1 Friday, 13 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good mornings, Your Honours.
6 This is case number IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours. I appear for the
11 Prosecution together with my colleagues Mr. Hannis and Mr. Smith.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For
13 the Defence team of Mr. Mico Stanisic, it is Slobodan Cvijetic and
14 Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic and
16 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And may the -- unless there is some
18 reason to delay this, may the witness be escorted back to the stand,
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, sir. Before I invite
22 Mr. Di Fazio to continue his cross-examination --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE HALL: -- I remind you you're still on your oath.
25 Mr. Di Fazio.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 WITNESS: STEVO PASALIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
5 Q. Professor Pasalic, the very last topic that I want to discuss
6 that's strictly from your report is the issue of your example of
7 Bijeljina which I think you say indicates a systemic problem in the
8 Prosecution's reports. And you deal well these -- this issue at
9 paragraphs 233 and 234 of your report. I want to put a proposition to
10 you, and please understand that I'm not interested in debating or
11 quibbling with the figures. Let's proceed on the assumption that all of
12 the figures that you have mentioned in paragraphs 233 and 234 are all
13 correct, all the percentages and so on.
14 Do you understand that?
15 A. I understand that about the figures. But, as I obtained these
16 results, I proved that the results that were reached by Ewa Tabeau are
17 not correct.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. And are totally unreliable.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I understand that. I
21 understand that. And we've heard your evidence. I think you indeed
22 explained things again towards the end of your evidence the other day and
23 it's here in your report as well. So I've heard what you have to say.
24 And I don't want to debate the figures that have you in
25 paragraphs 233 and 234.
1 You say that the total population in 1991 that was born before
2 1980 is 81.650 or at least that's the figure that you chose from the
3 Tabeau reports; right?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. Then you say, and you look at the census figures, and the
6 population, the whole population, entire population of Bijeljina was
7 96.988; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And so then you concluded that, well, if you look at 81.650,
10 that's 84.18 per cent of 96.900-odd?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. And if that's so, then the population up to 18 years
13 of age must constitute about 26 per cent of the population. If that's
15 A. Yes, that is so, according to the official results of the census.
16 Q. And, therefore, for whatever reason, I'm not interested in the
17 reason, but for whatever reason, the figure of 15.82 per cent in the
18 Tabeau reports is far too low; right?
19 A. As for the young contingent, up until the age of 18, and that is
20 population that is under age and that is not registered as voters, that
21 is a very low rate.
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
23 A. In that period of time, in particular.
24 Q. Okay. I understand you perfectly and we understand each other.
25 However, if you look at the group of people who in 1991 were
1 aged 12, up to 12, that's a smaller group, isn't it?
2 Let me rephrase it. If one were to look at the segment of the
3 population between 1 and 12, that's a smaller group, isn't it?
4 I'm sure you can answer that with a yes or a no.
5 A. Well, of course it's smaller, the group between 1 and 12, because
6 it involves a smaller share of the population.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
8 A. In absolute terms.
9 Q. Exactly. It doesn't include, 13 year olds, 14 year olds,
10 15 year olds, 16 year olds, 17 year olds, et cetera; right? Correct?
11 A. Well, that's a simple thing, isn't it, between zero and 12,
12 whatever is included.
13 Q. And if you were aged 11 or 12 in -- 12 in 1991, by the time you
14 got to 1997, you would have been eligible to vote, just, wouldn't you?
15 A. Yes. That is the period when we use estimates for our
16 calculations. And that is precisely what I dispute in my paper, and I'm
17 prepared to prove that by using another example.
18 Q. And I suggest to you that when you looked at the population of
19 Bijeljina up to 18 years of age and concluded that the figure of
20 15.82 per cent was too low, you were looking at the wrong group. You
21 should have been looking at people up to 12 years of age.
22 That's the suggestion I make.
23 A. No, no, that's not the way we looked at it.
24 May I suggest that you look at paragraph 253 and then it's going
25 to be clearer. I provided a table there regarding the age structure of
1 the population of the municipality of Bijeljina according to the
2 1991 census. These data show that the contingent of the young population
3 up until the age of 18 accounts for a 26 per cent share. And it is
4 15 per cent in 1998. What I prove is that it is impossible over only
5 five or six years to have the population change its age structure to such
6 an extent. Such things are very rare anywhere in the world. That is
7 what we know from demography. And it is impossible in this area. That
8 is the result of my research and therefore I come to the conclusion that
9 the estimated population in 1997 and 1998 that is born in 1980 is
10 exaggerated because in Bijeljina the population was not so old. Rather,
11 it was not people over 18. That is what we can prove using other
12 examples too, which is what we discussed yesterday when we talked about
13 the voters register of Bosnia-Herzegovina of 2.6 million people and the
14 estimated population of 3.4 million.
15 And when we match the two, on one example of Ewa Tabeau's, the
16 share of the young population is about 24 per cent in BH as a whole, and
17 in the example of Bijeljina, it is 15 per cent for the same period. That
18 is absurd. That is simply impossible because if you look at the features
19 of the population of Bijeljina, it is a proper sample for the processes
20 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole.
21 Q. Okay. You agree, though, that in 1991 you had to be at least 12
22 in order to be able to register to vote in 1997. That's -- you had to be
23 at least that; right?
24 A. Well, there's no dispute about the that. We agree. We have data
25 to that effect, and we have estimates for 1998, when they became voters.
1 That is precisely the figures that I'm challenging in Ewa Tabeau's
2 report, that they were exaggerated in this case, if you look at the
3 example of the municipality of Bijeljina. However, analogously, in view
4 of the all of the other municipalities in this demographic survey, too,
5 that is the case, because the population is fairly similar.
6 Q. Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to leave that topic now and I
7 want to move on to another area.
8 In your report, you warn against statistics involving - and I
9 quote from paragraph 7 - "apocryphal numbers of the scope of criminal
10 enterprises which are often exaggerated or minimised."
11 Do you remember making that comment? Paragraph 7.
12 A. Yes. That is the introductory part where I provide general
14 That paragraph 7 just intimates what I elaborated further in my
15 report; namely, that in some examples, because these are estimates, in
16 these cases we do not have fully and accurate figures. We have some
17 exaggerated figures. For example, some organisations in Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina reported that there were 200- or 300.000 persons killed.
19 That is exaggerated. However, there are others that were minimised,
20 which I show in the research of the demographic research of the Serb
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... thank you. I just want to
23 remind you, I'm not actually asking for any commentary. I will ask
24 eventually, but I just want to remind you of things that you said in your
1 At paragraph 229 --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I go back for one moment to the -- to the
5 previous line of question.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is it your position that the 15-and-odd thousand
8 number being the difference between the total population and
9 84-and-odd thousand. Yes? You see where I am?
10 MR. DI FAZIO: No, I'm sorry, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: The previous question --
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- about the plus 12 and the minus 18.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes. The age segment. Yes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. Is it your position that the
16 15-thousand-and-odd in Ewa Tabeau's report refer to only a part of --
17 MR. DI FAZIO: -- the 15 per cent mentioned in paragraph 2 --
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- the 15 per cent, sorry --
19 MR. DI FAZIO: The 15 per cent, yes.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: That is only a part of the group of
21 minus 18 years?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: No. It's a smaller group. It's up to 12.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's up to 12.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's what I thought your point was.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Did you -- perhaps I missed that, but did you
3 confront the witness with the reasons why you think so?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, I didn't.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I -- I --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: No, I didn't because I understood from
9 paragraph 234 that he was looking at a larger group. And when
10 complaining about the 15 per cent figure being too low --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: It's too low, Professor Pasalic says --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: And you say he's wrong because it's --
14 MR. DI FAZIO: The complaint is wrong because it's not up to --
15 it's not the group zero to 18, it's the group zero to 12.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: And where do you get that from? That's more or
17 less my question.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Because it's inherent from the Tabeau's reports
19 that she examined -- she compared two populations from the 1997 -- those
20 eligible to vote, and in -- that meant that 1991 they had to be at least
21 12 years old, so she excluded those younger than 12 and compared those
22 two populations, not those who were 18 or younger in 1991.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, back to you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
1 Q. And I think in paragraph -- I got to paragraph 229 in your report
2 where you warn against manipulation of numbers. You say a number says
3 whatever the person who can play with it wants. And I suppose I should
4 get to my ultimate point which is to quote to you from paragraph 287,
5 where you say, and perhaps you can look at that:
6 "In this particular case of 18 municipalities from the
7 Stanisic and Zupljanin indictment, a large number of objections regarding
8 the number and structure of victims can be made. The data is based on
9 estimations and unreliable sources and a biased research of war victims
10 in BH."
11 So you don't mention what sort of bias there, but essentially
12 you're suggesting, aren't you, that the reports produced by Tabeau, in
13 relation to population movements at least, is biased?
14 A. You'd have to look at all the other paragraphs as well, after
15 which this conclusion follows.
16 In this report, I did not elaborate on the victims in greater
17 detail because I assumed and thought that this was more in the domain of
18 other things that have to be proven in these proceedings. However,
19 before paragraph 287, I indicated that numbers of victims were
20 manipulated by certain institutions. Some said that there were even
21 300-, 400-, or 500.000 victims. That's what some organisations said.
