1 Tuesday, 2 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
10 Unfortunately, Judge Orie is not able to be with us this morning
11 because the urgent personal matters. We've decided to sit pursuant to
12 Rule 15 bis. We hope he'll join us a little later in the day.
13 We were told that the Prosecution has got two preliminaries to
14 raise. Mr. Groome.
15 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. For the first one can I ask that
16 we first go into private session.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please go into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Page 13633 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar. Yes,
11 Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, the Prosecution is now in the process
13 of working with Registry to plan trips to different locations to obtain
14 attestations from witnesses the Chamber has decided should have their
15 evidence adduced pursuant to 92 bis. This is a very time-consuming and
16 costly process. It is one that has the potential of delaying the
18 The Prosecution would like to inquire whether the Chamber would
19 have any objection for the Prosecution to proceed in the following way:
20 If in the course of planning a trip to have a witness attest their
21 statement the Prosecution considers that a witness for whom an
22 application is pending could be efficiently met and provide an
23 attestation that the Prosecution be permitted to do this. Without
24 anticipating any decision the Chamber might ultimately make with respect
25 to a particular witness, getting some of these attestations would realise
1 a significant savings of money and time should the Chamber ultimately
2 grant the Prosecution's application with respect to particular witnesses.
3 Of course, should the application be denied, the attestation would simply
4 not be used.
5 And again, Your Honour, I'm not seeking an immediate decision,
6 but I would ask the Chamber to consider that.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure, but just for my own edification, I'm not
8 quite sure I understand. You say --
9 MR. GROOME: Perhaps a hypothetical --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: In the course of planning a trip to have --
11 MR. GROOME: Perhaps if I give a hypothetical. It may make --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: To have a witness attest their statement, the
13 Prosecution considers that a witness for whom an application is pending
14 could be efficiently met and provide an attestation that the Prosecution
15 be permitted to do so. I'm not sure how it is efficiently met.
16 MR. GROOME: If I can give an exam. Let's say, for example, that
17 we need to go to St. Louis in the US to get an attestation from a 92 bis
18 witness for whom the Chamber has already decided the evidence should be
19 adduced 92 bis, if there is another witness living in St. Louis for which
20 we have a pending application we are simply asking for permission to take
21 the attestation, do that process at that time as opposed to waiting for
22 the ultimate decision of the Chamber and then going once again to
23 St. Louis with the Registry, with the translator to do another mission,
24 to do an attestation.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: To me that would seem the most obvious and logical
1 thing to do --
2 MR. GROOME: It is, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and I don't even think you need permission of
4 the Chamber for that.
5 MR. GROOME: I'm doing it out of an abundance of caution. Thank
6 you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are most welcome. Thank you very much. In
8 fact, Mr. Groome we would expect you to do that as matter of practice
9 just to -- you know, the Chamber expects that any witness who is going to
10 testify pursuant to 92 bis will have the statement attested. So you do
11 that in the normal course of taking the statement.
12 MR. GROOME: That's true, Your Honour. The Prosecution did not
13 want to anticipate the Chamber's decision for pending applications and
14 also was not sure how the Chamber felt about committing resources of the
15 Registry and translators for this -- for something that may ultimately be
16 decided to be -- may be required to come. But I think the logic is
17 apparent and --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's very apparent. Thank you so much. Okay. Is
19 that all? Mr. Lukic?
20 MR. LUKIC: Nothing from our side.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Nothing from your side. Thank you very much. Are
22 we ready to call the next -- the witness under cross-examination? May
23 the witness be called into court. Is he a protect the witness? We need
24 to go into closed session. May the Chamber please move into closed
1 [Closed session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning, Mr. RM316. Just to remind you that you are still
11 bound by the declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony to
12 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Is that
14 WITNESS: RM316 [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Carry on with his
18 cross-examination. Yes, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. We shall continue where we left off on Friday.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we again see P1655 in e-court.
25 1655. [In English] I'm afraid my screen for the e-court is not working,
1 although it is working with -- with my colleague. So I would just kindly
2 ask somebody to fix the problem.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
4 MR. LUKIC: I will continue.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You'll continue. Or don't you want to shift to a
6 screen that works? Is it working now?
7 MR. LUKIC: I just had pressed the wrong button.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] This is an intercept, the intercept that we
11 discussed before. We've noted that General Mladic cannot be heard. Is
12 this document a product of your work? I mean you personally, not your
14 A. This is not my work product, but it is a product of my section.
15 Q. We can see that by the number at the bottom of the sheet;
16 correct? We can see that it's not you who did it.
17 A. Correct.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly move into private
19 session, please.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 13639-13645 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Yes, Mr. Lukic, you may
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. [Interpretation] In any event, this channel, 836, you were
23 listening in using the parabolic antenna; is that right?
24 A. Yes. At that time. Before that it was a top antenna. That was
25 also a very good antenna, but still, this antenna was the best.
1 Q. All the frequencies that you said that you caught are under one
2 gigahertz. Is it your testimony today that a parabolic antenna can be
3 used for traffic under 1 gigahertz?
4 A. I will just provide one small piece of data. A parabolic antenna
5 can be used for 5 gigs as well today, and in the radio relay traffic, we
6 would -- we took from the telecom antenna tower this antenna which was
7 used specifically for these purposes, but in any case, we achieved the
8 best possible results with it as far as reception was concerned.
9 Q. Did you know then and do you know now that a parabolic antenna
10 can only be used for frequencies higher than 1 gig and cannot be used for
11 frequencies below 1 gigahertz?
12 A. I don't know what to tell you. All I can say is that I think
13 that that antenna is at that location still, that it was never
14 dismantled, that the -- this is a streetlight pole with the antenna which
15 is firmly anchored with four steel cables stably anchored, and that we
16 had the best quality signal on that antenna compared to all the other
17 professional signals, even military antennas that we used in our work. I
18 would also like to remind you that this signal was received probably
19 through reflection, and that is probably why this was the reason we
20 decided to use this antenna. We got a 5S unit signal. So in the jargon
21 I just want to clarify that this signal is very, very intelligible.
22 Q. We will discuss the signal strength later, but reflection would
23 not change the frequency; is that correct? When there is reflection, the
24 signal still remains at the same frequency; right?
25 A. Yes, I agree with that.
1 Q. How long were the shifts at that position? How many hours did a
2 shift last?
3 A. There were 7-day shifts as far as I can remember now. Perhaps
4 sometimes we would stay longer. Perhaps sometimes we had to overlap to
5 an extent. Sometimes I spent much more time there, sometimes not, but on
6 average a team would spend a week at the location and then would be
7 replaced by the other team.
8 Q. The team means two people; is that correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And those two men would work there for a week without
11 interruption. They would also sleep there?
12 A. They would work in the same room, eat in the same room, and rest
13 in the same room.
14 Q. And we would agree that in those conditions people had to have
15 been tired.
16 A. That depends. It all depends. Sometimes there were days when I
17 had to come as well, when this lady had to come in when we didn't have
18 enough time to type everything in, and sometimes there were days when
19 there weren't that many reports. It all depends.
20 Q. Audio recordings that you made, where are they now, and is
21 anything left of them or was everything recorded over and destroyed?
22 A. I spoke about this several times, and I really don't know where
23 these audio recordings are now. I don't know what happened to them. I
24 just described the task of the section at this location, what it was
25 supposed to do with interesting, quote/unquote, interesting things at
1 that point in time. In any event, what was recorded on separate tapes I
2 really cannot say where those tapes are and what happened to them.
3 Q. What about handwritten notes? They don't exist today either; is
4 that right?
5 A. What we would write on the pieces of paper, and I also explained
6 what they looked like, they didn't exist already on the following day.
7 Perhaps we would burn them. That was a sort of protection, data
8 protection, if I can put it that way. We were on a remote location, and
9 that was one of the ways in which we protected our data. What we would
10 reproduce, what was typed into the computer would be passed on to the
11 headquarters. They confirmed that they received the text at the HQ and
12 then we could destroy that piece of paper right away at our end.
13 Q. And today if the Defence would wish to check if something was
14 properly entered into the typed reports, there would be no way that we
15 could do that; is that correct?
