1 Thursday, 30 August 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court].

4 [The Accused Coric and Petkovic not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. This is Thursday, and I

11 welcome representatives from the Prosecution, Mr. Scott and Mr. Stringer.

12 Welcome counsel for Defence and our four accused. It seems that two are

13 ill, Mr. Coric and Mr. Petkovic.

14 I would ask Mr. Coric's counsel whether his client is really ill.

15 Is he ill?

16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Coric, as

17 far as we've been informed, suffers from some sort of virus. It's not a

18 serious illness, but he feels too sick to attend these proceedings. But

19 there's nothing seriously wrong with him, and I expect him to return to

20 the courtroom next week. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will now give the

22 floor to the registrar to obtain an IC number.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Several parties have

24 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through Witness Marita

25 Vihervuori: The list submitted by the OTP shall be given Exhibit number

1 IC 645. The list submitted by 1D shall be given Exhibit number IC 646.

2 List of objections to be tendered: The OTP response to be -- to

3 the list of documents tendered by 2D through Witness Antoon van der

4 Grinten shall be given Exhibit number IC 647. The OTP response to the

5 list of documents tendered through Witness Antoon van der Grinten shall be

6 given be Exhibit number IC 648. That is the response to the list of

7 documents tendered through 3D. And next, the OTP response to the list of

8 documents tendered by 6D through Witness Antoon van der Grinten shall be

9 given Exhibit number IC 649. Thank you, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

11 After the problem we had with the electrical power failure, we

12 have a decision to give and I will read it slowly.

13 Oral decision regarding the witness's impossibility to answer a

14 question on grounds of "force majeure." Following an interruption in the

15 hearing for reasons of "force majeure" on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, around

16 1.45 p.m., Prosecution was unable to obtain an answer from the witness

17 after a question asked.

18 The Trial Chamber believes that the question asked, which dealt

19 with an alleged ultimatum dating January 1993, is of limited interest

20 regarding Witness Vihervuori. The Trial Chamber believes that not

21 obtaining an answer to this question is not detrimental to Prosecution.

22 On these grounds, Chamber declares the hearing closed without having heard

23 the answer from this witness.

24 So this was a decision that was required in connection with the

25 hearing that was not -- that couldn't close normally because of this power

1 failure, the power failure that prohibited us from hearing the witness's

2 answer and also thanking the answer. I'm sure the witness understood this

3 was force majeure, act of God.

4 Furthermore, the Chamber would like to add one thing for

5 Mr. Kovacic and Mr. Praljak. Yesterday, we had the problem of the

6 cross-examination by the Accused Praljak. The Chamber stated yesterday,

7 and we confirm also today, that when an accused asks a question, he can

8 only do so within the ruling of May 10, 2007, paragraph 12.

9 For this reason, the Chamber is asking Mr. Praljak to meet its

10 counsel -- his counsel before the hearing, to meet with Mr. Kovacic, to

11 give him all necessary instructions regarding the questions that will be

12 asked during the cross-examination; if need be, to write down the question

13 and hand it over to the counsel who will read it, in order to distribute

14 the roles between the counsel which has a role to play and the accused

15 that can also take the floor but only exceptionally. And this should help

16 things run smoothly.

17 Furthermore, the Chamber -- the Trial Chamber underlines that,

18 when an accused will take the floor to ask questions, his counsel will

19 have to tell the Trial Chamber, prior to his taking the floor, what are

20 the reasons why the accused wants to take the floor. The Prosecution

21 might then object - I don't know whether it will or not - and Chamber can

22 immediately consult and allow or deny, which was what was written in the

23 decision of May 10.

24 We wanted to remind Mr. Praljak of these instruction.

25 Mr. Kovacic.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for those

2 instructions. My client, General Praljak, and I myself have discussed the

3 matter, of course, already, and I have prepared short notes to put

4 forward. I can put forward those arguments at any point in time why we

5 consider that following the decision of the 10th of May should be given

6 the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness. So I'm ready to

7 go ahead with those arguments whenever you wish to hear them.

8 Thank you.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So we will continue with

10 the witness's hearing. But before this, late afternoon, yesterday, we

11 found out that next week it would be impossible, technically, to hear the

12 witness that was scheduled, because his government must provide an

13 authorisation.

14 Mr. Scott, do you confirm this? The hearing of the witness that

15 was planned for next week is going to be postponed sine die.

16 MR. SCOTT: Good morning Your Honour, all of Your Honours,

17 Mr. President, all the Judges, and all those in the courtroom.

18 Your Honour, just out of an abundance of caution, if we could go

19 into private session, I would appreciate it.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I object to going into private session

21 at this point. I think, it's obvious, there's an open record with respect

22 to the witness's prior occupation. (Redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 21789 redacted.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. SCOTT: An unconfirmed allegation and rumour has been put on

2 the record.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has consulted

4 and believes that we need to go into private hearing, because the

5 Prosecution might going into topics that we don't know about. We can't

6 know ahead of time what's going to say. I'm not in Mr. Scott's brain nor

7 in Mr. Karnavas's brain.

8 So please could we a have a private session, Mr. Registrar.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 21791-21800 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, as far as the upcoming

24 witness is concerned, the Prosecution had not completed its

25 examination-in-chief. There was another series of questions that needed

1 to be asked, and I think that Mr. Stringer will need something between 50

2 minutes and one hour to complete his examination-in-chief.

3 Mr. Stringer.

4 MR. STRINGER: That's correct, Mr. President. It is my

5 understanding that I have 50 minutes left, and I will be -- I expect to

6 use all of those 50 minutes, but hopefully cannot ask for anything more.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as the

8 cross-examination is concerned, the Trial Chamber had indicated last week

9 that each accused would have 30 minutes. If we can't finish today, then,

10 of course, if we have some extra time, we will continue the testimony of

11 this witness on Monday afternoon, and we can then complete this witness's

12 testimony by Monday if we haven't finished --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Or on Monday.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But if the following situation

15 arises, and if we cannot finish this witness's testimony today but that on

16 Monday at a quarter past 2.00, the other witness is ready, then today's

17 witness will have to come back at a latter stage.

18 This is how we need to proceed. I think everybody agrees on this.

19 So we shall now bring in the witness into the courtroom.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. I'd like

23 to welcome you on behalf of my colleagues. As you know, the

24 examination-in-chief will resume today, and the cross-examination will

25 also begin today.

1 I, therefore, give the floor to Mr. Stringer.

2 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Examination by Mr. Stringer: [Continued]

4 Q. Good morning, Witness. Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.

5 A. Good morning.

6 MR. SCOTT: Before we begin, I ask the gentleman in the technical

7 booth, we have the PowerPoint presentation loaded on the computer here, if

8 it is possible to put on the screen so that everyone can following along

9 with the PowerPoint.

10 Q. And while that's being done, Witness, just to bring us up to --

11 up-to-date, last week, during your direct examination, you testified about

12 a report that you'd prepared dealing with the issue of population

13 movements within eight municipalities of Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, it's correct.

15 Q. Okay. And then, right at the end of that day, we were able to

16 conclude your testimony on that report with some conclusions. So now what

17 I'd like to do is go directly into the other two reports that you've

18 prepared, bearing in mind that we probably need to try and complete our

19 testimony here within the next 50 minutes or so.

20 On the screen, and just to continue with that, we've not had any

21 communication, so I'll just let you know that in preparing for this

22 morning, I'm going to skip through some of the slides that we previously

23 had intended to -- to look at and go directly to your conclusions.

24 Now, did you prepare, Ms. Tabeau, a report related to the numbers

25 of persons killed in East Mostar during the course of the conflict there

1 in 1993?

2 A. Yes, I did.

3 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber, please, in general and

4 briefly, what were your objectives in preparing that report? Tell us what

5 are the sources of information on which you relied, and, again, very

6 briefly and in general, the methods used in preparing that report.

7 A. The objective of this report was to produce reliable statistics on

8 that coast in the city of East Mostar in the period from the 9th of May,

9 1993 until approximately April 1994. Sources that can be used in these

10 kind of study are infrequent. East Mostar is a very small area that is

11 not easy statistically defined. So the choice of sources that we used had

12 to take this into account.

13 There was one source that actually suited the needs of this

14 project very well. This was the hospital records of Mostar war hospital

15 books, from Mostar war hospital books. This hospital was located in East

16 Mostar, and all patients treated in this hospital actually were coming

17 from East Mostar area. And this was the area where they acquired their

18 injuries and where they killed -- they were killed. But, of course, this

19 source covered only a small group of victims. As victims who were killed

20 were directly and were dead immediately were not brought to the hospital,

21 we had to use additional sources.

22 The additional sources was the records from Mostar death

23 registries. This is the source that is very commonly used in statistics

24 and demography. This is the registration part of the vital events

25 registration system in every country. In this particular case, we used

1 the death registries from the area that was -- from the area in Mostar

2 that was controlled by the -- by the Bosnian -- by the Bosniaks. So,

3 because of this split of Mostar at the beginning of the conflict into two

4 parts, the West and East Mostar, the authorities started around that time

5 in early 1993 to keep their records separately.

6 So we used the death registries that were reporting on the deaths

7 of Bosniaks, of the Muslim population. So this was another source that

8 was very useful and very good for our study. We had to be careful with

9 the selection of records. As I said, East Mostar is a small area. So we

10 had to make sure that records we included were relevant and were -- could

11 be considered as deaths related to the city of East Mostar.

12 One more source that we included are the military records of

13 soldiers and other military personnel killed during the Bosnian war. We

14 have in our unit three lists, military lists from three armies; the ABiH

15 army, the VRS army, and the HVO. All together these lists cover

16 approximately 48.000 records, and they covered the entire conflict period.

17 We used this source as a reference source. In our sources, such as West

18 Mostar war hospital books and Mostar death registries, the reporting of

19 the military civilian status is not complete. It's deficient. So it was

20 important to use the military lists in order to mark militaries in our

21 records from the major sources.

22 I want to stress the military records include more than just

23 fallen soldiers. This list includes also persons or personnel who worked

24 in the Ministry of Defence in every political entity. They also include

25 deaths of the people working in production section providing service and

1 goods for the army. So these sources, as a reference, it includes more

2 than just the fallen soldiers, the combatants who died in combat.

3 Q. Okay, and the methods, as indicated on the slide, you employed a

4 counting approach and then combined that with some statistical estimation?

5 A. Yes, that's correct. Our basic approach is always counting. We

6 try to -- to collect as many records as we can, and we try to present

7 counts, minimum numbers of victims. But depending on -- on the situation

8 with sources, in most cases sources are very incomplete. We try to

9 compensate for the deficiencies and incompleteness of sources, and we

10 combine the counting approach with some statistical estimation.

11 Q. Okay. Now I want to focus briefly on the war hospital, the war

12 hospital books?

13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, these war hospital records are

14 already in evidence in this case. They were admitted in the course of the

15 testimony of a witness who appeared, one of the doctors who worked at the

16 hospital, and he testified in this case last January.

17 And with the assistance of the technical booth, I'd ask if we

18 could, perhaps from e-court, put up Exhibit P 02786 on the screens. This

19 is one of the hospital books that is in evidence that was testified about,

20 and it's the smallest one, so we're able to work with it.

21 Do we have that on the screen? We don't need translation. We can

22 use the full screen for this. Okay. Thank you.

23 Q. Again, and just I think it's useful, Ms. Tabeau, let's focus on

24 the third entry. First of all, is this a page from -- does this appear to

25 be a page from the war hospital records that you relied on in making your

1 study?

2 A. Yes. This is this page, yes.

3 Q. And this is also the same war hospital book that you used in

4 making the other study that you're going to be talking about in a few

5 minutes which relates to the wounded people in Mostar?

6 A. Yes. It's the same source, the same books.

7 Q. Okay. Now, just focusing on the third entry there, I think it may

8 be useful for everyone to understand how you worked. What we see here is

9 an entry, number 4545, I believe. Do you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. With the name -- well, can you tell us, moving across from left to

12 right, what the information on this page means to you in respect of your

13 report.

14 A. Yes. In the war hospital books, patients are registered as they

15 were arriving in the hospital. Each patient received a number in the

16 books; and, in the case we are looking at, it is the number 4545. So

17 patients have consecutive numbers, and the books are organised according

18 to the calendar time of their arrival.

19 Q. If I could just jump in there.

20 MR. STRINGER: For the record, Mr. President, as we are counting

21 backwards, it looks as though we're talking about entry number 4543.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. I misread that. Yes, that's right.

23 Yes.

24 Well, there are date stamps in the hospital books. The first

25 patient arriving at a given day also received a day stamp, which I can't

1 see on this particular page. But I'm pretty sure if we could go down or

2 up a little bit, then -- not on this page. Perhaps down. Next one

3 perhaps.

4 Well, from the date stamp, it clear when exactly the patient

5 arrived; then we have the name of the patient reported. In this

6 particular case, it is Senad Bacejevic, I think. I might have read it

7 incorrectly. In the next field, it is reported that the person was a

8 Vojnik, which is a soldier; and in the last field, there is the diagnosis.

9 It's given in Latin.

10 What I can see here is a familiar term, "V. explosiva," which

11 comes from "vulnus explosiva." This is a term that was consequently used

12 for victims of shelling. There are also some other terms in the field of

13 diagnosis, different than "vulnus explosiva." It might be "vulnus

14 trans-sclopetarium," or sclopetarium," which would be the term used for a

15 person wounded by a gunshot.

16 Q. Okay. Now --

17 A. But going back to this record we are discussing, I would also like

18 to draw attention to the circle around the number of this patient, 4543.

19 The circle is one of the markers that were used in the books. The circle

20 were used for people that died, didn't survive. And in the field of

21 diagnosis, you can read in the last line that this patient is "adit exit

22 sletelus" [phoen], or something like that, which means that the person

23 died.

24 Q. Okay. According to this record, then, this tells us that this

25 individual was a soldier, that he was admitted to the hospital for some

1 sort of explosive wound -- explosive wounding, and that he ultimately died

2 then from his wounds.

3 A. Yes. This is what it says. We have the name of the person. We

4 don't have the year of birth of the person, but we know that he was a

5 soldier.

