1 Thursday, 17 March 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody in the courtroom.
6 The witness should be brought in, please.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome back to the courtroom. I have to remind
11 you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the beginning of
12 your testimony yesterday still applies.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yesterday Mr. Vanderpuye has concluded the
15 examination-in-chief. Now it's the turn of Mr. Tolimir to commence his
17 Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I extend
19 my greetings to everybody present, and I wish that today's trial finish
20 as God wishes and not as I wish. And I wish everybody a pleasant stay
21 amongst us.
22 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
24 Q. I only have some questions based on yesterday's
25 examination-in-chief. Yesterday the witness when she was asked about the
1 data given by Mr. Ivanisevic replied that she didn't pay much attention
2 to that data because she does not hold Mr. Ivanisevic in high esteem. Is
3 that the position of the OTP as a whole or your personal attitude?
4 A. I would like to clarify that what I said yesterday about
5 Mr. Ivanisevic was different. I said that he -- first of all, I did pay
6 a lot of attention to the list of 58 names provided on the basis of his
7 book. Moreover, I already made some analysis of this list and provided
8 the Court yesterday with preliminary results of my analysis. Secondly, I
9 commented on the reliability of this source. I just said that I have my
10 doubts regarding the reliability as Mr. Ivanisevic might be a biased
11 source; this is what I said. And this is, of course, my personal
12 opinion, and I wasn't speaking in the name of the OTP. So whatever is
13 the opinion of the OTP, that the Prosecutor's Office should be expressing
14 it separately.
15 Q. Thank you for clarifying. So this is your personal opinion. If
16 that is so, I would like to know why you are not so prejudiced or why
17 don't you have the same attitude toward the investigation team of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina and their independent commission, whom you mentioned
19 yesterday, and the president of that commission? Or perhaps you
20 co-operated with them and therefore trust them more.
21 A. I would like that you specify what commission you have in mind.
22 I can guess you referred to the commission for tracing missing persons,
23 federal commission, but I don't think I mentioned this particular
24 commission yesterday, so please clarify first.
25 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you mentioned Tokacevo [phoen]; do you
1 remember? What is his position? You mentioned him and gave some
2 assessments and therefore I would like you to explain why or based on
3 what you form your attitude toward certain persons.
4 A. I mentioned, indeed, Mr. Tokaca, but he doesn't represent a
5 commission. He's the head of a human rights NGO, and the NGO is called
6 Research and Documentation Centre. I mentioned Mr. Tokaca and the
7 Bosnian Book of Dead, this is the source on war victims, largest
8 existing, that was compiled by this group of people, but as a matter of
9 fact I was explaining why I was not using this source in my work. One of
10 the reasons I gave was that this database is not the product of a
11 professional statistical group; it is people who do work on improving the
12 human rights situation in the country. And, well, I -- whenever I can, I
13 avoid using these kind of sources in my work because there might be
14 various biases in the information they provide.
15 So being positive about the outcome of the work of Mr. Tokaca and
16 the Research and Documentation Centre, generally, as an important
17 contribution to the reconciliation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at
18 the same time I never used this particular data as a source for compiling
19 a list of victims for the trials of this Tribunal.
20 Well, that's all I can say. And I have the same attitude towards
21 Mr. Ivanisevic. I consider this person as an activist involved in human
22 rights area. And when using these kind of sources, one has to be
23 extremely careful. First of all, it is necessary to realise these
24 sources are not made by professional statisticians or demographers.
25 Secondly, these sources have hidden biases. Often these sources rely on
1 informants that are not checked and not confirmed to be reliable.
2 So that's all I am saying. And from this point of view, my
3 attitude towards Mr. Ivanisevic and anybody else is exactly the same.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you take that position as a demographer based on
5 the data given by Mr. Ivanisevic or based on his personal
7 A. I -- first of all, I don't know Mr. Ivanisevic so I don't know
8 his personal characteristics. I know things about him and I -- that's
9 all I know about him. Second, the data, I just received a list of
10 58 names that I was unable to fully study yet as the information included
11 in his book is extremely limited. It is too limited for me to make a
12 reliable study of the reliability of this information.
13 On the other hand, I am aware of cases where victims addressed by
14 Mr. Ivanisevic were miscommunicated to the audience, outside audiences.
15 For instance, I am aware of cases in Sarajevo that he reported victims as
16 victims of the siege and as a matter of fact the families of these
17 victims claimed the victims died natural deaths. So this is one example
18 I can mention.
19 So these kind of inconsistencies happen, simply. And I will
20 present my clear opinion on this list and the 58 names at the time my
21 analysis will be finished. Perhaps I should add that an RFA has been
22 sent to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to provide the OTP with
23 complete documentation related to the 58 names. That simply means that
24 the court decisions to which Mr. Ivanisevic referred in his book, I hope,
25 can be collected and studied, and this will be very helpful. And only
1 then I can give my assessment.
2 Q. Thank you. You said yesterday that you checked the data provided
3 by him in the log-books of died persons of Republika Srpska, so tell us
4 why you checked on the data regarding died Muslims who died in Tuzla in
5 the relevant registers in the Republika Srpska? Can you explain that to
6 the Trial Chamber.
7 A. I said yesterday I was searching for the 58 names in two
8 databases, among others. The two databases included both, the
9 RS Mortality Database and also Federal Institute of Statistics
10 Mortality Database. So my search was complete and wasn't related to one
11 of these databases only. So -- and the conclusion of this search was
12 that I didn't find what -- this what I was looking for. Namely, I was
13 expecting that in these two databases that are established based on
14 documentation of death cases, either death certificates or other
15 documents, the other documents would include court declarations, among
16 others, so in this kind of databases that are complete to the extent they
17 can be complete in the war time, I didn't see these records. So that is
18 my answer.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, if you checked, whether there are
20 death certificates issued for these persons at the same time that was
21 mentioned by Mr. Ivanisevic? Thank you.
22 A. Death certificates, I don't know whether they were issued or not.
23 When I was searching through the databases, RS Mortality Database and
24 FIS Mortality Database, as a matter of fact to check whether there were
25 any records, entries, made by statistical authority based on the court
1 declarations used by Mr. Ivanisevic, but, as I'm saying, I didn't find
2 them, so I couldn't check whether any document confirming death was
3 entered into the statistical records.
4 Q. Thank you. But yesterday you said during the examination on
5 page 71 - the page reference may have changed - in line 19: I did not
6 use Bosnian death registers from April 1992 through April 1995.
7 Does that mean that in this case you did not check the data
8 provided by Mr. Ivanisevic?
9 A. First of all, I don't recall this particular sentence, that I
10 would have said something like that, and particularly that here you
11 provided me with no context of this statement. So I would be -- I would
12 feel much more comfortable if you first of all make a clear reference to
13 the transcript and I can see it and then --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to ask the Registry to put that part
15 on the screen, if that is possible. Yes, they are working on it.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Good morning to you. I understand
19 that it's page 11421.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
21 Mr. Tolimir, you were referring to line 19. Is that the part you
22 want to put to the witness?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's probably line 19 or
24 possibly 18.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. It said, "I did not use Bosnian death registers from April 1992
2 through April 1995," and so on. And after that the witness mentioned
3 Tokaca the -- or Mr. Tokaca's missing persons centre. I don't know,
4 maybe my Legal Assistant and I will be able to give an exact reference to
5 the witness after the break, but she said that she --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just wait a moment. The Registry is working on
7 it, and I think we will have it on the screen immediately.
8 Not sure if this is --
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, yes.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, can you help us.
11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I can see that this is the correct
12 page on the screen.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have the part on the screen you are
14 referring to, Mr. Tolimir. Please continue.
15 THE REGISTRAR: For the clarity of the record, this is
16 page 11422, lines 19 and 20. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, could you please repeat your
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I repeat
20 my question.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I asked the witness whether that means that she did not check the
23 list of 58 persons given by Ivanisevic against the death registers at
24 all, and when she said that she did not use this so-called Bosnian book
25 of death?
1 A. Well, I think the source of confusion, my confusion, was the term
2 "death register." The death register is the RS Mortality Database and
3 FIS Mortality Database which I have used to search for the 58 records.
4 Mr. Tolimir, however, used the term "death register" in the context of
5 the Bosnian Book of Dead, which is the database of Mirsad Tokaca's
6 Research and Documentation Centre. It is an NGO database, not a death
7 register as the RS and FIS Mortality Databases. It's an important
8 difference because the death register is a official source or official
9 archive where all death records in a country are kept. These are the
10 death registers of the federal authorities, statistical authority, or
11 RS statistical authority. And I did search through these registers.
12 The Tokaca's database is not a death register; it is an NGO list
13 of victims. A list that is based on all kinds of sources. But
14 unfortunately, Tokaca has no access to official documents confirming the
15 death of people, like death certificates, court declarations, any other
16 documentation. He compiled this database on sources like informants'
17 statements, published lists of victims, ICRC records of missing persons,
18 other records of missing persons. Even they studied cemeteries and were
19 collecting names of victims from the grave stones. It's a totally
20 completely different type of source. And the reliability of the BBD must
21 be seen differently compared with the official death registers.
22 So once again, I did search in the official death registers, both
23 RS and the federal. I didn't search in the Bosnian Book of Dead because
24 there was no point in searching in the Bosnian Book of Dead. It is not a
25 death register.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a point of
3 clarification. The witness referred to the FIS Mortality Database, which
4 isn't recorded correctly in the transcript. It should be FIS. It refers
5 to the Federal Institute for Statistics in Sarajevo, and the correction
6 should be made to pages -- page 5, line 22, and then again at page 8,
7 lines 1 and line 5.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That will be corrected for
10 Mr. Tolimir.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I don't
12 have enough time to waste on this, but I would like to take a look at
13 page 11421, lines 18 and the following, where the witness says that she
14 received the database from the statistical bodies of Bosnia-Herzegovina
15 and the Republika Srpska and so on. And later on she says: I need
16 excerpts from death registers and we didn't make lists of died persons in
17 1995. We did have lists of missing persons.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. So my question is, what is more relevant: The list of missing
20 persons compiled by international organisations, or NGOs, or death
21 registers issued by official bodies for the needs of citizens to exercise
22 their rights based on these certificates? Thank you.
23 A. So this is regarding what you said about what I said; I don't
24 want to comment on this but not all was correct. I want to answer the
1 Here is the thing, when there is no war, the information from the
2 death register is crucial, of course, and official and is used by
3 citizens for all kinds of purposes, including acquiring property rights
4 and other purposes. During the war, statistical system is not working
5 properly, so obviously the death registers are incomplete and often miss
6 large numbers of deaths that occurred during the war.
7 But there is one particular group of people who are not included
8 in the death register. These are the missing persons. The persons
9 missing cannot be included in the death registers for obvious reasons.
10 There are no death certificates, certificates, as their bodies of the
11 missing persons are in an unknown place and remain not available, so
12 there is no way that a missing person can be registered by statistical
14 So there must be, when counting victims of war, their activities
15 must go using many channels. It is not that we can rely on the death
16 registers only, because this is not the way to do it. From the death
17 registers the known deaths can be taken. However, missing persons must
18 be looked for in other sources.
19 The major source for reporting of missing persons is the
20 International Committee for Red Cross. They have been doing this for a
21 very, very long period of time and were involved in very many conflicts
22 in the world. So they are the first one to go to affected areas and take
23 reports from the families about their loved ones. ICRC collects
24 information about detained persons, often visits the detention camps,
25 checking on the condition of detention, but parallel, they also register
1 the persons missing.
2 So international organisations like ICRC is an important source
3 for this kind of information. Whether the NGOs lists are an important
4 source, yes, they are. Most definitely they are. But while ICRC have
5 been working with established procedures, they have, for instance, a
6 standardised questionnaire that is used to register missing persons.
7 They are very selective when accepting reports on the missing. For
8 instance, not anybody can come and report and the record will be made.
9 Only family members, close family members, are accepted as informants to
10 the ICRC. So these are these procedures that make the record of
11 information on the missing persons very reliable.