22 And then there was some more specific information that was provided by
23 the institute from Sarajevo headed by Tokaca and that figure was 98.000.
24 Then Ewa Tabeau's report appeared with a somewhat larger number of
25 victims, 104.732. There are critical and self-critical reviews of the
1 data involved. I spoke about that in great detail over the past few
3 As for this conclusion in paragraph 287, it is derived from what
4 I say in 286. I am indicating the book entitled "The Suffering of the
5 Serbs in BH 1992-1995." That is my book. That is why I didn't elaborate
6 on this any further. Yesterday we discussed these demographic processes
7 in greater detail, or, rather, the destruction of the Serb population in
8 the period from 1992 to 1995, and then that provides a more complete
9 picture of all the victims of the war or of displaced persons and
11 Now, why was this data study in a one-sided manner? As we've
12 pointed out over the past few days -- please allow me to say this. It is
13 important, please. If I may.
14 Q. Go ahead.
15 A. Any sample in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina of 20, 47, 15,
16 whatever number of municipalities cannot provide a reliable picture of
17 what happened in terms of the number of war victims and other demographic
19 If I may, as far as war victims are concerned, in the report of
20 Ewa Tabeau the first thing that I believe is missing is the total
21 population, even in this sample of municipalities, and then her
22 qualification, her distinction, between the military and civilians. What
23 does that number mean, of either one or the other, if you don't know what
24 the phenomenon was if you look at it as a whole? What does 12.000 mean
25 if you don't know the overall number of soldiers? Was it 50.000,
1 100.000, 150.000? Or if you look at civilian victims as well, it's the
2 same. It is impossible to speak of structures or parts of a phenomenon
3 without referring to the magnitude of the said phenomenon. That is what
4 is lacking in this paper, and therefore it cannot be valid in research of
5 this nature.
6 Q. Professor Pasalic, I'm not, in the slightest, interested in going
7 back to demographics and asking about statistics or particular aspects of
8 the Tabeau reports at all. I'm asking you about the issue of accusations
9 of bias.
10 In paragraph 287, you make it clear. You say:
11 "The data referring to the Tabeau reports is based on estimations
12 and unreliable sources and a biased research of war victims in Bosnia and
14 That is and acquisition of bias, is it not?
15 A. It is biased because if we were to take a different example, then
16 we would get a completely different picture of groups of victims,
17 civilians and soldiers, so if we were to take a different municipality
18 from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the picture would be different. That is why I'm
19 challenging the sample that was taken that would provide relevant
20 information about the number of civilians who were victims and soldiers
21 who were victims. I say that what is relevant is only the entire
22 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina where we can obtain valid, comprehensive
23 data on the condition that all of this had been fully explored. However,
24 I had some criticism in view of how that was done as well. If you wish,
25 I can tell you now or later.
1 Q. Okay. Well, if -- we can go back to the transcript, I think, and
2 see what you said in court. On one --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a minute.
4 Mr. Pasalic, in my understanding, there's a difference between
5 something being wrong or incorrect, on the one hand, and biased on the
6 other. If something is wrong or incorrect, it could be because the
7 author simply didn't understand the issue or made a mistake or something.
8 To be biased is something completely different. That requires an
9 intention to deliberately provide a picture which is designed to suit a
10 certain perception of what happened.
11 So do you -- are you saying that Ms. Tabeau had such a deliberate
12 intent to disfigure the -- the data; and if so, why was that?
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may assist.
14 This is a terminological issue. If the English translation is
15 "bias," then it's wrong. In our language, a one-sided research does not
16 mean a -- is not the same as biased research. And in this sense, I
17 believe the -- Professor Pasalic can elaborate.
18 He interprets the word in the meaning it has in our language.
19 He --
20 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... stop you there,
21 Mr. Cvijetic. I too was curious as to whether the word chosen by the
22 translators of biased carried the connotations as the writer of the
23 report intended that it does as an English word. And this is the point
24 that Judge Harhoff was making. But the reason why I've stopped you is
25 that I think you have crossed the line and are, yourself, giving
1 evidence. It is an important issue, but it is something which the
2 witness --
3 MR. CVIJETIC: Okay.
4 JUDGE HALL: -- should address.
5 So, Professor, you have Judge Harhoff's question before you,
6 which you were in the process of answering, and perhaps it is something
7 that Mr. Di Fazio may wish to explore. If you wish, Judge Harhoff could
8 repeat his question.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
10 I understood the question. I certainly do not think that
11 Ewa Tabeau wanted to be biased. This is probably a translation issue.
12 Incomplete, unreliable, one-sided research means that not all
13 possible indicators were taken into account, or sources of data to lead
14 such evidence. When you compare the number of victims, then you match
15 the data about these victims. You take the census from 1991 and the data
16 from some institution or from some register that this person was killed,
17 and this data is not contested. But what about the victims of the war
18 who were not registered in the census? And there were many in various
19 military formations, such as some Mujahedin. It has been proven beyond
20 doubt that they were present in the BH army. How do you match this data?
21 And so on.
22 That is why I think that this research is incomplete and that the
23 establishment of the number of victims is a very complex process, that
24 drawing conclusions from internal registers of some structures, mostly
25 military, that were liable to manipulation of the victims, be it military
1 or civilian, for some subjective reasons; for example, to get entitlement
2 to some benefits for the families. And these numbers obtained by
3 Ewa Tabeau by statistical means cannot be proven correct. This does not
4 point toward her intention of bias. Of course, such errors would be much
5 more dangerous than errors such as are made unintentionally.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Professor.
7 MR. DI FAZIO:
8 Q. In the transcript from Wednesday, page 20575, you're talking
9 about the methodological approach adopted by Ms. Tabeau.
10 You said this:
11 "The methodological approach adopted in the report of Ms. Tabeau
12 and associates is mainly based on statistical and mathematical methods,
13 that is, the law of numbers. This is insufficient for research of such
14 complexity. After all, such a research is based on calculations by way
15 of numbers. There is a maxime in statistical science saying that the
16 number will tell you only so much as the person who plays with it wants
17 you to know."
18 Aren't you, there, suggesting that numbers were manipulated, or
19 influenced at least, in such a way to present the picture that the
20 authors wanted you to have, the -- Tabeau?
21 A. No. I used a metaphor here that is used in statistics. The --
22 namely, that a number can do as much as the one willing to play with it.
23 That doesn't mean that anybody played around with numbers intentionally.
24 But based on the methods he or she used, they can arrive at very
25 different results and a very differ picture of a process or phenomenon as
1 compared to some other researchers that apply different methods. And I
2 tried to illustrate that using some examples. Using different methods,
3 on one hand only numbers and on the other hand combined research methods,
4 we would arrive at different results, and that is not contested when it
5 comes to the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the war. We don't have
6 final results for any of these phenomena yet.
7 In Ewa Tabeau's report, the opinion is upheld that the estimated
8 data is the most accurate and the most reliable of all. And that's where
9 we differ. We would never -- I would never use only the statistical,
10 mathematical method to prove these phenomena because we are talking about
11 an area with its particularities with some processes that cannot
12 reflected merely in numbers. That's why I used the metaphor that warns
13 us all that a number by itself cannot provide an answer to such complex
15 Q. And, Professor Pasalic, I suggest you're back-peddling now and
16 that the combination of the excerpts from your reports and the transcript
17 that I've quoted to you over the last few minutes indicate that you have
18 been making or did make a -- level an accusation of bias against the
19 authors of the -- against Tabeau and her papers. Do you agree or not?
20 A. No --
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I --
22 A. -- I have never used the term "biased."
23 But unreliability and reliability and one-sidedness, yes.
24 Q. All right. Okay. You mentioned in your testimony that you're a
25 person who gladly accepts invitations to speak to the newspapers and to
1 discuss matters of demographics in newspapers. Do you recall saying
3 A. Yes, I stated as much. But I want to add that this is about
4 contemporary demographic processes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that from
5 today's vantage point -- or, rather, this isn't about speaking about
6 demographic processes during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina from today's
7 vantage point. But, of course, it depends on the media, what they are
8 interested in at any given moment. I consider it a professional duty of
9 mine to respond to their invitations.
10 Q. And before I proceed to the next line of questioning, there's one
11 more thing I want to remind you about. And that is your --
12 you complained, didn't you, in your report, that the -- the Tabeau
13 reports are characterised by certain dryness based on numbers. I may not
14 disagree with you on the issue of dryness, but this is what you had to
16 "The professional qualifications and the experiences of its
17 authors indicate their orientation towards mathematical demography,
18 quantitative methods, econometrics, and similar. It's noticeable that
19 the authors, in keeping with their professional qualifications, mostly
20 use methods based on dry numbers, samples, and other sources."
