP data. Why would we be doing this? This all has been done
22 Q. Your 11 January 2008 report does not contain a full demographic
23 portrayal of the situation. It merely serves to make official the ICMP
25 A. Well, there are two things. The January 2008 report is a full
1 report, because it discussed what we wanted to and planned to discuss in
2 this report. That's one thing. Second, we don't need to make the ICMP
3 official -- ICMP data official. I don't know still what does this mean to
4 you, "official." The ICMP list contains cases of identified persons with
5 important reference numbers to the main identification report. That would
6 be the protocol ID number available from this list, with the case number
7 available, which is the label attached to the remains. It includes as
8 well ICMP identification number. So through all these IDs and the name of
9 the person, you have a complete record of information about the
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, Ms. Nikolic and witness, we are repeating
12 ourselves over and over again. I think we can move to your next question.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 This concludes my cross-examination.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
16 So Madam Tapuskovic.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no questions of this
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a couple of
22 minutes, if the Court allows.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Tabeau, again.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Ma'am, today on page 61, line 25, you spoke, in answers to my
3 colleague, Madam Nikolic, regarding the criteria of plus/minus five. Do
4 you remember that, basically?
5 A. Well, we discussed the five years limit at some point.
6 Q. Can you tell me the source of that standard that you used the
7 criteria of plus/minus five?
8 A. Well, the source should be seen as our expertise in matching and
9 comparing related records, and another source is the fact that dates of
10 birth are reported not always in a reliable way. This is what we know
11 from the ICMP, but this is also our observation, our own observation.
12 Q. Right. Actually, my question was a bit different, and it was
13 probably my fault. What my question is: Is this a standard that's
14 typically utilised internationally or is this a standard that you,
15 yourself, have set, this five plus-or-minus criteria that you mentioned?
16 A. Well, if you expect that I will give you international guidelines
17 published on these particular five years, then I must disappoint you.
18 There is no such a published standard.
19 Q. So when I say -- asked you what sources there are, those are just
20 internal sources that you've utilised, and you don't -- they're not used
21 in any other nation, country, which deal with demographics or the study of
22 displaced or missing persons; is that really what you're saying?
23 A. No, this is not what I'm saying.
24 Q. Well, help me and describe for me which other entities or
25 organisations use this criteria, specifically.
1 A. Well, I think generally the matching as a method is a
2 well-recognised standard, and in many countries, like, for instance,
3 Scandinavian countries, who don't have the population census, matching is
4 an important way of collecting information about the individuals, the
5 population, and compiling statistics. Matching, in that case, would be
6 based on individual identification, numbers, as such.
7 Q. Right. And I'm familiar with that methodology of matching,
8 Dr. Tabeau. My specific question is -- and if you can't help us, I'll
9 move on to another point. Is the criteria of utilising this plus or minus
11 A. Well, I explained earlier, there are no written published on plus
12 or minus five years. This limit can be established based on the study of
13 the data and based on your own assessment of deficiencies, in particular,
14 in this case, in the date of birth.
15 Q. Thank you for that, and I'll move on in the interests of time.
16 I want to know, when you said that you relied on the ICMP reports,
17 if you could qualify that for me. Did you rely on all their reports or
18 some of them? And if some of them, which ones, if I can put that compound
19 question in the interest of time to you?
20 A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean "with the ICMP reports." We used
21 a list of identified persons that was provided by the ICMP, right, for --
22 Q. Let me then restate it, if I may, and I apologise for cutting you
23 off, Doctor. If you utilised the data from the ICMP, as opposed to
24 reports, so we'll just change the word to "data," did you use all their
25 data or part of their data?
1 A. Well, they provided us with a subset of data on -- related to the
2 identified persons related to the fall of Srebrenica, but I also do the
3 DNA identifications for many other victims that would cover not only
4 victims of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also Kosovo, for
5 instance, and in some cases Croatia.