12 NGOs don't work in this way. In most cases they operate in
13 post-conflict situations and they don't have these established standard
14 practice to collect this data. So they usually accept any report from
15 anybody, also all kinds of books, local reports are accepted, which is
16 not always a good thing to do. So while working with the NGO lists one
17 has to be much more careful and selective and critical while looking at
18 this data and accepting this data. So it is just a matter of an approach
19 that is needed while taking data from all these sources. And I believe
20 the demographers here at the ICTY have been aware of these kind of
21 problems and we have been careful and selective while choosing our
22 sources. So perhaps I will finish here; it's too long. Yeah.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Please tell us this: Why do you look for
2 what you have and not what was indicated to you? For example,
3 Mr. Ivanisevic puts forth a list of missing persons who may not have been
4 registered though, but that person must have had a death certificate
5 issued to the family either before the war or after the war, so why
6 didn't you go and look for that? So is it up to him to point out the
7 discrepancies in the lists you relied the most on?
8 A. I think that, first of all, Mr. Ivanisevic didn't present us with
9 death certificates for the 58 persons. He presented us with court
10 declarations which are based on witness statements, and usually it is
11 enough to present the court with two witnesses and based on what they
12 say, the court would issue a declaration. So it is not a death
13 certificate. A death certificate is a document that is issued by a
14 medical profession, by a coroner in some cases, but generally by a
15 physician who after examining the body describes the causes of death, and
16 not only a single cause of death but three major causes of death, and
17 puts his signature on the medical examination result.
18 So I would like to stress, Mr. Ivanisevic did not provide death
19 certificates. Your question, why didn't I look for death certificates,
20 but I did. My answer is: But I did. It is not accidental that the two
21 death registers, the RS death register and the FIS death register, are
22 available in this office in my unit. These two databases actually didn't
23 exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were made at the request that came
24 from my unit and me personally, and we helped them to establish these
25 databases by providing electronic tools to do so. We established the
1 formats of databases in which they could computerise this information for
2 us on the first place.
3 So a lot of work has been done for this Tribunal in order to make
4 it possible to have information about the official death notifications.
5 And we do exactly know for whom a death certificate is available and for
6 whom it isn't. So I did search in these databases. Unfortunately, in
7 case of Srebrenica, these databases are not relevant because they cover
8 known deaths which is a different, separate category from missing
9 persons. The 2009 report that we submitted in this case is a report
10 about missing persons, missing persons once again, and the missing
11 persons is our initial group of victims or type of victims we take into
13 In next step we proceed to other sources. Most importantly, we
14 study the DNA-based identifications provided to us completely
15 independently by an organisation different than the Red Cross. This
16 different organisation is the ICMP, International Commission for
17 Missing Persons, mandated to provide DNA identifications of persons
18 exhumed from mass graves and other graves in the territory of Bosnia and
20 So my answer is: I did look for the death certificates and other
21 official death notifications, but for Srebrenica project this is not the
22 right source to use. It must be other sources, missing persons list.
23 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. I understand you. You have a need to say
24 a lot, although it takes away a lot of our time. I'm asking you to
25 follow the line of my questions and then try to indeed answer what I
1 asked you. You will be given an opportunity to say what you want to say,
2 but I wanted to address the issue of your approach to the documents and
3 data provided by Mr. Ivanisevic. I will read from page 84 of yesterday's
4 transcript. I don't know what page that is currently, but there you say:
5 I compared that data with the database of the RS.
6 That is line 11 of yesterday's page 84. Then you continue:
7 This type of document which can be accepted based on the database
8 of the RS makes me ask myself what kind of documents are those that
9 Ivanisevic relied on. He is an activist. He may be biased towards the
10 interest of the Serbian people. He supported Radovan Karadzic and
11 co-operated with his Defence. He is not a statistician.
12 Et cetera. If you had some access to pieces of information and
13 if you approached it from the point of view of the person who provided
14 it, how can we verify that? For example, why did you provide this
15 description of his in order to denounce the data he put forth?
16 A. I provided the description of his in order to let the Chamber
17 know that he might be biased and not reliable as a source. At the same
18 time, I said yesterday, and I'm repeating today, I already studied these
19 58 names in order to provide the Chamber with a conclusion of these
20 58 cases, missing persons that should be taken off from the OTP list or
21 not. That is what I'm doing and this is what I will be doing,
22 disregarding what I think of the reliability of Mr. Ivanisevic and his
23 sources. I think the most important thing is to give the Court the
24 answer about these 58 names.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the record, page 84, line 11, is now
1 page 11435 of yesterday's transcript.
2 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
4 apologise for not having indicated the correct page immediately.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You mention Mr. Tokaca --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were right. There's no reason
8 for apology. The number has -- have just changed, and I wanted to assist
9 you with the correct number. Please carry on.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Ms. Tabeau, you mentioned Mr. Tokaca and his, as called it today,
13 the humanitarian NGO called the Centre for Documentation and Research.
14 Since you assign a degree of importance to that organisation, did you
15 receive a list of 500 people from him who turned out to be alive?
16 A. I did receive a list, but not of 500 but 240 people. I am aware
17 of the discussion in the media in Bosnia and Herzegovina of the
18 500 potential survivors that Tokaca allegedly included in his database,
19 the Bosnian Book of Dead. The OTP requested this list of 500 in order to
20 be able to cross-reference this list with our sources, that would be the
21 Srebrenica list of missing persons. In response we received a letter in
22 which Tokaca says that he's unable to provide the list of 500 because the
23 500, be it 500 or approximately 500, whatever, his database, he
24 explained, is made in such a way that any record deleted from the
25 database at some point cannot be recovered anymore. So he clarified that
1 in the course of time possibly the -- his centre have identified, they
2 did, 500 survivors of Srebrenica who were immediately excluded from the
3 records of the database.
4 In order to provide us with what he had and what was still
5 available, he sent us a list of 240 names. And these 240 names he said
6 were coming -- first of all, are not in the records of war victims in his
7 database, but they are aware of these names at this stage still and this
8 is why they are providing this. So these 240 names were provided to us.
9 Interestingly it was claimed that these 240 names were established based
10 on ICTY sources and even more interestingly based on the Demographic Unit
12 Anyway, whatever the source for the 240 names, we did compare
13 them with the Srebrenica list and drawn certain conclusions.
14 May I talk further, Mr. Tolimir, or do I need to stop now?
15 Q. Thank you. I think it would be interesting to hear for the
16 Chamber when -- what you found out when checking out the 240 which did
17 not make part of the original 500 group, if I understood correctly.
18 A. You understood correctly. The 240 were cross-referenced with our
19 list of missing and identified persons. One person of the 240 was
20 confirmed in the DNA identification record of ICMP. One person. I think
21 it was Mr. Ridic, as far as I remember his first name -- surname.
22 We have run a small investigation because it is not possible that
23 a person identified through DNA matching is alive at the same time.
24 Importantly, the source we discovered, our source that this person could
25 have been seen as a survivor, potential survivor, was a report on -- of
1 this person in the government register of internally displaced persons
2 and refugees. So he was in two sources. On one hand, DNA identification
3 was available of his remains from a mass grave or other grave; on the
4 other hand, there was a record of this person being reported at some
5 point as a displaced person.
6 The investigation clarified that the record in the register of
7 internally displaced persons was not correct. Obviously the wife who,
8 with two daughters, survived Srebrenica and ended in a territory
9 controlled by the Government of Bosnia reported entire family as
10 internally displaced persons. So he was registered as well, and he was
11 registered in hope that at some point he will -- he would show up and
12 rejoin the family. This never happened, and that was the reason that the
13 record of him being an IDP was not correct.
14 So the record of identification, of course, remains valid and
15 confirms that the person did not survive Srebrenica. And the record of
16 ICRC reporting him as a missing person and our record of including him as
17 a Srebrenica missing person and subsequently as identified person is
19 All in all, there are no survivors from these 240 names that are
20 included, at the same time at the OTP list, analyst.
21 Q. Thank you. You now explained about one person. What about the
22 other 239? Could that list be provided so that those names do not
23 resurface yet again?
24 A. The other 239 persons were not on the list of OTP, not on the
25 missing persons list, not on the identified person list. So this is one,
1 I think. Second, if you want, of course, you can have the list and you
2 can run your searches, whatever you wish to do with the list.
3 Q. Thank you. I was informed by my Legal Assistant that he does
4 have the list. I want to put another question. What about the 500
5 mentioned by Mr. Tokaca, does he have a list of the 500?
6 A. No, he confirmed that these approximately 500 or another number
7 of survivors were excluded from the records of war victims in his centre.
8 However, he was unable to complete -- to provide us with the actual list
9 of 500 names.
10 Q. Thank you. Were you able to grasp what documents were used to
11 introduce that data in his database? Do you have some sort of a basis
12 that you could try to reconstruct the process? Otherwise all you can do
13 is simply disregard what he said.
14 A. Well, I -- I'm not working with Mr. Tokaca and I -- why would I
15 be interested in his sources? So it is -- yeah, what was possible, the
16 240, we checked and concluded there are no problems with survivors based
17 on this list. But other than that I have no theories or nor sources for
18 the 500.
19 Q. Thank you. Would it be important for the OTP to have the list of
20 500 so that those names could not appear again as missing persons or
21 persons whose names will be used in random samples so that no one could
22 abuse the fact of the existence of those names? Was that figure perhaps
23 put forth intentionally to focus the attention of those who are trying to
24 do research about the missing persons in order to prove the existence of
25 illogical occurrences on the list?
1 A. Well, I think Mr. Tokaca clarified about these 500, that it was
2 partly a confusion created by the media around this number, magical
3 number of 500, so I want to clarify this as well. Generally, however, I
4 think that the issue of survivors of Srebrenica shouldn't be seen in the
5 context of a single list of 500. If we think a little bit about how many
6 people were located in Srebrenica by mid-1995 and how many of them were
7 later registered as internally displaced persons, so we can say it is a
8 large group. It is far larger than 500. And we have been working with
9 the records of internally displaced persons in this particular project as
10 well, so these would be the records from the government register,
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina government register of internally displaced and
12 refugees, that is a huge source. As of the year 2000, for the entire
13 country, there was 580.000 people registered still, almost 600.000, of
14 internally displaced, with a small group of refugees.
15 We ourselves use as well, systematically, voters registers from
16 1997 election, from 1998 election, from 2000 election, so each of these
17 register is approximately two point half million people for the entire
18 country. The Srebrenica population is covered there. They are there.
19 So -- and we've been cross-referencing the missing persons records with
20 sources on post-war survivors. So survivors is absolutely not a list of
21 500. It is a much more complex and broader issue than that.
22 Q. He stated that the 500 come from the total number of the
23 Srebrenica victims. I'm asking you this: Does the number of 500 can be
24 used later on with some researchers, like Ivanisevic, that the 58 were
25 indeed on the list but had died before the war or after the war so that
1 they could say that they had taken them off the list? We don't have the
2 list of 500. It should be provided. It should not be made use of as a,
3 say, reserve sample which can later be used for other purposes.
4 A. Well, I think, sir, you really should contact Mr. Tokaca about
5 this and discuss this with him. Or perhaps Mr. Ivanisevic could do that,
6 but that is all I can say. And I don't know exactly what Tokaca said to
7 the press. It is not necessarily so that what the press wrote about it
8 is exactly what he said to the press. These things happen.
9 Miscommunication is a common thing in press reports in Bosnia and
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To clarify this matter, I would like to ask you
12 to help me to understand it fully. You have contacted Mr. Tokaca and
13 asked him about the sources and the background of these media reports of
14 a 500-persons list; is that correct?
15 THE WITNESS: I requested the list, simply, of 500.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you received a list of 240?
17 THE WITNESS: That is correct. But this is a different list,
18 obviously, than --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why different?
20 THE WITNESS: Because he said that he didn't keep the 500,
21 eliminated in earlier years, from his records of war victims. He didn't
22 keep copies of these records. They were just deleted. You know, this is
23 what a real statistician would never do, but people who work for NGOs
24 don't have this background and they do. They just delete. And that's
25 it. They are lost.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did Mr. Tokaca tell you if these 240 people on
2 the list provided to you were part of the 500?