6 Q. Okay. All right. Now, just to anticipate this issue in respect

7 of your other report on the wounded people, let's just talk now about

8 this. For all of these patients who are -- who are referenced in these

9 records -- and by the way, did you review all of the war hospital records

10 that we have on this?

11 A. Yes. We reviewed all these records, one by one. The reason was

12 that we didn't computerise the records. We received an electronic version

13 of the records, and we wanted to make sure that there are no mistakes, no

14 omissions, that everything is correct. So all these records have been

15 reviewed.

16 Q. Okay. All right. Now, on the basis your analysis of this -- this

17 report, then, did you not then take this information and merge it with

18 other data that was available to you and the other sources that you've

19 described, the death registers and the military lists?

20 A. In the end we did, but we also studied each source separately and

21 we compared the sources. But in the end, we merged the sources, combined

22 the sources. Two major sources combined were the records from the war

23 hospital books and the records from the death registries. Each of these

24 source have been also matched with the military lists; and through the

25 links with the military lists, we improved the reporting of the military

1 civilian status of the victims in our master list.

2 Q. Okay. So, now, if we could just return to the PowerPoint slide,

3 because I'm going to skip ahead to one that I want to ask you about and

4 that is this. Again, the Trial Chamber heard your explanation about this

5 before, but I think it may bear repeating very briefly: The distinction

6 or the difference between absolute minimum numbers and the more complete

7 minimum numbers based on the actual counting and then the estimation

8 method that you employed.

9 A. Yes. As I said, minimum, absolute minimum numbers, come from the

10 counting approach. These numbers are just obtained by looking at the

11 master list of combined sources, and we take the victims reported in the

12 master list and count how many are there and this is the absolute

13 minimum. But because the sources are deficient and several information

14 items are missing, it is important to compensate for this, and this is

15 when the proportion-based approach comes into work.

16 Q. Okay. And again the proportion-based approach is the one that

17 yields what you called a more complete absolute minimum number.

18 A. Yes, that's right.

19 Q. Now, what I want to do is cut right to the end of this part of the

20 PowerPoint, and just go straight to the conclusions so that we're sure to

21 cover all of those here; and then as time permits, either I or counsel for

22 the Defence can bring you back to these individual items for more

23 discussion.

24 So, Ms. Tabeau, why don't you just go down these points and tell

25 us the conclusions, the final results that you reached in course of this

1 study of the deaths of the killed people in East Mostar?

2 A. Yes. The absolute minimum number of deaths obtained from the

3 counting approach and based on the master list of combined sources is 539

4 deaths. Of this number, we certainly know this is a heavy

5 underestimation. There was certainly many more deaths resulting from the

6 siege of East Mostar. But because of the deficiencies and incompleteness

7 of the sources, we are unable to include more deaths in the absolute

8 minimum number.

9 Q. Now, again, the absolute minimum number being the number of --

10 this is the number of individuals whose names you can provide based on the

11 sources that you've already described?

12 A. Yes, that's right. The more complete number of deaths within

13 should be 1.023, and this is a number that tries to compensate for the

14 incompleteness of sources. One major deficiency of the war hospital

15 records is that a number of pages are missing in these books. In total,

16 465 records are reported on the missing pages, so we had to exclude this

17 number of records from the calculation of the absolute minimum.

18 In the death registries, the major deficiency is that a large

19 number of records, approximately 460, have no place of death reported,

20 even though we know that a large number of them are from Mostar. We are

21 unable to decide whether these deaths are from exactly East Mostar or not;

22 otherwise, these records would be consistent with the time frame of the

23 siege. So these records had to be excluded from the absolute number as

24 well. But taking this into account, we believe that the more complete

25 minimum number is the 1.023 deaths that we report here.

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. Further, we studied the civilian military distribution of the

3 victims. We applied two methods to make an assessment of this

4 distribution, and the result of both methods was similar. There is

5 approximately 50 per cent of deaths that should be considered as deaths of

6 civilians.

7 Further, approximately 90 per cent, specifically speaking 87.8 per

8 cent of deaths, were of Muslims. This is the largest group of victims.

9 Q. Let me just jump in there and ask if you could tell the Trial

10 Chamber, please, how you went about determining who were civilians versus

11 militaries, and also how you went about determining ethnicity?

12 A. Civilian military status was reported in the war hospital books.

13 The reporting was not fully complete, but it was complete enough to look

14 at the distribution of civilians versus militaries. So this was one way

15 that we estimated the percentage of civilian victims in our total. We

16 just obtained a proportion of civilians and militaries from the war

17 hospital books and applied this proportion to the master list of combined

18 sources. That was methods one.

19 But to make sure that our estimate is correct, that there is no

20 error involvement, we have redone the estimation based on the improved

21 reporting of the military civilian status. This improved reporting was

22 obtained through the matches of the records from Mostar war hospital books

23 and from Mostar death registries with the military lists. Every person

24 matched with the military list was considered to be a military person.

25 For others, we kept the reporting as available.

1 The results of these two methods are exactly the same, almost

2 exactly the same, very similar. This is 50/50 approximately.

3 Q. Okay. Let me jump in. I want to make sure we understand that.

4 You used two methods to calculate the proportion of civilian versus

5 military deaths; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. And the first method was -- was based on the review of the war

8 hospital records themselves, the document that we've looked at already.

9 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. And then after that, you got a proportion based on that, that

11 review.

12 A. Yes. It had to be war hospital books because it was the only

13 source where the reporting was available.

14 Q. Right.

15 A. In the death registries, there is no information about

16 civilian-military distribution of victims.

17 Q. And then you introduced additional data, that being from the

18 military lists?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. And then after using that second method, then, how did the results

21 compare as between the two methods?

22 A. Well, as I said several times already, the results are very

23 similar. So the method based on improved reporting of the

24 military-civilian status through the links with the military lists

25 resulted in the same type of distribution.

1 Q. Okay. And that distribution indicated here would be 49.5 per cent

2 of the siege-related deaths were civilian.

3 A. Yes, it's correct. We believed that it might have been more

4 civilians, as I know that our military lists overestimated the -- the

5 combatants and militaries, generally speaking.

6 Q. Okay. And then in terms of ethnicity, I'm not sure, how did you

7 determine ethnicity for this purpose?

8 A. Well, ethnicity was not originally was not reported in the

9 sources. In the war hospital books, ethnicity was determination on the

10 basis of studying the names of the victims; and, in this project, the

11 ethnicity was determined by native B/C/S speakers familiar with the naming

12 traditions in this area.

13 So this wasn't done in my unit. It was done before I received the

14 data for my analysis, but we didn't have to do anything. This is often

15 done and, well, there are differences in naming tradition between the

16 ethnic groups. And people who are from the region are able to decide

17 based on names the ethnicity of a person.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. With the death registries, we applied a different approach. We

20 used information from the 1991 population census; namely, we studied the

21 ethnic distribution of the same names as those reported in the death

22 registries. We studied the ethnic distribution of these names in the

23 population census, and we took for every person the prevailing reporting

24 of ethnicity for a given name.

25 Q. Okay.

1 A. So it was a statistical approach, an approach based on what was

2 observed in the population census, and we just followed the results. We

3 decided for every person that the ethnic group that most frequently had

4 this given name is the ethnicity that should be assigned to this name.

5 Q. Okay. Now, I should have asked you this at the beginning: What's

6 the time frame for this study? What is the period of time that you

7 examined in reaching these numbers?

8 A. Well, it is from May 1993 to approximately April -- actually, in

9 war hospital books, it is also May 1994 that is included. It's

10 approximately one-year period.

11 Q. Now, at the beginning period, is it from the 9th of May or is it

12 from the 1st of May?

13 A. Yeah, it is the 9th of May. This is the first date where the

14 records from war hospital books --

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. -- are available, yes.

17 Q. Okay. Now the next point here indicates the frequency of death

18 seen in the records was greatest during August and September, and you

19 indicate this is contrary to what would be expected. Can you explain

20 that?

21 A. Well, expected is what we expect in relation to a phenomenon based

22 on the knowledge of the phenomenon we have, and here the expected seasonal

23 mortality pattern is what we often see in mortality pattern when observed

24 over time. It is not that people die equally, frequently throughout the

25 whole year. In the period of summer, we observe that the level of

1 mortality is much lower in the summer and in the fall, than in the winter

2 and early spring. So winter months are usually the months when the levels

3 of mortality are the highest, winter and early spring months.

4 Q. Okay. So finding that the greatest number of deaths here occurred

5 during August and September is inconsistent with what one finds in a

6 normal population?

7 A. It is not only inconsistent; it is just opposite to what is

8 normally seen when you look at mortality pattern over time.

9 Q. Okay. Now --

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, point of clarification. Normal

11 population. Are we speaking about Bosnia-Herzegovina or we speaking about

12 in general, you know, Asia, the Middle East, Africa? Is this the general

13 wide-sweeping conclusion, or is this in relation to Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina, that people die more frequently in the winter than they do,

15 say, in the spring or summertime.

16 MR. STRINGER:

17 Q. You can answer that question.

18 A. It is -- of course, I'm speaking of Europe and the same climate

19 zone in which Bosnia and Herzegovina is located. Well, in Europe in this

20 climate, that is the observation of seasonality that we have.

21 Q. The next item, then, you break down the cause of death. Could you

22 explain -- well, it's obviously self-evident: Shelling deaths, gunshot

23 deaths, and then 44.3 deaths being of violent nature but unspecified.

24 First of all, on the shelling and gunshot, is that taken

25 information taken directly from the causes of death, for example, that we

1 saw with this the one on the war hospital record who died?

2 A. Well, causes of death were reported in both sources. In war

3 hospital records, causes of death were reported more frequently and were

4 available in a larger extent than in the death registries. Reporting of

5 causes of death in the death registry is really very poor, but there are

6 victims of shelling and gunshots reported in the death registries as well.

7 We actually based our distribution of deaths by cause of death on

8 the reporting, on the distribution observed in the war hospital records.

9 The proportions of deaths from shelling, gunshots, and violent deaths of

10 unspecified causes come from the war hospital records. These proportions

11 were applied to the master list of combined sources, to the list of 539

12 deaths; and by doing this, we could present also the absolute minimum

13 number of deaths by cause.

14 But in percentage terms, 45.3 per cent were deaths caused by

15 shelling, 10.4 per cent were deaths by gunshots, and 44.3 per cent were

16 violent deaths of unspecified cause. We are unable to say whether these

17 were victims of shelling or gunshots, but we know these were violent

18 deaths related to the siege of Mostar.

19 Q. How do you know they were violent deaths?

20 A. Well, of the patients who were brought to the war hospital because

21 of their wounds they acquired during the siege, these were the people who

22 died of these wounds in the war hospital.

23 Q. Do you know if there were other medical facilities or clinics

24 available for the people in East Mostar during this time?

25 A. Well, when we speak of in-patient facilities like the -- like

1 hospitals, then the war hospital is the only facility of this kind. But I

2 am aware that there were a number of outpatient facilities in this area.

3 These were small places that, however, could be contacted by the patients

4 and aid would be provided.

5 I think there were at least four first-aid clinics, if we can call

6 them clinics, and some other, like four perhaps more, out-patient clinics

7 in which aid could be provided. Very basic aid though, I must stress. I

8 don't think these out-patient clinics had the equipment that would be

9 useful for surgeries or more complex aid.

10 Q. Okay. So the gravely ill patients, then, were the ones who would

11 be reflected in the war hospital records?

12 A. Yes, I believe so, yes.

13 Q. Did you include records of these other clinics, out-patient

14 clinics, in either this study or in your study of the wounded people in

15 East Mostar?

16 A. No. We didn't have these records, so it is that we are unable to

17 say how many patients were treated in the out-patient clinics.

18 Q. Okay. Moving back to the slide. You've calculated that 18.7 per

19 cent of the people who died were females. What is that based on?

20 A. Well, the sex is reported in every source. It is a very complete

21 reporting. So in the master list in every record, almost every record the

22 sex is available, so that's the proportion. 18.7 per cent of deaths were

23 women.

24 Q. Okay. And then moving to the next item, over a fifth of the dead

25 people were younger than 19 or over 64. How did you arrive at those

1 figures?

2 A. Well, it is also that, for most victims, year of birth is

3 available or a complete date of birth; so having these two, year of death

4 and year of birth, it was possible to obtain the age of victims. For Many

5 victims, age was reported as well. So this is another item that is

6 available relatively easily from the sources.

7 Q. Okay. I'm just going to -- just to amplify that a bit. Yes.

8 This is a slide that breaks that last point down a little bit on the

9 bottom part.

10 In terms of children and elderly, how do the numbers break down?

11 A. Well, these percentages that we just discussed can be seen here as

12 58 children and youth below the age of 19 years. Eleven of them were

13 girls. And when it comes to the elderly, there were 63 people at page 65

14 or more years, and 24 of them were women.

15 Q. Okay. So then it's the combination of these two percentages that

16 give the 22.5 per cent figure that we saw on the next slide?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Very good. And then the final point, again, I think it's

19 been made, why are these such conservative minimum numbers?

20 A. Well, these numbers are so conservative because sources that were

21 used were incomplete and deficient in several ways. So the sources didn't

22 allow us to accept more records to be included in the absolute minimum

23 numbers. At the same time, we are very convinced that absolute minimum

24 numbers are far too low, and the more complete minimum number is

25 approximately 1.023 deaths. This number is in line with other estimates

1 made by other people, which I did not discuss in this report. So I

2 probably won't go into it right now.

3 Q. Okay. Then, in the time that's left to us, Ms. Tabeau, we will

4 move then to the final report that you prepared based upon what appear to

5 be the same source of data; is that correct?

6 A. Yes. It's the same source and it's the major source, and it was

7 the only source used for the estimation of the wounded persons, for

8 obtaining statistics on the wounded persons.

9 Q. And that source being, again, being the hospital records --

10 A. Yes. Mostar war hospital books.

11 Q. -- such as the one we looked at earlier. All right. Now, before

12 we get into these numbers, the approach that you employed in making this

13 report, is it an approach that you've used in making other reports or

14 other testimonies here at the ICTY.

15 A. Well, the source as such is hospital records. It's not used for

16 the first time in my work. I also work with these records when I was

17 making my reports on the siege of Sarajevo, and this is a very useful

18 source and usually very reliable. Well, I have good experience with these

19 kind of records also from the siege of Sarajevo.

