1 Thursday, 10 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody.
6 Yesterday, I asked the parties to update the Chamber about the
7 disclosure of material for the Defence counsel in another case.
8 Is it possible to update the Chamber now?
9 Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We have reviewed the order,
11 reviewed our material and found there's nothing that was the subject of
12 the order that we have any problem with the Popovic people receiving. In
13 fact, we continue ongoing discovery in this case with all the Popovic
14 folks, as we always have in the trial, so discovery-wise nothing has
15 really changed and as I recall the order did not apply to ex parte
17 So, basically, we're an open book to the Popovic case. There's
18 nothing that we need pulled back or not provided them in this case, from
19 the Prosecution.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't fully understand the position.
21 In our decision, we were talking about confidential material
22 related to personal information about our accused, Mr. Tolimir, and
23 possible family members. They were excluded by our decision from the
24 disclosure. Is -- all material of our case, Tolimir case, disclosed to
25 the Defence counsel in the other case? Or what is the -- the situation
1 at the moment?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: All the substantive witness statements,
3 collections, all the material that we send out to General Tolimir, we, at
4 the same time, send out and have been sending out to the Popovic team.
5 That doesn't always include filings and sometimes people want filings,
6 but we have no objection to Registry providing any filings in this case
7 or any -- anything like that. We have no problem with any of that.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Gajic, what is your position?
10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, everyone.
11 Mr. President as for the Defence, we have nothing against any document or
12 submission submitted by the Defence be provided to the parties in the
13 Popovic case.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this update.
15 The witness should be brought in, please.
16 Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: And just a translation update, Mr. President.
18 We now have translations for Exhibit P01362. So that -- that's
19 been solved. And you asked me, I believe it was yesterday, to see if
20 there were any issues related to translation and Mr. Brunborg exhibits,
21 and we have been discussing about that with Mr. Gajic, and we don't -- we
22 don't have any issues. There's nothing that is outstanding for that.
23 And Mr. Gajic has gotten back to us about -- excuse me.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please sit down, Mr. Brunborg.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: He has gotten back to us on Mr. Hagland's
2 voluminous exhibits and has picked out a few things that he would like us
3 to translate which shouldn't be a problem, an article or two. There's
4 one 20-page book that we're struggling with CLSS to get translated, but I
5 think we'll find a way to do it and so that shouldn't be a problem
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When will we receive the final information if all
8 the requested translation have been made in order to admit these
9 documents into evidence?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can't really say, Mr. President. CLSS is --
11 is -- and -- is difficult to predict. I would say, hopefully within 30
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 Good afternoon, Mr. Brunborg.
15 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome back to the courtroom. The -- I shall
17 remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the
18 beginning of your testimony still applies.
19 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG [Resumed]
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Mr. Tolimir is continuing his
22 Yes, please.
23 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, before we continue, sir, I was asked
24 yesterday about -- by Mr. McCloskey about duplicates in the missing list
25 identified by the Defence expert Radovanovic in the Blagojevic case and I
1 said I did not quite remember, and I looked at our previous reports and I
2 would like just to clarify that question, if I may.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That would be very helpful for the Chamber and
4 the parties.
5 Yes, please.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
7 Mrs. Radovanovic, using the same data as we used, identified five
8 certain and five unlike examples of highly likely duplicates. Those
9 five -- most misused the term certain duplicates where had also been
10 identified by us and marked as such, but as I said, we had, through an
11 oversight, not removed them.
12 Of the five additional likely duplicates found by -- identified
13 by Mrs. Radovanovic, three were identified by all us, quite likely
14 duplicates, two were found not to be duplicates.
15 So out of her ten, eight were duplicates and five had previously
16 been identified by us.
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that.
19 Mr. Tolimir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. May I
21 wish for peace in this house and may the proceedings here today end
22 according to God's will and not according to mine.
23 I would like to welcome the witness back and to wish a good
24 afternoon to everybody.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
1 Q. [Interpretation] Yesterday, we stopped at a question which was
2 unanswered, and the question was: Whether you and Mr. Dusan Janc and
3 Mr. Dean Manning worked together in the Prosecutor's office of this
4 Tribunal? Thank you.
5 A. Thank you. No, I never worked together with these gentlemen.
6 Dean Manning was working here for part of the time I was here, and I
7 talked to him, but we never -- now and then -- but not on the subject
8 matters in any detail. Thank you.
9 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at 65 ter 1708 that we called up
10 yesterday towards the end of the day. This is 65 ter 1708. This is a
11 paper, an article, authored by you, sir. It's called "The accounting for
12 genocide: How many were killed in Srebrenica?"
13 And while we're waiting for the document to appear -- actually,
14 we can already see it. I'm going to put my question.
15 On page 3 of this article of yours - can we look at page 3,
16 please - and the last issue is what is the number of victims that has to
17 be established, what is the number of victims that has to be established
18 in order for someone to be tried for genocide? Have you found the place?
19 It's paragraph 3, the last sentence.
20 In the course of your work for the Tribunal, did you receive any
21 kind of interpretation from your co-workers, investigators, that you
22 needed to establish a certain number of victims in order to be able to
23 convict someone of genocide? Thank you.
24 A. Thank you. No, I never received any information or instruction
25 on that. But what I learned was that I was referred to the Statute of
1 the ICTY, which is quoted in the immediate sentence that, according to
2 the ICTY Statute, genocide is defined as acts committed with intent to
3 destroy in whole or in part a national ethnic or religious group.
4 So according to this -- this definition, it is -- there's no
5 number, no proportion. In fact, according to this, a person could be
6 convicted for genocide without killing anybody, since the intent here is
8 So I did not receive -- nobody has established that there is a
9 certain number of victims or -- or certain proportion of population
10 that's -- that has to be exterminated for the genocide to apply in a
11 legal setting.
12 Q. Thank you. Did you then, in your report, describe how many
13 inhabitants from Srebrenica were transferred to Tuzla in July 1995 by the
14 Army of Republika Srpska through its territory?
15 A. No, that -- no, that was not part of the mandate I was given. We
16 looked only at missing and dead persons in connection with the fall of
17 Srebrenica, not on displaced persons or refugees. So I -- I've seen
18 estimates of the flow but uncertain estimates. I don't know if such
19 precise estimates exist.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. Just to clarify, we know he has got
22 reports in this case and this document up on the screen may be considered
23 a report as well, so for the record could we just make -- I think I know
24 what his answer referred to but I'm not sure which report the General's
25 question referred to, and it may not be clear. If we can just clear that
1 up before -- before it gets passed.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it is clear that, at the moment,
3 Mr. Tolimir is dealing with this report we have on the screen. This is
4 my understanding.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. But his answer was the mandate that he had
6 for the Prosecution. I think it was for the report that he is talking
7 about. That is what is completely unclear in my view, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then I would like that ask you, Mr. Brunborg.
9 Your mandate, did that have anything to do with this article you
11 THE WITNESS: Not at all. This -- this article was written after
12 I left the Tribunal. It was written on my own or the time of
13 Statistics Norway as an academic article, based on my experience and
14 previous reports but not at all part of the mandate given to me by OTP.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, that
17 was the report that I was thinking of.
18 Can we now look at page 4 of the document that we have in front
19 of you in order to answer Mr. McCloskey's question.
20 Can we look at page 4 in the Serbian. It's also page 4 in the
21 English. I'm looking at the second paragraph which states:
22 "The research questions that guided the demographic projects on
23 Srebrenica were defined by the Office of the Prosecutor as ..."
24 I quote what you wrote:
25 "What was the minimum number of victims from Srebrenica who were
1 killed by the VRS after the fall of the enclave on the 11th of July 1995
2 who can be identified by name? And how is that list of victims
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So can you please explain how you went about the task that was
6 formulated for you in this way by the OTP?
7 A. Thank you. First, I would like to say that the first bullet
8 point: What was number of victims from Srebrenica who were killed by the
9 VRS? Well, the OTP did not, as far as I remember, include that
10 specifically in the requests for data and analysis. They were just
11 asking to -- for the minimum number of victims. But I knew, of course,
12 in the conversations and the contact with OTP and other reading that
13 there had a been -- there was an armed conflict and that the VRS -- the
14 public -- the Army of Republika Srpska attacked Srebrenica and -- and it
16 So, but, who -- who was killed was not part of my mandate. It
17 was the missing and dead. Sorry, who killed these persons was not part
18 of the mandate.
19 And how I went about it was to collect data on missing and dead
20 persons from the ICRC, PHR, and other possible sources, and to evaluate,
21 assess, compare these lists as we talked at length about yesterday.
22 Q. Thank you. And if that is the way you just told us, can you
23 please tell us why you are presenting this -- in this particular way to
24 the academic community? Because you are quoting or you are stating what
25 I quoted back to you, that you, as an investigator, or a researcher, had
1 received the research questions that guided the demographic project on
2 Srebrenica. So they were defined by the Office of the Prosecutor. Thank
4 A. Well, I must admit, I don't remember the exact wording of the
5 requests which came orally not in writing, I think. And whether it was
6 exactly this wording, I don't remember. This is now, what, 12 years ago.
7 So it is possible here if the killing thing is an issue that we
8 introduced these terms as to help the academic reader. After all, it had
9 been established in the Krstic trial that there had been executions by
10 the VRS of missing persons -- or, of persons from Srebrenica.
11 But, again - sorry - my point is that who killed these people was
12 not part of my mandate. It was only to find out how many and their names
13 and other particulars.
14 Q. Can you tell us, please, in which way you established who killed
15 them? What was the research procedure that you, as a demographer, used
16 to establish whether somebody was killed in combat or perhaps in some
17 kind of mutual conflict?
18 A. As I've said repeatedly, I did not establish, and my colleagues
19 and I did not establish, how people were killed in combat or not, and who
20 killed them. We were only asked to find the number of missing and
21 possibly dead persons.
22 Q. If that is so, then can you please tell me if you were informed
23 at all by the OTP about these events. Nobody gave you anything. You
24 were just told to do the research but were you informed at all about what
25 happened, because according to you, sometimes this happened and sometimes
1 that happened, and now it turns out that nobody gave you anything. Thank
3 A. Of course, I was told what happened. I think on the very first
4 day at the OTP, I asked why did the events in Srebrenica happen so late
5 in the conflict? And I was then given -- I asked one senior lawyer and I
6 was then given a book to read -- David Rohde, a book on Srebrenica, and I
7 read other books and I saw the B/C/S Panorama movie about Srebrenica
8 which I think was provided by the OTP. So, of course, I wanted to know
9 and I learned about the events in Srebrenica. Actually, before I was
10 tasked to estimate the number of dead and missing.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question for the witness.
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, thank you.
13 Do you have the full title of the book that you were given to
14 read? The author and the title.
15 THE WITNESS: The author is David Rohde, R-o-h-d-e, and I can
16 find the -- and I think it is -- the full title is given in the reference
17 lists of the article that we are just discussing. I will look it up.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you said R-o-h-d-e.
19 THE WITNESS: R-o-h-d -- sorry, yes, yes.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it was recorded in a different way.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, right now I don't quite remember. No, it is
22 not given there, but I'll check and find that reference later.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: It is a well-known book. I can give you the name
25 of it, if you'd like.
1 JUDGE NYAMBE: I would appreciate, Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: In England, it is called: "A Safe Area." And in
3 the United States it is called: "The End Game."
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: By David Rohde?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: David Rohde, yes.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, now I remember the book I read was
8 called "The End Game," very thick book, very well written, very
9 interesting. But I also read other books and other articles.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Brunborg, we are now looking at page 3 of your paper where
13 you talk about the attempt to destroy the Muslim population after the
14 capture of Srebrenica and that it represents the most serious and the
15 most obvious example of genocide in the war in the former Yugoslavia.
16 Have you found it?
17 A. We are now seeing page 4, at least in the English version. Yes,
18 I see --
19 Q. If we can look at page 3. I don't know if you've found it. It's
20 on page 3.
21 A. Yes. Which paragraph, please?
22 Q. I'm not sure about the text in English. I think it's the fourth
23 paragraph. It's the second half of the fourth paragraph in English.
24 A. Yes. And your question is?
25 Q. My question is: You, as a demographer, have you studied the
1 persecutions and massacres over Serbs which were committed in this same
2 area by those very same Serbs that here you claim tried to actually
3 annihilate the Muslims. So have you read any other books, books about
4 annihilation of Serbs in Sarajevo, in Central Bosnia, in the Medak pocket
5 in Croatia and elsewhere, if you are talking about the genocide over a
6 population or a part thereof?