3 THE WITNESS: He didn't tell this. But I understood that this is
4 a separate list. Which is, by the way, not part of his records on war
5 victims, because these are potential survivors, right.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did Mr. Tokaca confirm that he was in the
7 possession of such a list of 500 people?
8 THE WITNESS: He didn't, as a matter of fact. He even clarified
9 that it didn't have to be exactly 500. It was just a number he mentioned
10 that came to his mind, right. But he didn't.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
12 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Yesterday you also mentioned a request you sent to the
16 authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was page 79. You asked them
17 to forward their list to be compared with yours. Mr. Vanderpuye asked
18 you what it was that you asked them to change, and you answered - it was
19 document 2770 on the 65 ter list: It is an RFA sent to the Ministry of
20 Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have it in e-court
22 so that the witness could peruse it, and then I'll have a few questions
23 of her. Thank you. It is P2083. Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
2 Q. At page 14431 of yesterday's transcript, I think it was line 8
3 and before that at page 14430, you mentioned the need to verify the
4 142 names and what you did at first. Then Mr. Vanderpuye asked you this:
5 You sent documents to the Bosnian authorities asking that they
6 check the document against dates of death.
7 We wanted to receive information, and I don't know why we would
8 ask them to change anything.
9 Then you go on to say, We received entries, et cetera, et cetera.
10 My question is this: Since this document has not been
11 translated, can you tell us which paragraph we should read and what
12 paragraph 3 has to do with so as to be able to know what kind of request
13 was sent to the Bosnian authorities?
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you see on the screen the document,
15 the request for assistance, in English and B/C/S. Yesterday the
16 translation was not on the screen because it was put together in one
17 document, and that was the reason we only marked it for identification
18 pending translation. But this problem is now resolved. We have the
19 document in both versions on the screen. And I think yesterday the
20 Prosecution has tendered this document and now it will be admitted in
22 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I only saw this
24 translation now.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. So could you tell us, did you receive documents from Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, the documents mentioned in paragraph 3 in the last sentence,
3 which mentions evidence of these persons' death and the circumstances of
4 their deaths or disappearances? Thank you.
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you make these documents available to the
8 A. I'm sure the Defence has them already because it's impossible
9 that they wouldn't be disclosed.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I apologise. I was just
11 informed by my assistant that it was indeed disclosed to the Defence but
12 he didn't mark it as such. He simply gave the documents to me to study.
13 So I apologise to everybody for this mistake.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. My following question: So you asked them to provide these
16 documents, so why did you make the corrections and amendments so that
17 they were detrimental to the information found and possessed by the army,
18 I'm talking here about the Army of BiH, and not also to the other side?
19 A. I think I must clarify that we needed the documents to confirm or
20 reject certain cases of military people included in our list of missing
21 persons. So because of the discrepancies in the date of disappearance or
22 death reported on one hand by ICRC and on the other hand in the army
23 records, the documents in a large number of cases provided us with the
24 confirmation that these are people who went missing in the fall of
25 Srebrenica. So what was provided to us was the corrected, as I call it,
1 corrected new date in the military records. But I didn't have to correct
2 in anything in our records of ICRC because obviously the army records
3 were consistent with the ICRC records. So it was just the
4 justification -- the provided documents gave me the justification to keep
5 these cases as the cases of missing persons and related to the fall of
6 Srebrenica. That is all what was done in this case.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you investigate and double-check the accuracy of
8 those entries or whether they were fictitious in order to satisfy certain
10 A. I think it would be kind of weird if I would have challenged the
11 official documents sent to us by the authorities, state authorities, of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina. I didn't check the authenticity. I assume they
13 were authentic, as I had no reason to assume they were fictitious. They
14 were official documents provided to us in response to an official RFA,
15 request for assistance, that is, yeah, a legal document, legally-binding
16 document in some way.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Just for the Court's
19 information and perhaps for the information to General Tolimir, the
20 response to the RFA actually includes these documents that the witness is
21 referring to. And the response was 65 ter 2771, P2084. And beginning on
22 page 3 of that document you'll see the list of individuals and dates of
23 death provided by the Bosnian authorities followed by a list of
24 certificates. Just for your information.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. This document was admitted
1 into evidence yesterday.
2 Mr. Tolimir.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can you tell us, did you make any changes in the list that you
6 provided and in the lists that were provided to you by this international
7 organisation pursuant to your request?
8 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. But generally speaking
9 we don't change information in our original sources. When we make a list
10 of Srebrenica missing, OTP list of Srebrenica missing, we use the reports
11 of ICRC as -- exactly as they are reported. So we don't correct
12 information provided by ICRC. The same is with the ICMP records of
13 Srebrenica identified. We don't correct them unless, in case of ICMP, we
14 corrected a few typos which we discussed with ICMP and clarified these
15 typos. So it is not what we do. We don't correct. We cross-reference
16 our lists with other sources, like military records. If there are
17 inconsistencies, we clarify inconsistencies. And based on the
18 clarification either we leave our records on the OTP lists as they are or
19 we remove them. This is as simple as that.
20 So it is a source, military records, any other additional list
21 that we use in our work, like the census, RS Mortality Database, FIS
22 Mortality Database, these are sources that help us in improving our
23 understanding of every case, whether it is right to keep it on our list
24 of OTP victims, Srebrenica victims, or not. That is how we work. And we
25 don't change the original information from sources.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have a problem with your last
2 question. I really don't understand it. We were talking about a request
3 for assistance and an answer. And in your last question, page 24,
4 lines 21 to 23, you are asking the witness about "the lists that were
5 provided to you by this international organisation pursuant to your
6 request." What do you mean by "this international organisation"? The
7 request was addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the
8 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is not an international
9 organisation. And I think the answer was provided by this national
10 institution. Was it -- did you misspoke or was it something else? I
11 don't know. I would like to clarify that.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It's
13 probably that my question was a bit illogical.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Can you tell us, on basis of what did you determine that the
16 documents provide by the BiH army do not correspond to the lists provided
17 by the OTP? Thank you.
18 A. Again I have to ask for a little clarification. Documents
19 provided by the BiH army, I mean, you refer here -- you are referring
20 here to the response to the RFA, I assume. And further, do not
21 correspond to the list provided to the OTP; I assume here you refer to
22 the military lists that we used to identify the inconsistencies.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I stop you for a moment.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On the record I see that Mr. Tolimir asked you
1 that the BH army lists do not correspond to the lists provided "by the
2 OTP" and not "to the OTP."
3 THE WITNESS: I assume it was "to the OTP." "By the OTP." I am
4 confused. This is why I'm asking for more clarification, please.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please clarify your question so that
6 we can receive a reliable answer.
7 Mr. Gajic.
8 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour - greetings to
9 everybody - I think that this was a mistake in interpretation.
10 Mr. Tolimir didn't speak about lists provided to or from the OTP. He was
11 simply speaking about the OTP lists. So on one hand we have the BiH
12 lists and on the other hand we have the OTP lists, for example the list
13 dating from 2009.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this clarification.
15 Are you now able to answer the question, or shall we --
16 THE WITNESS: I -- I --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- ask Mr. Tolimir to rephrase it?
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I will say how I understand it, and perhaps
19 Mr. Tolimir will say that it is right or not.
20 So on one hand we have the 2009 OTP list of missing persons based
21 on ICRC reporting, and then we have the RFA. And then we have the
22 corrections, or new information, new documents, sent to us with regard to
23 a number of cases. Is it correct this is what I am going to comment --
24 I'm supposed to comment on, Mr. Tolimir?
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. You gave a correct answer. So the ICRC
2 requested you to harmonise their lists with the lists from the BiH army;
3 is that true? Was that the reason that you sent that request for
5 A. No. ICRC has nothing to do with our request. It was our
6 decision. At the time we saw there were inconsistencies in reporting of
7 date of disappearance for a number of cases, 220 cases in total, when the
8 ICRC reporting was compared to with the reporting in the military records
9 that are here at the OTP at our disposal, so at that moment we decided to
10 request additional information that would explain us the date of
11 disappearance of death, place of disappearance of death, and any other
12 circumstances for these inconsistent cases. At that time it was 142.
13 142 cases, not 220. Later new cases were added to this list.
14 And we decided, without the ICRC, and requested clarification,
15 documents were sent, we compared the response in the documents with the
16 ICRC reporting and concluded for many cases we have no issue at all
17 because the reporting became consistent.
18 Q. Thank you. The ICRC report that you mentioned just now, did it
19 contain the data about the manner of death, the date of death, and
20 similar; or is it a list made solely on the basis of the reports of
21 missing persons made by, say, parents? Thank you.
22 A. These are reports of missing of certain individuals, with the
23 date of going missing and place of going missing included in the
24 informants' reports. But missing is, of course, not the same as reports
25 on death. So reports on death are not there.
1 Q. Thank you. Does death mean that the data on death and manner of
2 death in the BiH list were changed; or were those data changed in the
3 ICRC report?
4 A. I think BiH list, I understand that this is the response to the
5 RFA, so I want to stress, nothing was changed in the ICRC reporting, with
6 or without the response to the RFA. That is all I can say because I
7 don't know what more you would like to hear about that now.
8 Q. Thank you. I don't want anything more than this. It is now
9 clear to me. I simply wanted to find out which list was changed based on
10 this intervention from you, and now I concluded that the changes were
11 made in the list by the BiH army. And this is enough for me.
12 On page 11404, lines 16 to 19, you said:
13 I worked as the Prosecution witness so that those reports contain
14 the perspective of the OTP.
15 Did I quote you correctly here, what you said at 14404? I'm
16 talking about the transcript of the 16th of March, 2011, lines 16 to 19.
17 A. Yeah, I probably said this in the context of my CV and my
18 testimonies that I completed so far. I didn't mean -- well, it's a fact
19 that I have been the Prosecution witness, expert witness. In one case I
20 was called as a Defence witness, in Lukic and Lukic case. And I also
21 acted as a Chambers witness, that would be the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in
22 Cambodia. I was called by the investigative judges and not by any of the
23 parties, not by the Prosecution, not by the Chamber.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you have to check the page number.
25 The transcript of yesterday ends with the last page 11436. There is no
1 page 11404. Oh, no, I made a mistake. I correct myself. You are
3 Mr. Gajic.
4 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I wanted to
5 address. The page is 11404, lines 23 to 25.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is correct.
7 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you,
9 Aleksandar. My notes are not entirely correct, and they are subjective.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Does your report reflect the Prosecution case?
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
13 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I would like the question to be
14 repeated because the interpretation was somewhat shortened.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. My question was: Does your report reflect the views proposed by
18 the Prosecution?
19 A. It reflects exclusively my views as a researcher and the author
20 of this report, and I'm absolutely free in expressing the views that I
21 can document and justify in a scientific way. And I'm not told by
22 anybody what kind of views I should be expressing. My unit and I myself
23 was never part of any trial team or investigative team. It has been
24 always a separate unit, and we have always did our best to produce
25 reports that would be unbiased and independent, and I hope we achieve
2 Q. Thank you. I base my question on what you said. It was you who
3 said that your reports contained the perspective of the OTP. Please
4 don't be angry at me. I quoted you verbatim.
5 A. Yes, you did, but I think what you did not quote was the context
6 of what I said. And the context was the testimonies and my acting as an
7 expert witness. I just wanted to make it clear for which side I acted in
8 these testimonies, most times, of course. Not exclusively. Most times.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Excuse me. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think rather than going around on this issue
12 based on General Tolimir's recollection of what Dr. Tabeau said and her
13 recollection of what she said, it might be best to put up in e-court on
14 the screen what she actually said in this context. And that can be found
15 at page 11404 through 11405 of the transcript. In particular, I think
16 the quote that General Tolimir was relying on can be found at lines 22
17 through 25 and then into the next page. Beginning on page 11404.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. It will come up on the screen. There
19 it is.