16 A. We double checked everything when it was being typed because it
17 was in our interest --
18 Q. Just one moment, please. I asked you if the Defence would wish
19 to check what was written on those papers it would not be in a position
20 to do it now?
21 A. Well, those papers are no longer accessible. They were
23 Q. Do you know how much time passed from the initial request of the
24 Tribunal until the point in time when these typed reports were handed
1 A. I don't know that.
2 Q. And do you know how these typed reports were handed over to the
3 Tribunal? Did you take part in this process at all?
4 A. Yes, I know how they were handed over, and I did take part in the
5 process. I made -- if I can recall correctly, I don't even remember the
6 year that was. Maybe 1998, 1999. I really cannot remember. But I think
7 that this was handed over and then there was a certificate of receipt.
8 There was an index of the reports, and I think that's how they were
9 handed over.
10 Q. Do you know that in 1995 and 1996 they were already sought, but
11 the first ones were not handed in before 1998?
12 A. I don't know that they were requested at that time. I don't
13 think anybody had requested them from me.
14 Q. This will be a double interpretation, so I'm not sure whether we
15 will understand each other, but you were asked earlier if you knew the
16 location of the archive where records of transmitted information could be
18 A. To whom? Transmitted to whom?
19 Q. Your base probably, your headquarters, to your superiors. Where
20 is that archive today? Does it exist?
21 A. Now, you mean the archive of the transmitted documents.
22 Q. Is there an archive today, and, if so, where is it?
23 A. I don't know where it is today or if it exists, believe me.
24 Q. And you don't know whether representatives of the OTP had access
25 to these records?
1 A. I've told you about what had been requested from me at one point,
2 so I made a list of all the things sought by the Tribunal, but that was
3 in 1998 and 1999. I also remember there was one request for some
4 intercepts to be copied and handed over. Now, which intercepts in
5 particular I don't know at this moment.
6 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, concerning this number, we can also
7 use this typed-up document. This number below that serves as a
8 signature, did it change or was it the same throughout the time while you
9 were involved in this operation?
10 A. As far as I remember, these numbers were not changed.
11 Q. And if there is no number on the document at all, what does that
13 A. That means that the person who was working forgot to sign. I've
14 no other answer.
15 Q. All right. Now we'll move to a different topic, again about
16 devices. Were you able to determine from the frequency what type of the
17 device the message was coming from, RRU 1, SMC 361B, or HM, or RRU 800?
18 Were you able to determine these things?
19 A. This SMC, I don't even know what it means, or HM either. I
20 know -- in fact, I knew the exact frequency range for RRU 800 and RRU 1
21 or 100, as they call it. For these two devices I know which frequency
22 they began with and which frequency they ended at, but now I could only
24 Q. All right. We won't force you to speculate, but you can probably
25 tell me how many channels you were able to record at any given time on
1 one device and how many such recording devices you had.
2 A. As far as I remember, we were able to monitor and record two
3 intercepts at the same time.
4 Q. Your main job was to eavesdrop on civilian structures; correct?
5 A. Yes. Our main job was, to the best of our ability, to collect
6 intelligence from the civilian sector.
7 Q. We have just a few more minutes. We won't be able to finish with
8 the following topic, but we can start.
9 Who determined the procedure of intercepting?
10 A. I would appreciate it if you could explain. What kind of
11 procedure? What do you mean?
12 Q. Were there certain procedures that you followed in your work?
13 Did you have any rules? How did you eavesdrop on the opposite side? Did
14 you have any written rules, and who wrote them?
15 A. There were no written rules. Nothing was in writing. We just
16 had the task to collect intelligence about the other side in all areas.
17 The priority was the civilian sector, but of course when we realised it
18 was impossible to extract just the civilian component because the
19 military component was closely integrated, we decided to collate
20 information with the 2nd Corps because we realised they could also use
21 the information we got.
22 Q. Well, that's one of the procedures, to collate information. Who
23 ordered it? Who decided it?
24 A. We at our location, when we found out that some information could
25 go down the drain because it's useless to the army but is useful for the
1 service and vice versa, we ourselves proposed it to our superiors, and
2 they agreed between themselves, I don't know if the army issued any order
3 on that, but I was just informed verbally that all information could be
4 collated at that level.
5 Q. We'll continue about procedures after the break.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. May the Chamber please move
7 into closed session.
8 [Closed session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. I would just like to ask you to tell me whether you know the
3 answer to my next few questions. If you don't know, we'll just move on.
4 So do you know who determined the procedures according to which
5 intercepts were made, conversations were recorded?
6 A. Your question is very general. The people who were working
7 there, I had interviewed them before we started our work, and I had
8 agreed with them how we would proceed. Is that an answer to your
10 Q. [Microphone not activated]
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Sorry. Did you determine how to note down conversations in the
14 same way?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Which procedures did you use to identify voices? Did you use any
17 professional assistance? Did you use machines, or was it the operator
18 the one who did the identifying?
19 A. Participants in a conversations were identified in several ways
20 that we already discussed. Somebody would introduce themselves or
21 somebody would ask for a certain person to be put on the line, and there
22 were cases when certain people who were not familiar to us, whose voices
23 were not familiar, were on the phone. We would note down that
24 conversation and save that intercept and then if that person appeared on
25 the line again without introducing himself, we would then play back in
1 parallel these two voices to compare them, to see if it's the same
2 person, and then we would be able to determine whether it is or it isn't
3 the same person.
4 Q. Concerning the noting down of missed conversations, was there a
5 procedure or was it just an understanding between you?
6 A. I was very clear at the beginning. People who worked at this
7 location were not allowed to note down anything that was inaudible. So
8 in parts of the conversation which were unintelligible, they would put
9 " ..." to mark that passage, which means it was inaudible enough, or it
10 was unintelligible. And that doesn't mean that today without using
11 appropriate technology and equalisers we could amplify that voice and
12 hear it perfectly well, but at that time we didn't have such
13 capabilities. In fact, we did use one equaliser, but still there were
14 passages that we were unable to make out with any certainty.
15 Q. My question was directed more at filling in gaps, passages that
16 are missing from intercepts like, for instance, in this document P1655.
17 This first part at the top was not recorded, correct, where it is noted
18 that General Mladic is concerned in this conversation while he was
19 inaudible at that moment. In what way was it decided that gaps should be
21 A. I don't see any gaps here. In the first sentence it is said
22 clearly that this is a conversation between the duty officer at the
23 Main Staff and General Mladic. Now, in which way the operator obtained
24 the information that General Mladic is one of the participants I've
25 already explained. It's possible that the duty officer had said --
1 Q. You are talking about possibilities that don't necessarily have
2 to be true. You just said you don't see a gap. So in order not to talk
3 at cross-purposes, we have to --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, obviously this is not a gap. This is a
5 report. Those first four lines are a report about the transcript that is
6 below to explain what is below. It's not filling a gap. We've seen the
7 conversation between the interlocutors, so make sure the witness
8 understand clearly what you mean by a "gap."
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, I will.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. This first part was not recorded, was it? It was not recorded.
13 This explanation at the beginning is not something that is part of a
14 recording. Would you agree with me?
15 A. The first sentence was never recorded. It's just a statement by
16 the operator. This sentence is something you can find in all reports
17 with the change of elements that are variable, that is the frequency,
18 channel, and interlocutors. I understood you as saying that you mean
19 gaps in the transcript. Gaps are denoted by three dots. In the first
20 paragraph, if the interlocutors were unidentified, we would mark them as
21 X and Y. If we didn't know these people, we would say a certain Dragan,
22 let's say. And this is a third option, and you have them named.
23 Q. My question is this: The recorded material does not show that
24 it's General Mladic. This is a conclusion by the operator; is that
1 A. The recorded part is written next to the dashes. That's the
2 recording, if you understand me correctly.
3 Q. Yes, I think so. And so based on that recorded part with
4 the dashes, can it be seen that that is General Mladic?
5 A. General Mladic is not mentioned anywhere in the recorded part
6 other than that he is identified in the manner that I explained. The
7 operator did not dare write that it was a conversation with
8 General Mladic unless the introduction which is not recorded is where he
9 heard that the duty operations officer wanted to be connected to
10 General Mladic, or if he commented himself, I'm now going to call
11 General Mladic, so unless he's referred to in some other way. This is
12 not an arbitrary conclusion by the operator.