20 Q. Okay. Now --

21 A. The approach, of course, counting and estimations, statistical

22 estimation, it's exactly same as what we applied in the case of killed

23 persons.

24 Q. And so what we'll see is that estimation, then, is applied to

25 determine the breakdown types of wounding as between the -- the wounded

1 individuals who you've counted.

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One question.

4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please. When you're

5 talking about the wounded, what kind of wounds are you talking about,

6 military wounds or traffic accidents that would result in wounds? So what

7 kind of wounds are involved?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, in the case of war hospital records, the

9 wounds that we are talking about are wounds acquired from shelling or

10 gunshots. That is the type of wounds that are reported in the diagnosis

11 field available from these records. There are no wounds related to

12 traffic accidents or reported.

13 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, perhaps we could go back to Exhibit

14 P 02786 and look at that again now.

15 Q. And we could examine some of the language then concerning the

16 causes of the wounds that you would have included and perhaps excluded as

17 well. Okay.

18 Now, again, we're back to the same page of the exhibit that we

19 looked at before; and for the patient 4543, you mentioned already the

20 "vulnus explosiva." Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, of course.

22 Q. And then for the next witness down, are you able to read the

23 indication of the cause of that person's wound?

24 A. Well, I believe to some extent I can. It "V," and then

25 "explosiva," I guess.

1 Q. So you would have treated that, again, as what type of a wound?

2 A. It is a shelling -- a wounding from shelling.

3 Q. "Vulnus explosiva" is a shelling wound?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. STRINGER: Now, if we could move down the page just a little

6 bit. Perfect. Thank you.

7 Q. The entry for the witness at 4546, can you tell us what's

8 indicated in terms of the nature of that individual's wound?

9 A. It is "vulnus," V, again, "trans-sclopetarium," which was a term

10 that was used for wounding acquired through gunshots.

11 Q. Okay. All right. So, again, that's terminology that you would

12 use to place this person in the category of having been wounded by a

13 gunshot; right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, just having a look at the individual immediately above this

16 one.

17 MR. STRINGER: If we could scroll up a little bit. Thank you.

18 Q. This individual, 4545, are you able to tell us what's indicated

19 for that individual's condition?

20 A. I wouldn't be able to say what is the meaning of this one.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. But I wouldn't certainly include this person into the category of

23 wounding from shelling or wounding from gunshot.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. As I don't see these familiar terms: "Vulnus explosiva,"

1 "trans-sclopetarium," or "sclopetarium."

2 Q. So, for this 4545, you did not include that or would not include

3 that?

4 A. Not under the categories that we have just discussed.

5 Q. Okay.

6 MR. STRINGER: For the record, Mr. President, I believe the word

7 read "partumerius," or something to that effect, and I believe a previous

8 witness testified about this specific individual.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Shouldn't it be "parturience"?

10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Judge Trechsel. I believe that's correct.

11 That's how I would read it, so it may be that this was a person who

12 delivered a baby.

13 THE WITNESS: It's possible. There were two victims reported who

14 delivered babies, and one victim reported with a diagnosis that the person

15 received artificial limb. So these are three cases unrelated to the

16 wounding that we were looking at and studied in this project. These three

17 unrelated cases were excluded from our study.

18 MR. STRINGER:

19 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, getting back to the PowerPoint slide then.

20 Let's talk about the overall totals of wounded that you arrived at based

21 on your work: Absolute minimum now and more complete minimum numbers.

22 Could you tell it us, first of all, the difference between those two as to

23 these numbers?

24 A. Yes. Absolute minimum number is, again, heavy underestimation.

25 It is the number of 2.549 wounded persons. This number does not include

1 the individuals that were reported on the missing pages. It is 465

2 individuals reported on these pages. We didn't have information about

3 these persons, so they had to be excluded altogether from this minimum

4 number.

5 Nine persons of whom we didn't have enough information in the

6 books were excluded from this number as well. Moreover, from this number

7 a large group of records is excluded, specifically 2.844, for which there

8 is no diagnosis explicitly reported in the war hospital books. So that is

9 the major deficiency of the source that not for every patient the

10 diagnosis is available. So the patients for whom the diagnosis is not

11 available, not reported explicitly in the books, are excluded from the

12 absolute minimum number.

13 At the same time, we are convinced that this group for whom the

14 diagnosis is unavailable should be considered as records that are of

15 wounded persons. We studied these two groups, group of patients without a

16 diagnosis and a group of patients with the diagnosis. We compared basic

17 demographic distributions of these two groups, separately for civilians

18 and for militaries, and we tested the differences between those two groups

19 statistically. And the conclusion was that in terms of basic demographic

20 characteristics, like age and sex distribution, and, of course,

21 civilian-military distribution, these groups are not significantly

22 different.

23 There are no significant differences between these two groups.

24 This, therefore, suggests that we should see the problem of not available

25 diagnosis as a reporting problem. It is a deficiency of reporting and not

1 of anything else. And based on this, we believe the group of 2.844

2 individuals without explicitly reported diagnosis should be included into

3 the more complete absolute minimum number, which is reported on the slide

4 as 5.393, 5.393. And this number is a better, more realistic estimate of

5 the number of wounded persons in the siege of Mostar.

6 Q. Okay. And from a statistical point of the view, it's in your

7 opinion correct, then, to include that figure, the 2.844 figure, in a

8 calculation of a more complete absolute minimum number?

9 A. Yes. I believe I have good reasons to include these records. As

10 I said, we actually invested quite some time in comparing and studying

11 these two groups, and I believe that these groups should be included in

12 the more complete number.

13 Q. Okay.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Springer, if I may.

15 Does this mean, madam, that other "parturience," other persons who

16 were there for entirely different reasons, might also be included in this

17 figure? Because you take those that say nothing, and some in fact might

18 have other causes.

19 THE WITNESS: I would like to stress that there were three

20 cases -- three cases out of approximately 6.000 cases reported in the war

21 hospital books that were unrelated to the wounding. So this is a

22 negligible fraction, proportion of all patients. And based on this, I

23 think it is safe to assume that unrelated cases are not represented

24 practically, in practical terms, in the patients with no diagnosis

25 reported.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But I'm sorry -- if I must assist. I find it a

2 bit difficult to understand your statement that there were three out of

3 6.000, when here you have 2.500 and some where no diagnosis, no cause is

4 mentioned. Why do you still say they are all related?

5 THE WITNESS: Well, because as I said -- well, we have the entire

6 population of patients, say approximately 6.000. We know that this

7 population of patients is composed of two groups -- actually, of three

8 groups: Unrelated cases, patients with diagnosis, and patients without

9 the diagnosis.

10 Now, first of all, if we calculate the proportion of unrelated

11 cases in the entire population of patients of the hospital, it is 3

12 divided by 6.000. Approximately, of course, it is a negligible

13 proportion. Of course I can apply this proportion to the patients of --

14 reported without diagnosis and I will end with a fraction, probably, of

15 say one and a half person or something like that. I can subtract this

16 person, but, in fact, would it really change what I'm trying to say? I'm

17 trying to say something completely different. I'm trying to draw a

18 conclusion about a large group of cases that I cannot include in the

19 absolute number because an important information item is missing.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. I think I understand the gist of it and can

21 accept it, but would it not have been correct to compare the three to

22 2.549 and that would give the proportion among the cases with the known

23 causes, and it would something different if you include the unknown. That

24 would seem more correct to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

25 A. Yeah. Well, if we considered the patient with the diagnosis, any

1 diagnosis, as one group, with the diagnosis as one group, then it would be

2 correct to compare the three with the 2.549, and then, of course, the

3 proportion would be higher because the denominator is smaller. But it

4 would still be three persons as related to 2.549. So we are speaking of

5 unrelated cases in the other group of a comparable size.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

7 MR. STRINGER:

8 Q. Ms. Tabeau, now we're at the final slide, and again what we've

9 done is to put up the overall conclusions in respect of wounded persons in

10 East Mostar. And if I could, as you did with the killed persons, perhaps

11 you could just walk down these bullet points and give us your final

12 conclusions and calculations.

13 A. Right. Well, we just discussed the two numbers, minimum --

14 absolute minimum number, 2.549, which is based on the cases with the

15 diagnosis reported and related to the siege of East Mostar. Well, there

16 is a more complete estimate obtained by combining the patients without

17 diagnosis with the records of patients with the diagnosis, which is 5.393.

18 I call it a more complete estimate. And of course this estimate is still

19 a minimum number because we are aware of cases that were never reported to

20 the war hospital, and these would be the patients treated in out-patient

21 facilities that were operating in this area during the siege. And there

22 are patients reported on the missing pages 465 names who are not included

23 in this number. There are 9 records excluded because they were too

24 incomplete to work with them altogether. So these records are also out of

25 this number. So this number is presented still as a minimum number.

1 Well, the next line on the slide --

2 Q. And excuse me -- yeah before you start talking about the

3 percentages, just let me ask you this: In respect of all the percentages

4 that appear now in these following bullet points that you're going to

5 address, are these percentages that are reflected in the known cases, that

6 is the 2549?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Those are cases --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- which you had a causes of injury was expressly included in the

11 record?

12 A. Yes, that's correct. These are percentages, proportions, obtained

13 from the sample of the patients with diagnosis known.

14 Q. All right. Thank you.

15 A. They are not exact proportions.

16 Q. So that again nearly 82 per cent of those injuries were from

17 shelling activity. 18 per cent from --

18 A. From gunshots and 44.5. Oh, this is another issue. Well, the 18

19 per cent of the injuries were from gunshots; right.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. So the next line is related to the civilian military status. 44.5

22 per cent of the wounded persons were civilians. The civilians were

23 reported in the war hospital books. The status was reported, I think.

24 Q. Okay. Yeah. And then as between male and female, men and women?

25 A. 42 per cent of wounded persons were women. Again, sex was

1 reported in the source. And even if it wasn't, in some cases then a

2 judgement was made based on the first name.

3 Next conclusion is that almost all of the wounded persons, 97.7

4 per cent were Muslims. Again the assessment of ethnicity was made by

5 native B/C/S speakers based on names of the patients. And on the other

6 hand, it is not so surprising to see this high proportion because as we

7 know the hospital was located in East Mostar. It was meant in the

8 beginning as a hospital for the ABiH army, disregarding that it was meant

9 for the army only. All patients were treated, not only militaries but

10 civilians. Anybody who needed help was treated in this hospital.

11 And the last conclusion is related to the age distribution of

12 victims. 34.1 per cent of the wounded were at age 0 to 19 or older than

13 64 years.

14 Q. Thank you. That's all the questions I have, Mr. President?

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to ask a question in relation to

16 this. Did you also correlate these percentages to the population? You

17 have just indicated, it's not surprising that a large per cent were

18 Muslims. Perhaps the population were also 97 per cent Muslims. In that

19 case, the distribution would be equal as a result. The same with the

20 females. What percentage of the population were females? Did you do that

21 correlation?

22 THE WITNESS: Well, I would love to but we are speaking of East

23 Mostar, a small area, into which a large number of the Muslim population

24 moved in the early 1993, and there are reports. Several sources reported

25 that the population increased up to maximal 55.000; whereas, normally the

1 size of that population was much smaller.

2 Well, what I'm trying to say is the population changed at the

3 outbreak of the siege considerably, and I of course have no source that I

4 could use for assessment of age and sex structure in this population. But

5 regarding ethnicity, I think this is rather clear in my view, because it

6 is known from other sources, not necessarily from the sources I studied,

7 that the Muslim population was moving in early 1993 into this area, so I

8 would expect that it was mainly if not exclusively the Muslim population

9 that was living there.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, but it's a bit of a leading question. I'm

11 sorry, I don't know how to -- well, let's say it like this: To have

12 reliable percentages that are also significant, is it possible to have

13 them if you do not have the comparative figures of the population?

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I work here in this study with a sample,

15 sample of patients reported in the war hospital records. This is a very

16 big sample. It is almost 6.000 records that we have reported in these

17 books. So I believe it's a big sample, and I'm pretty sure that

18 percentage 97.7 is significant. Statistically speaking, there is no doubt

19 about it, I think. Whether it is a half of this population, 2.549 or

20 6.000, this relevant.

21 MR. STRINGER: I've completed my examination, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall now have a break

23 because it's time to have a break, and we shall resume with the

24 cross-examination after the break.

25 [The witness stands down]

1 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

2 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] From what I understood,

4 Mr. Kovacic wanted to take the floor.

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In

6 compliance with your instructions and further to the arguments we had two

7 days ago on this issue, I wish to draw attention to the following: I feel

8 that Mr. Praljak fulfils the conditions of your decision of the 10th of

9 May to examine this expert witness. Your decision of the 28th of April,

10 2006 imposed for the first time certain limitations on the right of the

11 accused to examine the witness himself directly, and the gist of that

12 decision is that accused can put direct questions in exceptional

13 circumstances. Those were the precise words of the decision.

14 The practice after that has been for the Trial Chamber to apply

15 this definition or this standard very extensively, without major

16 limitations, and Mr. Praljak was allowed, almost without exception, to

17 examine witnesses.

18 On the 10th of May, 2007, your second decision was handed down,

19 decision on the mode of interrogating witnesses, which in paragraphs 11

20 and 12 further develops the first decision from April 2006. And the

21 limitations on the accused's ability to question witnesses were extended.

22 There were additional limitations added on. It was decided that the Trial

23 Chamber would apply the criteria from the first decision of April more

24 strictly; that, as a rule, it will be counsel to examine witnesses; and

25 under exceptional circumstances, with the approval of the Trial Chamber,

1 the accused may question witnesses.

2 In the next paragraph, paragraph 12, the term "exceptional

3 circumstances" is clarified. It is stated here very precisely that

4 special or exceptional circumstances have to do with events in which the

5 accused participated personally, or they may be connected to topics of

6 which the accused has specific knowledge. The term used was, to be quite

7 precise, "issues for which the accused is specifically competent."

8 The next condition imposed was that before the examination the,

9 accused has to explain to the Chamber were he considers there are special

10 circumstances in place. After that, new restrictions or more precise

11 conditions were applied wisely and very extensively by the Trial Chamber;

12 and almost without exception, Praljak was able to question witnesses, and

13 only that is in areas that fell within the definition and the standard.