7 A. I've regard articles, I'm not aware of any full book about
8 massacres of Serbs elsewhere in Bosnia. I knew there were events where
9 also there were Serb victims, but I studied the -- the -- the fall of
10 Srebrenica and the massacre of the killings that happened there.
11 The quotation is then -- well, it is -- the last sentence in the
12 paragraph you are referring to referred to authors Honig and Booth, and,
13 indeed, Rohde 1997. So that sentence is based on the reading of their
15 Q. Thank you. Do you know that those same Muslims, in Srebrenica,
16 during less than one whole year, 1993, killed about three and a half
17 thousands Serbs in this very same zone that are you write being here?
18 A. Thank you. I've read about -- about attacks, killings, also of
19 Serbs, but that was not part of my study. But I have read about it, and
20 I know there were attacks on Serb village, et cetera. But, again, it was
21 not part of my survey or study.
22 Q. Thank you. Shouldn't the subject of your analysis be what is the
23 cause of all this; and did you research the fact that the greatest part
24 of the population from that zone was let go? And how can it be called a
25 genocide if women and children from the same population were let go? How
1 can you call that a genocide? Could you explain us that? Thank you.
2 A. The genocide term was not given by me but by the Judges in the
3 Krstic case.
4 Q. Thank you. But you informed the public about it. In your
5 articles you defined it as a genocide. You are standing behind it as an
6 author, as -- and as a public figure engaged in the research of this
7 subject; isn't that true?
8 A. That is correct and this article was written after the trial of
9 Krstic so we could safely base our terminology on the findings of the
11 Q. Thank you. On page 2 of this same article -- can we have page 2
12 in e-court because I would like to ask a question about it and I would
13 like the witness to see the page.
14 I'm going to quote you. You said:
15 "Accounting for genocide is not an exact science."
16 You remember that.
17 My question is: If it is not an exact science, then what kind of
18 science is it then?
19 A. Well, genocide is -- sorry. Genocide is used in different ways.
20 It is also used in the legal profession by courts which is the case here.
21 But it is also -- genocide is also used by historians, economists,
22 sociologists, anthropologists, in many -- in many disciplines. And
23 there is no exact definition of genocide, except for the Statute of ICTY,
24 and ICC, and similar courts.
25 If I may add, usually in the sort of more popular terminology,
1 genocide is used for large killings, when many people are killed. But
2 according to the legal terminology, that is it not necessarily the case.
3 Q. Thank you. You haven't quite answered my question, because I
4 asked you if it's not a science, how would you define it. But, all
5 right, it's exactly irrelevant for the continuation of these proceedings.
6 Since, in this article of yours, there is no mention whatsoever
7 about the fact that this column which was trying to breakthrough from
8 Srebrenica towards Tuzla, that it used the axis along which there were
9 combat activities, and you are also not mentioning anything about the
10 resistance given by the VRS. How can it be said then that you are
11 writing a reliable demographic analysis? You are calling it here -- all
12 right, I'm not going to quote it, but you call it some sort of science.
13 Can it really be possible that it is a science then?
14 A. This article is about the number of people who were -- went
15 missing or were killed in the fall of Srebrenica. And, as such, the
16 events on the way to -- to Tuzla do not -- are not really that relevant.
17 We mention that some -- many -- an unknown number of persons went through
18 the forest to the free territory, but what happened on the way is not
19 really part of our story.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this into
21 evidence. Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
24 Exhibit -- Defence number D159. Thank you.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Have you analysed any Muslim documents in order to arrive to this
2 conclusion that there had existed an intention to annihilate the Muslim
3 population there?
4 A. I -- I'm not aware of -- what you call the Muslim document. I
5 don't know what you -- what you mean by a Muslim document. But we were
6 mainly concerned with lists of missing and dead and different reports and
7 articles. It's possible that some of what we read was written by
8 Muslims, but I do not recall that.
9 Q. Thank you. I'm going to read only one report by the commander of
10 BiH army, Rasim Delic, that he wrote on the day of the breakthrough of
11 this column.
12 This is what he says:
13 "The units of the 28th Division are moving out of Srebrenica
14 while still fighting. The units of the 28th Division are still compact
15 in the temporarily occupied territory. They are successful. They have
16 inflicted huge casualties to the aggressor during the combat. So far,
17 they have eight Chetniks that they have captured alive. The units of the
18 28th Division of land army managed to link up with the units of the
19 2nd Corps that had been infiltrated there. Jointly, they continue the
20 fighting in the temporarily occupied territory."
21 By that, they mean the territory of Republika Srpska:
22 "Activities are being undertaken in order to profit from these
24 So, this is what General Delic wrote on 16th of July, 1995. That
25 was exactly when those units were breaking out while fighting through the
1 territory of Republika Srpska.
2 So, he, as a commander, says that they managed to pull out, and
3 you say that genocide was perpetrated on them. Aren't those two things
4 contradictory, your thesis and his report? Or whatever it is that you
5 are trying to say on a basis of some sort of science? Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Dr. Brunborg has clearly said he based the
8 genocide on the Krstic judgement, so the question is now being: Compare
9 the Krstic judgement to Delic's report, and I just don't think that gets
10 us anywhere. I mean, does he really want to open the Krstic judgement to
11 be part of the litigation in this case, and does that open up the Popovic
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was wondering which purpose these questions
14 have. On the other hand, it is the right of the accused to put questions
15 to the witness in relation to the article he wrote. That has something
16 to do with professionalism, his background, how he came to certain
18 Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I absolutely agree with the Court on that,
20 and that's why you haven't seen me get up. But his -- his question
21 implied that the witness had made a personal assessment of the genocide,
22 and the witness has denied that repeatedly and said he is just repeating
23 Krstic. So he is misstating the evidence, he is misstating the testimony
24 in his question. And that's just not allowed, because -- it doesn't take
25 us any of where. The article is a potential -- is absolutely open --
1 open season on the article, no problem with that. But now he is going
2 beyond it and suggesting something the witness specifically has rejected
3 several times.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, is it possible to rephrase your last
5 question in this respect?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I've already asked the
7 question. You, yourself, can look at this document once again. Take a
8 look at the fourth paragraph on page 3. The last sentence in that
9 paragraph as is as follows, and I quote:
10 "The attempt to annihilate the Muslim population after the
11 takeover of Srebrenica is the gravest and the most obvious example of
12 genocide during the war in former Yugoslavia."
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. My question to the witness is as follows: Is this the analysis
15 referred to by Mr. McCloskey or is it your claim?
16 A. Thank you. I would just again refer to the Krstic judgement and
17 remind Mr. Tolimir that there were -- men were separated from their
18 families in Potocari and sent by bus to execution sites.
19 So a large number were executed and have later been find -- or
20 exhumed from mass graves and identified through DNA analysis. So there
21 were large killings. Of course, there may also have been some fighting
22 on the way and some battle deaths. But, as I said yesterday, we do not
23 know and you do not know how many were killed in those -- in that --
24 those combats.
25 Q. Thank you. Mr. Brunborg, what you've just said implies a new
1 question: This thesis that you have just expounded on, is it your
2 initial assumption from which you started your research? Since, here, in
3 the last sentence, you mention articles written in 1996 and 1997. Take a
4 look at the end of the third paragraph. Thank you.
5 Is this a book or a judgement?
6 A. These are -- these are two books. The one is the -- by
7 David Rohde: "The End Game," which we referred to previously today. The
8 Honig and Booth is also a book written by them. I don't remember the
9 exact title. These books were, as you know, then written before our --
10 or my assignment and also before the trials against Krstic and other
11 people accused of -- of war crimes in Srebrenica.
12 Honig and Booth: "Record of a war crime."
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we see the title on the list of references,
14 yeah, on the screen.
15 THE WITNESS: And -- thank you, Your Honour. And also we see the
16 full title of the book by David Rohde: "End Game: The Betrayal and Fall
17 of Srebrenica: Europe's worst massacre since World War II."
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of
20 your testimony is that your article was informed by the decision and
21 conviction on genocide in the Krstic case?
22 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE NYAMBE: Are you aware that before that case, there is
24 other judgements of this Tribunal at Appeals level confirming a genocide
25 tried in another tribunal like this one in ICTR?
1 THE WITNESS: I believe the Krstic case was the first case where
2 an accused was found guilty of being involved in genocide. As far as I
3 know, it was the first genocide case of -- in Europe since World War II.
4 But, as you also know, at the ICTR in Arusha there had been already
5 genocide cases.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, my question is: Was your article informed by
7 that decision of the ICTR, which ultimately came to the Appeals Chamber
8 as was confirmed?
9 THE WITNESS: In the Krstic case --
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: No, Akayesu case.
11 THE WITNESS: The ICTR?
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Correct.
13 THE WITNESS: I don't think so. Excuse me, since we were talking
14 here about genocides in Europe, not in Africa.
15 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 For the record, I have to say, that this report by General Delic
19 is 1D373. And I quoted it because it's absolutely in contradiction with
20 what this witness is saying about the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
21 Its own commander is saying something else. It is 1D373 for the record.
22 And now can we have P1776. That's a report dating from 2009.
23 Can we see page 38 in Serbian, and page 34 in English.
24 What we want to look at here is addendum 2 to your report
25 entitled: "Definitions of terms in relation to victims of Srebrenica."
1 Here, you define the term of a disappeared person as the place
2 and date of disappearance. So you define this as a date when this person
3 went missing, or, rather, when this person was last seen alive, and then
4 you add that that is not necessarily the date of death. And then in the
5 footnote, you say this could either the date the informant her/himself,
6 last saw the person alive or a date based on information provided by an
7 eye-witness through the informant. This is quite unclear, so I want to
8 ask you the following:
9 This definition of the date when the person went missing, is that
10 the date given by the informant based on his own personal observations,
11 or based on some information received from alleged eye-witnesses? Thank
13 A. Thank you. We received this information in the -- in the lists
14 of missing and dead persons from ICRC, and we had some contact with ICRC
15 about the interpretation of this question and that's, as far as I
16 remember, they told us this is how this question should be or this
17 information should be interpreted. But we do not know in each case
18 whether it was last seen alive by the family member himself or herself,
19 or by somebody else, or whether it was a known date of death.
20 So we have no information about this. We have not seep this --
21 the individual reports from the family members of the missing persons.
22 We have only -- all the information we have from them is the date of
23 disappearance interpreted in the way we just described and the place of
24 disappearance, which is also interpreted in this way.
25 Q. Bearing in mind what you just said, could you tell me: Did you
1 research at all the level of reliability of this information about the
2 date of disappearance?
3 A. Thank you. I do not really see how we could have researched
4 that. Then we would have had to interview family members and we did not
5 have access to the names or where they lived.
6 So that would -- would have been an impossible task. But I can
7 only say that the dates that were reported for missing and the places of
8 disappearance reported as missing are consistent with later findings
9 about exhumed bodies from mass graves and other graves, where the missing
10 persons have been identified as dead. So there is no inconsistency in
11 this. In fact, we deleted cases where the place of disappearance or
12 especially date of disappearance was inconsistent with our criteria, but
13 some of these have later been found identified as dead in
14 Srebrenica-related graves.
15 So we were too strict, one could say.
16 Q. Thank you. In your previous answer, you said that you received
17 the list from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and then I
18 want to ask you: If you didn't talk to those people who reported the
19 missing persons, could you at least analyse the documents that they have
20 given, the documents in which they registered the fact of a missing
21 person? Is there any sort of written trail that you analysed, or did you
22 simply base your work on the lists?
23 A. We did not have access to the documents where families reported
24 persons as missing. We only had access to a list of names with dates of
25 disappearance and place of disappearance. And the -- the ICRC would not
1 provide that information to us. They did not even provide all the
2 information in their own lists. They did not give us the information on
3 whether a certain disappearance was related to the fall of Srebrenica.
4 If they had done that, things would have been easier.
5 But in October 2008, ICRC provided the OTP with a list of --
6 called: "Srebrenica-related Missing Persons," where that -- they had
7 considered the information given by family members on whether -- whether
8 a person disappeared in connection with the fall of Srebrenica. It would
9 have been useful to have had that information before.