20 THE WITNESS: Can I see it on the screen as well? Can you help
21 me this?
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Court Usher will assist you.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Okay.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 11404, line 22.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It seems
3 to me that Mr. Vanderpuye want us to move to another topic, so let us do
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, just to be fair to both sides,
6 Mr. Vanderpuye just wanted to put this part of yesterday's transcript on
7 the screen. And there it is. You may continue in the way you wish.
8 Please carry on.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I cannot continue
10 because I don't understand the transcript, so I can only ask something
11 related to yesterday's examination based on my own notes.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So when we are talking about 11404, line 4, he says --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, just a moment. We have now the wrong page
15 on the screen. We wanted to have 11404, which was on the screen just
16 before. There it is again. Go ahead, please.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Today you also stated that you were invited by the Tribunal to
19 draft an expert report on Khmer Rouge. And Mr. Vanderpuye yesterday
20 asked you about it.
21 My question is: You were talking about a number of cases on
22 which you worked, so were you ever engaged to work for a party that was
23 not the victorious side in a particular war? Thank you.
24 A. Well, I just mentioned that I was called by the investigative
25 judges of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Phnom Penh to work on a report
1 which was definitely not associated with the Prosecution or the Defence.
2 So I think this is a good example of working for the party who is
3 completely -- who was completely independent and not involved in the
4 conflict. Another time I was the witness for the Defence in Lukic and
5 Lukic case.
6 So does it answer your question?
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, who was prosecuted in Cambodia, the
8 Khmer Rouge or the people who vanquished them?
9 A. Sir, cases in Khmer Rouge Tribunal are of those who are seen
10 responsible for the mass scale victimisation in this period in that
11 country. But you must be aware of the fact that it is not so that the
12 highest rank politicians kill people, themselves, with their own hands.
13 Q. Thank you. I know that. But since you did the research, I'm
14 asking you, is there a single victim of the war in Cambodia that was
15 killed by somebody else and not the Khmer Rouge? And I'm talking here
16 about the victim that was contained in your relevant report.
17 A. I think that it is important to remember that in my reports I
18 don't discuss the perpetrators. I don't say who killed whom and why. It
19 is beyond this report, I think, that the work of a statistician and
20 demographer is not the one that should be answering these kind of
21 questions. So in the Khmer Rouge report that I made, also in this
22 report, I didn't discuss the perpetrators and the people responsible for
23 the mass killing. And, yeah, whether any victim was killed by a person
24 not associated with the Khmer Rouge, I didn't discuss these kind of
25 issues, simply.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think it is a well known fact that
2 one person stand trial in Phnom Penh. We must have our first break now
3 and we will resume at 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
7 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I may.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.
9 THE WITNESS: I would like to give a little correction to a
10 question Mr. Tolimir asked me towards the end of the previous session, if
11 you allow me to do that.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please go ahead.
13 THE WITNESS: Mr. Tolimir asked me whether I worked for a party
14 that was different than victors of war and I gave an answer which I'm not
15 very happy with. I want to clarify that. I don't feel I work for
16 parties to the conflict, to those who in the end had won or lost the war.
17 My feeling is different. It is that I work to assist Trial Chambers in a
18 better understanding of the victimisation of these wars. And this has
19 nothing to do with parties to the war winning or losing; it is a
20 different, completely different, thing and has nothing to do whether I
21 work for the Prosecution or the Defence. It has always been that I was
22 providing assistance to clarify certain issues and has nothing to do with
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
25 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Please tell us if your reports that you
4 made for the Cambodia Tribunal and your report which you made in 2009 for
5 this Tribunal are neutral with regard to the manner in which a person
6 lost his or her life. Thank you.
7 A. I think generally the report is most definitely objective and
8 independent. It is a report in which I make an assessment of the many
9 existing estimates of the victims numbers of the Khmer Rouge regime in
10 Cambodia, and I take into account very different estimates provided by
11 very different authors, some associated with the Khmer Rouge. And I
12 don't make a problem of it. But whether it is neutral with the --
13 neutral with regard to the manner in which a person lost his or her life,
14 I won't really understand what is the meaning of that. People died in
15 Cambodia in all kinds of ways. Many of them died as indirect victims.
16 Many were direct victims of this war. And I address these issues. I
17 addressed that the indirect victims were a large group among all the
18 victims. But I believe it is the only way to do it by just studying
19 these two groups and showing the circumstances of life and death in the
20 Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia.
21 So my answer would be, yes, it is neutral with regard to the
22 manner in which a person died. I wouldn't know what more Mr. Tolimir
23 meant with this question.
24 Q. Thank you. Let us not go as far as Cambodia. Let's go into the
25 war into former Yugoslavia. As a demographer, did you engage in
1 demographic studies of the expulsion of the Serb population affected by
2 the war in Croatia or Bosnia, specifically Srebrenica or the Medak pocket
3 and so on? Do your reports contain any information about any expelled or
4 displaced Serb from any of the countries of former Yugoslavia? Is
5 there -- to be more specific, is there a report on any killed Serb in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Thank you.
7 A. These are very many questions in one question. Well, I will try
8 to answer it, perhaps generally. Expulsions as such of Serb or any other
9 ethnic group wasn't subject of my report. However, I did study the
10 forced migration or generally, more generally, population -- war-related
11 population migration, especially in the region of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 In any report I made on this subject, and there is a high number of
13 reports related to these issues, all ethnic groups were treated equally.
14 There was no differentiation at our side to pay more attention to Serbs
15 or Bosniaks or Croats. They were all treated in exactly same equal way.
16 Another question was whether I studied the migration, war-related
17 migration, of the Serb population from Croatia. I didn't make any report
18 on this issue. Further, displaced Serbs from any of the countries of the
19 former Yugoslavia, as I said, for Bosnia and Herzegovina we have reports
20 that cover the entire country and all groups, that means including the
21 Serbs. I didn't study this for Kosovo. Somebody else studied Kosovo.
22 And regarding is there a report on any killed Serb or Serbs in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I think that several reports include -- actually, all
24 reports always included all ethnic groups. For instance, there is a
25 group of Serb victim in Sarajevo reports most definitely. And in
1 Srebrenica cases the fact that there are no Serb victims reported is not
2 related to the fact that we have been selective and focused our attention
3 exclusively on the Bosnian Muslims; it is what the data is telling us,
4 that the victims of Srebrenica are almost exclusively the Bosnian Muslims
5 and not Serbs.
6 So it is what I'm trying to say, I always take unbiased equal
7 approach with regard to all ethnic groups. And the results of every
8 project depend on what really happened in certain war episodes. I am not
9 a person who determines the outcomes of my analysis. They are as --
10 as -- they are just describing the reality of that time. Perhaps not
11 perfectly, but to the extent it is possible they do describe the
12 realities of certain war episodes.
13 Q. Thank you. I kindly ask you to focus on my questions. Do you
14 know that the Muslims killed more than three and a half thousand Serbs in
15 Srebrenica during this war? Thank you.
16 A. This is what you are saying, sir, and I am not going to comment
17 on it because I would need much more to comment than just your statement.
18 If you provide me with a report which will be clear about sources and
19 methods in which this number will be produced, then I can give you my
20 assessment of this.
21 Q. Thank you. As an employee of the OTP, did you investigate the
22 Serb victims of the activities of Naser Oric?
23 A. I wasn't involved in the case of Naser Oric, so I didn't study.
24 Q. Thank you. Did your Demographic Unit work for the needs of the
25 OTP and deal with this? Thank you.
1 A. We deal with projects that are addressed to us by various trial
2 teams, so we work on Srebrenica because at some point this project was
3 simply addressed to this unit. So in response several reports were made
4 and submitted. It is not so that there are resources at the Office of
5 the Prosecutor to involve in all kinds of issues. It is a matter of the
6 needs of the Office and the needs that are addressed, are taken, and
7 elaborated, if possible.
8 Q. Thank you. Let's not go into that any further. We discussed
9 Srebrenica, and I said that victims -- there were victims on both sides.
10 And you are answering that you only did what you were commissioned to do.
11 But about the report that you submitted, you made it together with
12 Mr. Bloomberg [as interpreted]. And what was the division of labour
13 between the two of you, if you can say?
14 A. If I may correct the name: It is Mr. Brunborg, not Bloomberg, as
15 it says in the transcript. The division of work was the following:
16 Mr. Brunborg is the author of the first Srebrenica report. He proposed
17 the methodology and the sources that were used in the first Srebrenica
18 report. I'm referring to the 2000 report of -- presented in the
19 Krstic case. Mr. Brunborg at that time worked together with another
20 young researcher, Henrik Urdal from Norway.
21 Later, we got involved --
22 Q. Thank you. Kindly first answer my question and then expand.
23 Thank you. I asked about the report from 2009 which you made together
24 with Mr. Brunborg, who was also an OTP witness as you are. Thank you.
25 A. Yes. All in all, Mr. Brunborg contributed at conceptual level
1 and he also provided us with his comments on the work that was done in
2 the Office of the Prosecutor. I worked on the report together with
3 Mr. Arve Hetland [Realtime transcript read in error "Hedland"], who was
4 responsible for preparing the databases and matching of records. I did
5 all the analysis and wrote the report. Mr. Brunborg commented on all the
6 steps of the preparation of the report.
7 The name missing from the transcript is Arve Hetland. I said I
8 worked on the report together with Mr. Arve Hetland. Instead of D it
9 should be T. Hetland.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These kind of things will be corrected later, at
11 a later stage. You see this little sign there, that shows that that has
12 to be checked with the tape.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Ms. Tabeau, please tell us, did you and Mr. Brunborg only carry
18 out statistical analyses or demographic changes too? What did you do
19 about these two things? Thank you. Actually, I mean the causes of
20 demographic changes. Thank you.
21 A. The report doesn't discuss the causes of the going missing and it
22 is just about the measuring of the process itself. And eventually
23 measuring as well, the identification reports on the initial missing
24 persons reports.
25 Q. Thank you. Tell us, did you do that only based on the data you
1 received from the OTP, or what were the other sources of information, if
2 any? Thank you.
3 A. All sources used in the 2009 report were collected by my unit.
4 So I didn't receive sources from other sections of the OTP. And I can
5 repeat what I said yesterday about the sources that we used. So in brief
6 it would be ICRC lists; ICMP records of identified persons, for the basic
7 lists; for the integration of the missing persons lists with the
8 identified, DNA identified persons. In addition to these we used the
9 population census of 1991; several post-war sources on survivors; voters
10 registers of 1997, of 1998, of 2000; BiH government registration of
11 internally displaced persons and refugees. We also used, as a contextual
12 source, the 1997 records of the so-called Srebrenica refugees. We used
13 military records that were discussed earlier today. And I think that
14 would be the major sources. Occasionally we might have contacted several
15 other smaller sources, or consulted, not contacted, consulted several
16 smaller sources, but the major sources are the ones I mentioned.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see 65 ter 1708 in
19 e-court. That is D159. Thank you. Thank you. We are interested in
20 page 4 in English and in Serbian -- or rather, in Serbian, paragraph 2.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Which reads, in the lower -- in the lower paragraph, it's in
23 italics: "What was the minimum number of victims" -- or better -- let's
24 start this way: Did you get any guide-lines as to what you should
25 investigate, and, if so, were these guide-lines given to you by the OTP?
1 Thank you.
2 A. I personally didn't receive any guide-lines.
3 Q. Thank you. Let us see what Mr. Brunborg said. I'm quoting now,
4 bullet point 1:
5 "What was the minimum number of victims from Srebrenica who were
6 killed by the VRS after the fall of the enclave on July 11 1995 who can
7 be identified by name?"
8 Second bullet point:
9 "What is the reliability of this list of victims?"
10 Now, let us see, is the task of the Demographic Unit of the OTP
11 correctly described in this passage? Thank you.