14 With respect to the second decision, one Judge gave a separate opinion.

15 On the 24th of August, the Appeals Chamber handed down a decision

16 pursuant to an appeal by the Defence, and the appeal was rejected.

17 Nothing new was added in that decision. Of course, grounds are given, but

18 the gist is that the appeal was rejected.

19 After the appeals decision, which confirmed the decision of the

20 Trial Chamber of the 10th of May, the rules established in the decision of

21 the 10th of May still apply. That's paragraphs 11 to 12.

22 Pursuant to that decision, Praljak has the right to examine

23 witnesses under the conditions I have just stated. He must explain to the

24 Chamber why he feels he has a right to examine the witness, that these are

25 events in which he personally participated, or topics for which he's

1 specifically competent.

2 In relation to the expert witness, who is testifying now and for

3 whom I'm asking the Trial Chamber for permission for Praljak to question

4 the witness himself, I wish to draw attention to the following elements:

5 First of all, the expert witness is a demographer. The basic of

6 discipline of demography is statistics. Statistics, as a scholarly

7 discipline, is based primarily on mathematics. Praljak graduated from a

8 university. He studied electronics, which includes an examination in

9 mathematics 4, that's the highest level of mathematics studied at

10 university.

11 Praljak personally was involved in mathematics for a long time as

12 a kind of hobby, and particularly in areas which are important for

13 statistics. Praljak is the author of two books, one entitled "Refugees

14 and displaced persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina in the Republic of Croatia."

15 Parts of that book are in e-court under number 3D 01030. And the second

16 book is "Crimes Committed against Croats in 1991 to 1995," and parts of

17 the book are also in e-court. That's 3D 00322. And both these books

18 include statistical analysis prepared by Praljak himself.

19 Praljak also published two books, which Your Honours have not seen

20 in e-court yet. One is called "Estimates of War Damages in Croatia,"

21 which again includes statistics, and the author is Praljak. And the other

22 one is called "Aid Given by the Republic of Croatia to the Muslim Bosniak

23 people and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1991 to 1995," and again it

24 includes a great deal of statistics and statistical analyses.

25 Based on all this, it is evident that Praljak is specifically

1 competent to deal with the topic that the witness is testifying about;

2 therefore, the Chamber is moved to permit Praljak to examine the witness

3 based on their decision of the 10th of May, in view of his specific

4 competence. But I also wish to point out that he fulfils the second

5 condition also, that he was directly involved in the events.

6 Let's me remind you that there is an exhibit already in evidence

7 of the 24th of July, 1993, where Praljak is mentioned as the commander who

8 participated in all these events. I am referring to the data used by the

9 expert, the data on certain facts and certain events on the ground which

10 are data used for the analysis as entry data.

11 So these are two reasons why I consider that Praljak should be

12 granted this right. You have already heard that there is a lot of entry

13 data here dealing with Mostar, the division of the town, positions, and

14 Praljak is familiar with all of this because he was there.

15 I wish to point out one more thing, and that is that were the

16 Trial Chamber to insist on a restrictive application of the criteria set

17 out on the 10th of May, which has not been the case hitherto, in view of

18 the discussion two days ago, this would mean that those accused before

19 this Tribunal who refused to have counsel, to appoint counsel, became a

20 subject in their proceedings without being just an object; while those who

21 did appoint counsel, like Praljak, do not have the right to examine

22 witnesses themselves just because they have counsel. This would be an

23 absurdity and, therefore, we move the Chamber to apply the standards set

24 by the Chamber extensively rather than restrictively.

25 I think these are important arguments. The Chamber will decide on

1 the right of Praljak to examine the witness. He will, of course, adhere

2 to those areas for which he's specifically competent and a little bit

3 about the assumptions on which the analysis is based.

4 The Defence teams are preparing to cross-examine the expert

5 witness. The Prosecution disclosed the materials to us in June. In early

6 July, we spoke to the accused, we as the Defence teams, and analysed the

7 situation. My co-counsel and I are not familiar with mathematics, and we

8 understand that a knowledge of mathematics can certainly contribute to a

9 good cross-examination, and, therefore, Praljak took over the preparation.

10 He consulted demographers during his vacation.

11 And in view of this, because at that time, of course, the rule was

12 being applied extensively and we did not doubt Praljak's right to

13 cross-examine this witness. And some other accused have given him their

14 time based on this understanding. Should there now be a turnaround in the

15 practice, this would be highly detrimental to the Defence.

16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just one

17 minute. The Defence to which my colleague Mr. Kovacic referred as having

18 given their time to General Praljak is, in fact, General Petkovic's

19 Defence. It will be clear to Your Honours that preparations for the

20 examination of this witness began from the point in time we learned that

21 she would be testifying, and this was in July before the beginning of the

22 summer break.

23 Considering what could be done in half an hour of

24 cross-examination, and bearing in mind the specific competence of General

25 Praljak, which was has been described by Mr. Kovacic in detail, we agree

1 with General Praljak that he should take over our time. We know that

2 General Praljak spent his entire summer vacation preparing to examine this

3 witness, and I know that he cooperated with my client in part while

4 preparing for this examination.

5 We, therefore, are willing to give our time to General Praljak;

6 and for this reason, I ask that the rules which were in force in this

7 courtroom when the decision was made to call this witness be applied, when

8 the Defence teams agreed to prepare for the examination jointly and gave

9 their time to General Praljak.

10 Thank you.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel having taken the

12 floor, Mr. Stringer.

13 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honours, we oppose

14 this application. The Trial Chamber's decision, now affirmed on appeal,

15 provides that this is to occur only in exceptional circumstances. When

16 every circumstance is exceptional, they're actually not exceptional any

17 more. I don't know if I phrased that well. But certainly what we're

18 seeing now is that, in our view, the Defence, the Accused Praljak, are

19 really not being candid with the Pre-Trial Chamber about their true

20 intentions. It's becoming evermore clear that this accused intends to

21 conduct the lion's share of cross-examination himself, perhaps all of it,

22 and that that is not an exceptional circumstance.

23 Exceptional circumstances don't exist here as that term is defined

24 in the Trial Chamber's decision. First of all, Mr. Praljak did not take

25 part in any of the subject matter of the testimony of this witness. There

1 aren't any events that he personally participated in, and so that

2 condition is not met.

3 Secondly, extraordinary circumstances might apply to areas about

4 which he might be specifically competent, and we reject the assertion that

5 this individual is specifically competent to -- in the sense that he is

6 more competent than certainly his counsel to conduct this

7 cross-examination. He's got highly qualified, skilled counsel who are, in

8 our view, probably more competent than had him to conduct the examination.

9 So those two factors have not been met here. Extraordinary

10 circumstances do not exist in respect of this witness in particular; and

11 indeed, Mr. President, if extraordinary circumstances are met in this

12 situation and cross-examination of a demographer, expert, a statistical

13 expert on reports concerning issues that this accused had nothing to do

14 with in a personal capacity, then really every circumstance will be

15 exceptional, and we might as well disregard the Trial Chamber's decision

16 entirely. That's really what's being proposed here by the Defence,

17 Mr. Praljak.

18 It's going to be a recurring issue. He clearly intends to do

19 this, not with just with this witness, not just with the last witness

20 yesterday, but he intends to do it clearly with the coming witnesses, and,

21 ultimately, hopes that the Trial Chamber will disregard its rulings and

22 allow him, really, to run his own defence, while having the benefit of

23 accused -- or counsel to sit in the courtroom with him. He wants it both

24 ways, and he can't have it both ways, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall withdraw for a few

1 minutes to deliberate, so please wait in the courtroom.

2 Mr. Praljak, what would you like to add?

3 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd just like

4 to add one more point. Except for my mathematical knowledge, which you

5 yourself said that nobody can even deal with integrals in the courtroom,

6 I'm a sociologist. I graduated from the Faculty of Sociology, and this

7 goes hand-in-hand with demographic research: The creation of certain

8 groups, comparisons, synchronising data, and consistency on the basis of

9 one -- on the basis of which one makes conclusions, matching of samples,

10 and so on. Those were part of my studies.

11 And there was, of course, an agreement that I would examine this

12 witness; and during the break, I consulted two leading demographic experts

13 in Croatia, so that everything should be scientifically based here. And I

14 think that, in my cross-examinations so far, I did strictly adhere to the

15 facts and information which I have at my disposal and which are essential

16 to the proceedings without going into some of the mistakes that perhaps I

17 made at the beginning.

18 I have learnt from them, so I just use facts, maps, tables,

19 charts, and I wish through my cross-examination to contribute to the

20 database in these proceedings.

21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Might I be allowed just to say one

22 more sentence in response to the Prosecutor?

23 The Prosecutor, at the end of his argumentation, said that Praljak

24 cannot have it both ways; that is to say, his own -- the benefit of

25 counsel and to run his own defence. So let me just remind you of the

1 Rules and Statute, Article 21, which gives the accused the right both to

2 defend himself and to have the benefit of counsel. So it's not either/or,

3 it's both, and that has been clearly expressed in the Appeals request.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will return in a few minutes.

5 --- Break taken at 11.18 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.28 a.m.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

8 was seized of an application filed by Mr. Kovacic pursuant to the decision

9 taken on the 10th of May, 2007, to entitle the Accused Praljak to put

10 questions to the expert witness, a demographer. The Trial Chamber has

11 also noted that this application was supported by Defence counsel of

12 General Petkovic.

13 The Trial Chamber also acknowledges that the Prosecution has

14 objected to this procedure, submitting that the Appeals Chamber had

15 confirmed the previous decision handed down by the Trial Chamber cannot

16 permit in this particular case the accused to put questions.

17 The Trial Chamber has deliberated on the matter and has

18 unanimously deliberated on the matter, and I would like to recall all and

19 everyone that in the future the Trial Chamber will apply the decision

20 taken on the 10th of May, 2007. This decision has been upheld by the

21 Appeals Chamber. And prior to that date, practice would have it that in

22 certain cases questions were put, but this will no longer be the case, and

23 the Trial Chamber will apply the decision of the 10th of May, 2007, to the

24 letter.

25 In this particular case, the Trial Chamber, after having heard

1 both parties and after having heard the Accused Praljak, acknowledges

2 that, as far as this particular hearing is concerned, the Accused Praljak

3 has prepared some of the issues, technical issues, together with two

4 demographers. In addition, it seems that his counsel had decided that the

5 cross-examination would be conducted by his client. In addition, the

6 Accused Praljak has written a few books on the subject, provides

7 statistical data, and, therefore, may be competent, technically speaking,

8 and meet the requirements set out in the decision.

9 The Trial Chamber, therefore, unanimously authorises the Accused

10 Praljak to put questions, and this is an exceptional circumstance. And

11 the Trial Chamber would like to remind everybody present that the Accused

12 Praljak will have the 30-minute allotted time in addition to the 30

13 minutes given to him by Petkovic's Defence counsel.

14 We shall now bring the witness into the courtroom.

15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to

16 inform you that the Defence of Mr. Stojic has given its examination time

17 for the examination of this witness to Mr. Praljak as well.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.

19 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the record,

20 we also cede our time to Mr. Praljak.

21 [The witness takes the stand]

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have resumed our

23 hearing; and pursuant to a decision handed down by the Trial Chamber, the

24 Accused Praljak will now put questions to you as part of the

25 cross-examination.

1 Mr. Praljak, you have the floor.

2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

3 Thank you for your decision.

4 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, madam.

6 A. Good morning. I don't see a transcript on my screen. If somebody

7 can help me rearrange. Thank you.

8 Q. Is it correct, madam, that in your analysis, you have something

9 that is called a source of information, which is indubitable, clear, and

10 so on, and created groups and samples that can be created on different

11 grounds? Is that right?

12 A. Well, I use sources of information. They might be complete, or

13 they might be samples.

14 Q. I'd like now to see how you created different groups. Among

15 others, you had a group which was the number of Muslims in what you refer

16 to as the eastern side of Mostar, and you established that group in the

17 following manner: According to your statement, this cluster was devised

18 by you on the basis of the fact that you asked people with their names and

19 surnames to tell you which ethnic group they belonged to, which

20 nationality, because you didn't have this column, and then you recorded it

21 subsequently based on the names that people told you were Muslim or

22 Bosniak names. Is that true?

23 A. Well, sources and groups are perhaps two different things.

24 Sources is where the information I use in my study come from, and the

25 groups as the Muslims that you mentioned are, indeed, groups of records in

1 these sources.

2 Regarding the ethnicity you are referring to, I am not exactly

3 sure what source you are speaking about, but I would guess it is Mostar

4 war hospital records, because it was the only source in which ethnicity

5 was assigned on the basis of names. If you can confirm that we are

6 talking about the war hospital records.

7 Q. Yes. We are talking about records from the war hospital in which

8 ethnicity was not recorded; and then, subsequently, when you looked into

9 subsequent data, you arrived at nationality or ethnic group on the basis

10 of names, because local people, judging by the names, said, "Yes, this is

11 a Muslim name. It's Mustafa, which means a Muslim name," and so on. So

12 is that correct?

13 A. In Mostar war hospital records, indeed, ethnicity wasn't reported,

14 and a group of B/C/S speakers, native B/C/S speakers, assigned the

15 ethnicity based on names. However, it's good to remember that this is a

16 very special source, Mostar war hospital regards. This is the hospital

17 that was meant to treat the population of East Mostar, and East Mostar

18 population was known to be composed of mainly, almost exclusively, Muslim

19 population.

20 Q. Madam, in response to a question from the Prosecution, you

21 qualified certain things. You said that certain things were known and so

22 on. Now, I'd like to ask you to refrain from explaining what you knew or

23 what was known and what was not known, what was your source, whether you

24 were in Mostar or not. I asked you a specific question: Nationality,

25 ethnic group from the war hospital records, the source. You created that

1 on the basis of the fact that somebody told you that this name and that

2 name were Muslim names. Isn't that right?

3 A. I said it in my testimony. Ethnicity was created by native B/C/S

4 speakers. I didn't do that, neither my section, others in my section,

5 didn't do that. We received this created item from the investigations

6 team. This is -- this is what I said, and this is what I confirm.

7 However, I can't separate entirely from what I know about my

8 sources, as I believe the qualitative analysis and assessment of sources

9 is a very important step in producing numbers of victims in the conflict.

