Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20116

1 Monday, 26 May 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon. Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. Case Number IT-95-9-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, today we are hearing a new witness. Can she

10 please stand up and make the solemn declaration.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

12 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down. Defence, Mr. Lukic.

14 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Examined by Mr. Lukic:

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good

18 afternoon to everybody in the courtroom. Good afternoon, Mrs.

19 Radovanovic. Can you hear me well, and can you hear the -- could you hear

20 the interpretation when Her Honour the Presiding Judge addressed you?

21 Before you begin your today's testimony, I'd like to draw the

22 attention of the Trial Chamber to the following: To begin with, the first

23 thing has to do with Mrs. Radovanovic's stay here. She told me that on

24 Wednesday she has a class in Banja Luka. Because this is the end of the

25 year, and the university courses are coming to the end, she needs to be

Page 20117

1 there. She need not finish today, but if she could finish earlier

2 tomorrow. I've already discussed it with Mr. Di Fazio, and I've told Mr.

3 Di Fazio, and I've already told Your Honours that I will need about an

4 hour for my examination in chief, and Mr. Di Fazio said that his

5 examination might last one hour -- an hour and a half or two. So I

6 believe that we could finish also the redirect today. I merely wished to

7 tell this, Your Honour, so that you have some idea as to how long the

8 examination of this witness would last.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, thank you for the information. I just hope

10 that both parties will try as much as possible to deal with the most

11 relevant parts to the evidence of the witness. We have had the report for

12 some days now. Thank you.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Of course. The second thing I wish to

14 mention has to do with two mathematical errors in the work. These are

15 only two figures which were erroneously typed, and if need be, we should

16 type it additionally during the break, and then introduce it as a

17 correction in an annex. In the English version on page 16, and on page 21

18 in B/C/S version, there is a table, number 4. And in table number 4 under

19 Croats, and percentages, I am talking about the fourth column, third line,

20 instead of 290, it has to be 29. You will see how it all adds up to 100,

21 so this 0 here is a typo, because in B/C/S, they put decimals, and that is

22 why the mistake.

23 The second error which occurred, which Ms. Radovanovic noticed

24 when she went through the original, is the correction, English text page

25 14, and B/C/S 19. In the line 4 in the English version, from the bottom,

Page 20118

1 figure 1.402, 1.402 Muslims. Instead of that figure, it should be 1.812.

2 This is an error which Ms. Radovanovic spotted and asked me to inform you.

3 If need be, we shall submit these corrections in writing.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say something. It is not

5 -- in the first table that you mentioned; it is 29.0. It is not 29, but

6 29.0. Not 290, but 29.0.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we will explain it all to the

8 Chamber. I believe it is all quite clear.

9 Q. Now, Mrs. Radovanovic, we shall begin discussing your work. I

10 will now ask you, I've already drawn your attention, since the two of us

11 speak the same language, will you please wait until my question is fully

12 ended and then start answering so that the interpreters can have time to

13 interpret what we are saying. And the interpreters have also been

14 supplied with copies of your text.

15 Will you introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.

16 A. I'm Svetlana Radovanovic, and shall I also tell you something

17 about my CV or what am I supposed to tell you?

18 Q. Only your name. In front of you, you have your paper. Will you

19 tell us if your signature figures on the last page of this work.

20 A. Yes, this is my signature.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and witness please break

22 between question and answer.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we have the number, please. Can

24 we have the number for this expert analysis which we are tendering. Of

25 course, it has to do with all three Defences, but it can be Mr. Tadic's

Page 20119

1 Defence or whichever.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 THE REGISTRAR: The report will be admitted as Exhibit D196/3.

4 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just on that issue that --

5 I'm sorry. As far as the number to be assigned to it, Mr. Lukic just said

6 that the report is part of the Defence of all three defendants. Is it

7 their position that they accept -- that all three defendants accept the

8 conclusions and the substance of the report? Because I understood that it

9 was only part of the Defence of Mr. Tadic. I'm not quarrelling with, that

10 but we want to be absolutely crystal clear about this. All three

11 defendants adopt the position in the report? I see counsel nodding, so I

12 assume that I'm correct in that. Thank you very much, and I apologise for

13 my interruption.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I can confirm on behalf of Mr. Zaric's

15 Defence that we also stand by this report.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, the same position is also for Dr.

17 Simic Defence. And I would like just to respectfully remind my learned

18 friend that we filed our joint motion at the beginning of the Defence

19 case, designated our joint experts, including Dr. Radovanovic. So

20 everything is in file. Maybe it's --

21 MR. Di FAZIO: I've very grateful to Mr. Pantelic for pointing

22 that out to me. So we're now absolutely clear. Thank you.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. I was just wondering about the

24 curriculum vitae. I thought it could have a slash or something, from the

25 registry assistant, just to separate it from the report.

Page 20120

1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The biography in English will

2 be treated as Exhibit D196/3, D196A/3. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I will first ask you a few brief questions

6 concerning your curriculum vitae since the curriculum vitae that we have

7 attended, we hear about the experience, professional experience. And so I

8 will have to -- but it is very short. So will you please tell the Court

9 where do you work now? Except that I think that your microphone is not

10 on.

11 A. I work at the faculty of geography of the University of Belgrade.

12 I'm head of department for demography.

13 Q. At that department, there are, I presume, several subjects. What

14 do you teach?

15 A. I teach introduction to demography [realtime transcript read in

16 error "democracy"], basic statistics of the population, and

17 ethnodemography.

18 Q. What I believe is important -- will you please repeat, but slowly,

19 the first two subjects that you teach.

20 A. Introduction to demography [realtime transcript read in error

21 "democracy"], to its introduction to the science, and then basics of

22 fundamentals of statistics and population statistics.

23 Q. Thank you, but we have to slow down.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, on the same note, Mr. Lukic, are we

25 talking about democracy, which is what is written here, or demography?

Page 20121

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I teach demography.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. We see "democracy" written

3 twice here. Thank you very much.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. What I think is important in your analysis, and for our case, is

6 what it says in your CV, that you work for the state statistics

7 administration, or as it says here, Institute of Serbia. What we'd like

8 to know in particular, in view of the source of information, what we'd

9 like to know is where did you work in 1991 and tell us in a few words how

10 long did you work at that institution?

11 A. At the state statistics administration of Serbia I worked from

12 1974 to 1991, until December 1991. From 1986 to December 1991, I headed

13 the population statistics department. I participated directly as a

14 methodologist, as a member of expert teams, inter-republican, I mean, in

15 the former Yugoslavia, in population censuses in 1981 and 1991, and

16 indirectly in the census population of 1971. I conducted the population

17 census in Serbia in 1991 as I was the head of the department. So this was

18 as official, and I was the secretary of the Population Census Bureau of

19 the SFRY.

20 Q. Thank you. Will you tell the Court what novelties, if there were

21 any novelties that were introduced in the population census of 1991.

22 A. The novelty was in the first place the manner of data processing,

23 since on the eve of the census, or rather a few months before that, it was

24 decided at the federal level to apply completely different forms from

25 those which were used in the previous census. The decision to use these

Page 20122

1 new forms was explained that it would speed up the census because, in view

2 of the technological innovations, it would be possible to scan the

3 material and computerise the whole processing. I was against it

4 throughout the process, however, this decision was taken at the level of

5 the SFRY, only Macedonia refused it and refused to conduct the census

6 whereas all the other republics used these new computerised forms to

7 conduct the censuses in their territories.

8 Q. And my last question relative to your general experience with the

9 population censuses will be: What did the results show at the federal

10 level and what drew your attention regarding this new form of forms and

11 electronic reading?

12 A. My personal experience and experience in all other republics,

13 especially Croatia which had already done it in 1991, is that it made the

14 feeding in of data slow down, because scanning constituted a major

15 problem. When we're scanning and feeding in the data, terrible

16 substitutions took place so that we had to slow down the feeding of data

17 into computers as we had to intervene all the time. And I would like to

18 show you something to simply explain what that means, I mean how it made

19 matters complicated.

20 The new forms, the new forms which we received a few months --

21 when I say "we," I mean the territory of the former Socialist Federal

22 Republic of Yugoslavia --

23 Q. Will you please slow down. Yes, you can continue.

24 A. Necessitated a certain, not to say a special manner of taking down

25 information, and it had to do both with figures and things which are in

Page 20123

1 letters. If you take the methodology of the census population of 1991,

2 and I'd like really to see it -- I do not know if you can see it this way.

3 Q. Can you put it on the ELMO, please.

4 A. That is, it was exactly explained what the shape of every

5 character should be and every numeral, what they should look like, because

6 we were told if they didn't look as they should, then it could become

7 complicated. And that complication really occurred later on.

8 Q. Very well. We shall come back to it if need be. And if

9 necessary, we shall copy it and submit it to the Trial Chamber.

10 Now, I'd like to ask you --

11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Lukic. I'm just wondering, when

12 the witness mentions on page 7, line 20, you see it says: "The new forms,

13 the new forms which we received a few months," a few months when? It's

14 really quite unclear as it stands in the transcript.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

16 Q. Will you please explain. You said a few months before, but what

17 did you mean by that? A few months before what?

18 A. The population census is performed on the date of midnight of the

19 31st of March. So a few months before the census takes place, we start

20 getting ready, preparing the methodology, the forms, and so on and so

21 forth. And before that, a pilot census made in order to check whether the

22 forms are all right and whether the questions are formulated properly. So

23 we did this trial census perhaps two years or perhaps three on the forms

24 that were ready for the census of 1991. However, towards the end of 1990,

25 and I cannot say exactly whether it was October or November, it was

Page 20124

1 decided that new forms should be used for this census. That is, the

2 format would be completely new. It wasn't the contents which changed, but

3 the format was completely different, and necessitated something that

4 earlier censuses did not necessitate, that is, the recorders had to either

5 introduce only letters, which is characteristic, for instance, of Bosnia,

6 or numerals and characters, except that these forms did not include the

7 explanations as was the case in earlier censuses.

8 So that this didn't come as a surprise only for us who were

9 working there, because we had to translate our whole methodology to suit a

10 new format, but I also think that it was a shortcoming for those who were

11 conducting the censuses because it necessitated a completely different

12 approach and attention was drawn to us that one had to use very special

13 ballpoints, that figures and letters had to be written in a particular

14 way. Now, if you have in mind that we had about 100.000 people who were

15 involved, who were either instructors or pollsters, it is obviously that

16 it was too short a time to train all these people to write as precisely as

17 required. And then there were so many substitutions. I can go into that,

18 but that was hair-raising. That is, when you read the material, if the

19 figure is not written as was required, then number 1 can be read like 7 or

20 like 4 or like 1, and so on and so forth. And of course for statistics,

21 this is very important, because every figure in statistics is a code which

22 tells a great deal. So for instance, if you say marital status or single

23 is 1, divorcee means 3, separated 4, and so on and so forth, and it's very

24 important to have these exact numerals there. And that is why very

25 complicated situations happened when you received results which produce a

Page 20125

1 completely distorted picture.

2 In my paper, I wrote it down in relation to the ethnic structure

3 that for instance, in a locality -- for instance, in a locality in Serbia,

4 the figures which we got was that it was the English man with Danish as

5 the mother tongue, or the other way around; Danes with the English mother

6 tongue. So of course one had to intervene in all this material because

7 you know only too well that such people do not live there.

8 But such errors were merely the result of the substitution rather

9 than the ignorance of pollsters or somebody else. And I could quote you a

10 whole string of examples like that.

11 Q. Yes, I believe we've already clarified it. Mrs. Radovanovic,

12 we'll have to cut your answers short, nevertheless make it quite clear to

13 the Trial Chamber, because that is why you are here, but please cut your

14 answers shorter.

15 Now a few questions so that we can clarify what was the

16 methodology used in your analysis that you drew for the Defence. Did you

17 read the analysis submitted by the expert for the Prosecution, by Mrs. Ewa

18 Tabeau and Jakob Brijeg [phoen]?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. Did you read the statement of her -- the record of her testimony

21 before the Trial Chamber?

22 A. Yes, I did, but it was a long time ago.

23 Q. Will you just tell us very briefly, what was the task that the

24 Defence put before you when we asked you to do this analysis?

25 A. Well, the Defence asked me if I could do a correct and proper

Page 20126

1 analysis of the demographic structure in the two municipalities, and to

2 see whether for such a study, there were sources which could be accepted

3 as reliable and correct.

4 Q. Very well. And will you tell the Court, because this is something

5 that we insisted on, why did you think it was important to go into the

6 scanned information that the Prosecution had, or rather, the census lists

7 and the census applications?

8 A. When I read the expert opinion of the experts for the Prosecution,

9 I had numerous doubts regarding the quality of data, and especially the

10 identification numbers and the names. However, I wished to check whether

11 I was right to suspect that this information was not correct. So I went

12 through that material, and I'm afraid that I was right to doubt, and it

13 concerns especially the identification and numbers. I must say that the

14 identification numbers were for the first time collected at the level of

15 Yugoslavia in 1991. They were never controlled, and none of the former

16 republics never used them for any purpose. When I say "purpose," I mean

17 official purpose. Of course, I can explain why this was collected, if

18 somebody wants to know that.

19 Q. We'll address that issue later.

20 We'll now move on to certain matters that need to be clarified in

21 your report. I'd like to point out that with regard to the report, that

22 the Trial Chamber is familiar with, we will not discuss the contents of

23 the report, but we'll just try to clarify some matters that weren't quite

24 clear to me. And I assume that these issues might be of interest to the

25 Trial Chamber. It might be useful to clarify these issues.

Page 20127

1 First of all, I will put a few questions to you, few questions

2 that you dealt with and that have to do with the analysis of the

3 declaration of one's nationality. I think that was something quite new

4 for me. I'll draw the Trial Chamber's attention to paragraph 13 and to

5 paragraph 14 and 15. There's a table there, too.

6 In paragraph 13, I'll now read through it very slowly, it's the

7 second sentence. "Thus only general and rough statistics could be

8 obtained --"

9 A. I apologise, paragraph 13 is not the same in my version. Is that

10 the B/C/S version? The origin of sources of information?

11 Q. That's right, I'm reading the second sentence. I apologise.

12 "Thus only general and rough statistics could be obtained on

13 certain features, such as ethnic affiliation, because the answer -- and

14 this is what's important to me -- because the answer to this question was

15 often influenced by ideology." I would also like to draw your attention

16 to the middle of paragraph 15 when you carried out that analysis and came

17 to the conclusion that in both municipalities it served, the indicator of

18 the dynamics of change of the number of Serbs and Croats showed

19 significant oscillations, and what is important to me is that they cannot

20 be counted for by realistic demographic explanations. And so the only

21 logical conclusion is that there was a change of attitude from census to

22 census when declaring ethnic affiliation.

23 What I'm interested in in relation to your report, which is quite

24 clear, is whether this was characteristic only for the municipality of

25 Samac and Odzak, or was this something that was also characteristic for a

Page 20128

1 wider area in Yugoslavia?