12 A. This passage has nothing to do with my reports and the 2009
13 report in particular. It is an article that Helge Brunborg and
14 Henrik Urdal had written together at some point, and it is just a
15 separate thing. It is not part of the work done for this case.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have the first page of this document on
17 the screen so that we can familiarise ourselves with it. And I note that
18 I don't find this document in the list of potential exhibits to be used
19 during cross-examination of this witness. Now we see it's an article we
20 have seen during the examination of Mr. Brunborg. Thank you.
21 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. As we see, he here speaks about accounting for it. So my
25 question is: How do you and the Demographic Unit investigate whether
1 somebody was killed or lost their life in another manner, whether that
2 person was killed in combat, and so on? Thank you.
3 A. We, as I said earlier, didn't study the specific causes of death
4 or going missing of the individuals included in our list, but we did
5 cross-reference the records of missing persons with the records of DNA
6 identifications for the human remains of persons that were exhumed from
7 mass graves and other graves in the region of Srebrenica and broader area
8 of Srebrenica in Eastern Bosnia.
9 By doing this, we, first of all, want to provide a proof of death
10 of these individuals. Having a record of DNA identification is far more
11 than having a record of a person reported missing. So DNA
12 identifications confirm the death of these individuals. Further, they
13 confirm much more than just the death. It is that they confirm these
14 persons were not buried in regular graves in cemeteries; these persons
15 were exhumed from graves, unmarked graves, hidden graves in the area of
17 That most certainly tells something about circumstances which we
18 don't discuss in the report. It is not our task to discuss the
19 circumstances of making the graves and killing the people in events
20 related to these graves. We don't have the expertise and we don't have
21 sources to do so. I believe our report should be read as a background
22 report that is discussing the scale of victimisation of the fall of
23 Srebrenica. Moreover, it provides proof of death for a large number of
24 victims. As of 2009, 66 per cent, as far as I remember, of the missing
25 persons have been confirmed as DNA-identified cases, so these are no more
1 missing persons. These are people who are dead. Of whom we know they
2 are buried in mass graves and other graves in the Srebrenica region.
3 Further, we have if our reports statistics that show that
4 80 per cent of the people identified so far, 80 per cent, approximately,
5 were found in the mass graves that are known as ICTY mass graves. These
6 ICTY mass graves is a separate category of graves in which ICTY conducted
7 the investigation, and there is -- there exists additional evidence in
8 relation to these particular sites.
9 So we provide evidence that is telling 66 per cent of the missing
10 have been confirmed as dead as of now.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Tabeau, it was a rather lengthy --
12 THE WITNESS: -- answer.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- answer to a compound question.
14 THE WITNESS: I'm very sorry.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please focus a little bit more on the specific
16 question put to you.
17 And we should have back on the screen page 4 in both languages of
18 this document.
19 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can I continue? Thank
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, I asked you to carry on.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you have any conceptual differences with Mr. Brunborg during
25 the work on this project? Thank you.
1 A. I don't recall that we would have differences of serious nature.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have P1776 shown in
4 e-court, which is the 2009 report, page 38. In the Serbian language,
5 could we please look at Annex 2 of your report titled, "Definitions of
6 Terms in Relation to the Srebrenica Victims."
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you. We can see it. My question is --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need the English.
10 THE REGISTRAR: English page in e-court is 34. Thank you,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now your question, Mr. Tolimir.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In this report of yours it is clear that you use the term of a
16 missing person by defining it through the date or place of disappearance,
17 that is to say, when the person was seen alive for the last time. So you
18 were not necessarily interested in when the person may have been killed.
19 You say here this can be either the date when the person submitting
20 information saw the person alive for the last time or it can be based on
21 the information provided by an eye-witness.
22 My question is this: What method did you use to ascertain
23 whether a person was also a witness or whether that person received such
24 information from another witness?
25 A. The information about missing, date and place of missing or last
1 seen, was obtained by the ICRC. This is not that we collected it from
2 informants or sources; it is the ICRC collected it from their informants.
3 And they accepted people very selectively based on strict criteria. It
4 would have to be the family members on the first place or people somehow
5 related to the victims from whom the reports were accepted.
6 Q. Thank you. In view of your answer, is such a report reliable,
7 given the fact that it was treated in two different ways?
8 A. I don't see it treated in two different ways. But generally I
9 find the ICRC list of missing persons very reliable. And in addition to
10 this, there is another source, an independent source, on the missing
11 persons that would be the ICMP, the International Commission for Missing
12 Persons, the one who provided the DNA identification of the victims.
13 They too collected information on the missing persons during the process
14 of collection of blood samples for the DNA analysis, so they contacted
15 the families or families contacted them, and based on this they have
16 their own list of missing persons from Srebrenica.
17 As we see, the two match each other very well. So the records of
18 ICRC are found in large numbers in ICMP records and the other way around.
19 Q. Thank you. In that case, tell me this, please: Are their lists
20 reliable in terms of the dates of disappearance? I have in mind the
22 A. ICMP, as a matter of fact, does not report exact dates of
23 disappearance. They use, for all victims, one date, the 11th of July, to
24 describe the fact that these are Srebrenica-identified persons. Only
25 ICRC provides the specific dates. How reliable it is? It is as reliable
1 as the reports of the informants of ICRC and their knowledge of the
2 disappearance. This is just what people remember and what they think
4 Q. Thank you. Both of these organisations you referred to, the ICRC
5 and the ICMP, are they NGOs?
6 A. I think, yes, these are. ICRC is an international organisation.
7 Whether I could say it is an NGO, I wouldn't know, really, as a matter of
8 fact. It is a humanitarian organisation with a long history of providing
9 humanitarian support to the victims of any conflict. And ICMP is also an
10 international organisation with a specific mandate to provide DNA
11 identifications of the victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia.
12 Q. Thank you. I know all that. But I just wanted to ask you
13 whether they are non-governmental organisations or not. If they are
14 governmental organisations, perhaps you can tell us what government they
15 are part of.
16 A. They are not part of any government. They are supported by
17 donations from various countries. So in the sense -- in this sense they
18 are just operating independently and not for a given government. They
19 represent the international community in their actions and fulfill the
20 mandates that were made for them at some points.
21 Q. I understand your answer and I'll move on to the next question.
22 Is what NGOs have more reliable than the data procured by the
23 armed forces directly participating in some hostilities?
24 A. Well, it is a question that I cannot really answer. Well, I
25 guess you are referring to the ICRC lists and ICMP lists of missing or
1 identified persons versus the lists provided by the army, so it is -- I
2 really can't say what is more reliable. I do definitely trust very much
3 the lists provided by ICRC and ICMP. And why? Because I know the method
4 how they operate, what kind of approach they use to collect the
5 information, to process it, and I work -- they work up to the
6 international standards. On the other hand you are telling me what do I
7 think about the military records. I believe they must be reliable too.
8 They are issued by state authorities. Moreover, the state authorities
9 issued these records for an important purpose, for postmortem benefits to
10 the families of the fallen soldiers and other people on these lists. So
11 they must be reliable too. So that is -- yeah, there is -- I can't say I
12 trust this more or that. I trust both and that's it.
13 Q. Thank you. You could have provided a shorter answer in response
14 to my question. And I wanted to ask you to do that for my next question.
15 Why did you then change the entries of the armed forces and not
16 the data provided by the NGOs?
17 A. I didn't change anything in the lists that were made for the
18 2009 report because the additional information obtained from the
19 Ministry of Defence in Bosnia-Herzegovina supported the fact of including
20 certain individuals among Srebrenica missing. So there was no need to
21 make any changes.
22 The thing is that even the best source might be containing
23 inconsistencies and problems. It is not so that statistical sources are
24 perfect. And my role as a statistician is to check the quality of each
25 source I use for my work. And if I identify inconsistencies or records
1 that need to be removed, I have to do that. Why? Because it is a sort
2 of investigation.
3 Q. Sorry, I didn't ask you that. I asked you why you changed the
4 request to the Bosnian government. In any case, I'll take your answer.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, your question was: "Why did you
6 then change the entries of the armed forces and not the data provided by
7 the NGOs?"
8 That was your question. And not why you changed the request to
9 the Bosnian government.
10 Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Also with respect to
14 the last question that he asks, that effectively misstates the evidence
15 in the case. There was no change to any request that was made to the
16 Bosnian authorities, the army, the Ministry of Defence, or anything like
17 that. There's no evidence of that in the record. So either it's a
18 misinterpretation or I would ask General Tolimir to restate his question
19 in a manner that's consistent with the evidence that's been provided by
20 this witness and not in a misleading way.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Since I don't have time
23 to go back to some details where the witness can explain her work, I will
24 put the next question.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Did you put the lists of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina before
2 the lists provided by the ICRC or not?
3 A. I didn't use the lists of the army to compile the list of
4 Srebrenica missing or identified persons. I did not use these records at
6 Q. Thank you. We will see that a bit later. I would like to ask
7 something about the third and fifth paragraph of your report.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 81 in the Serbian language
9 and 77 in the English, it is the 2009 report.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. While we are waiting for it, I will put my question. A moment
12 ago you said that the information about the circumstances of
13 disappearance was collected by the ICRC by the next of kin. And in the
14 next paragraph, when addressing the issue of the lists, you said that the
15 lists of the ICRC of the Srebrenica missing and the lists of the ICMP
16 provide certain differences in interpretation about certain elements of
17 the Srebrenica missing and that you see no reason to exclude either.
18 When I asked you about --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Tolimir please
20 repeat his last question. It wasn't intelligible.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were asked by the interpreters
22 to repeat the last part of your question. I will assist you. Your last
23 sentence ended with "and that you see no reason to exclude either." And
24 then, "When I asked you about --" The interpreters didn't catch the last
25 part. Please repeat that.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. What differences do you have in mind in paragraph 5 in relation
4 to the elements provided for the Srebrenica missing?
5 A. You are referring to the paragraph 5 that we have on the screen;
6 right? Which begins, "Also 1998 records were included ..."
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that correct, Mr. Tolimir?
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Yes. The penultimate line in quotation, it reads:
10 "Srebrenica related."
11 A. Yes. Thank you. It is so that this paragraph is about 1998
12 records that were not reported in the latest list of October 2008 of
13 Srebrenica missing provided to us by ICRC. These 1998 records come from
14 the overall lists of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is,
15 entire country, also made by the ICRC. These 1998 records were selected
16 from this overall country-wide list according to our criteria of a
17 Srebrenica missing person. These criteria are discussed in this report
18 in Annex 2.
19 So the Srebrenica-related person can be understand, first of all,
20 as a person who satisfies -- or a record of whom satisfies our criteria
21 of being a Srebrenica missing person in terms of area and time as
22 specified in Annex 2. On the other hand, there is this separate list of
23 October 2008 by ICRC who listed their Srebrenica missing persons. So we
24 see no contradiction between these two. It is that in -- according our
25 criteria additional 1998 records should be included, additional to the
1 October 2008 ICRC Srebrenica missing persons list. There is no
2 contradiction. We include them. That's all.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Tabeau, the first line of that paragraph, if
4 you would have a look on it. There we can see the OTP list but were not
5 listed on the IRCR Srebrenica 2008 update. Is that -- what is "IRCR" or
6 is it a typo?
7 THE WITNESS: It isn't a typo. Perhaps I could help understand,
8 better understand, this issue. If I would make a drawing.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you just say what does it mean, IRCR. What is
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, the ICRC is the organisation --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I'm asking for IRCR.
13 THE WITNESS: Oh, that is a typo, of course.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is a typo. That was my question.
15 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Why did you state in the report that you don't know what criteria
20 was used by the ICRC?
21 A. This is because I don't exactly know what criteria they used for
22 their list. Perhaps they used the reports of the informants of the
23 families who told them these persons went missing in the context of the
24 fall of Srebrenica. We, on the other hand, used two formal criteria, the
25 area and time, for compiling our list.
1 Q. Thank you. Is there a possibility then that the ICRC puts a
2 limit on what makes it on to the list because they did not provide any
3 reference of the criteria? Then if we understand it that way, any person
4 whose DNA was analysed could make it on to the list.
