1 Wednesday, 9 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody.
6 Mr. Gajic, I see you on your feet.
7 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody.
8 Your Honour, the Defence has a request. Yesterday with the
9 witness Acimovic, we used two documents, 65 ter 2063, and 65 ter 2064.
10 Those documents have been used in the previous proceedings and they were
11 part of the package according to 92 ter submitted by the Prosecution.
12 Those documents were used yesterday in the courtroom with the witness,
13 and we would like to tender them.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I don't have the documents with me.
15 We will come back to that later. I think that was an omission due to
16 the -- the end of the hearing of yesterday.
17 At this point in time, I would like to deal with another matter
18 related to exhibits, in relation to the witness we are hearing today.
19 The Chamber is seized of the Prosecution's supplemental motion
20 for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list with two additional exhibits
21 filed on the 3rd of February. By its motion, the Prosecution requests
22 leave to supplement its Rule 65 ter exhibit list to add two demographic
23 reports prepared by Witness Dr. Helge Brunborg in April 2009.
24 On Monday, Mr. Gajic, on behalf of Mr. Tolimir, orally responded
25 to this motion. Mr. Gajic submits that the motion should be denied
1 because the Prosecution's request is already contained in Prosecution
2 confidential notice filed on 26th November 2009 and the motion is, thus,
3 moot. Further, he argues that he is awaiting a decision on the said
4 notice and the accused's notice filed on 14th of January 2010. Finally,
5 he states that the accused does not accept Dr. Brunborg's reports and he
6 wishes to cross-examine him.
7 Following this oral response, the Prosecution replied,
8 Mr. McCloskey argues that the accused has been on notice of
9 Dr. Brunborg's two reports for a long time. The Chamber first notes that
10 according to the 26th of November, 2009, Prosecution supplemental notice,
11 the two reports of Dr. Brunborg are updates of his reports created for
12 the Karadzic case on the 9th of April, 2009, after the filing of the
13 Prosecution's notice -- first notice filed on the 13th of March, 2009.
14 The Trial Chamber is of the view that these reports which are
15 updated versions of his prior reports are prima facie relevant to this
16 case and of probative value.
17 Further, by decision of the Chamber on 3rd of November, 2009, the
18 transcript of Dr. Brunborg's testimony and his associated exhibit were
19 provisionally admitted pursuant to Rule 92 ter which guarantees the
20 accused the right of cross-examining Dr. Brunborg. That is why
21 Mr. Brunborg is scheduled to testify today pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
22 While the two reports are quite voluminous, the first report is
23 105 pages long and the second report is 239 pages long, since the filing
24 of the aforementioned notice, the accused has been notified of their
25 intended use with Dr. Brunborg even though they have not been added to
1 the 65 ter exhibit list until now. In this respect, the Chamber
2 emphasises that the primary purpose of the 65 ter exhibit list is to give
3 notice to the accused and his Defence team so that he can prepare his
4 Defence and that by simply disclosing the material to the accused and his
5 Defence team, the Prosecution does not fulfil its obligation under
6 Rule 65 ter (E)(iii). Yet, in the specific circumstances of this case,
7 the Chamber considers that the Prosecution showed good cause for seeking
8 the addition of the reports and that the accused is not unduly burdened
9 by the addition at this stage of the proceedings. For these reasons, the
10 Chamber finds that it is in the interests of justice to grant the
11 addition of the two reports to the 65 ter exhibit list.
12 The motion is thereby granted.
13 If there are no matters to raise, the witness should be brought
14 in, please.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir. Please take the earphones.
17 Welcome to the Tribunal again. Would you please read aloud the
18 affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I solemnly declare that I will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down and make
23 yourself comfortable.
24 Mr. McCloskey has questions for you during his
1 Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning. Good
3 morning, everyone.
4 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
5 Q. And good morning, Mr. Brunborg. Can you start off by just
6 telling us your full name.
7 A. Helge, H-e-l-g-e.
8 Q. And your last name?
9 A. Brunborg, spelled B-r-u-n-b-o-r-g.
10 Q. All right. And as we'll soon go through a summary, you've
11 testified many times here at the OTP as a demographic expert for the
12 Prosecution; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And for this particular case have you had a chance to review your
15 testimony in the Popovic et al case?
16 A. I've looked at it, yes.
17 Q. And but for perhaps some updated data and information, would your
18 answers basically be the same, if you were asked the same questions
20 A. Of course.
21 Q. All right.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, at this time I have a series
23 of documents from the prior testimony to offer. I have spoken briefly to
24 the Court Officer and it would -- it would begin with 65 ter 06660, which
25 is the transcript of Popovic.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We'll deal with that first and admit it into
3 It will be admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit numbers will be assigned and a memo will
5 be circulated at a later stage. Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But the Popovic transcript should have an exhibit
7 number now, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
9 Exhibit P1774. Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, we have a total of 29 such
12 exhibits that will be handled as the Court Officer just stated.
13 The 2009 reports that were just the subject of your ruling, I
14 will -- I will get to and ask briefly about the witness and so we'll get
15 the numbers when they come up if -- if you would agree with that.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I have a -- for this witness a relatively
18 short summary, Mr. President, and the testimony will be a bit longer than
19 perhaps some of the 92 ter testimonies just because of the subject
20 matter, and because the discussions with Mr. Gajic, the great interest
21 the Defence has. I think it's a good idea to hear from the witness. And
22 I encourage you to interrupt me at any time with questions on this
23 material, and so that it is as clear as possible. I'll try to hit the
24 high points, but I'm sure I won't hit everything and that you may be
25 interested in.
1 And I hope not to take two hours. Dr. Brunborg and I have done
2 this before and we should be able to be much lower than that, I hope.
3 But we'll see.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that. It is appreciated.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. And so the summary is: Dr. Brunborg is an
6 economist and demographer by profession and is employed as a senior
7 researcher in the statistics department of the Norwegian national
8 institute statistics, known as Statistics Norway. He has primarily
9 worked on projects for Statistics Norway but has also worked on
10 demographics projects in Palestine, Mozambique, Botswana, Bangladesh,
11 Albania, and in Afghanistan for the United Nations Fund for Population
12 Activities as well as other international projects.
13 From June 1997 through the end of 1998, Dr. Brunborg worked for
14 the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICTY. He was first tasked with
15 collecting and evaluating data on population changes in Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina from the war period, 1992 through 1995. In late 1998 or
17 early 1999, Dr. Brunborg was asked by the Office of the Prosecutor to
18 compile a list of missing persons related to the events in Srebrenica in
19 July of 1995. Dr. Brunborg has testified regarding his work for the OTP
20 in ICTY trials of Krstic, Blagojevic, Milosevic, Perisic, Milutinovic,
21 Popovic, and Djordjevic. His first Srebrenica missing report was
22 completed in 2000, and he updated that report in 2005 and worked with OTP
23 demographer Ewa Tabeau in the latest report finalised in 2009, which will
24 be the subject of some additional questions.
25 To form the list of Srebrenica missing persons, Dr. Brunborg
1 relied on his analysis of the list of missing persons from Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina generated by the International Committee of the Red Cross,
3 and the list of missing persons compiled by the NGO, Physicians for Human
4 Rights. Dr. Brunborg extracted from those two lists those individuals
5 whose disappearance was related to the fall of Srebrenica. That is,
6 those individuals who were reported missing by family members on or after
7 11 July 1995 from locations around Srebrenica. He received those
8 directions from the Srebrenica OTP team.
9 In his analysis to determine the accuracy of the ICRC and PHR
10 missing lists, Dr. Brunborg used various data sources, including the 1991
11 census conducted in the former Yugoslavia, a voters' registration list
12 collected by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in
13 1997 and on later dates. In addition, he used the BiH army records of
14 fallen soldiers, ICMP DNA identification records for Srebrenica-related
15 victims and other records, as noted in his reports.
16 As part of his work, Dr. Brunborg reviewed and analysed claims
17 made by various groups. It claimed that the number of missing from
18 Srebrenica was exaggerated in the ICRC list, some of those claims
19 included the following: Large numbers of persons on the missing list
20 were, in fact, alive and were on the voters' registration list of 1996;
21 number 2, large numbers of persons on the missing list had died before
22 the fall of Srebrenica and were thus not related to the fall of
23 Srebrenica; 3, large numbers of BiH soldiers from Srebrenica went missing
24 or died before the fall of Srebrenica and were thus not related to the
25 fall of Srebrenica.
1 Dr. Brunborg did not find any substance to any of the above
2 claims or any other such claim.
3 Dr. Brunborg found no indication of any missing reports of
4 fictitious persons on the part of Muslims who reported their relatives
5 missing to ICRC and PHR.
6 In his 12 February 2000 report, his first report, Dr. Brunborg
7 concluded that at least 7.475 persons were missing or dead from
8 Srebrenica, and in his most recent report of 9 April 2009, Dr. Brunborg
9 has concluded that at least 7.905 people were missing or dead.
10 Dr. Brunborg testified in Popovic that the process of determining
11 the total number of persons who were missing or dead after the fall of
12 Srebrenica is an ongoing process and that new data, exhumations and
13 identification would likely increase the number of missing persons.
14 Q. All right. And, Dr. Brunborg, you have gone over your experience
15 and the -- defined your field in your previous testimony so I won't ask
16 you to get into that.
17 But one thing you do state is that your work in the Tribunal led
18 you to develop a new area of -- in the field of demography called the
19 demography of conflicts. And can you briefly tell us what this
20 demography of conflicts is and how it is related to your previous work in
21 statistics and demography work.
22 A. Thank you. First, I wouldn't take responsibility for developing
23 that area myself. There are many people who have worked in the field.
24 But it came -- became clear that in conflict areas the problems regarding
25 data and methods are special and unique and often very difficult, and
1 that there was a need to place special attention on these issues. So
2 that's why we -- we organised a seminar on conflict demography in 2003
3 which resulted in two special issues of well-known journals and "Journal
4 of Peace Research" and the "European Journal of Population" and a book on
5 conflict demography edited by me and my co-author here, Ewa Tabeau, and
6 previous co-worker, Henrik Urdal. In this way, I have been chairing a
7 working group or a panel of the International Union for the Scientific
8 Study of Population on these issues. At conferences -- there have been
9 special demography conferences. There have been several sessions on the
10 demography of conflict which has received many contributions. As you
11 know, there are many conflicts in the world and there is often a need to
12 estimate the fatalities, infant mortality in conflict areas, refugees,
13 even how fertility births, and migrations and marriages are affected by
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask you for a clarification. You mentioned
16 two people with whom you edited this journal. One was Ewa Tabeau and the
17 other name is missing on the record, and, therefore, I would like to ask
18 you to repeat the name.
19 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. The other name was Henrik Urdal, who
20 worked with me here in 1999 and co-authored the report mentioned by
21 Mr. McCloskey which was published -- not published but was finished in
22 2000 and used in the Krstic trial.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY:
25 Q. Okay. Now as we know, the task that you were asked to perform
1 was to look at the ICRC lists, the PHR lists and evaluate them to create
2 a credible missing list of people that went missing in Srebrenica.
3 And, again briefly, what was it about your profession as a
4 demographer that qualified you to be able to review and analyse
5 critically the ICRC missing list? Just the high points so the Court
6 understands why you were called on for this task and why you may be
7 qualified to take it on.
8 A. Thank you. I think there were two reasons: First, my general
9 education and training and experience in demography. It is important to
10 understand and have knowledge about demographic processes or which death
11 is an important and a final process, of course. And, second, my
12 experience in Norway and many other countries working with data on
13 individuals. Especially in Norway we do a lot of demographic work based
14 on registers, administrative registers, and we match data on individuals
15 from different sources to come up with the research and analysis. For
16 example, we may match records on deaths by -- with other records on
17 education to study how education is related to mortality or the other way
18 around, actually. And so I thought it was useful to have this experience
19 on working with data on individuals to work here, and that was the
20 approach taken right from the beginning, that it's important to collect
21 and analysis data on individuals because it is, in a way, more difficult
22 to lie with data on individuals.
23 During the war, the conflicts in Bosnia, there were many numbers
24 floating around on the number of deaths. When I arrived, there were
25 numbers ranging from as low as 20.000 deaths for all of Bosnia for all
1 ethnicities, of course. Two more than 300.000. And they could not all
2 be true, and many of these have been collected by adding press reports
3 and other reports, number of victims and such and such an incident added
4 together and methods of prorating and other methods to estimate deaths in
5 areas where they did not have any data, which I did not have any data
6 for. And so they were added together, and, as I said, widely different
7 estimates, that is one of the reasons why the Tribunal wanted somebody
8 with experience in population statistics and demographic to look at the
10 Q. All right. And as came out, I think, in the last trial your --
11 most of your experience was from -- working for Statistics Norway on
12 Norwegian material and I think you've testified that in Norway each
13 person in the census has a number and things are fairly well organised,
14 the population is relatively small and it's a much, much different world
15 than the former Yugoslavia.
16 Were you able to take your experience from that Norwegian society
17 and adapt it to what you had described coming out of the war with
18 different numbers and press reports?
