This transcript of the evidence given during an ICTY trial by a defence expert witness shows the routine bias of ICTY proceedings.
Criticism of ICRC list used as proof:
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [Page 10934]
Monday, 21 June 2004
[The accused entered court]
– Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
JUDGE LIU: Call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’m sorry that Judge Argibay won’t be able to be with us today. So in accordance with Rule 15 bis, the remaining Judges decided to continue the proceedings. As for the scheduling this week and today, we are in Courtroom III. And tomorrow I’m afraid we have to move to Courtroom II and we’ll sit until 12.00, which means we only have two sittings tomorrow. On Wednesday we’ll remain in Courtroom II. On Thursday and Friday, we are in Courtroom I with one extra sitting each afternoon.
And, Mr. Lukic, I understand that Mr. Stojanovic is still in the field. And according to our original plan, you probably know that we should have a pre-Defence conference on the 23rd of this month, which is next Wednesday. I just want to know whether your Defence team is in the position to have this pre-Defence conference or not. If not, we could find another time.
MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Stojanovic should be with us tomorrow. He’s coming back from the field today afternoon. So our Defence team would be ready for this pre-Defence conference. [Page 10935]
JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We’ll see whether it could fit in our schedule.
Well, is there anything else that the parties would like to raise before we have the witness? If not, could we have the witness, please.
[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
[The witness entered court]
JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
Yes, Mr. Karnavas, the witness is yours.
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Judge Vassylenko.
Examined by Mr. Karnavas:
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. Could you please tell us your name?
A. My name is Svetlana Radovanovic.
Q. And could you please tell us your last name letter by letter.
A. S-v-e-t-l-a-n-a R-a-d-o-v-a-n-o-v-i-c.
Q. All right. Thank you. What is your occupation? [Page 10936]
A. I’m a demographer and a university professor.
Q. Have you testified before this Tribunal as an expert in the field of demography?
Q. Could you please tell us what your assignment was in this particular case.
A. To look at the report submitted by the Prosecution and to give my own judgement on it.
Q. And do you have an overall expert opinion regarding the expert report prepared by the OTP expert, Helge Brunborg?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you briefly tell us your overall expert report.
A. My opinion on the expert report?
Q. Yes. I would like you to give us an overall opinion of what you- regarding the expert report prepared by Mr. Brunborg.
A. I think that the report is superficial, that it is not objective. And as such, I believe that it is unacceptable as a piece of scholarly research.
Q. What about the numeric results determined by Mr. Brunborg. Do you have an opinion regarding that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is your opinion?
A. I think that these results were obtained using the wrong methodology and in a very subjective manner.
Q. Finally, do you- can you tell us to any degree of scientific [Page 10937] certainty, that is within the field of demography, whether that report and its findings could be used to determine the long-term impact on the Srebrenica community resulting from the events that followed after the fall of Srebrenica?
A. Yes. I think that this report cannot be used, nor can the results obtained in the report.
Q. All right. Now, before we go into greater depth as to how you reach your conclusions, I would like to first go over your background. Could you please tell us about your educational background first.
A. I completed the faculty of philosophy in Belgrade, the department of ethnology, after which I took my MA in demography at the geographical college in Belgrade, after which I took a Ph.D. in demography at the Belgrade University College of Geography.
Q. And could you please tell us a little bit about your hands-on field experience in the field of demography.
A. I spent practically my whole career in the field, gathering data, processing data. Do you expect me to tell you where I worked?
Q. Yes. The sorts of different positions that you’ve held over the course of the years.
A. I worked in the republic bureau of statistics of Serbia for 17 years, and for the past 6 or 7 years I have been the head of the department of statistics for the population, and I dealt with census and vital statistics. I took part in three censuses. In two of these, I was an expert of the inter-republic group for the realisation and implementation of the census and for creating the methodological [Page 10938] solutions for the census. I also took part in creating the methodology of collecting and processing data for vital statistics. That means marriages, births, deaths, and divorce. I was also one of the creators of a new service that was introduced into statistics in the late 1980s, and that is the statistics of migration. From 1992 until 1999, I worked in the institute of social sciences in the centre for demographic research. And after this when the chair of demographics was established, I moved to the faculty of geography and now I am the head of that chair.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
Q. I will need to ask you to slow down a little bit so we don’t overtax our good translators.
Now, could you please tell us whether you have worked on any special projects, other than the ones that you’ve discussed.
A. Yes, I worked on many projects. On the territory of the former Yugoslavia and for the last five years, apart from the projects at the university, I have been working on a project of the European centre for peace of the United Nations, which is currently dealing with a part of Serbia, that is Sandzak.
Q. And are you still currently working on that project or have you finished working for it?
A. I am still working on the project.
Q. All right. Now, you said you hold a chair at the university. Could you please tell us the subjects that you teach. [Page 10939]
A. I teach introduction to demographics, the statistics of the population, and ethnodemographics.
Q. Now, have you prepared a curriculum vitae regarding your experience?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. If I could now show you what has been marked for identification purposes as D202/1. If you could just please look at it. This is an English copy. I understand that your English is limited, but is this your CV?
Q. Thank you. Now, that will be-
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Madam Usher, regarding that.
Q. Now, if I could- first of all, before we go any further, I would like you to please tell us a little bit about demography. What is it?
A. This is a very complex question, but I will try to give a simple reply. Demographics is the science dealing with the population. It’s a science because in the system of sciences dealing with the population, it also has its own peculiar method, the demographic method. However, it is a multi-disciplinary science because it also uses methods and knowledge from many other sciences. It also uses statistical methods, historical methods, geographical methods. It uses insights from medicine, geography, depending on the goal of a demographic analysis.
Q. And for this particular task that was given to Mr. Brunborg and for which you had to examine, that is, his work product, could you please tell us what disciplines and experience would have been necessary to carry [Page 10940] out that task.
A. I think a multi-disciplinary experience was needed, in addition to knowledge of statistics and statistical methods. Demographic knowledge was needed, knowledge of the area, certain knowledge from geography. That’s the least that was necessary in order to do such an analysis.
Q. Well, you indicated statistics was involved. So I take it that’s a fairly standardised discipline, is it not?
A. Certainly, yes. It’s a universal method.
Q. Well, for the particular region what we’re speaking of, and that is the former Yugoslavia, was there any particular experience or knowledge that one would need in order to carry out the task at hand, the project that he was given?
A. Certainly experience and knowledge about what statistics, that is, the official statistical bureau of the country collected and what other sources could assist in solving this complex issue; what surveys were carried out; where to look for sources. You had to have experience that would tell you which sources were entirely reliable and which sources were of limited reliability, for example, when using certain sources of information.
Q. All right. Now, in this particular case, could you please list for us, in general that is, the sources that were available for any expert to carry out this sort of a project.
A. At least 17 sources. Do you want me to name each one of them?
Q. Well, if you could start with at least the most important and then we can work down, because then what we will be doing is going to the [Page 10941] sources that were actually used to see which of the 17 were used. So please tell us first of all what sources were available that an expert could have looked at.
A. By your leave I would like to begin with the official sources, the state sources, which are to be most trusted. Of the official statistical sources there is the census of 1991; then there was the census of 2001 carried out in Serbia; there was a census carried out in 2002 in Serbia; another census in 2003 carried out in Croatia; there were official estimates of the number of inhabitants; official evaluation of the numbers of inhabitants published by the statistical bureau of Bosnia-Herzegovina; official information on the number of births, deaths, marriages and divorces; then there were the unofficial sources. When I say “unofficial,” by this I mean that they were not done by the state bureau of statistics, although the bureau took part of many of them, there was the list of refugees in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996; there was the list of refugees on the territory of the former SR Yugoslavia; there was- just a moment. There were lists in the municipalities on returnees returning to their villages; there were sources done by various organisations, such as the Red Cross, the Doctors without borders. And I think I have listed them all, but I may recall some others later on.
Q. Okay. Now, I take it each of these sources has a particular purpose?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Now, I don’t want to go through all of these sources, but could you please tell us at least in general the purpose for going to all those [Page 10942] sources in order to carry out a task such as the one given to Mr. Brunborg.
A. First you have to know what information is available in each of these sources, then you have to know what the quality of the information is, then you have to know what methodology was used to collect and process this information in order to be able to use it or reject it in your work, in order to judge what to use, what is of assistance, and what to eliminate and what is useless.
Q. All right. Of all the sources that you’ve outlined, could you tell us a little bit about the reliability of these sources. Which are the ones that you would find most reliable to start with?
A. Of all the sources listed?
Q. Well- unless it would be easier to indicate to us which of the sources are most unreliable. Either way.
A. The least reliable sources are those not done for statistical purposes, those without a fixed methodology, and methodology is a very complex matter. It implies where, how, and by what methods you collect information. All sources that do not explain this and which did not have high quality information as their goal, these are the least reliable. On the other hand, all verified sources are the most reliable because they imply an entire process which is well known in statistics. This is a very extensive and onerous piece of work. And there are people who abide by what is in this information. Lists done for ad hoc purposes are no one’s responsibility, not even the responsibility of the authors of the lists.
Q. All right. Well, if I could look at just two of the lists, the [Page 10943] ICRC list and the other list that was prepared by the physicians I think without borders, that one, those two lists. Do you know whether a fixed methodology was used?
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: There is a Doctors without borders, or Physicians for human rights.
MR. KARNAVAS: Physicians for human rights. I apologise.
JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you very much.
Q. If we could look at those two lists, the one prepared by the ICRC and the one prepared by the Physicians for human rights, that’s the PHR. Could you tell us whether a methodology was used and if it was how trustworthy or reliable it is or would have been.
A. First of all, speaking professionally, it’s called a list here but it’s not- or rather, it’s called a census but it’s not a census in the statistical sense, it’s simply a list, a list which was not drawn up for any statistical purpose. There does not exist, or at least I have not had the chance of seeing it, a methodology, the methodology that was used to compile these lists. And the same goes for Physicians for human rights. There are questionnaires on the basis of which the information was collected and which I could use to express an opinion, but the methodology which was used to collect this information is something I have not had an opportunity of seeing. One can draw certain conclusions indirectly on the manner in which this information was collected, and these are not traditional statistical methods. [Page 10944]
Q. All right. First of all, on the methodology you indicated that you did not have an opportunity to see it, if in fact one was used. Could you please tell us whether you made any requests to the- from the Office of the Prosecution, their expert, to provide you with the methodology that might have been used or might have existed for the ICRC or the PHR.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did they provide you with anything?
Q. Do you know whether they have one in their possession, or is it that they don’t have one either, from which you can then conclude that one does not exist?
A. I don’t know.
Q. All right. Now, you talked about questionnaires were used. Correct?
Q. All right. What’s the difference between the methodology and the questionnaire? And if you could factor this into your answer, can you not look at the questionnaire and from that deduct the methodology?
A. I have to think about this. A questionnaire is a product of part of methodological work. But when you look at it you don’t know which methodology was used in order to compile such a questionnaire. So from a questionnaire you cannot see what the actual procedure was involved in order to have this questionnaire filled out. So one cannot judge on the methodology, or rather, on the way in which information was compiled. This cannot be judged on the basis of the questionnaire only. However, [Page 10945] when creating a methodology then you create a questionnaire as well, on the basis of certain rules of course.
Q. All right. Well, we have two different lists and obviously it would appear that the ICRC and the PHR were trying to compile a list of missing persons. Could you not at least look at the two lists and see where there might be some common ground, and then from there draw some conclusions?
A. Well, what you said, they were trying to compile a list, et cetera. It was said quite explicitly that they have completely different objectives. The objective of the Red Cross was to collect names, dates, to compile a list of persons that are considered to be missing. And then in accordance with this list that they used Red Cross procedures in order to try to find these persons. The objective of the Doctors without borders at the very outset was to deal with persons who had been killed, to deal with persons who are dead. So they have completely different questionnaires. On the basis of these questionnaires, one may conclude that their objectives are quite different.
Q. All right. Well, let’s move on from those two lists. And I just want to go back to your earlier answer where you talked about that you would have looked at- or that sources were available such as the various census from Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which begs the question: Why would you go to Croatia or Serbia and look at their census or any other sources from those areas or countries in order to determine, you know, the task at hand, that is, how many people are missing as a result of the events surrounding Srebrenica? [Page 10946]
A. Censuses record the entire population that is permanently present in the area where the census is conducted. There are many questions involved there, but inter alia, a census involves the following question: Where did you move in from and when? On the basis of that question it is important to establish the exact time and place that a person moved in from at the time when you are conducting the census. That is the kind of information that is collected in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. There is a bit of a problem, though, it is only the last place of relocation that is registered. For example, I can move from the town of Nis to Belgrade and then from Belgrade to Sarajevo. They would consider me as a person who had moved in from Sarajevo. However, when people are aware of that problem, that error, nevertheless, you can, at a given point in time, get the number of persons who moved in from other towns, states, et cetera, at the moment when you are carrying out the census. You know the exact period when they moved in.
Q. What about the information itself? I mean, in conducting a census, how reliable is that information? And I’m talking about the list of information that is collected, generally collected, the name, date, name of father, and then the personal ID number?
A. This information are not statistical data at all. They are included in the census for non-statistical reasons. It’s the name and surname that is collected, the father’s name, the number of the person ID is never registered. There is another thing, not the number of the identity card but the personal identification number, which is a completely different number. This is not statistical data, and I can [Page 10947] explain why it is collected or not collected. This was never checked in terms of correcting names, surnames, father’s name, and things like that. And after all, it’s impossible to check all of that. However, personal identification numbers were collected for the first time in the census of 1991 for a simple reason: In the territory of the former Yugoslavia the idea was to have a single registry of the population. Since this personal identification number consists of 13 digits and the statistics need the first seven digits because they are the date of birth, then statistics collects this regularly. The remaining six digits, which also have a certain meaning, they constitute the region that you come from, also your gender, and it’s a kind of identification number. An attempt was made to collect all of that in order to use it primarily, in order to compile this register. All the other information, except for these two particular pieces of information, involve a particular procedure of a higher control of the census. That is to say, in the field and then this automatic control, if I can call it that way, which is a complex affair, a logical control, and so on and so forth. When the information compiled is proclaimed official, then it is official and correct.
Now, what can be debated is the greater and lesser reliability of certain features or of the entire census. There are some features that you compile, for example, ethnicity or religion. These are criteria for obtaining information- I mean, the criteria are subjective. So, for example, in one census I can say that I’m Montenegrin, and in another one I can say that I’m a Martian, and I can declare myself or I don’t have to declare myself. So whoever seriously deals with statistics, demographics, [Page 10948] and ethnodemographics knows exactly what the limitations are in terms of the information compiled. So once a census is verified by a state, it’s considered to be a successful one. And it is only with regard to certain questions that it can be considered debatable, or rather, the extent to which it can be considered acceptable, or rather, what the constraints are, but then there has to be an explanation involved. Primarily, these are features that are of a subjective nature. Most of the information compiled in a census is documented, so it is not subjective information.
Q. All right. Incidentally you were using the 1991 census as an example. Did you by any chance work on that census?
A. I was an expert in the inter-republican group for the methodology of the census. And I was secretary for the bureau of the census and ex officio, that is to say due to the office I held then in the office of statistics, I was in charge of the census in Serbia.
Q. Was it mandatory, by the way, to participate in the census? Or was this on a voluntary basis?
A. All censuses carried out in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1921 until the present day, although these are separate states now, there are laws on the censuses. And the laws consider censuses to be mandatory. And in 1991 there were even sanctions that were envisaged in case you didn’t want to take part in a census. First of all, the media has to inform the population that there is a census that is ongoing and as a rule people participate in the census. No one is really opposed to it, but it is a legal obligation, yes.
Q. All right. Now, on one of the sources, I’m not sure whether you [Page 10949] mentioned it or not, but what about the voter registration? Would that have been one of the sources that would have been available to an expert in order to carry out the task at hand, that is again, to figure out the list of the missing people, both by identity and number?
A. I probably omitted to mention that, yes. Yes. Voter registers are an auxiliary source of information, yes, and experts do have that available.
Q. How reliable is that source, keeping in mind your previous answer with respect to census information?
A. Voter registers have a different methodology of compiling information, if I can put it that way. First of all, these are lists that register people who voluntarily apply to vote, and then they involve names, surnames, and also these personal identification numbers ever since they’ve been in existence in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. They are not compulsory and I think that in most countries in the world it is not mandatory to vote. There are lists of voters, but basically people voluntarily apply to vote or not to vote.
Q. All right. What about vital statistics data? Can you comment on that, particularly the reliability, keeping in mind the situation now as it exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A. Vital statistics data mean that you should collect information on the number of persons who were born, the number of persons who died, the number of marriages registered, and the number of divorces registered. The former Yugoslavia was very proud of their vital statistics data because this was a well-established service where there was practically [Page 10950] never any problem and indeed we had a high percentage of registration of vital statistics. The problem with current vital statistics data of Bosnia-Herzegovina is that the methodology is not observed, the one that prescribes that every birth or any other vital phenomenon should be registered not where it actually took place, but at the mother’s place of permanent residence. For example, if I live in Srebrenica and if I give birth in Tuzla, then in statistics the birth is registered in Srebrenica as if it took place in Srebrenica. However, in view of the time involved, this methodology was changed because there were different migrations of the population. So now very often because there is no cooperation between federal statistics and Republika Srpska statistics, there is no exchange of information. For example, if somebody from Srebrenica gives birth in Tuzla, according to the methodology, Tuzla would be duty-bound to send this to the republican office of statistics in Banja Luka. Tuzla would not do that for the most part. They’d send it either to the federation or to their local statistics bureau. In addition to that, a new methodology was introduced, precisely in view of what took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely that every inhabitant who lives in a certain town for a year or longer registered- registers vital statistics in that town. What does that mean? For example, if I move from Banja Luka to Sarajevo and if I have been living in Sarajevo for over a year, everything that has to do with me will be registered in Sarajevo, not in Banja Luka. The same goes for persons who are abroad. Now, this change of methodology, if I can call it that way, meant that vital statistics data in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina have to be sought in several different places and in [Page 10951] different ways. They cannot only be based on officially published data by one particular statistics office.
Q. Okay. Now, before we move on, I just want to clarify one point. You said that there’s no or little cooperation between the federation and the RS bureaus of statistics, especially in this area where you talked about, that is the registration of births. How do you know that?