13 Q. I'm now going to go back to my original question who determined
14 and in what way were the procedures determined to fill in the gaps that
15 were not recorded?
16 A. I did provide an answer to that question as well. We agreed that
17 all the operators, when they were making their reports, would write this
18 first sentence which contains these elements that are also here. How he
19 identified the collocutors. This is something that I also talked about.
20 Q. Very well. Were these your verbal agreements as well? And there
21 are no written procedures dealing with this topic.
22 A. There are no written records or agreements. Everything was
23 agreed on verbally, and that's what was adhered to throughout that whole
25 Q. What was the procedure to determine what was an important
1 conversation and what was an unimportant conversation? How was this
2 dealt with?
3 A. Determining the importance of a conversation was up to the
4 operator, but I think that all the conversations of important figures
5 were recorded and that all of those conversations were transcribed,
6 unless it was really something that was not of use from an intelligence
7 point of view, worthless. For example, Could you bring some water to my
8 office, please, or something like that that doesn't have any useful
10 Q. Thank you. How was it determined who would erase tapes, how the
11 tapes would be erased? Were clean tapes returned to you or partially
12 recorded tapes? Could you please tell us a little bit about this.
13 A. As for the use of tapes, almost everything took place at the
14 northern location. I already said very important, very significant
15 conversations were recorded and recorded over one tape that would be sent
16 to the HQ. Other conversations were -- actually, for a while we didn't
17 have a device to erase tapes. We would just simply record over them.
18 You know the nature of a magnetic tape. If you record something over
19 something that is already recorded, the prerecorded stuff is erased. So
20 that is how that would happen. Unless we received a new contingent of
21 tapes. They would be clean, erased. There would be nothing on these
23 Q. Well, just won more thing. I'm not sure if I understood
24 correctly whether you sent those tapes to the analysis section? Was
25 anything erased there, or did you not send tapes there and they did not
1 erase anything?
2 A. I've already said that the tape that was recorded on, once it was
3 full, when it was completed, then it would be sent to the HQ. I don't
4 know to whom it was sent, whether this was done by the
5 Analysis Department or whether one person was charged with it. I don't
6 know if that person would listen to the tape again or not. I don't know.
7 All I know is that some tapes after a conversation which was partially in
8 English, for example, would be taken to the HQ where an interpreter would
9 then do the transcription, or in some cases the interpreter or translator
10 would be called to the location where he would then do the transcribing.
11 Q. And now a general question: Is it correct that you didn't have
12 any specialised training before you began performing these duties?
13 A. I would ask you to be more specific here and tell me what sort of
14 specialist training exactly are you thinking of.
15 Q. Do you have any formal training in this area?
16 A. I do. The employees, the guys who worked there, the four men who
17 worked at the northern location, were picked from among radio ham
18 operators from our area. In our area the category of a ham radio
19 operator is some well known for having people who are well educated
20 technically in the area of radio frequencies, as well as people of
21 excellent listening qualifications, because while using ham radio devices
22 and in installing ham radio connections, they excelled in this kind of
23 work, especially on DX or remote connections, meaning that they have
24 exceptional hearing. So these qualifications would be confirmed among
25 participants from a radio club and also from the world with the QSL
1 cards, which would indicate that a certain connection was a high quality
2 one, that was it was well done.
3 Q. I know it's generally known, but I would need to ask you for the
4 transcript. Is it correct that none of these radio ham operators never
5 worked on eavesdropping conversations before?
6 A. They did not work on eavesdropping or wiretapping telephone or
7 any other types of conversations.
8 Q. Today I asked you if you had formal education in this area, and
9 then on page 28, line 5, you said that you did.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to see 1D1085 now,
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to another document, I would like
13 to put a question to the witness in relation to this document we see at
14 the moment on the screen.
15 Witness, you explained that inaudible parts of the conversation
16 were indicated by three dots. At the end of the second bullet point, we
17 see something like, "Pandurevic hasn't called for the last four ..." in
18 fact, four dots. These are the only dots I see on the B/C/S original.
19 Can you help me with the following, please: The fourth bullet point I
20 see something like, "Po mariccu jeste." In the English there is an
21 addition, "... is solved." Is that reflected in the original? Can you
22 help me with that? I don't see any dots in the fourth bullet point -- in
23 the fifth, sorry. Or the fourth from the bottom.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can see this last
25 sentence next to the second bullet point where it says, "Pandurevic
1 hasn't called for the last four," and then it was inaudible. It could be
2 days, hours. It could be -- so this was not heard and so it was not
3 written down. That would be that. And then down there we don't have any
4 unclear things, and there are no dots in the B/C/S version. There was a
5 question here, so the answer was, "According to Maric, yes." He was
6 asked something and then the reply was, "According to Markale, yes." So
7 there are no more dots or anything else after that.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it would be necessary to check the
9 translation again. And I see even three dots two lines up in the
10 English. He says, "It's going well, but I ... he didn't say." This
11 seems not to come from the B/C/S.
12 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. And we'll -- we'll get that
13 verified by CLSS.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
15 MR. LUKIC: May I proceed?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed. Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Can we look at the
18 e-court document now. We have 1D1085. We can see that. Can we look at
19 page 28, which should be transcript page 2073 from the Tolimir case
20 transcript. We need to look at lines 14 and 15.
21 Q. I'm going to read that to you where you said:
22 [In English] "Let me first note that I did not have specialised
23 training in this field when I first took up this work. All the technical
24 knowledge and the knowledge concerning the equipment used by the other
25 side was something that I received from the PEB -- that's to say the
1 counter electronic protection of the 2nd Corps, and it was in this way
2 that I learned which frequency ranges were used by the other side and
3 what sort of equipment the military on the other side had."
4 [Interpretation] So before you took up these duties, did you have
5 any specialised training or not?
6 A. What I said in the Tolimir case is correct, and it relates to the
7 equipment, the apparatus, and everything that had to do with the specific
8 job, this job. At the time, as part of my service, there was no
9 monitoring of this kind. When I said today that I did have certain
10 experience, I stand by that as well, but if you would like me to discuss
11 that, then in my opinion we would need to move into private session.
12 Q. [No interpretation]
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't receive interpretation at the moment.
14 Perhaps you can repeat your question.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I am not going to go into detail on that now. If the Prosecution
17 wishes they can explore that further, but I will also ask you something
18 that you were also asked in the Tolimir case. Your group was established
19 in late 1994, in December; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, correct.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 13664-13665 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
18 Yes, Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. You worked at the Ministry of the Interior, and that was part of
21 the armed forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
22 A. Correct. That is true.
23 Q. You did not intercept conversations of the BH Army; is that
25 A. We did not intercept conversations of the BH Army.
1 Q. How did you know whether interlocutors were members of the
2 BH Army or the Army of Republika Srpska?
3 A. That was simple. While scanning frequency ranges, I can't
4 remember coming across a route used by the BH Army. If you remember --
5 or, rather, if you know, this type of equipment and this infrastructure
6 was used mainly by the VRS. Whether the BH Army used any of these
7 routes, I really don't know, because we didn't have the resources, first
8 of all, to listen to everybody. We barely managed to do our own work,
9 the things that were singled out for us as matters of special interest.
10 Q. And the frequencies you listened to, was it possible to listen to
11 participants from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Srebrenica?
12 A. No. Unless an officer of the VRS called up somebody there, that
13 was the only possibility, but I don't remember such conversations.
14 Q. On certain occasions did you paraphrase rather than noting down
15 conversations verbatim?
16 A. That's right. In some media reports who used this communication
17 system to pass on their reports to their media centres that would publish
18 or broadcast that report the same evening, these reports would sometimes
19 be rather long, and sometimes we did not record them at all, but if a
20 report contained false information or incorrect information or contained
21 some intelligence, we would simply paraphrase the report concerned in
22 order not to waste time on recording it fully.