19 A. Definitely. First, I would say that I also have experience in
20 countries with efficient data, like Botswana and the census there. But
21 there are many similarities between Norway and Bosnia. The population is
22 about the same, between 4 and 5 -- population size, between 4 and 5
23 million. Botswana, as the rest of the former Yugoslavia, has regular
24 censuses of reasonably good quality. They even have a personal
25 identification number introduced in the former Yugoslavia in 1981. And
1 which would be then a good basis for linking records from different
3 Q. All right. We'll get into that a little bit -- a little bit
4 later. Let me just jump right into it. When you were tasked with
5 creating this Srebrenica list, who gave you the, basically, guide-line
6 that it should be people gone missing from 11 July and beyond, in certain
7 areas around Srebrenica? Where -- who gave you that guide-line in your
9 A. That was investigators at OTP.
10 Q. Okay. And was that part of the team that I was a legal officer
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. All right. And first, can you briefly tell the
14 Trial Chamber what this ICRC list is and how it was created, just briefly
15 so they understand what it is that you're going to be evaluating.
16 A. ICRC is the a humanitarian organisation based in Switzerland,
17 International Committee of the Red Cross, and they collect such lists
18 to -- in conflict situations basically to make it possible to people to
19 find each other. Again, when in a war -- in a conflict, and many
20 families are split, and it's difficult to know where people are. Some
21 are arrested, some are dead, some are just fleeing to another part of the
22 country or to another country altogether. And before Internet and cell
23 phones it was very difficult to locate people, so that is one major
24 reason why the ICRC started to collect data on -- in all over the former
25 Yugoslavia, and especially in Bosnia, and especially on Srebrenica after
1 the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.
2 Q. Do you roughly know how long ICRC has been taking -- doing this
3 kind of work in conflict situations?
4 A. I don't know. But Henry Dunant established the ICRC, I think,
5 more than 100 years ago. And when they started establishing such lists,
6 I don't know. Sorry.
7 Q. Okay. And can you describe the list itself and how it was
8 created by -- how they actually did it.
9 A. Excuse me.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time, you should drink some
11 water, it helps. And I would like to draw your attention on the
12 reporter's, court reporter's note, it is -- you are using the same
13 language and therefore you should pause between question and answer.
14 Otherwise, it is very difficult for the report and especially for the
15 interpreters who have to interpreter all what you are saying into
16 different languages.
17 Now you may answer the question, if you recall.
18 THE WITNESS: And may you repeat the question, please.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. Yes. Can you just basically tell us how this list was put
22 A. Soon after the fall of Srebrenica, the ICRC started -- they
23 established some kind of office in Tuzla and relatives could come to them
24 and register family members that were lost, they were missing, that they
25 hadn't seen since the fall of Srebrenica. And they continued in Tuzla
1 and Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia for several years. In fact, they
2 still continue to collect data on missing persons.
3 Q. And is their report -- was it published publicly?
4 A. Yes. Several lists have been published. First on paper in those
5 days. There was no Internet. And thick books with names of more than
6 7.000, or, for all of Bosnia, many more people missing in Bosnia.
7 Q. And what was the basic information they took besides obviously
8 the name of the missing relative? What else did they get -- did they try
9 to get from the relative?
10 A. Well, I'm taking a break as requested by the Judge.
11 First name and last name, of course, of the missing family
12 member, then father's name. The dates they last saw the person alive or
13 the -- they heard that -- or the date the person died if they knew that.
14 The place where they believe that the person went missing or the last
15 place seen missing. And place of birth. And place of residence. Was
16 the basic -- and gender also.
17 Q. And can you tell us what problems you came across in the accuracy
18 of some of that data as you were studying it?
19 A. The first thing - excuse me - the first thing we did was to look
20 for duplicates to see if somebody has been wrongly registered twice or
21 more. And we did find some duplicates. In a chaotic situation it is no
22 surprise that often, say, two different family members come forward and
23 register the same person twice, sometimes with slightly different
24 information. One may remember the date of birth more accurately than the
25 other person. So it is difficult to find these duplicates. But we
1 managed to find them using various methods. That was a problem.
2 And date of birth was not always complete or accurate because,
3 again, in a chaotic situation, people did not always remember their
4 family member's exact date of birth. Usually they remember the year of
5 birth, it is it missing for very few people but the exact date is not
6 always known. Those were the major problems.
7 Q. All right. In the summary I mentioned, another list that you had
8 said you used, the Physicians for Human Rights, or the PHR list, can you
9 briefly describe -- the Court has heard about PHR as an NGO that supplied
10 pathologists for the exhumations, but can you tell what did PHR do in
11 this context, just briefly?
12 A. You may have been told that their goal was quite different.
13 Their goal was to help families identify lost and killed family members.
14 So they created a so-called antemortem database. And they collected --
15 they started collecting the data on Srebrenica in 1996 and collecting
16 more detailed information on, say, physical appearance of the persons
17 missing, especially clothing, special other characteristics about teeth
18 and other issues to help in the identification of exhumed bodies.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt for a moment. Do you have any
20 problem with the seat, with the chair you are sitting on?
21 THE WITNESS: Does it look like?
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, it looks like. That you are struggling with
23 the chair. Perhaps the Court Usher can assist you with fixing some parts
24 of it.
25 THE WITNESS: It is leaning backwards too much, I think.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is the problem I realise.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, for -- I sort of become more relaxed and ...
3 Okay. That is better.
4 Thank you, Your Honour, for making my position better.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. All right. So how long was PHR seeing relatives and taking this
7 information you've just described?
8 A. For a couple of years, I believe. I think they finished their
9 work in 1998 or 1999. The reason could possibly be funding problems.
10 But their database still exists and the data are used by other
12 Q. Did you get full computerised access to that data?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And did you get eventually access in a computerised electronic
15 format of the ICRC missing lists and its various updates?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. And did the PHR data have similar problems that you just
18 described for the ICRC data?
19 A. Yes and no. The -- there were not as many duplicates, as far as
20 I remember. I don't know if there were any, but we checked. The data --
21 the date of birth was complete in more cases and perhaps even correct in
22 more cases because the data were collected in more -- in a more calm
23 situation when not right after women had fled from Srebrenica. So people
24 came forward and perhaps they had some documents to show the -- the exact
25 date of birth and so on.
1 Q. All right. So for your initial work, what did you do with these
2 two reports to make a one -- one list?
3 A. Well, first, we had several versions of the ICRC missing lists,
4 so we had to merge those. They were -- they were mostly overlapping but
5 they were from different years and so there were some additional names.
6 So we merged -- actually, merged all the lists. We had two lists from
7 the ICRC and two from PHR. So we merged all these lists, removing all
8 overlap and comparing information.
9 Q. And did you make an effort, as you have previously described, to
10 get rid of any duplicates from PHR and ICRC?
11 A. Yes, we did. But it was not always straightforward to know which
12 of the duplicates, pair of duplicate records, we should delete because
13 sometimes the information was different, and we -- we had to give some
14 attention to that also.
15 Q. Was the -- was there another data source that helped you solve
16 that problem or determine whether these people on the list were actually
17 real people?
18 A. Yes. Fortunately for us there was a census in 1991, 31st of
19 March, right before the war broke out in all of Yugoslavia and in Bosnia.
20 And we got hold of a -- an electronic data base, data files for that
21 census with the name, date of birth, et cetera, for everybody in -- who
22 lived in the country in -- on the 31st of March, 1991. The census was
23 taken in more quiet circumstances and we believe that the -- many of the
24 data items were a better quality in the census including the date of
25 birth. Moreover, it was complete, so if there were -- say we were
1 worried about duplicates whether two records that were almost the same,
2 whether they represented one person or two different persons, we could
3 check in the census to see whether there were two persons with almost the
4 same information. Say, same name, same father's name but slightly
5 different dates of birth. But there were also problems with the census.
6 The most serious problem was that the names were often misspelled. The
7 reason for that is that scanning was used. There were the -- enumerators
8 used forms and wrote down the names of all the household members,
9 afterwards the names were scanned but not corrected, and scanners did not
10 always read all handwriting, so some -- there were many errors. But when
11 we looked up visually, we could check the errors but doing -- and related
12 develop methods to correct and improve the -- the names, the spelling of
13 the names.
14 Q. Can you give the Court an idea, I think you testified about it
15 before, that no census is perfect. Can you give us an idea of roughly
16 how accurate you think the census of the former Yugoslavia was for the
17 millions of households that would have had to -- or millions of people
18 that it would have had to try to account for -- just roughly, to get an
19 idea of -- for us.
20 A. Well, I could not give you a number on the accuracy. There's
21 often in censuses, there's something called a post-enumeration survey
22 where they go back to a sample of households and interview again and then
23 compare the first census to check the records, but this was not done in
24 Bosnia, perhaps partly because of the conflict that started in 1991.
25 And -- but generally I would say the quality is good. Some of the
1 problems are that -- what about people who are absent? Some people were
2 living abroad and were included. It depends whether the census is
3 based -- taken on the de facto or de jure basis.
4 Q. And can you describe -- I believe your early work in 2000, you
5 have testified you did not use the census for all the people on the list.
6 But as your work continued, you used the census more and more.
7 Can you describe that? So by the time we get to 2009, how were
8 you using the census to -- to double-check the -- your list?
9 A. As I said, because of all the spelling mistakes, due to the
10 scanning of the census forms, we could not do an automatic computer-used
11 matching or the list of missing persons with the census in 2000. But we
12 developed methods to correct the spelling. And one was that in a
13 households -- in one household, different persons usually have the same
14 surname, and if they were spelled differently, and we knew that one or
15 two of them was a correct name, we changed -- we corrected the other
16 names. Say, if Ljubic is a common name and Lj was often misinterpreted
17 as a Q, so then we change Q to Lj, and there were many similar. Music
18 was sometimes spelled with a V, Mvsic, so then we changed the V to a U.
19 And then we get a much higher correspondence between the names in the
20 census and the missing list, and we could do an automatic matching and
21 find out much more, instead of checking just individuals as we had done
22 in 2000.
23 Q. All right. And did you get another major data source from a
24 group by the name of ICMP that assisted your work?
25 A. Yes, gradually. But I would also like to mention that -- another
1 group that is, the -- that -- we got data from and that is the OSCE,
2 Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which provided us
3 with a list of registered voters in 1997 and 1998. Also by name even
4 identification number. And the reason for being interested in that is
5 that we wanted to see if some of the missing persons were -- survived the
6 war and were wrongly registered missing, and if they registered to vote
7 they were -- they were obviously not dead.
8 So we did compare the missing list with the voters' list. But
9 you asked about the ICMP, International Commission for Missing Persons,
10 and they started their work for doing exhumations or doing DNA analysis
11 of exhumed bodies and comparing the DNA profiles with blood samples of
12 family members of missing members -- missing persons.
13 Q. All right.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I would to put a question to
15 clarify one thing.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Please.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How were the list of the voters for this -- yeah,
18 for the voters in 1997 and 1998 compiled? What was, for the national
19 authorities, the source on which they really could rely? Did they count
20 the people and then register, or just did they take over the information
21 from previous lists?
22 THE WITNESS: People had to come forward and register to vote.
23 But they had to be enumerated in 1991, so all the registration places
24 had -- had the census of 1991 and then people could prove their identity
25 and say, I'm such and such a person. And if they were then found on the
1 1991 census list, okay, then they were ticked off as a registered voter.
2 Those who were not enumerated in 1991, they had to prove their identity
3 and that they lived in Bosnia and had the right to vote.
4 So people had to come forward to register.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They had to show up personally and this is a
6 clear indication that they really were alive at that time; is that
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. If they were missing persons who did that.
9 But, of course, it could be that some people, to gain political
10 influence, used a missing person's identity or for other reasons. It
11 could also be that when somebody showed up to register that the person
12 doing the registration ticked off the wrong person. But we -- we can go
13 into the -- later into the results of that comparison.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
17 Q. When the person would come in to register, were they registering,
18 do you recall, with the OSCE official or with a government official?
19 A. I'm not quite sure what they did. I think obviously they were
20 Bosnians doing the registration, but whether they were official OSCE was
21 running these registration stations or not, I'm not quite sure. I think
22 OSCE oversaw the whole thing so I think they were in charge.
23 Q. All right. And so you had the compiled lists that you worked on
24 from PHR and ICRC of people that had gone missing 11 July and onward.
25 Then you took these voters' list to compare to your lists to determine
1 what, again, so it is perfectly clear?
2 A. Yes, we matched then the missing persons with the voters' list to
3 see if there were any survivors. We did find nine persons in 2000 who
4 were on both lists. So either they were not missing, they were not dead,
5 at least. Or there was some kind of voter registration. So to be on the
6 safe side, we deleted those nine records from the missing lists.
7 Later it has been shown that one of them a has been found --
8 identified as dead through DNA analysis and the remaining eight on that
9 list, we don't know. It's an unresolved issue.