2 A. It's characteristic for the wider area of Yugoslavia, for all

3 those who are involved in statistics or in demographics. It was something

4 that was characteristic for the entire Yugoslav area, and if you follow

5 the censuses in various areas, you can obtain information that could be

6 contested. And why could such information be contested? Because there

7 are such oscillations, such fluctuations that can't be demographically

8 explained because you need time for demographic processes. Nothing

9 happens overnight, naturally, apart from certain tectonic disturbances, et

10 cetera. So if a census is taken every ten years, you have five or six

11 censuses, 48, 61, if you have six censuses, and you have such great

12 fluctuations with regard to certain nationalities, then this can't be

13 explained demographically. However, there is a explanation. According to

14 this explanation, the criteria used - and this is something that is part

15 of the methodology - the criterion that is used when trying to obtain an

16 answer to what one's nationality is, the criterion is a subjective one.

17 It is a criterion which means that at a given point in time, you

18 can declare yourself to be whatever you want to be. The census taker had

19 to record what individuals declared, so if in times of tension, then the

20 interviewee would have to give various answers for various reasons,

21 perhaps fear, perhaps subjective feelings. And this subjective feeling

22 with regard to declaring one's nationality is the cause of such

23 significant fluctuations. This is very characteristic in many

24 communities, for example Yugoslavs, and then certain small ethnic groups,

25 the Roma, so these situations change depending on the census, depending on

Page 20129

1 the situation, and that is why it can't be explained demographically.

2 What can explain this is the fact that people made various declarations

3 for various censuses. There are quite a number of works that deal with

4 this matter. You also have to take into consideration the period -- the

5 historical period concerned, the social organisation within which we

6 lived, and in that system, they tried to deal with the national question

7 as one that had been solved.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the technical

9 booth, if possible, to lower the ELMO as I don't have a direct view of the

10 witness. Thank you.

11 Q. Now we will address an issue that is very significant to me. This

12 concerns people, guest workers abroad, and you spoke about this in

13 paragraph 16 and 17, and in table number 2. First of all, a simple

14 question that I will put to you: Citizens who were temporarily working

15 abroad, were they treated as a special category during the census of 1991?

16 A. No. In none of the censuses from 1971, which is when we started

17 obtaining information for them, right up to 1991, this category of

18 citizens were treated as the permanent inhabitants of their places of

19 residence regardless of -- regardless of their location at the time of the

20 census and regardless of the period of time spent there. So they could

21 have spent 20 years away from their place from which they were originally,

22 but they were Yugoslavs and that was taken to be their permanent home, and

23 they were recorded as permanent citizens of the -- of Yugoslavia.

24 Q. In your opinion, 1.420 people were born abroad in that census.

25 What does that indicate, according to you?

Page 20130

1 A. Well, that shows that it was perhaps the third generation living

2 abroad. People started leaving in the mid-1960s, and this third

3 generation, perhaps they never even saw their place of origin. Perhaps

4 they had never even been in Yugoslavia, but they were recorded as

5 permanent citizens of, in this case, Samac, and Odzak.

6 Q. Tell me, when an analysis is carried out, such as the one that you

7 carried out with the purpose of determining the migration of the

8 population in these two municipalities during a specific period of time -

9 we're interested in 1992 and 1993 - in such cases, must these citizens be

10 included in the mass of population or excluded from it?

11 A. Well, it would be more logical to exclude them from it.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 A. However it's not just a matter of migration, it's a matter that

14 concerns the ethnic composition of the population.

15 Q. Very well. I'm making a mistake.

16 I would now like to have a look at paragraph 20. We would like to

17 talk about personal identification numbers, but this matter that you

18 explained a minute ago, you said that these identification numbers were

19 first used in the census of 1991. And the last sentence that I'm going to

20 read also concerns our observation of the census material. This was

21 evident during our examination of the census material which revealed an

22 extremely large number of inaccurately recorded first and last names and

23 nonexistent, inaccurate, or duplicated personal identification numbers.

24 More than 40 per cent in Odzak, and more than 31 percent in Samac you said

25 on direct examination. On what basis did you come to this conclusion?

Page 20131

1 A. Well, I can't remember the date now, I can't remember when we were

2 there. That was last month. But I'll have to have a look. From the 14th

3 to the 16th of April, 2003, we were granted permission to directly examine

4 the documents. And by doing this, we came to the conclusion, or rather,

5 we confirmed what we had suspected; namely, that it was a matter of

6 statistical characteristics that contained so many errors that it was

7 quite useless in statistical terms. You couldn't make any claims on the

8 basis of such information. You couldn't claim that you had a reliable

9 source of such information. And on that occasion, we came to the

10 conclusion that about 40 per cent of the population in Odzak, and over 31

11 per cent of the population in Samac had erroneous or incorrect personal

12 identification numbers, or nonexistent personal identification numbers.

13 Q. Thank you. If you have such defective census information, can

14 this be relevant to indicate -- as to be used in statistical demographic

15 research?

16 A. Well, it's not just a matter of the defects. There are many other

17 problems that are involved. In addition to those defects, there are a lot

18 of failings. I said that 40 per cent is not correct; that doesn't mean

19 that the 60 per cent that is correct was used in an appropriate manner.

20 Q. With regard to the electoral lists from 1971, I will go back to

21 paragraph 11 where you say -- and I need this to be clarified so I believe

22 that the Trial Chamber will need this clarification too. In the last

23 sentence, you say that such a sample is not representative and has been

24 reduced twice, first in terms of ethnic identity, and secondly, it was

25 reduced to the administrative and territorial borders from 1997. Could

Page 20132

1 you perhaps clarify what you wanted to say when addressing the matter of

2 electoral lists.

3 A. In fact, it was replicated on three occasions, not just twice, and

4 first of all it related to the personal identification numbers. The

5 second time, it concerned the ethnical composition, and the third time it

6 concerned the territorial sense. What does it mean to say the personal

7 identification numbers? You mean you have 40 per cent of the population

8 whose personal identification numbers are nonexistent, but since they do

9 not exist you exclude this segment of the population and you don't take

10 them into consideration when you compare them with the electoral list. So

11 you yourself perform a reduction. Among those 40 per cent, there must

12 have been some who were on the electoral list, but they can't be coupled

13 up because there are no -- there's no information that would allow you to

14 do this, or it's very difficult to do this. That is the first reduction.

15 The second one, which concerns ethnic affiliation, the lists don't

16 have information on ethnic affiliation. Ethnic affiliation with regard to

17 the electoral list is taken, is adopted from the census of 1991. In 1997

18 and 1998, if you can find me, you'll link me -- you'll take my information

19 on ethnic membership and you will make it correspond to the relevant year.

20 If the personal identification numbers were correct, if you were able to

21 couple this up successfully, namely, with regard to Svetlana Radovanovic,

22 and then you use my statement that I made eight years ago, very well. But

23 what if you do it on the basis of the name, the first and last name and

24 the initials? In such a case, are you really taking over what was

25 declared to be one's ethnic affiliation in 1991? So this is the second

Page 20133

1 reduction that occurs.

2 The reduction on the territorial basis is as follows: You have a

3 framework which was valid in 1991, and you have a framework instituted by

4 the Dayton agreement in 1995. This framework, from 1995, and the

5 framework from 1991 do not overlap in territorial terms because places are

6 divided. The Dayton agreement caused division among certain villages,

7 certain places. When you have such places that were divided, it's not

8 possible to statistically calculate who from the population went to the

9 left side and who to the right side. So what do you do? What do the

10 experts do? What are the Prosecution's experts doing? They are excluding

11 those places, those villages, and pretending that they don't exist, or

12 rather, the population from those places. If they followed this principle

13 through to the end, there would be no problem. If they exclude this in

14 1991, but in 1997 or 1998 they make partial use of it or they don't use it

15 at all, and this is very easy to prove, and this is the mistake that they

16 have made. I doubt that it was intentional but they made this mistake

17 because in statistical terms they can't cover the tame territory, because

18 in 1991, in addition to the code for the municipality, you have a code for

19 a village, for a place. And a municipality is composed of several places,

20 several villages. In 1997, you only have new codes for municipalities,

21 you don't have any for villages. So you don't know, even if you were

22 willing to know about this, if you don't know about the villages from

23 1991, you don't know where to place the population that you found

24 somewhere because there are certain villages, certain places that are

25 missing. And then you make errors. You're comparing two different

Page 20134

1 territorial entities but you claim to be comparing the same territorial

2 entity. And this is methodologically not allowable. It's very evident,

3 it's very obvious because there are surpluses that appear, and this hasn't

4 been explained in the case of the Prosecution. But I can claim that this

5 is the result of the fact that there is a lack -- the territory of

6 municipalities don't overlap.

7 Q. Could we have a look at paragraph 29 in your work now, because I

8 think that that is where the subject that you are discussing now is

9 addressed. I'm going to read the second sentence. This is what interests

10 me. "Leaving aside the question as to whether this sample is good or not,

11 you mentioned the sample that you coupled up earlier on, which is quite

12 similar to what the Prosecution mentioned, we shall point to the fact this

13 is not the sample that the said experts used as the basis for their

14 conclusions on changes in the ethnic structure."

15 A. Yes. That's quite clear when you look at the information from the

16 Prosecution's expert. Their experts in certain tables provided one figure

17 of those who had been coupled, and when they distribute this on the basis

18 of the newly formed municipalities, the number, the figures is quite

19 different. And I can show that the result is absurd. For example, in the

20 table for Bosanski Samac, the Prosecution's experts say -- I've got the

21 Serbian version.

22 Q. Just a minute so that this is clear for the transcript. The

23 witness is now looking at the Prosecution's report, P133 of the B/C/S

24 version. That's for the sake of the numbers of the tables.

25 Perhaps you could put it on the ELMO, and then explain those

Page 20135

1 numbers.

2 A. I have to look at those numbers, but I'll put something else on

3 the ELMO.

4 I apologise. This is Odzak. I want to put Bosanski Samac on the

5 ELMO.

6 For example, table 3 shows everything that the Prosecution experts

7 matched up and, as they said, identified, so it means that someone who was

8 Svetlana Radovanovic in 1991, this person they found in 1997 and 1998 by

9 using the personal identification number and the name. So such identified

10 individuals, they found 14.315 of them, but they were not able to locate

11 them later on.

12 Before I move on to the tables, I would just like to mention the

13 number of Serbs. In Bosanski Samac, the Prosecution experts claim that

14 they identified 7.704 Serbs. And when they carry out a division, they

15 have 10.000 -- could you please have a look at table -- just a minute.

16 5B, table 6A in the Prosecution expert report.

17 If you compare table 3 where they say that they identified 7.704

18 Serbs with table 6A where they claim that they have 10.362 Serbs on the

19 electoral list, then it's quite incredible to see that you have 7.000, but

20 you're also talking about the figure of over 10.000. So they have claimed

21 that there are over 35 per cent of Serbian individuals on the electoral

22 list. And this is interesting. This is also applicable to Odzak. It's

23 interesting to have a look at tables 7 and 8 which show the number of

24 electors who haven't been assigned to any category. I'll now mention

25 table 8, page 27 in the Serbian version, after paragraph 49.

Page 20136

1 A total 14.315 were identified, according to the Prosecution's

2 expert, when they were distributed on the basis of the newly formed

3 municipalities, and then you have 2.486 electors, and they weren't able to

4 distribute them. They didn't know what to do with them because the

5 methodology that was used was not correct because they neglected the

6 territorial level, and they compared apples and pears.

7 Q. Very well.

8 A. There's just something else that I would like to say. Here you

9 can quite clearly see that you have a number of electors who have been

10 identified, a number that has not been identified, located, and it's not a

11 clear number.

12 Q. Let us just make it for clear that you meant your table 7.

13 A. No. It isn't. In my analysis, this is not my table. This is the

14 table of the Prosecution expert. In my case, it is table 8, table 8. And

15 -- but there is, however, the source. Ewa Tabeau, these are the tables

16 which are 6A, 5B, and 6B which were taken over from the Prosecution.

17 Q. Very well. Let us move to another topic, but we won't be talking

18 much about that topic. I'd rather like you to explain in a few words,

19 because it is frequently mentioned in your analysis and in Prosecution's,

20 what is the personal identification number of a citizen? What is that?

21 A. Well, to explain, it means their first, last name, the year of

22 birth, the principle characteristics of every individual. In the former

23 Yugoslavia, its introduction started in 1982. And it includes -- it has

24 13 figures. These 13 figures, the first seven are the day, month and year

25 of birth, then there are two numerals which indicate the area where you

Page 20137

1 are registered, where you were assigned this, three figures indicating

2 your gender, and the third one is derived.

3 In the former Yugoslavia, there is a law on the identification

4 number, so one knows exactly who and how assigns identification numbers,

5 and there is a specific instruction, an official one, as to how

6 identification numbers are controlled. Because they cannot be repeated,

7 or rather, it simply should not happen in the former Yugoslavia to this

8 day, because I do not think that anyone has done anything in this regard

9 in the former republics. It should not happen to have two individuals

10 with the same identification number in a territory.

11 Now, if you allow me, because I haven't finished, these

12 identification numbers, as I have said, they are made of 13 figures which

13 can be good or bad, that is, they can be good insofar as the structure is

14 concerned and bad because they are inaccurate. You can write down 13

15 figures, but when you start checking it, you see that these figures were

16 just invented, that is they simply do not tally. They can be complete and

17 accurate. That is, you have these 13 figures, and it is precise because

18 it is accurate and it does mean Svetlana Radovanovic. Or it can be

19 incomplete, which automatically means that they are not good when one is

20 controlling an identification number because they simply contain the

21 information about the same date of birth. These identification numbers

22 were introduced, and I think a number of advanced countries have such

23 numbers. In 1991, they were for the first time included in the population

24 census.

25 Q. Yes, please go on.

Page 20138

1 A. With the view to make population registers based on population

2 censuses and these numbers, such as developed countries have. However,

3 this idea was thwarted for the simple reason that it was noted, and I am

4 speaking about Serbia, but I think it holds true of the rest of the

5 Yugoslav territory with the exception of Slovenia, because it was noted

6 that the information was not good. Nobody can change one's identification

7 number. I mean, there is a whole procedure if one embarks on this.

8 And secondly, I was against the incorporation of identification

9 numbers, and never in the census, either in 1991 or in 2002 in the census

10 in Serbia, I did not give the pollsters the information about the

11 identification number because I think this is a violation of privacy, and

12 I think that a large number of people think that because that has nothing

13 to do with statistics.

14 Q. We have to move on somewhat faster because there are a few more

15 topics we have to cover. Paragraph 35, and I believe that the Chamber is

16 quite clear about duplication of identification numbers, about incomplete

17 numbers, and so on and so forth. But what I found curious was relevant

18 information in paragraph 35, when you speak about names, about first and

19 last names.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And then in paragraph 35A, the last sentence -- excuse me, sorry,

22 35C, the last sentence, that you established that in Odzak, 589

23 individuals in Odzak had identical names, father's names, and last names,

24 and that about 10 per cent of them even had identical identification

25 numbers, and then you give your comment.

