Sažetak
Rad se bavi sveobuhvatnom i kritičkom evaluacijom dostupnih popisa i izvještaja o ubijenim i nestalim civilima srpske nacionalnosti u Sarajevu tokom 1992‒1995, s posebnim naglaskom na dio grada koji se nalazio pod opsadom. Primarni cilj istraživanja jeste provjera pouzdanosti postojećih objavljenih podataka kroz sistematsko poređenje podataka, identifikovanje neslaganja među različitim evidencijama te analiza uzroka i okolnosti koje su dovele do tih razlika. Cilj je pokazati u kojoj mjeri ti popisi korespondiraju s relevantnim međunarodnim i domaćim izvorima i koliko su naučno validni. U metodološkom smislu, rad se oslanja na detaljno strukturiran metodološki aparat koji uključuje postupke kritičke analize izvora, verifikaciju informacija kroz više nivoa provjere te upotrebu komparativnih metoda za procjenu vjerodostojnosti podataka. Relevantni izvori obuhvataju široku i raznovrsnu građu: arhivsku dokumentaciju, dokumente korištene u sudskim postupcima pred međunarodnim i nacionalnim sudovima, pravosnažne sudske presude, izvještaje i protokole nezavisnih institucija, organizacija i komisija, kao i druge relevantne materijale koji doprinose objektivnijem i potpunijem sagledavanju zločina. Analiza se fokusira ne samo na kvantitativne razlike u popisima već i na kvalitativne aspekte dokumentovanja, poput metodologije evidentiranja, političkih, institucionalnih i logističkih faktora koji su utjecali na procese prikupljanja podataka, te dostupnosti i pouzdanosti primarnih izvora. Dr. sc. Zilha Mastalić Košuta Sintezom metodoloških postupaka i izvornog materijala rad pruža dublji uvid u složenost dokumentovanja stradanja srpskog stanovništva u Sarajevu te naglašava važnost naučno utemeljenog i višeslojnog pristupa u analizi ratnih evidencija. Rezultati istraživanja doprinose boljem razumijevanju dinamike i obima stradanja, ali i ukazuju na potrebu za daljim unapređenjem metodologija, standarda i izvorske baze u procesu dokumentovanja žrtava ratnih sukoba.
Abstract
This paper offers a comprehensive and critical evaluation of available lists and reports on killed and missing civilians of Serbian nationality in Sarajevo during 1992–1995, with special emphasis on the part of the city that was under siege. The primary goal of the research is to verify the reliability of existing published data through systematic comparison, identification of discrepancies among different records, and analysis of the causes and circumstances that led to these differences. The aim is to determine the extent to which these lists correspond to relevant international and domestic sources and to assess their scientific validity. Methodologically, the paper relies on a thoroughly structured analytical framework that includes procedures of critical source analysis, multi-level verification of information, and the use of comparative methods to assess the credibility of the data. Relevant sources encompass a wide and diverse body of material: archival documentation, documents used in judicial proceedings before international and national courts, final court judgments, reports and protocols of independent institutions, organizations and commissions, as well as other relevant materials that contribute to a more objective and comprehensive understanding of the crimes. The analysis focuses not only on quantitative differences among the lists but also on qualitative aspects of documentation, such as the methodologies of record-keeping, and the political, institutional, and logistical factors that IZVORNA UTEMELJENOST I METODOLOŠKI APARAT U PROCESU DOKUMENTOV ANJA ZLOČINA NAD SRPSKIM STANOVNIŠTVOM U SARAJEVU: KRITIČKA ANALIZA POPISA I IZVJEŠTAJA influenced data-collection processes, as well as the availability and reliability of primary sources. By synthesizing methodological procedures and primary material, the paper provides deeper insight into the complexity of documenting the suffering of the Serbian population in Sarajevo and underscores the importance of a scientifically grounded and multilayered approach to the analysis of wartime records. The research findings contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics and scale of the suffering, while also highlighting the need for further improvement of methodologies, standards, and source bases in the process of documenting victims of armed conflicts.