5 A. As I said, I don't know the rationale behind the ICRC list of
6 Srebrenica missing and I don't want to speculate. But as a matter of
7 fact, it is a fact that several Srebrenica missing persons lists exist.
8 There is one list here, there is the list of ICRC, there is the list of
9 ICMP, that the Bosnian Commission for Tracing Missing Persons will have
10 their own list, now the Missing Persons Institute in Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina will have their own list, and it is not so that there is
12 one-to-one correspondence between all these lists. There will be slight
13 differences in the number of reported persons by every source. But there
14 will be a core which is common as well.
15 Q. Thank you. Please explain why in the Srebrenica-related lists of
16 missing you included those who went missing and were last seen alive in
17 Baljkovica, which is the place where the column left the RS and entered
18 the federation territory, which is not in the Srebrenica area at all?
19 A. In Baljkovica, as far as I remember, is part of the municipality
20 of Zvornik, I think. And as such it is part of the formal criterion of
21 the Srebrenica area used in our report. This is why it is listed. And
22 relating -- in relation to the events in Baljkovica, it is not our role
23 to study the military or historical background of these events.
24 Q. Thank you. Since that was not your role, are you presenting a
25 case in your report which would reflect what indeed happened or does your
1 report serve a different purpose?
2 A. As I said earlier, it is a background report on the victimisation
3 of the fall of Srebrenica and patterns of victimisation of the fall. By
4 saying "patterns," I also mean a territorial pattern. It is so that
5 places of disappearance are included in this report, particular, specific
6 places, and also places as municipalities.
7 Any statistic can be provided for any given place. If this
8 report is read together with other reports like military narrative or a
9 historical background report, it is possible to make adjustments
10 according to what is believed is needed, simply. But as a matter of
11 fact, I think the context -- the definitions used in this report are
12 appropriate, I believe, of the area and times.
13 Q. Thank you. Since you included it all in the general formulation
14 about Srebrenica, can you tell us whether you studied the statements made
15 by OTP witnesses before this Court and the data they provided on the
16 place and date of death and the circumstances thereof?
17 A. No, I didn't study the witness statements before this Court. And
18 I -- because it is not part of my task to do so and was not needed for
19 making this report.
20 Q. Thank you. Can the Court then be deceived as to the place and
21 time of those events? Let's use an example. Mr. Ruez was an
22 investigator of this Tribunal and he appeared as a witness. He asserts
23 before the Court that he saw 600 corpses in Bare. It is in D166,
24 page 595 of the transcript in the Krstic case. My question is this: If
25 it is irrelevant to you what the witnesses said and the only important
1 thing for you is what you have to say, do we then need to have anyone
2 testifying about those events at all?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this was a misstatement of the last
5 answer of the witness.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe it also
8 does not properly reflect the statement of Mr. Ruez. And in that sense
9 it's misleading to the witness. And I think it's likely to elicit an
10 inappropriate response, and that's the reason why I object to it.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have that document on the screen.
12 D166, if that is the correct number.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. The correct number is
14 D166, page 595 [Realtime transcript read in error "559"] in the Krstic
15 transcript. The Finnish pathologist did the work. And I gave the
16 reference pertaining to this testimony so as to avoid putting up on the
17 screen D166.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. So my question is: Did she take into account information
20 received from the pathologist defining the place, date, and manner of
22 A. Well, obviously pathological reports --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't have the right page on the screen. We
24 would like to have the right page on the screen and an indication -- you
25 said it's page 559. On the screen we have 589.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 595. I apologise. 595. Maybe I
2 made the mistake. I'm sorry. We need 595.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And can you give us the line on that page?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 8 to 17 in Serbian. And the
5 same goes for the English language. It's a whole paragraph.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Now continue, please.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did you take into account the reports compiled by pathologists
10 and other experts who worked to find the circumstances of death of the
11 victims in Srebrenica?
12 A. For our report we didn't use these reports. No pathological
13 reports used for our report.
14 Q. Thank you. Does your Demographic Unit analyse all sources that
15 could have some relevant information about the place, date, or manner of
16 death? And does it also analyse testimony of the witnesses who appear in
17 these proceedings?
18 A. Well, it would be an impossible task to analyse all the sources
19 and all the testimonies. It is not feasible, simply. Well, we plan our
20 reports according to what we think is the most appropriate and feasible,
21 and we try to restrict ourselves in our work. We have certain goals we
22 want to reach, and we select sources that allow us to do so.
23 Q. Thank you. So here we can see two sources: One source are the
24 Finnish pathologists; the other is Jean Ruez, the witness. And we also
25 have another report referencing 600 victims. Another witness talks about
1 500 victims. So these differences are something that should be take into
2 account. Or do you think that for the purposes of your research it is a
3 negligible difference?
4 A. I first of all think that aggregate statistics, 500, 600, 3.000,
5 10.000, are completely meaningless for this kind of work we have
6 presented in our report. We require that personal details of a victim
7 are available. We make lists of victims. So these kind of general
8 statements with overall statistics cannot be simply used in this type of
9 work we do.
10 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that your report is a global report
11 about the events in Srebrenica because it includes everything related to
12 Srebrenica? Thank you.
13 A. I wouldn't say it includes everything related to Srebrenica. It
14 does include records of missing persons related to the fall of
15 Srebrenica. And in the report it is defined what is understood by a
16 Srebrenica missing person.
17 Q. Thank you. Here is an example. In Exhibit 151, PW-016, a
18 protected witness, said that at a certain location he saw several
19 hundreds of dead, or another 150; and then near a cemetery, 30; and then
20 at a fourth location, 25 to 30. So we see that here a single witness
21 mentions more than 500 dead. Is this a relevant information that should
22 have been made available to you because it speaks about the precise
23 place, date, and manner of death?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you said Exhibit 151. Is it a P or
25 a D Exhibit?
1 THE REGISTRAR: I believe this should be Defence Exhibit D151 and
2 should not be broadcast. Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I quoted it from
5 page 2, paragraph 3, lines 14, 23, and 28. I made a wrong reference and
6 now we have a wrong document, I think.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Here in the third paragraph it says, in line 7, there were more
9 than 300 dead. That's what he says. More than 300 dead and a
10 significant number of wounded. Which means that the total number of
11 victims could even be higher. And now --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, can you help me. Where is it in
13 this document? You say --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the third paragraph, line 7.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. And then we have P1174, page 2, line 14, 23, and 28, where the
19 witness speaks about the same event but then says that at another place
20 there was 25 people; at another, 30 people; 150 at the fourth place. So
21 are these data relevant for your Demographic Unit which is engaged in
22 finding out the place, the date, and the manner of death?
23 A. But these numbers are not associated with lists of names. There
24 are no personal details of victims available from these kind of
25 statements. So for my work these statements cannot be used. It is not
1 the approach that we have taken. We work with concrete people, with
2 names and other information about these people.
3 Q. Thank you. It's a pity that we haven't seen P1174 page 2 that I
4 referenced, lines 14, 23, and 28, so that I can ask my following
5 question. But then let me put it this way --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, Mr. Tolimir. You should just ask for this
7 document. You haven't done that. You just mentioned it. Wait, it will
8 come up on the screen, and you may put a question in relation to that
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document P1174 should not be broadcast. Thank
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. All right. Now we have
13 the document. Can we have page 2. Of course, do not broadcast it
14 outside the courtroom.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. This witness describes the exact route of the column from
17 Srebrenica to Baljkovica and says where the victims were left. And then
18 at page 2, line 40, you can see it on the right-hand side of the screen,
19 number 25 to 30. Then line 23, the last number in that line, 30 and a
20 little dash after that. Then line 28, close to the date 13/7/1995,
21 deaths, where he mentions 150 dead and seriously wounded civilians, and
22 so and so forth. So this witness gives an accurate description of what
23 he saw on the way to Konjevic Polje. Are those data relevant for the
24 investigators engaged in finding the place, the date, and the manner of
1 A. For the investigators, these data might be relevant, but this is
2 not my work. It is a different approach that we have taken than studying
3 the information from witness statements. I can imagine that a study of
4 witness statements can be put together, absolutely. Why not? But this
5 is not what I have done. It's a different approach totally.
6 Q. Thank you. I agree with you that they are different approaches;
7 however, is this approach a more precise approach containing more
8 information about the place, the date, and the manner of death?
9 A. It is not because the names of victims are not there. So it is
10 more precise in relation to the timing and location of certain incidents,
11 but it doesn't give precise information about victimisation of this
13 Q. Thank you. It doesn't give those data to you, but it does give
14 data about the date, place, and manner of death of certain persons, and
15 you talk about those same things in your reports, so aren't those data
16 here more precise? Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think you have got the answer this
18 witness can provide you with. She told you her way to compile lists and
19 to deal with certain information. You got the answer already. I
20 understand your position, but you shouldn't continue asking the same
21 question. Please go ahead.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Can we now have P07170 -- P1776, page 104 in Serbian, 94 in
24 English. Let me repeat, P1776. In Serbian 104, in English 97. I need
25 that in order to ask a question.
1 [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is switched off.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we zoom in. And
4 rotate the page in English.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So here we can see that in this table you determined the date of
7 death based on information provided by the BiH army and the lists of the
8 OTP, and this is exactly the case that you spoke about earlier, the case
9 of 220 people who came from the OTP list from 2005.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This should not be broadcast.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. And here we can see that this list -- that this list also
13 contains the DNA data and that in order to harmonise the DNA data and the
14 BiH data, you sent that request for assistance to the defence ministry of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And my question is: Can you explain to the
16 Trial Chamber this table and can you explain how can it happen that in
17 the mass graves and on the lists made by the OTP we can find persons who
18 died in 1994, 1993, and 1992?
19 A. I first of all want to explain that DoD, this is the symbol used
20 in this table to describe the date of disappearance or death in a few
21 cases, shouldn't be read as the details about the dead. The military
22 response was also referring to the going missing of the same persons. So
23 it is not that we still -- that we do have information about the dead and
24 place of death. We still have to deal with disappearance date and place.
25 This is first.
1 Second, there are certain dates, DoD military, that are reported
2 as 1992, 1994, 1993. These are the initial reports of the militaries
3 that were clarified and corrected to 1995. It happens, as I said
4 yesterday, that these kind of registers are dynamic systems, and it
5 happens that these systems are often not updated for a very long time.
6 So the information entered at some point remains there for a very long
7 time uncorrected. Obviously, to more recent -- according to more recent
8 knowledge, it is possible to -- for certain cases to provide information
9 that is different than that in the system. So that explains the
10 difference in the reported dates of disappearance.
11 And further, there is no surprise that for several persons on
12 these lists -- on this list also the ICMP information about the DNA
13 identification is available. After all, this is a sample of -- or
14 subsample of the Srebrenica missing persons whom we systematically
15 cross-reference with the DNA identifications. So what we see in the
16 entire list, that would be the 66 per cent of identifications, must be
17 also resembled in these kind of little subsamples.
18 Q. Thank you. Please, does this table maybe tell us that there were
19 cases of false registration of missing persons or some other deficiencies
20 related to the DNA analysis? Thank you.
21 A. I wouldn't say a false registration of missing persons. And I
22 wouldn't speak of deficiencies related to DNA analysis. What I'm saying,
23 it can happen in chaotic circumstances of war that systems registering
24 certain events are imperfect, and that is an example of such a system.
25 At some point a person could have been reported missing as of, I don't
1 know, April 1992. Later obviously the person reappeared to go missing
2 again perhaps in 1995. This is a theory, I cannot -- I cannot say I have
3 a proof for this theory for every single case on this list, but these
4 things happen. This is a war situation we are speaking about, and in war
5 situations statistical reporting or military reporting are imperfect,
7 Q. Thank you. Now, can you tell us which information can be
8 considered more complete: Information coming from NGOs 14 years after the
9 fact or information coming from military institutions and state organs
10 who had a certain legal obligation vis-ā-vis the families of the
11 deceased? What is more precise?