23 Q. All right. We will now move on to a different document. Let's
24 look together at P1656. You discussed it last Friday with the
1 We are interested in this brief intercept at the top where it
3 "... at 8.30 we recorded a very short conversation of
4 General Mladic with a certain Dule."
5 You are not the author of this document, are you?
6 A. I'm not.
7 Q. Is it possible to determine from this document the route of this
9 A. Yes. Everything is quite clear here. The frequency is 836,
10 channel 13.
11 Q. That is the Pale route, as you called it.
12 A. That's what we called it, because it wasn't Pale. It could have
13 been Han Pijesak.
14 Q. It was the 16th of July, 8.30 in the morning. Can you tell us
15 from what device could this call have been made?
16 A. This call was made from the telephone in Mladic's office. The
17 conversation went through the frequency 836, which means RRU 800.
18 Q. Since you did not author this document, you cannot tell us how
19 General Mladic was identified in this brief conversation where it is said
20 that he pronounced five words in total.
21 A. He called from his open telephone, that's one. Two, his voice
22 was well known to all operators. And -- sorry. As for the content of
23 the conversation, that is evidence that we recorded even the things that
24 did not have much importance but could have been useful to somebody
25 who -- whose work is focused precisely on that.
1 Q. So we see from this that General Mladic was at his command post.
2 As you say, he called from his own telephone.
3 A. Yes. He was in his work-place.
4 Q. [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you change your mind if you knew that at that time he was
9 in Belgrade and that this is not in dispute between the Defence and the
11 A. According to this introductory part, I have nothing to change
12 unless Dule was in the office and Mladic was somewhere outside. That is
13 the only other option. But as to any misidentification, there's no
14 question of that.
15 Q. From this document would you agree that we can't see how
16 General Mladic was identified; is that correct?
17 A. Yes. That is the case with many reports. I explained how that
18 was done, and I want to stress once again that it didn't matter to us at
19 all. In fact, it's not that it didn't matter. We wanted to catch
20 conversations. We -- if we were able to identify interlocutors, we would
21 note down their names. If we were not able to identify them, we didn't
22 write anything.
23 Q. It true that interlocutors were frequently identified by their
24 voice, without introducing themselves?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: This question has been asked so many times,
1 Mr. Lukic. Voice, introduce themselves or, Can I talk to so-and-so?
2 Today only it has been mentioned by this witness so many times.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at 65 ter 27536A.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P1656.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's P1656.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is on the screen.
9 MR. LUKIC: There are three documents with the same content. Can
10 I have 27536, then, without A.
11 Q. [Interpretation] We can see here on the first page above the line
12 that divides the page in two the same content that we discussed. Can you
13 see from this who drafted this report? What is the difference between
14 this document and the document that we looked at before?
15 A. I would like to ask to see the beginning of the document, the
16 first page of this document, please, or the top of the document.
17 Q. [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. This is what we have at this time of this document, one page and
22 only this part was translated into English.
23 A. Should I try to explain?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know whether the witness is able to
25 read -- I can't see much on the B/C/S page. I mean, it's so faint and
2 MR. LUKIC: If you want, I can read that from B/C/S. It's the
3 same content as in the other document.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy's on his feet. Let's hear what he is
5 going to say.
6 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I think it might be helpful if we
7 zoomed in onto the capitalised part of this document and allow the
8 witness to look at that. That might assist both the witness and
9 Mr. Lukic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: If may indeed help, if we can zoom in. Can we
11 please zoom in on to this document.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And if we would have only the B/C/S version on
13 the screen it would help.
14 MR. LUKIC: It's above the line.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's better.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Now we can see that at the bottom of the page. Are you able to
18 tell us whether you, your department, is the source of this document?
19 A. I think that this is not our document, but I state that this
20 conversation is our conversation. What I want to say is this: If we
21 look at the beginning of the page or this complete file, I think that
22 this is our document pasted to a military report, because the part that
23 comes from before and the part that comes after are military reports, the
24 reports of the 2nd Corps PB. So at this time all I can say is that I see
25 that when they were sending it in, they also pasted our conversation into
1 their report and sent it to the 2nd Corps of the BH Army. That is the
2 only way it could have found its way there without it saying that it was
3 taken from us for whatever reason.
4 Q. It should have said that it was taken from you; is that right?
5 A. I believe that in the OTP they know whose report this is, perhaps
6 you know as well. But anyway, this is how I am explaining this matter.
7 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, is it break time?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is break time. May we move into closed
9 session, please.
10 [Closed session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
25 When the noise is over, you may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, before you commence, how do you stand
3 for time?
4 MR. LUKIC: I have one hour and two minutes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: One hour and two minutes.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In this report by the 2nd Corps, it's obvious that the
8 information which came to them from you -- that this is information that
9 came from you to them and that they did not intercept this conversation.
10 Would you agree?
11 A. Yes, that is obvious. That is correct.
12 Q. Is it correct that it was their duty to monitor military
14 A. I would not discuss their duties, because I had no part in that
15 in any way.
16 Q. Thank you. Very well. And now something that has nothing to do
17 with the document, so we don't require this document anymore, in order
18 not to confuse the witness.
19 Is it correct that today you do not recall the contents of
20 conversations that you listened in to at that time?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all extra
22 microphones be switched off, please.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: All extra microphones be switched off, please,
24 when they are not supposed to be in use.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you thinking of some specific
1 conversation or conversations in general, whether I remember them or not?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. My question was general. Is it correct that today you do not
4 recall the contents of conversations that you listened in to at that
6 A. I recall some conversations very well. Some I recall only when I
7 read them back, just like I have the opportunity to do today. When I
8 look, then I recall a sentence or something specific from a particular
10 Q. Very well. These two previous conversations that we looked at,
11 did you perhaps recall them, because you didn't take part in the
12 listening and the recording or the transcribing of those conversations;
13 is that right?
14 A. No, I don't recall them.
15 Q. Can we now look at P1657, please. Again, this is a document that
16 the Prosecutor showed you yesterday.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] The Prosecutor divided these conversations into
19 two documents, so first of all we're going to talk about this one,
20 because this other part two in the B/C/S has a different number. Again
21 we're talking about the same frequency. Again we're talking about the
22 16th of July, 1995, and again it says that this is a conversation
23 recorded of General Ratko Mladic.
24 First let us establish that this document is not a document that
25 you recorded or transcribed; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. You cannot tell from the recorded contents that Ratko Mladic
3 takes part in the conversation; is that correct?
4 A. That is correct. And even this Mane, that applies to him as
5 well. Ah, no. Excuse me. It does say Mane says, "Hello."
6 Q. And can you see from this document if General Mladic is at his
7 command post or is it not possible to see that from the document?
8 A. According to the document, Mladic is in his office.
9 Q. Very well. And let us again look at the next document. We can
10 stay on this page in the B/C/S, because we want to discuss the next
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one additional question.
13 Witness, you said according to this document Mladic is in his
14 office. When we discussed a similar situation with another document, you
15 said it could be also the other way around, that the other participant in
16 the conversation could have been in that office. Would you exclude this
17 possibility with this document we have in front of us at the moment?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember correctly, Mr. Lukic
19 asked me or he suggested that the Prosecution and he had agreed that that
20 day Mladic was not in his office at all. By asserting that we would
21 never arbitrarily write down names, I said that it's possible that this
22 is a mistake by the operator and that the other participant was actually
23 in the office and Ratko Mladic was in the field. You can see from this
24 conversation that Ratko Mladic is in his office, because he was recorded
25 as the first interlocutor. He's on his channel. Mane is somewhere else.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The same date, Mr. Witness, the 16th of July, the
2 same date that Mr. Lukic told you he has agreed with the Prosecution that
3 Mladic was not in his office. It's a different time, I accept. It's now
4 10.00 in the evening, half past 10.00 in the evening. It could very well
5 be that he has come back to his office, we don't know, but is -- are you
6 saying that definitively he is the one in the office? It cannot be the
7 other way around, as Judge Fluegge asked?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would be explicit only if I were
9 the one who did it myself, but the way these things stand in the report,
10 it says that at 2230 hundred hours he was in his office.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you said specifically that you are of this
12 opinion because he was recorded as the first interlocutor. Is that the
13 only reason why you think it's that way, that Mr. Mladic was in his
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but the conversation was also
16 conducted from his telephone, the telephone that was in his office.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But again, could it be that Mr. Mladic was away
18 and Mane was in Mr. Mladic's office?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think not. I think it's the way
20 it is written here.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is more or less an assumption, correct, or a
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my conclusion, that at that
24 time he picked up the phone from his office and carried on the
25 conversation with Mane, and then after that there is one more
2 If you permit me, if we go on to the following report at 2250,
3 there was another conversation where you can hear Ratko Mladic, and you
4 cannot hear the collocutor Kostic. So again I would assert that he was
5 in his office because you could hear the speaker, whereas these others
6 would be audible or not.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: I will just very briefly consult with my client.