A. Well, for example, you have federation bulletins and you have RS bulletins, and you have a bulletin that is published by the agency. The agency when it wants to display certain data, they say data in the federation. And then they say what happened in Republika Srpska with respect to the federation, and what happened in the district of Brcko. When you have the federation bulletin, which in addition to registering federation data, has information concerning things that occurred in Republika Srpska, well, that means that all of that would have to be registered in Republika Srpska and then we have something logical, and then we’d add up the two, what happened in the federation and what happened in Republika Srpska, then the total would be what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But what they do is they register information for the federation and then what happened in Republika Srpska.
Q. Incidentally, did you contact the bureau, the census bureaus, to check out this information?
A. Yes. There are bulletins that are published and where all of this is contained.
Q. All right. Now, perhaps we can- before we go into the actual work product of Mr. Brunborg, perhaps we could speak a little bit about [Page 10952] the concept of matching, what it is, why it is important, and how it is accomplished. So please, what is matching first of all?
A. Matching is a classical statistical method or procedure what means that items from one statistical group should be identified in another statistical group. In order to carry this through, you have to have the right key, that’s what I’m going to call it, for this matching. This key should be the personal identification number, if it’s good, if it’s right. Now, what should this matching key be? For example, if my personal identification number is whatever, my name is Svetlana Radovanovic, I was born on a particular date, my personal identification number includes 13 digits, it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. Now, from a statistical group which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I sent to the statistical group this information, and then when they all match, when 1 matches 1, 2 matches 2, 3 matches 3, 4 matches 4, and 5 matches 5, then I can claim that that is Svetlana Radovanovic, involving all the characteristics, including the date of birth. So this is pure matching according to a certain key for carrying this out. This key has to be invariable; it has to be standard. Because any change of this key for matching makes it possible to engage in guesswork, to speculate. If, say, I am Svetlana Radovanovic born on the 14th of November, 1949, if I exclude the date only, not the year, but only the date, and if I sent it to the other statistical group and asked them to find Svetlana Radovanovic, then you do not have a matching of all the relevant items. They are going to find all the Svetlana Radovanovic’s who were born in 1949. Now, whether that was really me, it is up for you to estimate then or assess. For example, in the census of [Page 10953] Bosnia-Herzegovina, as I did this particular work, I found three Mrs. Radovanovics, one would correspond to me because she has the same identification, the same year of birth, and the same name and surname. Had I, by some grave misfortune, been on the list of the UNHCR or the Red Cross and if I allowed this to take place, not with a firm matching key but just on the basis of this information, they would have found me, they would have found me for sure. Now, the question is to establish whether this is really me or not.
In order to establish whether this is really me or not is not a problem if you have auxiliary sources, on the basis of which you can have this established. However, if these sources do not exist, if there is only the name, the last name, and father’s name, and date of birth and place of birth, those are the only things that correspond to the census. In that case, if you have only these three characteristics, you do not have the possibility of carrying this through or you can just reach a subjective conclusion whether that is the person concerned or not.
My point is that matching according to a certain key, a particular key, is an excellent method; however, it has to be a very good key, it has to be a very firm standard. If not, then the entire exercise lends itself to arbitrariness.
Q. All right. Well, what if you are unable to collect all the data for this perfect key, what then? What do you do?
A. I don’t quite understand your question.
Q. All right. Well, you indicated that in this key you would look for certain information in order to have the perfect match. What if you [Page 10954] are unable to make that perfect match? Do you have other keys developed so at least you can have a margin of error?
A. Oh, you can make as many keys as you want. That is something that depends on how skillful you are, how experienced you are, if you can see what happens, if the key gets wider. Yes, you can do that.
Q. And would it be part of the job of a demographer or a statistician to keep track of the percentage of matching once you deviate from the original key?
A. Well, professionally that would be honest because if you want to be responsible for the correctness of particular data, then you would have to say: This is on the basis of a correct key, this is what was done, and this is how much was done. If due to a variety of situations I have to make the key shorter or wider, then I say that if I have excluded one particular feature then I get such-and-such results. If I exclude two features, then I get such-and-such results, and so on and so forth. So then you can follow the percentage of matching and you can see what it is that you stand behind firmly and what is the percentage where you have to have a certain degree of reservation, or rather, you assume that that’s the way it is but it does not necessarily have to be that way. That can be followed statistically, too.
Q. Do you know, by chance, how many different keys the- Mr. Brunborg, the expert of the Office of the Prosecution, had in this particular case in order to come up with matching, this matching process?
A. I do.
Q. Would you please tell us what was that number. [Page 10955]
Q. 71 different keys. Now, in their work product, and we’re going to get to it in detail, from those 71 did they break down the percentage, in other words, so you as a demographer or a statistician could see as the key got shorter or wider how the figures changed?
A. No, that cannot be seen.
Q. Did you ask for it?
A. I asked for the keys to be given to me, yes- or rather, I asked for the criteria to be supplied.
Q. All right. Now- and did they supply that to you?
Q. Now, I want to go through that right now, if we could, so we can get this subject out of the way before we actually get to what they did. So let me show you what has been marked for identification purposes as D203/1. And again, it’s in English, the text is in English, but I believe you are- if you could just look at the text, which is the first page, and then if we go to page 2 and page 3. First of all, do you recognise this document, Professor?
Q. Now, turning to page 2 we see a table titled: “(examples of) linking criteria for the 1991 census with the consolidated list of missing persons.”
Is this what you were referring to when you said there were 71 different keys used in order to make the perfect or perhaps the imperfect match? [Page 10956]
Q. All right. And who provided you with this information specifically?
A. Mrs. Ewa Tabeau.
Q. And do you know what position she holds within the Office of the Prosecution?
A. I couldn’t define it, but I do know that she is the chief demographer in the Office of the Prosecutor. I don’t know what her exact title is, whether she’s the head of a demographic unit or something else.
Q. And are you aware whether she has replaced or taken over where Mr. Brunborg left off?
A. I heard that when Mr. Brunborg was testifying, but I don’t know anything further about it.
Q. All right. Now, in preparation for your work for the Defence, that is the examination and analysis of the work product of the OTP demographic experts, did you make a request of certain material to look at, certain data?
Q. Was all of it provided to you, the information that you were requesting?
Q. Would you please tell us what information or what data specifically you were asking for- and I’m speaking of somewhat importance, that is- what was it that you asked and was not provided to you? [Page 10957]
A. I asked that all the questionnaires be put at my disposal, the methodological instructions, and all the sources I mentioned, the vital statistics, the published data on the number of the population, the census of 1991 of Serbia, the census of 2001 from Croatia, 2002 from Serbia, to put at my disposal lists of refugees from the SR Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1996, and to put at my disposal the censuses of 1991, the lists of the Red Cross, the lists of the Doctors without borders, and all the accompanying documents that are well known in the profession.
Q. All right. What explanation was given to you for not providing this information to you?
A. I didn’t receive any explanation.
Q. Did- go ahead. I’m sorry.
A. To be sure, there was a situation when my assistant and I arrived here. We had a meeting with Ms. Ewa Tabeau and the Prosecutor.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: That’s not correct. I can clarify in cross-examination. But there’s a contradiction-
JUDGE LIU: Well, there’s an objection. Let’s hear. Let him finish.
MR. WAESPI: Just about the questionnaires. Originally about half an hour ago she said she received the questionnaires. Now she’s saying that she had requested and didn’t receive it. I don’t know whether it’s a misunderstanding or not?
MR. KARNAVAS: Then why is an objection being raised, Your Honour? He’s got cross-examination; this is improper to be standing up. I know of [Page 10958] no system that allows two Prosecutors to be sitting there trying to obstruct the process by standing up and saying a half-hour ago this was said.
JUDGE LIU: No, Mr. Karnavas, I think Mr. Waespi just wants to make some clarification, if you can kind enough to put some questions for the benefit of the Prosecution, I will be very obliged.
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I was getting to it. There’s no need- I don’t need the help from these Prosecutors.
JUDGE LIU: Well, just in case.
MR. KARNAVAS: Just in case I will take that under advisement. We will get to it. It was probably on the next question.
JUDGE LIU: Okay. You may move on.
Q. Now, you were talking about the one instance. So could you go back to your answer and please tell us which instance you were speaking of where you requested specific information and what, if any, if any, explanations were given to you.
A. In my request saying what I wanted the Prosecutors to provide to me, if possible, I included certain sources of information. All the sources that were not used by the Prosecution, I asked these to be provided to me. And there is a request saying: If you do have the sources that you used, would you please provide me with their questionnaires and methodological instructions so that based on these I can draw my own conclusions about these sources. All the remaining sources, apart from the key in order to look at certain numbers I may not [Page 10959] be familiar with, I did not ask for because I know these are the sources very well. I am very familiar with them. I do not know the methodology on the PHR and ICRC information, but I had never seen their questionnaires, which is why I insisted on these. The rest of my request pertained to the sources. I was provided with the PHR and ICRC questionnaires and other materials I had not requested, but I was not provided with the sources I requested. With respect to these sources I requested, at a meeting with the Prosecutor and Ms. Ewa Tabeau, I raised the question as to whether they had been provided and I was told they hadn’t. I asked why. I don’t speak English, but they consulted each other, they conferred, and then they told me that these sources were not relevant. I objected to this and said that they were relevant and I explained to the Prosecutor why I thought they were relevant. I never said that I had not been provided with anything. I have been provided with some things but not with others.
Q. Let’s stick with this point right now. When this exchange was taking place where you’re asking for certain information as an expert, would you please tell us whether there was a translator there available to translate so you would understand what the Prosecutor was telling you.
Q. And in relation to the Prosecutor, could you please tell us how far was Ewa Tabeau, the expert of the Prosecution? Was she on the phone in some other building? Was she on another floor in the building? Or did she happen to be in the same room?
A. We were all sitting around the same table. I couldn’t tell you [Page 10960] how many centimetres away she was from me.
Q. Did Ewa Tabeau, the expert of the Prosecution, ever reply to you, as opposed to going through the intermediary, that is the Prosecutor, who would then have to go through the translator to get to you? Did Ewa Tabeau ever directly give you an explanation, she being the expert for the Prosecution?
Q. All right. Now, did they ever tell you exactly the reasons why they believed, that is- and I say “they” because there were two of them there, why they believe that the information you were asking was not relevant?
Q. All right.
A. I have to say when I say “no,” at one point- but I wish to stress that my English is good enough for shopping but not for my professional work- at one point I think that Ms. Tabeau said to the Prosecutor that the sources I was looking for had been compiled after the expert report. For example, the Croatian census of 2001 and the census of Serbia in 2002. To this I responded by saying that the last Prosecution report was dated 2003 and that I felt, quite rightly, that this was relevant.
Q. All right.
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I believe this might be a good time for a break.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, we’ll take a break, and we’ll resume at quarter to 11.00. [Page 10961]
– Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
– On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Now, before we took our break we were talking about your requests to the Prosecution expert and the response that you received. Now I want to direct your attention to the text provided to you by the Office of the Prosecution. And I’m- this is D203 for identification. I want to read a portion of it and have you comment on it. I’ll be reading from the first page, the third paragraph, the last two sentences.
It states here: “Thousands of manual controls and individual decisions underlie the summary statistics included in our reports.”
It then goes on to state: “The request to reproduce this work within a few weeks is naive and not possible.”
This is from the Office of the Prosecution expert dated 16 April 2004. First of all, could you give us your expert opinion with respect to what their expert- I believe it’s Ms. Tabeau- states that: “Thousands of manual controls and individual decisions underlie the summary statistics included in our reports.”
What does that mean or how do you interpret that?
A. This means that they made subjective decisions as to who should be entered on the list and who not.
Q. All right. Now, what about the last sentence, which is rather stinging, might I add, where it says that: “The request to reproduce this work in a few weeks is naive and not possible.” [Page 10962]
So here it would appear that the person who has stated that the information that you have requested is not relevant, now she’s saying that what you are requesting is naive and not possible to do. Could you please comment on that.
A. This is not a serious conclusion. I have shown that it’s possible to reproduce it.
Q. All right. And we will get to that. Now, you indicated that there was a certain amount of subjectivity involved, in light of their admission that individual decisions underlie the summary statistics included in their reports. I would like you to look at the very last sentence on this document, and that would be on page 3.
MR. KARNAVAS: If we could have the assistance of Madam Usher, please.
Q. This sentence coming after the 71 different ways which the expert determined it would make its matches versus the one that you indicated would be the most appropriate. And it states here- and I’ll read slowly- “the aim of all the linking procedures described in the table above was to do the most systematic exploitation of links as were possible by the nature of the data.”
My first question is: Within the field of demography, the term “exploitation” or “exploitation of links,” is that acceptable terminology?
Q. Would you please tell us what that means.
A. Exploitation in the sense of using resources or sources of [Page 10963] information and so on.
Q. All right. Now, what if- what about, I should say, what about the way it’s phrased here: “Exploitation of links as were possible by the nature of the data.”
Do you have an opinion with respect to this portion of their admission?
A. The point is that they say “exploitation of links as were possible by the nature of the data.”
The term “exploitation of links” is something I can use when I want to take a census from one year and then compare it with the census of another year. Or if I want to use a census from Serbia for a household and- no, not Serbia- one municipality and another municipality. So if there is more than one link with more than one source of information, but I have to have a precise key to do this. When I need an exploitation of links because of multiple links due to the quality of the information, this means I am not using a single key. I am constantly shifting this exploitation and these links. So the point is that you cannot exploit more than one link in a single source of information. You can have exploitation of various sources. The term “exploitation” in itself is not something that is not used. But if I understood the interpretation of your question correctly, several links, in view of the quality of the information and then you use 71 different keys, the way I see this is that there is a huge possibility of exploiting in a sense that is not acceptable. This has a connotation which again shows that this is subjective, that the exploitation of links is used in a desire to arrive [Page 10964] at a certain number. So again, you are deciding whether this is or is not exploiting one out of 71 possibilities; whereas, to do the job properly you would need to exploit only one possibility, one key, one criterion.
Q. All right. Thank you. And again, I’m going to have to ask you a speak a little slower. Well, in light of the fact that they have 71 different ways of determining matches and the subjectivity that you’ve indicated that they readily admit in this paper that was provided to you along with their 71 different keys, do you have an opinion as to how reliable their final number is?
A. I do have an opinion, and I feel it is absolutely unreliable.
Q. And finally before I move to the next section, with respect to keys, if I understand you correctly, when you say- you would use one key and here they have 71 keys, what kind of a result would you expect with the more keys being used, in light of the individual decisions that are being made in order to exploit the various possible links?
A. I didn’t understand your question.
Q. All right. Let me put it- phrase it a different way. They’re using 71 links. They’ve indicated that they have made thousands of manual controls and individual decisions, and we also see that they’re exploiting a variety of links, as they put it: “As were possible by the nature of the data,” in other words, 71 different ways. What would you expect? What kind of a figure would you expect? A high figure? A low figure? Conservative? Liberal? However you wish to term it, if you could please explain it.
A. Well, you may expect to get whatever you like. And if your [Page 10965] objective is to reach a high number, in view of the number of criteria, you will of course aim at that high number when deciding who should be included and who should be excluded. So you may expect a very high number, in view of this large number of criteria. But there is something else that is important here. It would be intellectually honest when using such a large number of keys to give a statistical overview as to how many cases you linked using one key, how many cases you matched varying two characteristics, and so on and so forth, an overview like that would be intellectually honest, because then it would be possible to tell which information is correct and what the possibilities are and what the reserves should be in accepting the remaining numbers. If you were using a small number of characteristics, then it would be possible to decide whether to accept this or not. If you’re an expert or a layperson, then you will have an idea of where to put- where to draw the line and where you can be absolutely certain that the data is correct.
Q. All right. Thank you.
Now, let’s move on to another topic.
MR. KARNAVAS: And I don’t believe I’ll need that exhibit anymore, Madam Usher.
Q. Before we look at the Prosecution expert’s conclusions and results and how they reached them, I would like to first have you explain to us what it is that you did, what you examined, in order to reach your conclusions, the ones that you have already stated, regarding the OTP’s expert reports and findings. So please tell us exactly what you did first. [Page 10966]
A. What I did in connection with the material I was provided with?
Q. Well, in general, for this entire project.
A. Well, first I took the reports and then I asked around to get all possible sources of data, all those sources, which had I been given the task of compiling this report I would have been able to obtain and use in compiling this report. After this, reading the report, I established what the Prosecution used and what sources they used then. When reading the report, I came across numerous problems, so I asked to be provided with the material that the Prosecution had at its disposal because it was not clear from the report itself. For example, how many matches were done, by what method, how and why. I studied the methodology they used. I made an effort to study the sources they used and familiarise myself with them thoroughly. And then, I had the possibility of inspecting the materials provided by the Prosecution here, in this building.
Q. All right. Now, did anyone assist you in this endeavour?
A. Yes, there were two assistants with me in order to look through the material here.
Q. All right. And as I understand it, the OTP gave you access to some of their data on the computer. Is that correct?
Q. Just as an aside, could you tell us approximately how many hours you were involved in analysing the Prosecution’s work product in order to arrive at your conclusions.
A. From the moment I received the report until I had overviewed the material and written my own report. Is that the time span that you’re [Page 10967] referring to?
Q. Yes. Just give us an average.
A. Well, I cannot do the exact math, but I really had a hard time and I made quite an effort. It must have been at least 200 hours.
Q. All right. And how many days were you here in The Hague going over the material that was made accessible to you by the Prosecution?
A. From the 15th until the 26th of April. I think so. Perhaps I made a mistake. Would you allow me to look up the exact dates when I was here? Is that an option? Can I look at it?
Q. Well, you can- I don’t need the exact dates. I just need how many days just so we know- because the Prosecution was rather generous in making this available to you. So just days-wise.
A. I think it was 12 days. I think so.
Q. All right. Now- and in your work, that is analysing the Prosecution’s experts reports and findings, were you tasked by any way in trying to determine the actual number or trying to achieve a lower number of actual matchings?
A. No. No. My primary objective was to check the quality of the material, to deal with the methodology, not to go into actual figures.
Q. All right. Now, I would like to switch to the topic of what you were able to conclude regarding how the Prosecution experts went about in conducting their research and coming to their conclusions. So we’re going to focus on that. Would you please tell us, first of all, what sources the Prosecution relied on.