12 A. I think your question is very imprecise. I think you are
13 referring, by NGOs 14 years after the war, or the fact, as you say, to
14 the reports by ICRC and their missing persons records, and I think that
15 these reports are reliable most definitely. It is not that ICRC started
16 making their list 14 years after the war. They started operating during
17 the war already and have continued up till the present day to make the
18 lists as good as possible.
19 And whether the military system is better than that, it should be
20 equally good at least, right? It is not that I'm saying that military
21 records are better because it is just a military system. It is a matter
22 of how the system has been maintained over the years and what kind of
23 improvements have been brought to the system, whether there were
24 subsequent updates or there were no updates, et cetera, et cetera. So it
25 is not that I can give a full -- yeah, my full opinion about these kind
1 of issues in the case of military lists.
2 Q. Thank you. Bearing in mind that this is information relevant for
3 judicial organs, I mean here various consequences arising from the death
4 and from death registers, can you tell us why was it that the BiH army
5 did not accept to harmonise their lists with the ICRC lists? And I call
6 ICRC here an NGO.
7 A. Well, I think you are saying the BiH army did not accept to
8 harmonise. Has anybody asked for this? I don't think so. It is just
9 that these two organisations have operated parallel, I think. ICRC doing
10 their work and the army doing their records. And whether there was an
11 exchange of information between them and why should it be, I don't really
12 know. I'm not studying these issues.
13 Q. Thank you. The person who compiled this list testified here,
14 Mr. Brunborg, and he said that the BiH army in certain cases did not
15 agree to change the data on place of death and manner of death. Do you
16 have any information on this? Can you tell us something? It was him,
17 Mr. Brunborg, who told us that you have more detailed information on
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, can you give us a reference?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. While we hear the
21 answer, my assistant is going to try to find the exact reference. I
22 remember very well that Brunborg said that the army would not harmonise
23 certain number of entries.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Maybe it will be of assistance to Mr. Gajic and
1 also General Tolimir, I think the reference that he's making is to
2 transcript page 10112. And that is during the course of Dr. Brunborg's
3 testimony. And perhaps we'll have to look from line 6 all the way
4 through to line 23. And if we can get that up on the screen, maybe
5 Mr. Gajic can confirm or General Tolimir can confirm that that's the
6 right reference.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this assistance.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. And thank
9 you, Mr. Vanderpuye. He questioned -- he led the questioning of
10 Mr. Brunborg here, so I certainly trust him. Thank you.
11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Did can you tell us, do you know how many cases were there when
13 the BiH army did not accept to change their list?
14 A. Let me tell you first that I doubt seriously that Mr. Brunborg
15 has a specific knowledge what the army did what their records, how many
16 they accepted or rejected, whatever. What we know is the response that
17 was provided to us by the military authority. I think you also received
18 a copy of this response. It was discussed earlier today. And in the
19 response there is a remark that the authorities were unable to provide
20 the information for I think seven individuals of the 142 for whom
21 information was requested. I'm now checking the actual response. Yes,
22 it is correct. They were unable for seven persons to find copies of
23 appropriate documents. That's all we know. And that's all we have in
24 terms of documents or, rather, lack of documents. And whether the army
25 corrected their records is a totally completely separate thing. It is
1 not of what something that we are aware of or asked for. So we asked for
2 information, we were provided with information, and whether the army
3 subsequently made any changes in their register, it is beyond our
4 knowledge and we cannot answer.
5 Q. Thank you. We don't have enough time to discuss this at length.
6 And since I discussed it with Mr. Brunborg, it is all right.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have in e-court pages 44
8 and 40. In Serbian 44 and in English 40. It's table number 3.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document we have on the screen; is that
10 correct? Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is correct.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is, once again, P1776.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You see table 3/1, cases from the 2008 ICRC Srebrenica list by
16 category. And then we have the categories here and the numbers of cases.
17 So we see that the ICRC confirmed the death of 3.459 persons. In
18 relation to that, I want to know the following: What were the criteria
19 employed by the ICRC in order to denote a certain person as missing or
20 dead in Srebrenica?
21 A. I, of course, don't know exactly. It is, again, the ICRC who
22 decided when to close their cases. I'm aware of an exchange of
23 information between ICRC and ICMP with respect to identifications, DNA
24 identifications, of missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so I can
25 safely say these type of reports must have been part of closing their
1 cases. It is also so that there is -- there exists an ICRC Working Group
2 on missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As part of this group,
3 ICRC co-operates with the Bosnian Commission for Tracing Missing Persons.
4 It is the commission that is involved in exhumations and in collecting
5 all kinds of reports issued about the victims from exhumations, including
6 the final death certificates signed by the court pathologists that are
7 used in declaring missing persons dead.
8 I can imagine, again, that ICRC uses this kind of information in
9 declaring missing persons as dead and closing the cases. There won't be,
10 of course, again, a one-to-one association between the identifications
11 that are available at ICMP or the federal or state Commission for Tracing
12 Missing Persons because information is sent with certain delays and
13 received with delays and then there is time needed to update the
14 databases, et cetera, et cetera. So there will be differences in the
15 numbers of these closed cases of dead people.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we must have our second break now.
17 We adjourn, and resume at 1.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Before the break we called up document P1 -- it was page 44
23 anyway of that document, and table 3.1. Could we please return to that
25 THE REGISTRAR: I think that is document P1776.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P1776.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Everybody in the courtroom wanted to be of
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. While we're waiting, I'll ask my question. The ICRC established
7 the death of 3459 persons, we'll see that figure in the table, and they
8 say that these deaths are connected with Srebrenica. And you in your
9 report state that there are 5061 [Realtime transcript read in
10 error "561"] persons whose identity was allegedly established. How do
11 you account for this difference between 3459 and 5061? Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 5061.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes. May I please have the document in the e-court
14 because my e-court is not showing me anything.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told that there is a technical problem at
16 the moment. It's not possible to bring that document up. The Registry
17 is working on it.
18 THE WITNESS: But I think I still have answer the question,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be fine.
21 THE WITNESS: The number Mr. Tolimir mentioned from page 40
22 English version of the report was 3.459 of closed cases dead persons
23 reported by ICRC in October 2008. And the second number was 5.061
24 persons. This number can be for instance found in table 1 in the report
25 which is on page 6. This is the number of DNA identifications issued by
1 the ICMP and confirmed in the record of OTP Srebrenica missing persons.
2 So the ICMP number confirmed in OTP list is much higher than the number
3 of ICRC closed cases dead.
4 And I think I already explained the difference when I was
5 speaking before the break about how ICRC most likely closes their cases.
6 I mentioned that information is forwarded from ICMP and other
7 organisations involved in the identification of the victims to ICRC, and
8 there are certain delays and there are certain time-periods required to
9 process information at ICRC and so this explains perhaps a part of the
11 There are possibly other factors which I'm unaware of, so again
12 it is hard for me to say why there is no one-to-one correspondence
13 between these two totals.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have the table on the screen in both
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Bearing in mind what you're saying, that you don't know, can you
19 answer the following question: Does the OTP mostly rely on the
20 information received from the ICMP and only respects their lists while
21 neglecting the lists made by other participants? Thank you.
22 A. We mostly rely on the information from the ICMP. It doesn't mean
23 we neglect information from other relevant sources on identification of
24 victims. But why we consider the ICMP identifications the most
25 important, it is largely because of the method itself. It is the DNA
1 matching and -- first profiling and matching. ICMP does that very
2 professionally. They follow certain standard operating procedures and
3 are recognised as important and a reliable organisation in their area.
4 Secondly, there is in Bosnia and Herzegovina a law on missing persons
5 that was introduced around the year of 2005 or 2006. I don't recall
6 exactly. This law says that missing persons, every missing person in
7 this country needs to be identified by using the DNA method, so the
8 simply existence of this law makes it really necessary before a person
9 can be declared dead to be first identified by the DNA identification.
10 So that are the reasons.
11 Q. Thank you. Is that the reason why later on, on the lists there
12 are persons who died after the war, on the lists of persons whose DNA was
13 analysed, as well of persons -- as well as persons who died before the
14 war? Thank you.
15 A. I don't know to what lists you are referring as the fact of
16 issuing a DNA identification. Does it mean automatically that date of
17 death and place of death and circumstances of death are identified as
18 well? In many instances, yes, but not for every missing person. So if
19 there are inconsistent cases of persons who were reported missing before
20 the fall of Srebrenica and after the fall of Srebrenica, say, in 1996 and
21 later, I think these cases basically do not confirm to our criteria of
22 including records of missing persons in our OTP of Srebrenica missing, so
23 these persons are not part of our list.
24 Q. Thank you. We've seen that Mr. Brunborg wrote that first
25 paragraph in that 65 ter 1708 document and he states the minimum number
1 of victims killed by the VRS immediately after the fall of the enclave.
2 He says that was his task. But what would be the maximum number of
3 victims that can be established by these methods? Thank you.
4 A. Well, what Mr. Brunborg did in his article is his responsibility,
5 of course. What would be the maximum number? Well, what would be the
6 maximum number of missing persons related to the fall of Srebrenica? I
7 personally haven't estimated such a number. I think it would be
8 possible. There are statistical methods that allow this kind of
9 estimation. A certain estimate was produced by ICMP, by Tom Parsons, the
10 forensic director of the ICMP, who estimated, who made a point estimate
11 of missing persons related to the fall of Srebrenica and provided a
12 confidence interval which would, with a high confidence, 95 per cent
13 confidence, contain this point estimate, but it is not necessarily the
14 maximum number. There are other statistical methods based on capped or
15 recapped [phoen] approach that would allow to make such an estimate. I
16 wouldn't have a ready answer for this. If any is sought, then I can
17 think about producing it.
18 Q. For us to be able to see what you're talking about, I would like
19 to show page 46 in Serbian and page 42 in English. And that's a section
20 that deals with the ICMP and DNA analyses. While we're waiting, I'll ask
21 you the following: Does that list of the ICMP and does the maximum
22 number of DNA analyses performed --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat the end of his
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you were asked again to repeat the
1 last part of your question. The last sentence we have on the screen is:
2 "Does this list of the ICMP and does the maximum number of the DNA
3 analyses performed --" and then the recording stopped. Please repeat the
4 last part.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I asked whether that list and the number of DNA analyses
7 performed, the maximum number that the Demographic Unit has to assume
8 working for the needs of this Tribunal. Thank you.
9 A. We never had a particular number in mind when trying to make
10 these lists of Srebrenica missing and identified persons. It is rather
11 an approach that should be seen as a reconstruction of the demographic
12 reality of this episode of war. So reconstruction means making a list of
13 people for whom there are good reasons to believe they are the victims
14 associated with the fall of Srebrenica. And making a number beforehand,
15 without having such a list, does not make much sense at all. So no
16 target number on our side on this.
17 Q. Thank you. Please take a look at paragraph 2 of the document we
18 have on our screens. And it says, the first sentence:
19 "A concise yet exhaustive overview of the exhumation and
20 identification status in the former Yugoslavia, and in Srebrenica in
21 particular, is not available from a single organisation."
22 And you go on to say, toward the end of this paragraph:
23 "Unfortunately, this database does not yet exist in a useable
24 electronic format."
25 Bearing in mind all you have said or all you say here, did you
1 consider the possibility that somebody has that information but they
2 are -- have not been forwarded to all parties in electronic format to be
3 harmonised? Thank you.
4 A. As I said in the report, the information about missing persons is
5 scattered across several organisations. Attempts have been made to
6 integrate the various lists circulated around and to make one central
7 database. Recently I hear that the missing persons institute in Bosnia
8 and Herzegovina achieved their first result in this area. There were
9 media reports that this institute have made a list of all missing persons
10 from the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Srebrenica would be, of course,
11 part of this database. It is a relatively large list of 35.000 persons
12 that was reported -- approximately 35.000 persons reported for the entire
13 war and entire country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This list is longer,
14 obviously, than the ICRC list of missing persons from Bosnia which has
15 approximately 22.000 cases. I -- it is a very recent development. I
16 have not contacted the missing persons institute with a question for a
17 list of missing persons related to the fall of Srebrenica. Perhaps they
18 have such a list. I don't know, simply. So it would be a possibility to
19 take a look at what they have.