10 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Low voice, Mr. Mladic.
12 MR. LUKIC: May I continue?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may continue, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] This next document is P1658. On the screen we
16 see B/C/S but not the English version. 1658. We need the English
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, both the B/C/S and the English are --
19 it's number 671 of the 16th of July and 672 at the bottom --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: So both of them, they are the same. It looks like
22 either your 1658 is a duplicate of 1657.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, in B/C/S, but I was informed by the Prosecution
24 that the next one 1658, should be this other conversation only in both
25 languages, but the second conversation from 2250.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. The 672 is 2250.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: 671 is 2230.
4 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And we have got both of that in both English and
6 B/C/S on the screen.
7 MR. LUKIC: Okay, if you have it in English, I couldn't see --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On the bottom of the page, at least the beginning
9 of that conversation or that intercept.
10 MR. LUKIC: Okay, can we -- yeah. We need, actually, only this
11 first part which is on the screen, on the bottom of the screen in
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: In English.
14 MR. LUKIC: In English, yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. We read here, sir, that on the same day, on the same frequency,
18 on the same channel at 2250 a conversation was recorded between
19 Ratko Mladic and a certain Kostic who was completely inaudible.
20 Therefore, we have established that you did not produce this report, so I
21 suppose you don't know in which way your colleague who noted this heard
22 the conversation and recognised the voice or identified General Mladic
23 otherwise; correct?
24 A. I have to come back to the same thing. I have already described
25 the ways in which identified people and looking at this conversation I
1 hear the word "bro," which was a word he used all the time, but it's a
2 fact that I did not participate in the production of this document.
3 Q. You've taken me aback with this "bro" word, associating it with
4 General Mladic. Isn't it true that it's a common -- very commonly used
5 word when you are addressing someone you know, at least among the Serbian
6 population, both in Serbia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. Reading this now, I remembered that it was a typical feature of
8 Mladic's speech. He used the word very often. It doesn't mean, of
9 course, that other people don't say "bro" when they're talking to
10 somebody who is close to them, "bro" or "brother."
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, can you help us. We don't see the word
12 "bro" in the B/C/S version. We see the third entry, R is recorded to
13 having said "kazzi burazerjl." Is that what you are referring to?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. That's what I
15 mean. And in the other report, 672, which I don't see in the English
16 version either, it is said in the fifth line again, "It's over, bro."
17 The Serbian word is "burazeru." That's how the sentence ends.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to the next page in English.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we have started linguistic
21 discussions, so I would like to see P1235.
22 THE REGISTRAR: The document is under seal, Your Honours.
23 MR. LUKIC: Then not to be broadcasted.
24 Q. [Interpretation] This is a document dated 12 July 1995. Again,
25 it is stated that it is a conversation between General Mladic and an
1 unidentified male person. A different frequency. The route is
2 Zvornik-Vlasenica. You produced this document; correct?
3 A. I recorded this document, and I remember. I remember these
5 Q. This longer paragraph ascribed to Ratko Mladic, marked here as M,
6 beginning with "Good, excellent," we see the words "we'll evacuate."
7 Would you agree that this in particular is the western variant of the
8 language? These two words exist in the western variant of the language,
9 "evakuirat cemo," whereas Serbs would say "evakuirat cema."
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
11 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I would object to the question. The
12 witness is called as an intercept operator rather than a linguistic
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: The witness is from Bosnia, and he was already
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but you're asking him to comment on the
19 MR. LUKIC: That's common knowledge.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The translation --
21 MR. LUKIC: The --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: English is a Western language, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: I'm talking about B/C/S.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: So? We are looking at the English. Are you
25 saying that in B/C/S they are using the equivalent of the word
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, but differently. I can spell it if you want.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know the grammar, sir. It didn't help me.
4 MR. LUKIC: Only I asked the witness whether the word used by
5 Serbs is different than one recorded here, and he can confirm that.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to confirm that, Witness? Witness,
7 are you able to answer that question?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a word we all understand
9 perfectly well. We understand its meaning. And I know what Mr. Lukic is
10 driving at. He's trying to say that in the Serbian language this word
11 has exactly the same meaning, except instead of "evakuirat," Serbs would
12 say "evakuisat." So I don't know exactly how Mladic pronounced it, but
13 it has exactly the same meaning. And whether the operator wrote an R in
14 the word instead of an S, it doesn't change the meaning.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does that answer you, Mr. Lukic?
16 MR. LUKIC: Partially.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You say it doesn't change anything. However, there are two
20 variants. There are two possibilities. Either it was not pronounced in
21 this way, or if it was pronounced in this way, it wasn't Ratko Mladic.
22 It was somebody else.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're not going into the whole area of
24 speculation. You speculated it was not pronounced that way, and if it
25 was not pronounced that way, then we speculate it was not Ratko Mladic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Can the gentleman recall whether this was pronounced
2 exactly this way, or --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought he said he recorded this. He don't say
4 he listened -- he listened to the discussion. He just said he recorded
5 this. But anyway, go ahead and ask him. Let's find out from what he
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You did not write this. Do you remember at all how it came about
9 that a version of a word, the version of a pronunciation, was recorded
10 that would never have been pronounced actually by Ratko Mladic?
11 A. I remember this conversation, because it was a matter of our
12 interest at the time, special interest, but whether somebody made a
13 mechanical mistake and wrote an R instead of an S, I would not hold it
14 against the operator because it didn't matter at the time. Whether
15 Mladic actually said "evakuisati," not "evakuirati," it's very possible,
16 but the operator in any case wrote it down with an R instead of an S.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, just one observation. In your
18 original question you said there are two possibilities: Either it was
19 not pronounced in this way, or if it was pronounced in this way, it
20 wasn't Ratko Mladic, it was somebody else. But there's a third variant,
21 that it was pronounced that way and it was Ratko Mladic.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And a fourth variant.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And there are more. I just put that on the
24 record because you are not giving evidence, and there are many more
25 variants and possibilities.
1 MR. LUKIC: I have no problem with that, but I doubt that -- the
2 last -- the last possibility is almost impossible.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The other variant is that Mr. Mladic might have
4 said "evakuisat," and the listener, being Bosniak, said "evakuirat" --
5 wrote "evakuirat."
6 MR. LUKIC: Then --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: These are all possibilities. As I said, we're now
8 in the area of speculation here.
9 MR. LUKIC: I will move on.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Move on.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Since it was you who recorded, although not typed up this
13 conversation, this intercept, do you have any idea whether this recording
14 and the transcript of this conversation still exists somewhere today?
15 A. I have no clue.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know which procedure was in force when
17 General Mladic appeared on line?
18 A. I can't remember. I know they had a man at the telephone
19 exchange who made connections. An interlocutor would say, Please put
20 so-and-so on the line. He makes the connection, and then the
21 conversation starts. But it was really a long time ago. That's one
22 reason. The other reason is that I was not so conversant with that
23 system of communications. I never saw it with my own eyes, so I can't be
24 100 per cent sure.
25 Q. The UHER is on standby, at the ready, the pause button depressed,
1 and you say, We constantly monitored this channel, where the previous two
2 intercepts were recorded. If -- is it true that you would always have
3 the time to make a recording when somebody's just introducing themselves
4 if that conversation had already been announced, because you just have to
5 depress the pause button; correct?
6 A. Yes. Channel 13 was always receiving. The UHER tape recorder
7 was always ready to record with the pause button pressed. If we heard
8 the beginning of a conversation, we could depress the pause button.