A. Lists of the Red Cross, lists of doctors, the census of 1991, and [Page 10968] the voters registers of the OSCE of 1978.
Q. Is that it?
A. That’s the only thing they used. Those are the sources that the OTP used.
Q. All right. What about sources from- I believe there was some Mothers against genocide.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: Yes, I obviously don’t speak B/C/S. I don’t know whether she said 1978, but perhaps she could be asked again.
JUDGE LIU: Yes. At least from the transcript we see 1978.
Q. The voter registration, which year was that?
A. From 1997/1998.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, in your opinion, were those sources sufficient, the use of those sources, was that sufficient in order to make an accurate or, let’s say, reliable listing of the people missing and in order to achieve a reliable figure of the people that were missing?
A. It was not sufficient.
Q. What other sources would you have used?
A. Existing ones? Which existing sources would I use in addition to that? All those that I listed already.
A. Should I repeat all of that?
Q. I think we have it in the record, but if you want to list the ones that are the most critical, that you think that were available to the [Page 10969] Prosecution, they could readily put their hands on and examine if, in fact, they wanted to.
A. I am convinced that the OTP could have received every one of these sources of information had they asked for them. I don’t know whether they asked for them or not, but all of these sources of information that I mentioned and were not used I believe they could have and would have obtained. I know for sure that they would have received all the official statistics. There is no reason why officially published statistics would not be made available. List of refugees are official statistics and also a census is a public document. All public documents are official documents, so I simply think that they could have obtained all the necessary sources.
Q. All right. Now, in looking at their report and the information that they provided to you, does the expert for the Prosecution provide any concrete reasons as to why certain sources were considered but not used?
A. No. No. The Prosecution expert has not mentioned any possibility of having looked at another source and then rejected it altogether. No, not in a single word.
Q. Well, is there anywhere that would at least give us some comfort that they were aware of these sources, in order to at least discriminate which ones they would use as opposed to which ones they would discard?
A. Not in the report.
Q. Well, did they provide you any other material that would be in there, perhaps, that they were aware of all the different sources that they could have tapped into? [Page 10970]
A. They did give me some other material, but they have nothing to do with these sources that I referred to. And I also don’t have any explanations in writing or verbally, whether they were aware of this or not. So I do not have any material and no one said to me why this was not used.
Q. All right. Is there anywhere in their reports or documents provided to you, internal documents, that would give you the impression or where you could reach a conclusion that they had consulted with local experts so that they would know what sources were available?
A. No. There’s not a single word about that in the report.
Q. In your particular field as an expert, could you please tell us whether in conducting this sort of a project, keeping the task in mind, would it be expected of the expert demographer/statistician to try to identify and list all the available data?
A. That is a demographer’s primary and foremost task. There are many articles that were published dedicated to that particular subject.
Q. Would you expect to find in the report some sort of listing of what, of the sources that were available, were used and the reasons why, as well as the sources that were not used and the reasons why. Would you expect that in a professional report from a professional demographer?
A. Absolutely. It is a question of intellectual integrity first and foremost. And if somebody is engaged in science as such, then that is part of using scientific equipment, as it were.
Q. All right. And would the fact that certain sources were available and not used, would that help you then- in checking the conclusion, [Page 10971] would that help you in discerning the validity, the reliability, the integrity of the report?
A. Did I understand you correctly? You are asking me whether it was mentioned in the report that certain sources had been consulted but then rejected as irrelevant, would that have assisted me in reaching a different conclusion about the Prosecution report?
Q. No. What I’m asking is: Would you expect to find that in a report, in other words, what was- what sources were available but the reasons why they were not used, in order for you as an independent examiner to evaluate the reliability and the integrity of the report?
Q. Do we have that in this case?
Q. Were any reasons offered to you by the experts of the Prosecution?
Q. Are any reasons offered in the report as to why they don’t have a listing of the sources or the reasoning of why they chose not to look at certain sources?
Q. Would you please tell us, if you could in somewhat a brief fashion, in your expert opinion what limitations resulted from using limited sources, the limited sources, that the Prosecution ultimately used?
A. What were the limitations that ensued from that? Is that what you mean? [Page 10972]
Q. Yes. Yes, by using only a selective portion of the universe of sources that are available, what limitations would you expect or did you find in their conclusions and findings?
A. First of all, this shows a certain superficiality. The limitation is in the following: If you do not know of other sources and you reach conclusions on the basis of only the things that you know about, you are running a great risk of reaching the wrong conclusion. So these results have to be received not only as highly partial and with a great degree of reservation, but I must say straight away that there are very few conclusions, very few professional conclusions, so each and every one of these conclusions requires a great degree of reservation or disassociation. It has to be taken with a great deal of reservation, all of these conclusions, because you do not actually have a view of the whole; you only see- you only use one part, the poor part at that, to draw a conclusion and a general conclusion, at that, about some very serious and very important matters.
Q. All right. Now, I take it you had an opportunity to go over the Srebrenica missing list that was prepared, have you not?
MR. KARNAVAS: And for the record, I’m referring to P729.
Q. In looking over that list, were you able to find any duplications?
A. Duplications, yes.
Q. Were you able to find examples, for instance, that you might be willing to share with us with respect to where this subjectivity has crept in? [Page 10973]
Q. All right. And perhaps this might be a good time for you to share with us just some examples, keep them short, so at least we have an idea of what you mean.
MR. KARNAVAS: And I do have copies for the ELMO.
Q. Now, if you would be so kind, you’re going to have to read out the number on the side of the page or the bottom of the page.
A. I will first point out what I call clear duplicates, namely cases where there is no doubt that there was duplication. So, for example, on page 955.
Q. All right. If we could put that on the ELMO- now, you say 955, where are you getting the number from?
A. On the side of the document that I got here. That’s the list of missing persons that was compiled by Mr. Brunborg and Mr. Urdal in the year 2000.
Q. Okay. Now, which one are we referring to?
A. I’m talking about clear-cut duplicates. Please look at Halilovic, Ahmet. Can I indicate it here?
A. May I underline it?
Q. Yes, yes. Go ahead.
A. Halilovic Ahmet, born on the 23rd of March, 1951- 1953, rather, father’s name Omer, went missing on the 16th of July, 1995, in Kamenica, Bratunac. I think that this is not controversial in any way; it’s a clear duplicate. [Page 10974]
Then page 986, please- I’m sorry. It’s not 986, it’s not 986, it’s 989, please. Could you please look at Husic, Jusuf, born on the 5th of May, 1958, father’s name Idriz, went missing on the 17th, Udrc Zvornik. Underneath that Husic, Jusuf, and now the date of birth is unknown; only the year of birth is known. The father is the same and the same date of when he went missing. These may be two persons, but it can also be a duplicate. Now, why do I think it’s a duplicate? I mean, why can I claim that that is as it is? If you look at the numbers here on the side, the expert of the Prosecution says that this person, which does have a date, the 5th of May, that he found this person on the Red Cross list and the Doctors without borders list. Whereas, this other person Husic Jusuf was found only on the Red Cross list. This person could not have been identified on both lists, and that’s why it’s not a duplicate. And now there had to be a visual evaluation and assessment.
Also, I would like to draw your attention to- now, is this 75? I can’t- 015. I would like to draw your attention to Karic, Zuhrija, male, born on the 7th of January 1961, father’s name Zuhdo, went missing on the 11th of July in Bratunac, and underneath that absolutely identical identification.
Fifty-eight now, please. [In English] 058. [Interpretation] Mulalic, Senad, born on the 11th of July, 1966, father’s name Hajro, went missing on the 12th of July. And then underneath that it says Mulalic Senad, born on the 11th of July, 1966, father’s name Hajro, went missing on the 11th of July. The date when a person went missing is obtained in the following way: When somebody wants to report a person as [Page 10975] missing, this person can say when he last saw him, when he last heard of where he had been. The date when a person went missing is not a date one can firmly rely on. So we cannot say that these people have been identified as two completely different persons. This is again a clear-cut duplicate.
Now, 139, please. Talovic, Mustafa, born on the 20th of April, 1935, father’s name Musan, went missing on the 12th of July, 1995. Underneath that, Talovic, Mustafa, same date of birth, the same name of father, the same date when the person went missing, so it is a clear-cut duplicate. However, I want to show you other examples. This is not controversial. These are clear-cut duplicates, regardless of whether you’re conservative, liberal, whatever, this is an open/shut case. I would like to show you now some other examples where you decide whether it is the same person or not. And what you actually use in order to reach that kind of decision.
MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: It’s- I just wanted to refer your attention to the fact that it’s the first time we hear of these corrections and they may be the case. Looking at it, it looks quite obvious, I agree with her. But it’s neither in the 65 ter summary nor in the report we have received five days ago. So I would like to get all the examples she has, which are these mistakes, so we can do our job and try to investigate that.
MR. KARNAVAS: May I respond, Your Honour?
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr.- [Page 10976]
MR. WAESPI: Or any conclusions she’s giving in relation to these examples.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Karnavas.
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. First let me point out that I went to extraordinary lengths to make Professor Radovanovic available to the Prosecution Saturday or Sunday if they wanted to meet with him to go over her report to question her to prepare for cross-examination, something that is extraordinary in this particular Tribunal, where experts are not usually readily available. That offer was made.
Second of all, the Prosecution has had this report. This is their report, in a sense, and they’ve had their experts. They placed this report into the record and so- we had the testimony, lengthy might I add, of Mr. Brunborg. At that point in time he made certain claims. His claims are also found in his report. Now we’re finding- we have an opportunity here to rebut certain portions of the report; that’s what she’s doing.
The other thing is, consistent with the testimony, we talked with- she indicated that one might need some expert knowledge from the field in the particular region. The next set of examples are where they’re not readily available to someone who is not familiar with the language of the culture, but there will be some explanations. So that is why. So I have no problem in taking a recess and giving them the copies. [Page 10977] We don’t have more than another five or ten examples to go through. I don’t intend to go through every single mistake in this report, but frankly, frankly, first of all, this is direct examination, so there shouldn’t be any intervention at this point in time. If they need time afterwards, additional time to run it by their own experts, they can make that request. But at this point in time, I don’t see how their objection is relevant.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this issue is bigger than this one witness. This expert’s conclusions critical to this report are fine; that’s her job. But it’s incumbent upon the Defence to put those in a report that we can hear. This isn’t just some conclusions; this is fundamental problems in the report that we at the nth hour are having to deal with. And that’s called ambush and that’s absolutely inappropriate. This matter should be stopped right now. If there are any other conclusions, she should either be prevented from giving them or in the openness by which this court is run, we should be provided those conclusions so we can be prepared to cross-examine. It’s unheard of that an expert would be called- and especially on the face of the report there are these criticisms directed towards our expert but no conclusions. Now we see the conclusions. This is clear ambush; it can be called nothing else. It undercuts the foundations of what we’re trying to do in this courtroom.
MR. KARNAVAS: I need to respond to that.
JUDGE LIU: Very briefly. [Page 10978]
MR. KARNAVAS: First of all, there is no ambush. I don’t understand what the gentleman is talking about, my learned colleague. There is absolutely nothing about ambushing. We set out, at the very beginning, to say that we’re challenging Brunborg’s report. Inclusive in that report are his findings that this a true, accurate, and complete list of missing people. Thirdly, the examples we’ve gone through are visible to the naked eye; you don’t need an expert. And these are being pointed out. So I think it’s all part of the process of challenging another expert’s report.
I have absolutely no idea of what Mr. McCloskey is ranting and raving about. This is proper. And we’re talking about some examples that are in a report that they proffered, it is not a report that I brought out, it is their report, and we’re merely trying to now show that their expert lacked certain knowledge and as a result duplicates crept into the system, and it goes to the fundamental issue of Dr. Radovanovic’s testimony, and that is that they used a very subjective approach. We’re about to see how this subjective approach inflated the numbers. We’re not attacking the fact that a lot of people perished. We don’t know the exact numbers. That’s not why we’re here. We’re here to challenge the integrity of the Prosecution’s expert witness in stating that this was a proper method in recording- in finding these people to be missing and this is the actual number. Because as we- that’s our position, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that it is the right of the Defence to call an expert witness to challenge the report submitted by the experts of [Page 10979] the Prosecution. But there is some differences between the ways to approach it. We have heard some examples as for those names on the list. I believe there are more are there. In this case, Mr. Karnavas, since we have very limited time for using this courtroom, I believe that you have shown us some examples already. As for the rest of those, I hope you could furnish with the Prosecution as well as the Chamber in a list as well as the conclusions by today.
MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Mr. President, we can do that; that’s not a problem. The problem is there are explanations. What we saw is the ones that even the Prosecution should have been able to pick up on. We’re going to go through other examples where because of linguistic or grammatical differences it’s not visible to the naked eye but it would be visible to a local expert. So I need to at least make a good effort, a good-faith effort, to demonstrate three or four examples and then we can provide the list. That’s not a problem.
JUDGE LIU: Well, you could- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: It appears from what Mr. Karnavas is saying there are other specific examples. And of course this is what we need to see in order to cross-examine. I mean, it’s absurd to take her specific new examples that should have been in a report and ask- and require us to have a continuance in order to determine and look at her research. This is supposed to happen beforehand in any system. I can only conclude that it’s being waited at the last minute for reasons of strategy, which is absolutely inappropriate. I don’t know what other conclusions she may make that she has not made in a report that is being saved for the case. [Page 10980] These are just the first few that we’ve come across-
MR. KARNAVAS: There’s no research-
MR. McCLOSKEY: As I say, this is absolutely improper, it’s caught the Prosecution off guard, and we will move that this be stopped right now and we get a proper report with proper conclusions on the specific items we’re using. Because this makes a farce out of the system.
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I need to respond to that.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, very briefly.
MR. KARNAVAS: First of all, let me just contain myself, because I find it rather absurd that when the Defence makes available their expert to the Prosecution, professional Prosecutors would not even bother to come and interview and go over their entire testimony. To me, that’s malpractice, but I’ll leave that up to OTP. Secondly, there’s no research. We’re not talking about putting something under the microscope or going someplace. It’s a matter of just going through the report and pointing out some examples of duplicates; no research was involved. There are no tricks hidden up my sleeves. All of this is transparent, all of it was available, all of it was known to them that we are going to challenge and show certain duplicates. That was known to them.
Now, if I was using some specialised method or going through a particular report or source, I can understand them getting all upset, but I’m using their document. And we’re just going to go through some examples where if they brought their B/C/S expert which they have, demographer, they might be able to look and see and come to the same conclusion. But this is not rocket science; it’s a matter of looking at [Page 10981] the grammatical spellings and coming to some conclusions. That’s what we’re talking about.
JUDGE LIU: Well, first of all, I have to remind the parties that before we deal with an expert witness this Bench has advised the parties that everything should be in that expert report. So there’s no need for a lengthy direct examination. You just have to point out certain areas that should draw the Bench’s attention to it. This is the normal practice in this Tribunal. I hope that both parties will abide by these rules and practice. This is the first matter I would like to say.
Secondly, Mr. Karnavas, I think you should take one example of each category of those mistakes and leave the others to the list you have to furnish to the party and to the Chamber. But as a rule, Mr. Karnavas, I have to tell you that you have to obey the rules we set as for the direct examination of the expert witness. In most of the occasions, all the questions should be concentrated on that report. And in many occasions, we don’t need, after all, the direct examination at all, because everything should be there in the report. We are not the expert in certain fields. You may be an expert in legal matters but not in demographics. I mentioned that to the parties already.
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. However, I think the Court needs to understand and appreciate that we have limited resources. You cannot ask a report to spend tons of hours when I don’t have the money to pay for this. We’re at a disadvantage. We don’t have in-house experts that can spend seven years, as in this case, preparing reports. So I have limited funds and I have to target them in a particular manner and because of the [Page 10982] technical nature of this, to produce a 100 or 200-page report would have required a significant amount of money. And as you well know, Your Honour, there is no equality of arms in this Tribunal. So in light of that, how can I possibly abide by that? I’m trying to make the best of what little I have. We have a compact report and we’re going to take two, two and a half sessions of the court and we’re well within our period. So I’m trying to do the best I can. And I certainly would agree with you that I need to follow the Court’s instructions, and I think I try to do that on each and every day I appear in court.
JUDGE LIU: I think lack of resources is not an excuse, not a proper excuse. A rule is a rule that everybody, no matter what the situation is, has to abide by.
MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. If I can go through just two or three more examples.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may move on.
Q. Professor Radovanovic, if you could show us just one example of each, I think maybe there were one or two different categories that you wanted to share with us, just by way of examples. We don’t need to go through all the errors that are in the report, in these findings.
A. I have already pointed out the clear-cut cases of duplication. I just want to present two examples which are also duplicates, but it is clear from the report that they were not aware that they were duplicates. Please look at page 927. Comic, Salih, born in 1920, father’s name Smail. And then the same name Comic, Salih, year 2000, Smajo. Smajo is a common [Page 10983] nickname for people named Smail.
Q. What do you conclude by that?
A. That this is the same person and the father’s name is the same, but once the name is stated correctly and the other time it is the nickname that has been entered. And also example 046, please.
Q. Before we move to the next example, because it seems that perhaps the transcript is not quite as clear, with this example please tell us why you think this is a duplicate and not two different people.
A. They have the same identification. The only difference is in the father’s name. It is common knowledge that in Bosnia and Herzegovina people whose first name is Smail commonly have the nickname of Smajo. So that in the first instance the father’s name is written out properly in full, and in the second instance, it is the father’s nickname that is entered. As for the date when the person was reported as missing, this is not a reliable piece of information. As for the place, the locality, it’s the same, whether it’s in the municipality of Bratunac, I assume it is. I did not get a list of place names stating in which municipality which village is located. There is another example of a grammatical nature.
Muharemovic, Husein, born on the 8th of May, 1928, father’s name Huse. And then the next person on the list, same name, same date of birth, father’s name Huso. In the B/C/S language, there are seven cases. Huso, Huse, Husi, Husu, Huso, Husom, Husi. So this is a question of grammar. Somebody says: What is your father’s name? And he says Huso. Another question might be: Whose son are you? And he says of Huso, which in B/C/S has the form Huse. All the other examples I have are similar. [Page 10984] So I will put forward these two.
Q. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, if we could- if I could ask you to please tell us: Had you been entrusted with this project- Professor, if I can get your attention.