10 Q. Thank you. So does that mean that, for the purposes of your
11 analysis about the demography of war, you only had the list of the
12 persons with the date and place of their disappearance? Was that the
13 sole basis for such an in-depth analysis in which you claim what you
14 claim? Thank you.
15 A. Thank you. No, it was not the only sole basis. It was not the
16 sole basis for our claim. First, we had two different lists from ICRC,
17 two different lists from PHR, and then, as we discussed yesterday, we --
18 we compared these lists with the census of 1991 and found that a large
19 number, almost everybody on the missing lists, also lived in this area in
20 1991. We also looked at lists of survivors after the war, notably
21 displaced persons, and voters and found very few potential survivors.
22 So -- and we did all kinds of analysis, checking for
23 inaccuracies, correcting inaccuracies when they were obvious. So I think
24 it is wrong to say that we based our analysis solely on these lists.
25 Q. Thank you. Without going into details about the reliability of
1 those lists and how many of those persons were logged in the Federation
2 and how many in Republika Srpska, because it is irrelevant for the
3 purposes of this questioning but it is relevant for the purposes of your
4 research, I'm going to ask to you instead to look at the first
5 paragraph in this report of yours here where we can read the following:
6 "The registers of persons in period between the -- the 1st of
7 July or immediately before but not earlier, the 1st of July, were
8 considered the most relevant" --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to interrupt you. I don't
10 know where you are reading from. Can you tell us which page and which
11 line again in both languages?
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the first paragraph, date of
14 disappearance. I already read the first sentence, and now I'm reading
15 the second sentence. If you found it, I will continue. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I'm going to read it once again
18 for the record:
19 "Records with the reported disappearance or death, between
20 11 July and 31st of August, 1995, or immediately before but not earlier
21 than 1st of July, were considered the most relevant. But also records
22 with disappearances between 1st of September and the 31st of December,
23 1995, from locations in or near the enclave, were included in our
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. My question is as follows: Why did you leave this period open as
2 far as the 31st of December, 1995? Thank you.
3 A. We included a few cases of date of disappearance after 1995
4 because persons were found -- were said to be disappearing in places that
5 were -- had been defined as Srebrenica-related. And also because the
6 ICRC provided us this list in October 2008 with a number of persons
7 listed as Srebrenica-related, and seven of those were -- had a date of
8 disappearance in 1996. But the date of disappearance for those seven
9 were, in some cases, not complete. So it is possible that they were
10 misprints. The possibility of misprint is -- is everywhere and that is
11 also a reason why we included a few cases of disappearances in -- through
12 May and June, 1995. One of them was not complete.
13 About the -- the 1996 disappearances, three of them -- no. Two
14 out of the seven had -- have later been found in mass graves and
15 identified as dead.
16 Of those in May and June, one has been found as identified as
18 So we -- we cannot -- we used different information.
19 If I may come back to your -- your previous question on whether
20 we based our analysis solely on these lists, I would say that, later
21 findings have confirmed our preliminary conclusions and the later
22 findings are based on exhumations and DNA analysis and identification of
23 dead. They are all supported our first conclusions in 2005 and -- and
24 the year 2000.
25 Q. Thank you. My question is this: If you take into account such a
1 wide spectrum much events and activities and move the deadline to the end
2 of 1995 and even if you take all of those killed, irrespective of how
3 they were killed, would then all such victims be victims of the genocide,
4 as defined in your report?
5 A. We did not go into the details or -- about whether each
6 individual was part of a genocide or not. Our genocide conclusion is
7 based on the Krstic findings, the judgement, I mean, and I don't know if
8 they -- or I don't think the Judges considered each and every missing or
9 dead person in the genocide connection. They had an overall impression
10 of events, and that's what we based our conclusion on.
11 Q. A moment ago, I quoted General Delic's report drafted on the very
12 day of the breakthrough from the RS to the Federation. There were
13 witnesses here who stated that they carried their own dead from the
14 location of Baljkovica from the RS to Federation territory once the
15 corridor was opened up. They also said that the entire unit pulled out,
16 including the dead they carried alongside. Would all those dead, too, be
17 included among the victims of genocide?
18 A. If these deaths were reported by the families as missing, they
19 would be included; otherwise, not. It is possible that some of them were
20 returned to the families and then the families had no need to report
21 their relatives as missing. But I don't have any detailed information
22 about that.
23 Q. Who could provide us with that information if not you? You seem
24 to have taken into account all sorts of victims as victims of genocide.
25 You all put them in the same basket. How are we supposed to sort it out
1 here before this Tribunal? Perhaps you have a proposal for us.
2 A. Sir, as I said a few minutes ago, we did not take each and
3 every -- consider each and every missing or dead person in the genocide
4 context. We described in the academic article a -- events that resulted
5 in a large number of killed persons. That is certain. And other people,
6 other authors, have described this as a genocide, and the Judges in the
7 Krstic trial and other trials have also described this as a genocide.
8 Q. [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Yesterday, at page 8, you discussed some figures you established.
13 You put forth the figure of 7.905. Do you recall that particular number?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Can you recall whether there was a single death reported to you
16 that didn't make it on this list of 7.905?
17 A. Yes. Many, in fact, several hundred. One is listed in Table 12
18 of the -- our 2009 report, and in the one of the exhibits yesterday,
19 where there was inclusive -- not conclusive evidence.
20 For example, the ICMP has in -- found 281 cases of unique
21 profiles, DNA profiles that were linked to missing persons, but they
22 could not defined [sic] which person the unique profile can be associated
23 with, because, say, siblings or fathers and sons have such similar DNA
24 profiles that it was not possible to, say, link the DNA profile based on
25 bones to -- to the family members that have reported and have donated
2 An extreme example is twins, male twins in this case. Twins
3 have -- monozygotic twins have identical DNA. So you cannot know if you
4 find, then, bones with a profile; that is, matches, a twin. You cannot
5 tell whether it is -- which of the twins it is associated with. You
6 cannot tell which body it is. So that's why there are deaths that are at
7 the current state excluded, because it is not certain which persons they
8 can be associated with.
9 There are also several hundred -- I -- persons or profiles, DNA
10 profiles of persons that have not been able to link to any name, no-name
11 profiles. Perhaps --
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Apologies, Your Honours. Mr. Tolimir
15 is not receiving interpretation at the moment.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could it perhaps -- Mr. Tolimir, when I'm talking
17 to you, do you understand me now? Do you receive interpretation?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I can
19 hear you now. It was my mistake, because I seem to have to push the
20 switch and toggle the channels.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Last sentence of the witness was:
22 "There are also several hundred persons or profiles, DNA profiles
23 of person that have not been able to link to any name, no-name profiles."
24 And then Dr. Hagland [sic] wanted to continue with a word,
25 "Perhaps" --
1 THE WITNESS: Sorry, not Dr. Hagland.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was a big mistake. We have had so many
3 witnesses here in the Tribunal that it occurs that -- and I apologise for
5 Dr. Brunborg, please continue with your answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. There were -- these no name DNA
7 profiles cannot be associated with any name, because they were probably
8 people who did not report their family members as missing, either because
9 the whole family was exterminated or they, for medical or political or
10 ethical or some other reasons did not report the person as missing, did
11 not come forward to donate blood or they lived in Australia or a far away
13 So I could say since Mr. Tolimir asked are there any death that
14 are not included in a list of 7.905, yes, there are several. No name,
15 DNA profiles, excluded deaths because their DNA profile may be associated
16 with several persons, that also excluded persons as missing because they
17 may be survivors, potential survivors although that is not clear. So, in
18 the -- to conclude, in the 7.905, there are excluded deaths and there are
19 excluded missing persons. Moreover, since we finished this report in
20 April 2009, the OTP has received several hundred DNA profiles identified
21 from the ICMP. So the number is now both missing and of dead is now
22 probably significantly higher.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Brunborg. You have just discussed some cases that
1 were still open at the time which may have been resolved in the meantime.
2 Let me ask you this: Do you know when the attack on Srebrenica
3 in July 1995 began, on what date?
4 A. I remember reading books and articles on this, 12 or 13, 14 years
5 ago. It was at the beginning of July 1995, and it culminated with the
6 exodus, large exodus of persons from -- from Srebrenica, the town of
7 Srebrenica, either to Potocari or through the forests. I don't remember
8 the exact date, was it 4th or 5th of July or something? I don't recall
9 the exact date.
10 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that before the VRS entered Srebrenica,
11 the Army of the Federation had already begun their breakthrough from
12 Susnjari, in Jaglici, and that the population had already left for the
13 base in Potocari? Do you recall on what date that was as compared with
14 the entry of the VRS?
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: A gross misstatement of the facts. That's
17 particularly a problem with a witness who may not be associated with
18 those facts. Because how is he to answer a falsely fact-based question?
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The previous question and the answer of the
20 witness made clear that he was not present during the events. He was
21 tasked with his report and his research much later after the events. He
22 was not an eye-witness.
23 I think it is not necessary to put these kind of questions to the
24 witness. You should ask other witnesses who have been present at that
25 point in time in this area.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, these questions are
2 essential, because the witness took it upon himself to research a whole
3 spectrum of missing persons within a very large segment of time, and I'm
4 trying to find out whether he knows the sequence of events which were
5 important for his analysis, unless you deem it unimportant. I'll abide
6 by your decision.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We will not get valid answers to that from the
8 witness. He made clear that he even doesn't know that he -- he didn't
9 have a reason to know when the attack on the enclave commenced.
10 What is the purpose of such a kind of question about the events
11 on the ground?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The purpose of this question is for
13 the witness to tell us why, as the date of disappearance, he chose the
14 period between the 1st of August and the 31st of December, 1995.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is a very good question. I think the
16 witness should answer this question.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 I was given the task, the dates were defined by the OTP and
19 Mr. McCloskey's team. If you look at the chart, 2A in our 2009 report,
20 you will see that the vast majority of the dates of disappearance were in
21 mid-July. On the 11th of July, there were 2.278; 12th, 1.532; 13th,
22 1.706; 14th, 538; and then it drops. On the 15th, 241; on the 16th, 124;
23 et cetera.
24 So --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be, of course, helpful to have that shot
1 on the screen. You say this is ...
2 THE WITNESS: Figure 2A, page 15 in the English version of the
3 report, 2009 report.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now we have it on the screen
6 THE WITNESS: You see --
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You haven't told us the basis of your decision to choose those
9 particular dates. My question was what was the basis of your choice by
10 which you decided to include the period between the 11th of July all the
11 way until late December?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness told it was not his choice by the
13 choice of the OTP.
14 Witness, were you given reasons for this decision by the OTP?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was given -- they told the story about the
16 events, about the losses [Realtime transcript read in error "buses"],
17 about the executions, what was known at that time. And, indeed, when we
18 started looking at the data and made charts such as 2A in the report and
19 also Figure 1 on the previous page, you see that the vast majority of
20 people went missing in the first days of 11th of July and the following
21 four, five days. And that the number of people went missing after
22 July in the rest of 1995 is very minimal.
23 We also see, if you could look -- yeah, there we see in Figure 1
24 we see there are very few who went missing, reported missing in August,
25 September, October, November, December, almost negligible. If you had
1 deleted those from our analysis it wouldn't have made much impact. But
2 we thought it was fair to include them because some of the reasons for --
3 for such late dates of disappearance could be misprints or other reasons.
4 We also notice that on Figure 2B on the next page, which we just
5 saw, if you could switch to 2B, please, on page 15 of the English
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will come up soon.
8 THE WITNESS: We see -- thank you. In 2A, we had a total number
9 missing. In 2B, the identified dead has been shaded, and indeed the
10 majority of persons who went missing on those days in July have been
11 identified as dead.
12 So this confirms the -- you say the advice of the OTP that
13 concentrate on those dates. Indeed, those people have been found to
14 be -- found in mass graves and are identified as dead. The exact date of
15 death cannot be -- usually not be found from exhumations, of course, so
16 the exact date of death must be inferred from eye-witnesses and other
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I think I should make one correction
19 in the record. Page 30, line 10, you are recorded having said:
20 "They told the story about the events, about the buses, about the
21 executions ..."
22 I think you said "about the losses."
23 THE WITNESS: On page 30?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No -- on the record. Don't look into the -- no,
25 the record of today's hearing.
1 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are recorded in line 10 about having said
3 "about the buses," but I think I heard you saying "about the losses."