21 Is that a complaint or not, that their approach is too dry, too
23 A. That is my assessment of that survey, that report, where the
24 authors, in line with their specialty as statistical demographers, and
25 that is but one discipline in demography which is a broader whole, mostly
1 applied that approach only. And when we discuss such complex processes,
2 we cannot conduct complex research unless we use the methods of field
3 research, empirical research. And these are missing from this report. I
4 absolute stand by that.
5 But I repeat: This is my assessment of their -- of the way they
6 went about their research and the methods they used.
7 Q. Okay. Well, perhaps I should get to the point and show you some
8 newspaper articles.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness please be shown 65 ter 20086,
11 Q. Professor Pasalic, the material -- the next document that I want
12 to show you is an extract from a newspaper. And to make it clear, it was
13 obtained from the Internet. I just want you to have a look and see --
14 look at this small article.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, 20086.
16 Q. Perhaps while that's coming up on the screen I can ask you
17 another question. You've been a politician since at least 1990, haven't
18 you? You've been in various political parties, haven't you? In fact,
19 you've held a position in the Republika Srpska government.
20 A. I was active in politics. I said that until 1990 I was the last
21 president of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of the
22 Zavidovici municipality. That was not a political party. It was
23 considered a sort of people's front or something like that. The only
24 party at the time was the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. During the
25 war I was not active in politics. Although -- or, rather, and I can add
1 that I've never been a member of the Serb Democratic Party, which was the
2 ruling party then. I guess that's what's behind your question. And now
3 I'm a member of the party of Milorad Dodik. I don't have an executive
4 position in the party.
5 I was minister of education in 2001 until 2003 based on my
6 professional merits. Now I'm a member of the Republican Council, which
7 is an advisory body. I was its first president and now I'm a mere
8 member. This is not a political body, I repeat. This is a professional
9 body that gives advice to the government. And I'm a member of the
10 Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska, which is an
11 academic institution, not a political organisation.
12 I stopped my political activity some time ago due to biological
13 processes. I thought it was time to make room for younger people.
14 Q. Okay. Could you look at the article on the screen. It's a short
15 article from something called SRNA Review of Daily News from 1996.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence
17 complains. You know our position with regard to the use of newspaper
18 articles as evidence. However, the Prosecution is going even further
19 than that. This isn't even a newspaper article. This is a news item
20 from a news agency where one sentence was taken out of context. I
21 believe that goes beyond the limit that the Trial Chamber has allowed so
22 far with regard to the use of complete articles.
23 We believe that it would be fair to have the entire context of
24 this interview or article where Professor Pasalic discussed something. I
25 admit that in this -- even in this sentence taken out of context I see no
1 problem, if it is reproduced correctly. But I believe that we have the
2 right to demand -- to request to be shown the entire article.
3 I think we have gone too far when it comes to using reports and
4 articles from the mass media.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, the -- essentially, Mr. Cvijetic has a
6 point, doesn't he, in terms of the -- we all know the problems of the
7 Internet, and the -- I suppose the -- whereas we can't ignore material
8 that comes from that source, the way that -- it has to be treated in a
9 way that isn't, in this case, unfair to the witness. So perhaps you can
10 carefully phrase your question with all of those caveats in mind.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: I can do that. And I also agree with
12 Mr. Cvijetic; it would be preferable to have an entire article, if there
13 was an entire article in existence or if it was available to me. But
14 this is the best that the Prosecution can produce. It doesn't have any
15 full article. I don't even know if there is a full article. But I'll
16 proceed in the manner that you have outlined.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will decide
18 whether it will allow it or not.
19 I would just like to remind everybody that there is a site on the
20 Internet where you type in your name and you will get your own statements
21 that you made at some time or another. I found on the Internet that I,
22 as an attorney, stated something in a trial, although I've never even
23 been in that trial. I don't know who uploads such things to the
24 Internet. Certainly we cannot prevent them from doing so. But --
25 MR. DI FAZIO: [Previous translation continues] ... if Your
1 Honours please --
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] -- it would be too much to
3 attribute --
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If --
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] -- probative value to such thing.
6 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
8 Q. You have seen the article in front of you, and I think by now you
9 must have had a chance to read it. Okay? Did you speak to a reporter
10 around or on or before August 24 1996 on behalf of the democratic
11 patriotic block concerning relationships with Muslims?
12 A. Well, you know, this was how long? 15, 16 years ago. I don't
13 know why this would be an interview made up. But the democratic block
14 also had some candidates that were not party members, and I believe that
15 I was on a slate, on an election slate. The SRNA news agency only gives
16 very short news items. And why did they reproduce my words? I was one
17 of the few people who immediately after the war produced data about the
18 suffering of the Serb population and Serb settlements in the territory of
19 the Federation. And in that context, immediately after the war, there
20 was discussion about the inter-entity boundary lines which were finally
21 drawn in the Dayton Accord.
22 But I see no problem with this. Even if we were to accept this
23 at face value, and it's possible that I stated as much in a context, why
24 should we pretend that we were brothers? We have never been brothers.
25 We have always been neighbours.
1 In Yugoslavia, there was this thing that was called a fraternity,
2 but it burst like a soap bubble. I'm not putting forward any rigid
3 positions toward another ethnic group. I'm merely stating the reality of
4 the time. This has changed greatly in the meantime, though.
5 25.000 Bosniaks have returned to Bijeljina now. And we lived alongside
6 them and we act together in local bodies and so on, so time remedies
7 these things.
8 Q. Thank you. Can I take it that you said those words or words to
9 the effect:
10 "The aim of the DPB is that the boundary line between the two
11 entities be finally defined. We can live with the Muslims as their
12 neighbours, but not at all as their brothers ..."
13 Now, did you say that, or words to that effect, to a newspaper?
14 A. I cannot possibly remember and quote myself after 15 years.
15 That's an impossibility. But I believe that I did speak about these
16 problems in this context, because I don't think the news agency would
17 have made this up. But we must remember that journalists very often
18 interpret people's words more freely, without understanding technical
19 things. And that's what I always have in mind when I give interviews
20 nowadays. Because if you always took the time to review your statement
21 before it's printed, then you would never give an interview.
22 Journalists always extract what seems most interesting to them,
23 and that can create a one-sided or distorted picture of what you want
24 to -- wanted to speak about. Newspaper articles are not reviewed. They
25 are free interpretations. And there is certainly a public or moral
1 responsibility, but I ...
2 Q. Professor Pasalic, I think we can proceed on the basis that we
3 all -- everyone here is well aware of problems inherent in journalism and
4 the caution that must be adopted in dealing with -- with the media, okay?
5 Let's proceed on that basis. But my simple question is: Did you
6 say words, those words, or words to that effect?
7 JUDGE HALL: But, Mr. Di Fazio, hasn't he answered the question?
8 You might not accept or agree with his explanation, but in the first part
9 of his answer, he drew -- explained what he meant. We've always been
10 neighbours but we've never been brothers. Hasn't the question been
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. Very well.
13 Q. Well, I put to you that if that sort of view, that you can't live
14 together as brothers or as -- as neighbours, rather -- only as neighbours
15 but not as brothers, rather, demonstrates a antipathy towards
16 Bosnian Muslims and that might have reflected itself in your report when
17 you deal with the suffering of Serbs and genocide against Serbs -- when
18 you comment on the genocide against the Serbs in your report?
19 A. No, that is your free conclusion, but I disagree with it.
20 I lived with the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina since I was born.
21 I worked in areas that were populated by Muslims, and we never had
22 problems with them. However, the war brought about some new relations.
23 There was a war which was a civil war, an inter-ethnic war, a religious
24 war, and these relations changed profoundly. And it's possible that I
25 gave an interview to this news agency in this context. But I disagree
1 with you drawing free conclusions from that and attributing them to me,
2 because I think that I am the one who can interpret my thoughts best.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
4 A. I'm a public personality, and you can check my positions and my
5 activities of today and my former activities. I have never had such
6 undertones in my activities.
7 Q. Thank you, okay, for that explanation.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I would seek to tender
9 that extract into evidence.
10 JUDGE HALL: We -- the question is put to the witness and the
11 witness has answered. Why do we need this excerpt?
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. I'll proceed.
13 Can the witness be shown 65 ter 20087.
14 Q. Can you just look at that particular article, Professor Pasalic.
15 That's an article again obtained from the Internet, from a newspaper
16 called -- or a publication or a media source called Glas, dated
17 10 May 2006.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I submit that we
19 should use the same methodology that Judge Hall suggested to the
20 Prosecutor, that he pose a concrete question to the witness based on this
21 text. We're not opposed to this text being used, but I think that a
22 clear question should be put. I believe this is how we have proceeded so
23 far, and we should be consistent in our approach.
24 MR. DI FAZIO:
25 Q. Have you had a chance to have a look at it, Professor Pasalic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And it attributes words to you in the second -- second and third
3 paragraphs. Are those words accurately reported? Did you say those
4 words or words to that effect?
5 A. This is mostly correct. It's a result of my research and other
7 The Serbs had the greatest number of victims in Sarajevo, and
8 this text points this out once more. Since, in the research of
9 Mirsad Tokaca, this was diminished greatly. I can show that on the
10 example of other municipalities. Mr. Tokaca and I had a dialogue in the
11 media about this.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. This is information from my biography, and it is not contested.