A. [In English] Excuse me, I hear you. Excuse me.
Q. Had you been entrusted with this project to identify the number of missing people and perhaps even identify if there was a long-term impact on the Srebrenica community resulting from the events surrounding the fall of Srebrenica, could you please tell us how you, as a professional demographer, would have approached this task.
A. This is a very serious and complex job. If I were given this task, I would first look for the census.
Q. Now, when you say “look for,” or would you conduct one?
A. I would ask to conduct one. I wouldn’t look for an existing census. I would propose that the only way of obtaining correct results would be to carry out a census. I’m not referring to a census in Bosnia and Herzegovina but to a census in the area we are interested in. And then I would first of all define the area of Srebrenica. The task of carrying out a census in a limited area is not a highly complex task. It doesn’t require anything special. This census should be carried out according to all the accepted standards and then you could abide by your results and then you could be aware of all the advantages and disadvantages of the methods you used.
Q. All right.
A. Excuse me. Is it important to explain what would be needed for [Page 10985] such a census.
Q. I was going to ask for that, but go ahead, if you want to lead me.
A. To put it briefly, you would need some preliminary activities, then you would have to implement the census, and then you would need some additional work after the census itself. The preliminary work would involve- and I know for a fact because it’s in the former Yugoslavia that there are statistical circles all over the country. There is a network and there are census circles within those, and this means that you can carry out a census precisely without duplicating or missing out certain areas. If we were to define the area, our work would be already partly done because there is an existing network of census areas. Depending on who was requiring us to carry out this census, we would see whether we had to conduct a complete census or one involving only a certain segment.
Q. If you could slow down a little bit, please. Please.
A. It’s a question of temperament.
Q. I can understand that.
A. I won’t go into the whole procedure, but you would have to work out a methodology. You would have to spell out clearly how you would ask for information, the manner in which you would obtain this information. You would have to train the people taking the census. And this is always done in any census. You have to train people as to how they will collect the information. You have to control the whole process, monitor it, then you have to gather the information. And then you have to process the information obtained; you can do this by computer, you can sort it, you can check it in various ways, and so on and so forth. So the process from [Page 10986] the setting of the task through the implementation is not very long. It does require funding, especially if you are familiar with the way this is implemented in practice. And especially if you are not dealing with large numbers. When I say “large numbers,” I am referring to three municipalities or five municipalities or just one. So when we define the area we are interested in, it would depend on that. In my personal opinion with media support explaining the significance of the situation and the issues we are discussing, I am sure that such a census would be successful.
Q. All right. Well, first of all how much time are we talking about? I mean in this instance we know from 1997 until present the Office of the Prosecution has been working on this and updating their lists. Now, we’re talking six to seven years. Would it take six to seven years to conduct a census for the Srebrenica area once we define what that area was?
A. No, no.
Q. Well, what are we talking about?
A. No. Even if we define Srebrenica as covering the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina, in my experience you would need not more than six to nine months from the first step starting to talk to people, find staff, update all the statistical areas, testing the questionnaire to see whether it’s a good one, informing the population, initiating a media campaign, explaining to the people why this is important because these people are all over the place, the implementation of the census would not take more than two weeks. When I say “implementation,” I mean the actual listing of people. Because if I takes 15 days to make a list of all the people in [Page 10987] the country, then certainly- of course I have to say it can’t be done by one man. You need a team. You need between 20 and 30 people conducting the survey if you want it to last for a shorter period of time. And then the analysis and processing of the data would depend on whether you have listed 30.000 or 130.000 people, but technology is so advanced these days that it can’t take long. The entire census of the population of Serbia which is over 7 million and the survey involved not just inhabitants but also households and so on, three books have been published in the year of the census. If you’re also making inventories of farms, households, and livestock, so on, this is very complex. If you were to do a census with only essential questions, which doesn’t mean that the questions in the general census are not important but it includes questions which could be avoided in this kind of list that we are talking about, you would only be interested in the population in its biological or economic characteristics. So whatever you agree on, and therefore you reduce the time that you need to implement the census. Because when you come to a household and you have to take an inventory of the living quarters, the inhabitants, the livestock, you sometimes need an hour to fill in the questionnaire. But if you have a questionnaire of 10 or 15 questions, you need just 20 minutes for a trained person to finish the job, maybe not even that long.
Q. All right. Thank you. That was rather comprehensive. If you could keep your answer- your next answer and answers shorter, we would all appreciate it. How much cost are we talking about?
A. I can’t say. I might be able to draw a comparison. In 1989 I led [Page 10988] a census for the Serbian academy of arts and sciences in an area in Kosovo and Metohija called the Sirinic municipality. This area has between 16 and 17.000 inhabitants and about 16 villages. And this census, taking into account all the professional work it involves, cost then about 15.000 euros.
Q. Was that back in 1989?
A. In 1989.
Q. Okay. All right. Thank you. Now-
JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, are you going to change the subject?
MR. KARNAVAS: I think this may be a very good place, Your Honour, to-
JUDGE LIU: Yes, we’ll have a break, and we’ll resume at 12.30.
– Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
– On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Judge Vassylenko.
Q. Professor Radovanovic, if we could just finish off where the one topic that we were talking about, and that is the census. You indicated that you would have conducted a census, albeit limited, for the area of Srebrenica once that area would have been identified. Could you please tell us why? Why would you choose a census and how would a census allow you to then determine how many people were missing or the identities of the people missing, and also how those missing people impacted the community of Srebrenica. [Page 10989]
A. A census is the most reliable source of information, of course depending on how it is carried out. I take as my point of departure the fact that it can be carried out properly. That is why I would decide to carry out a census. Each and every person is registered individually. I would have to sort this out with the person who is commissioning the census. Are we going to carry out a general consensus or are we just going to look for the number of missing and killed persons only? I mean, if anybody would ask for my opinion I would opt for a general consensus with respect to missing and killed persons. This can be dealt with my way of a questionnaire, certain questions, and certain features are sought anyway. And also documents are required.
Q. Well, how would you account for those who had moved out of the area, had moved out of Srebrenica?
A. What is of decisive importance is to make the census you’re carrying out as popular as possible. There has to be a media campaign. The population has to be informed about the fact that a census is taking place, why it is done, what kind of a census it is and what the ultimate objective of the census is. I am deeply convinced that everyone wishes to have the actual truth established and that a very large number of people would take part in such a census. If you’re asking me whether it would be a problem to have persons living abroad take part in the census or persons living in some other area. Is that your question?
Q. Well, that could be part of my question.
A. That can be solved, too. There are different ways of carrying out a census. In the area where I live and work, direct polls take place, [Page 10990] that is to say, people visit homes and go from one household to another. But there are other well-known methods, doing it by post so people can mail their information. Then other methods are well-known, too. Of course, once you introduce such a method, then you need to have documents accompanying that particular method, too. So there are ways of doing this. I mean, I don’t want things to seem too simple. When one familiarises oneself with the situation, with the public opinion, the social climate, the wish that actually exists, all of that can be established and then the method can be determined and also the requirements. But that is the customary approach, because even when you are applying classical methods you have to support it with a media campaign so that the population would know what it’s all about. And then you information the population what the information sought will be and why it is important.
Q. Now, let’s- just one last question. Would it have been realistic or realistically possible for the OTP or another organisation to have conducted a census in this case, in light of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially with respect to Srebrenica?
A. Yes. I’m surprised that the OTP didn’t do that for a simple reason, I repeat, it is not that complicated or that difficult.
Q. All right. Now, let’s assuming- let’s assume that a census was not a choice for whatever reason, they didn’t have the money, they weren’t interested, they couldn’t carry it out, there was no political will- whatever the situation is, what would be the next approach you would have taken? [Page 10991]
A. First of all, you have to tap all the information sources that you have available. Among existing sources of information, you can make particularly good use of OSCE voters registers. We use 1997/1998 here, but there were those that were compiled in 2000. Then also you can use as a basis or even as a guideline the census of 1991. You can also use all accessible official statistical information, along with all the limitations they have. But you can try to overcome these limitations because you know what the problem is. In my opinion, you can make very good use of the lists that are made for returnees, quite simply, because they are looking for their property. And of course they are providing supporting documents. They can be in the Netherlands at this point in time, but they are looking for their property in Srebrenica, they are putting forth claims, and there are records of all such persons. If you are referring to what I would do in terms of the effect on the community itself and if I did not have the right kind of lists and a census- is that your question?
Q. Well, that’s- we’re going to get to that, but first I want to stick with this overall project, and I’m asking you specifically, you as the expert, how you would tackle it. Now, you’ve told us you would look at all the available sources. Assuming that you did that, could you please tell us how the matching would have been carried out.
A. I can say that I’ve already looked at all the available sources, the ones that I mentioned here, except for the census of Croatia. I’ve had a look at everything else, and now you’re asking me how we would carry out the matching? [Page 10992]
Q. Yes, so at least if somebody were interested in seeing your approach, we would have it on the record.
A. The methodology would have to be adhered to strictly. So matching has to be carried out according to a very firmly established key. I would not allow myself any guesswork, yes, no, whatever. There has to be a firmly established key, and the results of that key would be the results that I would support. And I would say: That’s the way it is, and I claim that all of this is correct. As for everything else, there are limitations and there is this possibility of guesswork. So I would go by a firm statistical principle, and that is a firmly established key that cannot be changed.
Q. All right. But assuming that you used this firmly established key, would you not be limiting yourself and perhaps erring on the very conservative side? In other words, the numbers would be low and not necessarily reflect the actual number of missing people?
A. We have not understood each other well. I would stand by the results of a firmly established key, and I would show variance. What happens if you change the key and if you change it from a particular point of view then you get the following possibilities. If you change two features of the key, then you get the following possibilities. And I would proceed in that direction. So if you would ask me to carry out this project, I would tell you: This is what the possibilities are. This is what I am responsible for. This is what I say is correct. And these are the other possibilities with such a margin of error, such-and-such a margin of error. And that involves guesswork, too. I’m trying to say [Page 10993] that I would be responsible only for the information for which I could say that it is correct. Because it was based on correct methodology and correct principles. I would nevertheless portray all the existing possibilities.
Q. All right. And just to make sure that I’m clear, on that- on the ones you would match based on the firmly established key, that would be the number of missing people that you would say 100 per cent in your opinion were missing, and then the percentage would perhaps change as you went down with the variables, the key variables. Is that what you’re telling us?
A. Correct. A firmly established key means that I would say all which is based on the firmly established key are persons who are missing with 100 per cent certainty, but that’s not the final figure. How big the final figure is, I don’t know. But then you have the following figures with such-and-such a margin of error. This final number would not mean that that was the exact number, the absolutely correct number. What I would produce is a figure that would be the least possible figure but one that can be established with certainty.
Q. All right. Now, would you make use of the two lists that were compiled by the ICRC and the PHR? Would you at least incorporate or somehow utilise those lists along with all the other sources?
A. Yes. I would use the Red Cross list for sure and I would reject the list of Physicians for human rights.
Q. All right. First of all, why would you reject that list?
A. In addition to the fact that it has a completely different [Page 10994] purpose, it has an enormously large number of duplicates because it collected information for some other purposes. And then when they decided to collect the others is something I really don’t know. But if you look at that questionnaire, it has over 200 questions, different questions. This number of duplicates is due to the fact that you have the possibility of receiving information that is firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand, fourthhand whatever. And if you can establish what clear-cut duplicates are, because I looked at this list, there is a countless number of clear-cut duplicates. If you’re interested, I can find this figure in my notebook; I can tell you exactly what the number is. Then you can see on the basis of these clear-cut duplicates that, for example, Svetlana Radovanovic was reported by her mother, brother, spouse, so on, and they all live in the same house, in the same household, at the same address. So it’s not a problem to throw out clear-cut duplicates when they’re there. On the one hand it would be the work of Sisyphus; and on the other hand it would be sheer guesswork. What would happen if two different persons reported the same person to be missing but with a different nickname or with a different date of birth, in that case it would lead to guesswork. And therefore, if I were to be engaged in such an effort I would reject the list of Physicians for human rights altogether.
In addition to that, if that is important at all, and I think it is, the list of the Physicians for human rights was never published anywhere. I don’t know if it was ever made accessible to anyone except for some very special purposes. So in terms of what they compiled, I [Page 10995] don’t know whether anybody is held responsible, whether anybody stands by these results, whether anybody can provide additional information, whether anybody supports these lists.
Q. All right. Now, you indicated you would, however, use to some extent the ICRC list. So please first tell us why and then tell us how. Why and then how.
A. Well, the Red Cross list is a certain guideline. It has many shortcomings from a statistical point of view; let’s be quite clear on that. Its first shortcoming is that methodologically it is incompatible with any official statistics, like taking a census. It requires first and foremost for you to come and to report a person missing. Again, several persons can come and report that one person is missing and at several different places at that. So people can report such missing persons not because they want to have duplication, but simply in different places there are offices and that’s where people go to. So it has many deficiencies and it can be used with a great deal of constraint; however, it can be used as a guideline. Because if I study that list properly, if I study it well, if I establish what its shortcomings are, and if I establish that there is a certain number of persons that cannot be brought into question- I mean, let’s make one thing clear, I’m not saying that the entire list is wrong. If I know that- although I don’t think this is sufficient- but if I know that it was updated on several occasions and that the main problem of this updating is that you do not have the obligation of reporting to the Red Cross that a certain person who was reported as missing was found alive and well, there is a high degree of [Page 10996] professionalism involved in Red Cross work, they are not there for the purpose of statistics. They have a different job, but I would use their list as a guideline, as I said.
Q. Okay. You say “as a guideline,” but how? Concretely?
A. In which way you mean- I do not understand the question well. If I do not have any information whatsoever, if I do not have any data, am I supposed to find the number of missing persons? If I do not have any other sources, how do I come to a number that is the number of missing persons. Is that what you’re asking?
Q. No. What I’m asking is this: You indicated you would look at all available sources. One source you said you would exclude is the PHR list. What I’m asking is: In addition to all the other available sources, how would you use the ICRC list concretely?
A. It would be the only list that registers missing persons.
Q. All right.
A. So if I’m not to engage in guesswork, if I am to accept only that which is accurate, if I see to what extent it was updated, if I have other sources and if I have the possibility to compare, and if I can use a firmly established key for matching, I have to accept the list; it’s the only one. But if I say as a guideline, if I see on this list that there are 7.000 persons and more than that- if you need the exact figure I will look it up- if I see that so many persons were registered as missing persons, that is not to say that I believe that it’s a good list and that all these 7.000 persons who went missing are on a list that is absolutely correct, that is the correct figure involved. [Page 10997]
Q. All right. But why can’t you take the ICRC list and take the PHR list and superimpose them to see where you have matches and at least you can have a starting point there. Can you do that?
A. That could be done. That’s what I did. Let’s be clear on that. I’m not saying this just off-the-cuff, why I would reject it. When looking at both lists without any interventions except for deleting clear-cut duplicates, that which was established beyond any doubt according to a firm key, there would be about 580 persons. That is to say, that on the list of the physicians and on the list of the Red Cross, there is certainly a match of 580 persons. It is the same 580 persons that figure on both lists. All the rest would require a change of key. And then I would say: Well, perhaps this person that is on the physicians’s list is indeed the Svetlana who is on the Red Cross list. So I decided that a far more valid list was the list of the Red Cross, not the PHR list.
Also, the Red Cross list records a larger number of persons and also in a well-established organised fashion. Although, please, this is not statistics. It is not a statistical method. The PHR lists that I had the opportunity of seeing, have existed since 1991 or 1992. If one insists on exact figures, I can look at my notebook if you wish. In 1991, 1992 there are two cases, in 1993, there 7 or 8, in 1994, 10; in 1995 [Realtime transcript read in error “1998”], there were 6.000. Obviously this was not a continuous procedure involving recording, but it was at a given point in time and for particular purposes. And that’s when the organisation recorded, or rather, registered these persons. [Page 10998]
Q. All right. Now, let’s move on.
A. Can I just say one more word. I think that it is important.
A. The expert of the Prosecution says that they use both lists because the two support each other. The Prosecution expert also says that due to different objectives and different intentions, both have many mistakes. This support of these lists is something that I thought was wrong on the part of the Prosecution expert. That is what led me to have a look at this, and that is why I carried out direct matching. I did not see what the Prosecution expert saw.
Q. Okay. Incidentally, just to go back to your earlier answer, you say- on the screen at least, on the record, it says with respect to the PHR list, 1993/1994, and then it says 1998. Did you mean to say 1995 or is it 1998, which of the two?
A. No. 1995.
MR. KARNAVAS: That would be on, I believe, it’s page 66, line 8, for the record.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Now, as part of the protocol in conducting this project, would you keep detailed records as to what you did, why you did it, what you accepted, what you rejected?
A. Well, if the project is understood as a job not an academic discussion, then that is an obligation. This is to say that if you are doing something, then you absolutely have to follow what you’re doing step by step and to record what you are doing. In my line of work- when I say [Page 10999] “my line of work,” I mean statisticians and demographers- we do not take people’s word for this and that; you have to document what you did through your work. Everything I do I do on the basis of documents, and I keep these records. And if I do not have records, then I have a good explanation of why it is not relevant for that particular question.
Q. All right. And incidentally, how many years of experience do you have in demography in this field that we’re talking about?
A. I started my career in statistics, the statistics of the population. And from this there followed overall statistics and demography. Demography cannot do without population statistics. I have been active in demographics since I published my first paper in 1977 or 1978. This was a purely demographic paper, not a statistical demographic paper. So we can say it started in 1978. But I have been dealing with the statistics of the population and demographics throughout my career.
Q. All right. Now, I want to go to the next issue. Had this been part of the project, that is for you to determine the long-term impact on the Srebrenica community resulting from the events following the fall of Srebrenica, again keeping in mind that you would not do the census which you found the most ideal way, could you please tell us how you would have tackled this particular problem. How would you have approached this project?