9 Before that, simply what would have been said would be, General, sir,
10 so-and-so is calling. That's something that we didn't record, but we
11 heard it. We would hear it. That was the way it was done.
12 Q. What you're saying is that it takes much less time to start
13 recording with the button -- pause button pressed rather than completely
14 to begin recording, for the recording head to make contact with the
15 recording tape and then to begin recording.
16 A. Yes, that is correct. Well, you have refreshed my recollection
17 now. You have taken me back. That would happen as well, but since in
18 the introductory part usually what would be said is that so-and-so is
19 speaking with so-and-so. We did not put that in the transcript, Give me
20 general so-and-so, this and this person is calling. We could just note
21 that down and continue with the reproduction of the conversation.
22 Actually, you just have reminded me of that detail right now. If at the
23 beginning of the conversation the collocutors would be clear and defined,
24 we would just begin to record that conversation in some cases. I just
25 remember that now.
1 Q. All right. So today you're tell us that there was even that part
2 that was recorded. It's just that it wasn't transcribed. That's
3 something that you changed. You would leave that part out, but it was
5 A. We would not leave it out. Please don't say that. We would put
6 that in the first sentence. We did not leave anything out.
7 Another thing is I feel a little bit troubled when we're doing it
8 like this. We did not prepare court-quality material when we did this.
9 This was material prepared in wartime for wartime purposes. So I feel a
10 certain kind of pressure about the things we did or did not record. We
11 did not dare or were not permitted to write that Mladic spoke with
12 someone if it was not Mladic, because then we would mislead our own
13 colleagues and create confusion. I'm not introducing anything new. In
14 that first sentence you would have that assertion, and then the specific
15 conversation would continue, and then you would hear, There you are, sir,
16 here you go, so on and so forth.
17 Q. These previously recorded parts were destroyed along with the
18 rest of the tapes, the intercepted conversations, not tapes; is that
20 A. I talked about that too. What was kept was kept the way it was
21 kept, so there is the possibility that that part that we discussed just
22 now also exists. Those conversations that were preserved are complete
23 conversations. Everything is recorded on them.
24 Q. Let me then put a specific question to you about the document
25 that we see on the screen. Is this conversation being kept anywhere, the
1 audio of the conversation?
2 A. I don't know if there is an audio recording or any audio
3 recording anywhere. They were not kept in my office. I was not in
4 charge of that, and right now I don't know where any of what we're
5 talking about is located.
6 Q. Today at the beginning I tried to ask you this, and we wandered
7 off that topic, so now I'm going to ask you something about the devices
8 that you used. Did you use any of the following devices: ICR 100,
9 1 CR 100, AR 3000R? Did you use any of these devices?
10 A. I think that we did use this ICR 100 and this AR 3000. I think I
11 recall those devices.
12 Q. These are scanners; right?
13 A. Yes, these are receivers, actually, that have the option of
15 Q. TS 400 and 30 S, and TS 450 S. Does that mean anything to you?
16 A. Yes, but please believe me when I say that I cannot definitely
17 say what sort of a device that was. Mostly these were ham radio
18 machines, receivers that we would split up. This would be used for 24
19 channel -- frequencies on 24 channels, and this was modified for us.
20 Certain things were built in by experts from the 2nd Corps. We did not
21 know how to construct these devices or to modify them.
22 Q. Which converter did you use? Do you remember that today? And
23 what was its role?
24 A. We used a handmade converter. Its job was to receive signals and
25 to send them to the splitter. I did not really deal much with that area.
1 This is simply something that other people worked on.
2 Q. And was the converter connected to the parabolic antenna?
3 A. We had several converters for these devices. I think that it
5 Q. You don't know that frequency range below 1 gigahertz does not
6 require a converter?
7 A. If you permit me, do you know what signal conversion means?
8 Q. Well, in this brief time that I had to prepare and learn, I would
9 not put questions to you about something that I did not know anything
11 A. Well, I'm trying to explain this. We are getting a carrier
12 frequency on our receivers. That would be frequency 836 or something,
13 and that frequency has 24 channels. The upper and lower reception is 12
14 channels each. So then we have all of these different devices to split
15 these signals so then we would get 24 channels that we could monitor.
16 This is how I look at things. This is what we used for our work, and
17 that's that.
18 I did not have time to really study the technical
19 characteristics. These were all adapted devices. Nothing was equipment
20 that was manufactured specifically for listening in and monitoring
22 Q. I don't know if you looked into this, but perhaps you can tell us
23 whether each of your stations had its own antenna, or did one station --
24 actually, did several stations use one antenna?
25 A. I remember well that we used just one antenna for the 836
1 frequency, and that was the parabolic one. I remember well that we used
2 a few other antennas that were dedicated to other frequencies one of
3 those was a typical military antenna, a top antenna. That's what it was
4 called, which was about 1.8 metres long. It was of olive drab colour.
5 The rest were classic directional antennas. And there was also another
6 one which we used for monitoring radio telephone traffic. Thus each
7 device was connected to a separate antenna.
8 Q. And is it correct that you could not receive a signal of great
9 quality from the Zep and Crni Vrh facilities?
10 A. Again I would like to note that we did not have the structure of
11 radio relay centres or routes used by the VRS. We would scan traffic,
12 and wherever we would find something we would stop there. We did not
13 think about where the signal came from. What was important to us was to
14 identify the speakers and to be sure that they were them. We didn't mind
15 whether it was a reflection or it was a direct communication towards the
16 receiver. There was no particular scheme. At one point we did get a
17 card from the military saying this is there and this is there, but
18 actually that really did not matter very much to us, not at all.
19 Q. I don't know if you already told us this, but is it correct that
20 you did not have the equipment used by the Army of Republika Srpska?
21 A. Military equipment from the former JNA, as far as that's
22 concerned, all I had of that kind of equipment was the top antenna that
23 was the olive-drab grey colour. That one single antenna was all that we
24 had, nothing else.
25 Q. Is it correct that civilian radio equipment functions on
1 different frequencies than those used by the military?
2 A. Now, if you're thinking about these specific RRU 800, that is
3 correct. Ham radio equipment cannot receive these frequencies, because
4 in the former system it was designed in such a way that radio ham
5 operators could not get into networks of the army, the police, the
6 air force, and so on. However, experts in the 2nd Corps modified these
7 devices in such a way that they expanded the spectrum, and some of those
8 devices were then able to receive these other frequencies.
9 I believe that they explained that to you in more detail if you
10 had the opportunity to hear them. I did not want to really get into
11 that, because it's something that I didn't have any time for.
12 Q. What I'm actually interested in on this topic is that you said
13 that you listened in to military and civilian channels. So what I would
14 like to know is how is it possible for you to listen in to both types of
15 channels when the frequencies were different? How could you listen in to
16 military and civilian channels at the same time?
17 A. You didn't understand me correctly. This system, the military
18 system, was incorporated into the PTT communications system so that we
19 had the option of listening to civilians in that way. On the other hand,
20 we considered the civilian authorities to encompass Karadzic and Koljevic
21 who were also on this frequency, who also appeared on these other
22 channels. So we recorded those conversations.
23 We also recorded conversations via radio telephones which we had
24 access to.
25 Q. I skipped all of these matters that had to do with technical
1 aspects, the directions or routes where the devices were located that
2 were being listened to.
3 Let me ask you this: Do you know what operational masking is?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Did you also resort to operational masking?
6 A. Not at this location, no. We didn't have any need to do that.
7 Q. And the 2nd Corps of the BH Army, did they resort to operational
9 A. I don't know about that. I didn't take part in that.
10 Q. Could you please tell us what operational masking is? You
11 already testified about that -- actually, no. It was your colleague who
12 testified on that topic. Or, rather, is it correct that erroneous
13 information is sent in order to confuse the enemy?
14 A. That's not masking. That is deception. Masking in the context
15 of intercepting radio relay waves is that by using the configuration of
16 the terrain and mountain ranges you perform a certain degree of masking
17 or concealment from the other side and your ability to eavesdrop on these
18 radio waves.