4 THE WITNESS: By the buses, I'm not quite sure, but I think ...
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You can't see it. It disappeared from the
7 THE WITNESS: If I said buses, I meant the bussing of men from
8 Potocari to execution sites that is known by witness statements.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said "buses" and not "losses," yes?
10 THE WITNESS: I would have to see it on the screen.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I read the relevant part:
12 "Yes, I was given -- they told the story about the events, about
13 the buses, about the executions, what was known at that time."
14 What did you --
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, of course, are you right. It should
16 be "losses."
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Witness, did you receive any data from the OTP about how many
22 people were killed in combat in the enclave between the 1st and 11th of
23 July which is the period you have just discussed? Were you provided that
24 information or not?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Do all those who were killed between the 1st of July and the 11th
2 of July figure in your reports as genocide victims?
3 A. First, we do not use the term "genocide victim" at all.
4 Secondly, if there were people who were known to be -- to have
5 been killed in combat or otherwise between the 1st and 11th of July, they
6 may not have been reported as missing or dead. To what extent they were
7 not reported, I do not know, but people were not supposed to report those
8 they knew were dead already.
9 Third, there are 41 persons listed as -- with a date of
10 disappearance between the 1st and the 11th of July. Of these -- of those
11 who went missing, the largest group is on the 10th -- 10th of July. Of
12 these, 65.8 per cent have been identified as dead, found in -- in --
13 exhumed from graves.
14 Q. In your report, when deciding on the place of disappearance, you
15 understand it to be the place where the person was last seen alive; is
16 that correct?
17 A. That may usually be the case.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. It is page 38 in the B/C/S and 34 in the English, in his report.
21 A. Excuse me, page 38 -- oh, sorry, 34.
22 It could or could not be the place of -- of death or it could
23 also be last seen alive. Family members are likely to have reported
24 differently, based on their knowledge about -- about what happened to
25 their relatives.
1 Q. Thank you. Based on what you wrote, I'd like to ask you this:
2 Would it not have been more fair to say that that place was the place
3 where the person reporting that there was a person missing saw that
4 person for the last time? Would that have been the more fair way, to put
5 it that way? Or to take the place of disappearance as the place where
6 the person who last saw somebody alive and then conveyed that information
7 to the person reporting the missing person, would it not have been the
8 more fair way to put it that like that than to say that they disappeared
9 at a location which is, say, 50 or 60 kilometres away?
10 A. As I said earlier, I think there's a mixture of -- of different
11 interpretations of the place of disappearance, unfortunately. We would
12 have liked very much to have a clear definition. In some cases,
13 relatives saw a person dying. In other cases, and if I'm being a family
14 member I'm perhaps reporting that person missing or dead, her or himself.
15 In other cases they heard it from others that the person had died in
16 other cases. Again, a -- they knew that the person was seen in a certain
17 place and that -- that was reported as the last place of -- or as the
18 place of disappearance.
19 So based on -- since we only have a place, a place name, and no
20 interpretation of -- or clear definition of what the meaning of that is
21 for each and every missing person that we have -- we have sort of a bag
22 of different definitions and we have to remember that when we do the
23 analysis that this is not the precise definition, just as the date of
24 disappearance is.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you clarify something for me, please. In
1 footnote 23, on page 38 of your report in the B/C/S, which is page 34 in
2 the English version, you discuss the collecting of information on the
3 missing persons by the ICRC.
4 In the last sentence you say: "However, the ICTY -- however this
5 information was not provided to ICTY for the missing persons."
6 Can you clarify that for us, please?
7 A. Thank you. In the same footnote, it says that the PHR asked this
8 specific question, did he or she disappear after the fall of Srebrenica
9 in July 1995? And that information was provided to us. But ICRC did not
10 pose any precise question to the informants about this, but they based --
11 they -- they registered the stories of the informants or the interview
12 with an informant, starting with during the fall of Srebrenica or after
13 the fall of Srebrenica, et cetera, et cetera. But this information was
14 not provided to us, so we don't know. We were told that this was the
15 context of the interviews with the family members reporting the missing
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we must have the first break now.
18 And we will resume at quarter past 4.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Our apologies for the delay. We had another
22 meeting and a matter to discuss.
23 Mr. Tolimir, please continue your cross-examination.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Brunborg, can you please tell us something about your report
2 from 2009. Page 77 in English and 81 in the Serbian.
3 This is the matching up of the OTP list with the list of the
4 International Red Cross. We're looking at paragraph 4 on this page. The
5 third and the fifth paragraph.
6 In the third paragraph you say, I quote:
7 "Although the exact criteria that the ICRC used to select records
8 for this list are not known to us, it is likely that they used the
9 information concerning the circumstances of disappearance reported by the
10 relatives of the missing and being part of the ICRC tracing requests."
11 Then in paragraph 5 you say:
12 "Also, 98 records were included on the 2005 OTP list but were not
13 listed on the ICRC Srebrenica 2008 update. However, on the basis of DNA
14 identification by ICMP and a surmised difference in the understanding of
15 'Srebrenica related,' we see no reason to exclude these records."
16 In view of this, what are these surmised differences that you are
17 understanding here and that you saw no reason to exclude?
18 A. Thank you. I don't remember each of these 1998 records, but, as
19 it says, they were not included in the ICRC Srebrenica 2000 [sic] update.
20 But they were included, they have been identified as dead, and since
21 there have been exhumed from Srebrenica-related graves, identified as
22 dead, that is the reason why we thought they could safely be included.
23 If they had not been found in Srebrenica-related graves, we probably
24 would not have included them. But to give a definite answer to that, I
25 would have to look at all those 1998 records again.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Dr. Brunborg, just one clarification for the
2 record. You were talking about the ICRC Srebrenica 2008 update; isn't
3 that correct?
4 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm, yes.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 Mr. Tolimir.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. As you say in your report, the criteria were not clear to you
10 either. So my question is: Why did you then use the ICRC lists in order
11 to draft the OTP lists when you working in the OTP? Thank you.
12 A. Because we trust that ICRC collected good information on the
13 circumstances of missing persons and the place of disappearance and the
14 date of disappearance, et cetera, and ICRC, being a neutral humanitarian
15 organisation, would have no reason to misrepresent the data in any way.
16 Remember also, that the basis for the ICRC -- the main basis for
17 their collection of missing data is tracing missing relatives.
18 Q. Thank you. In view of your answer, my question, then, is: Does
19 that mean that you did not check the authenticity of the data that was
20 provided to you by the ICRC in those lists? Thank you.
21 A. The authenticity was verified by -- by the owner and provided by
22 the data -- the ICRC. We could not check the authenticity of each and
23 every record in any other way than what we have described earlier by
24 checking consistency, removing duplicates, looking for survivors,
25 checking, especially, that is important, with the census 1991 to see if
1 the data was correct. To see that the dates of birth and name, et
2 cetera, of the missing persons were, indeed, were correct and as recorded
3 in 1991, four years before they went missing.
4 But, as I said earlier, we did not have access to the document,
5 the handwritten document, we believe, for each missing person.
6 Q. Thank you. Did you have the Prosecutor's material that referred
7 to events, activities, and testimonies on the basis of which parameters
8 could be accessed that speak differently? Thank you.
9 A. Thank you. Could you please be a little more specific in that
11 Q. If you worked only on the basis of the lists which you trusted
12 and relied on, did you have any other documents from the OTP for whom you
13 drafted the report in order to check the veracity of those lists?
14 A. We only had documents describing what was going on, the events in
15 those days. I don't remember which. They were not very important, and
16 we had, of course, then -- we had a list of places of disappearance that
17 were Srebrenica related. This list was drawn up by the OTP, by people
18 who were very familiar with events in 1995.
19 Q. For example, we have just read Delic's report which was created
20 on the last day when the Army of Republika Srpska opened the corridor for
21 them to be able to leave Republika Srpska, because they were trying to
22 get through in the middle of battle. There are no -- there is no --
23 there are no figures for losses in the B and H army but there is
24 information for the VRS casualties. There was another witness here who
25 testified, who stated information that there were 900 or more persons who
1 were killed in the column as the column was trying to get through, out of
2 the area.
3 As a demographer, did you take into account this fact about
4 these 900 persons, and did you take into account the fact that they were
5 killed in battle and not in any other way? Did you use all of those
6 things in order to complete the information?
7 A. As I've said previously, we relied on data on individuals,
8 missing and dead persons, needing last name and date of birth, et cetera
9 of each person.
10 So a given number of 900 persons would not -- could not be used
11 by us unless accompanied by a list of those 900 persons. Whether you are
12 claiming that those 900 were killed in battle that is not -- I don't have
13 any expertise on that, but that may be an exaggeration.
14 Q. I'm just saying what your colleague, Dusan Janc, who was a
15 witness for the Prosecution said and to whom you referred. But I am
16 saying is if you had information that there was a breakthrough attempt at
17 Baljkovica and that a certain number of persons were killed, why did you
18 exclude that piece of information in your report and include them in the
19 total figure for those who were killed in the genocide?
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I'm not sure if it is correct to say
21 that Witness Dusan Janc was a colleague of the current witness. He
22 explained the relation between staff members of the OTP and his
23 involvement earlier.
24 Mr. Tolimir.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, he certainly never said 900 people
1 were killed in combat either, so, I, again, object to the misstatement of
2 the evidence.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
5 But, sorry for interrupting, you. Judge Nyambe has a question.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, can you just assist me at page 59, lines 5 to
7 6, you have just stated:
8 "I don't have any expertise on that, but that may be an
10 How do you come to the conclusion, since you don't have the
11 expertise, that that could be an exaggeration? Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: What I've seen and heard. I've looked at
13 Mr. Janc's report, not having saw it in detail, but as Mr. McCloskey just
14 said, he did not say that all these or -- were killed in battle. And
15 what I know, then, is that many of those people who went through the
16 forest were found in mass graves.
17 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you for your answer.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Brunborg, this is a report by Dusan Janc on the surface
22 remains that were found on the road from Srebrenica to Baljkovica. My
23 legal assistant is going to find the reference for you because the
24 Prosecutor asked that we give you the reference.
25 All I'm asking you is this: Did you have any knowledge about any
1 surface remains of victims, remains that were found on the surface?
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is just what may be a translation issue, but
5 I'm sure the General will agree there is not a road from Srebrenica to
6 Baljkovica, and so I think he is referring to surface remains, not along
7 the road. Because that is a very important distinction in this case,
8 found along the road or found in the woods.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, would you agree with that statement
10 of Mr. McCloskey?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do agree, Mr. President. I
12 said "surface remains."
13 I didn't say on the road. Perhaps I did say it, perhaps it was
14 an error in translation. I don't want to blame the interpreters, perhaps
15 I did misspeak. But this is not what I meant to say. I'm talking about
16 surface remains. They're even showing a table here where the route is
17 indicated, and there are red dots pointing out where the remains were
18 found, and we will show that during this testimony. I apologise to
19 Mr. McCloskey if we misunderstood one another.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you said on the way from Srebrenica to
21 Baljkovica, which could mean also the word.
22 And now, please, your answer, sir.
23 THE WITNESS: When we started this work in 1999/2000, we had no
24 information on particular surface remains. We knew there were some, but,
25 at that time, very few had been identified.
1 For the current report of 2009, we have included in Table 4
2 exhumation sites. Table 4, page 8 and 9 in the English version.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you. Well, we're not going to go into that any more until
5 I bring up the requested information.
6 I'm asking you this now: Why did the demographers, while
7 calculating the killed and the missing in relation to Srebrenica, also
8 count those who were missing in Zepa? Thank you.
9 A. Because date of disappearance and place of disappearance was --
10 were conveyed to us as relevant to the fall of Srebrenica. So Zepa was
11 then one of the places, I believe, I don't remember all the names, but
12 one of the places that was -- that we were told was related to the fall
13 of Srebrenica.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know if there were any victims or casualties
15 in Zepa at all during the combat; and if there were any, do you know how
16 many? Thank you.
17 Well, perhaps it would be more proper for me to show you Table 6B
18 on page 19 in the Serbian, this is page 17 in the English, then you can
19 also use those tables. Because I don't want any kind of answer. I would
20 like to have a precise answer. Thank you.
21 A. The answer to your first question, whether we had information
22 about deaths in combat, no. As I repeatedly say, we did not.