10 Q. But because it was unresolved, did you -- you took those people
11 off your lists so they're not reflected in the final number; is that
13 A. Yes. And in later analysis with comparing missing with displaced
14 person, et cetera, more people were found. I think up to 26 possible
15 matches. And all those where there was a slight suspicious that these
16 were survivors who were living, we took them off the lists. But we were
17 careful to check that these were really true matches and we did not
18 confuse person with almost the same characteristics.
19 Q. Especially given the allegation they were people alive and voting
20 on your list, I would like you to be able to explain that match process
21 in a little more detail like you have before.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: So could we go to 00543, 65 ter number.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time, I would like to put on the
24 record a correction. The transcript of the Popovic case was assigned
25 today on page 5, lines 5 and 6, with the wrong exhibit number. The right
1 number should be P1774, instead of 177 -- sorry, I misspoke again.
2 Should be 1775, instead of 1774. I think now it's correct on the record.
3 THE WITNESS: Could you please enlarge the version I see on the
4 screen or do I do it or ...
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, it will be done.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment. If you need --
8 THE WITNESS: It's okay now.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay.
10 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to go through that exhibit?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY:
12 Q. Well, let me, first of all, ask you is this basically something
13 out of your report on from your testimony last time?
14 A. It's out of the 2005 report.
15 Q. Okay. We see this as an example of a false match and so can you
16 explain it and -- if we can blow up the English, it -- I think it's such
17 a basic document that I -- I trust the --
18 A. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir if this is
20 sufficient or do you need the B/C/S version at the same time on the
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
23 like to greet everybody who is present here in the courtroom and I hope
24 that this trial will end in accordance with God's will and not my will.
25 Now, one thing, if we are talking generally here we should then
1 check the pairs to see if there are some differences with the B/C/S
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think to deal with that the best way is that
4 you will receive a hard copy of the B/C/S version and then you can
5 compare. Otherwise, it is really very small and illegible. The
6 Court Officer will provide you with a hard copy.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I think as we can see it is mostly Bosnian
8 names and it's self-explanatory data, so ...
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir is receiving a hard copy of the B/C/S
10 version now.
11 Please carry on.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. So, Dr. Brunborg, could you explain this a bit. We see the -- we
14 have a Delic from the ICRC list and from the voters' register list of
15 1997, and then we have two people with the same name from the census.
16 Tell us about why this is a false match and how you figured that out?
17 A. Well, at the first glance this looks -- the Abdulah Delic on the
18 ICRC missing list, born in 1995, there is also Abdulah Delic, born in
19 1995, on the voters' register. So at the first glance, this looks like
20 it's the same person.
21 But then we notice that the father's name, Husein, is not given
22 in the voters' register and we looked up the census and we found that,
23 indeed, there were two Abdulah Delic born in 1995 who were enumerated in
24 1991. And there's the first Abdulah Delic has a father called Husein,
25 the other person's father was Kemal. And they also had different
1 identity numbers -- identification numbers, 183920 and 183954 for the
2 other one.
3 So we concluded that they represent different persons and that
4 Abdulah Delic, whose father is Husein, is not on the list of -- on the
5 voters' list and cannot be suspected of, if you like, being alive in
7 Q. So is it fair, then, to say that you kept Abdulah Delic on your
8 list and counted him as a missing person?
9 A. Exactly.
10 Q. All right. Let's go to another part of your report, 00542, which
11 you've used as an example of a true match.
12 And while we're waiting for that to come up, you mentioned, I
13 think, there is a -- a special number that people were assigned during
14 the census. Do you remember what that was called in Bosnian?
15 A. "Maticni broj" and it's a unique identification number. It was
16 assigned to everybody in 1981 and people were then asked to record their
17 identification number, their "maticni broj," when the enumerators came
18 around to collect -- to enumerate people.
19 Q. Did the ICRC list get this number?
20 A. No. They did not. But the voters' list did get their number.
21 Q. How about PHR?
22 A. No. And people would usually not know their name -- their number
23 of relatives.
24 Q. All right. So, again, we now see here that there is a Gabeljic,
25 Avdo. Can you explain how you evaluated this?
1 A. Well, first we see there were there was one Mensur Gabeljic on
2 the ICRC lists and after correcting a typo or a scanning mistake you see
3 the LJ become a Q. There is also Mensur Gabeljic on the voters' register
4 in 1997. The father's name of Avdo is given on the ICRC list but it is
5 not given on the voters' register. Moreover, they are recorded as being
6 born in two different years, 1970 and 1971. And so there are some
7 differences but there are also some similarities. We checked the census
8 and we found only one Mensur Gabeljic, born on the 28th of 11th, 1971,
9 his father's name was registered as Avoo, but I guess it should be Avdo.
10 But we concluded that this is a true match and that they are, indeed,
11 representing the same person and that this Mensur Gabeljic was then
12 excluded from our list of missing persons. It remained on the ICRC's own
13 list, I believe, but on the OTP list it was removed, excluded, but it
14 could be considered later.
15 Q. All right. But, in any event, the -- you may have already said
16 this, but roughly, did you find very many people that you were able to
17 match from the various voters' register lists and your missing list?
18 A. In 2000, we found nine, and we later we found, I think,
19 altogether 26 in different lists. It's -- there's a table for that in
20 the 2009 report. Some of these potential survivors have later been found
21 to be dead. So we believe that there seems to be some -- have been some
22 faulty registration, not necessarily for bad reasons, but just perhaps of
23 mistakes. But we have not really found any -- many examples of real
25 Q. All right. And going back to your list, and you testified before
1 that you didn't find any examples of Muslim families providing fictitious
2 missing persons. How did you look for that and is that correct?
3 A. That is correct. We did, as I said, compare the missing list
4 with -- with the census and we found for -- for the Srebrenica missing,
5 we found that 87 -- we found 87 per cent of them in the 1991 census. The
6 exact same individuals were enumerated in 1997, and for the remaining
7 13 per cent there could be various reasons why we did not find them.
8 Some of them may not have been in Srebrenica in 1991 or in Bosnia. They
9 could have been living elsewhere, say, in Serbia. And also because of --
10 all these spelling mistakes and all that, or lack of information, it
11 could be -- it was difficult -- they were difficult to match or
12 inconclusive matches. But 87 per cent is a high proportion anyway.
13 Q. All right. Now, for your 2000 report where you assembled the
14 list and you did the quality control of the voters' list, did you have --
15 what kind of confirmed deaths did you have to compare to your actual
16 list, if any? For that first report, way back when.
17 A. In 2000, there were only 70 confirmed deaths. Sixty-six of these
18 were found on our list of missing persons then marked as dead. Two
19 additional persons were -- have been found in Srebrenica-related graves
20 and then were then added to the list of missing and dead. And two
21 were -- had dates or place of disappearance that were not consistent with
22 our rules for selecting Srebrenica-related missing, were not considered.
23 So, to conclude, out of the almost 7.500 missing persons in the
24 first list, 66 were found to be dead. That is, less than 1 per cent,
25 .9 per cent.
1 Q. Now you've mentioned briefly ICMP and the Trial Chamber has heard
2 through the investigators about ICMP and about how they took family
3 reports of missing and took their blood to compare to the DNA and the
4 bones from the graves. So they -- they've heard that.
5 Were you able to -- in your ongoing work, after your initial
6 work, able to get those records of DNA identified dead from
7 Srebrenica-related graves and use that for your work?
8 A. Yes. We started receiving reports from the ICMP on exhumed
9 bodies whose DNA profiles had been matched to satisfaction with blood
10 samples from family members, and we got more and more. Today we have
11 received more than 5.000 such reports.
12 Q. Well, tell us. We have forensic blood identification, which I
13 would -- might call some hard science, plus we have your demographic
14 reports of traumatised family members, in some cases, reporting missing
15 people which forms the guts of your list. How does this forensic
16 identification help you or assist you in determining the validity of your
17 work, if at all?
18 A. First, the forensic work proves that people are really dead.
19 They're not missing anymore. They are found dead and most of them in
20 mass graves.
21 Secondly, the -- this is based on a comparison of -- with blood
22 samples drawn from family members and they came forward, family members
23 came forward voluntarily sometime after the events in Srebrenica in --
24 also in less chaotic circumstances, and several, often several family
25 members for each missing person.
1 So their lists -- so ICMP has also a list of missing persons
2 which we have not seen, actually. What they give us is their confirmed
3 and what we call identified deaths.
4 Q. And did you compare the names of the ICMP identified deaths with
5 the names on your missing list?
6 A. Yes, we did. That is exactly what we did. And almost all of
7 them were found on our lists.
8 Q. All right. And perhaps to -- go ahead if you want to explain it
10 A. It would be useful if you could show the exhibits with the
11 shaded -- based on the table in the report first, I think.
12 Q. All right. If we could go to 65 ter 07174.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And again, perhaps -- and I will try in the
14 future to have these for the General, but we may need a hard copy of the
15 B/C/S, if you have one.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The accused will be provided with a hard copy.
17 There is no B/C/S version I am told.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll just carefully go through this. And it is
19 a very simple chart so it can be translated, and I will do that now for
20 the General.
21 It is entitled: "Overview of the progress in the DNA
22 identification of Srebrenica missing." And then when we get down to the
23 tables, we see the strongly outlined one is the first one, and that is
24 the date of the OTP report, so we see the year and date. And the next
25 one over is: Srebrenica missing by the OTP; Srebrenica identified by the
1 ICMP; the accepted overlap is the next chart; the excluded overlap is the
2 next chart; the next one is new victims identified; the next one is
3 excluded potential survivors; the next one is accepted victim integrated;
4 the next one is per cent identified; and the next one is per cent
5 identified, number 2.
6 Q. So Dr. Brunborg what -- can you explain we see that the numbers
7 are charging from the various reports. How does this assist you in
8 answering my last question?
9 A. First, this is table 12 from the -- our most recent report. And
10 first you see --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, could you switch off your
12 microphone. Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: First, you see that the number of missing on the
14 OTP list has grown from 7.475 to 7.692 by a little more than 200.
15 More interesting is perhaps that the number of identified dead
16 has grown from 68 in 2000 to 5.555 in 2009, according to DNA analysis.
17 We also see, if we then notice new victims. That is one --
18 column number 6 or so, that there were in the most recent report from
19 ICMP there were 213 persons who were not on our list of missing persons,
20 so we add those. We exclude 12 potential survivors, so the number of
21 potential survivors had grown from 9 to 12. And we end up with 7.905
22 missing or dead persons related to the fall of Srebrenica, which has
23 grown from almost 7.500 in 2000. So that is by little more than 400.
24 So it is now almost 8.000, the total number. And may I finish?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY:
1 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 A. The last column which shows the proportion identified as dead.
3 It was .9 per cent in 2000 and it is now 66.7 per cent, which is exactly
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What does it mean "now"?
6 THE WITNESS: "Now" means November 2008. This report was
7 finished in April 2009, based on -- the most recent ICMP report then was
8 dated November 2008. Since then, there are -- several more reports have
9 been received with several hundred more identified persons. But we have
10 not had been able to analyse all that. So new data keep coming all the
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. So how can you explain this -- I don't know -- I think over 400
16 new people or new numbers on your missing -- missing/dead list from the
17 early report, 7.475, to the latest here 7-9. We know that PHR missing
18 list was stopped after two years; the ICRC, you've explained, had 200
19 more people on it. But where are the other 200-plus coming from, besides
20 the -- the updated ICRC list?
21 A. First, in what is listed as "Srebrenica missing OTP," you see
22 that from 2008 to 2009, or, actually, from 2005 to 2009, the list grew
23 by 29. That is additional missing persons reported by the ICRC.
24 Then -- but -- as you indicated, the largest increase is in the
25 number of new victims, and these are then persons who have been exhumed
1 from graves with -- which are mass graves which are Srebrenica-related,
2 and then -- and these are then added to the total number.
3 And the reason is that not all families reported, we think -- is
4 that not all families reported their missing persons as missing for
5 various reasons. It could that be that the whole family was -- was
6 eradicated, or there were special reasons why they did not report, living
7 abroad, more difficult to report, say, wanting to forget the whole thing,
8 not seeing the -- the sense or the meaning of -- of reporting, so there
9 are various reasons. So that's why bodies are found who were not
10 reported -- whose families did not report to ICRC. But there are also
11 bodies -- have found that are not reported to anybody, not even ICMP, and
12 they are not listed here but they were -- they are so-called no-name
13 bodies and they were -- I think, the most recent report there were 294
14 bodies that had unique DNA profiles but could not be linked to anybody
15 and they, of course, are not included here.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I go back to line 19 of page 30, you are
17 recorded having said:
18 "You see that from 2008 to 2009, or, actually, from 2005 to 2009,
19 the list grew by 29."
20 THE WITNESS: Mh-hmm.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I know [indiscernible] but it should be 31, if
22 I'm not mistaken.
23 THE WITNESS: Of course, you are -- that's right. There's a
24 difference in one because one was excluded, and why, for technical
25 reasons. So -- and one came in addition, so it must be 31. Yeah, excuse
1 me, I have been used to these 29 numbers -- number.