14 Q. Good. Thank you. So look at the third paragraph, and you say
15 there that -- you complain there that someone would give themselves an
16 exclusive right to establish the exact number of victims in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina regardless of their nationality. And you complain, and I
18 assume about Tokaca, filing the deaths of Serbs in Sarajevo under the
19 category of political bargaining.
20 You then go on to say that the data gathered by Tokaca and his
21 centre minimises the number of Serb victims, and that's why Serbs don't
22 trust his institution. And you complain of speculation about the number
23 of Serb victims.
24 You were, therefore, expressing publicly the view that the number
25 of Serb victims was being diminished as a result of political bargaining
1 by another demographic institution; right?
2 A. Yes. It is correct that I had major objections in relation to
3 the research conducted by Mirsad Tokaca's centre, a centre as regards
4 Serb victims in Sarajevo as well. Because his centre came to a
5 symbolical number of victims. I cannot recall the exact figure. Now I
6 think it was about 800 victims. And he kept that within the bounds of
7 political bargaining, which I criticised. And then I showed him another
8 example outside Sarajevo, indicating that that information is not
10 I took the example of the municipality of Zavidovici because I
11 know it best, as I lived there myself, had lived there myself. Then
12 we're going to compare that to Sarajevo. In Mr. Tokaca's report, it says
13 that Zavidovici had a total of 890 victims of all ethnic backgrounds out
14 of which 600 were Bosniaks. I documented that through a source, a book
15 actually, that was published by the Zavidovici municipality. It is
16 entitled "Life Without an End." And it includes documentation about
17 those 600 Bosniaks. There is about 200 Croats victims because in 1993 in
18 the territory of Zavidovici there was a direct war conflict between
19 Bosniaks - Muslims, as they were called at the time - and Croats. And it
20 turns out that there were only about 100 victims of Serb ethnicity.
21 However, I provided data showing that only in the area of Vozuce
22 there were about 400 victims. Some are still missing actually. Then the
23 area of Dolac; that is near Zavidovici. And then the area of Bocinja.
24 In the media and beyond the media that is a well-known area because of
25 the Mujahedin. This shows that the number of Serb victims was minimised.
1 This was just an example of this particular municipality. There are many
2 municipalities that can be taken as such an example. On the basis of
3 that, I proved that the structure of victims, according to ethnic
4 background, in Mirsad Tokaca's report is incorrect.
5 Why did the Serbs not trust that institution? Precisely because
6 researchers on the ground, for the most part, and actually you can see
7 that on the Internet, too, because that data was accessible to the
8 public, they mostly represented the suffering and victimisation of ethnic
9 Bosniaks, and this led to a lack of trust on the part of Serbs who lost
10 some of their family members during the war, and therefore they did not
11 report their losses to that institution.
12 Also, it is impossible to report all Serb victims because many
13 families were totally destroyed. There was no one left. No living
14 person was left to report the losses. Or entire families moved out of
15 the territory of the former Yugoslavia and there was no way in which
16 these victims could have had been reported. This is incontrovertible
17 evidence, and Mr. Tokaca ultimately agreed with me on that too, when we
18 had this dialogue on TV once, although before that we had a media
19 dialogue which was a bit more vociferous.
20 Q. Thank you. You had a dispute with Mr. Tokaca about demographics
21 figures concerning minimization of Serb deaths. The way you dealt with
22 it was to go to the papers or deal with the issue through the media. Did
23 you consider perhaps dealing with the issue through demographic journals,
24 writing a scientific article and perhaps having it published, dealing
25 with the issue in that way, this demographic issue in that manner, rather
1 than making statements to the press? Because I suggest to you that would
2 have been the hallmark of a dispassionate academic, dealing with numbers.
3 A. Of course, I did not initiate our dialogue through the media.
4 That dialogue was initiated by Mr. Tokaca, as he presented this
5 information in public. He made presentations of this data throughout
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He had these presentations, and we attended them
7 directly or indirectly. It was advisable to take part in such
8 discussions, especially from the point of view of a different standpoint.
9 As for a scientific approach to this problem, in the bibliography
10 there, you have my papers that I presented at scientific gatherings,
11 where I, indeed, dealt with these matters, especially after the war.
12 Since there was a shortage of papers on that subject, they drew a great
13 deal of attention within Bosnia-Herzegovina and outside
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I always made an effort to present hard data, not
15 something superficial or partial.
16 Finally, over all these years, the objective of my research has
17 been to get a comprehensive and realistic picture of what happened in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina without any minimizing or exaggeration in favour or
19 against any ethnic group. I can say in all sincerity that I was never
20 the object of critical attacks, because I carefully selected topics of
21 research regarding things that I was sure of. If I'm not certain of
22 something, I don't want to present that to the public or to an academic
23 audience because this would be lacking in seriousness on anyone's part,
24 myself included.
25 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we look at 65 ter 20090.
2 Q. And the article is -- you can see in the B/C/S it's on the
3 left-hand side.
4 Okay. Could you just cast your eyes over that particular
5 article. This is an article that appears to be from Oslobodjenje from
6 the 26th of August, 2008, with the headline being "Pasalic: Bosniaks Want
7 a Bosnian Nation."
8 A. This is my interview to Oslobodjenje of Sarajevo.
9 May I say, by the way, that in the Federation and in
10 Republika Srpska it was very well received. I wish I had -- I wish you
11 had the entire interview here.
12 I speak about the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina because the
13 media asked me about this as a demographer. So you see how journalists
14 make mistakes. It says here, Professor, the Faculty of Philosophy in
15 Banja Luka. That is not something I am. You see, that is a mistake on
16 the part of the journalist, but I don't really --
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I cut you off.
18 Please finish your sentence.
19 A. But I do wish to provide my comments with regard to this article.
20 You asked me about that. Yes, it is correct.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... good, so it's correct.
22 In the second paragraph, you say:
23 "He," that's you, "presumes that behind the idea not to register
24 the ethnicity and religion of peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is
25 a hidden intention to abolish the Serbian and Croatian national identity
1 and ... create a 'Bosnian' nation."
2 This all comes from whether or not questions in a proposed census
3 should include questions about ethnicity and religion; right?
4 A. Yes. But you will allow me to elaborate on this topic more
5 extensively from a professional point of view.
6 Q. No, I don't want to go into the proposed form of the census. If
7 there's any clarification, Mr. Cvijetic can do that.
8 I want to ask you about the comment that you made about a hidden
9 intention to abolish Serbian and Croatian national identity and create a
10 Bosnian nation.
11 Does -- why in particular did you make that comment?
12 A. Well, that's precisely what I wish to explain.
13 According to the principles and recommendations of the
14 United Nations department - and they are accepted by Eurostat in Europe;
15 this was recommended to all countries with regard to population
16 censuses - in all multi-ethnic countries in Europe, in the census of 2001
17 about 70 per cent of countries had this question about national
18 affiliation, linguistic, and religious affiliation, which is quite
19 acceptable for multi-ethnic countries, and Bosnia-Herzegovina is one of
20 them. After all, its constitution says that it is a state of three
21 constituent peoples. What could you conclude then if the
22 representatives, the political representatives, of one ethnic group or
23 people do not wish to see that question in the census? I presented that
24 as a hypothesis then, that this might mean that in the coming period
25 there was an aspiration for establishing a so-called Bosnian nation.
1 Among the Bosniak people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, such aspirations
2 are not totally foreign. They are not hidden. They are shown in public
3 quite often. The very fact that one says Bosnian Serb, Bosnian Croat,
4 et cetera, which is wrong, which is a wrong way of stating ethnic
5 affiliation. That may indicate that too. So the census problem became a
6 political problem. It is only the Bosniak political representatives
7 still do not accept to have the census carried out in Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 primarily because of this ethnic, linguistic, and religious affiliation
9 that is one of the questions.
10 If we stick to our line of work, we have to be visionaries. We
11 should not only deal with the present.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. We have to project the future. So please view my statement in
14 that context. And it's absolutely acceptable --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
16 A. In view of ...
17 Q. At the end of the article you -- you express a fear that the
18 Serbs -- that it's -- sorry. You express a fear that there's an
19 endeavour underway to turn Serbs and Croats into Bosniaks.
20 Did you say that?
21 A. If this is what was carried in Oslobodjenje verbatim, I'm not
22 denying it. I explained it very nicely.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
24 A. As for the name of a language, it is not based on a toponym. A
25 toponym is a name for a particular area.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
2 A. So it is the name of the people that should be reflected in the
3 name of the language, the people speaking that language, not --
4 Q. Thanks. I know what a toponym is. Thanks. You don't need to
5 explain it.
6 The expressed fear in a newspaper -- in the -- in the media that
7 there are measures afoot to turn Serbs and Croats into Bosniaks indicates
8 that you've, as far as ethnic harmony is concerned in Bosnia, you hold
9 very strong views, and you expressed them to the media. Is that right?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a matter of
11 argument. I think that the witness has already answered this question
12 three times, the question put by my colleague Mr. Di Fazio. And now he
13 is making an argument.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: All right. Well, let me approach it in this way.