23 And the Table 6B which you pointed, there were -- 35 people have
24 been identified as dead with place of disappearance being Zepa out of a
25 total of 89 people being listed as last seen or with place of
1 disappearance being Zepa.
2 Q. Thank you. You established that as the place of disappearance,
3 but in Zepa everybody was present. All the parties to the conflict and
4 UNPROFOR and all the witnesses that came here who were active
5 participants in the events did not see any dead. Are these accurate
6 data, then, and can they undermine the overall results in that case of
7 your records?
8 A. I'm sorry, but I do not have any information about events in Zepa
9 or the situation in Zepa in July 1995.
10 Q. But you have just said that 89 persons were seen in Zepa for the
11 last time. And, according to the definitions you established for the
12 needs of this analysis, that is the last place where they were seen. So
13 that means that they disappeared in that place. Yes or no? Thank you.
14 A. They either disappeared in that place or they were last seen
15 alive in that place, according to the family members of the missing
17 Q. Thank you. And do family members go to war with soldiers? Do
18 you have any grounds to assert that they were in Zepa when they weren't
19 in Zepa? Are there any documents that would show that they were actually
20 in Zepa or is this just on the basis of hearsay? Do you have any kind of
21 reports or statements from those persons that you then used for the
22 purposes of your analysis? Thank you.
23 A. I only know that family members stated that their relatives were
24 last seen in Zepa, whether that information is based on their own -- what
25 they saw themselves or through somebody else, I do not know, since we do
1 not have exact information about the basis for the relatives' statements
2 about place of disappearance. It could be that they had the information
3 from other people who were together with the missing persons and who
4 survived. That is possible.
5 Q. Thank you. But these 89 persons are listed as missing persons.
6 Have you asked the OTP if they have any information about the
7 disappearance of these people, on the basis of those reports where it is
8 indicated that Zepa is their place of disappearance? Thank you.
9 A. No. And I don't know if OTP knows anything about this. But what
10 we do know -- the hard fact is that 35 of these people have been found as
11 dead in mass graves or exhumed from mass graves or other grave-sites.
12 A separate analysis could be done of those disappearing in Zepa
13 and where they were found later in -- in graves. But that information is
14 not included here. Then we'd have to do, as I said, a separate analysis
15 of these 35 according to exhumation sites.
16 Q. Thank you. If the brigade in Zepa, the civilian authorities in
17 Zepa, the army in Zepa, the UNPROFOR in Zepa, none of them recorded 89
18 killed or dead in Zepa - the OTP didn't record them either - how can we
19 understand, then, the figures that you provided here, based on -- an
20 analysis based on that information?
21 A. Well, I -- I ask you, where do the 35 dead people come from?
22 They were reported as missing in Zepa. So it is very strange that they
23 were not -- no deaths were seen, but I do not know anything about events
24 in Zepa and what happened there.
25 Q. Thank you. I would be all too glad to answer your question if I
1 had the right to answer questions here. But since you use this in your
2 report, I'm simply trying to find out from you how can I find it so that
3 I can clarify it for myself.
4 My following question: Can you explain us why did you include in
5 the list of missing persons related to Srebrenica those people who went
6 missing after they were at Baljkovica? That's the place that Delic is
7 referring -- is referring to when he says that his army managed to link
8 up with other forces, that they are still carrying out combat activities,
9 that they captured eight members of VRS.
10 So why did you include those people when it is possible that they
11 are persons who died in combat, and, furthermore, in the territory under
12 the control of the ABiH? Why did you include those people into the lists
13 of victims from Srebrenica? Thank you.
14 A. Because we were asked to make a -- complete lists of missing and
15 dead persons related to the fall of Srebrenica. We were not asked to
16 distinguish between or trying to separate out combat deaths. If there
17 were information about that, then I'm sure OTP would have taken care of
18 that issue.
19 Q. Thank you. If that was your goal in writing the report, then
20 maybe, to be acceptable, if the OTP was really set out to resolve this
21 problem. But you wrote your report for this Court and this is what
22 you're testifying about. So that's why I want you to tell this Court and
23 explain it -- explain to this Court why did your interview include these
24 people from Baljkovica? We've heard people -- testifying here who said
25 there were 40 dead people on Serbian side and that the members of the BiH
1 army carried away their dead casualties. Why did you include those
2 people in the list of persons missing in Srebrenica? I am satisfied with
3 your answer, if you simply say, Well, that's the task that was assigned
4 to us by the Prosecution. It's all right with me.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't know of anything in the record that
7 indicates there's been Muslims in the -- at battle at Baljkovica that
8 have been reported missing. So he is making that conclusion. If that's
9 his position, okay, but if he is referring to it as some conclusion he
10 needs to point to the record because I don't think it's such a thing.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Brunborg, do you recall the question of
12 Mr. Tolimir?
13 THE WITNESS: I think he gave the answer himself very well. That
14 was the task assigned to us by the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
16 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We are
18 satisfied with the answer.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I'm going to move over to the next topic.
21 Yesterday, we talked about the lists drafted by the BiH army.
22 Can we have page 104 in Serbian and 97 in English. I'm talking about the
23 Exhibit P1 -- P07170. Thank you.
24 Okay. We have it here. This table shows discrepancies between
25 several reports. For instance, the date of death as reported by BiH and
1 the date of death as reported by the Prosecution. So here can you see
2 220 cases - can we zoom in - 220 cases which do not correspond to the
3 Prosecution list in 2005. And we see that they died before the events
4 related to the fall of Srebrenica, and yet their bodies were identified
5 by DNA and found in the mass graves that the Prosecution is linking up
6 with the fall of Srebrenica. They died before the fall of Srebrenica
7 and, yet, here, their bodies were identified and they were found in the
8 mass graves. And it is the BiH army that reported that they lost their
9 lives before the combat that led to the fall of Srebrenica.
10 My question is then: Can you explain this table to us? And can
11 you give us some explanation for this phenomenon that in the Prosecution
12 list and in the mass graves we found names of people who died before the
13 fall of Srebrenica in 1992, 1993 and 1994?
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you give your answer, just for the record,
15 this is not P7170 but 65 ter 07170. It was already received as an
16 exhibit, and a later stage the Registrar will provide everybody with
17 correct numbers by sending out a memorandum.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for clarity of the record,
19 this document was assigned Exhibit P1776 yesterday on the transcript.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. This is the original report
22 of the -- I didn't know that. The original report of the witness.
23 Dr. Brunborg, now your answer, please.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Mr. Tolimir, the answers to your
25 question is given on page 95 of the same report in the English version.
1 See if you could see that, please.
2 For these 220 inconsistent records, we sent -- we sent the lists
3 to the Bosnian Army and got their responses that 140 have been confirmed
4 as identified and related to Srebrenica grave-sites by the ICMP. So even
5 though their reported dates by ABiH was inconsistent, then they have,
6 nevertheless, been found in Srebrenica-related grave-sites. 127 of the
7 total 220 have been corrected by the Ministry of Defence in response to
8 the OTP request for clarification and the corrected dates of death and
9 the additionally provided place of deaths clearly point to the fact that
10 these were all Srebrenica victims.
11 But, finally, there are 38 cases out of the 220 that remain
12 undecided. For the 31 out of these 38 cases, the OTP has requested such
13 a clarification, and the results are expected very soon. It is written
14 here. I'm not clear whether we have received a response to that or not.
15 So the conclusion is that although initially the date of death or
16 date of disappearance seemed in consistent with the fall of Srebrenica
17 clarification by the Ministry of Defence and findings by the ICMP find
18 that most of these 220 are, indeed, Srebrenica related. The reason again
19 being that there are often misprints in reports for various reasons and
20 so when you have several information sources and one of them may be
21 inconsistent with the others, but if the overwhelming majority of the
22 information shows in a certain direction, we tend to rely on that.
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. Mr. Brunborg, can you tell me, when we talk about the
1 registers of deaths in ABiH, do they make the entries whenever they want
2 or do they make the entries when the actual death occurred or at least in
3 the year when the actual death occurred?
4 So is it possible to now -- to change those registers now based
5 on the DNA data simply because somebody is saying that they haven't died
6 in 1992, 1993, 1994. I mean, if we know there are grave-sites, how can
7 we now change the date of death simply based on this additional
8 information? Thank you.
9 A. Mr. Tolimir, I'm not familiar with the proceedings of the
10 Bosnian Army with regard to recording of deaths. But I think that the
11 procedures are also not perfect, like all procedures for such things have
12 sometimes -- are imperfect and sometimes lead to errors, especially in
13 difficult war situation. Moreover, many of the reported deaths in the
14 ABiH records are not combat deaths. They are also deaths from natural
15 reasons because of pension rights for -- for family members, so -- and
16 many of those reported deaths in the ABiH records were not working or not
17 participating in combat. They were not soldiers but civilians working in
18 the civilian operations of the army or the non-combat operations.
19 So I think that this is not a problem that further investigations
20 saw that there -- there have been some mistakes in the first round of
21 recording. To repeat, in a war situation the date of death is often not
22 very well known.
23 Q. Thank you. Thank you for this explanation.
24 So, first of all, does that mean that it has been determined that
25 certain administrative services within the army or civilian protection or
1 the TO or wherever else, deliberately gave false information in order to
2 gain certain material advantage related to pensions and similar
3 entitlements? Were there such cases?
4 A. I'm not claiming that, but -- and I don't know any -- have any
5 evidence for claiming that. But it's a fact that people sometimes
6 present data in a way that is economically favourable to them.
7 Q. Thank you. When we are talking about economically favourable
8 things, were such economically favourable things used in relation to the
9 registers of persons missing in Srebrenica? Thank you.
10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 Q. Thank you. Let us then get back to the Table 6.4 which relates
12 to those 220 cases whose date of death does not correspond with the
13 Prosecution list of missing persons from Srebrenica compiled in 2005.
14 We have it here on the screen now. Let us take the fifth entry,
15 Hasanovic. You can see clearly here 1992 or more precisely, 1805992. Do
16 you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Does that mean that he went missing in 1992?
19 A. DOD here probably means date of death. But I am -- yes, that's
20 what I think it believes. Not date of disappearance.
21 Q. All right. So if he died in 1992 his family surely knows that.
22 How is it possible that he appears here in this register as a victim of
23 an event that took place in July 1995 in Srebrenica?
24 A. As you understand, I'm not familiar with this case here. I
25 assume that he was found in a -- in a mass grave or a -- a grave,
1 together with Srebrenica-related victims, and so the ICMP concluded that
2 he died in connection with fall of Srebrenica. Moreover, he was reported
3 to the ICRC as missing by their -- by their relatives.
4 ICMP has made an investigations to find out whether there were a
5 mixture of old deaths and more recent deaths in graves and they have
6 found apparently a few cases where there were both deaths from 1992 and
7 1995 and I think in Bratunac, but I'm not a specialist on this. And I
8 don't know if there were such mixed bodies in Orahovac. But, anyway, it
9 seems like ICMP has concluded that this was a person who died with -- in
10 connection with the fall of Srebrenica.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For a better understanding, could you perhaps
12 help me. In the headline, we see there in the fourth column, DOB and
13 then in brackets OTP. What does DOB --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Date of birth. Date of birth and
15 then DOD here probably means date of death. And this Hasanovic, the
16 military has not corrected that date of death. I don't know if that
17 person is included or not. But below, there is one who is listed with a
18 date of death 10th of January, 1994, but this has been corrected to
19 12th of July [Realtime transcript read in error "January"], 1995, by the
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The way the -- the -- the date is listed is
22 strange. Can you explain that for this person? It is 1805992, what does
23 that mean?
24 THE WITNESS: This is the way -- same way as the identification
25 numbers in the former Yugoslavia were recorded, date of birth, with day
1 and month, and year having three digits but not the century. 992, not
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
5 In line 6, page 51, just now you say:
6 "But this has been corrected to 12th January 1995 by the
8 THE WITNESS: 12th July.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: 12th July 1995. By which military?
10 THE WITNESS: The -- the army -- the Ministry of Defence of the
11 Bosnian federal -- Federation.
12 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Witness, does this point to the possibility that this list
17 may have been manipulated by the clerks working in the ministry and in
18 the military as well as people who reported the missing persons? Thank
20 A. I don't know. That is an accusation that I cannot support.
21 Q. Thank you. Take a look at the ninth line. It's the second Avdic
22 surname, Avdic, Avdulah. You can see that his date of death is 10th of
23 January, 1994. How is it possible for him to be included in the people
24 who died in Srebrenica? Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is, in fact, the eighth line.
