1 Tuesday, 28 November 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, registrar. Could you kindly call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, sir.
11 Good morning to everyone. I see that all the accused are here,
12 Defence teams are in full force except for Mr. Bourgon. Prosecution like
13 yesterday, Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. The witness is already
14 present in the courtroom. Good morning to you, sir.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome back. We are resuming the examination
17 in chief, and then I pass you on to the various Defence teams for their
19 Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours,
21 counsel, ladies and gentlemen.
22 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-131 [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
25 Q. I think when we left off yesterday was very near the end, if not
1 the end of examining the witness in relation to the map that was
2 introduced as an exhibit. I would just have a few questions I'd like to
3 pose to the witness in order to complete the direct examination.
4 Good morning, Witness. You had indicated yesterday that you have
5 a fairly thorough familiarity with these electronic -- the electronic
6 versions of the intercepts that were processed by your unit. In relation
7 to that, I would like to ask you, could you tell us if there is specific
8 information that is required to be placed on the electronic version of the
9 intercept when it's sent to the headquarters in Tuzla?
10 A. I may not have understood your question fully, but I will try to
11 answer it. Only the recording that have been listened in to are placed in
12 the electronic version and sent to the command. We did not detract
13 anything from it or add to it. That was the main rule. We did not go
14 into the contents of the conversation as to who the persons in fact were.
15 We were merely interested in the contents of the conversation, and
16 I had to take an oath that I would abide by these rules and whatever we
17 heard is what is contained in the text.
18 Q. Other than the text, these printouts that were transmitted to the
19 headquarters of the 2nd Corps, do they contain other information such as
20 the site from which the transmission had been sent from?
21 A. Each heading of the document, or the report, clearly stated which
22 connection this was, the frequency, the direction it came from, the
23 numerical code, the channel, and the designation for this route that we
24 chose. It was either 624 or 625, depending on the route of the
1 Our task was to forward the documents as they were to the command.
2 In addition to written information, every week, at the end of each shift,
3 we took over fully taped recordings that would then -- those ones that had
4 been used would be erased, and we would take the erased blank tapes back
5 with us.
6 Q. Could I have, if I may, I think it's been marked for
7 identification, P02312, displayed for the witness? Thank you.
8 Can you see that, Witness?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. I just want to refer you to the header, the top part of
11 this document, and I wondered if you could just take us through the
12 various demarcations on there, such as the site, the date, things like
13 that, and let the Court know exactly what those are or how they are
15 A. I will try to be as clear as possible. This is the classic
16 heading. The first line says, "Army of the Republic of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina." Since we had a direct connection with the command of
18 the 2nd Corps, in fact what you see in the second line is the 2nd Corps
19 command. The third line says that it's the radio relay, surveillance
20 station, the location in the north.
21 The fourth line is the reference number of the document that was
22 sent as the first document on that date, because we see it says 01/14795.
23 So that's the first report to leave this facility on the 14th of July
24 1995. The reference number is, of course, 01; and then the number after
25 the slash is in fact the date. We thought this would be the simplest way
1 of designating these or referencing these documents; and then the last
2 line bears the date, 14th of July 1995.
3 We had a certain code designated for every day at the KZ, and it
4 was under that code that all the documents on that date would be sent. On
5 the following day, we would have a different code; and, as I said, we
6 received these codes from Sarajevo every month. The classic daily report
7 would be sent by the unit charged with doing this job. We see below what
8 is typical of this. Every person manning this particular post had the
9 obligation to write down the frequency the conversation was heard; and
10 there you have it, 785.000 megahertz, and that's the frequency on which
11 the conversation was picked up.
12 Then the "CH" abbreviation stands for channels. This is the third
13 channel on the route, and I will try to explain this. In the
14 communications system, a certain chain of command would be given a given
15 channel. There were channels that were clearer, that had less noise in
16 them. The channels between channel 3 and channel 5 were reserved for
17 commanding structures, for officers, and we can see that this was picked
18 up on channel 3. At the time of intercept-- of the intercept is 0704 and
19 the route is southeast, and that's from the facility from which the
20 intercept was picked up. And this was used in the event that the persons
21 taking part in the conversation do not state where they are calling from;
22 or if they are not even calling from a facility we know, then we would
23 designate them as X, Y participants because they are unknown.
24 And then we have the text of the intercept as it was taped. In
25 the lower right-hand corner, we have abbreviations which are -- these are
1 the initials of the persons producing the report. The first initials on
2 the left is the initials of the person who typed the report, encrypted it
3 and sent it to Tuzla, and the second pair of initials are the initials of
4 the person picking up the conversation and noting it down. And this
5 served us to know who took part in making these reports.
6 The initials on the left-hand side would normally be the same for
7 a week, because that would be the person designated to do the job for the
8 week; whereas, the initials on the right-hand side could vary, because we
9 had seven to eight people who would be picking up the conversations and
10 noting them down, or rather, recording them and then noting them down.
11 And it could have been any of those seven or eight persons at any given
12 time doing that job.