15 Q. You deal with these issues by going to the media and complaining
16 about the leadership of the two other ethnic groups and what they're --
17 and what they want to do, namely the transformation of Serbs and Croats
18 into Bosniaks. You certainly don't deal with it by writing scholarly
19 articles or academic articles, do you?
20 A. Well, you cannot write academic articles in the media.
21 You have to adapt your statements to what the media are asking
22 you about. The media deal with daily events, political events, and so
23 on. In such situations, for example, when you have this problem of the
24 census in BH, the media talked to experts as well, as a rule. In
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is mostly those who deal with this particular
1 subject, so demographers.
2 I don't see anything that would be in dispute. The creation of a
3 Bosnian nation was not something that happening during history, the
4 creation of a Yugoslav nation proved to be impossible, so all the ethnic
5 groups or nations wished to keep their national identity. That does not
6 meant that that should lead to difference connotations, to conflicts,
7 et cetera. So even the multi-ethnicity of Bosnia-Herzegovina should be
8 pointed out as an advantage, as something that would show the harmony of
9 the peoples within that community. That would clearly indicate what
10 would happen if there would not be a question regarding ethnic
11 affiliation in the census.
12 How would the three constitute peoples be represented
13 statistically after that in some other documents, and so on and so forth?
14 That is where the political problem came into being. Why would that be a
15 problem, having the census reflect the multi-ethnicity of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a positive characteristic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
17 It should never be viewed as a negative characteristic. Those who oppose
18 that question in the census are actually presenting the multi-ethnicity
19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a problem here. So when something is read in
20 the newspapers, one has to know how to read between the lines, as it
21 were, especially professional subject matter.
22 Q. Well, I think I can wrap this up by -- with one last question.
23 This is what I suggest to you, put to you: You're a person who's
24 quite comfortable with using statistics relating to the various ethnic
25 groups in Bosnia, in the political sphere, and in the media. You're
1 quite comfortable with that, I suggest. And shouldn't that cause
2 concerns for the delivery of a dry -- sorry, for the delivery of a
3 dispassionate, dry report dealing with demographic movements during the
5 A. No, absolutely not. That is your free conclusion, and a wrong
6 one at that. All the media in Bosnia-Herzegovina, both in the Federation
7 and Republika Srpska, absolutely use interviews with me to clarify
8 certain matters, in a professional way.
9 If it were not so, then probably some media would no longer
10 cooperate with me. I never abuse statistics for such purposes. But as a
11 public person, it is my duty to provide certain interpretations to the
12 media and to the general public. That does not mean that everyone
13 necessarily has to agree with what I say. But if we are talking about
14 professional matters, about science, then you have to present hard facts.
15 There is no compromise there. I repeat, compromise is only made in
16 politics, and I'm not making any statements here as a politician. I'm
17 helping resolve some political issues by relying on my profession. The
18 population census in Bosnia-Herzegovina would be a way for us to help
19 register the entire population of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that is
20 something that is absolutely needed by all in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. Professor Pasalic, thank you very much for answering my
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, that's the end of my
24 cross-examination. I just want to remind you that I will be seeking to
25 tender the excerpt from the book headed "Anthropogeographic Reality of
1 Serbs." That's 65 ter 20081. It's the introduction to his book and the
2 corresponding B/C/S pages.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: How many pages do you seek to tender?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: It's -- I don't know the exact total, but I can
5 let you know in just a moment, if Your Honours will give me a moment.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Six pages, if Your Honours please.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
9 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 20 minutes.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
13 MS. KORNER: As Your Honours can see, I'm replacing Mr. Hannis
14 for the last session so I can deal with the matter arising out of the
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this will be a quick
19 and easy one. I have no questions for Professor Pasalic for
21 I just would like to express my gratitude for -- to him for being
22 able to summon enough energy to come here and testify. The only thing I
23 do have is move to tender his report, together with the annexes, into
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we deal with this after the witness is -- has
1 left, please.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Professor, paragraph 75 of your report mentions
5 the March 1992 referendum in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the fact that the
6 West accepted the outcome of the referendum as the basis for the creation
7 of a new state. These are two facts.
8 The paragraph continues:
9 "However, a consensus of the three constituent people was the
10 most rational solution bearing in mind the fact that none of the peoples
11 was the majority."
12 Do you see that?
13 My question --
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: The consensus being a more rational solution, is
16 that a fact as well or is that an opinion ? And if it is, as I presume,
17 an opinion, is that an opinion that falls within the scope of your
18 expertise as a demographer?
19 A. Yes. This was my opinion then and it is still my opinion that
20 the consensus of the three constituent peoples is required in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina for all issues. And then, as we say proverbially in
22 my country, we'll have a peaceful Bosnia.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: But my question is: Is that a personal opinion
24 or is that an expert opinion? Is that your opinion based on demography?
25 A. This is my opinion that is not directly related to demography. I
1 state it in my introduction to the monograph about "The Anthropogenic
2 Reality of the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina." This is a free opinion of
3 mine that need not be connected with demography. But then the question
4 is: What is not interlinked in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including demography?
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you. In paragraph 7, that is, in
6 the introduction, you state that the aim of your report is to present the
7 scope of demographic changes caused by the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 According to paragraph 78, the territorial scope of your research
9 is the territories inhabited by the Serbian population and this is as
10 opposed to areas controlled by Muslim and Croat forces, since you had no
11 possibility to research the events in these areas, and you explained that
12 to a certain extent.
13 My question is this: Is that a scientifically valid equation of
14 mutually exclusive concepts, that is, territories inhabited by the
15 Serbian population, as opposed to areas controlled by Muslim and Croat
16 forces during the war?
17 A. A scientific approach could have encompassed the entire territory
18 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, certainly if the preconditions are met. But it
19 can also research a part of its territory, irrespective of which ethnic
20 group is dominant there.
21 My goal was to amend or complement numerous other studies for all
22 these together to become a more realistic reflection of the processes in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina during the war. I didn't aspire to, nor did I have
24 the capacity to, conduct a research that would encompass all of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't believe that there are such individuals
1 there even now.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... sorry to
3 interrupt you, but I think you don't understand my question.
4 Territories controlled by the Muslim and Croat forces, are -- are
5 that -- are they, by definition, territories that are not inhabited by
6 Serb population, or the other way around?
7 A. This is about the wartime period, and there was a symbolic
8 presence of Serbs in these areas, taking into account the fact that
9 immediately before the armed conflict or during the armed conflict they
10 were expelled. Not all areas were directly affected by armed conflict
11 during the war, but the indirect consequences could be felt nonetheless.
12 Croatian Muslim forces controlled certain areas where the Serb population
13 then was reduced to a minimum. And even now their numbers are very
14 small. I have already pointed out that the share of the Serbs in the
15 population of the Federation is up to 4 per cent, and that is clearly a
16 consequence of the war.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, then. In the territories you could do your
18 research in, the ones with Serb population that was not under control of
19 the Muslim and Croat forces during the war, you explored, according to
20 paragraph 79, and the fifth conclusion of your report: "The war
21 influenced or forced migrations of Serbs."
22 That's right, isn't it?
23 A. Yes. I have explained in my evidence that I researched the
24 demographic processes, most of all migrations, which during a war are, by
25 necessity, forced. But we classified them into several subgroups I don't
1 need to repeat. But I focussed on the forced migrations of the Serb
2 population, and I explained the reasons.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Back for a moment to the two categories of
4 territories, the ones you could do your research on and the ones you
5 couldn't, the Serb-controlled ones and the ones controlled by the Muslim
6 and the Croat forces.
7 In what category would you place, generally speaking, without
8 going into detail, the municipalities in the indictment in this case?
9 A. As far as I remember these municipalities, some of them were
10 controlled by different sides at different points in time, others were
11 not. And today five municipalities are in the Federation, and others are
12 in Republika Srpska. For example, Kljuc --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... no, no, just
14 during the war.
15 Is there a majority of them -- of these municipalities that were
16 in this category or in the other one?
17 A. I think that most of these municipalities were controlled by the
18 Serb forces, and that is why I put forward the -- the argument that this
19 is a badly chosen sample because it gives a wrong picture of what was
20 happening during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... so
22 basically --
23 A. But some municipalities did -- did pass to the control of the
24 other side during the war.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: But basically they were municipalities,
1 Serb-populated municipalities, as you call them, in categorising the two?
2 That's what you say.
3 A. I would now have to take the document and precisely interpret the
4 share of individual ethnic groups in those municipalities because I don't
5 want to speak from memory and in general terms.
6 In that way, we could see where the Serbs or Muslims or possibly
7 Croats, but they weren't the majority anywhere, possibly the relative
8 majority, in some places. My remark was that the selection of
9 municipalities wasn't the best, if we want to get a faithful reflection
10 of the processes. This selection of municipalities gives a distorted
11 picture. If we were to take other municipalities --
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's not
13 the purpose my question, excuse me. I go back to paragraph 79 of your
14 report and the fifth conclusion of it, in which you say that you
15 researched on the war-influenced or forced migration of the Serbs within
16 the Serb-populated territories.