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as can you see in one of the further
2 columns, the clarification has been requested. So this is inconclusive.
3 This is -- the evidence is not so strong here, so I think I need to check
4 whether this was included or not. But there are -- the evidence is
5 inconclusive here.
6 And the date -- the death of this person has not been confirmed.
7 There's no yet any DNA analysis connected with this person.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. Take a look at the next person. That person died on
10 the 19th of February, 1993. And you consider this person to be a victim
11 related to Srebrenica.
12 And then two lines down, Salihovic, number 12 and 13. And it is
13 also 94. And then the following one, Alic, again 94. Death is listed as
14 the year of death.
15 A. Mr. Tolimir, I am very pleased that you pointing out the
16 thoroughness of our work. We first included these people as missing,
17 because we had information from the ICRC and other sources that they had
18 been listed as missing. We are using all available data to check whether
19 the information on -- on the missing with regard to place and date of
20 death is really consistent with the events. And we checked 220 people
21 from the -- from the Army of Bosnia, the Federation, and found 220 cases
22 with inconsistent dates. After further work and checking, we remained
23 with 38. And it remains to be seen if any of these will be excluded or
25 So, again, we are looking at all possible inconsistencies. And
1 if you really find evidence for inconsistent place or date of death, we
2 exclude them, of course, from -- from persons having died in connection
3 with the fall of Srebrenica.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For my understanding, can you help me? Can I
5 take it from your answer that those who are listed in the military list
6 have died 1993, 1992, 1994, and you have no other lists with different
7 data. Then you excluded them from the whole list of death and missing
8 persons; is that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: I -- I need to check this further whether they have
10 actually been excluded or are sort of on the waiting-list, potential
11 candidates for being excluded or not. But after this thorough search, we
12 remained with only 38 possible inconsistencies and when this is resolved
13 they will either be excluded or included depending on the outcome of the
15 I will check, Your Honour, whether they have been excluded so
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I need a clarification for the relation between
18 the different columns.
19 We see the military entries in column 5 with some dates before
20 the event in Srebrenica. Then we see the date of death corrected, all
21 dates in July 1995. And then we -- at the end, we have a list of the --
22 the sites of mass graves.
23 Could you please explain what does that mean, if a person is
24 listed in the military list of the ABiH, for instance, to have died in
25 1992, and then found on Cancari Road, for instance. This is
1 Hilmo Arnaut. What is your finding, the final finding?
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as I said, I'm not familiar with the
3 way the deaths were reported to military, whether it was done by families
4 or the army itself, but the data here indicate that there have been some
5 mistakes in their reporting and whether that is due to typos or
6 systematic fraud or other errors, I don't know. I need to go and check
7 the correspondence and communications with the Ministry of Defence.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The military list, if you look at this column,
9 you see very often the date of the 10th of January, 1994. Have you any
10 explanation for that?
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. That is -- what is often used when
12 an exact date of birth or of an event in a year is not known, 1st
13 of January is often used instead, and it could be here it has been
14 twisted and 10th of January has been listed instead. That is a
16 First of the month or 1st of January is, as I said, often used as
17 a placement, an indication that they don't know the exact date.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But here it is always the 10th of January.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, there are some 1st of January also. If you
20 look at number approximately 15, Jusic, Akija Jusic [phoen] -- no,
21 Kandzetovic, who died on the 1st of January, 1994. But there are many on
22 the 10th. Whether that is related to a special event on the 10th of
23 January, 1994, or some kind of misreporting or use of 10th of
24 January instead as an unknown, indication of an unknown date, I don't
25 know. We would need to clarify that with the Ministry of Defence.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
2 Judge Nyambe has a question.
3 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just a clarification, maybe two. At page 54,
4 lines 15 to 6, you have responded:
5 "But the data here indicated that there have been mistakes in
6 their reporting of the date of death," as Judge Fluegge has just been
7 asking you.
8 Have you considered the possibility that there was no mistake
9 that the information in the data is, in fact, correct?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. But when we -- we found inconsistencies.
11 Remember that for these people we had information about the day they went
12 missing, received from family members. So depending, should -- who
13 should we believe in? Should we believe in the army data or the family
14 members' data. That's why we requested further clarification from the
15 military. But if it is very obvious that the -- the -- the military data
16 are correct, and in some cases they did not change the date, then, of
17 course, we will accept that and exclude them from Srebrenica deaths.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: The second question flows in from that, the one
19 you just answered and this is at page 53, lines 22 to 25.
20 You stated there that:
21 "But after this thorough search, we remained with only 38
22 possible inconsistencies, and when this" --
23 I'm missing somewhere:
24 "... they will either be excluded or included, depending on the
25 outcome of the investigations."
1 Do I understand your evidence to mean that they're actually
2 ongoing investigations now?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. There were -- for these -- it says on page 95
4 in the English version that 31 cases out of 38 already are in the process
5 of clarification. Additional clarification would be requested for the
6 remaining seven cases.
7 So this was -- this was the situation in April 2009. And perhaps
8 this should be written an addendum to this report on the outcome of this
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Here, you said that the army may have chosen the date at random.
15 Didn't you know that armies report precise dates of disappearance and
16 that their files are usually more accurate than civilian files? In the
17 army, there has to be a -- a living person registering someone. Is it
18 not more appropriate to have someone on the list by way of a physical
19 report or only by -- by someone -- by mere data?
20 A. Mr. Tolimir, I did not say that the army chose dates at random.
21 I said that when dates are registered, errors are made, everywhere, in
22 all situations, in all registers. Whether we should rely on physical
23 reports, first, we don't have such physical reports. Secondly, for
24 thousands of people, that would be an impossible task, first to acquire
25 those reports and then to go through them. So we do rely on dates and
1 names, et cetera, hard facts, since we are talking about thousands of
2 persons. That's the only way we could manage to do this analysis.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you know that in order to have someone deleted
4 from a list, the army would only remove a person from the list provided
5 they have a death certificate. Under the law, all local authorities were
6 duty-bound to issue such death certificates only following an
7 investigation, or, rather, they had to make sure that someone died,
9 A. I'm aware there are legal requirements to define somebody as
10 dead. When you said that in order to have someone deleted from a list,
11 just now, I don't know which list you are talking about. Are you talking
12 about the list of missing persons, or deaths or anything else?
13 But, generally, it is often important to have a legal statement
14 saying that a certain person is dead for inheritance and other reasons.
15 Even though a body is not found, in some cases a court may declare a
16 person as dead. But, of course, a body, or, particularly if it is
17 reported by DNA analysis, makes it easier for a court to declare a person
18 as dead.
19 Q. Thank you. Here we have Table 6.4. There are 28 people listed
20 there. According to army files, all of those deaths occurred between
21 1992 and the 10th of June 1995. That is to say, before the events in
22 Srebrenica. But basically in almost all of the cases, as mentioned by
23 Judge Fluegge as well, you put them on the list. Some of them made it on
24 to the list by DNA analysis found in the grave-sites.
25 So what was more important, was it DNA analysis, reports on
1 grave-sites, or the reports of the army which drafted a list of missing
2 persons on the spot? Because any army considers their personnel the most
3 important asset in a time of war. It is a fighting asset.
4 So which criterion should we rely on?
5 A. Here I believe it was ICMP that decided that these deaths were
6 Srebrenica related since they were found in graves with many other
7 Srebrenica-related deaths. Consequently, even though they reported date
8 of death was inconsistent, they were accepted by -- well, ICMP did not
9 have that date of death as reported by the army. That is something we
10 found by comparing with army lists. But, anyway, they are found in
11 Srebrenica-related graves, so it is possible, quite likely, that these
12 dates are wrong.
13 Q. Thank you. How will this Court know that they were, indeed,
14 found in those grave-sites and that DNA analysis was not conducted based
15 on fictitious data and reports or that such DNA analysis were not
16 retrieved from other entities and then linked to some of the grave-sites?
17 Did you carry out those checks?
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is up to the Chamber at the end of this trial
19 to judge which kind of list is reliable and we'll compare, of course, all
20 reports we receive in the evidence we were able to obtain in the
22 And this witness is not an expert of the ICMP. Please bear that
23 in mind.
24 You should rephrase your question, Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I will.
1 We have many lists of deceased persons, for example, D120. Could
2 we please have page 7 of that document on the screens. Page 5 in B/C/S,
3 7 in the English version just to give you an illustration of the size or
4 the number of people. I'm simply asking the witness to tell us which
5 criteria we should use when preparing our Defence case.
6 Could we please have D150. Sorry. D -- it's actually 1520.
7 This is an annex to the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina guide which had been
8 drafted before the clashes in Srebrenica. Page 5 --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is not very satisfactory. We
10 need a real number: P or D, or 65 ter. What is it about? There are
11 millions of documents. Which is the correct number?
12 Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it's my understanding they've
14 asked to hold this witness over to Monday and a question has -- such as
15 what should he tell him on how to prepare his Defence or how is the Judge
16 to know, these are just so time-wasteful. If they're going to keep him
17 over, can we stop wasting time like that. Unless he is told not to, I'm
18 afraid he is going to continue to do that.
19 So many of his questions are right on the money and he knows what
20 he's doing, so I don't understand why he keeps going off on those
21 directions. It's just a waste of time which we do not have.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. It was all in good --
24 with good intensions.
25 Could we please have D120.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is command of the 8th Srebrenica Operations
2 Group number 69, from 1994. Are you really referring to that?
3 This should not be broadcast. It is under seal, I'm told,
4 although it is not mentioned in your list.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then should not be broadcast
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Perhaps the witness could just have a look at how the lists --
9 how precise the lists are. For example, the page -- page 5 in B/C/S,
10 and 7 in English. All this was drafted before the fall of Srebrenica.
11 Here we can see page 5 -- item 5. You can see how long the list is and
12 the title states: "Names of soldiers killed up to the 31st of January,
14 So we have the list, and all of a sudden we have some
15 international organisations meddling with it, and it is from AB and H
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it will be a long question.
18 I would like to ask the witness first: Can you tell us, have you
19 ever seen this list?
20 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, I have not. They are many names
21 here, and I cannot answer on the spot. We would need to check if any of
22 these names are also on those 220 cases with inconsistent date of death.
23 So I thank you for providing us with this list, Mr. Tolimir. We
24 like such lists because it makes our case stronger. We will -- we can
25 then delete inconsistent cases. However, there is a problem with the
1 list and it has very limited information of names. It has only first
2 name and family name. The father's name is missing, there's nothing on
3 date of birth. So -- and there are many -- there are many people with
4 the same name. There are people in -- they are hundreds of people in
5 Bosnia with the same name. So it's a bit difficult to be conclusive on
6 this. But we'll do our best.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think, Dr. Brunborg, at the moment you are not
8 engaged with the OTP.
9 Mr. Tolimir, you should use this witness and his expertise during
10 your cross-examination to get as much as possible from him but in
11 relation to his expertise as a demographer.
12 Please carry on.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I wanted to show you just this one page, yet this entire document
16 consists of nothing but names. Now we can go back to page 1 of this same
18 My question for you is this: Did you at all rely on the files
19 and lists of those killed before the war in order to ascertain the
20 veracity of reported deaths and the data you received once you realised
21 that there were discrepancies?
22 A. When we discovered such discrepancies, such deaths are deleted
23 from the list of missing or dead -- missing and dead, in connection with
24 the fall of Srebrenica. We do not rely on such lists if the death --
25 date of death is different, very different from mid-July 1995. We have
1 no interest in cheating or making out of -- blowing up deaths, missing
2 persons artificially. But my co-author, Ewa Tabeau, will -- and we'll
3 look at this, if it has not been resolved satisfactorily already.
4 Q. Thank you, sir. I merely wanted you to tell me whether it is
5 standard practice to check your data against the lists of the army
6 because should someone willingly depart from the army, there are legal
7 consequences for that person. Here we saw the units and lists of all
8 those killed up to 1994, and, as we can see, based on this sheet of
9 paper, it is part of your list.
10 My question, following all this, is: By way of conclusion, is it
11 possible that there were manipulations by the army due to which you
12 decided against using their data and to rely exclusively on ICRC and
13 other sources for -- for data?