Page 20139

1 A. Yes. That is what we established, and that automatically means

2 that the source of information is highly suspicious. Generally speaking,

3 to use such a source, of course, brings into question all the findings.

4 I'd like to underline, if you have duplicated identification numbers in

5 such numbers, and so many duplicated names and last names, then there is

6 always a risk, then you find one person, but you've found ten such

7 persons. Ten duplicated identification numbers mean the following: If we

8 have an identification number in 1991, say, of Svetlana Radovanovic, if it

9 repeats ten times --

10 Q. Will you slow down, please.

11 A. When you match them, then you have -- and you see it only once in

12 the list, but you put on the identification number, and then you match it

13 ten times with the identification number of Svetlana Radovanovic in the

14 list with one identification number, and you are showing that you've

15 matched, that is, identified, ten individuals. Sorry, that is absolutely

16 inaccurate because you've identified only one individual, but because of

17 all these doubles, the procedure is such that you have to say, "I matched

18 so-and-so many" because they were matched indeed except that this

19 duplicate shows that the quality of identification numbers in population

20 censuses is highly doubtful because the pollsters were instructed to

21 attach special attention when taking down identification numbers.

22 Q. Very well. Let's move on to paragraph 37, because to my mind,

23 this is one of the crucial paragraphs in your whole expertise. And I'll

24 read out to you a sentence which is somewhere in the middle of this

25 paragraph, and we are talking about the distribution of persons without

Page 20140

1 the municipality code number.

2 A. You said what number?

3 Q. Number 37. The sentence is: "It seems it would appear the person

4 from this category without a code are treated according to the displaced

5 persons living abroad. This is unacceptable. If it is not indicated how

6 many members of this group are migrants." I do not know, why doesn't it

7 say that they are migrants.

8 A. This is no single information in our OSCE list which says we are

9 making a census of migrant workers. They even talk about Bosnia and

10 Herzegovinian citizens, but citizens, that is. You do not have a single

11 information from the OSCE list that shows that they are displaced persons.

12 And in view of the number of migrants abroad, migrant workers abroad --

13 Q. Yes, do go on.

14 A. -- the number of these persons who are treated as displaced

15 persons by the Prosecution's expert are very likely those citizens, that

16 is, those migrant workers.

17 Q. Now, let us look at what should be the result of your method of

18 the manner in which you used these results. These are tables 4 and 6.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Just one little question before you move on, Mr.

20 Lukic.

21 From your sort of expert point of view, how would you

22 differentiate between a displaced person working abroad and a migrant

23 worker working abroad?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I quite understand you.

25 If you are talking about people who were abroad in 1991 already, then I do

Page 20141

1 not see how such a person can be treated as a displaced person. He is

2 registered as a citizen of Samac or Odzak, and perhaps has a house or some

3 farm or perhaps nothing, perhaps lived in the parental home, and that

4 person left in 1991, and perhaps he came every fifth year, perhaps every

5 15 years. Perhaps he never came back in 20 years' time, so that person is

6 not a displaced person. Sure, there could have been people who are

7 displaced because their house had been burned down, and that is how they

8 feel like. But if you're asking me how one can tell apart people who are

9 displaced abroad and those who are migrant workers abroad, I'm not sure I

10 can do that, but I could if there is some kind of a reference point

11 allowing us to establish whether they are migrant workers because, you

12 know, very many of those workers have households where you still have

13 grandparents, that is, somebody who can provide information about them, or

14 there's nobody who can provide information about them. So at this moment,

15 I cannot really tell them apart.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. But whatever the case, in 1991, it was established who were those

18 people who were migrant workers at that time abroad.

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, let us look at your tables 4 and 6, and they show

21 how you made the distributions according to your methodology. And two

22 words only, and you can explain how you addressed the territorial

23 principle. But would you say that this method is more reliable than any

24 other when you have this kind of sources of information that were

25 available both to you and to the Prosecution?

Page 20142

1 A. In my view, there is no reliable way to arrive at a reliable

2 analysis. But in any event, it is statistically more accurate because you

3 are dealing with a mass of people who you know where they are. We are not

4 making assessments, we are not trying to make conjectures; do they belong

5 to this or that category, whether they are displaced or not? That is, of

6 those who are identified, those who had identification codes, we knew

7 where to distribute them; and those who didn't, well, here they are.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, we shall address a topic which you mention in

9 your paragraphs 44, 45, 46, when you speak about the different localities

10 in the municipalities of Samac and Odzak, and I would like to benefit from

11 the presence of Mrs. Radovanovic here to analyse briefly something that

12 frequently came up before this Court because His Honour Judge Lindholm

13 asked Tadic about some settlements in the municipality of Samac.

14 So I would like the expert witness to be shown a document. The

15 witness will tell us what it is. The Defence has already supplied it to

16 the Chamber, but we have a sufficient number of copies in both B/C/S and

17 English. And here, will you please give Their Honours this. We shall not

18 need them for a long time, but the Prosecution already has this.

19 Your Honours, we frequently spoke about the territory which was,

20 in fact, under the control of Serb authorities and part of the territory,

21 the municipality which wasn't, and this is the part of the Defence

22 thesis, especially when we refer to the indictment and figures mentioned

23 in the indictment.

24 Now, Mrs. Radovanovic, will you please, but please, let us wait a

25 moment...

Page 20143

1 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, might I just have a look

2 at the document that --

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is simply blown up. I did provide

4 it to the Prosecution on Friday. It was simply blown up, and perhaps

5 that is why you didn't recognise it.

6 MR. Di FAZIO: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Tell us, Mrs. Radovanovic, what is it that you have in front of

9 you?

10 A. This is the publication of the statistics administration of the

11 Republic of Croatia, the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ethnic

12 structure per settlement, final results of the population census of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina linked with the permanent residents of Bosnia, 1940 to

14 1991, per ethnicity.

15 Q. To make it simpler, does this include also the census of 1991, the

16 official ones?

17 A. Yes, precisely. This is the official information of the

18 population census of 1991.

19 Q. Now, I will ask you to take a piece of paper and pencil, and I

20 want you to add up something.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are now looking

22 at -- I have the book in front of me. This is the document. Page 70 and

23 71. In English, they are pages 3, 4 [as interpreted]. That is what the

24 translation says. Bosanski Samac, if you can see that.

25 Q. Now, will you please look at how many -- what is the population

Page 20144

1 of a place called Basik [phoen] in 1991?

2 A. 539.

3 Q. Will you look at Domaljevac?

4 A. I'm sorry, I have a pencil. You told me to take it.

5 Q. Yes, I want you to take it down and then add it up so that we can

6 put it in the record.

7 A. Domaljevac, 4.152.

8 Q. What about Grebnice? And I'd like to know the number of Croats,

9 please.

10 A. Grebnice, 1.933 Croats.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could we please have the table on the ELMO.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think the table could be put on the ELMO.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, just a moment. Colleagues are

14 correcting me.

15 Q. Grebnice. Will you please repeat the figure? Place, Grebnice.

16 How many Croats?

17 A. 1.933.

18 Q. And what about Prud? What is its population?

19 A. 1.293.

20 Q. Now, could you please add this up if it's not too difficult.

21 A. 7.917.

22 Q. 7.917. Is that it?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I don't need this document

25 any more. But I'd also like to tender this, this part of the information

Page 20145

1 into evidence. This is the document that the expert witnesses for the

2 Prosecution used it for their analysis, and I think there will be no

3 problem in admitting it. At the end, we have also Odzak as per village --

4 population per village, but I do not think it is important. These are

5 merely -- I wanted the Trial Chamber to see what was the ethnic

6 composition of settlements in individual municipalities in 1991.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, the Trial Chamber is of the view is

9 there's no harm in having them on record and in having them admitted since

10 they are showing the figures which the witness has added up, and they have

11 a significance in showing, explaining the faults which she is pointing in

12 the way the Prosecution expert dealt with the figures and the information.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Could

14 I -- I would like to tender this document into evidence. May we do

15 that?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 [The Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I merely wished to say - perhaps I

19 wasn't clear enough - this source of information, the statistical source

20 of 1991 is the one which was used -- oh, I see. Right. Can we tender

21 into evidence this piece of paper which Mrs. Radovanovic just wrote down.

22 Shall I do it? We need it.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I just have a sheet of paper so

24 that I can write it down separately because I did it on a document which I

25 need, so I'll need a clean sheet of paper, please, and I'll copy it.

Page 20146

1 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D196B/3, and ter for the

2 B/C/S. And the handwritten note will be D196C/3. Thank you.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Finally, Mrs. Radovanovic, before I come to my final questions,

5 I'd like to invite you to make a brief comment on something. In your

6 analysis, you also touched upon the expert analysis of the Prosecution,

7 and you devoted a special chapter to it. So what I'd like to know is

8 paragraph 56, where you speak about the inaccuracies in distribution of

9 identified persons, and you mention there table 7, the Prosecution's

10 table. Can you please tell us very briefly what is this interesting thing

11 in the distribution of identified persons?

12 A. I could point out that this also applies to table 13 as well as to

13 table 7, but I mention only table 7. Table 7 in the Prosecution's

14 analysis shows the emigration in Bosanski Samac between 1991 and 1997 and

15 says, I quote: "Table 7 summarises the emigration, that is outmigration,

16 from the prewar municipality of Bosanski Samac." And what does it show

17 us? It shows us emigration from Bosanski Samac between 1991 and 1997.

18 And it is said that two sources were used; one is the population census,

19 and the other one are the electoral rosters, the voters registers of 1997.

20 Now, would you look at the sum total. For this period, 1991 and

21 1997, 3.339 individuals moved out of Bosanski Samac. However, if you go

22 back to tables 5B and 6B, which the experts show the population out of the

23 country as distributed per newly formed municipalities, 6B and 5B --

24 sorry, 6B and 5B, you can then see, if you look at them, that from

25 Samac RS, 2.489 people left, that is, they are out of the country. And

Page 20147

1 from Samac, which came under federation, 203 persons.

2 Q. What does that mean?

3 A. Well, I'm going slowly. Which means that 2.692 persons moved out.

4 And if we look at table 7, then we get a surplus of 647 individuals. I

5 don't know where this comes from. But since the Prosecution's expert

6 quotes the population census of 1991, and I claim that such information

7 does not exist in the population census of 1991, then we get a difference

8 of 25 per cent, that is, 647 persons emigrated more in 1997 than in all

9 the other tables out of the country which are shown by the Prosecution.

10 And then we can move on and say if these people moved out, left in

11 1991, then the emigration process followed by the expert is much smaller,

12 that is for this whole period, than the number of persons who emigrated in

13 1991 alone.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, I'll ask you some final questions.

15 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Just for the sake of clarity, if

16 we are looking at the table 13, it's page 26 English translation, I think

17 that's a typing error in the first line that this table is related to the

18 year 1977. Obviously, it should be 1997. We have to correct.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course.

20 MR. PANTELIC: Also, B/C/S version is page 32, the same table,

21 because it was translated from B/C/S where we found this probably typing

22 error.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have a couple of

25 final questions. Shall we make a break, or perhaps -- but it won't take

Page 20148

1 more than five minutes after the break if we're taking the break now.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we will take our break now.

3 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. You continue.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I have a few final questions. You could answer

8 them briefly as everything is contained in your report, but I would like

9 you to express your official position. In your summary of the results

10 from paragraphs 1 to 8, and in your conclusion under heading 7, you've

11 expressed your main positions with regard to the tasks you were assigned.

12 We don't have to look at those paragraphs mentioned, but I would like to

13 ask you the following question: Are there any sources, demographically

14 speaking, that could be used as reliable sources in relation to the

15 changes in the ethnic structure caused by migration in the territory of

16 the municipalities of Samac and Odzak?

17 A. There are no official sources.

18 Q. In your opinion, as a professional, as an expert in that field,

19 what would constitute a reliable source that could indicate whether there

20 were changes in the ethnic composition of the population?

21 A. A complete census of the population, and naturally it would be

22 necessary to have all the relevant questions concerning the subject one is

23 interested in.

24 Q. With regard to the sources, the existing sources that you used,

25 and I'm referring to two key sources, the census and the OSCE voters

Page 20149

1 registers, on the basis of those sources, is it possible to claim when

2 there was migration of the population, if this actually did occur?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. No, can you answer that question again. It hasn't been correctly

5 recorded in the transcript.

6 A. No, it is not possible to establish this correctly.

7 Q. When analysing the Prosecution expert's report, in paragraph 6,

8 you stated that the objective assigned -- that the Prosecution's expert

9 had was not attained. Why do you believe that the Prosecution expert's

10 objective was not obtained, was not successfully obtained in the report?

11 A. Well, first of all, I would like to quote the Prosecution's

12 experts, the summary of the results on page 1, and I'll quote: "Our

13 objective is to provide reliable demographic statistical information that

14 provides a basis to evaluate the kind of changes that occurred and the

15 extent of these changes." Such an objective cannot be attained if you do

16 not have reliable sources of information. And it is not possible to

17 obtain such -- to attain such an objective if you want to establish the

18 nature and extent of such migration, and it's not possible to consider

19 these results to be absolutely correct if you don't have reliable sources

20 of information and if the methodology you use is not appropriate, if your

21 approach to the task assigned is not appropriate, then it is absolutely

22 impossible to attain your objective.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have

24 concluded my examination-in-chief.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Prosecution.

Page 20150

1 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

3 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, my name is Di Fazio, I will ask you a few

4 questions on behalf of the Prosecution. I hope a few questions. I'd be

5 grateful if you can try to limit your answers and keep them as brief as

6 possible.

7 Dr. Radovanovic, the demographics report of the Office of the

8 Prosecutor concludes at page 24 that the study shows two clear examples of

9 ethnic cleansing which have been shown in the report. Croats and Muslims

10 largely disappeared from Serb Samac and from Serb Odzak --

11 A. I apologise. I can't follow you. You have to give me the page

12 reference for the Serbian version.

13 Q. I'm afraid I don't have it.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The page numbers are not the same.

15 Just a minute, please.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, then. You're reading out

17 the conclusion of the experts. Is that what you're reading out to me?

18 MR. Di FAZIO:

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. Very well.

21 Q. Paragraph 3.3. I'll start again.

22 The conclusion of the demographics report of the Office of the

23 Prosecutor is this: "Two clear examples of ethnic cleansing have been

24 shown in this report. Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from Serb

25 Samac and from the Serb Odzak and Vukosavlje municipalities. Based on --"

Page 20151

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to object to this immediately

3 because the Prosecution expert provided an additional analysis, and in

4 that part, his findings were changed -- her findings were changed, and she

5 said --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: That is paragraph?

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the addition, the paragraph wasn't

8 mentioned. But I'll read this out in English. [In English] "From Samac

9 RS." [Interpretation] I apologise. I made a mistake. She also added

10 Odzak, Vukosavlje, but it was changed in that they didn't form the

11 majority in Vukosavlje. It was in that respect that her main findings had

12 been modified.