2 I will look at it in the break to see if I can explain it.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. All right. Now from what I gather, you're saying there are
7 several people on your final figure of 7.905 identified names that are
8 not on your missing list. So how do you associate those people with
9 Srebrenica, if they were not reported missing from Srebrenica?
10 A. First, they were reported to ICMP as associated with the fall of
11 Srebrenica. That is the most important reason.
12 Second, we checked the dates of disappearance or last seen alive,
13 and the place of disappearance, and they were consistent with our
15 And, finally, they were found in graves together with other
16 Srebrenica-related victims.
17 Q. So how -- you said you don't have the ICMP missing list, so how
18 is it that you know they were reported missing to ICMP?
19 A. Because ICMP had collected blood samples from family members of
20 missing persons, and they had their criteria for -- for inviting people
21 to give blood samples. So this was defined by ICMP, whether this was a
22 Srebrenica-related missing person or not.
23 Q. All right. Let me put up another chart that you had just
24 recently, in the last day or two days, asked us to help your testimony,
25 which is the reason we didn't have the translation for the other one,
1 Mr. President. We just got this specific request. But it is 07173.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, to be clear, both these last two charts came
4 out of his report and should be translated, and I have those numbers on
5 e-court, if it's necessary. But this particular chart, I -- really
6 doesn't need translation, I don't think, as soon as I read the top of it.
7 THE WITNESS: May I add that it is Figure 5 in the report. On
8 page 19 in the report.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: And that's B/C/S 22 in e-court.
10 Q. And this says at the top:
11 "Age distribution of Srebrenica-related missing and dead persons,
12 all missing versus confirmed dead (in per cent)."
13 And which one of these particular charts did you want to discuss?
14 A. All of them.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I have split up the figure in the report in the two parts.
17 The first -- the top panel shows the age distribution of persons
18 on our missing lists. These are -- has nothing to do with being
19 confirmed dead or not. So it is just the pure age distribution based on
20 information on missing persons. That is the top one.
21 The next panel with dark bars shows the age distribution of those
22 who have been identified as dead, and if can you see both the top ones at
23 the same time, you will notice there is some similarity. There is, for
24 instance, a bump at age 55 to 59. It is higher than the preceding and
25 the following age groups. And also for 25 to 29, the number is lower
1 than for the preceding.
2 So when we put these together, these two sets of bars, remember,
3 these are relative numbers, percentages so they add up to 100 percent.
4 At the bottom, the bottom panel, there have been put together as
5 in the report, Figure 5. And you see the striking similarity. You again
6 see that the 55 to 59 group is -- has higher -- has a higher percentage
7 than the preceding and following age groups, which there may be good
8 reasons for.
9 We did this similar graphs both in year 2000 and 2005 reports and
10 the age distributions are becoming more and more similar which shows that
11 they come from the same population. You could say this is a population
12 of missing persons, and in exhumation there's a random process or the --
13 the exhumed persons come from the same population. If that come from a
14 different population, the age distributions would most likely have looked
15 quite different.
16 So even the special characteristics of these humps and bumps in
17 the age distribution of the missing appears in the age distribution or
18 those confirmed dead.
19 Q. I understand that you would get a -- a pretty good age from a
20 person confirmed dead, as the family member would be able to give you a
21 good age for their missing relative; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. Before the DNA analysis started, then -- and before bodies
23 were identified, the age was determined by physical anthropologists, and
24 they could only estimate the age in very wide age groups and with
25 considerable uncertainty.
1 Q. All right. Now, as you have testified in several trials and as
2 the record reflects, there are have been expert -- there has been at
3 least one expert from the Defence, I think Ms. --
4 A. Radovanovic.
5 Q. Radovanovic, thank you. And your data has been challenged in --
6 in some of the trials and criticised. Did you find any -- any justified
7 criticisms or inaccuracies in your work that was pointed out by the
8 Defence experts over the years?
9 A. Yes, indeed. Mrs. Radovanovic, herself, a demographer, was given
10 access to the date in a room here at the Tribunal. She was not allowed
11 to take any data out of the Tribunal, but she analysed the data and she
12 found ten or so duplicates on our missing lists indicating that we
13 were -- well, she didn't use the word cheating but some strong words
14 about our methodology.
15 Q. Let me interrupt you for one second --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Can we please have a reference so that we would know what this is
19 about, so that we would have arguments and see whether the Defence can
20 use them rather than have the witness verify what he wrote and deny what
21 others said about the same subject.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Her testimony is part of the record and it's --
25 it's in the record of his testimony. It's -- her reports are -- are part
1 of the record that have been provided to the Defence. And I'm just
2 asking him to briefly outline the small areas where she was correct and
3 have him explain it.
4 THE WITNESS: If I may add that this was in the trial against
6 MR. McCLOSKEY:
7 Q. Oh. Thank you for the correction.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That helps. We need our first break now, but
9 before we do that, I would like to ask both parties to liaise on the
10 matter. Is there translation necessary for 65 ter 7173 and 65 ter 07174
11 we just used and have it on the screen. But there's no translation yet,
12 if I'm not mistaken.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: 7173 can be found on -- in B/C/S --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. It is correct. I was told by the Registry
15 there is a translation.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah, for both of those, there are.
17 It would be 32 for 7174. We're having a slight bit of confusion.
18 But there's translations in the report and we'll make sure that that's on
19 the record.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. And I think we need a
21 clarification in relation to all the other exhibits you have tendered
22 which were used during the previous trial. Do they all have a
23 translation into B/C/S and, if not, we would like to know which of them
24 don't have a translation. But you -- I would like to receive your answer
25 after the break.
1 We have to adjourn for half an hour, and we'll resume at 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we continue, just briefly, Mr. Gajic, on
5 behalf of the Defence, tendered two exhibits used with the last witness
6 of yesterday. These are 65 ter 02064 and 02063, two OTP interviews with
7 the witness of yesterday. They will be received as exhibits.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this two documents will be assigned
9 the following exhibit numbers: 65 ter document 0264 shall be assigned
10 D157. And the second document 65 ter 0263 shall be assigned D158.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The number is not correctly recorded, I think.
12 THE REGISTRAR: The first one should be 157, D157, Defence
13 document, thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now it's correct.
15 Mr. McCloskey, please continue.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, and, Mr. President, the witness had a brief
17 comment to the Court Officer about something that he would like to
18 clarify, so I would -- and we all know that. So if can he can ask the
19 witness to clarify the issue he wanted to.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I heard about that.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President. You pointed out my
22 fault, the arithmetic. So thank you for that. In Table 12 which was one
23 of the exhibits, the reason is that the number on the 2009 OTP list was
24 revised from 7661 to 7663 in -- after that list was produced because of
25 duplicates that were not really duplicates and one survivor and one who
1 was not a survivor and was found dead.
2 This is all explained on page 6, the second paragraph from the
3 bottom. But I have become used to thinking of the difference between
4 those two lists of 2005 and 2009 as being 29. But it should, of course,
5 be 31.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification.
8 Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Yes, I was asking you whether the Defence expert that --
11 Ms. Radovanovic, that testified in both Blagojevic and Popovic as a
12 Defence demographer, whether any of her criticisms were actually correct
13 and could you point out the correct criticisms she made?
14 A. Yes. After looking at the list of missing, she identified a
15 number or a small number of duplicates and criticised us for that. We
16 looked at this and found that she was right in some of these cases, and,
17 indeed, we had identified these same records as duplicates when we did
18 the analysis. But we had, through an oversight, forgotten to remove the
19 extra duplicates, because we had to make a decision on which of two
20 almost identical records should be removed. And we also did some further
21 analysis, we identified a few more duplicates and removed those that were
22 incorrect or real duplicates. But Mrs. Radovanovic, in fact, also found
23 some false duplicates where the records looked almost -- looked
24 identical, almost identical, as pointed out previously, but they were
25 not, in fact, identical. This is a question of twins and brothers,
1 et cetera, where the information are -- is almost the same but they are
2 still representing different individuals.
3 Q. You may not know the exact numbers but can you give us just the
4 rough numbers of where she was correct and --
5 A. I think it was, like, between five and ten, something.
6 Q. And I think you've said after looking and confirming she was
7 right in that number, you went on and found a few more that you found
8 yourself as duplicates. Do you remember how many more roughly
9 you found --
10 A. I would need to check that in the report. And there are
11 additional report, our rebuttal report, but I can do that tonight.
12 Q. Great.
13 A. But I would like to point out that some of the duplicates that
14 she found were false duplicates and a few were correct.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is this correction reflected in the last version
16 of your report?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly, yeah.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: And also in the 2005 version.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY:
21 Q. Any other things that she pointed out that you had to correct on
22 your report?
23 A. She mentioned that what we did, this kind of matching or record
24 linkage was unscientific, not done before, but it has been done before,
25 and we have -- we can refer then to a large literature on record linkage.
1 For example, by name which is a complicated procedure and there's an
2 annex in a report that discusses this record linkage methodology. It is
3 Annex 5. This is discussed -- there is a large scientific literature on
4 this. It's not something that we invented from scratch.
5 Q. All right. But my question was anything that you found
6 justified. I know she had a long report with other criticism but any
7 justified criticisms aside from what you have said?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. And since we're on the topic of mistakes or errors, have
10 you, in the last few days, had a chance to carefully go through your 2009
11 report, which is 07170, and did you identify any -- any mistakes there?
12 A. Yes, a few. There are several minor typos of a more grammatical
13 or typo nature but there are also some errors that could be misleading.
14 In such a large report there are many details and when you re-read it
15 after three years, you see new things.
16 So, on page 22, in the report, in the English version, page 22,
17 second -- no, third paragraph from the top --
18 Q. Let me interrupt you for a second. Page 22 English, that should
19 be B/C/S page 25.
20 A. The second sentence that paragraph reads:
21 "The remaining 29.5 per cent have not yet been identified as dead
22 but the proportion keeps increasing."
23 It should, of course, have been "decreasing."
24 Q. Why?
25 A. Because as more people are identified, less people are not
1 identified. So it's logical. I don't think anybody would misunderstand
2 that. But it was just a small logical error.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are referring to the paragraph above the
4 chapter 1.5.
5 THE WITNESS: 2.5, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, yes 2.5.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY:
9 Q. And you pointed out another mistake on page 26 of the English,
10 should be page 30 of the B/C/S, and I believe it was the second big
11 paragraph in the English, right above the paragraph 2.6 in the B/C/S. Do
12 you see that?
13 A. That is correct. It's just above the -- the section 2.6. The
14 last five words in that -- the last sentence above should be deleted.
15 The words "compare to their preceding cohorts."
16 The reason is that it is not clear what the preceding cohorts or
17 preceding ages -- whether they are preceding ages. The point is that age
18 group 15 to 19 have very high fatality rates which can you see from Table
20 Q. So just explain what's wrong with that sentence, why you want it
21 deleted now?
22 A. If you interpret the preceding cohorts as age group 20 to 24,
23 that higher risk of disappearance is lower and not higher. So -- but it
24 generally high, but it's not higher for all places of -- for all
25 municipalities. So that's why we just want to make it -- point out they
1 have very high risk of disappearance.
2 Q. Any other significant mistakes you want to call our attention to?
3 A. Not as far as I know.
4 Q. All right. Now as I'd mentioned in the summary, there were some
5 complaints that the ICRC list was exaggerated, and, in fact, the -- in
6 the Tolimir trial brief on page 114 to 115, it appears that he is
7 suggesting that the 1996 census -- sorry, the 1996 voters' registration
8 list contained many of the names on your missing list, thereby suggesting
9 your missing list is invalid because the people on the voters' list were
11 Can you -- have you heard of this complaint before?
12 A. Yeah, this is a repeated criticism.
13 Q. And is it a valid criticism?
14 A. Not at all.
15 Q. And can you explain that?
16 A. Because the 1996 voters' list is -- was the 1991 census.
17 According to the Dayton Accord of November 1995, the 1991 census should
18 be used as a voters' list for the first election, because it was -- well,
19 not time or it was not possible to establish proper voters' lists. So
20 anybody who was on the 1991 census could vote in 1996. So then it is not
21 surprising that it would include a number of persons who were listed as
22 missing. They did not have to register actively to vote as they did in
23 1997 and later.
24 Q. So that process you described of people coming in and
25 registering, that first started in what year?
1 A. 1997.
2 Q. All right. And I made a mistake, I shouldn't have said pages in
3 the Defence trial brief, I should have said paragraphs 114 to 115 where
4 this allegation is made. And the other allegations, are they dealt with
5 in your 2009 report?
6 A. Some are. Some have been left. They were -- these -- the major
7 allegations were addressed in the 2000 report.
8 Q. All right. And I don't -- I don't think, given that they're
9 addressed in the purpose of this testimony, that we need go into that.
10 And, Mr. President, I would like to offer the 2009 reports now in
11 evidence, that's 65 ter 07170, and 07171, 07173, and 4?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All these four documents will be received as
13 exhibits and assigned exhibit numbers now.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Just one minor clarification. If I'm
15 understanding it correctly, whether 65 ter document 07170A is also
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In my understanding this should be part of
19 65 ter 07170. But, Mr. McCloskey, please clarify that.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we put 07170A up on the screen. I believe
21 this is something that Dr. Brunborg would like to replace with the
22 07170 -- sorry. In any event, give me one second, if you could.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I didn't mean to suggest he was replacing the
25 whole report. This, as with can see, is a table.