A. First, I wish to point out that there would be limitations. My conclusions and my opinions would have limitations, because I would not have at my disposal sufficiently high quality data. There is no data. This means that you can only use certain sources which you evaluate as [Page 11000] good or bad. If I am in a situation in which I have to do this, I would certainly first of all see what the possibilities are with regard to sources. And I would make a selection of sources. I would have to use voters lists because this is the only post-war piece of information; however faulty and defective, it’s the only one that exists. I am aware of its limitations, so I would constantly bear those in mind. I would also have to use the census, which when working on a task like the one you described is of limited value. Because with respect to the census of 1991, even if nothing had happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the situation would not be the same in 1995, let alone if there was a war in the meantime. So these would be the two fundamental sources which I would have to use willy-nilly. As for the overall vital statistics with all the limitations of the statistics and the lists of returnees, which could be used as a guideline as to migrations but also of very limited value. So in order to evaluate something of this kind, I would have countless reservations. And I’m not sure that I would dare come to a firm conclusion saying this happened or did not happen. What I could do would be to say: Well, we can say that perhaps now there is so much of this and there was so much of that before. For example, when I was looking at the voters from the Srebrenica municipality, matching this with the census, I could say: Well, I found 12.800 or so voters. And I know exactly where these voters are. When I say 12.800 or so, I am referring primarily to the Muslim population. I know exactly how many voters registered to vote in Srebrenica, how many registered to vote in other towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The only thing I don’t know exactly- and I can only assume [Page 11001] because I did not have the codes- is how many registered to vote abroad. I have a number, but I cannot assert with any certainty that this was done well because I don’t have the codes for the voters abroad. And then I can say with full responsibility that on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina the number of people who registered to vote in the various municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Srebrenica is about 13.000. I even have the exact number. I can say exactly how many women, how many men, how many of them in the municipality of Srebrenica, how many in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Prijedor, Banja Luka. The only thing I cannot say is exactly how many registered abroad. Of course, when I say this I say this with another reservation. My method of finding these voters was through matching, using the personal identification number. It is common knowledge that the personal identification number is not good quality information and that over 40 per cent of them in the census of 1991 are wrong. So what have I done? About 60 per cent of the good personal identification numbers is something that I have put together with the voters register, which is about 2 and a half million people and which again is not of very high quality. Those voters who are matched with the personal identification number is what I got as a result, and that is about 13.000. So one should bear in mind that there may be more of them, but the personal identification numbers are wrong. I can say with certainty that on the OSCE list there are at least 13.000, the number I’ve just mentioned. And I don’t know what the percentage is of the people I have found as compared to those I have not found.
Q. All right. Now- and again I’m going to ask you to keep your [Page 11002] answer a little bit shorter. In looking at the impact to the community of Srebrenica, assuming that you defined what is Srebrenica, could you identify, for instance if looking at the impact, how many births, how many marriages, how many returnees, would there be a way of gathering that information and maybe using that information as a basis of seeing how the community changed from 1995 to, say, 2004, 2003, or thereafter?
A. There is a method of gathering this information, but this information is of limited value, the vital information, because not everything is registered in Srebrenica itself. One should go to Tuzla to check how many women from Srebrenica gave birth in Tuzla but their permanent residence is in Srebrenica. You have to go to all the places where you know that there are people from Srebrenica who were in the population of Srebrenica in 1991, regardless of whether they left in 1992, 1995, or 1996, you have to find these people and you have to see how many live births there were among them, and this is certainly possible. I’m not saying it is easy, but it is possible. Also, you have to use the lists of returnees. People register, people look for their property, they go back to their homes. Some people don’t come back; they go elsewhere, although they used to live there. But municipalities do keep records of this so that you can evaluate certain migration movements. It’s hard to find the people who left in the meantime because they are not registered anywhere.
Q. All right. So if I have it right, are you telling us that just by looking at the raw data of the records in the Srebrenica municipality, one could not make a fair, reasonable, and realistic assessment as to the [Page 11003] long-term impact that occurred in Srebrenica as a result of its fall back in July 1995?
A. Yes, I thought I’d explained this. I said with many limitations and reservations, but yes, that’s precisely what I wanted to say.
Q. And do I have it right that with the census perhaps, some of those limitations could be overcome and you could perhaps get to a more realistic understanding of the impact to the community?
A. With a census, yes.
Q. All right. All right. Now, if you- as an expert with what would appear to be some 30 years of experience, do you have an opinion as to whether the manner and method used by the OTP experts used in this case is acceptable within the field of demography?
A. It is not acceptable in this case. Although the method does exist, only here, in this case, it has been compromised. The method of matching is a standard method. The method of collecting sources and evaluating those sources is, again, standard procedure for demographers. However, the way it was done in this case is something that I think has compromised the whole procedure.
Q. How could you characterise it if you say it is not acceptable within the field of demography?
A. This is not demography. This is statistical exhibitionism.
Q. Would you please explain that to us. What do you mean by that? And maybe you could show us some- a concrete example.
A. If you are guided by a desire to obtain certain results and if you have the possibility of making subjective evaluations in the whole [Page 11004] procedure, then a professional demographer might call it manipulation. And I do have an example, by your leave, which I think is pure statistical exhibitionism.
Q. Okay. And where would we have to go for that particular example so we can put it on the screen and we can display it to the public and to the Prosecution?
A. In the Prosecutor’s expert report of 2003, and this example applies to the same table as drawn up in 2000, as the Prosecution expert has practically not introduced a single new table since 2000, except for perhaps table number 1, but that’s open to discussion-
Q. One moment, please.
A. [In English] Okay.
Q. If you can wait. Because I need to make sure that the record reflects that now we are showing P726/A, an exhibit- Prosecution exhibit. If you could please- and I want to go through this step by step so it becomes crystal clear what you mean by statistical exhibitionism. First of all, what chart are you looking at, what table, so we have the correct page?
A. [Interpretation] Table number 2, a report of the 12th of April, 2003, and I wish to mention that this same table is also found in other reports. And this is why I feel it is statistical exhibitionism.
Q. Again, if I may just- if you may- I want to walk you through step by step. If we could put this on the ELMO-
A. [In English] Okay, okay.
Q. And this would be on the third page with the last numbers 584. [Page 11005] Okay. Now, could you please tell us what exactly you mean when you say- what’s the problem with this particular table, this chart? It looks nice.
A. [Interpretation] This table is, first of all, unprofessionally presented. It provides only some relative indicators, but it does not show the absolute numbers on the basis of which these relative indicators were provided, especially if these absolute numbers are not found in any published official or unofficial publication. Because the Prosecution expert got the age breakdowns and cohorts on her own from the materials of 1991, although there are officially published data on this. However, the Prosecution expert does have the right to produce this, but it would be correct then to show on the basis of what this was done.
Q. All right.
A. What I can check here, for example, is certain rates, on the assumption that if I trust everything that the Prosecution expert has done. The cohort of births in 1905 according to the Prosecution expert, and this is persons aged 76 to 90, in 1995, 5.1 per cent of these persons in relation to 1991 went missing or died. In their lists, which have been officially published, the Prosecution expert does not have a single person born in 1905. Did this expert then use some other data in addition to the data that is referred to here, the master list? Also, for persons born in 1915, the proportions of the missing or the fatality rate is 14.9. I assert with full responsibility that in the list there is not a single person born in 1915, in the published list. As for the rest, I was unable to check this because it is a very big job. But in view of the fact that [Page 11006] I do not have the absolute number and that I cannot make any other comparisons, this is exhibitionism.
Q. All right. Now, is this useful-
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Karnavas.
Q. Now said it was exhibitionism. Is it useful exhibitionism at least?
Q. Okay. Now, do you have another example?
A. I could also comment on table number 1.
Q. All right. Now, before you get to table number 1, just to get back, the example that you were talking about earlier regarding the cohort, the first column, that was in 1905, and not 1995. Is that correct?
A. No, no. Please. Born in 1905 and 1915. These are the two examples I gave. Persons aged 86 to 90 and 76 to 80.
MR. KARNAVAS: And that was for the record a correction on page 72, line 2.
Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to the other table and-
A. Table 1, that’s from the same report.
Q. All right.
A. These are missing men by municipality of residence in 1991.
Q. What’s wrong with it? Again, it’s nice. It looks like a nice little table here.
A. Well, it does look nice; exhibitionism can look nice, especially [Page 11007] if it’s picturesque. What does this table show? It shows that a distribution was carried out of missing persons, of persons who died, by municipality of residence in 1991. We have no idea, although there is official data available, what the population was in 1991. And then, we are shown that this is 100 per cent. And then you can divide up the numbers and add them up as you like. And what is characteristic here or intellectually dishonest? In the preceding paragraph, the Prosecution expert says: I managed to match 87 per cent of the persons. Out of 7.000, they matched some 6.000. In the table, however, it appears that 100 per cent of the persons have been distributed by municipality. The Prosecution expert also says on the assumption that by municipality of residence in 1991, there is a similar number of matches. Did the Prosecution expert manage to match 3.000 persons in Srebrenica? Or 500? Or 2? This table only appears to show something, but statistically it does not show the essential information. And I apologise if the word I’m using is a very harsh one, but I do feel that this is exhibitionism.
Q. All right. Did you have an opportunity by any chance-
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
Q. Did you have an opportunity by any chance to read Mr. Helge’s articles that he published as a result of his work for the Prosecution?
Q. Without going to the articles themselves, they were discussed when he was being cross-examined, but I want to ask you one particular question with respect to his reference as to genocide and ethnic cleansing, those [Page 11008] sorts of terms. Is that part of demography as you know it and understand it, having been in the field for 30 years?
A. No. Demography deals with changes and showing changes and their causes and possibly the reasons for the changes and the manner in which they took place. It is for others who decide whether this is genocide, ethnic cleansing, or whatever; it’s not up to a demographer to make these decisions.
Q. All right. Now, for the better part of this morning, we’ve been dissecting Mr. Brunborg’s work and perhaps him as well in the field of demography. Could you please tell us whether you did any of the things that you have asserted he should have done. Did you, in other words, carry out a census or look at all the available data in order to perhaps come up with another figure, albeit you didn’t have the seven years that he had or the Office of the Prosecution had?
A. Yes. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you do exactly?
A. I was in the field. And wherever I was able to find official or unofficial statistics, I consulted all the available sources and looked at all the available information. I read certain things, listened, observed. I don’t know what you expect of me. I did this for my own reasons, not because of Mr. Brunborg, but because I wanted to be sure that I did my job well.
Q. You weren’t prevented by snow on the road, by chance, from getting to a particular location, which Mr. Brunborg was, which is why he never visited the statistics bureau of the RS? [Page 11009]
THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the reply.
Q. What was your response?
A. No, I was not prevented. The weather was very nice when I went there.
Q. Okay. Well, it does change occasionally. Now- but you did not carry out a census, did you?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Could you please tell us why you did not carry out a census, since in your words, in your findings, that would have been the most appropriate manner in which to both identify the number of missing and also what impact to the community, the Srebrenica community, the events would have had.
A. I didn’t carry out a census for the simple reason that I do not have the resources. I as an individual, unless I’m employed by an organisation which can open doors for me, I cannot do this. Had I had resources available, I could have done it. I could do it tomorrow if I had the available resources.
Q. All right. Now, you’re not here by any chance to tell us that a large number of people did not perish as a result of the atrocities that occurred following the fall of Srebrenica, are you?
Q. All right. Finally, in carrying out your work for the Defence, did you prepare a report?
A. Yes. [Page 11010]
Q. Let me just show you for the record what has been marked as D204, if you could just look at- I am handing you one in English and one in B/C/S or Srpski. The English version was officially translated and revised. Is that your report?
Q. And I take it there’s some addendums to the report with respect to certain footnotes?
A. I don’t understand the question.
Q. With respect to footnote 16 and I believe maybe footnote 45, there’s some attachments to your report that you provided to us for the benefit of the Court?
A. Yes, yes, I have that. Yes.
Q. And just finally, to clarify one matter, Helge Brunborg, the Prosecutor expert, he’s a man, is he not? As opposed to a woman?
Q. Because the original translation, the initial translation, kept referring to him as a female, but he’s not. It’s a man?
A. That has nothing to do with me. It is a man.
Q. All right. Thank you.
MR. KARNAVAS: At this point in time, Your Honour, I have no further questions.
Q. Thank you very, very much, Professor Radovanovic. Mr. Jokic’s lawyer may have some questions, I’m sure. The Prosecution would probably like to speak with you. I would be most appreciative if you could be as full and complete and forthright with them as you have been with me. [Page 11011]
MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
Mr. Lukic, do you have any questions to put to this witness?
MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. We don’t have any questions for this witness.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Well, Mr. Waespi, my proposal is we stop here for today and tomorrow you could have your cross-examination as a whole. Is it-
MR. WAESPI: Yes, very much so. Thank you, Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: How much time do you estimate?
MR. WAESPI: It won’t be that long, certainly not more than a session.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
Well, Witness, thank you very much for today’s testimony. And tomorrow we have to call you back for the cross-examination. I have to warn you, as I did with other witnesses, that while you are in The Hague you are still under oath. So do not talk to anybody and do not let anybody talk to you about your testimony. Do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand that.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. The usher will show you out of the room.
[The witness stands down]
JUDGE LIU: Well, some scheduling issues. We just received some information that a subpoenaed witness will arrive on Wednesday so that we could not have the pre-defence conference on that day. And as for next [Page 11012] week, I believe that there may be some field investigations by the Defence team. So we’ll have the pre-Defence conference tomorrow from 4.30 to 5.00. It won’t be long. And the procedure is as the- Mr. Blagojevic’s Defence conference, that is the Bench will ask some questions about the witnesses. And if there is any other matter that party would like to ask for the help of this Bench, they could just raise it. So tomorrow we’ll have the pre-defence conference from 4.30 to 5.00. And on Wednesday, we’ll sit in Courtroom I from 9.00 to 1.45. We hope we could finish that witness for one day. And on the Thursday and Friday, we’ll have an extra sitting, which means that we have an afternoon sitting for two days, that is in Courtroom I.
Any questions or are there matters that the parties would like to raise? It seems to me there are none, so the hearing is adjourned for today.
– Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.38 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 22nd day of June, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.
[Page 11013 ]
Tuesday, 22 June 2004
[The accused entered court]
[The witness entered court]
– Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
JUDGE LIU: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Yes, I can.
JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest yesterday?
THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer.
JUDGE LIU: Well, the interpreter did not hear your answer. Would you please repeat it.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Well, any cross-examination, Mr. Waespi?
MR. WAESPI: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, there will be, but not too long, though.
WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter]
Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
Q. Good morning, Professor. [Page 11014
A. Good morning.
Q. Yesterday you referred us to a few names which you called clear-cut cases which appeared to be duplicates. Do you remember that?
Q. And so thanks for bringing those to our attention. Prima facie, they appear to be duplicates but we have to check whether that’s really true. And if we can confirm it, we’ll delete it from our product.
Now, you testified that you were here in The Hague from 15th to 26th of April, I believe.
A. Yes. From the 15th to the 24th, I am not sure whether I left on the 25th or the 26th. But I do have a ticket stub. I don’t have it with me, but I could check that.
Q. No, that’s not possible. I guess the registrar wants to know how much resources are spent, but certainly not for me. I want to ask you: When did you find these mistakes, these clear-cut cases? Was it during that research period here in The Hague?
A. No. I found these examples in the list that was published, officially published and available. I found them before arriving in The Hague. I wanted to study the list to see what this was about and have an opportunity of checking it later on against the material available to me.
Q. And while in The Hague you checked it against some material available to you?
A. My task was to check the methodology, the methods of work. All the doubts I had while reading your expert’s report and after [Page 11015 familiarising myself with your expert report and the supporting material, I wanted to see whether what was published was an accidental error and whether these names were there or not. Besides this, I had available the examples shown by your expert demonstrating how people had been included or excluded from the lists. These examples, at least the way this was presented, were made up in order to protect the identity of persons. I was unable to check these invented examples through the list, so I studied the list carefully and then I wanted to see whether this was a mistake or whether there actually were such people.
Q. So while you were in The Hague, you could confirm your original finding or suspicion that these were mistakes? While you were in The Hague you could confirm that by using the sources available to you. Is that what you just told us?
A. Yes. Yes. That’s what I wanted to say.
Q. Can you give us the reason why you did not include those names into the expert report.
A. I have not heard the interpretation.
Q. I can repeat the question to you. Can you tell us why you did not include those mistakes, as you have pointed them out, into your expert report, which was due a couple of months later. In fact it was due earlier, but which you produced a couple of months later. Can you give us the reason for that.
A. Yes, I can explain the reason. I don’t know when the deadline was, but I did it within the time I had available when I received the material and I was given a set deadline. I included it indirectly, [Page 11016 stating that this was confirmed by the large number of duplicates in the master list. I can read you this sentence from my report if you like.
Q. No. I know your report. My question was just: Why didn’t you include the names of these clear-cut duplicates into your report? Just this question. What is the reason you did not include the names, so we could make our own checks and confirm or reject your suggestions; that’s my question, the names.
A. Well, first of all I was deeply convinced that this list had been checked and revised. And secondly there was a large number of such examples. I listed about ten here but I didn’t feel that I had to put down every example with a first and last name; that is on the list. However, I’m willing to add this to my report and list all these examples. I felt it sufficient to draw attention to the large number of mistakes in the master list, and that if I did this somebody reading the report would look at the master list to see whether I was just talking off the top of my head or whether this was really the case.
Q. So it was a decision on your own not to include those names into a report; it wasn’t somebody else who told you not to include it?
A. It was absolutely my own decision; nobody else told me that.
Q. Now, if I understand your testimony of yesterday correctly, there were two categories of cases where mistakes occurred. One category are the clear-cut mistakes, and there were other mistakes, in your words, which may be a little bit more complicated. Is that correct?
A. No. There are two categories of mistakes, but the second category is not more complicated for somebody who knows the area. The [Page 11017 circumstances and the area are complicated for those who are not familiar with them. This second category of mistake, in my deep conviction, are also duplicates, because what we are dealing with here are names and nicknames. However, I did not want to engage in guesswork.
Q. Yes, I understand that. Thank you very much. And you explained us yesterday why you think these are also mistakes. Now, tell us the clear-cut mistakes you found, these two, three names you told us yesterday on the ELMO, how many of those did you find?
A. Do you want me to tell you the exact number or to show you the examples I identified?
Q. No- yes, in fact, whatever you identified, not yesterday, not just the three ones, but perhaps there are more. And we would like to know all the names as identified on the list you had used yesterday, I believe it was the OTP list, that would be helpful if you can tell us how many, first the numbers, and second the names. Are you able to do that right now or can you give that after court? The number first and then the names, if you can.