13 MR. Di FAZIO: I'll proceed with my question.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You followed that, Mr. Di Fazio.

15 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes. I want to stick with my original question,

16 though.

17 Q. The Prosecution demographics report concluded that two clear

18 examples of ethnic cleansing have been shown. Croats and Muslims largely

19 disappeared from Serb Samac and from Serb Odzak, Vukosavlje. Based on

20 everything that's contained in your report and everything that you've said

21 today, you, of course, disagree with that conclusion, don't you?

22 A. I don't agree with that. I can say that -- I have to tell you why

23 I don't agree. I don't, because --

24 Q. Madam, I asked you -- if you wouldn't mind. I can assure you that

25 your time here will be a lot shorter short if you just answer my questions

Page 20152

1 as briefly as you can, and Mr. Lukic will clarify anything that remains

2 unclear from my questions, so rest assured that he is there to carry out

3 that task and he will clarify anything that's left unclear and correct any

4 unfairness that may be perceived in the course of my questioning.

5 So you disagree. In your particular report, part 7 of your

6 report, you set out your major conclusions. And at page 28 of the

7 English, and in any event, it's part 7 of your conclusion, the first

8 conclusion that you draw --

9 A. At the conclusion?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Very well. Thank you.

12 Q. The first, under the letter A, is that the radical change in the

13 ethnic structures of federal Samac and the other municipalities studied

14 presented in the expert report of the OTP demographics unit are the

15 consequence of erroneous methodological approaches. You recall that?

16 A. Yes, I do. Yes, that's what I stated. That's my claim.

17 Q. Thank you. And in paragraph C of the three conclusions that you

18 set out, you set out a major finding that by looking at the same

19 territorial framework in 1997 as in 1991, there were no significant

20 changes in ethnic structures in Bosanski Samac and Odzak. Shares of the

21 various ethnic groups in the total population in 1991 and 1997 remain

22 approximately the same.

23 You recall that conclusion?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. The result is, therefore, that you deny that any ethnic cleansing

Page 20153

1 took place in those areas.

2 A. Ethnic cleansing is not a matter I can discuss. I'm a

3 demographer. I can discuss changes in the ethnic composition. I'm

4 claiming here that the ethnic composition was not drastically changed, but

5 this conclusion was reached on the basis of the tables provided by your

6 experts. And if you read -- if you have read the report carefully, this

7 part concerns -- has to do with comments on your experts' findings, and I

8 am claiming that they had tables that they used, but they ignored them,

9 and they didn't reach these conclusions on that basis because they didn't

10 take into account the territorial integrity when examining 1991 and 1997.

11 I can show you these tables in your expert's reports.

12 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... thank you.

13 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I wish to quote from D2/2.

14 Q. Madam -- Dr. Radovanovic, this is the definition of ethnic

15 cleansing that I am referring to adopted by the Special Rapporteur for the

16 United Nations in his report to the General Assembly Security Council on

17 the 17th of November, 1992.

18 Paragraph 9, page 6: "The term `ethnic cleansing' refers to the

19 elimination by the ethnic group exercising control over a given territory

20 of members of other ethnic groups." That's the -- what I mean when I

21 refer to ethnic cleansing. Do you understand that?

22 A. I've understood that, now that you have said what you had in mind.

23 Q. Thank you. The same rapporteur provided another report on the

24 28th of August, 1992, if Your Honours please. I'm referring to P161, page

25 2 of that report.

Page 20154

1 In the course of that report, he commented on the policy of ethnic

2 cleansing, and he said this: "Most of the territory of the former

3 Yugoslavia, in particular Bosnia and Herzegovina, is at present the scene

4 of massive and systematic violations of human rights as well as serious

5 grave violations of humanitarian law. Ethnic cleansing is the cause of

6 most such violations."

7 Does that alter your conclusions that you reached in your report?

8 A. No, it doesn't. I'm a demographer. My field of interest is

9 demography and population statistics. That doesn't contain the

10 definitions of ethnic cleansing, and a demographer does not deal with such

11 matters. The demographer's task is to demonstrate what the situation is

12 and demonstrate what changes occur. You're a lawyer. I really don't know

13 what the definition of ethnic cleansing is, but if this is the definition

14 you used, the one that you have just read out, then I will believe you.

15 As a demographer, this is not within my field of interest. My task is to

16 be objective and to use information on the basis of which I can

17 demonstrate what the actual situation is.

18 Q. In the course of your study, and in preparing your report, you

19 concluded that there was no large-scale change in the ethnic composition

20 of those relevant territories, didn't you?

21 A. Radical changes, yes.

22 Q. That is inconsistent with there having been any ethnic cleansing

23 having been carried out on those territories, isn't it?

24 A. What are the demographic or political conclusions, well, I can't

25 reach a judgement in that way. What I did, I dealt with two

Page 20155

1 municipalities; the former municipality of Bosanski Samac, and the former

2 integral municipality of Odzak, and I am quite capable of discussing these

3 matters, but what you have read out to me, I can believe you, but I can't

4 discuss radical and nonradical changes of the ethnic composition.

5 MR. Di FAZIO: Will Your Honours just bear with me for one

6 moment, please.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

8 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. I wish to put a portion of another

9 report, if Your Honours please, to another report presented to the

10 Security Council and dated the 27th of May, 1994, to the witness. This

11 one is not in evidence. I have enough copies to provide to place it in

12 evidence, and it has been disclosed to the Defence. For my purposes, I

13 need not produce it in evidence, however, I'm in a position to do so if

14 you insist, or if you wish me to.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Is a Security Council report, as you say?

16 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's in the public domain.

18 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, that's precisely --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: And the date is correct, 27th of May, 1994.

20 MR. Di FAZIO: 27th of May, 1994. It's -- it carries the

21 identifying number S/1994/674 dated 27th of May, 1994.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're not going to object

24 to a United Nations document. This is a decision for the Trial Chamber,

25 but I would just like to inform the Trial Chamber that we received this

Page 20156

1 document half an hour before the beginning of the hearing.

2 I was in contact with Mr. Di Fazio and Mrs. Radovanovic. It was

3 -- Mrs. Radovanovic doesn't know the English language well enough, I

4 translated two paragraphs that were relevant for her, but I would like to

5 inform you of the fact that the entire document has not been translated

6 for the witness. So could questions put to the witness please be framed

7 in such a way that they don't have to do with the contents of the document

8 because it was not possible to present this witness with the translated

9 version of the document.

10 MR. Di FAZIO: I have one paragraph consisting of about eight

11 lines that I wish to put to the witness from the body of the document.

12 That's all. Nothing more.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, provided you read it very slowly so that it's

14 properly translated.

15 MR. Di FAZIO: That's exactly what I propose to do.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: For our purposes, if we could just have the

17 paragraph number.

18 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I'll provide all of that.

19 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, from the report that I mentioned earlier, I wish

20 to provide you with one paragraph of that report.

21 And if Your Honours please, you will find this at page 34 of the

22 report, and it's paragraph 133 of the report. I'll read it slowly.

23 "The manner in which the policy of ethnic cleansing is carried

24 out by Serbs in Bosnia is consistent throughout a certain geographic area

25 represented by an arc ranging from Northern Bosnia and covering areas in

Page 20157

1 Eastern and Western Bosnia, adjoining the Serb Krajina area in Croatia.

2 The practice of ethnic cleansing is carried out in strategic areas linking

3 Serbia proper with Serb-inhabited areas in Bosnia and Croatia. This

4 strategic factor is significantly relevant to understanding why the policy

5 has been carried out in certain areas and not in others." Now, of course

6 the area that we are concerned with in this case is in the north of

7 Bosnia, and it's in a strategic position because it links Western and

8 Eastern Bosnia.

9 Does the fact that the UN report indicates the carrying out of

10 this policy of ethnic cleansing in this area affect your final

11 conclusions, given that ethnic cleansing, of course, results in population

12 movements?

13 A. You are, in fact, asking me whether I agree with what you have

14 just read out, although this has nothing to do with demography, nothing at

15 all. I would like to stress the fact that I am a demographer. If I had

16 the opportunity to examine this and saw on the basis of which information

17 this conclusion was reached, I don't know if I would agree with that or

18 not, but at the moment, I can't just agree with you without having any

19 other information.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Di Fazio. You mentioned the

21 report number and the date. You haven't indicated in the transcript,

22 though, who or which body presented this report to the Security Council.

23 Was it the Special Rapporteur of the earlier report, or was this some

24 other international organisation for states?

25 MR. Di FAZIO: I'm sorry, I will do that now. If Your Honours

Page 20158

1 would just give me a moment, please.

2 Thank you. Your Honours, it's the final report of the Commission

3 of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780(1992).

4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.

5 MR. Di FAZIO:

6 Q. One of the defendants who has called you here to give evidence,

7 Mr. Simo Zaric, has written a book called "On The Hague Cross." And in

8 that book, he reproduces an interview that he had with Croatian media. He

9 described ethnic cleansing having taken place in that interview. In the

10 course of that interview with Croatian media, he describes how "not one of

11 the 6.000 Serbs who lived in the municipality - referring to Odzak, of

12 course - remains there now." If you'd had that information prior to

13 preparing your report, would that have affected your conclusions, do you

14 think?

15 A. Well, this is the first time I've heard about this book. But I'm

16 not sure to what extent Mr. Simo Zaric is capable of providing

17 professional evaluation of this. You know, I'm involved in serious

18 matters. Maybe Mr. Simo Zaric mentioned what he saw, what he heard about,

19 but there had to be serious arguments. If I had known that Mr. Simo Zaric

20 had said this, I would not have taken this for granted. I would have

21 tried to find information so that, as a professional, as a scientist, I

22 would have formed an opinion.

23 Q. I appreciate Mr. Simo Zaric is not a professional --

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: I don't have a problem of posing questions related

25 to Mr. Zaric's book, but when talking about this, Mr. Zaric was talking

Page 20159

1 about the process that appeared after the Dayton peace agreement, not

2 1992.

3 MR. Di FAZIO:

4 Q. I appreciate that Mr. Zaric is not a demographic expert. However,

5 he was a man who lived and operated, carried out his duties and

6 activities, in the area. Isn't the fact that he says that not one of the

7 6.000 Serbs who lived in Odzak remains there now of significance?

8 A. If that is a fact, because I had your expert report which related

9 to the facts that a state institution had issued an OPS, and these facts

10 were not used correctly, they were interpreted in a bad manner. So you

11 would have to define what a fact is, whether it's Mr. Zaric's statement or

12 do you have to have certain arguments to establish what facts are? In

13 general terms, without going into discussing what the facts are.

14 Q. He was -- he arrived in Odzak in July of 1992 and held an

15 important position there. And he was able to describe the fact that there

16 were no Serbs left in Odzak. Now, that's an important fact to take into

17 account, isn't it, in describing population movements?

18 A. I have to ask you, are you advising me to use Mr. Simo Zaric as a

19 source of information when addressing the problem of the changed ethnic

20 structure in the municipality of Odzak or Bosanski Samac? If that is so,

21 I must say, this is a very poor source. After all, it is only one

22 statement and only source. I'd need to have more sources if I wanted to

23 be objective and try to present things objectively. And that is my task.

24 Every thinking man should be objective. I do not know whether Mr. Zaric

25 is biased or not biased. I really --

Page 20160

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I will have to add a few words. Mr. Zaric said,

2 when he arrived, there were no civilians at all, not just Serbs. He was

3 referring to each -- to all three nationalities.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that understood, Mr. Di Fazio, the explanation by

5 Mr. Lazarevic?

6 MR. Di FAZIO: It's understood, yes. I don't necessarily accept

7 it, without having an opportunity to go back and read the transcript, if

8 Your Honours please.

9 Q. In the course of being interviewed by the Office of the

10 Prosecutor, Miroslav Tadic, another defendant in this case, described

11 population movements that occurred in the area of study, Bosanski Samac

12 and Odzak. And he referred to a movement of people in June of 1992 from a

13 village called Srnice involving about 2.000 people, being Serbs, and these

14 people moving into the area of Bosanski Samac and taking up residence in

15 the villages in Bosanski Samac, the villages being Gornji and Donji

16 Hasici, and told the interviewers that those people are still there today,

17 at least as at 1998. And furthermore, that the people who lived in those

18 two villages, namely Croat villages, had left. If that's true, would that

19 affect your conclusions?

20 A. Did your expert use these conclusions? If so, then it affected

21 her. But it cannot affect me, a statement of one man, because I do not

22 deal with statements. I deal with numbers, with verifiable figures. In

23 demographic [realtime transcript read in error "democratic"] research, one

24 can [realtime transcript read in error "cannot"] take note of statements,

25 but that is not a common procedure. We're not talking about concepts and

Page 20161

1 do we use this or that? We're talking about whether something changed or

2 didn't. What one man said, if I conducted a questionnaire in Logaco Samac

3 [phoen], and then I heard a thousand people or a hundred people, and so on

4 and so forth, even then I don't know whether I would have taken it into

5 account because this is what people say, and I am not an expert on what

6 people say. I deal with exact sound figures.

7 MR. KRGOVIC: The transcript reads the witness said democratic

8 research; the witness said demographic research.

9 MR. Di FAZIO: That's quite correct, and there's an additional

10 error in the transcript if Your Honours please. The witness did not say

11 line 19 of page 45, "one cannot take note of statements"; the witness said

12 "one can take note of statements but that is not a common procedure."

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, let me correct myself. What I

14 said, in demographic research, especially what individuals say, cannot be

15 really taken into account, and then serve as a basis for conclusions. To

16 make a demographic conclusion, I repeat, you must have accurate data, and

17 not basic -- not be influenced by one statement. Besides, I think that

18 the serious professional may not be under the influence of whatever. He

19 must weigh all the possibilities. He must assess all the possibilities.

20 Q. If one can take note of statements, even though that may not be a

21 common procedure, reports prepared by offices of the United Nations would

22 be a good and reliable source to use, wouldn't they?

23 A. No, that is not a source. If you have to make a report, you have

24 sources on the basis of which you draw your conclusions. Of course I

25 assume that what the United Nations write, even though I don't know it, is

Page 20162

1 a sort of conclusion that was made. Now, I may accept that conclusion or

2 not accept it, but I have to go through all the elements that underpin it.

3 So I really cannot give you a general answer whether I will respect that

4 or not. But if in that report you have something that deals with Bosanski

5 Samac and Odzak, I'm ready for that, because I studied the matter. But to

6 discuss Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, I really cannot do, especially,

7 and this is intertwined with geostrategic, geopolitical or whatever other

8 positions, because that is not something that I am expert on.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to object to the

10 question even though we already heard the answer. If the next question

11 goes in the same direction, then if the Prosecutor wants the witness to

12 say whether the United Nations report is based on individual statements,

13 we do not know that from the paragraph that we heard, so the witness is

14 invited to make guesses. But we have to see that this Secretary-General's

15 report is based on statements.

16 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. I'm going to leave this topic.