20 But as a matter of fact, my feeling is that we have enough
21 information based on the ICRC records to -- to make a list of missing
22 persons related to the fall of Srebrenica. It is a reliable source with
23 a relatively detailed reporting of the victims, and it is certainly a
24 very good basis for making an initial list of missing persons. So I
25 wouldn't be seeing any point in going and asking for new records on
1 missing persons. What matters most at this stage are the records of
2 identified persons, DNA identifications issued by the ICMP. And this is
3 available, we have it all. Any record issued and relevant to Srebrenica
4 is at the OTP. New updates are sent systematically every six months.
5 That is the material that is most essential for this case.
6 Q. Thank you. Now we have gotten to the question I'm interested in.
7 Who has the monopoly over information about which Mr. Tokaca spoke and
8 documented, D38, paragraph 3? Could you tell us who that is and whether
9 the ICRC harmonise this database as the main protagonist? Thank you.
10 A. I would like to see the D38, paragraph 3, if possible.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be called up on the screen.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. That's Exhibit D38,
13 paragraph 3.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. While we're waiting, please tell us whether the ICRC will be in
16 charge of this unified database and whether these data will be of a
17 limiting nature and binding for everybody? Thank you.
18 A. I would like you to explain what is this unified database. Is
19 this a database of missing persons institute I mentioned?
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I take it that -- oh, interesting.
21 In your list of exhibits there is an entry that the translation is
22 pending. Now I see there is a translation already. That's fine.
23 Which paragraph are you referring to?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Paragraph 3. Where it
25 says: "The biggest problem in B&H is perfidious monopoly on
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. That is why I asked whether the ICRC will play a dominant role in
4 the creation of the electronic database, the harmonised electronic
5 database. I believe the witness wanted to know what database I had in
7 A. I believe it is not the database of Mirsad Tokaca we are talking
8 here but the database of missing persons that is being created or has
9 been created recently by the missing persons institute. That is my
10 understanding. And with this understanding I'm answering this question.
11 The missing persons institute is a body that involves all
12 ethnicities, all ethnic groups, major ethnic groups in Bosnia and
13 Herzegovina, and ICRC will be slowly handing over their records to this
14 institute. This institute is meant to become a leading organisation in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina with the mandate to keep records of the missing
16 and subsequently the records on the identification of the missing
18 From what I know from media reports is that it is not ICRC but
19 ICMP that very actively supported the idea of creation of this institute
20 and already helped the institute in their work, in particular in creation
21 of this large database with 35.000 missing persons from Bosnia.
22 So it is not -- it is so that ICRC will be handing over material
23 to them.
24 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Time will tell whether your answer or my
25 question is correct.
1 The paragraph just below the paragraph begins with:
2 "The biggest problem in B&H is a perfidious monopoly on
3 information, Tokaca said, pointing out that the IDC wanted to break this
4 monopoly by compiling the Bosnian crime atlas."
5 My question is this: If such information was provided by the
6 director of the IDC in Sarajevo Mr. Tokaca, what does it tell us about
7 the context of the attempts so far to establish the number of missing and
8 killed in Srebrenica in order to harmonise it? What does it tell you as
9 a demographer?
10 A. Well, I think that Mr. Tokaca makes his statements. And I have
11 nothing do with his statements, and I don't live in Bosnia, and I don't
12 know the realities in Bosnia; so I don't know what kind of monopoly he
13 meant. But as a matter of fact, it wasn't easy to harmonise the
14 integration of these various databases. It took quite a long time, long
15 time after the war ended, to finally have one database on missing persons
16 in Bosnia. So -- but there is such a database. It exists. That means
17 it was possible in the end, which is a good sign. So if there was any
18 monopoly, of which I am unaware, so obviously now it has been gone
19 because things are going in the right direction.
20 Q. Thank you. He is probably more familiar with it than either you
21 or me.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please scroll down the
23 page to see what else he has to say.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. He says that "70 people were buried at the Potocari Memorial
1 Centre who did not perish in the area of Srebrenica."
2 Can you see that? It is the penultimate paragraph. Can you tell
3 us how it was possible and whether there were any manipulations with the
4 lists and the way they were created?
5 A. I don't know about the 70 people buried in Potocari Memorial
6 Centre. And I want to note it is just a press report who is allegedly
7 quoting Mr. Tokaca, but this is just a press report, media report. What
8 Tokaca said is perhaps this or something else.
9 Well, in my work I don't use the records from Potocari from the
10 Memorial Centre, so from this point of view this information is of no
12 Q. Thank you. Would it be relevant to know that the same thing was
13 confirmed by Researcher Ivanisevic in the report that was forwarded by
14 the Defence? It was used -- it was used by the Defence in a quote from
15 that book.
16 A. Look, sir, if I tell you that it is possible, perhaps it is
17 possible, perhaps not, but I don't think that Mr. Ivanisevic is a good
18 reference for our discussion here. Why? Because his number of
19 Srebrenica victim is not 7.000 to 8.000, it is 700 to 800, so he is
20 seeing the whole problem in a totally completely different perspective.
21 And what happened in Potocari, who is buried there, is the responsibility
22 of the local authorities who are in charge of the Potocari Memorial
23 Centre. And I think these kind of issues should be addressed to these
24 people. And I don't think it makes sense to address these issues here in
25 this court.
1 Q. Since you now moved to another topic and we are short of time,
2 you seem to be discussing something else?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So could we please have page 26 in
4 the Serbian language and page 22 in the English of the 2009 report.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I didn't understand your last
6 comment, because the witness was exactly addressing you in relation to
7 your question. Go ahead, please.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Perhaps in her report
9 we will come across a different answer. Could we please have
10 Ms. Tabeau's report. Page 26 in Serbian, 22 in the English version, the
11 penultimate paragraph which reads as follows.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is again P1776.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In this part of the report, there's a mention of the number of
15 inhabitants of Srebrenica. I quote:
16 "It is presumed that in Srebrenica before it fell there were some
17 40.000 people. However, no exact figure is known. The lack of data on
18 the exact population at risk makes it difficult to calculate the proper
19 mortality rates, so we had to choose another methodology, i.e., ratios or
20 proportions of death."
21 I want to ask you this: What other criteria did you use when
22 putting forth information about the assessed number of people in
23 Srebrenica before it fell, the number being 40.000?
24 A. I think the report says that the actual number of the Srebrenica
25 living -- of the population living in Srebrenica at the time of fall is
1 unknown. This is what I read on my page. Twenty-two in this paragraph.
2 The 40.000 is one of the guesses, probably informed guesses, circulated
3 widely by various organisations. In the town of Srebrenica there were
4 initially, 1991, many less people. It was a small town of approximately
5 6.000 people. And, yes, it is believed the size increased considerably,
6 depending on the source.
7 Q. So as not to waste all of our time on this question, since your
8 answer is rather broad, could you please tell us whether you relied on
9 any Srebrenica municipal documents, or did you rely on some other
10 sources? And perhaps you can say yes or no, either you did or you
12 A. We did rely on the information from the 1991 population census,
13 that is, the population size at the outbreak of the conflict. And no
14 other sources were used, as no other sources were reliable enough to make
15 a judgement or assessment or estimate of the population size of those
16 living in the Srebrenica area by mid-1995.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have D177 next, please.
19 Sorry, D117. It is a document from the municipality of Srebrenica which
20 kept statistics about the population living in Srebrenica before the
21 events in question.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. We can see it now. Can you tell us this, please: Have you had
24 previous occasion to see this document?
25 A. No, I don't -- I didn't see this document before.
1 Q. Based on what is before you, can you see that we have the exact
2 figures of the population per municipality that were within the enclave?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, perhaps it's enough to have the
4 English version on the screen, then the witness would be able to read it.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's very small. Now it's better.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is your question?
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Was there precise information on the population within the
11 enclave before the war?
12 A. Yes, it was the population reported in the 1991 census - this is
13 what I said - before the war.
14 Q. However, this breakdown dates back to July 1995, that is to say,
15 the time of the events. You can see the date. It's the
16 11th of January, 1995. It is in the heading.
17 A. Yes, I see it, but what's your question?
18 Q. My question was whether you had precise information on the number
19 of the population in 1995 during this period?
20 A. I didn't have the information that was required to calculate the
21 mortality ratios. All the analyses presented in our report in
22 section 2.5 are done by ethnicity. These overall totals available here
23 for January 1995 is -- don't include the information about ethnic groups.
24 They don't show the age and sex breakdown of the population. These are
25 very general figures, and from this point of view these figures are
1 useless for the analysis that we were planning to do.
2 And the methodology we applied was based on the 1991 population
3 census but it is not unusual in demography to calculate probabilities of
4 death. Probabilities of death are always calculated in relation to the
5 population size at the beginning of the period concerned. In this case,
6 it would be the period of war and, in particular, the events in 1995 as
7 related to the initial size of the population in 1991. Methodologically
8 it is a sound approach.
9 Q. Thank you. Would it be better to use a list from 1995 or to use
10 this register of the municipal bodies dating from January 1994? From a
11 demographic point of view, which would be more appropriate?
12 A. It is not January 1994. It is January 1995. This is the date on
13 the document. And as I said, these are rough figures that do not show
14 the necessary breakdown of the population by ethnicity, by age, and by
15 sex. This is what we needed for our analysis, and this is what is not
16 available here.
17 Secondly, this list here, these statistics here, cannot be linked
18 at individual level to the victims that we collected for the
19 Srebrenica -- for the fall of Srebrenica. So what I'm trying to say,
20 these overall statistics, that are approximations most certainly, can no
21 way be associated with the exact numbers that we have from our victims
23 Q. Thank you. The Chamber will decide whether these are precise or
24 approximate numbers.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we next have document --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think it's not -- no more time to
2 move to another document. We have reached the end of today's hearing and
3 have to adjourn. And you may continue at an appropriate time next week
4 or the week after. I've heard that on Monday there's another witness
5 scheduled, and this witness, Ms. Tabeau, will be available at any time
6 because she's working in this building.
7 What is the situation, Mr. Vanderpuye?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: You are correct, Mr. President. We do have
9 another witness, and Dr. Tabeau will be available. I'd just like to get
10 a sense from General Tolimir how much further cross-examination he might
11 have for her at this point.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that possible to indicate, Mr. Tolimir?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
14 believe we will conclude within the announced time. I will only ask
15 Mrs. Tabeau to respond directly to my questions, to proceed in a more
16 efficient manner.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was the case. We have to adjourn for today
18 and resume next Monday, 2.15, in Courtroom II, because this courtroom is
19 needed for another trial.
20 Thank you very much. I have to remind you again not to
21 communicate with either party during the break.
22 THE WITNESS: Of course.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry, Mr. President, I do recall that
25 Dr. Tabeau made a reference to a project that she was working on
1 concerning the 58 names indicated by Mr. Ivanisevic. I don't believe
2 that any communication is required for that purpose. But to the extent
3 there might be incidental communication, just in terms of logistics, sort
4 of providing the information as the office receives it, I suppose I
5 should bring that to your attention that that's a probability. If the
6 material arrives to the Office of the Prosecutor and not to Dr. Tabeau
7 directly, there will have to be some contact in order to provide her with
8 those records. And with your leave I'd like to be able to do that, but I
9 think it's important to address it.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think there can't be a problem, also not for
11 the Defence, to forward material which can help both parties during the
12 cross and re-examination of this witness.
13 Mr. Gajic.
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness works for
15 the OTP, she works in this building, and it would be too much to ask not
16 to even say hello to her colleagues. Therefore we have no such
17 expectation of this witness. There should be no difference to the
18 measures applied save for the fact that this witness works for the OTP.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this clarification. Of course the
20 normal contact of her colleagues is permitted, but no discussion about
21 the content of her testimony we will receive at a later time in this
23 Thank you very much. We adjourn. And I was told that we are not
24 sitting in Courtroom II on Monday but in Courtroom I on Monday.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 21st day
3 of March, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.