13 Q. Thank you for that. With respect to the report number on this
14 particular exhibit, is that designated by the number 01?
15 A. Yes. That's the first report or conversation that was picked up
16 that morning and sent to the command. We could send as many as 50 reports
17 a day; however, on average we would send 20 to 30 of them.
18 Q. Okay. So it's fair to say there was no fixed number of reports
19 that was sent daily from your unit?
20 A. The amount of reports and the work load did not depend on us. It
21 depended on the persons involved in communication. If the air waves were
22 busy that was normal, because it reflected the situation on the ground;
23 but if the situation was stable or calm, then there would be less -- there
24 would be less conversations in the air waves.
25 Q. With respect to the time of the given intercept, you've indicated
1 that the times are designated particularly on this document as an example
2 as 0704 and 0750, but there are no dates that are indicated there. Is the
3 proper way to read this document -- is the proper way to read the document
4 such that those intercepts that are recorded underneath that heading can
5 be assumed to have been recorded on the date that's indicated on the
7 A. Yes. There was a certain delay, because it took some time for the
8 report to take its formal shape. First, the conversation had to be
9 recorded, then it had to be noted down into the notebooks, then it had
10 been to be taken to the KZ operator to be typed up and to be given a
11 number. The time contained here is the time when the intercept was
12 recorded or heard. There was a book on the KZ -- in the KZ department,
13 which stated the date or the time, when the report was sent over so that
14 the KZ operators up at Tuzla could have a clear list of the reports
15 received and sent.
16 There could not have been any mistakes done, because the system
17 was well coordinated. But let me just note that the reports that were
18 received just before midnight, for instance, if a conversation was
19 recorded at 2300 hours or 2330 hours, then the report might actually have
20 been sent the -- on the following day and the code would change. So they
21 would not be sent on the same day they were recorded. But this only
22 happened with the intercepts that were recorded just before midnight.
23 However, if the information was urgent and could not be subject to
24 this delay, then we would communicate the intercept over the phone.
25 Otherwise, we would take the normal procedure of taking -- of sending the
1 reports to Tuzla.
2 Q. With respect to the report that is were recorded just close to
3 midnight or the turning of the hour of the day, would they appear in the
4 following days report as the first report of that day with a relatively
5 high hour designation such as 2200 or 2300 hours?
6 A. Yes. The time when the intercept was recorded was clearly stated,
7 as let's say 2300 hours, and then it would be sent on the following day.
8 Let me say that this took place rarely but it, nevertheless, happened.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: If you would just bear with me for one moment,
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. VANDERPUYE:
13 Q. Okay. Thank you, Witness. I have no further questions at this
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Zivanovic is going
16 first. Mr. Zivanovic is appearing for Mr. Popovic in this case, yes, Mr.
18 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] I agreed with my colleague Zivanovic
19 to go first, because I have some commitments later on. I believe all my
20 colleagues are aware of this and have no objections.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I believe Mr. Zivanovic was about to tell us
22 precisely that. So Mr. Sarapa, you go first, thank you.
23 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Excellent. I did not want to just
24 barge in with the first question like this.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Sarapa:
1 Q. Good morning, Witness.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. Can you tell me which military school you completed?
4 A. I completed the military high school and specialised in
6 Q. What sort of work experience did you have in the JNA?
7 A. I worked at the surveillance centre, military post 1925 in Nis.
8 Q. In the course of the war in the BiH, did you cooperate with the
9 intelligence organs at the level of the corps?
10 A. We had this professional line of cooperation. It wasn't a chain
11 of command line, but it was quite natural.
12 Q. Did you know which areas did the platoons from the divisions
14 A. In principle, I did. The platoons for the most part covered the
15 areas covered by the area, like the 21st division covered Posavina. The
16 area of surveillance was always by 30 percent larger than the area of
17 operation of the unit.
18 Q. Can you tell us the platoon for electronic reconnaissance from the
19 24th and 25th division, which areas did they cover?
20 A. The 24th division covered from Zvornik to Sekovici and the 25th
21 covered the area of Majevica --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please break between question
23 and answer?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Stop, stop, stop. Again, we have the
25 perennial problem when two persons engaged in a discussion or questions
1 speak the same language. Both Mr. Sarapa and you, Witness, speak the same
2 language or are speaking the same language. So you have a tendency to
3 overlap and one doesn't allow the other one to finish before you butt in
4 with your answer or Mr. Sarapa with his question. So please allow a very
5 brief interval of time between question and answer; because, otherwise,
6 the interpreters will find it very difficult to translate the entire --
7 what you're saying in its entirety. Yes, Mr. Sarapa.
8 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did you cover the communications of the 28th Division?
10 A. I don't understand the question.
11 Q. Did you cover the communications of the 28th Division in
13 A. Based on what I know, we did not monitor the communications for
14 the simple reason that the 28th Division did not have sophisticated
15 equipment. As far as I know, they only had the one short wave station.