A. I have to tell you the following: I can certainly do it. However, when I was checking the list I used a sample method. I would select a last name and see whether anything interesting was going on. If you are asking me out of these 7.500 names listed to give you a complete list, I can promise that I will submit to you a complete list of all clear-cut duplicates and all the cases where I suspect they may be duplicates.
Q. Yes. That will be most- [Page 11018
A. This is not something that is impossible, and it requires some 10 or 20 hours of work, of noting and comparing the names. And I can certainly do it for you if you ask me to.
Q. So are you saying you haven’t done that yet, you don’t have the number of these duplicates, the clear ones and the second category and the names, you don’t have that yet? You still have to do it?
A. No, sir. What I’m saying is that I only checked samples. This is quite acceptable, and the same thing is done by your expert. I used random samples of names. For example, names beginning with A, and then I would take 10 or 15 pages and look at every fourth page. And if using this sample system I find a certain number of mistakes, I feel duty-bound to point them out to you. I did not feel it was my task to count all the mistakes done by your expert.
Q. That’s fine, but my question is: You testified yesterday about these two or three cases, the real duplicates, first name, surname, date of birth, perhaps location of last seen alive, obviously the same. By doing your random check, how many of those have you found up to today?
A. By your leave I will look at my notes and tell you by first letter, initial letter. May I look?
Q. Yes, please.
A. Under the letter H, two examples. Under the letter C, two examples, that’s C diacritic.
Q. Sorry to interrupt, diacritic, a full diacritic or just one diacritic? If I can ask-
THE INTERPRETER: A full diacritic. [Page 11019
MR. WAESPI: Thanks.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] C with a full diacritic. Under the letter H, two examples.
Q. Yes, I believe that you said that already.
A. I apologise. Under H four examples. Under the letter K, two examples. Under the letter M, two examples- excuse me, four under M. Under the letter S, two examples. Under the letter T, two examples. Under the letter V, two examples. These are the examples I found.
Q. Thanks. 20 examples, if I counted correctly. And you can give us, I understand, the names, the pairs, at the end of today’s session? If you can point us to the names on those pages. Is that correct?
A. I did it yesterday. I can give you the pairs and tell you what pages they’re on today.
Q. Great. That’s wonderful.
And how many of the other cases, which you also say are clear-cut-
A. I do apologise. Excuse me for interrupting you. This is what I marked here as examples. Are you asking me to look at your expert’s list under every letter and every detail and deliver to you all the examples where I have my suspicions?
Q. Yes. Whatever you have found up to date. I don’t ask you to do new checks beyond the random checks you made. Just give us whatever you came up with by compiling the expert report. That’s all I’m asking you to do. [Page 11020
A. Very well.
Q. Now, let’s move to another subject. Yesterday you told the Court that, and I quote you, “I would use the ICRC list for sure,” if you had to conduct your own survey about the missing persons. Do you remember having said that?
A. I said, sir, that I would certainly consult that list, but as it was not my task to draw up the same kind of expert report that your expert did, I don’t know whether ultimately I would use it or not. But I would certainly look at the list. It would be one of the sources that I would have to study carefully.
Q. I’m just quoting your words from yesterday. “I would use the ICRC list for sure.”
Now, I believe you also said there was, and I quote you again, “a high degree of professionalism involved in Red Cross work.”
It’s on page 62 of yesterday’s LiveNote transcript.
A. That’s your question?
Q. Yes. Do you remember having said that?
A. You have to understand that I was talking about sources of statistical data. In the statistical sense, this is not a source that rises to the level of professionalism. In the job of the ICRC, there is professionalism, you just have to separate the two. If I am giving my opinion about the ICRC list as a source of statistical data, I have to say this is not an organisation that carries out statistical work professionally. If I have to talk about the ICRC as an organisation with its own goals, objectives, and work, then yes, I do consider it a [Page 11021 professional organisation. If I were to compile a report for you, I would not see the Red Cross as a professional statistical organisation; it would only be an auxiliary source. But- so that I would carefully study and analyse the methods they used in gathering data. Who collects the information? Are these people trained? Are they tasked with searching for data and checking it against other data, verifying it?
Q. Yes, I understand that. You told us that yesterday. But, in fact it’s part of the ICRC’s mandate to trace missing persons and to bring family members together. Isn’t that correct?
A. To register those persons, yes. That is part of their job. But I’m not sure it’s part of their job to check the statistical quality of their information. When you look at the original ICRC list and the preamble to that list, which I can show you, you can see quite clearly what the objective of the Red Cross is.
Q. Yes. In fact, let’s go to this questionnaire which, in fact, you had requested last time in April when you came and which was given to you.
MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, it’s Exhibit P868.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I take the questionnaire?
Q. It will be shown to you. The first two pages, it’s double-sided, that’s the official ICRC questionnaire which was used by the ICRC in the field. Is that correct?
Q. Now, let’s turn to the second- to the third page. And this one is an ICRC special report. And we see on page 15 that it’s dated Geneva [Page 11022 1998. If you could go to page 14, please.
A. Just a moment, please. Yes, I do have page 14, but I don’t speak English. This is in English.
Q. Yes. Perhaps if we could put it on to the ELMO and I can read it into the record. It’s paragraph 5 and it deals, if you look at the box down there, exclusively with Srebrenica. That’s what it says.
”In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the enclave in July 1995, delegates quickly drew up lists of names of people reported missing by their families. This resulted in a list of 3.000 people last seen by their families in the hands of the Serb forces when the enclave was taken. And another list of 5.000 names of those who reportedly fled before the Serb forces arrived in Srebrenica. During the months that followed, the ICRC made further representations to the authorities of the Republika Srpska to gain access to those allegedly detained. All together some 200 detainees from Srebrenica were visited in detention between the fall of the enclave and the end of 1996. Some 30 other detainees were later released from detention in accordance with the provisions of the Dayton peace agreements. In February 1996, the ICRC’s conclusions were made public for the first time, that the vast majority of the missing men had been killed after capture and that many others had been killed in armed confrontations while fleeing the enclave or in lieu of arrest.”
And the last paragraph: “Following representations to the highest authorities in the Republika Srpska and Belgrade in February 1996, the ICRC submitted a list of 8.000 missing persons to the first session of the working group in March 1996. Formal tracing requests were also collected [Page 11023 from the families and resubmitted with any additional details to the working group. For three months in the spring of 1996, a team of four delegates and 25 field officers went once again to the Tuzla area to update the allegations collected in 1995 and to submit them to the authorities within the framework of the working group. While several hundred people had reportedly reappeared in the meantime and the deaths of several dozen more was unfortunately confirmed, as many as 7.300 were reported as still missing, and that’s February 1998.”
Doesn’t that appear to be a serious effort to get to reliable numbers about who was missing and how many were missing?
A. [No interpretation]
JUDGE LIU: Well, we did not get any interpretation. Maybe there is some technical problem.
Well, Witness, would you please repeat your answer, because there may be some technical problem.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems to me that a serious effort was made and I do not deny it at any point in time. However, that does not mean that the serious effort that was made can guarantee that what they have on the list is a quality piece of information. The Red Cross does not say that anywhere. They provide their own lists for insight and they ask for help in terms of updating these lists, which is only natural for such a serious organisation. And now, what the result is of that assistance, whether they can actually update the list, whether they can have accurate information on the list, how many duplicates there are, how many real names, how many fictitious names, that is something the [Page 11024 Red Cross does not deal with. They take as their starting point that everybody is interested in finding missing persons and they are there to help. They do not go into that, whether somebody who showed up eventually will come and say that they should no longer be on that list, that they’re alive. Their role is quite different and that is why it is so complicated as a statistical source. I’m not denying the mission, the effort, and the role of the Red Cross. What I’m denying is that their list is a good statistical source. I agree with everything that you read out here, that they made an effort, that they had major actions, that they collected on two occasions different numbers. These are people in the field. I don’t know how many people. I don’t know whether they are foreigners or not. I don’t know whether they understand properly the names that they are told. Because your expert, on the basis of these names, makes a comparison. Do they ask for documents? Do they know the exact years of birth?
Q. Let me show you another document from the ICRC.
MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, it’s Exhibit P866. It’s a press release dated 9th August 2001. And it’s again, unfortunately, in English.
Q. Just incidentally, do you know whether the ICRC list is also published in the local language, B/C/S as we call it?
A. Some parts, yes; others, no. I had the opportunity to see the entire list in the B/C/S language. You can also find it on the Internet, sir, it’s there. I got one of your own documents through the Internet, a list from the Internet.
Q. Yes. Let me just read out a part of this ICRC press release. And it has the title: “Bosnia-Herzegovina Srebrenica victims photobook [Page 11025 campaign leads to encouraging results.”
MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, if we use that as an exhibit later, we will provide a B/C/S translation into the language, if Your Honours decide to admit it as an exhibit.
Q. Let me read just the first sentences.
”It has been nearly three months since the ICRC published its second ‘book of belongings’ containing photographs of possessions found with the mortal remains of people who went missing during the fall of Srebrenica. The photobook as its known comprises 2.702 pictures of clothes, shoes, jewellery, and other personal effects found with 473 exhumed bodies. It was published last May as part of the ICRC’s efforts to elucidate the fate of more than 7.500 people, mostly men and boys who disappeared when the town was overrun in July 1995. At the same time, a campaign was launched in which the book was presented to relatives of missing persons by specially trained teams comprising personnel from the Red Cross society of Bosnia and Herzegovina and representatives from the associations of families of missing persons.”
And then later the second-to-last paragraphs.
”Copies of the book will remain permanently available for consultation in 18 local Red Cross offices and in the ICRC offices in Tuzla, Zenica, and Sarajevo.”
So it appears here, does it not, that again efforts were made to ascertain the fate of these persons and also they do it with local staff, as you have mentioned or observed earlier, that this was an important part of such a project. [Page 11026
A. I’m not sure that you understood my role here properly, sir. I’m not trying to challenge the fact that crimes were committed in any way. I’m not challenging the fact that the Red Cross did their job in the best possible way. I don’t want to challenge a single figure. I don’t want to dispute any figures with you. My task that was given to me was to check the methodology of work provided by your expert. And as I checked the methodology of the work of your expert, I came to some conclusions of my own. These conclusions of mine are based on a proper study of all sources. I repeat: I am not denying the fact that the Red Cross is doing their job well, as best it can be done. The list that your expert used, the ICRC list that your expert used was not studied properly. Your expert did not clean it statistically and did not depict it in a professional manner, a manner that involves professional integrity. That is the only thing I had to say. Please, we are not disputing figures. I’m not disputing figures with you. I’m not disputing the fact that the Red Cross is doing their job well. I’m deeply convinced that they are doing the job as best they can.
Q. Let me finish this aspect and in fact tie in Mr. Brunborg, as you just did, by showing you another exhibit. And this is again a press release of the ICRC. It’s Exhibit 870. It dates 19 September 2003, so not even a year ago. And it will be very short, just a couple of sentences.
ICRC news 03/113. Title: “Bosnia, ascertaining the fate of the Srebrenica missing.” And I’ll just read the one or two sentences, lines from the body of the text. [Page 11027
I quote: “Since July 1995 when the ICRC started to collect the information needed to trace people unaccounted for after the fall of Srebrenica, the organisation has received 7.599 inquiries regarding people who went missing in the town. Only 22 people have been found alive. The mortal remains of 1.083 others have been identified.”
Now, if you compare this number, the ICRC number, and we have seen several numbers within in the 7.000 range, and compare it to Mr. Brunborg’s number of 7.475, doesn’t it give you some guidance as to the reliability of the final outcome of Mr. Brunborg’s work?
A. Sir, if you’re a statistician or a demographer, that’s not the way things are done. If we are talking over a meal in a restaurant or whatever, then it’s different. But that is only if we are not professional demographers or statisticians. I do not question the fact that there were 7.000 applications- 19.000 or whatever that were made to the Red Cross. However, for a demographer and a statistician, if there are 7.000 applications that are a guideline and we say that sometimes the same person is registered three or four times. And if we already noted that persons who survived have to report that they have showed up, then you have to take all of that into account. You have to study the list systematically, you have to see how many matches there were, how many people were mentioned several times the same way. There is no way of seeing how many fictitious persons are on the list. I’m not saying that this was done, but I’m saying that it can be done, that there can be fictitious reports given to the Red Cross for political reasons or whatever. So this list of 7.000 persons does not tell us how many people [Page 11028 actually went missing. Perhaps it is actually 7.000. Perhaps there are people whose names are on that list and that are fictitious. So I as a demographer cannot compare this application or report and your expert report. I would never be guided by a number if somebody said that that could possibly be my objective.
Q. In your random checks, did you find any evidence for fictitious persons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you tell us the names of these persons.
A. I cannot, but I can tell you why I know for sure that there are fictitious persons. In order to make a comparison between a list in 1975 [as interpreted] and a census of 1991, you know that there is a time span of five years. Within that time span of five years, not to deal with all other demographic indicators, people die due to old age, illness, a variety of other influences that don’t necessarily have to be related to the war, but they may. If you do not have the exact names and surnames of every person between 1991 and 1995 who died or moved away, abroad or wherever, and then if you compare it to the Red Cross list, then every deceased person that I, for example, wanted to report as a missing person in Srebrenica, you will find that person, you will be able to provide a match, and you will claim that that is not a fictitious person. Theoretically the person was not fictitious, it was a real person, but say that person was reported in 1991 in the census and in 1992 died a natural death. If your expert does not have death rate figures and migration trends and if your expert does not look at the 1991 census list, how can [Page 11029 your expert know that a fictitious person was not matched? I’m not saying that’s what happened, but I’m just telling you what could have happened.
Q. Yes, in fact that’s what I’m asking you. I understand your point. But can you give us the name of one person who is fictitious who was on the list, either the ICRC or the OTP list of missing persons, Mr. Brunborg’s list? Can you give us the name of one fictitious person?
A. I can, but that’s a suspicion. I would have to have before me- just a moment. I would- I cannot remember now. I would need to have a look at my report. Just a moment, please. I can’t remember the person’s name.
A. I think the person’s name is Hakija Efendic, but I would like to underline that that is my suspicion because your expert gives me only a limited number of figures, or rather, pieces of information. I didn’t see anything, but I believe your expert. In this report of 2003- and it’s on my page 8, I don’t know where it is in the English version-
Q. You have found one person who is, in your opinion, a fictitious person?
A. Yes, yes. I have a profound suspicion that it is a fictitious person but I cannot say anything before I see clear lists from the other side, too. It is fictitious because the report was that the person died and your expert says I don’t have enough information to check whether this person is actually deceased or not. Since I don’t have information either, I don’t know what your expert looked at. When your expert says I don’t have enough information, I don’t know what your expert looked at to [Page 11030 begin with. I just believe that your expert did not have sufficient information. Had I had the opportunity to check this, the list that your expert looked at, then perhaps I could have confirmed my own doubts or perhaps I could have allayed them.
In addition to that, my suspicion is based on the following: Your expert uses something that is not customary when one has a professional attitude towards one’s work. When there were certain reactions that perhaps some persons could be fictitious or could not- I mean, I’m not saying whether these persons were fictitious or not, whether the people who are complaining are right or not. I could not check any of this. But your expert says, for instance, I checked some of the names, and one does not have the impression that they are on the list. Please. Saying: I’ve checked some of the names, perhaps I could take that. But one does not have the impression they are not on the list. We are not talking impressions here. Somebody is either on the list or not on the list. That also led to my doubts, that perhaps, I underline the word perhaps, I cannot say anything, that perhaps this job was not done comprehensively. I have some other examples of fictitious persons if you allow me to give them, sir.
Q. Yes, please.
A. I found a number of persons who do not exist in the census of 1991 for all of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I’m not talking about Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica. And your expert also says that there are over 1.000 persons who he did not find for one reason or the other, good information, bad information, census and so on and so forth. I can give examples of [Page 11031 persons who I found and who do not exist in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, I’m not claiming that nothing happened to them in 1995. But I also cannot claim that they are not fictitious persons. This person could have been on the list. Perhaps this person never lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don’t know. I’m just saying that these are major suspicions. And there are ways of proving what is true and what is not.
Q. Yes, I got your point. How many people are you talking about that you said you had a list of people? How many people did you find actually?
A. Your expert talks about 1.002 persons and I again checked a random five or six. But if you allow me to come to The Hague again and if you give me the material that your expert worked with and if it’s not as brief as it was, then I’m willing to do everything in order to find the exact names and to show things the way they can be shown professionally.
Q. Let me come to that point later. But all I need now or later after court is the exact number and the list of names, if you have them at this point, of people you believe are fictitious. That’s all I’m asking at this point.
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Yes.
MR. KARNAVAS: I take at this time the Prosecutor is not accepting-
MR. WAESPI: No, that’s not what I said.
JUDGE LIU: Let Mr. Karnavas finish.
MR. KARNAVAS: I take it, I want to make sure that the Prosecution is accepting the offer and there should be some compensation, of course, [Page 11032 because we didn’t have sufficient funds to carry out this task. The offer was made to go through the entire list and do a professional job. So-
JUDGE LIU: I don’t think so. I think you misunderstood what Mr. Waespi said.
MR. KARNAVAS: I don’t believe I misunderstood, but maybe I have.
JUDGE LIU: I think Mr. Waespi just asked for-
MR. KARNAVAS: He asked for the list.
JUDGE LIU:- some information, some list, which is already in the possession of this witness.
MR. KARNAVAS: Right. But if the issue is the credibility of the witness, the expert is willing to come to The Hague and spend the sufficient amount of time to go through the entire list. I think for the interest of justice and the interest of the families, that offer should be taken with compensation of course.
JUDGE LIU: I believe that’s another matter.
MR. KARNAVAS: Of course. Okay, thank you.
JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Q. Now, let me go to PHR. Of the list of 7.475 persons on Mr. Brunborg’s list of missing persons, only 192 originate from the PHR list alone, meaning have no backup on the ICRC list. I guess that’s- you would agree with me?