14 A. Mr. Tolimir, when we started this work in 1999, we did not have
15 any information from the army. But we requested data from the army
16 exactly to do what you have indicated, to check whether some people died
17 before 1995 which would merit exclusion from the lists. That's what we
18 were in the process of doing.
19 We found by checking 220 cases with inconsistent date of death,
20 now after further clarification, 38 remain, and we intend -- and this
21 should also be resolved.
22 I do not see why the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia should have an
23 interest in changing dates incorrectly for a small number. This is,
24 after all, a very small number compared to the total losses in
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Brunborg. But we did see on this list here only
2 on one sheet of 29 names that the army data was used in nine cases --
3 ten. Let's say ten. We've just analysed that. Otherwise, there are
4 still 28 open cases.
5 My question then is this: Why were the files used between 1992
6 and 1995 used --
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand. Could
8 Mr. Tolimir please repeat his question.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the interpreters ask to repeat your
10 last question, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Brunborg, tell us, please, why, in these 28 cases there are
14 demands to change army data for 1992 to 1995 so these people were missing
15 in their files for five years and why were there no requests to change
16 ICRC or OTP data which had no corroborating documents, save for simple
17 registrations or reports of missing persons?
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hope we have a translation error, because the
20 requests was never to change numbers. It was a request to clarify. So
21 I'm hoping that's just a translation error.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 Dr. Brunborg.
24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think Mr. McCloskey said that there was a
25 request to clarify inconsistencies so that we could make -- so that our
1 data material would be as good as possible. And for some cases, the --
2 they decided the -- they changed the dates; and for other cases they did
3 not change the date. That's all I can say.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise to
5 Mr. McCloskey. I believe I said that there were corrections -- or,
6 rather, changes of army data because we see here corrected dates, and I
7 only wanted to be fair to the interpreters. That's why I'm repeating
8 this. Thank you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The next question, please.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Brunborg, can you tell us this, please: How does the ICRC
12 update its lists of missing and killed in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and how
13 do they establish that some of those deaths are Srebrenica related?
14 Because you said that they carry out processes of updating their
15 databases in their computers, et cetera.
16 A. Again, there were several questions asked at the same time.
17 How -- the first one is how the ICRC updates its lists of missing
18 and killed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Well, they have an office or more
19 in -- in Bosnia and they receive information from people. They receive
20 new requests from families for missing persons and they also receive
21 information about survivors, really, actually for only 26 people since
22 the beginning of the registration of missing persons.
23 And they also do some technical checks, I believe, and find
24 sometimes mistakes. As I said, there is no perfect organisation. They
25 sometimes -- data are added twice or there are misprints, both in names
1 and date of birth and date of disappearance and so on. And when these
2 errors are discovered, they are corrected. But from 2005 to 2008,
3 they -- one was excluded because for a technical error, for example,
4 excluded by the ICRC.
5 So I'm not saying that every record is absolutely correct but the
6 overwhelming majority is based on the -- on correct data.
7 Q. Could we please have page 44 in e-court of the report, Table 3.1.
8 I will need this in order to put my next question. It is the 1999
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is P1776.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the English version, it is
13 page 40. In the B/C/S, page 44. Thank you. We have it before us.
14 Table 3.1.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. From the point of view of the ICRC, there were 3.459
17 Srebrenica-confirmed deaths. However, in your report you state that the
18 persons who were identified was actually 5.061. How do you explain the
19 difference between ICRC data and the data you used for your analysis?
20 That is to say, OTP data.
21 A. This is related to when the data reported and also to the process
22 about informing families about their -- their dead family members. So
23 that's why this involves courts and it's also a legal process. That is
24 why I believe that ICMP has a -- always a higher number than the ICRC.
25 Remember also they also have different lists of missing persons.
1 ICRC [sic] probably has a higher number of missing persons,
2 Srebrenica-related missing persons, that is, than the ICRC. And there is
3 also question of the date of the report, when did they do the counting of
4 number of confirmed deaths, for example.
5 Q. Thank you. Does it mean that their lists were not as up-to-date
6 as those of the OTP, because there seems to be a large difference,
7 particularly in view of all DNA identifications. And can you tell us who
8 took into account the data belonging to the other organisation? Did the
9 OTP reflect upon ICRC data, or was it the other way around? Which was
10 the prevalent piece of information to be used in the course of analyses?
11 A. The OTP has tried to integrate data from both ICRC and from ICMP,
12 at the same time avoiding duplications. So since we have data from two
13 sources, we can have different numbers of the totals.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we must have our second break now.
15 You have used, all together, approximately 4 hours and 50 minutes in your
16 cross-examination up to now. I would like to know how much additional
17 time you really need for planning purposes. It is important for the OTP,
18 and I would like to know how much time the OTP needs for re-examination.
19 Mr. Tolimir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 I will do my utmost to stay with the time we requested
22 originally, which was six hours. I may not be successful, but I will
23 strive to. We will in any case, need at least those six hours and by
24 your leave I may request some additional time, in due course, given the
25 fact that the witness will be here on Monday as well. There were certain
1 answers which were far longer than the questions.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's the usual experience. Questions have to be
4 longer -- shorter than the answers.
5 In that case, it is obvious that we can't finish with this
6 witness this week.
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I shouldn't have, I hope, not more than 30
9 minutes thus far; probably not even that much. So I don't see a lot at
10 this point.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But, for sure, we can't finish today.
12 So we must now take our second break and we'll resume at quarter
13 past 6.00.
14 It is very unfortunate for you, but there is no other way. Thank
15 you very much.
16 --- Recess taken at 5.47 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 6.17 p.m.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. My next question is: If, in one list, the OTP or the ICRC list,
22 persons are mentioned about whose fate the person who is drafting the
23 list has no knowledge of, would it then be correct for these persons to
24 be recorded as missing persons, until their fate is established, rather
25 than victims? Thank you.
1 A. Thank you. We have tried to keep to the term "missing or dead
2 persons." We have made a list of missing or dead persons. It is
3 possible that the -- the word -- the term "victims" are used in some
4 instances, but, really, we -- you are right, I think, that the missing or
5 dead is a better term than victim.
6 Now when two-thirds are found in graves, being identified as
7 dead, perhaps it is not so inappropriate to use the term "victim" but, of
8 course, it applies only to those that -- whose fates that been proven.
9 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at P1473, please. Page 77,
10 paragraph 2 in the English, and in the Serbian, it's page 103,
11 paragraph 3.
12 This is a judgement by the District Court in Belgrade, the
13 War Crimes Chamber, in the case --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, perhaps you gave a wrong reference.
15 The number of this War Crimes Chamber judgement is P1437. I take it from
16 your own list.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very much. I
18 made a mistake. Thank you.
19 [Microphone not activated]
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Page 77, paragraph 2 in
22 the Serbian. Thank you. And page 103, paragraph 3, in the English. We
23 have it now. Thank you.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. It states, I'm reading this paragraph in the Serbian:
1 "The court took into account Witness Amor Masovic's explanation
2 provided in the course of the examination, that DNA identification is
3 considered preliminary and identification is only finalised when the
4 victim's family signs the identification record."
5 My question is: When drafting your documents and doing your
6 analysis, did you have access to these identification records and did you
7 take them into account? Thank you.
8 A. I believe we did. That is why some of this is under seal,
9 because the families have not yet -- excuse me. The families have, in
10 some cases, not yet signed, I think. But I did not deal with the ICMP,
11 so I'm not 100 percent sure of it -- of this.
12 Q. Thank you. If the families haven't signed those, as Amor Masovic
13 says, is this then considered to be a preliminary rather than the
14 finalised identification until the family signs it? Thank you.
15 A. As far as I understand, the DNA identification is final, in that
16 there's -- there's no doubt on behalf of ICMP that there's a match
17 between the different DNA profiles. But from a more legal perspective,
18 then it is considered preliminary.
19 So, for our purpose, this is very useful and important
20 information to have.
21 Q. Thank you. And does this then avoid possible manipulation
22 whereby somebody could put somebody on that list who -- as being in the
23 mass grave; whereas, they actually died in 1992. Is this possible?
24 A. First, the ICMP works according to international -- very strict
25 standards, and so there is a -- there are international experts working
1 for ICMP overseeing the operations. They also have, I believe, ways of
2 distinguishing between bodies of -- that died many years apart.
3 Q. Thank you. And was an analysis conducted in any of the cases or
4 a particular check of this data? Are you aware of anything like that?
5 Thank you.
6 A. Could you be more specific, please?
7 Q. Was there a check or a comparison made between the finalised
8 records, on the basis of DNA, and those on the basis of other documents
9 that, for example, was -- were based on information from the ICRC, from
10 family members, or the Tribunal? Thank you.
11 A. Yes, certainly. We compared all this. And several tables in our
12 report shows these results of comparing ICMP data, identifications with
13 ICRC, our previous lists, et cetera. This is in -- in -- shown in
14 several of the tables in the report, including Tables 5 and many others.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think, Mr. Tolimir, the witness has explained
16 this process yesterday during examination-in-chief in detail, and he
17 repeated that today. If you have further questions to clarify some
18 topics that is, of course, helpful, but just to -- to repeat a question,
19 it is not that -- brings us nowhere.
20 Please carry on.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wasn't repeating it. I was just
22 asking whether data from the family, for example, if they buried somebody
23 in 1992 would that now to be corrected pursuant to the DNA that was found
24 in 1998, let's say, in Kozluk, for the sake of an example. Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: Could you also again repeat your question in a sort
1 of specific way?
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Was the main criteria for matching the data of the ICRC, the DNA
4 analysis -- I'm sorry, I'm thinking of the ICMP and their DNA testing.
5 Thank you.
6 A. As you know, I'm not a specialist on DNA testing. They run their
7 own operations at very high standards. They have error rates of one in
8 10.000, so you could expect less than one error of those sample of 8.000
9 that we are talking about here. And when they have -- are satisfied
10 about an identification, they -- with a given name, they -- they include
11 case numbers, et cetera, and we receive reports. And we compare that
12 report with our reports on missing persons. And -- yeah, that's what I
13 can say.
14 But if we discover they're widely different data on -- on
15 disappearance, we will not, of course -- not exclude and we do exclude
16 some -- some cases, which is -- which shows in -- if you may go quickly
17 through it. Let me see. Just a moment.
18 Q. I'm afraid that we're going to lose time. We still have just 15
19 minutes left.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 30 minutes.
21 THE WITNESS: Mr. Tolimir, if you look at Table 12 in our report
22 which was shown as one of the exhibits yesterday, you will see that we
23 excluded 12 potential survivors. We -- there some we did not exclude at
24 all, 281. So we are -- we are, indeed, looking at all the data that we
25 are receiving from ICMP.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is, again, P1776.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Since we do have P1776
3 on the screen, and having heard what the witness said, can we now look at
4 page 47 in the Serbian; paragraph 6. And page 43 in English. Page 47 in
5 the Serbian, please. Thank you.
6 P1776, the report from 2009. Can we have that? And page 47 in
7 the Serbian, because what I'm seeing here is page 46. Thank you.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That's e-court page 48. Thank you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: E-court numbers not always are the same as the
10 pages in the document.
11 Mr. Gajic.
12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I don't see the
13 transcript in front of me right now, but we're talking about the report
14 from 2009, P1776.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I will put the question while we're waiting, and then if it is
17 something that is disputed, we'll look at it.
18 Anyway, I quote:
19 "As soon as the matching is established, the findings are sent to
20 the pathologist who, if he believes it is correct, would sign the
21 certificate of death."
22 My question is: Could you please explain or clarify to us the
23 procedure, since Amor Masovic spoke about the identification reports that
24 are signed by the family, and you're talking about certificate of death.
25 So what is irregular here? Is it necessary to have both signatures by
1 the pathologist and also by the members of the family, in order to
2 confirm that a person has been identified? Thank you.
3 A. Thank you. I'm not a specialist on this. Ewa Tabeau had the
4 dealings with the ICMP. ICMP -- I don't know if they're a witness in
5 this case. But there may be a difference here between --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Tabeau will testify next week.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. So you can explain then why what is the
8 difference between the signature of a pathologist and the family. There
9 could be legal reasons for that.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. All right. Thank you. We will ask Ms. Ewa.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at -- we'll leave
13 this for Ewa, then, this complete set of questions.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. And I have discussed this
16 with Mr. Gajic. At this point, I don't really see a need to duplicate
17 the efforts and call Ms. Tabeau, and so we were, especially because we
18 don't -- shouldn't create a gap, we were thinking of not calling her
19 unless, of course, material comes up that Dr. Brunborg cannot answer.