1 Q. And it's my understanding, Dr. Brunborg, you would prefer to
2 replace this table with the similar table that is in the original report?
3 A. Yes. The reason is purely editorial but only the first page was
4 printed or included in the first report. So the rest of the pages were
5 missing by an editorial oversight or technical oversight.
6 Q. All right. So there are -- in fact, this is a total of five
7 pages, this exhibit?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. I don't have any --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Should that be treated as a part of the report,
11 65 ter 07170?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It should replace the -- the
13 table that is on the original report which is at page 97 in e-court.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should avoid to have a different P number for
15 that part of the document.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: And it is on page 104 in the B/C/S.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Registrar, is this a clear situation now for
19 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. I think I'm good at
20 understanding that 65 ter 07170A is not to be tendered.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be part of the report. 65 ter 07170
22 should be merged, in fact.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct. However, you could it that. So
24 we want it into evidence just merged as part of the report.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours, now it is clear.
1 Therefore, the following exhibit numbers shall be assigned: 07170
2 shall be assigned Exhibit P1776. 65 ter 07171 shall be assigned
3 Exhibit 1777. 65 ter document 07173 shall be assigned Exhibit P1778.
4 And 65 ter document 07174 shall be assigned Exhibit P1779.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have nothing further. We may have a -- a
9 slight change of numbers on that last thing. Ms. Stewart will explain to
10 me. I may have created a problem. But we'll sort that out. But as for
11 the witness, I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
13 Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination, please. You have the floor.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Once
15 again, I would like to greet everybody present in the courtroom. I would
16 like to greet the witness, and I wish that this testimony ends in
17 accordance with God's will and not my will.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
19 Q. [Interpretation] I have for you the following questions: First
20 of all, can you tell us whether, during your research, or during drafting
21 of your article or report, you endeavoured to find out how many people
22 were unlawfully killed and in how many cases death was caused by some
23 unlawful acts. Specifically, have you managed to find out who died in
24 combat and who died after combat?
25 A. Thank you. You seem to ask several questions in -- and important
2 And, first, I was not asked to distinguish or focus or lawful or
3 unlawful killings. That was not part of my task. I'm a demographer, and
4 not a lawyer. I don't really know what is an unlawful killing. But I
5 know, of course, that being killed in combat is legally different from
6 being killed in -- not in combat. And we don't -- we do not have data to
7 distinguish between those who are killed in combat or not.
8 The only thing we have is the number of missing but it has later,
9 through exhumations, become clear that most of the missing persons that
10 have been identified as dead have been found in mass graves where they
11 also have been people are -- have been blind-folded or shot from the back
12 at a short distance.
13 So the indications are that -- well, this lawful, not lawful, I
14 will not touch upon. But it seems like most of the missing persons were
15 not killed in combat.
16 Q. [Microphone not activated]... I apologise for not having switched
17 on the microphone.
18 Can you tell us, this majority that you mention, what percentage
19 would that be? You just mentioned people that were killed in combat and
20 yet found their place in your lists. So what percentage are we talking
22 A. I do not have a percentage. I did not say how many people are
23 killed in combat. I don't know even if any were killed in combat. But I
24 know that as people started walking through the forests towards Tuzla
25 there may have been some combats. There may be not. I know there was
1 shooting at the column of people who waled through the forests, but
2 nobody, as far as I know, has been able to determine how many died in
3 combat during that march.
4 Some additional figures. We have analysed and looked at the
5 number of soldiers, those who were registered with the Bosnian army, in
6 the list of missing, and we found that 70 per cent of the missing were
7 also listed in the army archives as being dead or missing. But the army
8 lists do not include place of death or circumstances of death, so they
9 cannot be used to -- to tell us anything about whether they died in
10 combat or not. Moreover, in the list, in the army list, there are also
11 civilians -- well, not active soldiers. So, again, it is not possible to
12 tell from the army documents whether people army -- registered in the
13 army were killed in combat or not.
14 Q. Thank you. When you were writing your reports, did you receive
15 data from the OTP, data about the people killed in combat? Did you use
16 such data in your analysis?
17 A. I wrote the report together with two colleagues in the OTP,
18 although I was not employed by the OTP at that time. Colleagues
19 Ewa Tabeau and Arve Hetland. Ewa Tabeau is still with the OTP. We did
20 not receive any data, as far as I know, on the number of people who died
21 in combat. And, as far as I know, such data do not exist.
22 Q. Thank you. Does your report also include all the information
23 that was available to you up until 1998, as you mentioned in your report?
24 Thank you.
25 A. We tried to include all relevant information not only up to 1998
1 but until 2009, when the most recent report was written. But we could
2 not, of course, include all available information, otherwise the report
3 would not be 105 pages, but thousands of pages. But we included
4 information that we thought were relevant for the case.
5 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to show you document D151.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see that in e-court.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The document was created on 20th of July, 1996, before you
9 drafted your own report, where the OTP had information available about
10 persons who were killed in combat.
11 I would like to ask you this: When you look at the document,
12 would you be able to then let us know if you're aware of this information
13 and whether this was something that you should have been told before you
14 did your analysis?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we look at D151, please.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told this document is under seal. In that
17 case, it should not be broadcast.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Since it's under seal,
19 perhaps you can just show page 2, paragraph 3, where no identifying
20 information is contained because this is from the testimony of a
21 protected witness. This is just to inform the present witness.
22 Can we look at page 2 in the English as well, paragraph 4, and I
23 would kindly also like to show page 2, paragraph 3, in the English. I'm
24 going to just say what the witness confirmed before you began your
25 investigation. This was in the testimony of a witness who testified five
1 days ago as a witness of the Prosecution.
2 I am going to read this:
3 "As we made our way through in the direction which the first
4 group had taken, we came across warnings, or, rather, signs saying,
5 Mined. I assumed that our people who had passed earlier through these
6 areas left these signs. From there, we headed towards
7 Pobudjanska Kamenica where we met up with a part of the first group, but
8 the Chetniks surrounded us there and opened fire on us, killing over 300
9 people and wounding a large number. We were in disarray, as both
10 soldiers and civilians fled wherever they could, while the wounded were
11 left behind on the path."
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. My question is: Was this information available to the OTP before
14 you started to write your analysis in accordance with the tasks given to
15 you by the OTP? [Microphone not activated] ...
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I just need to clarify something, this statement, 1D51 that I was
19 reading and that you didn't see because it was given by a protected
20 witness was taken on the 20th of July, 1996, one year after the war.
21 I'm asking you this: The Prosecution or the investigative organs
22 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Prosecution took this data. So was
23 this information available to the Prosecution and was it known to the
24 Tribunal from that time onwards, and it was used in a number of cases.
25 Actually my other question is: Had you known about this information and
1 if you did, would you have used that in your own report? Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you should put one question after
3 the other and not mingle so many questions into one.
4 But I think Mr. Brunborg has understood you.
5 THE WITNESS: I will try to answer. First, I cannot talk on
6 behalf of OTP and what kind of information and what kind of -- and
7 which - excuse me - documents they had. I do not recall having seen this
8 document before. Whether OTP had it or not, I do not know.
9 If I had seen it, it does not give a list of names or -- of those
10 who -- except for a few, so it -- my task was to collect a list of names
11 of missing and dead. Perhaps here we could add a few, Mehmed Suljic and
12 Hazim Suljic, perhaps. But it -- I read the document now for the first
13 time. I do not see that these were killed in combat or not. Moreover, I
14 would like to repeat that I was not asked to distinguish between combat
15 deaths and other deaths. I know that is an important distinction, but
16 that was not my task.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. The OTP investigators said that in the sector of Bare
19 they found some 600 corpses that were killed in combat. So those 600 and
20 those 300 and the wounded, that's almost 1.000 people. Is that included
21 in your lists of persons in mass graves or not, regardless of way in
22 which these persons were killed? Thank you.
23 A. Thank you. Those persons that have been identified as dead and
24 found in mass graves are included in the list of persons from mass
25 graves, and, consequently, if they have been identified in our list of
1 missing persons. But I do not think that all -- as many as 1.000 people
2 from surface remains have been identified. I have seen numbers of less.
3 But that number could be increasing.
4 So my answer is, some of them, most of them, have probably been
5 included, if they were reported as missing. Again, this is a small
6 proportion. Even if there were 1.000, even 1.000 is less than a seventh,
7 so it is 12, 13 per cent of the total number of missing and dead.
8 Q. Thank you. If we know that over 300 of persons killed were in
9 the sector of Pobudjanska Kamenica which the witness refers to, and then
10 there are another 600 persons killed, referred to by investigator Ruez in
11 the Bare section, now if they were buried in graves and DNA analysis were
12 done on the bodies, were these bodies then included in your analysis?
13 Thank you.
14 A. Yes, if they were identified with names, identified as dead, and
15 their names were either on the ICMP's own list of missing persons related
16 to the fall of Srebrenica or our list, they were included.
17 Q. Thank you. And did you look into whether the persons who were
18 killed at this location that the protected witness refers to in the
19 village of Bare, and this is something that was also mentioned by the
20 investigator when he was in the field, were these corpses taken from
21 those locations to the Federation, were they taken to some other location
22 for the DNA analysis or was this analysis conducted at the graves where
23 they were found? Thank you.
24 A. Thank you. You are asking questions that go beyond my expertise.
25 I did not do any study of exhumations and grave-sites. There are other
1 experts that have testified on this or will testify on this.
2 Q. Thank you. I asked you this at the beginning so that we would be
3 able to test the validity of your analysis from the aspect of the events
4 themselves in the field as referred to by the witnesses of the
5 Prosecution and the Prosecution's investigators.
6 My question is: Had you had this information, had you had the
7 information that those persons from those locations were buried in the
8 graves where the DNA analysis was done, would you have used that in the
9 same way as you used information that refers to people who were killed in
10 combat? Thank you.
11 A. Thank you. As I said, I was not tasked to make a list of people
12 who died in combat or not. If I had been asked to, and if the
13 information about certain deaths or certain people who went missing later
14 identified as dead, if I had known the circumstances about their death,
15 killed in combat or not, and if the OTP had asked me to take that
16 distinction and make a special list, I would have done it, of course.
17 But, now, sorry for all the "ifs," but the reason is I was not tasked to
18 do it, I did not know, and I think the Prosecution, the OTP and nobody
19 else, knows exactly who were killed in combat and who were not.
20 Q. Thank you. Did the Prosecution ever tell you that after combat,
21 persons were buried in the same graves, both people who died in combat
22 and those who were not killed in combat? Nobody was taken for burial to
23 another place, they were not taken back to the Federation, and they were
24 not buried in any particular locations in Srebrenica or the area around.
25 Did anybody give you this information or not?
1 A. Not really. Only circumstantial I have heard that since 1995,
2 many bodies have been found on the surface, so they were not part of the
3 mass graves. Some may have, some of those -- some of the people killed
4 in the forests may have been buried together, but, personally, I think it
5 is quite unlikely that many bodies killed in the forest were then
6 transported long ways to mass graves in other places. So, in fact, many
7 have been found. Again, on the surface, in the succeeding years. But,
8 again, I'm -- this is not the focus of my reports.
9 Q. Thank you. Had you had this data, by chance, before you drafted
10 your report, would this analysis of yours be even more valid? I mean,
11 you did the analysis very conscientiously. I'm not remarking on the
12 quality of the work. I'm just asking about the information that you had
13 at your disposal. Would the analysis have been even more accurate and of
14 a higher quality had you also had this information and included it in
15 your report?
16 A. Sir, I don't know what information you are referring to. Are you
17 referring to the 300 or so bodies being killed in the forest, perhaps in
18 combat, perhaps not?
19 I don't believe it would have made any difference, unless the
20 data on these persons was very good, high quality, that they were killed
21 in combat or not, if that is what you are aiming at, and if I also had
22 been tasked to distinguish between combat deaths and non-combat deaths,
23 which I was not.
24 Q. Thank you. I presented some information to you that was given to
25 survivors, to witnesses who were there, and also information from
1 investigators who were there in the Bare section. So I just would like
2 to conclude with this, can you please tell us this: Had you had any
3 information about the manner of death of these people or the location, if
4 you had any information that they were buried in the mass graves where
5 the DNA analysis were carried out, would you have indicated that in any
6 way in your analysis? Thank you.
7 A. In our report, for every missing person who has been identified
8 as dead through DNA analysis, the site, the grave they have been found
9 in, is indicated. And there's a list also saying the number of bodies
10 found in each grave, the -- a mass grave is defined as -- a grave with
11 five or more bodies. So it is clear from the lists what -- where the
12 bodies were found and where they were exhumed from. There were also some
13 that listed as surface remains.