10 And I will use the qualitative knowledge of sources in this testimony.

11 Q. Madam, we'll get to that. Something that is referred to in

12 scholarly work was footnotes. So we'll get to the footnotes and statement

13 of sources. We'll come to that in due course. I'll ask you whether

14 scholarly work has footnotes and whether you have to name your sources in

15 the footnotes. But you're not talking about source here or I'm not

16 talking about sources.

17 You use the first person singular in your work, in your report,

18 and it does not explain the sources. You speak as if you are well aware

19 of those facts and that information. So now I'd like to clarify the

20 quality of the facts and assertions you arrived at when you said which

21 people were Muslims and which aren't.

22 Now, in the 1991 statistical data, the town of Mostar, and that

23 statistical data has already been supplied to the Court --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation] We did not

25 get the answer from the witness. You didn't do the determination. You

1 said it was B/C/S speakers who actually made the determination. So I was

2 waiting for some additional information on this, and Mr. Praljak moved on

3 to other things. So this is my question: The people who helped you to

4 say that, for example, person number 4543 was of Muslim ethnicity; who

5 said that to you? Could you please tell us who came up with this

6 information?

7 THE WITNESS: Well, I received electronic version of this data

8 from hospital books. In the spreadsheet that we received, ethnicity was

9 already included; and from the work log I received, together with the

10 spreadsheet, I read that native B/C/S speakers obtained or estimated

11 ethnicity based on the names. And these native B/C/S speakers were not

12 people I know or I knew. They were people employed by the investigations

13 team, probably part of the investigations team.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So if we go into detail,

15 you obtained by mail these lists; and in the spreadsheet, the ethnic

16 background was noted. And you told us that the people who actually came

17 up with the ethnicity are the people working for the OTP; is that it?

18 THE WITNESS: My understanding, yes. These are B/C/S speakers,

19 native speakers, but working for the OTP.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Madam, in your statement, you mention the fact that the death

23 registers in February 2001 was given over to you by the agency from -- AID

24 agency from Sarajevo. Now, my question to you is: Do you know what work

25 the AID agency in Sarajevo was involved in?

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

2 may I just intervene? In the record it is AID, the abbreviation of the

3 agency A-I-D, capital letters.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Do you know what the organisation dealt with, that one in

6 Sarajevo?

7 A. Well, I see the question -- [French on English channel] -- to the

8 fact how I obtained the death registries, and I did not obtain the death

9 registries from the AID agency. I was provided with these death

10 registries by the investigations team, OTP. I didn't collect these

11 registries myself. I usually do collect my sources, but not in this case.

12 And it is possible that the team obtained these registries from AID. I do

13 know what AID is doing. This is an agency doing intelligence work.

14 Q. Madam Witness, Doctor, I am strictly adhering to what you said,

15 and here it says that: "In 2001, in the month of February, I handed over

16 by the AID agency in Sarajevo."

17 Now, you claim, you're saying - and we'll come back to this

18 because I'm not clear on it - it's your scholarly work, your expertise,

19 and this is what you say, and now you say you don't know and so on.

20 Now, I'm going to ask you very precise questions. I'll try and

21 get through this as quickly as possible, so please give me short answers

22 to my questions. Say, "Yes, I do know," "No, I don't know," with few

23 comments.

24 In 1991, the town of Mostar, according to the statistical data of

25 the 1991 census, it had a total of 75.865 inhabitants. Of that number,

1 people who declared themselves as Croats, there were 21.795 of those,

2 25.929 declared themselves as Muslims; 14.142 declared themselves as

3 Serbs; 11.555 declared themselves as Yugoslavs; and there was a category

4 of others, 2.444. So they declared themselves, as far as nationality is

5 concerned, 61.000-odd or 81.85 per cent; 13.999 persons did not declare

6 themselves, or 18.5 per cent.

7 Tell me now, please, with what right did somebody later on change

8 the -- the ethnicity of almost 20 per cent of people who had not declared

9 themselves on an ethnic basis, did not declare their ethnicity. That's my

10 first question.

11 And my second question that follows on from that is this: Was a

12 cluster or group created of ethnicities, ethnic groups, in the hospital

13 registers and death registers on the basis of the fact that every "Mujo,"

14 every person called "Mujo" or "Mustafa," was proclaimed to be a Muslim,

15 and that this was a very rough estimation. Because regardless of the fact

16 that the person's name might have been "Mujo" or "Mustafa," this person

17 could have declared himself as a Croat, a Serb, or not declared himself at

18 all?

19 A. I see three questions in your question. And, well, first one is

20 related to AID. I would like that you would show me where, in my report,

21 I say that I obtain the death registers from the AID. As far as I

22 remember, I was provided the death registries by the investigations

23 teams -- team. This is my one comment.

24 Second comment, you are referring to figures on the ethnic

25 composition in Mostar. Again, I would like to hear what is the source, if

1 it is the population census or if it is published data. It would help us

2 if we could understand this.

3 And then, finally, there is the ethnic definition, ethnicity

4 issue. It's the third issue that you raised.

5 So if you can please help me first with the reference to my report

6 source as the --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak will help you, but

8 Ms. Alaburic is on her feet.

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

10 might I be of permission with respect to AID? The witness mentions this

11 in her expert report under P 9835 of killed persons with regard to the

12 siege of Mostar, and the figure was quoted in part 2, the Mostar death

13 registers in chapter 4 or paragraph 4 in the Croatian text. That is on

14 line 6 of that fourth paragraph, and I quote: "The death registers in

15 February 2001 were handed over by the AID agency from Sarajevo to the

16 OTP," and then the sentence continues.

17 Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes. I see this reference to AID. And, well, if it

19 is in the report, then this is the source how the team obtained it. But

20 I'm saying, once again, I obtained the death registries directly from the

21 investigations team. But perhaps it is important to mention on this

22 occasion that death registration is part of vital events registration. In

23 every country, every death is registered in the death register. There is

24 a period of three days within which -- after death, within which the death

25 needs to be reported to the authorities.

1 So even though the AID was involved in providing these death

2 registries to the OTP, I believe as a source, as a source as such, the

3 nature of the source has nothing to do with intelligence. It is just

4 reporting of deaths in a population. So I can't see what impact can it

5 have that the AID provided this source to the OTP in general.

6 Okay. So the answer I understand to the source of your statistics

7 is the book published by the Croat authorities, the figures -- census

8 figures published by the Crostat in 1995, and the question is related to

9 ethnicity. If you can please repeat it, I would be happy to hear it

10 again.

11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

12 Q. First of all, madam, in view of the fact that you had the right to

13 say all had this before, but you are a demographer. Do you agree that

14 you're not an expert on what AID was doing, what its intentions were, and

15 so on? Do you agree that it's not part of your expert opinion whether the

16 information provided to you by the AID are reliable or not? It's just a

17 simple fact that they were provided by the AID. Do you agree with that?

18 A. I agree I am an expert on demographics in this case, and I am

19 entitled to have my opinion as a demographic expert on the sources I

20 used. And death registries, this is my expert opinion, is a source that

21 is usually available in every population, and this is a statistical source

22 and a good source. And the source, as such, is a not compiled by any

23 intelligence agency. It is compiled by authorities who are responsible

24 for registration of vital events.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may, I don't mean to interrupt

1 General Praljak, but the three hours were allocated to all of the Defence,

2 and I feel that I'm being disadvantaged here because the witness is being

3 non-responsive deliberately.

4 The question was --

5 MR. STRINGER: I object to that.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: The question was --

7 MR. STRINGER: I object to --

8 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may make my record, sir. Please sit down.

9 MR. STRINGER: I object to that, Mr. President, it's not the

10 view --

11 MR. KARNAVAS: I am entitled to make my record. If you look at

12 the -- the question was whether she was competent to testify about what

13 AID does in their intentions. You have a long explanation afterwards

14 without responding. Furthermore, she was asked earlier by what authority,

15 by what authority, she could change the names. Again, long explanation or

16 no explanation. What I'm saying is that the witness is a Ph.D.. She's

17 testified at least seven or eight times. She's a professional witness.

18 She works for the Office of the Prosecution. She is an employee of the

19 office of the Prosecution, and she should, therefore, I think, be more

20 forthcoming and shorter with the answers. She can answer the questions

21 very directly. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to eat up the

22 Defence time.

23 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'll be brief. This tenancy to mix,

24 introduce argument, points very well known, very effective at times from

25 Defence, arguing the witness is biased, she's being non-responsive. Fine.

1 Those are legitimate arguments to be made, you know, all the time. Not as

2 to this witness, in my view, but it's all argument.

3 Counsel can make those arguments as much as he likes to the Trial

4 Chamber when the time comes for arguing what the Trial Chamber, in the

5 view of the parties, should attach to this witness's testimony at the

6 closing arguments. But now to have these sorts of accusations flying

7 around in the courtroom, while the witness is here, is quite another

8 thing. It's not appropriate cross-examination, and it, frankly, wastes

9 everyone's time.

10 In our view, the witness is doing her best to answer the compound

11 questions that are being put to her by a non-attorney now, who is being

12 allowed to cross-examine an expert. He's not asking her a question. He's

13 asking her three questions in the course of rather lengthy paragraphs. So

14 if perhaps Mr. Praljak could phrase his questions in a way that a skilled

15 advocate would do, enabling her to give measured answers to limited

16 questions, it would facilitate the process.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, let me just give you an example.

18 Mr. Praljak asked about receiving information from AID. He said "you."

19 She then said, "No. It won't me; it was some other folks," and so on and

20 so forth. Lengthy explanation, no concrete answer, and then you,

21 Mr. President, had to ask a series of questions, and, finally, we get a

22 confession from the witness who says, "yes." And then it is Ms. Alaburic

23 who has to point, and then she, says, "Where is this?" It's in her own

24 report, a report that she signed, that she did, .

25 So my question is: Why do we have to waste three or four minutes

1 on something where she said "yes." That's my point. It is not arguing.

2 What I am saying is: We have three hours collectively, and so these sort

3 of answers affect my time.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, when you're asking

5 a question, don't put three questions in one, please. Just ask one

6 question; wait for your answer, yes, no, or maybe a bit lengthier; and

7 then move on to the second question. So please proceed step-by-step. It

8 will save time.

9 Mr. Stringer.

10 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I apologise. Since the record is

11 because mischaracterised, the question was whether she was handed the

12 records in a personal capacity. That's how I understand it. Now the

13 report says they were provided to the Office of the Prosecutor, so that's

14 quite a different thing. And I think that it's unfair to suggest that

15 she's evasive or has confessed to some sort of incorrect or false answer

16 before. Simply not true. It's only based upon spin and

17 mischaracterisation of the evidence.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please proceed, and

19 please make sure that your questions are short and extremely clear and

20 straightforward.

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. My question is very simple: If the information I have quoted from

24 the census of 1991 says that 81.5 per cent of the population of the town

25 of Mostar declared their ethnic affiliation and 18.5 did not, my question

1 is on the basis of what analysis did you ascribe an ethnic affiliation to

2 20 per cent of those who did not declare themselves by ascribing to them

3 ethnicity based on their name?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can answer. It is a very

5 clear question, very straightforward, and I'm sure that the answer will be

6 very clear.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. In the publication by Crostat,

8 ethnicity is reported separately as Muslims, Croats, Serbs, Yugoslavs, and

9 as far as I remember, are other ethnicity and unknown, something like

10 that. So is this unknown ethnicity 18 per cent? I'm just making sure

11 that I understood you correctly. It is really a very high per cent. As

12 far as I know, it is --

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me. Excuse me ma'am.

14 THE WITNESS: -- it is a larger group.

15 MR. KARNAVAS:

16 THE INTERPRETER: Please do not overlap.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: The question is very clear. On what basis? Now

18 she can say, "This is a statistical methodology that we use." That's the

19 question. The question is very clear. What gives her the right, that was

20 the question, to impose these other nationalities? Is it something that

21 demographers do on all occasions? Is this something is they have to do

22 because of the extraordinary circumstances? That was the question. That

23 is the essence of the question.

24 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, Mr. Karnavas seems to be conducting

25 this cross-examination --

1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I may say --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is just one thing, please.

3 This witness is under oath. She made a solemn declaration. She is now in

4 the hands of justice and is no longer connected with the OTP and,

5 therefore, will undergo cross-examination. If she's in a difficult

6 situation, don't necessarily stand up to come and help.

7 However, the question is very simple. It's a mathematical

8 question. 20 per cent of the Mostar population did not declare itself as

9 being Croats or Muslim. We have 20 per cent; and we know that among these

10 20 per cent, we know that 11.000, more than 11.000, said they were

11 Yugoslavs. Of course, they were either probably Muslim or Croat, and

12 scientifically, no one can challenge the fact that, in 1991, there is a

13 chart regarding Mostar with ethnic composition in percentage.

14 So you're a demographer and then you carry out your work after --

15 from these figures, but the question that comes to mind is: Where are

16 these 11.000 Yugoslavs? What has become of them? How come you or who

17 were before you, how did they introduce these Yugoslavs in the total

18 population? Did you decide they were Muslims or Croats?

19 That's the question asked, and we need an answer. Tell us, "I

20 don't know," "I know," but we need an answer.

21 This is a statistical element that we need to understand;

22 otherwise, everything becomes extremely approximate with this 20 per cent

23 margin of unknown, because 20 per cent of the sample is not determined.

24 THE WITNESS: Well, I must say I disagree that 20 per cent is

25 unknown. That is my expert opinion because Yugoslav is an ethnic group

1 that is completely different from Muslim, Serb or a Croat. It is a group

2 in itself, and it is part of the 20 per cent; and in this 20 per cent, we

3 have Yugoslavs and others --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But don't play on words, please.

5 You are saying that Yugoslavs is a group in itself. Maybe statistically

6 it is, but these 11.000 Yugoslavs have some kind of ethnic background.

7 That's the whole problem. And when statistically they're distributed into

8 two ethnic backgrounds according to your work, the next question is: How

9 did you move them into one or the other category?