20 But -- so I just wanted to let you know that, and Mr. Parsons from ICMP
21 is scheduled for the week of 21 February that will have the answers for
22 the ICMP issues. But, of course, Ms. Tabeau is here and always available
23 for the Defence or the Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
25 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that precisely
1 this answer by the witness indicates that it is necessary to call
2 Ms. Ewa Tabeau.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. In order to establish the age group, you gave them special names.
7 You used the terms boys and young men. My question is: Was this
8 something that was as a result of a suggestion from the investigator or
9 is it usual in demographics to use these terms, boys and young men?
10 Thank you.
11 A. Thank you. That is a common terminology, not only in demography
12 but in other fields as well. But if could you please refer to where in
13 the report we have used this term, it might be useful.
14 Well, I could add, I don't recall the OTP telling us to use that
16 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at P1776. This is the report from
17 2009, page 29 in the Serbian, last paragraph. Yes, that's right.
18 Page 29 thus, and we can see that page.
19 And it should be page 25 in English.
20 Now we can see the document in both languages, as requested by
21 the witness, and now I'm quoting a part of the report. This is the last
22 paragraph in the Serbian, just below the figure:
23 "Only a few young children (10 to 14 years of age) from the four
24 municipalities went missing, but the proportions are very high for
25 Srebrenica boys (31.8 per cent for ages 15 to 19 years) and young men
1 (37.5 per cent for ages 20 to 24). In Srebrenica, the proportion of
2 missing is extremely high for Muslim men of almost all ages: One third
3 of all Muslim men between 15 and 17 went missing in 1995," and so on and
4 so forth.
5 I think that this is sufficient for you to recall that part of
6 the report. My question is: Based on what do you call the age group
7 from 15 to 19 boys?
8 A. Boys is not is a very precise term, but I think the age of
9 maturity, legal maturity, is 18 in Bosnia, as in other countries. That
10 means they are not of age yet, those who are below 18, then it is common
11 to call them boys. We could have called them teenagers also. But I
12 don't see the significance of this, whether they are called boys or young
13 men or whatever, or teenagers.
14 Q. Thank you. Would it have been then more favourable for you to
15 set the age limit then at 18 instead of 19 years? Thank you.
16 A. Perhaps so. But it is common in -- in demography to use
17 five-year age groups starting with those ages beginning with 0 and 5, so
18 0 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, et cetera, to reduce the number of
20 And as you can see in Table 11 on the previous page, there are --
21 all the data are given by five-year age groups. But you're right, of
22 course, age group 15 to 19 covers both, some who are definitely children,
23 15, and some who are young men, 19.
24 Q. Thank you. And does this also apply in the demographics of
25 conflicts, this particular classification that you're using? Thank you.
1 A. There's no standard age grouping in the demography of conflict.
2 It is practical to use five-year age groups, sometimes ten-year age
3 groups. If there's a special need or special goal of the analysis, then,
4 of course, we can use other age groups. For example 15 to 17, if you
5 want to focus on those who are not yet of age.
6 Q. Can you please tell us whether you investigated at what age men
7 were engaged in Bosnia and Herzegovina into the military service and were
8 there any among them who were younger than 16? Thank you.
9 A. I don't recall. I think OTP said something about that, that in
10 some tables we were asked to see 16 and above, because soldiers could be
11 as young in other cases, 18. I don't recall the exact age at what --
12 when young men joined the military or asked to do military service. And
13 I guess perhaps it changed over the war period as well with the demands.
14 Perhaps -- yeah.
15 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at 1D107 now, please. These are
16 documents provided to the Prosecution, 135 killed and missing members of
17 the B and H army. This is information that is provided to the OTP at
18 their request. Now we're going look at that.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 10 in the
20 e-court. Page 10. Thank you. We can now see page 10.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Since there is no translation, I'm going to read it out:
23 "At the request of the Defence administration of Tuzla and on the
24 basis of Article 169 of the Law on Administrative Procedure,
25 Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, number 2/98, I issue the
1 following certificate, confirming that Adil Porobic, son of Ramo, born on
2 the 27th November, 1979, in Ljubovija, the municipality of Srebrenica, is
3 entered into the records of the military unit as of the 17th of April,
4 1992, until the 12th of July, 1995. The above-named person, as a member
5 of the B and H army, went missing on the 12th of July, 1995 on
7 So that means that he went missing while he was on assignment".
8 "The certificate is issued for the purposes of," so on and so
9 forth, signed by Commander Colonel Dzevad Salibasic.
10 Please, can you tell us how old this person was? All the
11 required stamps are here on this document, as well as the ERN number
12 given by the Prosecution. Can you please tell us how old this person
13 was? Thank you.
14 A. When he was drafted he was 12 years and approximately five
15 months, five, six months. And then on the 12th of July, 1995, he was 15
16 years and approximately eight months. He was young. I'm sad to see such
17 young man having to fight in a war. Or young boys --
18 Q. Thank you. Does this certificate, as a document, testify to the
19 fact that the military engaged on military assignments, even persons
20 younger than 16? Here we have an example of a person aged 15 years and
21 eight months. Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think this person is not the right
23 person to testify about the reliability of a document of another
24 authority. You can draw your conclusions on that, I can do that, the
25 Chamber can do that, everybody can do that. But it doesn't help you and
1 your case if you ask a demographer who is here to testify about his
2 expertise in demography.
3 Please focus on the time you have used already during
4 cross-examination. You should be aware of the need to have an
5 expeditious, fair trial.
6 Please continue.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. But this
8 is a certificate, and based on this certificate this person was
9 registered in the missing persons list and similar other persons younger
10 than 16. This witness worked on basis of this sort of data.
11 Can we have now page 143. This is a certificate on a missing
12 person, Nezir Mujcinovic, born on the 25th of October, 1979. He was
13 registered as the member of the military on the 1st of February, 1993,
14 and he went missing on the 12th of July, 1995, as a member of the ABiH
15 performing an assignment on the way from Srebrenica to Tuzla. This has
16 also been signed.
17 So we can see that this person was only 13 years old when he was
18 engaged by the ABiH and he was less than 16 when he took part in the
19 breakthrough from Srebrenica to Tuzla, because here it actually says an
20 assignment and their assignment was to break through.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 My question is: Did you, as a demographer, research this
23 peculiar phenomenon of engaging very, very young persons in the ABiH?
24 A. Of course, not. I would also object to the statement on line 2
25 of page 78 that this witness worked on the basis of this sort of data.
1 Even if he had had such date, we wouldn't -- such certificates, we would
2 not have used them. I don't see what we should have used them for. It's
3 interesting but it's not part of our analysis.
4 Q. Thank you. I said that the ICRC received information that those
5 people went missing. I didn't say that you received it. It was the ICRC
6 that put it into a list, that then, later on, you had to respect during
7 your work. I wasn't pointing a finger at you.
8 The only thing that I want to ask you now is as follows:
9 According to your categorisation in your report, can we consider children
10 younger than 16 to be members of the ABiH based on such certificates
11 issued by the army? Thank you.
12 A. Mr. Tolimir, obviously if these certificates are correct there
13 were some young boys who were members of the army, whether all young
14 boys, such young boys were members of the army or not we do not know.
15 Whether these were unique, special cases or general, I don't know. And
16 again, it doesn't make much difference -- it doesn't make any difference
17 from our project which was to make a reliable list of missing or dead
18 persons. We did not consider the military status of the -- of these --
19 well, I should add that we have compared a list of missing and dead
20 persons with lists of soldiers from the ABiH, and we found that 70
21 per cent, approximately, of our missing and dead persons were on the ABiH
22 list. So they were in -- in the army.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Dr. Brunborg, did you see such a certificate
24 before like this one on the screen?
25 THE WITNESS: Never, never.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 Just a clarification. Mr. Tolimir, you said at page 78, line 8,
3 the witness worked on basis of this sort of data. This is, indeed, a
4 misstatement, taking into account what the witness said.
5 Please go ahead.
6 THE WITNESS: I would also like to add, Your Honour, he said that
7 the ICRC based its work on such data, but they did not. They relied on
8 statements from relatives of missing persons. I don't believe that -- I
9 don't think they used such certificates at all.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I accept all criticisms of me, but I want you to answer the
14 following question: Is it possible that this person was registered with
15 the ICRC and included in their list of missing persons? Thank you.
16 A. Yes, indeed. 70 per cent of those registered as missing were
17 soldiers, or at least were part of the army in some way or not.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have now P176 -- actually,
20 1776, which also dates from year 2009. Now we want to have page 26 in
21 Serbian, second paragraph.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While this is coming up, just for the record, the
23 last document we have seen on the screen was not in your exhibit list we
24 have received. Just to have that clear.
25 Please go ahead.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I thought it was, but,
2 there you go.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Here you say besides that many men aged 20 to 40 years probably
5 took part in fighting and that's why they were elsewhere, or they were
6 captured or killed and that's why they were not under the same risk of
7 the -- of going missing from the enclave. Also:
8 "It is probable that the youngest boys, aged 15 to 19, in 1995
9 were also less likely to be in the army, which may explain their elevated
10 risk of disappearance compared to their preceding cohorts."
11 My question is: Why did you determine the age group of men who
12 probably took part in fighting as 20 to 40 years old and not 18 to 45 or
13 to 60, because that was the end of the age of military conscription
14 for -- for the military at the time? Thank you.
15 A. Thank you. First I'd like to mention that yesterday I made it
16 clear that there was -- there's a correction and that the last five words
17 of that paragraph should be deleted. It was made clear yesterday, the
18 second correction compared to the preceding cohorts.
19 The reason here we talk about 20 to 40 years is that they had
20 more uniform, we say, fatality rates. If you look at Table 11 which this
21 refers to, you will see that when you come to age 45 or to 50 the
22 fatality rates go up very much and we thought that this is speculation,
23 that that would be used to several young -- the younger man being
24 elsewhere, not being exposed to the risk. But, at the same time, there
25 are many, 15 to 19, 20 to 24, who were indeed reported as missing. Some
1 of them probably went to the forest. But remember here we compared -- we
2 tried to get an estimate of the population at risk of being killed, if
3 you like, or at least being reported as missing. And surprisingly this
4 risk is highest for ages 45 to 54, more than 50 per cent. It is lower
5 for the younger men. That is why -- what we tried to explain.
6 Q. Thank you. Accepting everything you said, could you explain why
7 do you deem it less probable that men aged 15 to 19 were in the army?
8 I'm especially interested in this question bearing in mind the physical
9 capabilities of men aged 15, 16, 17 to 19.
10 A. For the simple reason that it is not common that people are
11 drafted into the army at such young ages, at 15 or 16. Unfortunately,
12 then in a war situation many are, indeed. But the certificates you
13 showed to us are interesting, but they were only two examples and we
14 don't know how frequently it is that such young men or boys, if you like,
15 were drafted into the army.
16 Q. Thank you. You say they're only examples. But you have more
17 similar certificates, the OTP has more similar certificates. I merely
18 showed you two.
19 Could you tell us whether you have a single case for which you
20 can show documents when you talk about the combat activities of ABiH or
21 is it what you just told us, your personal estimate? Thank you.
22 A. I don't talk about combat activities of the ABiH. I was just
23 trying to explain why -- why these fatality rates are so different,
24 ranging from 31.8 for age group -- for Srebrenica men, 31.8 per cent, to
25 50.4 per cent for 45 to 49 ages.
1 Perhaps I would like to ask you, but perhaps you're not allowed
2 to answer. What was the minimum age for army soldiers in Bosnia before
3 the war?
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is not an appropriate question --
5 THE WITNESS: Okay, sorry.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- especially because we are over time now.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay, sorry.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are just past 7.00. We have to adjourn for
10 I am very sorry that you have to come back after the weekend.
11 Mr. Tolimir, I would like to invite you to check your remaining
12 questions. I don't think that it would be appropriate to have additional
13 time. Six hours is really a lot, and you should try to comply with your
14 own estimation and skip those questions which are repetitive and not
15 really necessary to put to a demographer.
16 We adjourn and resume Monday, I think in the morning at 9.00.
17 I'm not sure about that. Monday, at 9.00, in this courtroom.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th of February,
20 2011, at 9.00 a.m.