14 So as far as we know, all of this information has been included.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you please indicate the places in your report
16 where persons found outside of mass graves are referred to? Can you give
17 us the number of these people? Is it a negligible number, is it a high
19 A. Excuse me, I need to go through the report and find the right
20 place. Let me see ...
21 Sir, on Table 4 in the report, on pages -- in the English
22 version, pages 8 and 9, gives the number of identified for each grave,
23 for each mass grave. It also says remaining sites surface, it says on
24 page 9 of the English version, last line. It says, "703."
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful to have that on the screen.
1 If I'm not mistaken, that's P1776.
2 THE WITNESS: That is correct. You see on ... yes, on page 9 in
3 the English version, Table 4 where it says 30 -- 70 it says almost on the
4 bottom of that table, remaining sites/surface, 703 ICMP identified of
5 which 647 were matched with the OTP missing lists. That is a matching
6 rate of 92 per cent.
7 And at the very bottom of the table, it says per cent remaining
8 or surface, 12.7 per cent. 12.7 per cent. I indicated earlier as 12 or
9 13 per cent for surface exhumations.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you. Can you say whether, in this sector we've just read
12 out, this portion of the protected witness's statement, close to
13 Pobudjanska Kamenica and whether in the Bare sector is a single person
14 who figures on your lists and was found in these locations, or were these
15 people who were found and picked up along the road down which the column
16 was breaking through.
17 So where did you collect this information? Thank you.
18 A. This data comes from the ICMP data on exhumations and identified,
19 and also from the ICTY exhumations, which started in 1997 -- or, 1997,
20 where on the number of bodies per grave-site. And also bodies on
22 Q. Thank you. I understand. I would ask you to tell me whether on
23 the basis of your analysis we can establish who was killed in the sector
24 of Pobudjanska Kamenica, never mind how many of them, and how many lost
25 their lives in the sector of the place called Bare. Can one conclude
1 that on the basis of your analysis? It doesn't matter in which manner
2 they lost their lives. The Trial Chamber will judge that later on.
3 Thank you.
4 A. Sir, I don't think we can really tell that. As you're aware of,
5 many people -- people were buried in mass graves were often then moved to
6 other mass graves. So some bodies were moved once, some were moved twice
7 to secondary or tertiary graves. So it is impossible for many of these
8 to say where they were killed, and how they were killed. There may be
9 cases of witness reports having overseen an execution and later having
10 recognised persons and later these people have been exhumed in certain
11 graves. Maybe it is possible to tell, but this is not the kind of
12 analysis I have made. There were-- excuse me, there were, for example,
13 people who managed to escape from exhumations. Perhaps they noticed --
14 they knew the names of some who have later been identified and found in
15 mass graves, then you could establish link between execution site or
16 death site and a mass grave. I don't know if this has been done or
17 not -- anyway, it's outside the realm of my mandate and my expertise.
18 Q. Thank you. Does your report mark in any way that in the analysis
19 of data all victims are included, regardless of the manner they lost
20 their life, both in the area of Srebrenica and in the area through which
21 the Muslims were breaking through, in order to reach Tuzla from
22 Srebrenica? Thank you.
23 A. Your question is whether we mark an analysis -- let me see. I
24 have to re-read your question. Could you repeat your question, please,
25 one at a time.
1 Q. Thank you. My question is this: Does your report note anywhere
2 that all the victims from Srebrenica and in locations through which the
3 Muslims were breaking through from Srebrenica in the direction of Tuzla
4 and in locations where executions were carried out? Thank you.
5 A. Now, again, I think this was several questions. But, as I said
6 at the beginning, I was given a list of places of disappearance that were
7 related to the fall of Srebrenica. Some were on their way through the
8 forest from Srebrenica to Tuzla; some were known mass graves near -- near
9 or far from execution sites. So all those being reported as having been
10 missing near these places or have later been found in these mass graves
11 were included. Those who were found outside are not included.
12 Let me mention one example. In the first report in 2000, we did
13 not include bodies that were found in the river Drina because we thought
14 that were -- was too far away and Drina is a long river. Later this
15 is -- in the most recent report, we included bodies found in the Drina
16 because ICTY and -- sorry, not ICTY, but ICRC have included such bodies
17 as Srebrenica-related depending on statements of families.
18 Q. Thank you. This is my question for you: When were these
19 statements submitted? Do you know that and did you investigate that
20 while you were drawing up your analysis? And how truthful are they in
21 connection with the critical period which you investigated; namely, from
22 the fall of the enclave and up until ten days after this fall? Thank
24 A. Thank you. On the transcript here, I see three question marks.
25 I do one at a time.
1 When were these -- the first one, when were these statements
2 submitted? Please, which statements are you referring to?
3 Q. Thank you. I mean the statements of the families who reported
4 that the dead had gone missing in the Drina River.
5 A. This was information collected by the ICRC and when they were --
6 families were asked where was the person last seen alive or where did the
7 person go missing, and they started collecting this information in
8 July /August 1995.
9 Exactly how many there were who reported family members as having
10 gone -- disappearing in the Drina River, I don't know. But that could be
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When did you receive these reports?
13 THE WITNESS: We -- what we received from ICRC was a long list of
14 names of persons and place of disappearance. We did not see the
15 individual reports, say, which is a sheet of paper for each missing
16 person. Actually, they also asked -- the ICRC asked the family members,
17 did the person disappear in connection with the fall of Srebrenica. That
18 information was not provided to us but it was used, I believe, by the
19 ICRC to establish their own list of Srebrenica-related victims of
20 October 2008. That was the first time we received information from ICRC
21 on relationship to the fall of Srebrenica. All previous lists were just
22 covering all of Bosnia and there was nothing about relationship to fall
23 of Srebrenica or not.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Tolimir.
1 Perhaps you can make it short. The second question was: Do you
2 know that and did you investigate that while you were drawing up your
3 analysis? That was the second question of the three.
4 THE WITNESS: Hmm. We knew about -- as I said, we knew -- when
5 we knew -- wrote the first reports, we did not know anything about
6 whether these events were Srebrenica-related or not for the ICRC data.
7 For the PHR data, we did know. We had information on
8 Srebrenica-relatedness. Excuse me. But for the most recent report, our
9 2009 report, we could base the analysis on the information from ICRC in
10 their October 2008 report, where -- which was based -- which was for
11 Srebrenica-related missing persons.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Third question was the following, I quote:
13 "And how truthful are they in connection with the critical period
14 which you investigated; namely, from the fall of the enclave and up until
15 ten days after this fall?"
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you. We have also wondered about the quality
17 of the reports given by family members to ICRC, but we have found no
18 indications of any kind of lying, falsification, exaggeration, et cetera.
19 So we think the quality is quite good. But, of course, we should
20 remember that the family members often did not know much about their
21 missing relatives because some of them may have seen a person in
22 Srebrenica or outside in the forest or in Potocari, and, later, and they
23 did not know what happened to that person, whether that person was
24 transported away or not.
25 So it is to the best of their knowledge, but, as far as we know,
1 the -- the quality is good. They have been truthful. As far as we know
2 they have been as truthful as they could given the difficult
3 circumstances and lack of knowledge about the exact happenings of their
4 family members.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 Mr. Tolimir, it is always better just to put one question to the
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We'll
9 try to do it that way. I just wanted, first of all, as a basis for the
10 questioning, to have these elements.
11 Can we please see in e-court 65 ter 7170. Thank you.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. It is a report which you drew up, Dr. Brunborg. And in it, you
14 say that, in addition to you, the authors are --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P1776.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We can see the report
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And we see that the signatories, in addition to yourself as the
20 authors of the report, are Ms. Ewa Tabeau, and Mr. Arve Hetland.
21 Can you please tell us before we deal with the report itself who
22 are this gentleman and this lady? Thank you.
23 A. Thank you. I left the ICTY in December -- sorry, 1998, and then
24 the OTP had decided that this kind of demographic work was valuable and
25 they decided to make a permanent position. I was only there for --
1 temporarily. A permanent position was established, advertised, there
2 were many applicants. I participated in the process, and Ewa Tabeau was
3 then selected as demographer to work on this. She's a Polish and Dutch
4 citizen with extensive experience in demographical analysis, widely
5 well-known especially in mortality analysis, has worked at the
6 prestigious NIDI Institute in The Hague. NIDI stands for the Netherlands
7 Inter-Disciplinary Demographic Institute. And she has worked then for
8 the OTP since the year 2000, end of year 2000.
9 Arve Hetland is also a Norwegian. He used to work with me
10 previously in Statistics Norway. He is basically a computer person, a
11 computer specialist and he was hired then, I think he worked here for six
12 or seven years. He left about one year ago. And he is now back working
13 in Statistics Norway.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether Ms. Tabeau and
15 Mr. Hetland worked for the OTP or just for ICTY? Just so we have this
16 clear on the record. Thank you.
17 A. Thank you. They worked for the OTP in the -- called LRT,
18 Leadership Research Team, in the Demographic Unit.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me whether they were all at the same
20 time employed by the OTP at the time when you were making these analysis,
21 because you said he worked for eight years and so on? Thank you.
22 A. Thank you. I am -- worked here in 1997 and 1998 for the OTP
23 in -- since then as a consultant on short-term basis. In 1999 and 2000,
24 I came every two months and spent about one week, later more occasional
25 after Ewa Tabeau became a full-time permanent OTP employee. I have been
1 here in the OTP on many occasions, co-operating with Mrs. Tabeau and
2 Mr. Hetland.
3 Q. Thank you. Did any of these people visit the area where the
4 events happened before you wrote your report?
5 A. I know that Mrs. Tabeau has visited Bosnia on a number of
6 occasions. I'm not sure about Mr. Hetland, but I think he also went to
8 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, did they visit Bosnia during the war
9 or after the war? Thank you.
10 A. They did not visit Bosnia after the war -- during the war.
11 My first visit to Bosnia was in 1997, and I think Ewa Tabeau's
12 first visit was in 2000 or 2001.
13 Q. Thank you. Well, then, in order to lay the foundation for my
14 following question, could you please identify the parts of the report
15 drafted by you as opposed to the parts of the report drafted by the
16 co-authors, like Ewa and Mr. Hetland? Thank you.
17 A. Thank you. That is difficult, sir, because we have worked
18 closely together. Some has been drawn from previous report that I
19 contributed to, so that is quite difficult. And I do not see why that is
21 Q. Thank you. If you don't see why this is important, still, can
22 you tell us, we are talking here about demographic research. How
23 important is it to know facts about the war that took place in the area
24 that you're researching?
25 A. It is, of course, very useful to know the basics about the area.
1 But since we are dealing with numbers, we do not need to know a whole
2 lot. But don't misunderstand, it is useful to know as much as possible,
3 but where do you draw the limit to what is useful to know and what is
5 Here, we have, on the one hand, we have knowledge about
6 demography and population statistics. We have less knowledge about the
7 country and the conflict. Somebody who has more knowledge about the
8 country and the conflict would have more or -- less knowledge about
9 demography and statistics. Where we have lacked knowledge, country-base
10 knowledge, we have consulted other people who have more knowledge. There
11 were people in OTP, there was consulted literature where we needed to do
12 it so ...
13 Q. Thank you. Since your analysis deals with war demography of a
14 certain area, such as Srebrenica, or even a whole region, would it be
15 better if you had somebody who could help you, a person who took part in
16 these events that you are now trying to analysis from a demographic point
17 of view? Thank you.
18 A. Possibly. I have travelled to Srebrenica myself to see the area,
19 seeing Srebrenica, the hills, Potocari, Bratunac, et cetera, and I have
20 talked to many people who were survivors who had family members, or who
21 lived in Srebrenica before the conflict, both the organisations like
22 Mothers of Srebrenica, Women of Srebrenica, authors of books and reports,
23 et cetera. So I have talked to many people, both in Bosnia and in
24 The Hague who were familiar with what happened.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you give us any name of any person that supplied
1 you with information or instruction significant for your analysis and for
2 the period that you have analysed, i.e., from the beginning of the war in
3 1991 until 1995? That's at least what I see from your reports, since you
4 have used the census of 1991. Or, in short, from whom did you receive
6 A. Well, if you first stick to the lists we have received,
7 electronic lists with lists -- data on names, we received the OSCE -- the
8 ICRC list from ICRC in Sarajevo, and I don't remember the name of
9 those -- the person who provided that to us. But I did meet with ICRC
10 people in Sarajevo.