6 Q. So you used part of their data; right?
7 A. Well, we used part of their data.
8 Q. Well, all I'm interested to know, Doctor, is: What part didn't
9 you utilise in providing your report of January 2008? If you could list
10 that out, if you know.
11 A. Well, what are -- I didn't use the data that were unrelated to
13 Q. Anything else that you didn't use from the ICMP?
14 A. Like what, you mean?
15 Q. Like all the data that you were provided by them, you took
16 everything that relates to Srebrenica, everything else you didn't utilise.
17 So with respect to Srebrenica, you were provided with all that data, and
18 you used all that data to come up with your report; would that be a fair
20 A. They provided a separate list for Srebrenica. It's a separate
21 data set, a subset of all the data they have.
22 Q. And that's all you utilised; correct?
23 A. Well, in this particular report, yes. In the previous report,
24 we - addition to the Srebrenica list of ICMP - used the notice, the
25 so-called ICMP notice, which is much broader.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, that's all I have, Doctor.
2 Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
4 Mr. Lazarevic.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Madam Tabeau. My name is
8 Aleksandar Lazarevic, and I will ask some questions of you on behalf of
9 General Borovcanin.
10 Could we please see 03159A on e-court, and I would kindly ask that
11 the document not be broadcast, since it is under seal. Let us go to page
12 20 of the document immediately.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [In English] Your Honours, I would kindly ask for
14 some guidelines, because this document is under seal and I, in my
15 cross-examination, I intend to reference to some particular date from this
16 document. Whether we should revert to private session, it contains
17 particular names.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let's move to private session, because I
19 don't know what document this is, and perhaps -- are we in private
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 21065-21067 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So we have concluded your cross-examination, Madam
21 Tabeau, which means you're free to go. Thank you so much for having come
22 over to give testimony.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan, exhibits.
1 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honours. That would be 65 ter numbers
2 3158, 3159, as well as 3159A, 3004 and 3004A, and 3006.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? We hear none. Admitted.
4 Documents for the Drago Nikolic Defence? Ms. Nikolic, you have
5 three documents?
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, of
7 according to the list that was forwarded, it was 3D299, 3D142, and 3D302.
8 The other documents I used have already been put on the Prosecution's
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection?
11 MS. SOLJAN: No, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Other Defence teams wish to object? None. So these
13 three documents are admitted.
14 Mr. Lazarevic, I suppose the ones you used are already in the
15 records, so --
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's all been tendered into
17 evidence by the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So that concludes our business for today. I wish to
19 thank you for your cooperation.
20 Tomorrow, you have the last witness, Mr. McCloskey. Don't tell me
21 she's not here.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: She's here, and that is the last witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, all right.
24 So we'll deal with her testimony tomorrow, and then perhaps after
25 that we'll deal with the residues of the Butler exhibit list, of course,
1 without prejudice to what we discussed earlier on.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, and we are working on some old
3 stipulations from long ago and a few other items which we may need to
4 alert you to.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, while we still have some more time, we
8 would like you to get together, and also with the Registrar, to clean up
9 for us the slate on which we have put so many documents, marking them for
10 identification. Then we need you, particularly, Mr. Ostojic, we need you
11 to conclude for us, in a clear way, clear manner, all issues -- pending
12 issues, if there are any left, relating to the aerial images.
13 As I see it, but of course I stand to be corrected, it seems that
14 there is a standing on your part, Mr. Ostojic, but all other issues,
15 pre-existing issues, have been solved, but the objection stands. But if I
16 am wrong, please correct me tomorrow.
17 Some time back, Mr. McCloskey, you had informed us, in relation to
18 the Skorpion video, that you were having talks, discussions, with the
19 Defence teams and that you were in the process of finalising a
20 stipulation. I don't know at what stage you have arrived, but if perhaps
21 tomorrow you could articulate this.
22 I think for the time being, that is all. There are some other
23 issues, but I need to discuss them with my colleagues before I raise them,
24 if at all, tomorrow.
25 Thank you.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.53 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of
3 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.