10 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to say

11 that, as a matter of fact, I agree with the witness's view that the group

12 of Yugoslavs and the group of Muslims, they are two different issues and

13 two different groups. The group of Yugoslavs, they name themselves. They

14 call themselves "Yugoslavs" because when the census was taken, they didn't

15 want to belong to, say, Croat or Serb or whatever ethnicity or national

16 group. But it was mainly a question of citizenship, if I may say so, in

17 former Yugoslavia - and I hope that those who had lived there would

18 confirm this - and it was not a question of ethnicity.

19 And that is why I share the view expressed by the witness, that

20 whenever there was a finding that according to the names they were

21 Muslims, it could be accepted. It is another question if they themselves

22 previously declared themselves Yugoslavs or Croats or Serbs or whoever,

23 whatever. And for me also, frankly speaking, the shrapnels, the shelling,

24 the snipers' bullets did not make any difference between Yugoslavs and

25 Serbs and Muslims and Croats, and that is why I would accept the groupings

1 what the witness used.

2 Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, in light of what

4 was said, can you please proceed.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I partly agree with His

6 Honour. I agree that the Yugoslavs are a separate group. And we are not

7 questioning here that victims are victims and that everybody's affected in

8 the same way by a shell or a bullet, but the calculation of the number of

9 Muslims hit by the shelling is at issue.

10 If 20 per cent of the population did not declare their ethnicity,

11 they are transforming 20 per cent of the population into a certain ethnic

12 group based on their names and then calculating the percentage of Muslims.

13 If the percentage of Muslims hit on the west bank had been not calculated,

14 I would not have put this question. The error can be more than 20 per

15 cent, if they are transferred from one category to another.

16 Q. So my question is: Based on what scientific analysis did you

17 conclude based on people's names what ethnic group they belonged to,

18 because this is a piece of information that belongs to each individual, to

19 each individual's declaration in the census.

20 You say, "We did it this way." Let's move on. Just say that and

21 I'll move on. I'll be satisfied with your reply, and then my time is

22 running out so I do wish to move on. So please answer my question.

23 A. Well, I agree with you that ethnicity is a self-perceived item and

24 this is how it was reported in the census, and we didn't have these kind

25 of reports. It is an estimate that we made of ethnicity, but perhaps it

1 our discussion will become easier if I will say that our objective was to

2 measure casualties among the Bosniak population. The choice of sources

3 was to measure the casualties among the Bosniak population.

4 Q. Madam, please. Thank you very much. I have received the reply to

5 my question.

6 My next question is: Based on the information available, did you

7 arrive at the basic group? In other words, in that part of Mostar

8 municipality which was under BH army control, what was the population?

9 What was the number of men? What was the number of women? What number of

10 people were there in each season of the year? So did you have this basic

11 set, this basic group, of the population on BH army-controlled territory,

12 yes or no?

13 A. Well, I assume that territory controlled by the ABiH army is East

14 Mostar. This is what you're referring to. And I said earlier today, I

15 didn't have the size of the population in East Mostar. There exists

16 estimates from 35.000 to 55.000, and that is all we know. There is no

17 statistical record of this population.

18 Q. Thank you very much. Wouldn't it have been simpler if you had

19 said, "We did not create this set"? Let's move on. My next question is:

20 Within this set that you did not create, did you conduct any kind of

21 analysis as to mortality in the pre-war period? If you have a set of

22 citizens of Mostar between 35 and 55.000 in number, and based on

23 information you could have gathered, you could have said the natural

24 mortality rate in this set is such-and-such: Traffic accidents, murders,

25 suicides, and so on accounts for so many. Injuries are such-and-such.

1 Mortality in hospitals during surgeries which went wrong is such-and-such,

2 and so on.

3 Did you calculate how many people died of natural causes because

4 of illness, disease, or accident, so as to have reference, a set to refer

5 to of people who had died of natural causes in that area? Did you do that

6 analysis?

7 A. Well, you know that, in my reports, I didn't deal with natural

8 causes, and there is no reference made to natural mortality in Mostar or

9 in a smaller area within the Mostar municipality before the conflict

10 period.

11 Q. Please, in that basic set, did you analyse the mortality according

12 to the criteria that I have set out, yes or no, madam, Doctor?

13 A. I don't understand what is the basic set to you. I said I didn't

14 study mortality, pre-war morality, in Mostar, or in a smaller area within

15 Mostar, mortality from natural causes.

16 Q. Are traffic accidents, murders, suicides, death during childbirth,

17 or surgery, are all these natural causes to you?

18 A. Well, they are causes. These are external, I would put it this

19 way. These are natural causes. What we mean are natural causes is

20 age-related causes.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] My questions, Your Honours,

23 are very simple.

24 Q. I'm trying very hard to put simple questions. Every population in

25 Paris, London, or Zurich has a statistic that say so many people die of

1 old age a year, so many are murdered each year, so many commit suicide

2 each year, so many die in traffic accidents, and so on and so forth.

3 Did you conduct such an analysis among the population of East

4 Mostar?

5 A. Of course not. It wasn't my objective.

6 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you. You said here today that there

7 was an unexpected rise in mortality in September and October 1993 --

8 August and September, that is, 1993. And you say that the expected

9 mortality rate would not have been so high because in winter and in the

10 autumn or in spring more people die. There is a higher mortality. Do you

11 have this information for the city of Mostar? It could have been found in

12 all the previous statistical information.

13 The reason I'm asking this is that Mostar is a very warm town. In

14 summer, temperatures rise as high as 40 to 45 degrees. So can you

15 transfer statistical data referring to Europe to a town such as Mostar

16 which has no snow in winter, which doesn't have cold winners, but has very

17 hot summers? So did you analyse the mortality, the pre-war mortality, of

18 the citizens of Mostar by season of the year?

19 A. No. I didn't do this for Mostar.

20 Q. Thank you. Thank you. You used the original data from the Mostar

21 hospital and the record of deaths, and then you improved that by also

22 using the military records of those killed in the army of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24 My question is as follows: Apart from soldiers of the army of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did others participate in combat, in military

1 activities, that is; for example, the civilian protection, for example,

2 carrying food to the front lines and so on, without being recorded in

3 these military records? Are you aware of that?

4 A. Well, I believe that these are set on special lists, the military

5 lists. Not everybody, not the Civil Defence is there, I believe.

6 Q. After the end of the war, during the time of privatisation in

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, all those who had participated in the war, either in

8 the civilian protection, the civilian police, or in the army of

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, had vouchers distributed to them. These were vouchers

10 they could use to acquire shares in publicly opened companies.

11 Did you obtain the lists of those who were issued with vouchers

12 because they had taken part in military activities but were not soldiers

13 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and did you compare those lists with

14 the military records?

15 A. No, I didn't. I didn't use this.

16 Q. Thank you very much. When creating the set of killed soldiers and

17 civilians, did you calculate in the civilian police which, as we know,

18 wore military uniforms when they walked around Mostar, but they are not

19 included in the list of those killed as members of the army of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina? So did you collect lists of civilian policemen killed

21 in the town of Mostar?

22 A. No, I didn't, but --

23 Q. Thank you, thank you. Did you look at the number of members of

24 the 4th Corps which were located on the territory of the town of Mostar?

25 Did you do that?

1 A. Sir, I said what military sources I used. These were the lists

2 provided by the Ministries of Defence of both entities. Well, whether the

3 4th Corps soldiers were reported in these lists, I wouldn't exactly know,

4 but I would guess that they were. This is just a guess.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown

7 document 3D 01065, 3D 01065. That is a book published by General

8 Drekovic, the commander of the 4th Corps after General Pasalic left. So

9 it's 3D 01065, and open to the page where there is a table. It's 1857.

10 The page is 3D 26-1857. There's a table there.

11 THE WITNESS: What page is this?

12 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

13 Q. It's on your screen. It lists the numbers of those killed in 1992

14 and up in 1993 up to the 19th of January 1994, and the upper table refers

15 to units of the 4th Corps and the second to the 4th and 6th Corps. Did

16 you know that the 4th and the 6th Corps were one and the same corps, the

17 4th Corps, up to the 19th of January, 1994?

18 A. Why would I know this? I'm not a military expert.

19 Q. Madam, just give me a simple answer. Say, "I don't know." You

20 don't have is to justify yourself. You're not the accused. I'm the

21 accused here. Just say you don't know, and I can move on.

22 A. No. You can move on.

23 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, take a look at the following data. Up

24 until the 19th of January, 1993, and part of 1994, 579 people were killed,

25 members of the 4th Corps, and 1.168 people were wounded. Is that what it

1 says here?

2 A. Well, it obviously does.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, my question to you is this: Do you know that, in

4 addition to the 4th Corps units, at the time that you talk about, August,

5 September, there were additional units added from the 1st Corps, from

6 Sarajevo, in the fighting around Mostar? Do you know that some other

7 units, Zuka's men or whatever, that other units arrived in Mostar?

8 A. No, I don't know.

9 Q. When you looked at the table referring to 1993, did you make an

10 analysis of those who were killed up until the 9th of May from this corps,

11 based on records that I'm sure exist, and those who were killed after the

12 9th of May, 1993? Did you make that record?

13 A. You mean the table from the book?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. No. I didn't make any analysis with this table.

16 Q. Do you know how many soldiers of the 4th and 6th Corps had

17 together? What was its strength together?

18 A. Of course, I don't. I don't.

19 Q. Thank you. If the -- when the soldiers came back from the front

20 line after doing their shift, do you know whether they changed into

21 civilian clothes, and when if it they were taken to hospital, they would

22 be registered as civilian deaths or members of the civilian police or

23 soldiers who came to the hospital wearing civilian clothes? Did you look

24 at that kind of thing? Do you have any information about that, that in

25 the war hospital records they had records of that nature?

1 A. Of course, they didn't have record of clothes and changing the

2 clothes in particular; not in hospital books.

3 Q. All right. In your -- among your data, you say that 5.393 persons

4 were wounded soldiers according to the war hospital Mostar records, and

5 you cover this until the 20th of April, 1994, and that is 380 days -- 382

6 days. Now, if 5.000-odd is divided by the number of days -- if 5.393

7 persons is divided by 380 days, the average number of persons arriving in

8 hospital per day is 14. Is that right? So 5.000-odd divided by 380 gives

9 us the sum of 14.

10 A. One correction. 5.393 is not wounded soldiers. It is all wounded

11 persons, a part of them being soldiers, but being civilians.

12 Well, you made some calculations, and you are telling us the

13 number of persons arriving on average is 14. Perhaps it is correct. I

14 didn't do the calculation right now.

15 Q. Madam, I didn't say that they were soldiers. I said they were

16 patients during that period of time. Now, if we assume that number can

17 vary twice or three times in any given day, then my question is this, and

18 we're talking about the quality of the evidence or the lack of quality of

19 the records --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not evidence, records.

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].

22 Q. Now, if 14 people are admitted to hospital, is that a small number

23 which allows the doctors to write down the reasons for which the people

24 were brought to the hospital in the first place. So it says vulnus

25 explosiva as the diagnosis. That would be correct because these are

1 qualified doctors who were able to write the diagnosis for each person,

2 because the number of people admitted to hospital wasn't that great. It

3 was, on average, 14 per day.

4 A. Well, it was, on average, 14, if you are right, of course, and

5 some days it was higher than that. And, well, I believe 14 per day, if we

6 assume it is correct, it is certainly a possible thing to do, to record

7 the details of all 14 people. But there is, I understand, a group of

8 people that perhaps were never registered in these books as well, as

9 knowing the source.

10 Q. Yes. Let's move on, madam. I might come back to certain issues,

11 but as my time is running out -- well, it hasn't run out yet. I don't

12 want to use Mr. Karnavas's time, so I'll go through this quickly.

13 Would you take a look at your report on the deaths as a result of

14 the conflict. According to the war hospital records and the death

15 registers -- would you take a look at that, please.

16 A. Could you give us a page number perhaps?

17 Q. We'll start off with page 1 where you say that as a place of death

18 the sources usually quote municipalities. Those are the last two lines on

19 the first page. So that it is impossible to establish which deaths

20 occurred in East Mostar and which occurred outside that area.

21 Do you state that loud and clear there on page 1 and part of page

22 2? The first line on page 2.

23 A. Well, I remember what I wrote. Generally, sources report the

24 municipality of that, and there is also a place of death which is not

25 always available. In this particular sources we also had this problem,

1 especially with the deaths registers, that not every record was available

2 in terms of a specific place of death. For many only municipality was

3 reported as a place of death, which was not good enough to study and to

4 include in our absolute numbers.

5 Q. Very well. Now, do you consider that the data from the death

6 registers are more precise than the data in the Mostar hospital?

7 A. When it comes to personal details they are. Not when this comes

8 to details about the death.

9 Q. Thank you. Would you now turn to page 632, please. 632. That's

10 the Croatian version. I can't give you the English page number. It's the

11 portion in table 1. After table 1 where you address the death registers

12 and what is contained in them. Table 1, please. It's number 4 in the

13 English version. After table 1 you say the following: "Only some places

14 can be classified as being East Mostar, whereas the other places can't be

15 recorded under that column so that places that have not been designated as

16 East Mostar need not necessarily be outside the East Mostar area;

17 although, the category, East Mostar is not quoted, and this refers to

18 deaths outside the area of East Mostar. Data from East Mostar for some

19 reason have not been designated as East Mostar. They have also been

20 included into this category."

21 Now, can you tell me, please, what were the reasons that you

22 decided that those which were not designated at East Mostar you should

23 include in the East Mostar category? Could you explain your reasons for

24 that, please?

25 A. Well, I -- first of all, I didn't include in my analysis any

1 deaths of which I couldn't be sure that they were in East Mostar. So all

2 the deaths of which I either didn't know, or I did know that they were

3 from outside East Mostar, these were excluded. They are not in the

4 minimum numbers. So there is no reasons that I would include these

5 deaths. I didn't include these deaths.

6 Q. Very well. So the minimum numbers are those numbers which because

7 of sentences like this that you use can say certain numbers either in the

8 war hospital records or the death registers. So the minimum numbers are

9 the actual numbers, the most reliable numbers, that they are

10 scientifically the most reliable numbers, these minimum numbers. Can we

11 say that?

12 A. Yes, this is what I'm saying in the report, yes.

13 Q. All right. Now would you turn to page -- or, rather, to table

14 number 3 on page 1032 of the Croatian text. It is page 7 of the English.