17 Q. The OTP report, the OTP demographics report, of course, uses two

18 fundamental sources; the 1991 census, and the 1997 and 1998 voters

19 register. That's correct, isn't it?

20 A. Yes. But the fundamental is the first one, the census of 1991.

21 We could talk about the other one, whether and how fundamental is it,

22 especially when it comes to demographic research because the population

23 census always was the basis for voters rosters and voters lists could

24 never be used to come to the figure about the census, about the

25 population, especially since when it comes to the methodology, the manner

Page 20163

1 in which data are gathered are completely different. The OSCE lists are

2 based on a voluntary principle, and the second has different methodology

3 and represents one of the major and most important state tasks of any

4 statistical institution.

5 And there are very many other methodological differences. One

6 records the overall population resident permanently in a place where they

7 are recorded, and the others register people who voluntarily apply, so

8 whether they will or will not participate in the elections, not to mention

9 that even in the most advanced countries, you have a number of citizens

10 who never apply to be put on voters lists. Then the population census

11 covers all sorts of features and things and has its purpose and its tasks,

12 and it is based on establishing a total number of the population,

13 distribution, vital statistics, migratory features, and so on and so

14 forth. Voters lists will take only the identification number and

15 the place of residence, or rather, the place where you register for voting

16 and will include only the date of birth and the name. So I do not really

17 see that the two both are fundamental. One of them is but the other one

18 could serve as an aid, but only if it is reliable, if it is trustworthy,

19 and yet once again not for research of such a serious nature as this, and

20 not when it uses such features - and by this, I mean identification

21 numbers and names - which are indecorate, which are unreliable in both

22 sources. So these two features statistically, I mean, in serious

23 statistics and among serious statisticians - and in the first place, I

24 mean the identification number - they are never used, not even in the

25 official statistics. And the name, the first and last name, is something

Page 20164

1 that has never been used as data, as information in any serious

2 statistics. It is taken down during the census simply for easier filing,

3 that is, at the time, they didn't have identification numbers and

4 therefore you used that.

5 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, is your answer to my question yes?

6 A. I simply didn't understand. If I said two fundamental, and I say

7 no, they are not both fundamental.

8 Q. Unfortunately, my question has gone right off the screen, but it

9 was a very, very simple question. The OTP report uses two fundamental

10 sources; the census in 1991, and the 1997 and 1998 OSCE voters register.

11 Now, surely you can answer that with a yes or a no.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: In fairness to the witness, I think she has answered

13 that. She had described the other one and also discussed the second

14 source. So...

15 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you.

16 Q. In your report, you claim there are no reliable sources to study

17 changes in ethnic composition. If you can possibly, possibly answer the

18 question with a yes or a no, I'd be most grateful. So do you agree that

19 in your report, you claim there are no reliable sources to study changes

20 in ethnic composition?

21 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Please, Mr. Di Fazio, could you make a clear

22 reference to the report.

23 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, paragraph 1, page 2 of the English report, if

24 Your Honours please.

25 Q. Paragraph 1, page 2 of the report in the English, I think you'll

Page 20165

1 find it easily in paragraph 1 where you deal with "Summary of Results."

2 Your position is there are no reliable sources. Correct?

3 A. Could you be preciser, please. Is it my position that there are

4 not reliable sources for 1991 - 1997 period? If that is your question,

5 then I say yes.

6 Q. Thank you. In fact, it's the very first sentence of paragraph 1:

7 "In order to conduct an objective expert analysis of changes in the ethnic

8 composition of the population of Bosanski Samac and Odzak in the period

9 after 1991, it's necessary to have valid ethnostatistical data obtained

10 from reliable sources. There are, however, no such sources." Correct?

11 A. It is.

12 Q. And you repeat that criticism in paragraph 10 where you say - and

13 this is page 5, if Your Honours please, of the report - paragraph 10 of

14 your report, midway through the paragraph: "Even if one takes the 1991

15 census, flawed as it is in terms of the validity of ethnostatistical data

16 as the starting point, ethnostatistical data from the later period are

17 still missing." So you make the point several times that the statistical

18 data relied upon in preparation of the OTP reports was nonexistent or

19 flawed. Correct?

20 A. You ask me questions about what your experts relied on or experts

21 in general? But never mind, I'm saying that such facts, such information,

22 does not exist.

23 Q. Thank you. You then go on in part 3.1, or part 3 of the report,

24 Sources of Data and Content Related and Methodological Issues and

25 Problems --

Page 20166

1 A. Just a moment. Let me try to follow you. Three point what?

2 Q. 3.1. It's part 3, or paragraphs 12, 13. Do you see that?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. One of the main criticisms that you make of the data used by the

5 OTP demographics unit is subjectivity. You make the observation that

6 answers to questions regarding ethnic affiliation are completely

7 subjective, and you also touched upon this topic earlier today in your

8 examination-in-chief. Do you recall that?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. In fact, that's a fundamental and major criticism that you make of

11 the census data, isn't it?

12 A. We are now talking about that characteristic, and I am saying that

13 this characteristic is variable, is changeable, because the criterion for

14 it has not been as firmly established as in some other cases because this

15 criterion is subjective and depends on the changing opinions. And this

16 criterion as a changing one is not something that I will come up with. It

17 has been established a long time ago in all the methodological

18 descriptions of the censuses, it usually says a citizen is free to answer

19 the question about his ethnic origin and nobody may lead it to him or

20 something. We frequently received nonsensical answers because it is very

21 subjective. All depends on how you feel at a given moment or how you

22 sense the situation. You can say whatever you like.

23 Q. Thank you. And in fact, you go on to say in paragraph 13, about

24 two-thirds of the way down: "So the statistical picture of the ethnic

25 structure based on census results can be accepted as officially

Page 20167

1 established, but we have to take a critical view of it."

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And then you go on to say: "This claim is further supported by

4 the fact that data on mother tongue and religion from 1991 were never

5 officially published, and therefore, it's impossible to compare these

6 parameters." Do you see that?

7 A. Sorry, sorry, I've lost you because this does not exist in my

8 expert analysis. Yes, please, go back. I don't see it, and therefore I

9 cannot follow. You said para 13, chapter 3. Is that right?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. And now tell me -- I really cannot follow you because -- will you

12 please help me. Will you please help me.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 9 B/C/S, and a sentence begins

14 with words, "U prilog tome ide i..." "This is further supported by the

15 fact..." It is paragraph 13, and about ten lines from the bottom. "This

16 is further supported by the fact..."

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, I've found it. Thank

18 you. I'm sorry. My apologies. I've found it.

19 MR. Di FAZIO:

20 Q. Okay, you say that you have to take a critical view of the

21 official statistics, and you go on to say: "This claim is further

22 supported by the fact that data on mother tongue and religion for 1991

23 were never officially published and therefore it's impossible to compare

24 these parameters." You're saying there, if you did have information about

25 those parameters, it would assist you to help fix the ethnicity of a

Page 20168

1 person who was responding to the questionnaire, correct?

2 A. No. In this case, in the case of Bosanski Samac and municipality

3 of Odzak, it is of little relevance because they practically speak one and

4 the same language. I'm talking here about the population census as such,

5 and in SFRY, and then you have a situation, since it is ethnically a

6 heterogenous region. Sometimes you have the ethnicity and do not compare

7 with it other characteristics which could be called ethnic features, then

8 you can get a different picture.

9 For instance, I will take Vlachians, who are an ethnic group and

10 who often say they are ethnically affiliated with the milieu they live in.

11 Fine, this is an objection in principle. It does not have to do with

12 Samac, I'm saying generally. When you talk about ethnic features, you

13 cannot choose only one of them, you have to use a number of elements. And

14 in this case, in Bosanski Samac and Odzak, this is irrelevant because they

15 all speak the language they understand, as you call it here, and which is

16 called B/C/S right now. So comparing this, comparing this would not give

17 us a particularly nice result.

18 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, is it the case that you cannot use religion,

19 answers to religion and answers to mother tongue to assist you in fixing

20 identity in the case of Bosanski Samac and Odzak?

21 A. No, I've said that neither language nor religion in this expert

22 analysis did not play a single role. You're talking about the general of

23 things; this is about problems of census populations and everything. So

24 in this case, neither religion nor anything else plays a relevant role.

25 Q. You complain, don't you, that subjectivity affects reliability of

Page 20169

1 people reporting their ethnicity, don't you? You say that's a problem

2 associated with the 1991 census. Correct?

3 A. Subjectivity means that you can change your position from one

4 census to the other. And if you do, then you must assess that critically.

5 If over ten years period, the number of Yugoslav grows from 10 to 30.000,

6 then this is not demographically explicable. Then this is a subjective

7 decision. Or vice versa, if the number decreases, somebody wanted to be a

8 Yugoslav and later on he didn't want to be a Yugoslav, so it is the

9 subjective position which affects it, and it is in this sense that

10 I spoke about it.

11 Q. There are no objective ways for fixing ethnicity. You can't

12 measure the skull of someone or their blood grouping or any other physical

13 characteristics; ethnicity is something that depends upon how a person

14 thinks of themselves. That is so, isn't it, Dr. Radovanovic?

15 A. It is more -- it becomes more objective if you juxtapose two or

16 three characteristics, which perhaps can be ethnically related. And that

17 is for certain. In many countries, you just do not do that. They simply

18 have their nationality. Another thing is your mother tongue. Religion

19 can be a third thing. And then in demography --

20 Q. Thank you. Dr. Radovanovic, can I just ask you about that last

21 matter that you mentioned, mother tongue. You testified a few moments

22 ago that in Bosanski Samac and Odzak, it couldn't be relevant; they all

23 speak the same language, right? So that's not going to help you in

24 defining ethnicity in that area, in that area of Bosanski Samac and

25 Odzak.

Page 20170

1 A. Well, it doesn't have to help me. I'm not defining anything. I'm

2 claiming that there is no absolutely accurate statistical picture about

3 the ethnic composition of those two municipalities, and there is no way we

4 can arrive at it from OSCE lists, and it is taken over from 1991, how can

5 they do it to begin with? Because in view of the issue at hand, between

6 1991 to 1997, eight years later, somebody, for instance, has opted for a

7 different ethnicity, or saying he didn't belong to any ethnic group. So

8 it has nothing to do with the mother tongue or any other characteristic.

9 You have a source which contains information about ethnicity which has to

10 be dealt critically, and a source which does not include that. But then

11 the Prosecution's expert decide, when we do not have this information,

12 then let's take this and then say that that is the state of affairs in

13 1997. And that is what I'm objecting to.

14 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, the -- you make a fundamental criticism, don't

15 you, in your report of the methodology of the 1991 census because you say

16 the question relating to ethnicity -- or questions relating to ethnicity

17 are subjective. Now, am I correct, yes; or am I incorrect, no?

18 A. Yes, I am treating it critically and say they are subject to

19 changes because they are subjective. But I am not denying the official

20 statistics. I'm merely saying that one needs to approach them cautiously

21 and that it is very risky to take them over and accept them after such a

22 long period of time.

23 Q. Given the ethnic tensions that existed in the early 1990s in

24 Yugoslavia, would that not be a factor that would cause people to identify

25 strongly with a particular group?

Page 20171

1 A. Could you be more precise? I don't really understand what you're

2 asking me.

3 Q. Given the ethnic tensions that existed in the early 1990s in the

4 former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia, would that be a factor that would cause

5 people to identify more strongly with a particular grouping, not being

6 Yugoslav? So for example, Croat, Muslim, or Serb?

7 A. Yes, because the ethnic classification in the statistics of the

8 former Yugoslavia and therefore in Bosnia-Herzegovina includes 32

9 different options. You have 18 or 17 possibilities. You have peoples,

10 national minorities, ethnic groups, and so on and so forth. You can say

11 that you are affiliated, to opt for a regional affiliation, and you can

12 refuse to answer it. So when I say regional affiliation, I say I'm a

13 Sarajevan, I'm a Belgrader, a Krajinian, that could also be an answer to

14 the question about ethnic affiliation. So in addition to Yugoslavs, you

15 had a number of other options. You could say whatever. You could say --

16 you could say anything.

17 So that it varied from one census to another, and whether it had a

18 role, well -- I'm sorry. And that is why there is the category called

19 "other." So when the information about the ethnic composition is

20 demonstrated and one doesn't use very broad classifications, because in

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and other areas, you don't have only Serbs, Croats, and

22 Muslims. They have Jews, and Roma and Germans. Now, the share of each of

23 these groups, of course, is another matter. Turks, and many other ethnic

24 communities. So that all that is under "other". When you present the

25 chief result in the census publications, then you select ethnic

Page 20172

1 communities based on their share. But if you go to the administration,

2 then you will find the background material, well, you would find 39

3 different ethnic options. And this is this very broad national

4 classification.

5 But such a broad national classification is very difficult to show

6 in published census results, then you usually get only most numerous

7 ethnic communities, and all the other figures, all the other findings, are

8 kept in the files.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 You agree, don't you, that the object of the OTP study,

11 demographics unit, was to reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic

12 composition and then look at that same population in 1997, using the OSCE

13 voters register. Now, please, please do not tell us whether you consider

14 they achieved that, or mistakes they may have done in carrying that out,

15 but that was their object.

16 A. You're asking me to confirm what the objective of your experts

17 was. Well, they wrote down that these were -- this was reliable

18 information, reliable demographic information. That's their objective.

19 Am I supposed to confirm their objective?

20 Q. Let me revise the question. I put it to you - do you agree - that

21 the object of the study conducted by the OTP demographics unit was to

22 reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic composition, and then look

23 at that same population in 1997, using the OSCE -- 1997 and 1998, using

24 the OSCE voters register. And do you agree with that?

25 A. Please, could you define this precisely. We know what the

Page 20173

1 objective of your experts was. I don't agree that they carried out their

2 work correctly. The reconstruction of population was totally erroneous,

3 and the matching was not correct either.

4 Q. Madam Radovanovic, if you know what the objective of the

5 Prosecution experts was, you can answer my question. My question is

6 this: The objective of the Prosecution experts was to study, to

7 reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic composition, and then look

8 at that same population, using the 1997/1998 OSCE voters register. Agree

9 or disagree?

10 A. I can't agree because they wrote down what their objective was,

11 and you are rephrasing it. They said: "Our objective is to provide

12 reliable demographic and statistical information which provides a basis to

13 assess the kind of changes and the extent." It didn't say that their

14 objective was to reconstruct the population and to make a comparison, so

15 there is a significant difference between these two objectives.

16 Q. Do you agree that the objective of the OTP study was to study the

17 movement of people who in 1991 gave themselves the tag of Croat or Muslim

18 or Serb, or that at least that was one of its objectives?

19 A. If that was their conception, well, I don't know about that, but

20 this isn't something that they wrote down. They didn't say that they

21 would be examining the movement. There was nothing we could discuss on

22 the basis of maps, but I have never seen anything in the course of my

23 professional career. They said their objective was to provide their

24 opinion, provide their professional findings about the changes that

25 occurred in the ethnic composition. They mentioned that this was their

Page 20174

1 objective in the municipalities of Odzak and Bosanski Samac in 1991 and

2 1997, and then they quite explicitly stated what their objective was.