11 The voters' list we received from Michael Yard of the OSCE, whom
12 I met in Sarajevo on several occasions. The census data we received from
13 the director of the federal statistical office in Sarajevo whom I also
14 met on several occasions. I'm sorry -- I now do not recall his name, but
15 I could find that.
16 So those are the most important sources of data that we have
18 I did not receive instructions from anybody, I would like to
19 underline. But, of course, I also met with many other people trying to
20 find out if they were -- were -- they had data available that we could
21 use that be would useful. I met with the so-called MAG, the Muslims
22 Against Genocide. I met with Mr. Tokaca [phoen] of the documentation
23 centre; Mr. Smajlic of the public health centre, I believe, and -- but
24 this was in 1997, 1998, 1999, long time ago, so I don't remember all the
25 names. But I have written reports, and meeting with new people all the
1 time in Tuzla, in Mostar, in Sarajevo, to try to find out other, Do you
2 have lists of names, and by list of name, I mean it has to include date
3 of birth and particulars. Because there were three types of information
4 we were interested in. First, what happened during the war, those went
5 missing or dead; second, lists of people before the war, census, which is
6 an excellent source; and, third, lists of survivors of the war and there
7 we managed to collect data on voters' lists and refugees and displaced
9 So these were the three major data sources. We could group all
10 data sources into these three groups, and we continuously asked for new
11 datas or new data sources. After I left the Tribunal, Ewa Tabeau
12 managed, for example, to get data from the Bosnian army, which I did
13 not -- I did not say I did not manage but that was not -- I didn't have
14 time to do that when I was -- when I worked here.
15 Q. Thank you. I have listened carefully to what you said. Can you
16 tell me, did you contact anybody from the other side in the war, or did
17 you contact only people from the side of the Muslims, or, rather, BiH
18 army, and, of course, the Prosecution, including NGOs? Thank you.
19 A. Yes, I was in contact with several people, several Serbs and
20 Croats. In fact, I was on the way to Banja Luka in December 1998 to try
21 to collect data. When -- right before I was going to leave in the
22 afternoon in a heavy snowstorm, I was told that Mr. -- General Krstic had
23 been arrested and for security reasons I could not go. So I missed that
24 chance of going to Banja Luka to collect data.
25 But other people have collected data from Banja Luka, and we
1 have -- and -- Republika Srpska and we have looked at that data too.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you identify any point in your report where we
3 can find this information that you received from people from
4 Republika Srpska where, as you told us, you were unable to go because of
5 the war situation? Thank you.
6 A. Sir, in Annex 3, Annex 3.8, it says: Sources not used: RS and
7 FIS mortality databases and the Bosnian book of dead. It is -- let me
8 see -- so that on page 61 in the English version, it talks about the
9 Republika Srpska mortality database which was finalised in June 1995,
10 which we requested and received. It was requested in OTP and received --
11 and the project leader for that was the director of the Republika Srpska
12 statistical office, Slavka Sloboc [phoen].
13 Q. Thank you. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber why did not
14 you -- why didn't you use those sources?
15 A. It is written in the reports that they were cross-referenced to
16 find out whether there were additional deaths and missing, but we did not
17 find any -- any -- the information was not in this form that it was --
18 did add anything to what we had already.
19 Moreover, what is important about these two mortality databases,
20 they included all deaths during the war period, not only all -- including
21 natural deaths from old age or disease, so we could not just add all
22 these deaths in our list of missing persons, of course. The list of
23 missing persons for Srebrenica is, of course, for persons who went
24 missing or died, in connection with the fall of Srebrenica. Somebody who
25 lived in Srebrenica and died from lung cancer or tuberculosis before
1 11th of July or after, was obviously not included in our list. They did
2 not go missing or died in connection with the fall of Srebrenica. We
3 could only use information that had -- had -- we could only use records
4 that had that information that was precise on that. And these data
5 sources that was developed kindly by the federal statistical office and
6 the Republika Srpska statistical office did not have that information.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time, Judge Nyambe has a
8 question for the witness.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. I wonder if you can clear some doubts
10 or some -- I just need some clarification.
11 At page 56 of today's transcript, between lines 17 and 25, you
12 have said and I quote:
13 "In the first report in 2000, we did not include bodies that were
14 found in the river Drina because we had thought that it was too far."
15 And then down, you saw:
16 "But the ICRC have included such bodies as Srebrenica-related
17 depending on the statements of witnesses."
18 How do you determine which body is Srebrenica-related and which
19 one is not in the particulars circumstances of your testimony?
20 THE WITNESS: That depends on the statements of the family
21 members who reported a person as missing. So if a family member said
22 that we -- our relative, father or son, or whoever, was in the Srebrenica
23 area and went missing, then that is the basis. It's the place of
24 disappearance and the date also, very important, the date of
1 So we did not include Drina because we thought that, as I said,
2 it was too far away, but then when they say that this was
3 Srebrenica-related, they have been accepted anyway. There were few.
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another question to you. Page 19,
6 line 25, I asked you about the list of voters compiled for the elections
7 1997, 1998. And you said:
8 "People had to come forward and register to vote but they had to
9 be enumerated in 1991, so all the registration places had the census,"
10 and so on.
11 There is no need for further quotation.
12 Now, later, you told us that -- this is page 60 -- no, sorry,
13 it's -- it's page 42, line 5, you said:
14 "Because the 1996 voters' list is -- was the 1991 census.
15 According to the Dayton Accord of November 1995, the 1991 census should
16 be used as a voters' list for the first election."
17 I need to -- need some clarification. Were they used as a basis
18 for the voters' lists for the next election; or did they have to show up
19 personally to find out if they are still alive or not?
20 Can you help to clarify this?
21 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, for that question, whether people had to
22 show up personally to find out whether they're still alive or not, I
23 think they knew whether they were alive or not, if you excuse me.
24 But I believe -- in 1996, I believe that people could just show
25 up to vote and as long as they were in the census, they could vote. If
1 they were not and wanted to vote, they had to show evidence. In 1997, it
2 was not enough just to show up to vote and be on the list. In addition,
3 they had to actively register beforehand. And I think then --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In 1991?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, they had to be on the 1991 list, but in
6 addition, they had to show up in 1997 and register to vote.
7 And we know from the voters' registration received from OSCE, we
8 have four items of local identification: That is, where they registered
9 to vote, the municipality first; the municipality where they registered
10 to vote, the municipality where -- which they wanted to vote for; the
11 municipality they lived in 1991. And is there was one more, but I don't
12 recall. At least there were three.
13 So, say, a displaced person from Srebrenica could then register
14 vote in -- in Sarajevo and say that he or she wanted to vote for
15 Srebrenica. Actually, the municipal council in Srebrenica.
16 This was also the case for the 600.000 or so refugees living
17 elsewhere in the word. They could also register, say, in Norway or the
18 Netherlands and say, I want to vote in the election in 1997, which I
19 think was a national election, actually, and say -- then they had to
20 state which municipality should the vote be cast in, or cast for. But
21 they could do -- vote abroad.
22 I hope this clarified -- answered your question.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, it did. Thank you very much for that.
24 We must have our second break now and we will resume at 1.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we continue with the cross-examination, I
3 just briefly have to raise some other matters dealing with some documents
4 in this trial.
5 Recently, the Chamber was approached by one of the Defence teams
6 in the Popovic case, the Popovic appeal case, in relation to this
7 Chamber's decision on Defence request for access to confidential
8 materials which was issued on the 2nd of June, 2010.
9 The Defence team in the other case claims that they have not yet
10 been disclosed any confidential material in this case. They also request
11 that disclosure of this material be conducted on a two-weekly basis. In
12 this regard, I note that the decision of our Chamber orders, inter alia,
13 that the Registry shall provide access for all the accused in the
14 Popovic et al case subject to Rule 70 consent with -- where applicable
15 and with exception of material related to personal information about
16 Mr. Tolimir and his family members to all inter-parties confidential
17 material in the Tolimir case and that the parties shall assist the
18 Registry by identifying such documents.
19 Could the parties please provide any update as to the progress of
20 disclosure tomorrow during our hearing. That be would fine and then we
21 can deal with that.
22 That's it. There's no need for discussion now on this topic,
23 Mr. Gajic, we should do that tomorrow, but that was just an invitation to
24 prepare for this matter during the hearing of tomorrow.
25 Mr. Tolimir, please, continue your cross-examination.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Can we see 65 ter 1708 on e-court, please. Thank you. And then
3 we see it, I'm going to just say that this is an article co-authored by
4 Mr. Brunborg which is entitled: "Accounting for genocide: How many were
5 killed at Srebrenica?" This was written in 2002. When the witness looks
6 at this, then I'm going to put my question to him.
7 We can see the study, the paper.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Are you able to tell us or explain to us, to the Trial Chamber,
10 what was the purpose of this paper, and is it based on the reports that
11 were drafted for the purposes of trials being conducted at this Tribunal?
12 Thank you.
13 A. Thank you. This paper was written after I left the Tribunal as
14 an employee and also my co-authors were not working for the Tribunal. We
15 wanted to write an academic paper on the missing and dead in Srebrenica.
16 Writing academic papers for international journals is part of what we do
17 as researchers. It is both a duty and also something that we should do,
18 really, to get credit in the academic world. So we wanted to summarise
19 our findings and discuss the methodology which was, in ways, new. We had
20 better data than in any -- most other war crimes cases, so we wanted this
21 to be known to the rest of the world. That's why we wrote this article,
22 which was then accepted, reviewed, refereed, as it is, peer review, in
23 "European Journal of Population." This article here is a draft and it
24 was then submitted to the "European Journal of Population" where it was
25 published in the year 2003 and well received. Immodestly, I would say
1 that one expert on this, Dr. Selsura [phoen], previously of the
2 United Nations Statistics Division called this the gold standard
3 of analysis of conflicts material, conflict cases.
4 Q. Thank you. Well, in this gold standard, the last sentence
5 says --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we do not see the last --
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The last sentence of the abstracts states:
9 "We conclude that at least 7.475 persons were killed after the
10 fall of Srebrenica. We also present estimates of the probability of
11 being a victim: More than 33 per cent for Muslim men who were enumerated
12 in Srebrenica in 1991."
13 My question is: Were the Muslims from Srebrenica who were living
14 there in 1991, the only victims or was the figure that the calculation
15 should have been made on supposed to be based on the total population in
16 the Srebrenica enclave at that time? Thank you.
17 A. Thank you for asking that question.
18 That result, which is -- which you just referred to, is based on
19 additional methodology after our 2000 report. It is based on the linking
20 of the missing list with the 1991 census. And when linking, we linked
21 the missing persons to those who were enumerated in Srebrenica and
22 elsewhere in 1991. And when we did the linking, we found 87 per cent on
23 the missing lists. A few may have been lived -- been enumerated in
24 Serbia and, thus, in 1991.
25 So this does not refer to the population of Srebrenica before the
1 11th or 12th of July, 1995. It refers to the population in Srebrenica in
2 1991. We did not know how many were --lived in or stayed in Srebrenica
3 in June, July, 1995. Some figures give an estimate of 40.000. Could be
4 right, could be wrong. We have not used that figure. We have tried, we
5 have asked different sources -- institutions and even the political
6 leaders of the town council whether there are such lists of persons who
7 were in Srebrenica in 1995. But nobody has come forward with such a
8 list, which would have -- very much like to see. Because that would
9 be -- yes.
10 Q. Thank you. I would like to show the witness D117 now, please.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are you tendering this document,
12 this article of Mr. Brunborg into evidence?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, we're going to use it. And
14 then after that, we definitely do want to tender it, yes.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Go ahead, please.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Can we zoom in on this document a little bit, please, so the
18 witness can see it better.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. You can see a document here signed by the municipal leadership of
21 Srebrenica in 1995 about the number of citizens. We have the total
22 number of the population, the households, the local population, the
23 displaced population in the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac,
24 Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak, and so on. And then if we look at the
25 fifth column from the bottom, it says that there were only --
1 THE INTERPRETER: The accused is asked to repeat the last figure.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Based on this figure that in Srebrenica the overall population
4 was 16.639, did you take into account that figure when you were making
5 the calculations that you used for your study? Thank you.
6 A. Excuse me, sir, what you referred to was the number of women. If
7 you include the number of men, it becomes close to 36-, 37.000.
8 Q. Thank you. This calculation of yours, in your paper, was that
9 done on the basis of the total number of 36.051 or was that based on the
10 other number, 19.566, who were mentioned in the census of 1991? Thank
12 A. It was mentioned -- it was on neither of these. It was the
13 number of Muslim men who lived in -- who -- excuse me. Who were
14 enumerated in Srebrenica in 1991. I don't remember how many Muslim men
15 there were. It's given somewhere in the report that -- the total, and I
16 could easily find it.
17 But it's not based on the number on the -- on what we see on the
19 Q. Thank you. Can we now go back to your article, your published
20 paper. This is 65 ter 1708. Thank you.
21 As I quoted a little bit earlier, you said here that you
22 concluded that at least 7.475 persons were killed after the fall of
24 My question is: Were these people the inhabitants of Srebrenica,
25 or were they inhabitants of a number of municipalities, some of which I
1 referred to from the document that we were looking at just a little bit
2 before. Thank you.
3 A. They were inhabitants of a number of municipalities as of 1991.
4 As of 1995, we don't really know, but most of them probably lived in the
5 city of Srebrenica. At that time, or the -- they were in -- in --
6 obviously they were in the city of Srebrenica in 1995, before the fall.
7 But many of them had come from other -- from Zvornik, Bratunac, and other
8 municipalities to Srebrenica during the war period, or some even before.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: I just need a clarification.
13 In the context of your report here, are you able to establish or
14 determine who died before 1995 and after the fall of Srebrenica?