15 Take a look at that. And you say judging by everything, the number of

16 deaths due to all the different causes, including natural causes as well

17 in certain cases, although we noted earlier on that you didn't research

18 that, recorded in space and time contained in the indictment was 773, and

19 this related to the overall area of Capljina, Jablanica, Mostar, Prozor,

20 and Stolac. And you have table 3 with 773 deaths, including, as you say,

21 a certain number of natural deaths. But is that the correct table? Is

22 that right? For five municipalities the total is 773 deaths. Is that

23 right?

24 A. Well, it is at this stage just a table reporting on some

25 intermittent results, but it is not a table that should be taken as a

1 table with minimum absolute numbers for Mostar. It includes many more

2 municipalities and Mostar as a whole, not only East Mostar. You should

3 rather refer to the next table, table number 4, in which these seven --

4 the number for Mostar 524 --

5 Q. Madam, please. I'm reading your own words, and these are your

6 words. The number of deaths all in all recorded within the space and time

7 comprised in the indictment was 773. Table 3. And there you go on to

8 enumerate 11, Capljina; Jablanica, 227; Mostar, 135; Prozor, 5; and a

9 total of 374, and then you have known and unknown quantities. But this is

10 773, a total of 773. And then you go on to say the total number for the

11 Mostar municipality is 524 cases of which only 373 cases satisfy the

12 strict demands of relevance and relating to the siege of Mostar. That is

13 to say those deaths which occurred in East Mostar in the period between

14 May 1993 to April 1994.

15 Now, madam, are those your words? Is that what you said? And

16 then we'll see what follows. But is this the demand for relevance and

17 reliability, this figure 773?

18 A. Sir, you are reading section 2, which is summary of the source,

19 and there is another section which contains final statistics. If you need

20 final numbers, you should go to section on final statistics and not to go

21 through the summary of the source. I am summarising the source in order

22 to make sure that everybody understands that I'm not taking the entire

23 source, that I exclude large parts of this source, and I only take a small

24 group of record of which I know they are relevant, and the small group of

25 record is 373.

1 Q. Madam, now take a look at the following page --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, we need to have a

3 break now. We'll have a 20-minute break and resume after that and go on

4 until a quarter to 2.00.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe Mr. Stringer want to

9 take the floor.

10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. If we could briefly go into

11 private session.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And we may be in the witness.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have used up 47

9 minutes so far out of the two hours which were allocated to you.

10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Doctor, madam, let's continue. On page 10, underneath table 3,

12 you say the following: The real causes of death were these 773 cases for

13 these municipalities that you mention and which are relevant for the

14 indictment are stated as following: Violent death linked to the conflict,

15 violent death perhaps linked to the conflict, natural death, unknown

16 causes killed by gunshot, shelling, murder, suicide, et cetera, all these

17 other causes. And we can add to that traffic accidents and so on, or

18 death caused by other reasons.

19 Now let's move on to page 11 and table 4. You have a table there

20 and you say East Mostar. And you say that this is -- these are valid

21 cases from Mostar judging by the date and place of birth, and you say that

22 91 persons for 1993 and 1994. 91 persons that the place of death is not

23 known, but 373 persons do have a known place of death; and then you say

24 this number of 373 recorded in East Mostar during the siege in May -- from

25 May 1993 to April 1994, considers to be relevant and valid for the needs

1 of analysing the fatalities of the siege, the victims of the siege.

2 Do you stand by that statement? What we're not challenging, what

3 is from the base of date that you have at your disposal, things are not

4 challenged.

5 A. Well, these 373 are related to the siege at Mostar.

6 Q. Thank you. Let's now move on to table 6 on page 14, page 9 of the

7 English. And you go on to elaborate, and we have comparative data there.

8 In table 6, cause of death as a result of the siege, siege-related deaths

9 reported in the Mostar war hospital books and in the Mostar death

10 registries; and then you say gunshots 49, shelling 214, unknown 209,

11 wounding 0. With the death registers, we have 6 who were killed, natural

12 deaths 11, shelling 14, unknown 333. 333 unknown.

13 Can you explain to us - and we can stay with these figures -

14 whether under "Unknown" in the war hospital, was it really unknown?

15 And if you made a new group or looked at a new group or cluster,

16 hadn't you perhaps forgotten that the physicians did not write the cause

17 of death -- or rather, did write the cause of death. So doctors are to be

18 trusted. So if somebody dies in hospital, they can know the wounds that

19 caused death.

20 So how do you know -- how could they have wrote that, in 209

21 cases, the cause of death was unknown?

22 Because if they were killed as a result of gunshot wounds or

23 shelling, you would see injuries on the body -- or rather, they would see

24 injuries on the body.

25 A. Regarding the 209 unknown cases reported from war hospital books,

1 what is known is that these were violent deaths and deaths were because of

2 wounding. What is unknown is unknown whether it was a wounding by a shell

3 or it was a wounding by a gunshot. So here they are reported as unknowns.

4 Q. Thank you. How come you're able to claim that it is unknown

5 whether they -- this death was caused by shelling or gunshots, when you

6 say that they have three ways of determining this, the traces on the body,

7 vulnus sclopetarium, whether it was and entrance/exit wound, or wounds of

8 shelling?

9 I don't see that you studied that the unknown persons died of

10 wounding if this was not recorded. So how do you explain this?

11 A. Well, we discussed problems of reporting in the war hospital

12 books; and I said, and I stand behind it, that the source is incomplete

13 and many records lack the diagnosis. At the same time, we know that this

14 is a very special source. These are records from a war hospital located

15 in the siege area and that was established to treat patients, victims of

16 the siege, and who was treated in the hospital were, except for three

17 cases of whom we know were unrelated, were cases all related to the siege

18 and were victims of wounding by shell and gunshots.

19 So these are the reasons that I know that these deaths of which we

20 don't know the particular cause. But let me finish. We know that these

21 are violent deaths related to the siege.

22 Q. We'll come to discuss the siege later on. I'll ask you something

23 about the siege. It's a term that can be disputed, but I'm not clear on

24 anything now.

25 From the fact that you know something exactly - and it's these

1 three cases that I'm referring to - it would emerge that based on the fact

2 that you know something exactly, then you can conclude that it's another

3 group.

4 Where in the war hospital records for the 209 persons does it say

5 that they died a violent death, if we see that we have 214 for shelling

6 and 49 gunshots? So what else is there that is unknown, if we do know

7 that we have 214 cases of death through shelling and 49 through gunshot

8 wounds?

9 So the doctor says he died, that there was shelling, and so-and-so

10 died; and then under the "Unknown," you say that those unknown were also

11 violent deaths. What are your grounds for asserting that these unknown

12 were due to violent deaths as well?

13 A. Because of the fact that the patients treated in the hospital were

14 wounded persons. This is what is in the data. There is a group of

15 patients of whom the diagnosis is unknown; but for all those for whom the

16 diagnosis is known, and who can be reliably to be considered as a sample

17 of all patients of the hospital, we see that these are wounded persons.

18 And three cases, unrelated cases, were all unrelated cases we saw in the

19 data.

20 Q. Madam, please. We're not here to perform statistical exercises

21 and training. We're here to establish the facts. If a doctor -- if the

22 doctors say there were 49 deaths due to gunshot wounds and 214 due to

23 shelling and some unknown ones, 209, then please tell me, when you looked

24 at these unknown, they must have died from shelling and gunshot wounds,

25 must they not? How else?

1 A. Regarding the deaths that are listed here in the table as unknown,

2 209, we know that these are violent deaths of people who first got wounded

3 and died in hospital of their wounds.

4 Q. How? Where does it say that? Where is that written? Did they

5 fall down the stairs? Were they perhaps injured when handling weapons

6 themselves? Where does it say? Because it says "Unknown."

7 These are not statistical exercises. I'm not your student. Here

8 it says "Unknown," where you say, "We know full well." So tell the Trial

9 Chamber: How do you know full well? It's a simple question.

10 If you don't want to answer, I can move on, but then don't say we

11 know. What is the basis for the "we know"?

12 A. The basis for the "we know" is the nature of the data and the

13 nature of the source. It is not just a regular hospital that treats any

14 patient of any condition. This is a war hospital and treats patients who

15 are victims of fighting. This is so simple, and this is one thing.

16 Another thing is: Well, I had the opportunities to see some

17 videos and some pictures of the hospital during the siege and of what kind

18 of patients were treated in this hospital. It only confirms what I know

19 about the source.

20 Q. Madam, at the beginning --

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] And Their Honours can look

22 at Dr. Rajkov's statement.

23 Q. -- you quoted yourself: "50 per cent of our patients were

24 civilians," he says, and this is something that you quoted. Is that

25 correct, that you accepted Dr. Rajkov's statement to the effect that that

1 war hospital was the only hospital; and as the only hospital that was able

2 to undertake surgery, they took in the population which was between 33 and

3 35.000?

4 So, if there were fractures, bone fractures, falling downstairs,

5 traffic accidents, this hospital would take all of these people in. And

6 the fact that you did not look into these and study them, you say it's the

7 unknown, because this is a war hospital and I saw pictures.

8 So this 209, is that anything other -- do you have grounds to

9 state that this is anything other than just unknown?

10 A. Well, in terms of reported diagnosis, I don't have diagnosis for

11 these cases. What I do know of these cases, these are deaths in war

12 hospital.

13 Q. Thank you. Thank you. That will do. Unknown, right.

14 In table 7, you have the distribution according to the months.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one thing for

16 clarification. You're talking about a war hospital, and you draw

17 conclusions out of this. I was quite surprised to see earlier this lady

18 who came obviously came to give birth. So maybe this hospital's main

19 calling was to treat all the injured in the conflict, but also used as a

20 general hospital. And because it was also used as a general hospital,

21 other kinds of patients could come to get treatment, patients who were not

22 direct victims of the conflict. Somebody who suddenly has a heart attack

23 just one kilometre from this hospital will be taken to this hospital. And

24 if he dies in the hospital after the heart attack, maybe the cause may be

25 unknown. He's not shot by a sniper and not caught in an explosion.

1 So you told us that you saw some video and so on, but I'd like to

2 know the following: Is this just a war hospital whose only calling is to

3 treat the military and to treat the victims of the conflict, or is it a

4 hospital that has a double purpose; military, on the one hand, and also

5 civilian?

6 THE WITNESS: Well, there was another hospital in Mostar in the

7 west part of Mostar --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm talking about Mostar east,

9 not west.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. In East Mostar, this hospital was

11 established as a war hospital for the ABiH army, and it was established at

12 the outbreak of the siege in East Mostar, and the main purpose was to

13 provide medical services to the wounded soldiers, I believe. But, at the

14 same time, it was the only hospital in the area and a very poorly equipped

15 hospital. And, well, it is understandable that, if somebody happened to

16 give birth in the siege period and didn't have any other opportunity, they

17 would come to this hospital, of course, and this is what we see.

18 There are three records of unrelated cases in the hospital, but

19 this is all what we see in the records.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But let's have a theoretical

21 example. Let's imagine that a child under 12 suddenly has appendicitis

22 turning into peritonitis, and, of course, this child is sent to the

23 hospital immediately, this hospital. Unfortunately, this child dies; but

24 then, in that case, which category would this child fall into

25 statistically, the unknown? What category would you put this person in,

1 this child?

2 THE WITNESS: Well, if the diagnosis would be reported, then I

3 would put it as an unrelated case, I believe, because of the history of

4 the case. But if the diagnosis is unknown, then it would be among the

5 unknown cases. Why the child died of such a simple surgical thing is

6 another question. I believe it wasn't a hospital that was able to offer a

7 high quality service to everybody because of the conditions in which the

8 hospital operated.

9 So I can imagine that some patients died of medical complications

10 or whatever; right? I can't distinguish how many cases of this kind were

11 there, but this is another issue, I believe.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Let's move on, madam, to chapter 3.4 and look at table 8. It's

15 page 11 of the English. Table 8. Age and sex distribution of victims,

16 men and women separately. My first question is this: In views of the

17 laws prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina that recruits range from the

18 ages of 16 to 65, why did you have the group for 15 to 19 and a group from

19 60 to 64 and not to 65? Why did you choose groups which do not correspond

20 to the laws governing conscripts in case of war?

21 A. Well, these groups are the usual age groups used in demographic

22 analysis, so this is why they were used. But, of course, any age grouping

23 is possible, and if you want to see 16 to 65, I can provide this age

24 distribution as well.

25 Q. Well, I think such a distribution would be more precise, but what

1 is interesting here is the following: The ratio of men who were killed,

2 according to the records of the war hospital, it says 375 males, and the

3 ratio of males to females is 4.3 to 1; whereas, in the death registers of

4 Mostar -- East Mostar, it's 296 men and 76 women, and the ratio is 3.821.

5 My question is the following: At that time, in Mostar, were there

6 4.3 or 3.8 per cent less women, in view of the fact that women died less

7 from shelling, which had to do with the whole town? Were there fewer

8 women in Eastern Mostar at the time?

9 A. Well, I told you today that I didn't have population data on East

10 Mostar.

11 Q. Well, just say, "I don't know," madam.

12 A. That is what I said.

13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] So from the ratio 4.3 or

14 3.821, concerning the shelling of East Mostar, Their Honours can draw

15 their own conclusion as to who was killed and how in particular places.

16 Q. Let's go to table 9. Table 9. You say, East Mostar records in

17 the war hospital, and this is the sex distribution. And we have the war

18 hospital records and the death registers, and then, again, the ratio of

19 men to women is 7 to 1. Shelling, 65 men and 45 women. The ratio is 3.6

20 to 1. And in the death records, it's 271 men, and accidents and woundings

21 are very different.

22 Is this table correct?

23 A. Well, the table is correct. There are no sex ratio in the table.

24 Q. Yes. Well, it can be calculated, and one can see whether I

25 calculated it correctly, but you yourself say that both sources agree that

1 in absolute terms men were killed more often because of violent

2 war-related causes a bit more frequently than men.

3 So, if this is the ratio of men to women dying of violent

4 war-related causes, is it clear that men were killed a lot more, precisely

5 because they participated in the combat operations which were ongoing in

6 Mostar at the time?

7 I will not ask you, of course, who was attacking who, because

8 that's not your field of expertise, but does this table show correctly

9 that the number of men far exceeds the number of women?