3 Q. Thank you. You would agree, don't you -- you would agree,

4 wouldn't you, that the OSCE voters register for 1997 and 1998 provided no

5 information as to ethnicity?

6 A. I'd agree with that.

7 Q. So the only way that movements of people between 1991 and 1997 can

8 be achieved is by looking at the tag they gave themselves in 1991 in the

9 census. Correct?

10 A. Could you please be more precise. I don't understand you at all.

11 What do you mean by "movement of the population"? Migration or movement

12 in the changes to the ethnic composition? And what do you mean when you

13 say what they assigned to themselves, the tag they gave themselves?

14 Q. I mean movement in and out of the municipalities. And by the tag

15 that they gave themselves, I mean the answer that they provided in the

16 census questionnaire.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought you -- when you talked of the tag, I

18 thought you meant the ethnicity they choose for themselves.

19 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I'm sorry. Your Honour is quite correct.

20 Perhaps I should rephrase my question. The answer they provided in the

21 census questionnaire as to their ethnicity.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please clarify the

23 question, because after all these interventions, I'm no longer sure as to

24 what you're asking me.

25 MR. Di FAZIO:

Page 20175

1 Q. Because the OSCE voters registers provided no information as to

2 ethnicity, if you want to study movements of people within the

3 municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak and without, and going out of

4 the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak, the only way to do that is

5 by ascertaining the tag they gave themselves in 1991 in the census

6 questionnaire; that is, how they described themselves; as a Serb or a

7 Croat or a Muslim.

8 A. I really don't understand you. You're asking me if the OSCE

9 monitors the movement, but they don't do that. They have a list of the

10 registered voters. And the only way is for those voters to take the

11 national declaration from 1991, to base themselves on the national

12 declaration, what they declared themselves to be in 1991. OSCE doesn't

13 follow, doesn't monitor any kind of movement, they just register the

14 voters in the three municipalities. They don't monitor movement of any

15 kind.

16 Q. I appreciate that. But if you want to see what happened to people

17 who answered the questionnaire in 1991, you can use the voters register to

18 see where they were in 1997. Correct? That is, by reference to the

19 municipality in which they register to vote. And so if a Serb answered

20 the questionnaire in 1991 saying he's a Serb, you can use the OSCE voters

21 register to see where that person is in 1997, regardless of whether or not

22 he has changed his mind as to whether he's a Serb or a Croat or a Muslim.

23 A. You can't use it for the simple reason that the electoral lists

24 don't contain references to the nationality of the individuals. You have

25 to answer what your name is, you have to provide your personal

Page 20176

1 identification number, mention the municipality in which you are

2 registered, and there is other information that has to be provided. So it

3 is by no means possible to make a comparison, to say whether a Serb or

4 someone in 1991 said the same in 1997, because such information is simply

5 not available. According to the methodology followed by your experts, you

6 can adopt this, you can take this over and say a Serb from 1997 is a Serb

7 from 1997, and I can agree with you that in 90 per cent of the cases, that

8 might be true. But what to do when you erroneously match up a Serb, or

9 rather, when the personal identification number and the name is not

10 correct, when you carry out the matching up process on the basis of

11 initials, and then someone who was perhaps a Croat or a Muslim, you claim

12 - I don't know on the basis of what information - you claim that someone

13 was a Muslim or a Serb or a Croat. And that is where the problem lies.

14 I'm not wondering -- I'm not addressing the issue as to whether what was

15 stated in 1991 is correct or not. The methodology used, especially if you

16 use the first and last name, this is not relevant information.

17 You saw that in Odzak there were identical names for various

18 individuals. There was a lot of -- a lot of personal identification

19 numbers were duplicated. Many names and surnames were duplicated. There

20 were many illegible names and last names. If the personal identification

21 number is not valid, then one uses the initials to match it up with

22 someone else. How many times do the letters SR appear? What do you

23 think? So the first SR that I come across, if I think that this is the

24 correct SR, then I attribute the nationality that I found in some list.

25 And I think that this methodology is not correct. And whether the

Page 20177

1 nationality is a hundred per cent correct or not, I won't discuss this.

2 I'm just talking about the possibility that in the case of some

3 individuals, they might have -- some individuals who might have declared

4 themselves to be of another nationality, in such cases, they were probably

5 described as something that they weren't. I would like to see the

6 information from 1997. I would like to see how many Yugoslavs there are

7 now in Samac and in Odzak. And I'd like to see what the figure is, what

8 the declarations of nationality would be like. So adopting this

9 information, taking over this information, is methodologically not a valid

10 procedure because you are comparing and matching up bad information with

11 bad information and You are trying to obtain good results.

12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my learned friend. In the last

13 answer of Dr. Radovanovic, it's the last passage, page 61, line 13 until

14 line 22, Dr. Radovanovic mentioned that it should be "and we all expecting

15 a new censuses in the coming years." So maybe that will be important for

16 the understanding of the explanation because it is not in the transcript

17 due to the fast explanation of Dr. Radovanovic. And I kindly ask her to

18 slow down a bit because of the interpreters' efforts to precisely

19 translate what was said. Thank you.

20 MR. Di FAZIO:

21 Q. Is it your position that you can't use the 1991 census to provide

22 accurate analysis of ethnic composition in Yugoslavia?

23 A. No, my position is that you can't use OSCE lists together with

24 characteristics that are not correct in the 1991 census. I'm not

25 contesting the census; I am contesting certain characteristics provided.

Page 20178

1 Q. Thank you. You agree, don't you, in your report that you complain

2 about features of the 1991 census, for example, the topic that we just

3 spent the last half an hour talking about, subjectivity. Another example

4 that you use in your report are the problems with scanning. These are

5 fundamental problems. They would lead the Trial Chamber to conclude,

6 wouldn't they, those matters that you raise in your report, that you can't

7 use the 1991 census to provide reliable figures for ethnic distribution or

8 composition in the former Yugoslavia? Otherwise, why on earth did you

9 spend all that time in your reports making those observations?

10 A. That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. I said

11 that the characteristic -- the national characteristic, whenever you're

12 doing anything, whether you're using information from any census, not only

13 that of 1991, when using such information, you have to have a very

14 critical and cautious approach. I'm not denying or contesting anything.

15 But you know if you're a serious expert and professional, you just -- you

16 don't just base yourself on such characteristics, but you make comparisons

17 from that same census. This is not a matter I'm contesting.

18 I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that this has to be

19 used cautiously or, rather, such information cannot simply be adopted

20 seven years later. And on the basis of that information, you cannot then

21 claim we have reached these findings. With regard to this matter, I have

22 written several articles about this, and this is the criticism of the

23 methodology used in obtaining information on nationality.

24 Ethnostatistical information.

25 So this is not a matter of contesting of the validity of the

Page 20179

1 census; it's a matter of drawing attention to the fact that if you are a

2 serious scientist, you have to be very cautious when weighing up the

3 information, and especially when taking over information, when adopting

4 information after so much time has passed.

5 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you, and I'm asking you about the 1991

6 census. Can you explain this to the Trial Chamber: Paragraph 20: "In

7 the 1991 census, personal identification numbers and first and last names

8 were optically read for the first time. But this was not checked, and so

9 this data is considered statistically useless because there are too many

10 errors." Now, you told the Trial Chamber how it is that if the scanning

11 process produced data that is statistically useless, how does that

12 translate into your saying that you can use this 1991 census in studies

13 relating to ethnic composition? Tell the Chamber what "statistically

14 useless" means, please.

15 A. You're asking me about the personal identification numbers. Well,

16 in all censuses, and in all types of statistics, you have information that

17 is reliable and information that is less reliable. This is a well-known

18 fact.

19 Q. With respect, I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking to you

20 explain to the Trial Chamber what you mean when you say that "in the 1991

21 census, personal identification and first and last names were optically

22 read for the first time, but this wasn't checked so this data is

23 considered statistically useless." What does that mean?

24 A. It means that they contained a lot of errors. But this is just

25 one of the characteristics of the census, and it was introduced for the

Page 20180

1 first time on that occasion. And this doesn't mean that if one

2 characteristic is erroneous, that the census is not valid. If you have 30

3 or 40 or 50 per cent of errors in statistical terms, you can't claim that

4 this information is reliable. This was demonstrated in the case of Samac

5 and Odzak.

6 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, if the census can't give you accurate information

7 relating to the name of a person or their identification, that's a pretty

8 serious criticism, isn't it?

9 A. No, it isn't. The first and last name was never an essential part

10 of the census in terms of processing information.

11 Q. You, of course, have used the 1991 census in your own articles and

12 studies, haven't you, apart from this particular study that you're

13 discussing now?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And in fact, you used the 1991 census as a source in your article

16 entitled "Demographic Growth and Ethnodemographic Changes in the Republic

17 of Serbia" didn't you, published in 1995?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I know that you don't have the B/C/S version of that article, but

20 it's obtainable, isn't it, on the internet from the internet library of

21 Serb culture. Correct?

22 A. Probably. I wasn't aware of the fact that it was on the internet.

23 Q. Okay. And its source is "Serbian Question in the Balkans,

24 University of Belgrade publisher, faculty of geography, Belgrade, 1995."

25 Correct?

Page 20181

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I'd just like to read to you the introduction to that article that

3 you wrote. "Complex processes in the ethnodemographic growth in the

4 Republic of Serbia could be continuously followed only from the time when

5 regular statistical research was organised. The most important

6 statistical data are the data on the natural movements of population and

7 the censuses. In today's Republic of Serbia, censuses were conducted at

8 irregular intervals and in differing historical circumstances. So an

9 abundance of data derived from 36 population censuses in the period 1934

10 to 1991 (18 Serbian, 5 Austro-Hungarian, 5 Bulgarian, and 8 Yugoslav)

11 though with different degrees of reliability, non-uniform identifications,

12 and incomparability and scope, still present a valuable source of

13 information which we will use by applying ethnostatistics to briefly

14 demonstrate the population growth, ethnic structure, and changes in the

15 ethnic structure of the population in Serbia. The censuses in Yugoslavia

16 after World War II offered very meager ethnostatistical data of

17 restrictive distribution. Precise questions on the basis of which

18 conclusions about the ethnic structure of the population in Serbia could

19 be made were asked for the first time in the 1948 census. Some of the

20 earlier censuses contained only the information on religion or the data

21 both on religion and native language, which offered rather ambiguous

22 results for the population in the territory of today's Serbia."

23 You felt confident, didn't you, in using the 1991 census to study

24 ethnic structure and changes in ethnic structure in Serbia, didn't you?

25 And I'm sure you can answer that, I think, with a yes or a no. Did you

Page 20182

1 feel confident in using the 1991 census to study ethnic structure and

2 changes in ethnic structure in Serbia?

3 A. Yes, I used that, but you didn't read everything. First of all,

4 this is an excerpt from another article that was published at the faculty

5 of geography, and in a book called "The Ethnic Territory of the Serbs" and

6 that contains a criticism of the methodology of obtaining information,

7 statistical information. And if you read on, you'll see that when I say

8 real information, et cetera, I put that in inverted commas, real

9 information on the national composition. But I conclude that this is our

10 reality, this is the situation we are facing, and this is what we will

11 have to use. So I'm not at all contesting the census, and I'm not

12 contesting the issue of nationality. All I am saying is that it is

13 necessary to be cautious.

14 Q. Can I ask you this: You would agree, wouldn't you --

15 A. I apologise, but I haven't answered your question. You said that

16 I used the census. I did. But eight years later, I didn't give anyone

17 from that census the same description. This is the state at a given point

18 in time, and whether someone likes this or not, that's the way it

19 is. It's official state information. I wouldn't dare to get involved in

20 foreseeing what the case would be in five, seven, or ten years' time. I

21 wouldn't dare attribute to give an individual something that that person

22 stated six or seven years ago.

23 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise again. Just in order to have a

24 clear transcript, page 65, line 22, instead of year 1934, it should be

25 1834. Thank you.

Page 20183

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Actually, that's the year I heard, 1834.

2 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, 1834, that's right.

3 Q. Is there any reason why the 1991 census is not -- let me rephrase

4 that. You would agree, wouldn't you, given your answer, that the 1991

5 census is a valuable source of information that you can use to demonstrate

6 ethnic structure and changes in ethnic structure in Bosnia and

7 Herzegovina?

8 A. The census is the official source that we will use for information

9 on the national composition. I would agree with that.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 Let's try and turn to another topic, Dr. Radovanovic, and again,

12 if you could possibly answer questions briefly, it would benefit us both,

13 I can assure you.

14 MR. Di FAZIO: What time do Your Honours wish to break? Would now

15 be an appropriate moment? I'm leading to another topic.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we have two minutes. You say you want to

17 start another topic?

18 MR. Di FAZIO: Another topic.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: We can break now and continue at 18.05.

20 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, continue.

23 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, essentially your position is this, in paragraph

25 20 of your report: "The 1991 census provides names and identity numbers

Page 20184

1 which were read optically and not checked." And you say this data is

2 considered statistically useless because there are too many errors.

3 Correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. This is also referred to in your report as the process of

6 substitution.

7 A. Process of substitution is something else. But some of the

8 problems are due to substitution, too.

9 Q. Thank you. I'd like to show you a document, please.

10 MR. Di FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, can we very briefly go

11 into closed session because this contains confidential material, people's

12 names --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can go into private session.

14 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, private session. The document I'm about to

15 show to the witness has already been provided to the Defence.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 20185

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 20185 to 20189 redacted private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 20190

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

7 MR. Di FAZIO:

8 Q. One of -- your position is, isn't it, that because of the census

9 -- because the census material may contain mistakes in name and ID

10 numbers, one cannot match the 1991 census material with the OSCE

11 material. That's one of the problems, correct?

12 A. No, they can be matched, but not in a relevant way because you're

13 automatically excluding a large percentage of the population. 40 per cent

14 in Samac, 36 per cent in Odzak who cannot be matched because their

15 personal identification numbers are not correct and perhaps their names

16 are not correct. And you are simply disregarding them, and that is not a

17 small percentage. Even if they live there in 1991, and perhaps in 1997,

18 in the same territory, you simply deny them the possibility of being

19 matched, represented, included, and having them contributing to a more

20 reliable information. It is a highly selective approach. And you say,

21 well, now I've matched it, right, so that's it. It's not it.

22 Q. Thank you. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of your report, you talk about

23 this problem of data coupling or matching, don't you? 24 and 25. Do you

24 see that?

25 A. I do, yes.

Page 20191

1 Q. You make the complaint, or you make the observation, I should say,

2 that in the 1991 census in Odzak and Bosanski Samac, there are a

3 surprisingly large number of identical first names, father's names, and

4 last names. Do you see that?

5 A. I do.

6 Q. And you came up with 1500, approximately, pairs of identical first

7 and last names. And in Odzak, approximately 589 -- well, 589 persons had

8 the same first name, father's name, and last name. Do you see that?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. You got those figures, didn't you, from your study of material

11 provided to you some time ago, some weeks ago, by the office of the

12 demographics unit? You studied the material and you came up with those

13 figures, didn't you?