15 THE WITNESS: Before 1995?
16 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes. Before the fall of the enclave.
17 THE WITNESS: No. But we did not use that data. That is why
18 this proportion of 33 per cent is a low estimate. It's on -- it's on the
19 low side. Because those who died before the fall of Srebrenica from
20 natural reasons or other reasons are not -- are still included in the
21 denominator but not in the numerator. So the population at risk of being
22 missing or being killed in 1995 is -- has then become too large because
23 you not subtracted those deaths and also out-migrations that occurred
24 before July 1995.
25 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
2 Judge Mindua has a question.
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness. As a follow-up to
4 Judge Nyambe's question, I would like to discuss this exhibit,
5 65 ter 1708 entitled: "Accounting for genocide: How Many Were Killed in
7 This morning, during cross-examination, the accused asked you
8 whether, in your calculations you taken into account those people that
9 had been killed illegally and those people that had been killed in
10 action, or in any other way. I remember that you said, no, that you had
11 not taken these differences into account since you are not a lawyer, and
12 that was not something which interested you.
13 I'm a little bit uneasy when I look at the title of your paper,
14 because you talk about those people that were killed in Srebrenica, and,
15 at the same time, you use the word "genocide." I haven't had the
16 opportunity to read your article in detail yet, but at this stage I would
17 ask -- like to ask you this question: When you talk about those people
18 that were killed in Srebrenica, did you, once again, take into account
19 those people that died in action, or did you take into account all the
20 people that died without establishing a difference between them?
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. We did not include those people who
22 were killed and were known to have been killed on or before the 11th of
23 July, 1995. We only took into account those people who were reported as
24 missing. That's an important distinction. So if there were people who
25 were known to be killed in action, there was no need for families to
1 report them as missing, and they were not included. They were never part
2 our lists. They were -- only included those reported or registered as
4 That is the point.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. So you based your
6 calculations on the number of missing persons; I understand now.
7 Given that you are not a lawyer, I would just like to know this:
8 Did you use the word "genocide" on purpose in your article, or was this
9 something which you used randomly?
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Well, it was not used randomly, and --
11 but this article is not a legal document. And it was written after
12 the -- General Krstic was found guilty of complicity of genocide. So
13 that is why we did not assign any -- we did not use the word genocide in
14 [indiscernible]. It was part of a sentences that had already been -- the
15 sentence had already been made, so that's why we could use that term.
16 But we did not use it in a legal sense. As you know, genocide is a term
17 that is used in many different ways by media, general population,
18 et cetera, and it has different definitions. I'm fully aware of the
19 legal definition of genocide at this Court, but as long as already the
20 Court had found General Krstic guilty of genocide, I don't think we made
21 a mistake in using that in the title.
22 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well, Witness, I
23 understand this better.
24 I see that your article was drafted in 2003; is that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: I think it was drafted in 2002, and finally
1 published in "European Journal of Population" in 2003. It says 10th of
2 July, 2002, at the top. And, of course, we had written many drafts
3 before July 2002 also.
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has another question.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just another follow-up clarification.
7 Given your earlier testimony where you have said you did not have
8 the skills to determine who died in combat and who did not die in combat,
9 in the context of this report, how do you come to associate people who
10 died categorically as if they died in the context of a genocide? Because
11 a genocide, as you say, is a legal term, giving particular meaning to the
12 death of a person.
13 THE WITNESS: As I said, we did not use genocide in a legal
14 context here. And -- but our analysis found that all but -- almost all,
15 99.1, of those reported as missing were Muslims. And .9 were -- .9
16 per cent were non-Muslims.
17 So I'm also aware in the legal terminology that there should be
18 an intent to destroy, in full or in part, a population by ethnicity,
19 et cetera. But here, genocide is used in a more, sort of, general sense,
20 where people understand by a large -- the general understanding that it
21 is a killing of a large group of people who, by, say, ethnicity, or
22 another characteristic.
23 But, anyway, it does not conflict with the finding of this Court,
24 that, indeed, Krstic was sentenced to -- guilty of genocide.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks
4 to the members of the Trial Chamber, Ms. Nyambe and Mr. Mindua.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I would ask the witness the following: In the last sentence
7 which we can see here, the per cent, 33 per cent, is it something that
8 you calculated on the basis of the total number of inhabitants of
9 Srebrenica, which is 19-odd thousand before the war, or on the basis of
10 the total number of inhabitants of the municipalities of Bratunac,
11 Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak, Visegrad, Rogatica, Srebrenica and those
12 who were reported by having lost their lives by 1995 by the BiH army, and
13 that number is 1.394? Thank you.
14 A. Thank you. It is based on the number of people who lived in each
15 of these municipalities before the war. Please refer to Table 11 in
16 the -- my report on page 24 in the English version. I don't know if you
17 want to see it or not.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The report is P1776.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. At the very top, that is Table 10B, you
20 will see that the number of people who went missing in the connection
21 with the fall of Srebrenica by residents in 1991, and will you see that
22 in -- of these of the 7 and a half thousand, 500, that went missing,
23 4.195 were Muslims living in Srebrenica in 1991. At the same time, there
24 was one Croat and no Serbs, 44 others, no unknowns among those who lived
25 in Srebrenica in 1991, making a total of 4.240.
1 All those reported missing, 1.827 resided in Bratunac in 1991
2 before the war; 921 in Vlasenica; 409 in Zvornik; and 98 in Han Pijesak.
3 Total of 7.495. That is the adjusted counts. Thank you. And if you --
4 okay, I think that's it.
5 Now, when we compare these numbers by -- if you can move down to
6 the bottom of Table 11, you see the total at the bottom, you see there we
7 have taken those figures only for men, Muslim men, and compared to the
8 number of Muslim men being enumerated in each municipality in 1991. We
9 see that in Srebrenica there were 34.2 per cent, who lived in -- in
10 Srebrenica in 1991, who went missing in 1995. All those living in
11 Bratunac, there were 19.4 per cent; all those enumerated in Vlasenica,
12 11.3 per cent were reported as missing; Zvornik, 1.9 per cent;
13 Han Pijesak, 8.6 per cent. Total in those five municipalities,
14 14.2 per cent of those who were enumerated in 1991 were registered as
15 missing in 1995. One of seventh, that is.
16 In particular, we notice that the age group, 45 to 49, had the
17 highest proportion, and also 50, 54 with more than 50 percent of
18 Srebrenica Muslim men were reported as missing, and -- or dead. That is
19 half of those who lived there in 1991. That does not include those who
20 went -- died from natural reasons in between, 1991 to 1995. So it is a
21 very high proportion.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. Does that also include the number of soldiers from
24 more municipality -- from all municipalities, including Srebrenica, which
25 were killed during the war and which are mentioned in the table which we
1 recently showed as the soldiers who were killed as part of the number of
2 1.384, and where can they be found here? Thank you.
3 A. As I said before, those soldiers who were enumerated in
4 Srebrenica and the other municipalities in 1991 and who had been
5 registered missing after the fall of Srebrenica are included here, just
6 like everybody else. We do not distinguish between soldiers and
7 non-soldiers. And, in fact, 70 per cent of the missing were members of
8 the Bosnian army, but that does not necessarily mean that they fell in
10 Q. Thank you. And when the Trial Chamber is to decide about guilt,
11 how are they to know who are the ones who were killed and who are the
12 ones who did not die in battle? Can you help us about that? Thank you.
13 How will they know?
14 A. Well, again, as I said this is not my area of expertise but to
15 remind you a few facts. Thirty per cent of those reported missing were
16 not part of the army. So they were not listed as part of the army, so
17 you can subtract those. Then a number of -- also of those who were part
18 of the army were found in mass graves. Some were -- or many, I don't
19 know many, were blind-folded. And usually people in mass graves did not
20 die in action. Some surface remains are more likely, but, again, there
21 are other people who have studied this more closely.
22 Q. Thank you. I am asking you about your report. Does it include
23 all those who were found in graves, regardless of the manner in which
24 they died? Thank you.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether, for this report and
2 the article that we read, you listed all cases where death was the final
3 result and included them in the calculation of genocide, as you called
4 it. Yes or no? Thank you.
5 A. Yes. But let me repeat, that we only included deaths amongst
6 those who were reported as missing. Deaths among people who were not
7 reported as missing because there was no need to, they -- the families
8 and the army or whoever knew about it, the body was usually there, was
9 usually recovered, they were not reported as missing and are not included
10 in our figures. The only -- only the uncertain, those with an uncertain
11 fate, we are including, and in our first list, as of the year 2000, there
12 were 7.475, of which 66 later was found to be dead. But that was found
13 independently of the reporting of the missing. So I think even for the
14 66 missing, the families did not know that the persons were dead.
15 Q. Thank you. Can we please show again 65 ter 1708 in the e-court.
16 Thank you. We can see it again. Could we please show
17 paragraph 3 of your article. Paragraph 3. It's page 3 and paragraph 3.
18 Where you say -- we can see it now. Paragraph 3, page 3, so we
19 can see in it English as well. We can see it in Serbian as well.
20 Can you tell us whether during your work for the OTP, because you
21 are discussing the number of victims here, for which a case of genocide
22 was established. And as you discuss that, my question is this: During
23 your work for the Prosecutor's office of this trial, did you ask the
24 investigators and other persons employed by the OTP for an interpretation
25 by which they would ask you to be obliged to establish certain numbers so
1 that you could base on that the accusation of genocide? Thank you.
2 A. No. The conclusion about genocide was written in a non-legal
3 paper outside the OTP. I did not work for the OTP at that time. Meant
4 for an academic audience. And this was after the sentence against
6 I think we have been more precise on the use of the term
7 "genocide" than is usually the case in literature on -- on armed
8 conflicts. The word "genocide" is often used in a very imprecise way, as
9 you know.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: My I interrupt for a moment? Judge Nyambe has a
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. I just need some more clarification.
13 At page 80 of today's transcript, lines 9 on, in answer to the
14 question you say, and I quote:
15 "... also of those who were part of the army were found in mass
17 "Those who were part of the army were -- are to be found in mass
19 And then in the next line, you jump in and after that you say:
20 "And usually people in mass graves did not die in action."
21 So what was your finding as to the people who were found in mass
22 graves? They were -- they were the army people and also they did not die
23 in action.
24 Can you just clarify that for me.
25 THE WITNESS: Well, we do not have precise - as I've said
1 before - information about the cause of death of those found in mass
2 graves, whether they are civilians or soldiers. The only thing we know
3 is that, first, they are found in mass graves; secondly, in those mass
4 graves there were many or a number of people were blind-folded or hands
5 tied or shot from behind, which indicate that they did not fall in
6 action. That doesn't exclude the fact that the some may have fallen in
7 action, but it is -- we don't have information on that. And that it is
8 unlikely that a majority fell in action.
9 But nobody has precise knowledge on this.
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. As you are using this as arguments, can you also tell the
15 Prosecution and the Defence what is the number of those who were found in
16 graves with blind-folds or with their hands tied? Does your report
17 contain that information anywhere?
18 A. No, not in my report. I refer to testimony of exhumation experts
19 here Dean Manning and Dusan, I don't recall this last name, on exhumation
20 sites whether it is known how many people were handcuffed, I do not know,
21 but remember that if people -- not handcuffed but ties -- their hands
22 tied or blind-folded. If exhumations are made ten years after the
23 executions, most textiles have probably gone away, and it is difficult to
24 see. If exhumations are done soon after the executions, are more likely
25 to identify textiles such as used for handcuffing and blind-folding. I
1 believe that was the case but I do not have any numbers.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you please answer me this: Whether these people,
3 Mr. Manning and Mr. Janc are expert witnesses or are they just employees
4 of the Prosecutor's office? Thank you.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is well-known to [Realtime transcript read
6 in error "not"] the Chamber, I think.
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, and Mr. President, I just want to remind the
9 Court that Professor Brunborg has stated that these particular areas are
10 not his areas. He stated that very early on. But out of courtesy and
11 because he has basic knowledge, he has attempted to answer some of these
12 questions and now he is being led further and further astray into areas
13 regarding the investigation, and even suggested that these -- this
14 material is part of his report, much of which is not. I have no problem
15 with any of this as a report but now he is taking him into evaluating,
16 you know, in detail Dean Manning, and Dusan Janc is the person we're
17 talking about. I think these questions are far afield, frankly, and --
18 and we're asking him to get way outside his area of expertise in this
19 particular situation. Many do not. But in this situation, we are, in my
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First, I have to correct line 20 of page 83. I'm
22 recorded as having said, "This is well-known not Chamber." I said, "This
23 is well-known to the Chamber," because we have had some of them as
24 witnesses here in the courtroom.
25 Secondly, I am very happy that we have our break now. We have to
1 adjourn for today and we will resume tomorrow in the afternoon at 2.15.
2 Perhaps you should consider and think of what Mr. McCloskey has
3 said, Mr. Tolimir, during the break and for preparation of the
4 continuance of your cross-examination tomorrow.
5 May I remind you that it is not allowed to have contact during
6 the break to either party.
7 Thank you very much. And we adjourn.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of
10 February, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.