19 Q. I had already left that topic, but now that you're talking about
20 it, now that you mention it, were you aware that the Serbian side was
21 reducing the power of its devices specifically for the purposes of
23 A. I don't know whether they reduced the power, but it's certainly
24 one of the methods to disable the other side from monitoring certain
1 Q. Would you agree with me that makeshift antennas had a much weaker
2 receiving signal than professional military antennas?
3 A. I would not agree with you on this point. Professional
4 manufactured military antennas were usable for a much wider range, but if
5 we created an antenna for one specific frequency, then it would be better
6 than a military antenna. Also, military antennas made for one specific
7 frequency were much better than those made for a wide frequency range.
8 Q. Was wind a hindrance in receiving signals?
9 A. Wind is not a bother if the antenna is well fixed and the wind
10 does not move it, but if you did not fix the antenna properly, then it
11 will move in the wind, and that will certainly affect reception. That's
12 why we fixed our antenna into one cubic metre of concrete and stabilised
13 it with four steel cables.
14 Q. Do you know what squelch is?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That is automatic shutdown of a device due to a disallowed
18 A. If we very poor audibility, then we bring the device down to the
19 level of squelch to improve reception, but at the same time, we increase
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, if we give you another two minutes,
22 will you finish?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I will.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You will finish.
25 MR. LUKIC: Yes. I'm close to the end.
1 Q. [Interpretation] All right. Let me just ask you this: Do you
2 know what percentage of the signal was not in squelch? In other words,
3 it was admissible for reception, suitable for reception?
4 A. When we mounted this parabolic antenna, we had a sufficiently
5 powerful signal, so we did not have to go to the level of noise. It was
6 a perfectly intelligible and good signal, and it was five to ten
7 units, 5S.
8 Q. When did you say you mounted that antenna?
9 A. I don't know exactly, but it's certainly before the events in
10 Srebrenica. At the stage of testing, as soon as we happened upon this
11 frequency, and I think I have it all noted down, that frequency was
12 discovered much earlier. As soon as we detected it, we set about
13 mounting the antenna and identifying a good signal.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir, for answering my
15 questions. That is all I have for you today. Thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic. May the Chamber
17 please move into closed session.
18 [Closed session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Witness, the Chamber was informed that the Prosecution sees no
21 need to re-examine you, which means that we'll only deal with a very
22 practical matter about associated exhibits. I have a list of five. Are
23 there any objections? And let's perhaps take them one by one.
24 65 ter 25528. Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: This is the only one we do not object.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is provisionally number P1668 was
2 provisionally assigned to it. 65 ter 25528 is admitted as Exhibit P1668.
3 Second one is under seal.
4 The second one, Mr. Lukic, is number 21970. Objections are --
5 MR. LUKIC: We cannot see who compiled in report, at least it's
6 not visible from the document we have.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. You say it has limited probative
8 value or you say it should therefore not be admitted?
9 MR. LUKIC: We would raise both. It shouldn't be admitted, and
10 if it is admitted, it has very limited probative value.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that, of course, is to be assessed in the
12 context of the entirety of the evidence.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. 65 ter number 21970 is
15 admitted under the number which was provisionally assigned, that is
16 P1669, under seal.
17 I move to the next document, 65 ter 05302. Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: There is only five pages of some handwritten
19 document. We are not clear whether witness knows about all the
20 intercepts entered here or are those his intercepts. So --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
22 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, this is discussed at transcript
23 page 2080 of the witness's evidence in the Tolimir case, now in evidence
24 in this case, P1654. There are five pages from a notebook that was used
25 by the witness's unit. He discusses the -- that notebook in his -- his
1 written evidence, and he explains that notebook.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: Is there a whole notebook or only these five pages in
4 existence right now?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, is it -- let me just have a look.
6 It is five pages of that notebook as far as I understand, Mr. Jeremy.
7 MR. JEREMY: That's correct, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: And the pages are not in order. We have 53, 56, 57,
10 58, and then 71. So we don't know why there are some missing pages.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. LUKIC: It's not clear to us.
13 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, again I think it's explained in the
14 witness's written evidence that pages which correspond to particular
15 intercepts or pages that have entries that correspond to particular
16 intercepts have been extracted from the witness's notebook and for that
17 reason these pages, these five pages, have been tendered.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is there any wish to add any of the pages
19 in between of those selected by the Prosecution?
20 MR. LUKIC: We don't know. We haven't seen them.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Has that not been disclosed any earlier? Do you say
22 that it has not been disclosed, Mr. Lukic?
23 MR. LUKIC: Maybe Miss Janet can help us.
24 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, we have five pages from this notebook.
25 Those five pages have been disclosed to the Defence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And the other pages?
2 MR. JEREMY: We don't have the other pages.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have the other pages.
4 MR. JEREMY: No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied, and the 65 ter 05302 is
6 admitted under the provisionally assigned number Exhibit P1670.
7 Next 65 ter 25531. Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: We object to [microphone not activated] --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please.
10 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. I said we object to this one as well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: For what reasons?
12 MR. LUKIC: Looking through this chart, I really do not
13 understand too much what that should tell us.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, what should it tell us --
15 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, again this is discussed in the
16 witness's written evidence. There are a number of intercepts listed, and
17 for 11 of those intercepts the corresponding entry in each of the five
18 pages of the extracts that's been extracted from the notebook are
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any challenge to that?
21 MR. LUKIC: I guess not.
22 JUDGE ORIE: To that -- these are discussed in the witness's
23 written evidence.
24 MR. LUKIC: We will leave this to your discretion, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then under those circumstances the Chamber admits
1 into evidence 65 ter 25531 as Exhibit P1671.
2 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, just to explain the next exhibit, that
3 was the subject of a request to add this to our 65 ter list. It's a
4 table of concordance between the exhibit that we just discussed, 25531 or
5 P1671, a table of concordance between the exhibit numbers in the Tolimir
6 case and those in the Mladic case.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Purely a technical matter then.
8 MR. JEREMY: Purely technical matter.
9 MR. LUKIC: We withdraw our objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You withdraw the objection. That means that the
11 Chamber hereby admits into evidence 65 ter number 25531A as
12 Exhibit P1672. And this completes the associated exhibits.
13 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness RM316, the Chamber would like to thank you
15 for coming to The Hague, for having answered all the questions that were
16 put to you either by the parties or by the Chamber, and we wish you a
17 safe return home again. Before you believe the courtroom, we'll first
18 turn into closed session.
19 [Closed session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 Witness RM235, the text of the solemn declaration will be handed
14 out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: DRAZEN ERDEMOVIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Witness. Please be seated.
20 Witness, you will first be examined by Mr. McCloskey.
21 Mr. McCloskey is counsel for the Prosecution, and you'll find him to your
23 Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. Good
25 afternoon, everyone.
1 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
2 Q. Good afternoon. Could you state your name for us and for the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Do we do that in -- is it just face and voice?
5 No -- yes. There's no pseudonym. Yes.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Excuse me. I didn't have the mike on.
7 Q. Could you state your name for the record, please.
8 A. Drazen Erdemovic.
9 Q. And do you recall testifying here in July 1996 at what was called
10 a Rule 61 hearing and in May 2007 in the Popovic trial?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you were asked the same questions you were asked during
13 those proceedings, would your answers be the same?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And would they be truthful and correct to the best of your
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer those records into evidence. The
19 first one is 29019, and the second one is 29020.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, 29019.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1673, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And 29020.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1674, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are there any objections again the
25 admission of these transcripts -- or it is Mr. Stojanovic. I apologise.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P1673 and P1674 are admitted into evidence.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, if I may read a brief summary
5 which for the witness's knowledge is just for the public, I would do that
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Drazen Erdemovic was born in Tuzla in 1971 and is
9 of Bosnian Croat descent. He did his mandatory military service with the
10 JNA, which ended in March 1992. He then served for a short time in the
11 Bosnian Muslim Army. He then joined the Bosnian Croat army and left that
12 in November 1993.
13 In April 1994, Mr. Erdemovic joined the VRS and later became a
14 member of the 10th Sabotage Detachment which consisted of two platoons,
15 one in Bijeljina and one in Vlasenica. Mr. Erdemovic was a member of the
16 Bijeljina Platoon. The 10th Sabotage Detachment did reconnaissance and
17 sabotage work behind enemy lines. The unit was directly subordinated to
18 the Main Staff of the VRS.