A. I do not agree, because that’s what Mr. Brunborg says and I don’t agree with that. Actually, Mr. Brunborg says that out of the possible 6.000 for the PHR, he found 5.470 in the Red Cross, too. And I say with [Page 11033 71 criterion he could have found that. But with a firmly established key, he cannot find that. That is to say when Mr. Brunborg made a master list, in many cases he decided who was on the list and who was not on the list. It is quite an indication, sir, that Mr. Brunborg matches with the list of the Red Cross a larger number of persons than exist on the PHR list. So all of that can be proven, too. There’s a certain number of people on the PHR list, and when you clear it of clear-cut duplicates- and you saw what a clear-cut duplicate is, when all the information is exactly the same, not to go into all the figures now, and if you allow me to I’m going to look at the exact figures- if you clear the PHR list of clear-cut duplicates, that is to say, when there is absolutely no doubt that it is one and the same person that is involved, and when you match this to the Red Cross- just a moment, please, let me have a look at this. Let me tell you that the number of pairs exceeds that of the number of possible cases.
Q. Okay. Very well.
A. For example- well, if you give me time, I can find it exactly. But, for instance, on the list there are 5.400 names on the PHR list. And you match 5.500 to the Red Cross.
Q. That’s the only point that I wanted to make was to, in fact, talk a little bit about PHR. What do you know about PHR? What institution is it?
A. What I know about the PHR is what Mr. Brunborg wrote in his report, and I know on the basis of the questionnaires that I got. I don’t know much. I cannot give you the history of the PHR, for example. I [Page 11034 wasn’t interested in that anyway; I was interested in the results of their work.
Q. So you didn’t check the general reliability or reputation of an organisation whose list you disregarded?
A. No, sir. I believed that Mr. Brunborg had done that. There is no reason for me to suspect that he had not checked their reputation.
Q. I believe he said he has done that and he relied on PHR, but you did not rely on PHR, did you?
A. Sir, I did not rely on the lists provided by the PHR. That has nothing to do with the PHR itself. The job they did at that point in time was not one that was done properly, in my opinion. I am not interfering with the organisation in any way and I am not interfering with their reputation. I am not trying to say anything about their reputation. But that particular job they did not do properly. If you ask me to dance ballet now I cannot do that properly. And I wouldn’t engage in that kind of thing, but I’m not going into their reputation.
Q. I think rather than dancing to show an exhibit.
The next exhibit is P869. And incidentally, the person you called a fictitious person, Efendic, I believe you told us that in your report, would it surprise you that he’s listed also on the ICRC list and that he is not a survivor and not reported to have died of any natural causes?
A. Sir, what I said was that I only assumed he was fictitious, but I did not have a sufficient number of elements to check this. My doubts arose because of the response I got from your expert. I saw that this person existed on the Red Cross list, I did, but I still have my [Page 11035 suspicions as to whether this is the person in question or not. Because it can also be checked on the other side; however, I did not have this possibility.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk about this exhibit, P869. It has-
A. This again is in English-
Q. Yes. And I believe you have requested it in April and you have been provided with it in April. And I take it somebody explained it to you in a language you understand in April?
A. No. You let me take the translation. I do have it translated into B/C/S. May I take the translation?
Q. Please go ahead.
A. I do apologise. I have so much paper here. Just a moment, please.
Q. Please take your time. If you could have a look at the-
A. Yes. Q.- questionnaire. Is that the questionnaire which was used by PHR in doing their job?
Q. And isn’t it a fact that only close family members were allowed to report to help make identifications?
A. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is if you look at this it says: Firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand, so it can be very removed. I don’t doubt that it was close relatives who reported this. I would not object even had neighbours done this. But what I do object to is several different reports. As I said yesterday, in this questionnaire I found an [Page 11036 example where one and the same person was reported by his brother, sister, mother, and wife, even though they all lived in the same house at the same address. So I’m not saying that it was not close relatives who reported these people.
Q. Yes, but then it’s up to the people who compiled the list to just have one person as being reported. It doesn’t mean then you have four persons as being missing but just one.
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Yes.
MR. KARNAVAS: I’m going to object to that. Unless there’s a foundation laid by the Prosecution, now he’s testifying.
JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that Mr. Waespi will show the foundation.
MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I would like-
JUDGE LIU: For that question.
MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, I would like the foundation first before the question, because now it’s assuming facts that are not in evidence. This evidence did not come through Brunborg. I see Mr. McCloskey shaking his head. He’s perfectly free to stand up and perhaps point to the record where this evidence came in, otherwise I think the question is improper without a foundation.
JUDGE LIU: Firstly, this is a cross-examination, Mr. Karnavas.
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
JUDGE LIU: Secondly, this witness is an expert witness. I don’t think anybody could fool her in this courtroom, you know. [Page 11037
MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Very well, Your Honour. Very well.
JUDGE LIU: It’s a very technical issue.
MR. WAESPI: If I can rephrase, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Yes.
Q. Are you saying that when Mr. Brunborg compiled his list based on PHR, if he had a case where four or five people reported the same missing person, that he would have four missing persons, as opposed to just one? Are you saying that?
A. No, sir. I’m not saying that. What I’m trying to say is something else. First of all, Mr. Brunborg does not- I do not know what Mr. Brunborg used from this list; I can only assume. However, in statistical practice you have a questionnaire and then you scan all of it. And you can also scan just parts that you like. And whether this was done by Mr. Brunborg or because there is a database which he says exists, the Ante Mortem database, and whether it is there what Mr. Brunborg used is entered, I do not know. If Mr. Brunborg took the Ante Mortem database done by somebody else and if that somebody else cleared the base of duplicates, then this would be all right. If Mr. Brunborg himself compiled this, if I report Svetlana Radovanovic and I know the date of birth and then Svetlana Radovanovic is also reported by her grandmother who doesn’t know the date but knows only the year of birth and then if I’m reported by my aunt who’s not sure of my place of birth- or my place where I went missing but thinks she may know it, what I’m saying is it takes time and knowledge of the situation to clear this up, because [Page 11038 different persons do not use a single questionnaire to report a person. When the wife comes to fill in a questionnaire they say: Are you doing this firsthand? She says: Yes. And she fills in the questionnaire. Then comes an aunt and she is not the closest relative and she is given a different questionnaire because you have four types of questionnaires, not one. You have four types of data; they can all be good data. And then you can say yes, this is one and the same person. However, someone may report the name not as Smail, but as Smajo, which is the nickname, and somebody might think that this is not the same person. So I do not know where this data was taken from. Was it taken from the database? Or did Mr. Brunborg look at the questionnaires and select what he thought he needed in his work?
I’m not saying that if he saw Svetlana Radovanovic listed four times, that he entered her four times into his list because he wanted to do that. What I’m saying is he might have done it because the identification appeared to be different and I don’t know what the Ante Mortem database had in it. What I was able to check and see was a base, I don’t know whether it was done by Mr. Brunborg or whether it was the Ante Mortem database, and there I found duplicates. This, of course, does not mean that when the master list was compiled Mr. Brunborg did not do his best to eliminate this. On the monitor I did not see Mr. Brunborg’s computerised master list, I saw only the original material.
Q. Can you give me one example when you realised or when you determined that a person was reported multiple times, same questionnaire, different questionnaires, and the person is, in fact, appears on the list [Page 11039 more than once? Can you give me one example?
A. No, sir, I didn’t even try to prove this. I didn’t look for an example. I didn’t look for such examples. I believed that if Mr. Brunborg saw what I saw, that the same person had been reported four times, he would not enter this on the list. This is a clear-cut duplicate. I don’t believe he entered this. But I was just pointing out examples of duplicates. Whether it’s from PHR, Mr. Brunborg entered in his list Smajo in both lists and Smail only in PHR. So on the list of duplicates it says what source it was taken from. Smajo is there twice, and two times in PHR, because the first time he was matched with the Red Cross list and there is another one. But now the father’s name is listed as Smail and this is only in PHR and was not matched. So automatically this is a duplicate when matching the PHR list and pairing it. So I think that what happened here was insufficient familiarity with the material.
Q. Just let me finish off this subject before the break with just a brief hypothetical. If one person, a close family member, walks into a PHR office, a local PHR office, and fills in a questionnaire and the person doesn’t appear on the ICRC list and it’s not on the list of survivors, it’s not on the list of voters, is there any reason for you not to include that person as a valid person to be put on the missing persons list?
A. I’m not sure I understood your question well. You say if one person who is reported by somebody as missing is not found on the voters register, is there any doubt and would I leave that person out of the list of the missing? Was that your question? [Page 11040
Q. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Somebody reported by a family member and the person is not on the ICRC list of missing persons and it can’t be found on a list of survivors, he is not listed as a voter in- by the OSCE in 1997/1998, any reason for you not to use this name as a proper and valid entry into the list of missing persons?
A. I have at least two reasons. First of all, in the PHR list, at the end of the list you will see there is a question: Have you already reported this missing person somewhere else, to the Red Cross, another organisation, and so on? From this, one could see which persons had already been reported. So you could see that the person had already been reported in the Red Cross; you didn’t have to match everyone. You would simply exclude everyone who had already been reported. Because if somebody reporting a person saying that they have already reported the person to the Red Cross, you’re generating a duplicate. The second reason is that matching or pairing in the way it was done by your expert with the voters register is absolutely unacceptable for more than one reason, sir-
Q. I understand you. I understand you. That’s why I wanted to create a hypothetical so we could talk about your method and not what Mr. Brunborg did. Just think about this hypothetical and then we can have a break.
MR. WAESPI: I’m sorry, Your Honours, it took a little bit longer and I think it’s a mutual mistake.
JUDGE LIU: Well, we have the whole morning and another session. We’ll break and we’ll resume at quarter to 11.00. [Page 11041
– Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
– On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi, please continue.
MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Professor Radovanovic, just finishing up the point where we left off before the break, the hypothetical which I told you. Wouldn’t that be a person you would feel safe to put on the- your final list of missing persons, or do I need to repeat the factors of that little hypothetical?
A. Please repeat the factors of your hypothesis, because I haven’t really been considering it.
Q. The break is for relaxing, as I know as well. A person comes into a local PHR office, reports the missing of a relative, this person, the missing person, is not on the ICRC list, it has not been reported before, the person is not later found to be a survivor, he doesn’t appear on the OSCE voters list of 1997/1998, wouldn’t you be- wouldn’t that be good enough for you to consider that individual as being missing, according to your standards? Just perhaps a simple answer, if you can.
A. This is a truly hypothetical case; it involves a lot of guesswork. You say certainly not reported to the Red Cross. I don’t know if anybody knows that at the time he is reported. Then you say: Certainly not on the voters register. In other words, you’re telling me this person has certainly been reported only to the PHR and is not on the Red Cross list, would I include this person. If this were all certain, yes, I would.
Q. Okay. Let’s just finish with two other items. You testified yesterday just before we broke for the day that you agreed to a question [Page 11042 posed by Mr. Karnavas, and I quote him. You agreed with, quote, “a large number of people did perish as a result of the atrocities following the fall of Srebrenica.”
And I think you agreed with him. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I agree, but when you say “large,” I don’t know how large. If only one person had lost their life, I would agree.
Q. Yes, and that’s, in fact, a point I wanted to ask you about. Wouldn’t it be important for everybody, for the historical record, in particular for the Judges in this case, to get a number as precise as possible of the people who were killed in the aftermath of the fall of Srebrenica? Wouldn’t that be very important, Professor Radovanovic?
A. Absolutely, yes. This is of the greatest importance, that the number be as precise as possible. And because the matter is so serious, there must be no guesswork involved. It is important to get the number as precise as possible.
Q. Now, weren’t you tasked by the Defence to come up with your own estimate, your own number of missing persons?
A. No, sir. Even had the Defence asked me to do this- I don’t want to engage in any false humility; I can say that I understand my job well- but I would not have agreed. I was asked to look at what the Prosecution expert had done and to give my opinion on this report. I was never instructed to come up with a new figure, nor, sir, would I have agreed to do it.
Q. But you could have done it in these few days here in The Hague. You had all the resources at your availability, the same resources [Page 11043 Mr. Brunborg had. You had even clean versions of, for instance, the census of 1991. It would have been much easier for you to follow step by step his work and come up with your own number. Wouldn’t that have been possible?
A. No. That wasn’t possible. First of all, your expert is using sources which cannot provide correct data. My goal was not to follow him step by step and increase or decrease the numbers. My goal was to show that the sources of information and the methodology used to process these sources was not proper. That was the end of my task, not for a single moment did I deal in numbers in the sense of saying, well, it’s not the number your expert gives, it’s such-and-such a number, the number that I come up with. That’s not what I was about.
Q. So the only thing you were about was to criticise his intellectual honesty, as you testified yesterday. Is that the whole goal that you had?
A. No, sir. I wanted to see how the report was compiled, in what manner. It was not my goal to criticise a certain person. Whoever did a report in this manner would be criticised by me. It wasn’t a question of who was compiling the report but how they were doing it.
Q. Well, you even said in court that it was manipulation. I think that’s even part of your report. And you talked about statistical exhibitionism yesterday. Do you remember that? Is that your contribution to coming up with a final figure, an important project as you have said a moment ago-
MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. Objection. Again, there was nothing in the final task for a final figure. And I need to make sure [Page 11044 that the record is very clear that when we have very limited resources and very limited time, the Defence that is, we cannot be expected to do what the Prosecution has failed to do in seven years. But if the resources are available because we did talk about having a census, but when the resources are not there, we cannot be expected to do that. So we need to be very clear with the way that we ask the questions we’re asking the witness and be fair to the witness.
JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Waespi, I believe the testimony of this witness is only for the method or methodology of the report prepared by Mr. Brunborg, not- has anything to do with the final figure.
MR. WAESPI: Yes. Very well, Mr. President, I just asked and I think she answered already. It would have been possible for her to follow the steps of Mr. Brunborg. In these ten days she was here, she had all the resources available. Everything Mr. Brunborg relied upon was at her availability. That’s my question to this witness.
JUDGE LIU: Yes.
MR. KARNAVAS: Well, at first if you look at the monitors, he’s saying that that’s what she said. Then he turns it into a question. So I would like the question to be posed clearly so the witness can have an opportunity to answer. And if the question is: Did she have all the resources there, all the data, for her to come up with the figure? If that’s the question, let’s have it posed and let’s have the answer.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi, you made a statement here.
MR. WAESPI: Yes, I just want to ask her. I think she answered it before but just for the purposes of clarification I can ask it again. [Page 11045
Q. Professor Radovanovic, you could have in those days you were here in The Hague, you could have with the resources you had asked for, the sources you had asked for, you could have reproduced the project Mr. Brunborg did, step by step, and approved, according to his standards, his project, product, and come up with a different number. That could have been possible. Isn’t that correct?
A. No, it’s not correct. First of all, I did not have all the sources I asked for. I had only the sources you gave me, which were used by Mr. Brunborg. I feel that these sources are not nearly sufficient to arrive at a reliable result. Based on the sources Mr. Brunborg had, my goal was not to check whether the number he came up with was correct.
Q. Thanks. I see your point.
Let me finish with showing you the last exhibit, that’s P864, and we have both an English version and a B/C/S version. Now, Professor, are you aware of this recent June 2004 report by the official Republika Srpska governmental commission in relation to Srebrenica-
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I’m going to object to the use of this report, Your Honour, on the primary basis, even though I understand we’re on cross and even though I understand that just about anything can be used. I think on page 6, if we look at it, it says here that the sources were from the Krstic case and that would be found on page 6, the second paragraph from the top, in the English version. It says: “As the commission had limited time and in order to maximise its resources it accepted the historical background in the facts given in the appeal case Prosecution [Page 11046 versus Krstic when the accused was sentenced by ICTY for ‘assisting and supporting genocide’ committed in Srebrenica.”
So in light of that I object to try to bootstrap in other words to sort of show that since the RS has come up with this report and they’re taking figures from the Krstic case, therefore those figures must be correct. I think it’s totally improper to use this report, and also I would like to point out that in last week’s article by the IWPR, it’s clear that those who were on the commission were more or less coerced into-
MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: Mr. Karnavas just quoted one part of the- and it deals with legal issues, as he could see from the first sentence of what he read out that was on page 6. “The commission, not being a judicial body, had no mandate to consider legal issues, as was the task and right of competent courts.”
And then later comes the sentence he quoted. Then the report interviewed several witnesses. They consulted as can be seen from the report several bodies of the different ministries, ministry of justice, the police, and they interviewed these people as you can see from this report. What I want to show is I would like to read out one portion of this report and ask the witness whether she was aware of it. And you are well aware with the level needed to have certainly put something in cross-examination to a witness and ask her to comment.
The second step about the introduction of the document, we can [Page 11047 deal with as soon as we come to this point. But it’s certainly proper to point to a very, very recent figure, not relying on ICRC or something else we discussed but on something different. But we’ll see from the excerpt I’m going to quote to you.
JUDGE LIU: Well-
MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour-
JUDGE LIU: We are not debating on this report at this moment. In the cross-examination I believe that the party leading the cross-examination could use any materials they like. The witness could answer yes or no to any questions posed to him, which does not mean that at last we will admit this document into the evidence.
MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour, I just wish to point out my objection unless there’s a foundation as to how any figures were derived on what basis. I understand that question can be posed-
MR. WAESPI: Mr. Karnavas is not telling her-
MR. KARNAVAS: Nobody is telling anybody anything.
MR. WAESPI: Conscience.
MR. KARNAVAS: I object to these accusations by the Prosecution.
JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, let’s not debate this issue in front of the witness.
MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: I understand your point and your objection is registered in the transcript-
MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour, but I think at some point- [Page 11048
JUDGE LIU: We do not entirely believe whatever is said in any report which has already been admitted into the evidence, which means that they are not necessarily representing the truth.
MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: This is the cross-examination. Let the Prosecution put some questions to this witness. The witness may not agree with whatever is said in the report.
MR. KARNAVAS: I fully agree with you, Mr. President, I just object to the manner of the unprofessionalism of the Prosecution, particularly the individuals that are sitting over there. That’s what I object to because they think that they can just stand up and object and interrupt and say whatever they wish to say. I just object to that. That’s- I think it’s unfair. I should be allowed to at least finish what I’m saying and then they can state whatever they want. But to make accusations, I think that’s improper.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may sit down.
Well, Mr. McCloskey, let’s proceed with the questions. I know what you are going to say, actually, this happened many, many times. I just don’t want to spend the precious time in this courtroom on those issues.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I agree, Mr. President, but the Prosecution cannot stand here and- without- and maybe it’s cultural, but in my culture I cannot stand and not respond to repeated accusations of unethical conduct. By my silence I would be suggesting that they are true. I will sit down, but I just want you to know my continuing objection to that kind of [Page 11049 conduct.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
Mr. Waespi, please move on.
MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Now, my question to you. Have you seen this report or heard of this report, which has been published just a couple of weeks ago?
A. No. I haven’t heard of it and I haven’t seen it ever.
Q. Now, you’re not aware of this report, and I quote from it, had the mandate among others: “To come up with the most precise list with names of all persons that went missing during the events in Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July, 1995.”
You weren’t aware of that, that there was some work in progress very, very closely related to what you have been testifying about. You weren’t aware of that?
A. If that was done a few days ago, I don’t know how I could have known.
Q. Yes. I take it it took some time for them to complete it, but it doesn’t matter. If you say you haven’t heard of it, that’s fine.
Let me direct you to page 32 in your B/C/S version, second paragraph.
MR. WAESPI: And in English, Your Honours, it’s on page 34, the third paragraph.
Q. And I’ll read it out for the record, since it’s the most recent number we have heard of.
”By evaluating the methodology on collecting information about [Page 11050 missing persons, the commission reached a conclusion that the most accurate list is in possession of the ICMP. That list is created within ICMP’s DNA identification project. Every blood donor is giving information about missing persons and about circumstances and the time of persons missing. Until the day of this report’s submission, the ICMP collected information on 7.779 persons that went missing in Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July, 1995. This information was collected from missing person’s family members. Unfortunately, this number is not final, since the ICMP is still collecting blood samples and information from victims’ families which are currently living in the countries of the European Union. This number will undeniably be increased after the completion of the above-mentioned ICMP’s project.”
Now, first of all, do you know what ICMP stands for?
A. The international committee- no, I don’t know. I don’t want to guess. I’m not sure.
Q. So you’ve never heard of an institution called International Commission for Missing Persons active all over Bosnia?
A. I have heard of it, but it’s ICMP in English. And what was written here in B/C/S was different. When you say the International Commission for Missing Persons, then I know exactly what it is. But what I read here in B/C/S, is something that I am unfamiliar with.
Q. Does that again help you, like the ICRC, numbers we have heard in your assessment whether Mr. Brunborg may, in fact, be right in the range of missing persons he talks about?
A. No, sir. You are asking me to look at the quotation that you read [Page 11051 out to me, and I don’t know how, when, why, for what purposes, is this a statistical and demographic finding. You are asking me assess is it the same thing that Mr. Brunborg said. I am not somebody who is misled by a figure because somebody said whatever. I don’t know why this is said and I hardly ever take anybody’s word for anything. I deal in an exact science. I have to verify everything. There is either information, exact and accurate information that I can use or I cannot. So if you’re asking me for an opinion as to whether the figure that is mentioned here justifies the figure that Mr. Brunborg mentions or confirms or corroborates the figure that Mr. Brunborg gives, that is something I cannot say. What I can say with certainty is that the figure that Mr. Brunborg attained was not attained statistically and demographically in a proper statistical and demographic manner. He did not apply a good methodology. The Prosecution has a demographer. I don’t know if the Red Cross or the commission that wrote this report consulted a demographer at all. I cannot claim that this figure supports Mr. Brunborg’s figure, but I cannot make any claims whatsoever as to what the figures should be in support of such a claim. I didn’t deal with that. I’m just claiming that Mr. Brunborg’s methodology, Mr. Brunborg’s sources of information are not proper. I’m saying that the job was done superficially.
Q. And my last question is: On Mr. Brunborg’s list, did you find any person who, in fact, is alive, who is a survivor?
A. I didn’t look for one, sir. But what I did find is that Mr. Brunborg, while looking for survivors, did not use OSCE lists as they should be used. That is to say that he was not interested in all the [Page 11052 voters from Bosnia-Herzegovina, but only those who were filed from Srebrenica. Now, what he considers to be Srebrenica is something I don’t know. In that way, he could not have found any other survivors. I was not seeking to find out whether there were or weren’t any survivors.
Q. Yes. That wasn’t my question. It wasn’t my question whether Mr. Brunborg found his methods; we have talked about that. My question was directed to you, whether you did find any survivor who appeared on Mr. Brunborg’s list, and I understand your question [sic] as being no, you didn’t look for it?
A. No, sir. I- when I say I did not look for any, I’m saying why I did not look for any. Because that would be pointless. On OSCE lists, you do not have the father’s name. And on lists of both the PHR and the ICRC you do have the father’s name. I tried to show yesterday that even if one single feature or piece of information is missing, it can create a great deal of confusion. If you have lists whose quality is debatable, then if you move on to other lists you get an outcome which is not proper. So if I enter the census on the basis of PHR or ICRC lists, I can get an endless number of links. I told you how many Svetlana Radovanovics there are in Bosnia and I am from Serbia. So if I find Mustafa Omeragic, what do you think, how many of them are there in Bosnia? And I don’t know whether the father’s name is Jusuf or the father’s name is Smail, and in that case I would be putting myself in the following position: Perhaps half of them are alive, perhaps not. I would be embarking on the project subjectively. I am saying with the information of the OSCE, and the PHR, and the ICRC, it is absolutely impossible to claim whether a person is [Page 11053 alive or not, precisely because this particular piece of information is missing, that is, the father’s name. Even if all the other identification characteristics are the same. If you have 2.700.000 persons on a list, that’s it. I can prove you with using any list, PHR list or an ICRC list, find me the name, surname, and date of birth, I can prove to you how many such persons with the same name, same surname, and same date of birth there are in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But I cannot guarantee whether it is precisely these persons, because the father’s name is not there. I can guess. I did not engage in guesswork and that is why I did not look for that.
Q. And the answer to my question whether you found a survivor on Mr. Brunborg’s list would be no. Is that correct?
A. I’ve been explaining this all along. I do not wish to guess. It is impossible to find any. I don’t know how Mr. Brunborg found them. If the father’s name are not there, I don’t know how he could establish that there were nine survivors. I can say with full responsibility that it is impossible to say that it is such-and-such a person, because in the OSCE lists there is no information on the father’s name.
Q. It was a simple question. Did you find it, yes or no? You didn’t look for it for all the information you have given, but you haven’t found any. Is that your answer?
A. It’s not. I’m explaining to you, sir, that I looked at all of this and I made my own decision. I can say that I found 1200 such persons, but I am not sure that it’s these persons because it’s impossible to review all of this. Then I gave up. You cannot compare apples and [Page 11054 pears and say that that’s it. I do not have proper identification, full identification, so I cannot claim that I found precisely Svetlana Radovanovic for the simple reason, and I gave the example yesterday. I was looking for Svetlana Radovanovic, father’s name Dragan. I’m- I mean, had I been on the list by some chance, because in voters registers in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are three Svetlana Radovanovics. I- two of them could be me or one, one could be me, approximately, in terms of age. Since I’m not on your list. Had I been on the list of killed persons, I would have to decide whether that is the Svetlana Radovanovic because the father’s name is not there. On the voters register you do not have the father’s name. I’m sorry, sir. Only on the PHR list you have 1200 names that are completely identical.
Q. Okay. I asked you the question three times, I think you have responded one way or the other. Thank you very much.
MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Waespi.
MR. KARNAVAS: Just a few questions.
Re-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
Q. Professor Radovanovic, just to go back to the RS report and I want to go back to the particular part that was read to you. And I’ll just read the first sentence. “By evaluating the methodology on collecting information about missing persons, the commission reached the conclusion that the most accurate list in its possession is in its possession of the ICMP.” [Page 11055
Now, the question is: If you could look through this, give it a glance perhaps, this short report, can you find anywhere the methodology that was used, number one. Number two, how was that methodology evaluated? Number three, what information was collected, by whom, and how, and how it was sifted? Number four, whether there was a quality control? Number five, whether they looked for duplications and so on and so forth. In other words, if you can find in this report anything that would give you as a professional demographer any assurances that the evaluation of the methodology and the collection of information was done in a proper, consistent, and professional manner.
A. I cannot.
Q. All right. Now, you were asked about- yesterday we talked about a census, that that’s the approach you would have taken. Would a census- had a census been done by the Office of the Prosecution with its rather unlimited budget compared to the Defence- had a census been done, would you have been able to at least determine who might be a survivor that’s currently on the list?
Q. All right. Now, you were asked about the importance of reaching a precise number of killed people. Let’s assume that a precise number was able to be reached, either by census or some other means, assuming the Prosecution experts had done what you believe should have been done, would that figure be determinative of how many were actually executed versus how many perished as they were walking through the woods, how many were killed among themselves, how many were killed in actual battle, would that final [Page 11056 figure be determinative? And you as a professional demographer, could you give us an opinion on that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I’m not sure-
JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: That’s an issue I haven’t raised in cross-examination, the ratio of whether the missing people are actually dead. Mr. Brunborg mentioned it, but it’s nothing that I cross-examined Professor Radovanovic on.
MR. KARNAVAS: It was on the precise number of people killed, that’s why I raised it.
JUDGE LIU: This question is related to the question in the cross-examination and the witness is prepared to answer it.
You may answer this question, Professor.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please be so kind as to put the question to me again. I’m really sorry.
Q. All right. That’s okay. I’ll try to keep it shorter.
The Prosecution talked about the importance of having a precise number of people missing. From that number, could you be- would you be able as a demographer to determine how many within that number were actually executed, how many perished as a result of stepping on landmines or being killed in battle or some other ways lost their lives?
A. No. It’s impossible to establish that.
Q. Finally, in spite of the rather vigorous cross-examination, would you still be willing, assuming that there was compensation by the [Page 11057 Prosecution, to assist them in finding- in looking through their material and even with coming up with a methodology and an approach to arrive at an accurate decision- figure? Would you be willing to do that?
Q. Okay. Thank you.
MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Questioned by the Court:
JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Professor Radovanovic, taking into account flaws in methodology in the Brunborg report, is it possible to adopt marginal error approach to Brunborg conclusions relating to the number of lives lost in the Srebrenica enclave?
A. It is possible to look at what Mr. Brunborg did and to see that he had he given precise information, “my clear matches are the following, what I changed was such-and-such,” so as Mr. Brunborg did his work he could have shown the statistics involved or the probability of the correctness of the result. “If you do not change the key you get such-and-such an outcome. If I change the possibilities, then you get such-and-such an outcome.” So there is a pyramid that has to be there. That is why I use this word “lack of intellectual integrity,” because you had to look at this properly and you can stand by it only if the key is not changed, is firmly established. And now the probability has to be looked at in terms of the overall result, too. [Page 11058
JUDGE VASSYLENKO: What would be your estimate as to margin of error in the Brunborg conclusion?
A. Well, I cannot give an estimate for a simple reason. Mr. Brunborg has 71 keys, 71 ways of matching data. So I really don’t know when he uses what is the proper thing to be used, that is to say a firmly established permanent key. I can really not give an evaluation of that off the cuff.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Vassylenko.
Any questions out of Judge’s question?
MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: Mr. Waespi, do you have any questions out of Judge Vassylenko’s question?
MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
At this stage, are there any documents to tender? Mr. Karnavas?
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. That would be D202/1, which is Professor Radovanovic’s CV; D203/1, which was a letter provided by the OTP dated April 16th, 2004, with respect to the precise criteria that has the 71 different ways of matching; and D204, which is the report by Professor Radovanovic, which was filed under Rule 94 bis.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President, in relation to the report, we don’t consider that as a true expert report. Making something constructive, coming up with a- the own way to create a record and what [Page 11059 she did was criticising Mr. Brunborg. We had- agreed to the report coming in without her testimony, the Defence chose to bring her here, which was unnecessary, in our submission. We had the same approach with Mr. Brunborg, it would have been okay to bring it in. Now since she was here, she testified, she was cross-examined. We believe that’s enough, and her report should be rejected. I don’t have any objections to the other items proposed.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Well, first of all, last time I checked the rules, I don’t see anywhere where they have a set criteria what should be and what should not be in a report, in an expert report. That’s number one. Number two, I have never had such a report rejected before and I have never heard such an objection before, so I really don’t understand what the problem is. Number three, and more importantly, if you recall the expert report of our military analyst, the American, that was accepted. And if you look at that, that report attacks the methodology of Mr. Butler. So- and I think this is proper. I think the report itself cannot stand on its own, again as I indicated yesterday, because we don’t have sufficient time and funds. And I can- I have the backup of all the memos and all the correspondence to the registrar with respect to- and to the Prosecution to make everything available. So because of these constraints, we had a report that was- that would be based on what she would be testifying, which is her analysis of the methodology. And her testimony complements her report. So with all due respect to the [Page 11060 arguments posed by the Prosecution, I think the report should and must come in. And I don’t see how they can say for the one expert it’s okay to attack the methodology, but on the other expert, maybe because they- you know, they are two different subject matters, I don’t know. But I don’t think that’s a basis.
JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultations with my colleague, I would like to say that document D202/1, document D203/1, as well as the report, document D204/1 are admitted into the evidence. And we believe that the report is relevant to this case. And this document is under Rule 94 bis, as the witness is an expert.
On the side of the Prosecution, are there any documents to tender? Yes, Mr. Waespi.
MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. P866, that’s the article of ICRC dated 9th August 2001; P868, the ICRC questionnaire and the information about the ICRC project in Bosnia; P869, the PHR questionnaire and information about the project in Bosnia; P870, again ICRC press release dated 19th September 2003. And in relation to the Prosecution Exhibit 864, the Srebrenica report, we’ll reserve that perhaps for the rebuttal phase. So we would not suggest to tender it at this point.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you, which implies that you will have the rebuttal procedure. Am I right? Because this is the first time I heard-
MR. WAESPI: If I look at the rules right, like Mr. Karnavas does all the time, there is a rebuttal phase. So we’ll look into that whether anything arose out of the Defence case, and if we have any rebuttal [Page 11061 evidence, witness, perhaps documents, then we would inform you. But I’m sure Mr. McCloskey can enlighten you more on that point.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
Well, are there any objections?
MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Yes. Well, with respect to the P866 and P870, we outright reject that. With respect to P868 and 869, the questionnaires themselves, we have no problem coming in, because there seems to be a point of contention. So the questionnaires we don’t have a problem, but the other two which seem to be public relations information, unless they intend in their rebuttal case to bring somebody from ICRC here, I don’t believe that there’s a sufficient foundation. And simply because they used a document for the purposes of confronting a witness, we certainly don’t believe that that’s sufficient for its introduction.
As for the report on Srebrenica, since they do intend to have rebuttal and we welcome it, we would give them a suggestion that they should bring the folks who were on the commission because so they could be cross-examined because we’re going to be requesting not just those folks but perhaps the high representative of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is Paddy Ashdown because we understand from everything we read in the press that they were severely pressured to come out with this report in order to maintain their jobs. And I can give the Prosecution the website where they can find this information.
JUDGE LIU: Any reply?
MR. WAESPI: Yes, just on the ICRC. Mr. Karnavas knows very well, if he knows the ICRC, there is no way the ICRC will come to testify in [Page 11062 this court. This is obviously a document which speaks for itself, a document requested and relied upon by this very Defence expert here. I think it’s sufficiently reliable to have it admitted.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE LIU: Well, this Bench finds no difficulty to admit the document P866, P868, P869, and P870 because we believe those documents are relevant to this case and the resources are somehow reliable.
As for the document P864, it’s too early to discuss about the admission of this document. But I don’t believe that there is a necessity to call the drafters of this report to testify just for the admission of this document into the evidence. We have a very relaxed rule of admission of the documents into the evidence. So long as those documents have the correct source and they are relevant to this case and the Bench believes it has some, some, not all, but some probative value in it, they could be admitted into the evidence, which as I stressed before doesn’t mean that everything said in certain documents is truth. Well, this is for the later stage.
Yes, yes, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to be helpful on that last point, it would be- as you know this RS report just came out. And I was considering asking Mr. Brunborg or Ms. Tabeau to just briefly look into the foundations of the ICMP and their report, perhaps write a one or two-page analysis of what they come up with, so that if we do feel the report is necessary, there will be some, some, review. I don’t expect it to be exhaustive like we’ve seen before, but some guidance for the Court. As [Page 11063 their expert may want to do the same thing and we of course support Mr. Karnavas when the Registry with any funds. Because I think the Registry has been pretty supportive of funds and we have always been supportive that they should be supportive of the Defence. In any event, that is what we have in mind for the future of that report.
JUDGE LIU: Well, I doubt very much about this approach. All those official documents as long as they meet the requirements I said just before, I believe that they could be admitted into the evidence, like the report of the United Nations, the report of the Dutch government, as well as the report of this commission of the Republic of Srebrenica. There’s no problem about that.
MR. KARNAVAS: I just-
JUDGE LIU: Yes.
MR. KARNAVAS: Listening to Mr. McCloskey, there seems to be a catch to all of that. Maybe it’s my own paranoia. Obviously because he has a whole demographics department; I don’t. I certainly cannot go the Registry and say, I anticipate something in rebuttal, give me the funds for this project; that’s not how it works. I will agree, and I want to state this on the record, that the Prosecution has been supportive of the Defence having funds. They’ve gone on record, they’ve told this to OLAD. So we’re grateful for that.
As for the Registry being liberal and generous, well, they have been flexible. Let me put it that way. There’s a degree of flexibility that beyond that they’re not willing to go. And for me to say pre-emptively, “I think I’m going to need these resources…” They’re not [Page 11064 going to give me those resources.
But the reason I’m raising it is because I don’t want later on for Mr. McCloskey to stand up and say: “Well, I telegraphed my intentions and Karnavas should have gone ahead and hired his expert to do all those things.” I can’t do that. So I just see that coming. I just want to make sure- I’m not capable of doing that. Now, I would- perhaps they could hire or pay Professor Radovanovic to assist Mr. Brunborg and Ewa Tabeau in their work and we could have some sort of a corroborative effort, but I just want to make sure that I’m not going to be in that position to go to OLAD and say: Give me the funds, because I think I’m tapped out on that one.
JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Your statement is registered in the transcript. I believe someone from the Registry will read it.
Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give your evidence. I personally benefited a lot from your expert testimony. And the usher will show you out of the room when this sitting is adjourned. And we wish you a pleasant journey back home.
So the hearing is adjourned.
– Whereupon the hearing adjourned
at 11.41 a.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
the 23rd day of June, 2004,
at 9.00 a.m. </body></html>