14 A. I did. And if you'd like me, I can illustrate this.

15 Q. Just answer the question. And I might add, too, Dr. Radovanovic,

16 that the Prosecution entirely agrees with those figures that you have

17 reached. You're quite correct, you're quite correct, that there were 1562

18 pairs of essentially same names, and 589 similar cases relating to Odzak.

19 However, when you add the year of birth to those names and compare them,

20 would it have the effect of reducing those matches?

21 A. I've found a large number of pairs that are absolutely identical

22 identification number. I didn't take out only the names, but also the

23 identification numbers. And I told you that it is unique, I mean, there

24 are not two, so I took out pairs who have the same first name, the same

25 last name, and the same personal identification number, and also those

Page 20192

1 with same first and last names but different identification numbers. So,

2 sir, I'm not talking only about the identical first and last names, but

3 also identical identification numbers.

4 Now, your experts used the years of birth. I can quote you

5 strings of people with the same names and same year of birth. And also

6 people with different names and identical identification numbers, which is

7 impossible because that number is unique. Names can, of course, be --

8 there can be many same names, but your expert says that it is really

9 seldom that in one territory one finds persons with first -- with the same

10 first and last names and the same identification numbers. And I can quote

11 it even here. But I'm showing you the opposite. Not only that it is not

12 -- does not happen seldom, but traditionally speaking, in our country, or

13 in our former country, in Yugoslavia, you come frequently across the first

14 and the last names because grandchildren are often given their

15 grandparent's name; a son will get his grandfather's name or a daughter a

16 grandmother's name so that is not a rare occurrence.

17 And your expert says -- he says, I'm quoting page 6 of the B/C/S

18 version of the expertise of your people. It is very unusual for two

19 different persons to have -- to bear identical names and to have been born

20 on an identical date.

21 Q. So is it the case that --

22 A. Our research shows the opposite. So that it is not an exception.

23 It is not exceptionally rare for people to have the same first and last

24 names, and to have been born on the same dates, and there are examples

25 which I can quote. But I also have to say --

Page 20193

1 Q. We agree. It's very common, isn't it, for people in those areas,

2 very common, very common indeed, for people in those areas to have the

3 same surname, for fathers to hand on their names to their sons, for a lot

4 of people to have the same name, surname and first name. It's part of the

5 naming tradition in that area, isn't it, so you really run into a lot of

6 people with the same name, don't you? Correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Now, if you add the year of birth as another variable and compare

9 these names, would you expect the number of matching pairs to reduce?

10 Would you expect that to take place?

11 A. Can you define what you mean by reduction? If you find ten out of

12 a thousand cases, is that -- does that mean that it has been reduced? If

13 your sample is bad, if you have a small sample which is not

14 representative, well, in that case, you have to define what it means to

15 say that the number is reduced.

16 Q. If you compare, if you analyse the 1.562 people with identical

17 first names, father's names and last name, and then add another variable,

18 being their year of birth, would you expect that number of 1.562 to be

19 reduced? Say, for example, to an order of around a hundred or perhaps 92,

20 in particular. Would you expect that? Would that sort of result surprise

21 you?

22 A. I would expect the number to be reduced, but I wouldn't start

23 speculating as to the order by which it would be reduced because I haven't

24 had the opportunity to check this and to claim that it would be reduced to

25 the figure of 90. I don't know.

Page 20194

1 Q. You know, don't you, that by adding variables, something as simple

2 as the year of birth, when you're analysing people who have got the same

3 name, first name, father's name, and surname, when you add something as

4 simple as the year of birth, you really reduce, and drastically reduce,

5 the number of matches, don't you? And I can tell you, and I put it to

6 you, that in fact, that's what our OTP demographics expert did, and he

7 came up with a figure of 92 matches in Samac, and 26 for Odzak. And that

8 is, in fact, 46 pairs of people who have been recorded twice, or 13 pairs

9 of people who have been recorded twice out of a population of about 30.000

10 for each of those municipalities of Odzak and Bosanski Samac. What's your

11 comment on that?

12 A. My comment is that I really don't know what the figure would be.

13 But if I have the names in front of me and the year of birth, and if I

14 asked myself whether out of 1.568, whether out of that number, one would

15 obtain this result --

16 Q. But you know, don't you, that by introducing more variables, as

17 the OTP demographics team did in their report, you can really reduce that

18 number of matches, those sorts of numbers of false matches. You know

19 that, don't you?

20 A. If you have the full name, I assume that this would be possible.

21 But this is guesswork, and I don't like guessing. But your experts, on

22 page 6 of the B/C/S version, heading 2.4, said the following, and I quote:

23 "For people who have not been matched in the first round, we gradually

24 extended the criteria for search for one or two orders of change. For

25 example, including the year but not the full date. By including the first

Page 20195

1 letter of [realtime transcript read in error "or"] the first and last

2 name."

3 Only the years without the date and the initials.

4 Q. And you know also don't you that --

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. We have something here in the

6 transcript. The answer that our expert gave was "by including the first

7 letter of the first and last name." Not "or the first and last name,"

8 because the way it is now in the transcript would suggest that the full

9 first and last name was one of the criteria. And the witness said that it

10 was just first letter of the name.

11 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I agree with that. That's probably right. In

12 fact, I'll put to you what I have in the -- what I have in the OTP

13 demographics report.

14 Q. "Consequently, for persons not matched in the first round we made

15 the search criteria gradually broader for one or more variables, for

16 example by only including the year and not the full date of birth, or only

17 the initial of the first name in addition to the surname. The results of

18 such matches have, however, to be inspected visually to decide if the

19 matches are more likely to be the same person or not, by looking at other

20 available information, such as municipality, place of birth, or residence.

21 For example, the place of birth may be given as a municipality on one list

22 and a small hamlet located in the municipality on the other list. It

23 would be very complicated, if possible at all, to automate such checks.

24 For difficult cases, we checked the 1991 census for additional

25 information; for example, information about family members of the person

Page 20196

1 in question."

2 So your complaint - I wouldn't say it's a complaint - your

3 observation that there are 1500, thereabouts, matching pairs for Samac,

4 and I think about 800 or so matching pairs for Odzak, is really not the

5 full picture at all, is it, because you can use other variables to reduce

6 that and reduce it drastically.

7 A. It would be intellectually honest if your expert had said how many

8 cases had been matched in the first round and how many matches had been

9 found in the second round, and I would then be able to adopt a position.

10 But in statistical terms, this first phase of matching on the basis of the

11 personal identification number is really important, and here this was not

12 done very frequently.

13 Q. But the Trial Chamber can be satisfied, can't it, that according

14 to the face of the report anyway, the OTP demographics report, that a lot

15 of -- more than one or two variables were used and, in difficult cases,

16 visual inspection of the records was conducted.

17 A. Well, you're wrong there, too. In difficult cases, in my opinion,

18 contain the initials and the year of birth. That is what your expert has

19 mentioned. "SR, 49, Bosanski Samac." How is your expert going to know

20 who and what SR is, if the expert find, let's say, just 50 such SRs, what

21 is the ethnic affiliation of this person SR?

22 Q. Okay. I think I would like to move on rapidly, if I may, to the

23 last issue that I want to ask you about, and that's the final conclusions

24 reached in both the OTP demographics report and your report. You said --

25 sorry. In your report, you make it clear that you observed no significant

Page 20197

1 changes to the ethnic composition of the territory of Bosanski Samac and

2 Odzak. Correct?

3 A. No. That's what it says in the conclusion, but that is not what I

4 stated in my report. That is a criticism and a comment on your experts'

5 report. I said in the summary - it's item 4 - given everything mentioned

6 above, we conclude that by comparing and combining statistical information

7 obtained from the regular census of 1991, and from the electoral lists of

8 1997 and 1998, it is not possible to carry out a statistical and

9 demographic analysis that would be -- that would objectively demonstrate

10 the changes to the ethnic composition of the population in the territory

11 of the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak. And this conclusion

12 that follows the heading containing comments on your experts' report has

13 to do with the fact that I commented on what had been done. And it has to

14 do with why this last conclusion in -- under C in your experts' table, I

15 said that your experts had this table, but I stated that I do not know why

16 they did not take it into account. I'll provide you with the reference

17 now.

18 Q. It's okay. Could I just ask you to look, please, at your report,

19 because I must confess I'm having some trouble understanding your answer.

20 It's in the English at page 28, if Your Honours please. And in your

21 report, it's headed VII "Conclusion," c-o-n-c-l-u-s-i-o-n. Do you see

22 that?

23 A. Chapter 7?

24 Q. Chapter 7, yeah. Could you just read out, please, what you have

25 at the top there, please. Read it into the transcript, chapter 7, and

Page 20198

1 then the word next to it. What word is there, so the interpreters may --

2 A. I can't see the transcript.

3 Q. Your report. Your report. Your B/C/S report, chapter 7, VII, and

4 then there's a word next to that. In English it comes out as

5 "conclusion." What is it --

6 A. I apologise. I can't see the transcript here, but it's not

7 important. Chapter 7, conclusion, under A: "The radical change --"

8 Q. Can I just ask you one other question. "Conclusion," that's your

9 -- your conclusion, isn't it? You wrote this report, and you prepared it,

10 so that's your conclusion, isn't it? Correct?

11 A. It's my conclusion, but please bear in mind that it refers to what

12 your experts did. So my conclusion, well, yes, I will accept that it is

13 mine, if that's important, and if you allow me to read it out. It has to

14 do with what was claimed by your experts, and I do agree that they had a

15 look at the tables and that this relates to conclusion C.

16 Q. And your conclusion, your conclusion, in part C, under chapter VII

17 of your report, is this: "Looking at the same territorial framework in

18 1997 as in 1991, there were no significant changes in the ethnic

19 structures of Bosanski Samac and Odzak. The shares of various ethnic

20 groups in the total population in 1991 and 1997 are approximately the

21 same."

22 Now, it is rare to see such plain, simple, and obvious language.

23 That's your conclusion, isn't it? You'd have to agree with that.

24 A. Yes, I do agree with that.

25 Q. And you would agree, wouldn't you, that without going into huge

Page 20199

1 amounts of detail, that essentially the conclusion of the OTP demographics

2 unit was that if you study the territory, territory of the post-Dayton --

3 the post-Dayton four municipalities that were carved out of Bosanski Samac

4 and Odzak, you end up with a preponderance of Serbs in some of them and a

5 preponderance of Croats and Muslims in others. In other words, in Serb

6 Odzak, there is an overwhelming majority of Serbs; and in federation

7 Odzak, there are an overwhelming majority of Muslims and Croats. And the

8 same applies in Bosanski Samac. In Republika Srpska Samac, the vast

9 majority are Serbs; and in Domaljevac Samac, the vast majority are

10 Croats. That's essentially -- whether they are right or wrong, but that's

11 essentially their conclusion. Correct?

12 A. That's not correct. That is their conclusion, but the conclusion

13 that they reached was reached on the basis of erroneous information

14 because if you are discussing Muslims in federal Odzak, there are no

15 Muslims in RS Odzak. As the villages were divided, these Muslims are in

16 the same place; in the same house, the same street. They did not move

17 all.

18 Q. I'm not asking you to comment on the accuracy. I understand that

19 you challenge that. Please understand I understand your position. You're

20 not happy with their methodology. I understand that perfectly well. But

21 that essentially is the difference in the two major conclusions reached in

22 your report and in their report, in the OTP demographics unit. Correct?

23 Is that a yes?

24 A. I'm not sure I've understood your question. Do I agree with their

25 methodology? If the methodology is incorrect, the conclusion cannot be

Page 20200

1 correct. Do I agree with their conclusion? No, I don't. The differences

2 between our conclusions are the result of the application of different

3 methodologies, a good methodology and a bad one, if you're asking me this

4 question.

5 Q. I'll start again, Dr. Radovanovic. Let's see if we can, if

6 possible, scoot home to a nice finish before 7.00, okay? If we can

7 possibly do that, that would be good. Essentially, the conclusion of the

8 OTP demographics unit is that of the four municipalities that were carved

9 out of Bosanski Samac and Odzak, the former 1991 municipalities, ethnic

10 preponderances or majorities are to be seen, namely a lot more Serbs, the

11 overwhelming majority of Serbs in Republika Srpska Samac, a lot more

12 Croats in Domaljevac Samac, a lot more Serbs in Odzak Vukosavlje, and a

13 lot more Croats and Muslims in federation Odzak. That essentially is

14 their conclusion.

15 Now, I'm not asking you if it's right or wrong, but that's

16 essentially their conclusion, so that Their Honours know and it's clear.

17 A. That not is the essence of their conclusion. You have paraphrased

18 their conclusion, which is very brief. I could read it out. I'll quote

19 the Prosecution's expert reports: "To conclude, we can say -- summing up,

20 two clear examples of ethnic cleansing have been shown in this report.

21 Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from the Serb Samac, and from the

22 Serb Odzak Vukosavlje. Before the war in both these areas, Croats and

23 Muslims represented a considerable fraction of the actual population."

24 That is the conclusion that is not correct and it is a conclusion that I

25 contest.

Page 20201

1 Q. Thanks, that's fine. That's just fine. Thank you very much for

2 pointing it out. That's from the addendum to the report that was

3 initially provided, correct, the addendum report that the Prosecution OTP

4 demographics unit provided?

5 A. This is not an addition. This is what appears in the conclusion

6 of the Prosecution's expert report.

7 Q. Would you please have a look at this document that I produce to

8 you. In fact, these two documents.

9 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, copies have been provided

10 to the Defence, served on the Defence. I have copies here for the

11 Chamber.

12 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look at what I describe as the more

13 colourful map headed with the English words - I hope that you can identify

14 it - "Ethnical Majority Recently." I know you don't read English, but on

15 the bottom left-hand corner of that document, there are the words

16 "Sources, present population, UNHCR, September 1999." Do you see that?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. All right. And it -- the colouring code, I'll assist you on that,

19 it's very, very simple for our purposes, exceptionally simple. The

20 brightest red refers to Serb over 66 per cent, and the darkest blue refers

21 to Croat over 66 per cent. So you can see that very, very easily because

22 we're just going up to the top of Northern Bosnia, and you can see the

23 municipalities up there. You can see that Odzak, federation Odzak, is

24 blue, all blue, and that indicates at least 66 per cent Croats in that

25 particular municipality. Do you see that?

Page 20202

1 A. I can see it.

2 Q. And underneath, and although it's in small writing, you can

3 Vukosavlje, and that, of course, is Serb Odzak, and that's all in red, so

4 that indicates Serb population of over 66 per cent. Do you see that? And

5 essentially, the same applies to the next-door municipality, Samac and

6 Domaljevac Samac. Do you see that? Essentially the red and the blue.

7 It's very clear. Those figures on the face of this document obtained from

8 the UNHCR in September of 1999 tend very much to suggest majority Croat

9 populations in Odzak federation and Domaljevac Samac, and majority Serb

10 populations in Vukosavlje and RS Samac, don't they?