10 If there were not fewer women there, then maybe more men were

11 killed because they were engaged in carrying out wartime duties. Can you

12 say something about that or not; if not, I will move on?

13 A. Well, there were many more killed, and you see it in the table.

14 So why there were more men killed, well, perhaps, they were fighting more

15 actively than women. That's all I can say.

16 Q. Thank you very much. Let's go to table number 10. Table 10 on

17 page 1932 of the Croatian text, and we shall see that it is a breakdown by

18 ethnicity. In the war hospital, according to you, there were 345 Muslims,

19 and the records, the registries have a different number. There are 4

20 others, and 110 unknown. In relation to 345 Muslims, that's 2.7 to 1.

21 That's the ratio of numbers to unknown.

22 My question is: In your subsequent analysis, by looking at the

23 names, you transformed all these unknowns into Muslims just by reading

24 their names; is that correct? And, yes, just first answer. Is that

25 correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. And, in the next table, you calculated that 95.3 were

3 Muslims and 87.6 in the death records. What happened to those 110 when

4 calculating these percentages? Do they account for 30 per cent of 345?

5 You are saying there were 95.3 Muslims here in your calculations,

6 but you did not take into account the 110 unknowns. This table correct?

7 Can we consider it correct or incorrect?

8 A. You are correct, 110 are excluded from the calculation of

9 percentages.

10 Q. And, then, in the next table, you say that the number of civilians

11 in the war hospital was 160. There were 12 detainees, 158 military, and

12 142 unknown. So there were 160 civilians, and this is war hospital. Is

13 this table correct?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, to round this off, please look at table

16 16. Table 16. That's 2632, page 17 in English. You say distribution of

17 the victims of the siege according to cause of death, table 16; and then

18 you say, shelling 76, killed 34, gunshots 18, wounding 6, and then we have

19 unknown 404.

20 If your table is correct, I'm a little confused by the constant

21 changes in some information; although, for the most part, the calculations

22 are correct, but some of the entry data -- well, is this correct that 404

23 are unknown?

24 So, in the case of 404 persons, we don't know what the cause of

25 death is; whereas, we know that 76 were killed by shelling, 34 were

1 killed, 18 by gunshots, and so on.

2 A. This table is correct. But further in the text, I say that it's

3 not fully reliable. And there are good reasons that I'm showing this

4 table, because it's important to address problems with the sources. If I

5 wouldn't address the problems, then you wouldn't understand what's the

6 quality of the statistics I produced.

7 Shall I continue explaining why the table is unreliable or --

8 Q. Well, I agree that it's unreliable. I'm not saying it's reliable.

9 I was only trying to challenge if someone says "Unknown," and those are

10 doctors in the hospital who say that, that's the most we can have before

11 this Court. All the rest are just statistical exercises. I can do

12 statistical exercises myself, but here we have a fact. It's 404 unknown.

13 This table is correct. And how we can go from there, I can't go

14 into that. I can produce completely different statistical data. I asked

15 you whether the table is correct, and you said "Yes, it is."

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like some

17 clarification about a particular point. On this table where it is

18 indicated "Cause of death," the first cause is shelling, and then the

19 number of people killed, and then the gunshot wounds.

20 I have a question about the people killed. The cause of death

21 killed, that doesn't mean anything. When somebody's killed, there is a

22 reason; either the person has been hit by a bullet or shrapnel, or the

23 person has been strangled. There is a reason. What did you mean by that?

24 THE WITNESS: This table is --

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Throat cut.

1 THE WITNESS: This table is related to merged sources, to the two

2 sources combined together: Death registries and war hospital records.

3 The causes are here reported according to the source, original source.

4 It's important to understand that, in the merge, the first source from

5 which records were accepted were the death registries; and in addition to

6 records from the death registries, we accepted new records from the war

7 hospital. And I explained this earlier today. This is because the

8 personal information is much better in the death registries than in the

9 war hospital records.

10 This type of merge has certain consequences on the recorded cause

11 of death and some other items, like military/civilian status and

12 statistics obtained directly from the merge. This merge gives unreliable

13 information about reported causes of death and reported civilian/military

14 status. And this is related to the fact that these two items were

15 practically not reported in the death registries, our first source taken

16 for the merge.

17 So this is not a good way of making an assessment of the actual

18 cause of death distribution or the civilian/military distribution of

19 victims reported in the merged sources. A different way must be applied

20 in order to obtain more reliable, better statistics on that, and we did

21 apply this other way.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me finish, and I shall give

23 the floor to my colleagues.

24 The Bench will have to determine the number of victims there were

25 in Mostar, the number of people killed and the number of people wounded.

1 If we take the lower end of the assumption, 539 people killed, and that is

2 the lower end of the assumption due to the cross-referencing of two

3 tables, as you've just mentioned.

4 If, after that, I need to look into the reasons or the causes of

5 death of these 539 people, on reading your table, 78 are reported as being

6 casualties due to the shelling, 18 are due to gunshot; and then I have

7 34 - I don't know what this stands for; I have no answer to that

8 question - unaccounted for, and then I have 404 which are also unaccounted

9 for because the statistics are unknown.

10 So, in statistical terms, those 34 people, shouldn't they have

11 been added on to the 404, so as to only indicate 76 for whom you were

12 sure, due to the cross-referencing of your sources, you knew that these

13 people had died due to the shelling, and 18 that were killed due to

14 gunshots. So, quite honestly, I don't have an answer to this question.

15 THE WITNESS: Well, killed is as reported in these registries. It

16 is killed people. This is how it is reported, killed people. And,

17 basically, the killed category, which is 34 persons, could be reported

18 jointly under unknown. This is exactly the same thing.

19 But as I said when Your Honours would make your assessment of the

20 cause of death distribution of victims, this table shouldn't be taken into

21 account because it is a biased table. I still do include this table to

22 address the problems with the sources. We are not working with perfect

23 sources. It's very difficult situation. We do what is the best in this

24 particular situation. We have these sources, and we have no others

25 sources.

1 We have to live with the sources as they are. Certain things can

2 be taken directly from the sources, but certain other things cannot. And

3 only statistical estimates can be provided, and this is what we did for

4 causes of death, for cause of death distribution, an estimate.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand what you're saying.

6 I would like to finish off with one question, and then hand the floor over

7 to my colleague. I understand now that these 34 people have been reported

8 thanks to the death registries. What I don't know is whether this death

9 registry was probably established by a municipal authority; and if I

10 assume there is a dispute between two individuals and one dies after the

11 fight, his name will be on the death registry, and will it say in that

12 that the person has been killed because there was a fight or because there

13 was shelling?

14 This is why I have questions this. And you have taken these

15 figures from the death registries which indicate that the people are

16 dead. But are the death registries such that the people have been killed

17 because of the siege, or maybe they could have been killed for another

18 reason? Because the person who reads your table, understands that there

19 is a connection here with the siege, and one has reason to believe that

20 there's a direct link between these figures and the siege. But maybe

21 there are some people who have died for totally different reasons.

22 THE WITNESS: Well, death registries is a source established by

23 municipal authorities. It is the responsibility of these authorities to

24 take record of every death that occurs. These death registries are meant

25 for all deaths: Violent deaths related to conflict, unrelated to

1 conflict, natural causes of death. It's all there. This is the source.

2 So, in this source, we actually, in principle, should have a very

3 specific information about causes of death. And, normally, we do have

4 this for Mostar. For the period of the siege of East Mostar, the

5 reporting is extremely, extremely poor. Practically, causes of death are

6 unavailable for the majority of these records; but, but, at the same time,

7 when we compare this source with war hospital record, then we see there is

8 an overlap, and considerable overlap, of these two sources of victims

9 reported in war hospitals.

10 We have good reasons to believe that these are really victims of

11 the siege. So a majority of the deaths reported in the death registries

12 for this period, for this area, will have similar causes of death. That

13 is the rationale that we have behind taking a group of records with

14 unknown causes from the death registries and including them, according to

15 the criteria of relevance, time relevance and area relevance, and

16 including these records in the statistics.

17 But I'm not saying that we have causes of death for every single

18 victim reported in the death registries. I can't offer this. I'm -- I

19 would love to, because that would help to make clear decisions and produce

20 very obvious statistics, but this is not the case.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I've understood you

22 correctly, Witness, those 34 people who are in the registry which was

23 established by the authorities of East Mostar, the names of these 34

24 people, I should be able to find them again in the war hospital registries

25 as people having been admitted into evidence, theoretically.

1 THE WITNESS: Well, if not all of them, some of them certainly.

2 The correspondence of these sources is not 1 to 1 that every single record

3 reported in the war hospital is at the same time included in the death

4 registries. In principle, this should be the case. This should be the

5 case, because death registries is the source meant for all deaths in this

6 period and in this area; but, in the conflict situation, it is not

7 realistic to expect that sources are complete and correspond to each

8 other.

9 Sources are incomplete. Sources are deficient. Sources have

10 misreporting. Sources have biases. So the best we can do, we can work

11 with the sources as they are and understand the problems in the sources.

12 And based on this, we try to make an informed judgement and produce

13 statistics on the victims. This is what we have done.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. I think my

15 colleague wanted to put a question to you.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, a small question, and I'm not quite sure I

17 admit to what degree it is relevant. It strikes me, as it struck

18 Mr. Praljak, I believe, that in tables 10, 11, 16, you have quite a

19 considerable proportion of unknown; and when you then indicate

20 percentages, you simply strike those outs. Why? How is this justified?

21 THE WITNESS: Well, I exclude the unknowns from the cases of which

22 I know causes of death, or civilian/military status, or age distribution,

23 sex distribution, et cetera. And I consider the cases known values of

24 certain data items as smaller samples of all cases that I have in the war

25 hospital records. These are cases, well-defined cases.

1 For the well-defined cases, I am allowed to calculate a certain

2 distribution of certain categories reported; and considering these

3 well-defined cases as smaller samples, I use the sample-based statistics

4 and apply the sample-based statistics to the unknown and distribute the

5 unknowns. That's the basic principle I use.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just to be sure that I understand correctly. You

7 operate an extrapolation. You say, if the relationship between one

8 category of the known and the other category of the known, it is justified

9 to suppose that within the unknown, it is the same proportion and

10 therefore I can exclude them.

11 Did I understand you correctly?

12 THE WITNESS: Very correctly, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have 10 minutes left,

14 Mr. Praljak -- or six minutes.

15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Madam, I would only repeat what you said. I do not have data for

17 such-and-such reasons; but because I do not have, the data the objective

18 picture is different. So you are saying that there is an objective

19 picture that you can create beyond the data you have from the war hospital

20 and the death registries. Is that correct?

21 A. Well, you call it an objective picture. I would call it

22 statistically justified and, therefore, objective picture.

23 Q. So when you look at your statistics, His Honour Judge Trechsel

24 asked you about extrapolation. You refer to a sample. A sample is part

25 of larger set. When we have one set, in your science, that set is part of

1 a larger set. And a representative sample is a sample that, with a high

2 degree of probability, reproduces on a smaller scale what holds for the

3 whole scope. So a representative set reflects the whole set; whereas, a

4 sample is simply a random selection of the whole set.

5 A. Well, representative sample represents well the larger population

6 it comes from. So you are right when saying this.

7 Q. A representative sample when, for example, taking a poll of

8 voters, a Gallup poll or something similar, represents on a smaller scale

9 the whole picture. If you were to downsize Praljak and have a miniature

10 Praljak, but he would also have a beard and a nose and so on, that would

11 be representative; whereas, a sample is simply a random part of the whole

12 set. Is that correct?

13 A. If it is random, then it would be very good. But I will help you

14 with this representativeness of our samples, sir, if you want me to, of

15 course.

16 Q. No, no. I'm saying this because of what you've said. You are

17 comparing two sets. You say, "I have one sample, and I am transferring

18 this to another sample because I assume is they are the same. They are

19 coherent. They are identical." That is a comparison of two samples or

20 two sets.

21 My question is: Can two sets be compared in this way when, and

22 only when, one proves beforehand that those two sets are highly similar to

23 one another, that there is a high percentage of similarity between them in

24 order to transmit a statistic from one set onto another set. Is that

25 correct?

1 A. Yes, it is correct.

2 Q. But nowhere have we seen this other set to which you are

3 transferring your data. So did you create a set of the citizens arriving

4 at the hospital according to all the elements I asked you about? Because

5 that would then be a basis for comparing the two sets according to the

6 principle that what applies in one set also applies in the other. Did you

7 do this?

8 A. Well, I didn't create such a template sample, say. I didn't. So

9 I can't compare all these little samples, the unknowns with the template

10 sample.

11 Q. Madam, these are not small samples. It's, in your words, around

12 35.000 people, 35 to 55.000 people, and we don't have this it fundamental

13 sample to show similarity. Someone may have had a heart attack. People

14 dying in conditions where there is no food, no water. We don't have that

15 set, do we?

16 A. Sir, I was thinking we are speaking of samples; that is, data from

17 war hospital or death registries. These are samples. I wasn't thinking

18 of the overall population on which -- on whom I don't any data at all.

19 So any comparison with the overall population of East Mostar, during the

20 siege in East in Mostar, is impossible. These data don't exist.

21 Q. Correct, madam. But, in you words, Dr. Rajkov says: 50 per cent

22 were civilians, 50 per cent were soldiers. So to compare the two sets

23 here, you had to have some statistical data on what civilians fell ill of

24 or died of, so that you could so elegantly transfer them to the group of

25 those killed by shelling. Is that correct?

1 A. Well, first of all, I want to separate that I took Dr. Rajkov's

2 statement and applied in this study. I didn't. I mentioned what he

3 thinks about the distribution into civilians and soldiers. But I made my

4 own estimates into the distribution into civilians and soldiers, and I did

5 it with two different methods and ended, from these two methods, with

6 similar results. And my results are, indeed, consistent with the results

7 of Dr. Rajkov, but that is all. They are consistent, but I didn't use his

8 estimate, in my work as such.

9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have to stop now.

11 We shall resume your cross-examination on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.

12 Between then and now, of course, you are not to discuss any of these

13 matters with Mr. Stringer because you are under oath, and, therefore, you

14 are a witness of the Chamber.

15 So we will all reconvene on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day

18 of September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25