17 And the only reference to, or conclusion, about the
18 war-influenced migrations of the other ethnic groups that one finds in
19 your report is that the forced migration of the Serb population led to or
20 brought about the same forced migrations of other ethnic groups. That is
21 what I read in paragraph 75 and in the fifth conclusion of your report.
22 And for that reason, you say, the aim of your report is to point to, to
23 underline, the complexity of the migration of the population in these
24 territories during the 1992-1995 war, in particular.
25 Is that a fair summary of the fifth conclusion of your report?
1 A. I apologise, I need some time to find it. You say conclusion
2 number 5.
3 I cannot seem to -- because the conclusion 5 is something else
4 in -- in my report. "The territory of BH is characterised by very
5 complex historical" -- no, that's the introduction. I apologise. I'm
6 still looking for the fifth conclusion.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I may assist, these are your
8 final conclusions, Professor, on page 71 in your version.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: And it reads:
10 "The study of the Serbian war -- "The study of the Serbian war
11 migrations or war-forced migrations and their causes and consequences for
12 this report led to the war-forced migrations of other ethnic groups. For
13 this reason, this report aims to point to the complexity of the migration
14 of the population in this territory throughout history and the 1992-1995
15 war, in particular."
16 That's what I was citing; right?
17 A. Yes, yes. The point of this report is that what we
18 metaphorically called connected vessels or a chain reaction or the flow
19 and counterflow of migrational movements, and migrations in wartime are,
20 generally speaking, forced. But this was mostly about the transfer of
21 population that moved toward ethnically dominate areas, which I qualified
22 as a process of ethnic and territorial homogenisation. And I believe
23 that that's what these data point to.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now my next question is this: If you would have
25 been asked to do so, could you have explored in your report for those
1 same territories the war-influenced or forced migration of the non-Serb
3 Would you have been able to do that, if asked?
4 A. Not during the war because it would have been impossible
5 physically. We spoke about that movement was restricted.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. And in the post-war --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: You were asked in 2011 to write this report,
9 weren't you?
10 A. If we're talking about this, yes. I would be willing to conduct
11 research in all of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Only I'm not sure if I know that
12 part of the territory so well.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm not
14 speaking about the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm talking about the
15 territories you [indiscernible] strong in this -- in -- in this report
16 now, the Serb-populated territories, and I'm talking about -- the
17 question is in -- would you have been able to examine, if asked, the
18 war-influenced migration of the non-Serb in these same territories?
19 A. To be honest, I think I would be less well acquainted with this
20 material. But, as a member of a team of experts, I would be able to do
21 such research.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: So I -- I take it you have not been asked to do
23 that research.
24 A. That is correct. I haven't been asked.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: And --
1 A. If you're referring to institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: I'm referring to the territories you did your
3 research in, that is, the Serb-populated territories --
4 No, the qualification the expert gave is Serb-populated.
5 So -- and it was your own choice to focus in this report on the
6 Serb migration, Serb war-influenced migrations within these territories.
7 A. All right. Now I understand.
8 In this report, I didn't have the capability to conduct research
9 in other territories in a short time-period. But I said yesterday, or
10 the other day, that Ewa Tabeau did that with her co-workers and that
11 would have been a repetition of the numerical indicators.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's precisely what I'm asking about. Aren't
13 you more or less saying that you have no real expert knowledge of the
14 migration of the non-Serb population in the Serb-populated territories in
15 general or in the indictment municipalities in particular?
16 A. I wouldn't say that I had -- have no expert knowledge. But we
17 haven't shaped our knowledge into a report. But knowing the processes --
18 knowledge of the processes, especially the migrations during the war in
19 BiH, is present in both me and other researchers. However, we weren't
20 able to conduct such research for reasons of time and other reasons I
21 mentioned. I personally considered that Ewa Tabeau's comprehensive
22 research into this opened the door to additional research, which may be
23 subject to criticism, but it is complementary to hers. And I think that
24 the value of both reports is that together they give a more complete and
25 clearer picture, rather than overlapping and describing this -- the same
1 situation or processes and phenomena.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: If you say that the knowledge that you had about
3 the non-Serb migration, you didn't -- you haven't shaped your knowledge
4 into this report. Isn't that an odd choice, given the fact that this
5 trial is not about forced migration of Serb population but, among other
6 things, forced migration about non-Serb population?
7 A. Yes, the non-Serb population. But my position was, if -- if we
8 add to this report the problems connected to the forced migrations of the
9 Serb population, only then can we have a comprehensive understanding of
10 the phenomenon and processes in the area, without which a historically
11 distorted picture would be created or we could also speak about the bias
12 of statistical data used in other reports. And I still continue to
13 stress the necessity to research the forced migrations of all population
14 groups because that -- these processes are interconnected. The phrase
15 "connected vessels" has been used here, and it was not easy to control
16 these things by any means. We're talking about some 4 million-odd people
17 who were involved in these processes, which is very complex.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Professor.
19 JUDGE HALL: Professor, we thank you for your attendance before
20 the Tribunal. Your testimony is now at an end, and you're now released.
21 We wish you a safe journey back to your home.
22 The usher will escort you from the courtroom. The Court has over
23 matters with which to deal before it rises.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I do want to raise a matter with the Chamber
1 concerning the report, if now would be an appropriate time. And I can
2 keep it very, very brief. I'm mindful -- I know that the Prosecution did
3 not object to the expertise of Professor Pasalic or indeed the relevance
4 of his report, and I'm mindful of the President's question to me about
5 expertise. I bear all of that in mind.
6 However, I think that it is appropriate for the Prosecution to
7 register its objection to the relevance and the expertise of
8 Professor Pasalic, having heard all of his evidence over the last three
10 Just insofar as his expertise is concerned, and, of course, we
11 don't object to his doubt of expertise in social geography, but, in my
12 submission, the cross-examination on his expertise on Tuesday is such
13 that such serious doubts have been raised about it that you should
14 rule against him as an expert.
15 That's all I want to say about that, and I'm mindful, of course,
16 it's a decision for Your Honours.
17 On the other issue of relevance, however, I also want to register
18 an objection to the admission of the report. It's -- it was always clear
19 that the report only ever dealt with Serbian population movements, but
20 the Prosecution thought that it might somehow, the provision of the
21 testimony, it might -- the relevance to the other two ethnic groups might
22 somehow be explained. That hasn't happened over the last three days, in
23 the Prosecution's submission, and it's pretty clear that he, just from
24 what happened this morning, that he is less well acquainted with
25 war-influenced migrations of non-Serbs. And I think he effectively said
1 this morning that he didn't have sufficient expert knowledge of non-Serb
2 populated territories.
3 In addition to that, everything that he said over the last three
4 days, in the Prosecution's submission, really can only apply to the
5 movements of Serbs and not the other two ethnic groups --
6 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, as you develop this, Mr. Di Fazio, what do
7 you make of the witness's statement that he repeated several time in
8 cross-examination in particular - I can't remember if it came up in
9 examination-in-chief - that his report should be regarded as being
10 complementary to the other reports that we have before us?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: With respect, I don't think it's complementary.
12 It can only focus on one ethnic group. I thought that it would somehow
13 shed light on the movements of the other ethnic groups, but it doesn't.
14 It can only be confined to the migratory movements of Serbs and not the
15 other two groups, so it doesn't complement Ewa Tabeau's reports, in my
16 submission. It doesn't add anything further, any significant or
17 important further evidence or information to the material that she
18 presented to you.
19 So it's got to the point, in the Prosecution's submission, where
20 the relevance is simply gone -- is simply so minimal and so peripheral
21 that it really can't find its way into the trial record. And so for
22 those reasons, it should be -- should be -- it shouldn't be admitted.
23 May I just confer with my colleague, please.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Ms. Korner makes the point that it is also
1 blemished by the fact that's essentially a tu quoque report. And that's
2 apparent from the annexes. You recall, the annexes only -- in
3 particular, Annex B -- Annex A only deals with, in the broadest of terms,
4 with Serb execution sites, Serb expulsions, and Serb -- and the
5 destruction of Serb property, Serb town and villages. So as it's
6 developed over the last three days, the Prosecution says that the
7 relevance of the report has been demonstrated to be so minimal that it
8 simply doesn't make the grade and shouldn't be admitted.
9 However, that's -- of course, we realize it is entirely a matter
10 for the Trial Chamber.
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, allow me to explain
13 the reasons and motives for the engagement of the demographer
14 Professor Stevo Pasalic by the Defence to write such a paper.
15 We did not want to negate in an absolute sense the findings of
16 Ms. Ewa Tabeau. The objections to the methodological approach and some
17 possible errors and omissions that may be a result of such a -- such an
18 approach were presented by Professor Stevo Pasalic. However, he did not
19 negate her report as a whole.
20 Had we done that, it would have been our duty to do what
21 Judge Delvoie mentioned, to make an effort and to present a different
22 report and to invest ten years in that. That is not what we did.