11 A. No. This is the position of the IMG company. You can see in the

12 lower right-hand corner, it says that it is a map, a sort of guiding map,

13 an orientation map. It doesn't say that it is founded on a scientific

14 basis. I'm just assuming - this is guesswork again - that this involves

15 estimates. I don't know what the basis for these estimates is. This may

16 be acceptable for media purposes, but in professional terms, I'd be very

17 cautious in accepting this because they themselves emphasise the fact that

18 this map is not to be taken as necessarily representing IMG views. It

19 just says it's a sort of guiding map. It's the position of the company

20 that probably based itself on some of the UNHCR estimates.

21 Q. Thank you. Mr. Lukic assisted you in studying this map, didn't

22 he, and he translated bits of it to you, didn't he?

23 A. Mr. Lukic provided me with this map and translated parts of it

24 because I insisted that he do so. I don't know English, and I wasn't

25 provided with the Serbian translation.

Page 20203

1 Q. Of course, I understand that, and I understand the difficulty that

2 you're labouring under, and I'm not trying to take advantage of that by

3 any means. But it says that the map is not to be taken as necessarily

4 representing IMG views on boundaries or political status. If the

5 International Management Group used UNHCR figures from September of 1999,

6 and if those figures are reliable or reasonably reliable, they suggest,

7 don't they, ethnic preponderances in those municipalities in the way that

8 I've described to you in my earlier question.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that the question is asking

12 the witness to speculate. What could the organisation IMG have concluded

13 on that basis? But apart from the map, we don't see how this was

14 compiled, we don't know about the sources. I think that the expert is

15 being asked to speculate on what the organisation, what the company wanted

16 to do.

17 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, maybe my learned friend can give us

18 a little more details about the background of this IMG company, because

19 after our research, the IMG is the world's largest, most diverse and only

20 truly global company dedicated to the marketing and management of sport,

21 leisure and lifestyle and so on. I don't know if we are speaking of the

22 same company.

23 MR. Di FAZIO: My understanding -- but of course this is only from

24 the bar table my understanding is that it is the organisation responsible

25 for handling reconstruction from war damage in Bosnia.

Page 20204

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but I think the more important point is the one

2 mentioned by Mr. Lukic where he says it is not known on what they based

3 the information on, their sources, their data, to come to this conclusion

4 which is shown on the map.

5 MR. Di FAZIO: Very well. I'd ask that the document be marked for

6 identification at this stage. And its sources -- and in addition, I also

7 note that the document does go some way to answering that question,

8 present population, UNHCR, September 1999.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Her Honour, please.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Sorry. It does say that, but what I'm saying is how

11 they came to compile these population figures, what methodology they used,

12 what sources of information they used.

13 MR. Di FAZIO: Very well. Thank you. If Your Honours please, can

14 I ask that the document simply be marked for identification.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't object to having this document

17 marked for identification, but it will really be a serious problem if the

18 Prosecution subsequently provides some evidence with regard to this

19 matter. Our expert will then have to express a position on this analysis.

20 That's what the Prosecution wanted from the expert. The expert will

21 leave, and if the Prosecution subsequently provides documents without

22 having had the expert express an opinion, then the Trial Chamber will have

23 to assess the validity of such a document in a special way. I appreciate

24 the fact that my learned colleague didn't know when the expert would be.

25 We got these maps over the weekend. We tried to find something about

Page 20205

1 these sources. Mrs. Radovanovic herself couldn't find some information,

2 and we were really at a disadvantage. If we get these maps and we don't

3 have other information, I think we'll have problems. But I don't object

4 to marking them for identification.

5 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. And I'd like to do that in respect of

6 the second document as well, if Your Honours, please, and that will then,

7 I think, complete my cross-examination.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So which one do you call the first one?

9 MR. Di FAZIO: "Ethnical majority recently," and the second one is

10 the "ethnical breakdown recently."

11 I would ask that the number be ascribed so I can finish this

12 cross-examination.

13 THE REGISTRAR: The map on ethnical majority will be treated as

14 Document P184 ID. And the map on ethnical breakdown will be treated as

15 Document P184A ID.

16 I apologise, P183. Thank you.

17 MR. Di FAZIO: In fact, I have no further questions because that

18 document speaks for itself, and any later use of it we will sort out

19 later. So that, in fact, completes my cross-examination, if Your Honours

20 please.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, the re-examination will begin tomorrow.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to inform the Trial Chamber

23 that I only had two questions. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber has

24 any questions, but I have two fairly short questions. We know that the

25 interpreters have had a difficult day today, but if they would agree to

Page 20206

1 carry on for ten minutes, unless the Trial Chamber thinks that there will

2 be more questions, then of course I will accept your decision.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber would like to ask the interpreters

4 to bear with us so that we can complete this expert witness since the

5 re-examination will be very brief, and perhaps one question from the

6 Bench.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours. I should

8 also like to thank the interpreters.

9 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Radovanovic, in the very beginning of the

11 cross-examination, the Prosecutor did not allow you to explain why you

12 disagreed with their analysis, so this would be my first question, why you

13 disagree with the conclusions?

14 A. Is that it?

15 Q. Why do you disagree with the Prosecution's claim that we are

16 dealing with a co-national form of ethnic cleansing?

17 A. Because the Prosecutor says that on the basis of the conclusions

18 of their experts. And I claim under full responsibility that the

19 Prosecutor's team used very deficient statistical data, and on the basis

20 of deficient statistical data, you cannot come to a correct decision. Why

21 are they deficient? They are deficient regarding the structural

22 population because they simply exempted a large number of the population

23 of 1991 and disregarded completely. It is also deficient because they are

24 not considering the identical territorial entity, and because they do not

25 know what is the territorial entity, we get a misrepresentation, and it is

Page 20207

1 a misrepresentation because it is due either to the administrative

2 subdivision or statistical errors.

3 For instance, if we have a look at this, for instance, Odzak.

4 Odzak, yellow here represents settlements which were exempted from

5 survey-tion [as interpreted] because the Dayton boundary goes through

6 them, so they say we shall exclude this population. But what that means

7 is that you're excluding a complete Muslim population concentrated only in

8 the settlement of Odzak. It is this here. This is the municipality made

9 of different settlements.

10 Now, what happened in the elections in 1997? I'm sorry so sorry.

11 Since the Dayton boundary goes through these places, when registering for

12 voting, you are bound to register according to the new municipal code and

13 say, "I now live in federal Odzak," which is number 20, or in Odzak which

14 belongs to Republika Srpska, which is number 19. So this settlement and

15 the population there, owing to the statistical code and the Dayton

16 boundary, is split into federal and RS Odzak.

17 The population - and we are interested in Muslims here - who live

18 in the settlement of Odzak, in the same house, on the same street, when

19 they go to vote, give a new code, and then it turns out, because that part

20 where they are registering is in federal Odzak, that in federal Odzak,

21 according to the Prosecution's analysis, a certain number, and we can

22 forget whether the figure is accurate or not, but that we have there a

23 certain number of Muslims, and in Odzak, which is in Republika Srpska,

24 these Muslims do not exist.

25 And on the basis of that, a conclusion is made that in Serb Odzak,

Page 20208

1 ethnic cleansing has taken place, but that is not accurate. They were not

2 there. I mean, their house, their street was not in that part. They were

3 not there in 1991. So they all stayed where they were, but they have been

4 split by a statistical code that is the Dayton boundary.

5 And on the other hand - and I think this is a good example - the

6 Prosecution's experts disregard the principle of settlements and show even

7 the direction of migrations, and say from Samac RS, Republika Srpska,

8 Croats were expelled. Disregarding, ignoring that a whole settlement,

9 which is Prud, has administratively been relocated from Samac and annexed

10 to the municipality of Odzak. So all those Croats who come to register to

11 vote say they are Croats from federal Odzak. They have all stayed in

12 their homes in the same settlement. They have not moved anywhere. I

13 mean, all, I mean I don't mean all down to the last one, but I'm saying

14 that this is the population which has not migrated. They migrated by a

15 statistical code, the whole settlement. And the Prosecution expert gives

16 the migration routes and say Croats from Samac, disregarding the

17 settlement of Prud or those which are divided and which with population in

18 Samac, you have two, for instance, Croat settlements and one where Croats

19 are predominant.

20 I'm sorry, I was showing you Samac and spoke about Odzak, but you

21 understand what I am talking about.

22 Q. It is clear that yellow means settlements which were split?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. This question arises from Prosecution's question when they asked

25 you about the matching methodologies and what they used in addition to

Page 20209

1 personal identification numbers and mother tongues and all the rest in

2 view of the scanning. Will you please look at paragraphs 28 and 29 of

3 your report, and in that report, you say first that on the basis of your

4 matching principle, you only used the principle of identification numbers,

5 that is, you didn't use the broad methodology used by the Prosecution.

6 That is what you say in paragraph 28. And then you show how many you

7 managed to match. And what does the paragraph 29 say? Is there a

8 significant difference between your matching strictly only PINs, that is

9 personal identification numbers, and what the Prosecution did, and could

10 this produce then a discrepancy in results obtained?

11 A. Well, yes, we have a discrepancy because we obtained completely

12 different numbers for Muslims, Croats, and Serbs, but statistically

13 speaking we found 37 per cent matched numbers, and the Prosecution's

14 witness, 40. So there is a difference in conclusion. If you observe a

15 correct principle, a correct methodology, there shouldn't be such

16 discrepancies.

17 Q. So you're only matched personal identification numbers to get 37

18 per cent matched, and the Prosecution, by using some other methods, to

19 obtain 40-odd percentages matched?

20 A. That's right.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, I do not

22 have any further questions.

23 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Yes, Dr. Radovanovic, I have only one question.

24 I know that you don't like to make guesses. You are only interested in

25 valid scientific research. But let us for a moment assume that the data

Page 20210

1 you had from the year 1991, from the census, and the data you had from the

2 voters list in 1997 were correct in all respects, and that you used them

3 in a scientifically valid manner to compare what was the situation in 1991

4 and in 1997. How much does it tell us about what was the situation and

5 the movements of people from one place to another in the years 1992, 1993,

6 and 1994? This is my question.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if you have accurate data for

8 1991 and 1997, you cannot -- and I claim it under full responsibility.

9 You cannot learn what went on in 1992 and 1993.

10 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Dr. Radovanovic. We have

12 finished. You may leave the courtroom.

13 Before we rise, there's one matter the Trial Chamber would like to

14 deal with. The witness can be escorted out.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can start. This is a matter concerning the

17 decision of the Appeals Chamber regarding the cross-examination and

18 refreshing memory of some of the Defence witnesses. The decision affects,

19 the Trial Chamber, has noted about three witnesses. This is Vaso Antic,

20 Dodek Tubakovic, and Stefan Nikolic. So the Trial Chamber wanted to find

21 out from the Prosecution what they would like to do.

22 MR. RE: The Prosecution would be content to tender the parts of

23 the 92 bis witnesses which we say are inconsistent with the witness's

24 evidence in respect of Nikolic, and Mr. Tubakovic. The difficulty, of

25 course, with Mr. Antic, Vaso Antic, is the appeal was on the basis of his

Page 20211

1 not being allowed to refresh his memory from a statement, and merely

2 tendering the statement would not allow him to refresh his memory as the

3 Appeals Chamber says he should be allowed to.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No.

5 MR. RE: I did discuss this briefly with my colleagues from the

6 Defence. I understand Defence of Mr. Zaric would want the two witnesses

7 recalled to explain why there are differing versions. And I understand

8 Mr. Tadic's Defence is content with our tendering of those portions. The

9 Prosecution is basically in the Trial Chamber's hands on this. We don't

10 wish to unnecessarily prolong things or bring people back because our

11 submission will be our witnesses have said one thing, and their witnesses

12 have said two different things; therefore, our witness is more reliable.

13 But if the Trial Chamber wishes to hear from the witness and hear the

14 explanation, we, of course, wouldn't oppose that. But as I say, in the

15 case of Mr. Antic, I can't really see a practical solution other than his

16 recall.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, maybe I should state the position of

18 Mr. Zaric Defence. This is not what was our position regarding those two.

19 I still haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Mr. Zaric

20 because we have received this decision of the Appeals Chamber right before

21 these proceedings started in the afternoon, and this was not the position

22 of ours. Furthermore, I think that we will not ask for these two

23 witnesses to be brought back to The Hague and to give their testimony.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. Before I go to Mr. Lukic,

25 Mr. Lazarevic, so you have stated your position in spite of the fact that

Page 20212

1 you haven't --

2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours, I did. We don't ask these two

3 witnesses to come again.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of Mr. Tadic's

6 Defence, we shall neither insist on recalling Mr. Tubakovic for, I would

7 say, a very simple reason. I'd like him to come back and clear these

8 matters up, but when Mr. Tubakovic finished his testimony, he was relieved

9 of any further testimony. I talked with him. It was just an ordinary

10 conversation, and we talked about it. What I mean to say is that if a

11 witness is recalled to testify about his testimony, with all due respect

12 to the Appeals Chamber, if the witness was released and if the Prosecutor

13 asks him, "did you discuss this subject with the Defence counsel," then

14 obviously the validity of the words of his testimony will be less.

15 So in my closing argument, I will also express my argument how is

16 one to weigh, to judge, what their witness has not testified about. But I

17 do not object to tendering that part of the statement into evidence for

18 the appreciation by the Chamber.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: That is, you are speaking for the witness --

20 regarding the Witness Tubakovic? Yes.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, you are speaking in connection with

23 Vaso Antic?

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, on behalf of my client for witnesses Nikolic

25 and Vaso Antic.

Page 20213

1 JUDGE MUMBA: What about the Prosecution's proposal that they

2 would tender that part of the evidence which is being disputed?

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: I don't have a problem with this.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So that leaves us with Vaso Antic and

5 the point which the Prosecution pointed out, that...

6 MR. RE: Well, it goes further. The difference is the intended

7 purpose with Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Tubakovic was impeachment. With

8 Mr. Antic, his statement actually goes to the acts and conduct of the

9 accused, that is, that Mr. Simic -- Dr. Simic telephoned him. So that

10 can't be admitted for the purpose of --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, it can't. This is what I'm saying. Because

12 the other two, that could be dealt with admitting the parts that were

13 disputed. But with Vaso Antic, it seems appears he has to come back.

14 MR. RE: But that appears to be the difficulty with that

15 approach, yes, Your Honour.

16 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

17 JUDGE MUMBA: In that case, then the Trial Chamber has decided

18 that Mr. Vaso Antic will have to come back to complete the evidence. The

19 Victims and Witnesses Unit will be informed so that they can locate him

20 and try to bring him at the earliest opportunity possible, and the parties

21 will be told as to the date and time.

22 I think we've come to the end of our proceedings. We show our

23 appreciation to the supporting staff.

24 We'll adjourn now.

25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned sine die

Page 20214

1 at 7.23 p.m.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25