19 Colonel Petar Salapura, and intelligence officer from the
20 Main Staff, was in charge of the unit, and the unit itself was commanded
21 by 2nd lieutenant Milorad Pelemis.
22 On the afternoon of 10 July, Mr. Erdemovic, together with other
23 members of his unit, travelled from Bratunac towards Srebrenica to take
24 part in the attack on the enclave. They spent the night at an elevation
25 above Srebrenica. On the morning of 11 July, Erdemovic and the members
1 of his unit descended into Srebrenica town. Their commander, Pelemis,
2 told the members of the unit not to harm any civilians but to direct them
3 to the soccer stadium in town.
4 When Mr. Erdemovic and the others reached the centre of
5 Srebrenica town, an able bodied Muslim man surrendered to them. Pelemis
6 ordered a man named Zoran from his unit to kill this man. Erdemovic saw
7 Zoran carry out this order by slitting the man's throat.
8 On the morning of 16 July, Erdemovic and seven other members of
9 the 10th Sabotage Detachment commanded by one of their own,
10 Brano Gojkovic, departed from their base in Dragasevac for Zvornik. At
11 the Zvornik Brigade barracks, a lieutenant-colonel in a VRS uniform came
12 out of the barracks accompanied by two members of the Drina Corps
13 military police, the lieutenant-colonel and the two MPs got in a vehicle
14 and led Erdemovic's group from Zvornik to a farm near the town of Pilica.
15 The lieutenant-colonel was tall, corpulent, with grey hair.
16 The lieutenant-colonel spoke to Brano Gojkovic and told him that
17 buses would be coming to the farm. A short time later, Gojkovic
18 announced that buses carrying civilians from Srebrenica would start
19 arriving and that they were to be killed. At approximately 9.30 to
20 10.00 a.m. the first bus arrived. A group of approximately 10 prisoners
21 were taken off the bus, blindfolded with their hands tied behind their
22 back. They were taken to a nearby meadow and shot on orders from
23 Brano Gojkovic.
24 Mr. Erdemovic along with the other seven members of the
25 10th Sabotage Detachment opened fire on the prisoners with automatic
1 weapons. The executions continued in this way from approximately
2 1000 hours until about 1530 to 1600 hours with 15 to 20 busloads of
3 prisoners ultimately being executed.
4 Mr. Erdemovic estimated that between 1.000 and 1.200 people were
5 executed at the farm that day. Early in the afternoon that day, soldiers
6 in VRS uniform arrived at the farm. Mr. Erdemovic believed these men
7 were from Bratunac and he believed they knew some of the victims by the
8 way they were acting towards them.
9 As the executions progressed, these soldiers beat and cursed the
11 Finally, the lieutenant-colonel came back to the farm as the last
12 busload of Muslims were being executed. The lieutenant-colonel told the
13 members of the 10th Sabotage Detachment unit that there were some 500
14 prisoners at the Pilica cultural centre who also needed to be executed.
15 Mr. Erdemovic, as well as some other members of his squad,
16 refused this order. Instead, members of the unit from Bratunac left the
17 farm with the lieutenant-colonel. Mr. Erdemovic and the others followed
18 to Pilica shortly thereafter.
19 When Mr. Erdemovic and others arrived at Pilica he was across the
20 street from the cultural centre and heard gunfire and hand grenade
21 explosions coming from the cultural centre.
22 And that is the end of the summary.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome [sic]. If you have any
24 further questions to the witness, you may proceed.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: And -- all right. I do have some -- I have asked
1 for an hour. I hope to be less than that.
2 Q. Mr. Erdemovic did you plead guilty on 14 January 1998 to a
3 violation of the laws and customs of war for your involvement in the
4 murders of the -- at the Branjevo farm in July 1995?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And for your guilty plea [microphone not activated] --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY:
9 Q. And for your guilty plea and co-operation and promise to testify
10 in future cases and due to the duress you suffered; did the Prosecution
11 recommend a sentence of seven years?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you received an actual sentence of five years?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we have Exhibit 65 ter 05620 on the
17 Q. You have seen this before? This should be the plea agreement.
18 And we can now see that first page in English. Just to get a view of
19 that first page. Now could we go to the last -- to the last page in both
20 languages. And taking a look at that, the one on the right, is that your
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Sorry, is that your signature on the one on the right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So is this the plea agreement we mentioned?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer this into evidence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05260 receives number P1675,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P1675 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we now see Exhibit 65 ter 18128.
8 Q. And, sir, did you actually have a contract with the VRS when you
9 signed up?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. And that should be -- you've seen this in other
12 trials. Just looking at this particular document, and let's just briefly
13 look at that in English and then go to the next page in English. I
14 believe the last page.
15 All right. We see the contract continues, which you can just
16 scan briefly. Let's go to the -- let's see the next page in the B/C/S,
17 too, please.
18 And let's go to the next page in the English.
19 So is this -- we see both your name and the name of Ratko Mladic.
20 Is this your signature on this document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is this the contract that you spoke of?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer this into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Mr. McCloskey, the Chamber will
1 admit it into evidence, but the English versions still have the stickers
2 with the other case name and the P numbers in the other cases, and the
3 Chamber would prefer to have the -- the blank ones rather than confusing
4 exhibit numbers from other cases to be part of our evidence.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We'll fix that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, Madam Registrar, the number --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 18128 receives number P1676,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we still go back to the first page of that
10 document. You see there on top of the page a date, 30th of April. At
11 the bottom where we saw the signatures it's -- there's an indication that
12 it was signed in February 1995 the year is not visible in the B/C/S and
13 not in the English translation on the first page.
14 Mr. Erdemovic, could you help us? When was the contract signed
15 and agreed upon? February or April?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I signed it in February.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that to the left on the top there's a
19 handwritten note which dates from a later date. Does it cause any
20 further questions or is it maybe an archiving number or ...
21 MR. McCLOSKEY:
22 Q. Mr. Erdemovic, do you have any idea what we see in that left
23 corner? We have a class number is all we see. Do you have any idea what
24 that is?
25 A. I cannot answer this precisely, but maybe when this document was
1 placed somewhere in the Main Staff I believe that number and that date
2 were put there.
3 Q. And just one last question that on the -- the weeks leading up
4 before the Srebrenica -- the attack on the Srebrenica enclave in
5 July 1995, the Trial Chamber has heard evidence about a mission through
6 the tunnel that your unit did where zoljas were fired. Were you part of
7 that particular mission that went through the tunnel and fired some
8 zoljas at Srebrenica?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I shouldn't be -- I should hopefully be well
11 within my hour, but I think it's break time, so ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You mentioned one hour. I think we have 30
13 minutes on our list, but if in your mind you have already one hour,
14 that's a disturbing signal.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Actually, thought we were requested it to be an
16 hour after consulting with my juniors. They said I should get my act
17 together in terms of better timing, so in looking at the documents, I
18 thought an hour would be better.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A solution is not to extend the hour,
20 Mr. McCloskey, but to stay within the time limits suggested first. But
21 before we adjourn for the day, Mr. Stojanovic, the questions put by the
22 Chamber have not resulted in any objection against admission, if I
23 understand you well. Most likely it's an administrative kind of
24 handwriting, but if you want to make any comments on that, please feel
25 free to do so.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We have dealt
2 with this document, and we checked trying to identifying what kind of
3 stamp this is. So considering the question and the answer received, so
4 far we have no problem with this.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P1676 is admitted into evidence.
6 Mr. Erdemovic, we'll adjourn for the day. We'd like to see you
7 back tomorrow morning at 9.30, and we'll continue. We will wait until
8 the curtains are down, but I already announce that we'll -- in closed
9 session we'll adjourn and resume on Wednesday, the 3rd of July, in this
10 same Courtroom III at 9.30 in the morning, and we'll start in
11 closed session.
12 I further -- Mr. Erdemovic, I further instruct you that you
13 should not speak or communicate in any other way with whomever about your
14 testimony, whether that is testimony you've given already today or
15 testimony still to be given in the days to follow.
16 [Closed session]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 3rd day
25 of July, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.