23 Your Honours, we wanted to expand the factual basis of the
24 evidence in terms of ethnodemographic trends in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the
25 segment in which we believe that the paper of Ms. Ewa Tabeau did not
1 provide answers. In that complex mosaic of ethnodemographic trends, we
2 believe that the professor provided just one tile, but a very useful one.
3 We're not saying that he responded to each and every question, nor was he
4 in a position to do so.
5 However, the Trial Chamber, as they see both reports before them,
6 will have a broader basis to rely on what you consider to be useful for
7 this case and for reaching your decision ultimately. So if you assess
8 both papers, the two together are of greater value than any one of the
9 two individually. Two experts know more than one. We will have a great
10 deal more scope for argumentation, we and the Prosecution. And
11 ultimately, you will have a bigger basis for your own decision. Probably
12 we did not manage to produce everything that we wanted to, but I'm sure
13 that I can safely say that we have more before us now than if we only had
14 Ms. Tabeau's report. Please understand the witness in that way,
15 complementary in that sense. Complementary in that part in which the
16 paper did not provide some of the key answers that we believe were
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.
20 Mr. Krgovic, do you wish to be heard on this?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: No, Your Honours. That was joint submission.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: We thank counsel for their submissions. The Chamber
25 will decide on the application for the admission of the report of
1 Professor Pasalic sometime next week, we trust.
2 There is a question that I have of the parties, in terms of next
3 week. But before I do that, there's a ruling that we have to deliver
4 which may affect the question I'm about to ask.
5 And the ruling is as follows. The Trial Chamber is seized of an
6 oral application raised by the Stanisic Defence on the
7 13th of April, 2011, seeking sanctions against the Prosecution under
8 Rule 68 bis of the rules for alleged non-disclosure of documents relating
9 to the witness who is to return next week for further cross-examination.
10 That is an Andrija Bjelosevic.
11 The Defence alleges that the Prosecution has not disclosed to it,
12 among other things, documents that relate to a Prosecution interview with
13 the witness which were -- are said to be subject to disclosure under
14 Rule 66(B) and which appeared on the Prosecution list of documents to be
15 used in cross-examination of the witness released by the Prosecution on
16 the 12th of April, 2011, at the start of his testimony, as required by
17 the procedural guide-lines issued by the Chamber.
18 The Chamber has heard oral submissions from all parties on the
19 matter on a number of occasions, in particular on the 14th and
20 21st of April, and on the 2nd and 5th of May. The Trial Chamber accepts
21 the assertions by the Stanisic Defence that the application is based on
22 Rule 66(B), that is, disclosure of items material to the preparation of
23 the Defence, even though Mr. Zecevic has also referred to obligations
24 arising under Rule 68. Indeed, on the 5th of May, Mr. O'Sullivan
25 described the true violation as being of a Rule 66(B) request which was
1 made in January of this year.
2 The jurisprudence relating to Rule 66(B) requires a specific
3 request to be made for disclosure. The Stanisic Defence relies upon its
4 written request to the Prosecution made on the 21st of January which was
5 provided to the Chamber earlier this week. Although various requests had
6 been made earlier than this, Mr. Zecevic acknowledges that a request made
7 in October 2009 was too broad and that the request of the
8 21st of January, 2011, is the one on which the application is based.
9 The Trial Chamber notes that the letter of the
10 21st of January refers only to obligations arising under Rule 68 and not
11 to those arising under Rule 66(B). The obligation that's rise under the
12 two rules are different, and in the view of the Trial Chamber, a request
13 specifically referring to obligations under one rule cannot be
14 automatically presumed to include a request under the other. Given
15 Mr. Zecevic's acknowledgment that the previous request made in
16 October 2009 is too broad to meet the requirements of Rule 66(B), it
17 follows that at the time Mr. Bjelosevic commenced his testimony on
18 12th of April, 2011, no valid request for disclosure under Rule 66(B) had
19 been made to the Prosecution.
20 The oral application for the issue of sanctions against the
21 Prosecution pursuant to Rule 68 bis for breach of its obligations under
22 Rule 66(B) must, therefore, fail. The Trial Chamber also notes that the
23 Prosecution has in fact already disclosed a number of the documents in
24 question to the Defence teams and that as a result of the scheduling of
25 this witness, both Defence teams have been on notice of the existence of
1 these documents for at least one month.
2 The Trial Chamber therefore denies the oral application, directs
3 that the Prosecution may use all documents on its list during its
4 cross-examination of this witness.
5 The Trial Chamber remains seized of the written motion of the
6 Stanisic Defence filed on the 28th of April, 2011, to compel the
7 Prosecution to comply with Rule 66(B), which relies on the subsequent
8 request for disclosure under that rule made on the 20th of April, 2011,
9 and the Chamber will address that motion separately.
10 The question which indirectly arises from that, although it's
11 really a separate question, is whether, in light of what the -- movements
12 as we discussed them yesterday and the day before, Mr. Bjelosevic is
13 still expected to continue his cross-examination on Tuesday and not
15 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours --
16 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... to form an understanding.
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. Sorry. Your Honours, I'm here to deal with
18 that very topic.
19 As I think you were told by Mr. Hannis yesterday, we were
20 prepared -- I was prepared to continue with my cross-examination even
21 though we didn't have translations of the new material which is now
22 requested by both the Zupljanin and us -- the Zupljanin Defence and us.
23 And I want to return to the question of further cross-examination by
24 Mr. Krgovic.
25 But the reality, I regret to say, is, at the moment, that there
1 are 130 pages of the diary that he produced which, according to CLSS, as
2 estimate today, they cannot do anything before the 24th of May for a
3 draft translation, and final translations until the 27th.
4 Your Honours, we would all like to get on with Mr. Bjelosevic,
5 and I anticipate that if he has to be put off, the Defence will not be
6 able to get another witness here for next week. I'll leave that to the
7 Stanisic Defence to deal with.
8 What we would like is an order from Your Honours, and I think
9 it's a joint order from all concerned, that CLSS is to put everybody that
10 it's got on to doing this so that we could have the translations at the
11 latest -- draft by -- at the latest, by Wednesday of next week. I've
12 certainly got sufficient cross-examination to cover two days without the
13 draft translations.
14 Your Honours --
15 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, before you go on. Desirable though that may
16 be, could we presume to do that, Ms. Korner?
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. I think Your Honours can say, can make an
18 order that CLSS should devote all its resources to doing this.
19 I really think this has got to get priority. Normally
20 everybody's buried in Karadzic. But as Karadzic isn't sitting at the
21 moment, this should take priority.
22 Your Honours, it's most regrettable that we're in this position.
23 I noted that Mr. Zecevic said yesterday that he wasn't aware that there
24 existed a diary. I find that very difficult to understand, I have to
25 say, because he said relied for the purposes of calling Mr. Bjelosevic on
1 the interview that was conducted with him by the OTP in 2004 when he not
2 only referred to his diary but gave copies of it. And that's what led me
3 to ask for the diary. I somewhat expected that the Defence would produce
4 it through him, but they didn't. And so we made that request.
5 But that's the reality, and it's obviously important. We've had
6 a look through it with the aid of someone who reads the language.
7 Mr. Krgovic and Mr. Zecevic obviously have an advantage that they can
8 read it themselves. And there are entries that are relevant to this
10 So, as I say, Your Honour, that's, regrettably, the position.
11 Unless CLSS can have a bomb put under them, if that's the right
12 expression, to get us the translations by Wednesday, we're going to have
13 a problem --
14 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Ms. Korner. My impression yesterday, and I
15 may have gotten it wrong or the situation may have changed, is that --
16 and this is when Mr. Hannis was addressing us, is that, from the OTP's
17 understanding of the contents of this diary, you would have been in a
18 position to begin and then the -- see where we go with this.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, but that was --
20 JUDGE HALL: Was that premised on the assumption that you would
21 get the translation in the course of the week?
22 MS. KORNER: Yes. It has to be. Your Honours, I mean, I --
23 much, though, and I say, I could probably spend ten days cross-examining
24 this man. I don't think that's really a proper way of going about it. I
25 could -- I was -- we were working on the premise that we'd get the
1 translations this week. I've certainly got sufficient to deal with.
2 But if we can't get the translations for the 24th, which is, I think it's
3 the middle of next week, isn't it? The 24th. Tuesday week, yes.
4 That -- that -- then -- that will stop -- bring things to a halt.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, the -- you were going to make another point
7 about Mr. Krgovic's ...
8 MS. KORNER: Yes. I noted that Mr. Krgovic got to his feet and
9 said that he wanted to do 30 more minutes' cross-examination. And the
10 same principles apply to Mr. Krgovic, who presumably knew that
11 Mr. Bjelosevic had handed over, as it were, already a huge number of
12 documents to the Defence that we didn't know about and took no action at
13 that stage to see if there were any other documents he wanted to get.
14 Your Honours, although I -- we could object in its entirety to
15 Mr. Krgovic re-opening his cross-examination, we don't do that. But we
16 do say, and we submit to Your Honours, that he must be limited in further
17 cross-examination. Because I've begun my cross-examination. And clearly
18 if he's going to be allowed to do it, he should do it now. But it has to
19 be limited to topics he raised originally. He cannot open, we would
20 submit, any new topics in his cross-examination.
21 JUDGE HALL: I thought it would have been confined to the diary,
22 what was revealed in the diary.
23 MS. KORNER: No, no. The diary, Your Honours, he can only use
24 the diary, we would submit, for further cross if it relates to topics
25 that he raised already in cross-examination. He cannot then go off and
1 do a whole new series of topics and therefore continue his
2 cross-examination. He's finished.
3 JUDGE HALL: Aren't you anticipating, Ms. Korner? Because it may
4 very well be that, upon an examination, that there are areas which he
5 hadn't previously explored but which, in the light of what the diaries
6 show, ought to be explored.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honour, well, that's the whole point.
8 That's what I'm objecting to. He had the opportunity himself to obtain
9 from Mr. Bjelosevic the diary if he thought it was going to be of
10 relevance. He should not be allowed to go into a whole new series of
11 questions because we have asked for this diary. He cannot just re-open
12 his cross-examination like this.
13 JUDGE HALL: I suspect that the -- such objections are going to
14 have be addressed as and when they rise.
15 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, no, I think Your Honours -- I'm
16 sorry, but I think Your Honours can say - there has to be a limit - if
17 there are matters which he has already addressed, topics which are -- on
18 which the diary he thinks assists him, that's one matter --
19 JUDGE HALL: You may be correct, and we may come to agree with
20 you, Ms. Korner. It's just that we're not prepared to deal with that and
21 to rule today. We want to think about that.
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, in that event, then I'll leave
24 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... so to come --
25 MS. KORNER: At least Mr. Krgovic knows our position on this now.
1 JUDGE HALL: So to come back to -- sorry, Mr. Krgovic, you wanted
2 to say something on this.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to make things
4 easier for the Trial Chamber and the Prosecutor. When I asked for
5 additional cross-examination, I just wanted to ask the witness about the
6 topics that I had already asked him about and in connection with which
7 documents have appeared in the mean time.
8 In my cross-examination, I'm not going to go beyond the topics
9 that I already asked him about. That is to say, I'm not going to raise
10 new topics.
11 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... but,
12 Your Honours, that also raises the next problem. Mr. Krgovic should do
13 his cross-examination first thing on Tuesday. He's asked for certain
14 entries to be translated so he can use them. So unless we can get a
15 guarantee from CLSS that at the very least those will be available by --
16 well, I suppose by Monday, really, then I'm not sure whether we're going
17 on Tuesday either.
18 JUDGE HALL: You said first thing on Tuesday. What I assume you
19 mean is that he should begin his cross-examination before you resume
20 yours. Whenever that is.
21 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes.
22 JUDGE HALL: And I think that that is the ruling of the Chamber.
23 MS. KORNER: Yes. But he can't do that because he won't have the
24 entries translated.
25 JUDGE HALL: And I was about to say that I am going to attempt to
1 formulate an order for adjournment. And, please, I invite counsel and
2 indeed my fellow Judges to jump in if it could be made clearer.
3 In the light of what has been said, upon the rising of the Court,
4 we will resume on Tuesday. But this is subject to communication being
5 made by e-mail, I suppose, if the progress on the translation of the
6 diaries make a Tuesday resumption impractical.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours it -- undoubtedly it will be
8 impractical unless Your Honours can make some kind of a -- if not an
9 order to CLSS --
10 JUDGE HALL: Well, we will, of course, make the necessary
11 inquiries. The problems, as you would very well appreciate, Ms. Korner,
12 with judicial orders is that there is no point in making orders that
13 cannot be enforced.
14 MS. KORNER: Yes.
15 JUDGE HALL: And therein lies the problem for the Chamber.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, and I'm told, hopefully, that the --
17 Mr. Krgovic has requested simply seven pages. So at least we hope that
18 CLSS would be able to complete those seven pages on Monday. And then see
19 where we go. The other problem, of course, is that Mr. Bjelosevic will
20 be travelling on Monday, and it's not going to be ...
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: What the Chamber will do is rise at this point. And
23 rather than adjourning for the day, we would explore all of the things
24 that need to be explored and come back into court in -- at 12.15.
25 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, could you assist us? The six pages
3 that -- to which you had referred, had they been tendered?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No. I used them during my cross-examination. And
5 my mistake, I should have immediately sought an application to tender
6 them then. And I just reminded Your Honours at the end of all of the
7 evidence that I do seek to tender those six pages. The -- it's just the
8 introduction to the book.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we have a tab number or a 65 --
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, sorry. 65 ter 20081.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: 81. Thank you.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Tab 16. It's the introduction "Anthropogeographic
13 Reality of Serbs."
14 JUDGE HALL: So it's admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 20081 will become
16 Exhibit P2322.
17 --- Recess taken at 11.48 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.
19 JUDGE HALL: We have, during the break, made such inquiries as we
20 could, and there are a number of options which present themselves. But
21 one of the questions that would be useful for us is whether the
22 Prosecution could indicate immediately, ideally, or in the course of
23 today, whether the -- they're in a position to identify a reasonable
24 number of pages, and I'm not going to give a number, which CLSS might
25 be -- which they propose that CLSS might be able to produce by the middle
1 of next week.
2 MS. KORNER: They say -- what would a reasonable number?
3 JUDGE HALL: That's what I'm trying to avoid saying. Let me hear
4 what you're offering.
5 MS. KORNER: It's a bit like a .
6 Your Honours, we've identified, I think, between all of us,
7 something like 130 pages of which were the greatest sinners, as it were,
8 for the amount we want in. I cannot give an answer off the top of my
9 head which we say are, for example, picking a figure out of the air, the
10 most vital 20. I would need to go back and go through it with those who
11 speak B/C/S who have gone through it already. But --
12 JUDGE HALL: A maximum of 50, Ms. Korner?
13 MS. KORNER: We might be able to live with that, Your Honours.
14 And if anything comes up during the course of it, even if we don't have a
15 translation we can always put up the B/C/S on the screen. They're all, I
16 understand, pretty short entries. They're not pages and pages, so -- but
17 that -- we'll go through that this afternoon and we'll give a list, and
18 we'll make sure that CLSS gets the list this afternoon.
19 JUDGE HALL: Incidentally one of the questions that came up is
20 whether OTP had begun the process of transcribing, what I assume is a
21 manuscript, into a -- to facilitate the work of CLSS.
22 Do you know off the --
23 MS. KORNER: Do you mean putting --
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] To type out the
25 manuscript. Type up the --
1 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see. No. No, Your Honours. I mean, if you
2 take -- we've had people looking at it. We got the documents on -- and
3 we haven't done anything like that. It's handwritten. That's simply not
4 a job we could do in advance of giving this to CLSS. So I hear -- so I
5 can see that will cause a slight problem.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, this seems to allow us - and tell me
8 if I'm wrong - to start on Tuesday with Mr. Krgovic's 30 minutes'
10 By the way, Mr. Krgovic, you should provide CLSS with the seven
11 pages you need so -- today so that they can translate that for Tuesday,
12 or -- for Monday.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I help.
14 Mr. Krgovic sent the ERN numbers to us yesterday, and we've put
15 in the request to CLSS already, and we'll make sure that they prioritise
16 those seven pages.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. They just told us they didn't know yet.
18 But perhaps that's a misunderstanding.
19 So if that's the case, could we then start on Tuesday, have two
20 days of your examination not related to the new material, have the first
21 maximum 50 pages ready for you by mid week, and that means that Tuesday,
22 when, Thursday you could go on with the new material.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm perfectly content with that. I
24 can certainly cross-examine on the material we've already put in,
25 Tuesday, Wednesday, and probably Thursday. So provided we can get such
1 material as we need by Friday, that should be ample. As I say, we'll
2 just have to hope that 50 pages will cover it all.
3 Your Honours, can I just ask this, and this is an order
4 Your Honours can make, although it's been discussed, I think it needs an
5 order from Your Honours. Would Your Honours order that when
6 Mr. Bjelosevic returns he brings with him the original of the diary which
7 he photocopied, the original of his military booklet, and also - and I'm
8 sorry to have to ask you this, but there's a very good reason for it -
9 any other diary he kept during the period of meetings he attended. Just
10 the original.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: So it's more precise not only a diary that you're
12 referring to, but a diary of meeting he attended?
13 MS. KORNER: If he has in his possession any other diary which
14 records meetings that he attended during the period October 1991 to
15 December 1992, would he also be kind enough to bring the original of that
16 with him on Monday.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL: Is there any reason why the Chamber shouldn't make
19 the order as now prayed?
20 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, we don't have any problem with that.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic?
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree fully.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: So the VWS would see the -- from the transcript, the
25 terms of the order which the Chamber now makes.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HALL: And are any other housekeeping matters before we
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
5 JUDGE HALL: In which case, we would resume at 9.00 on Tuesday
6 morning. Thank you.
7 I trust everybody has a safe weekend.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.35 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day
10 of May, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.