16 Q. Tell me, did you cover the communications on ultra wave -- ultra
17 short waves that were done by the Motorolas?
18 A. We had the possibility to do that. However, we did that to a
19 lesser extent, because these were shorter distance communications. It was
20 only if we used the repeater that we listened to such communications. It
21 was units at the level of brigade and divisions that covered these
23 Q. Do you know who Semso Muminovic is? Are you familiar with the
25 A. I believe I do know him. I believe this person came from Teocak
1 or Sapna. He was a military man. I don't know what he's doing now.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, again, I have to repeat, slow down and allow
3 a pause between question and answer.
4 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you know anything about the conversations between Semso
6 Muminovic and the commander of the Zvornik Brigade, Vinko --
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last name.
8 A. I did not.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreter did not hear the last name, if you
10 could repeat it, please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But Vinko, Mr. Sarapa, Vinko who? I would imagine
13 it's Pandurevic.
14 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Pandurevic.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't want to say it myself. So okay, we have it
16 in the record now. We don't have to worry about it.
17 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation].
18 Q. Do you know who was the commander of the 24th division?
19 A. I cannot remember at this moment.
20 Q. No further questions.
21 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] I have finished my cross-examination.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Sarapa.
23 Mr. Zivanovic, are you taking over or are you announcing that
24 someone else will?
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will take over, Your Honour.
1 Your Honour, before my cross-examination, I would like to provide
2 an explanation in relation with the use of exhibits and probably had with
3 the previous witness. To explain to you, in the list of the exhibits that
4 we are going to use in our cross-examination, we have included among
5 others all the books of intercepts, because we did not know exactly which
6 intercepts would be used in our cross-examination. So that only after the
7 examination-in-chief, we wanted to decide which intercepts to use in our
9 But now we have a technical problem, to wit, all these books
10 amount to 2.000 pages, and they could not be put into the EDS system.
11 Therefore, we had to produce those intercepts either through videolink or
12 through or to put them on the ELMO. So this produced some delays in
13 production of our exhibits. I should have done that during the
14 examination of the previous witness. I apologise and I'm taking this
15 opportunity now, and I believe that we will have no further problems of
16 that kind.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you for giving us that
18 information and also for the attitude you have adopted, Mr. Zivanovic.
19 Go ahead, please.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
22 Q. Good morning, sir.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Could you tell us, please -- I apologise.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go into private session?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means, let's go into private session for a
2 short while, please. Thank you.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 4648-4662 redacted. Private session
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did you forward the company reports deciphered to the command?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you encode them again?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yesterday, you said that, among other things, that you performed
21 an analysis of the reports received. Could you describe the way, the
22 method that you used?
23 A. That was the first analysis or primary analysis, standard
24 procedure at the unit level. The main task and out come of that analysis
25 is to extract maximum possible information about the organisation and the
1 schematic of the communications of the VRS to detect which relay nodes,
2 which commands, which units hide under certain code, which would enable us
3 to perform further analysis also.
4 Each day a piece of information or a certain person if a name of a
5 son-in-law, son, daughter, wife, were referred to with respect to a
6 certain person, we would open a database on that person and the
7 information obtained through radio surveillance, which would make our
8 further work easier. The softer side of the work in radio relay is that
9 codes were changed very infrequently, maybe once or twice a year.
10 Q. Could you tell us, please, how many men were involved in the
11 maintenance of databases or records on the persons mentioned in the
12 intercepted conversations?
13 A. Two people, and I as a third person.
14 Q. If I understood you correctly, you did not perform a content
15 analysis, you analysed just the frequencies and channels that you may find
16 them again in the future?
17 A. As I already stated, we were not interested and we did not have
18 the time to deal with facts or who had -- who said what or who gave which
19 information. At that point, it was important for us to hear who said
20 something, and that that original information is sent to the unit.
21 Q. Did you receive information from platoons via the telegram?
22 A. I did not understand you.
23 Q. Did you receive information from the platoon over the telegram?
24 A. Yes. An abbreviated version of such reports would come through
25 that mode of communication.
1 Q. In which situations would reports be sent over the telegram?
2 A. In situations which required urgent response. For instance, the
3 posulovo [phoen] at Ozren when they were active and they would shell Tuzla
4 and some other places, and whenever they were doing something with their
5 artillery, we would receive immediate and urgent reports.
6 Q. Telegram communication was used because it was faster than the
7 computer communication?
8 A. I already said we did not understand. We used the telegram form,
9 but we used radio packet system of relaying information. So it is a radio
10 communication, but we used the telegraphic form, just a single sentence.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we go ahead?
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's redact lines 6 and 7, and go ahead.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Were the telephone lines between those two facilities that I
18 mentioned, did they function properly?
19 A. At that time from the northern facility, we had two types of
20 communication; (redacted)
1 (redacted)- was a relay station which had optical
2 visibility with the other two and an underground telephone link with the
3 Dubrave airport.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, Mr. Vanderpuye. Let's redact also
5 lines 16, 17, please, 16, 17 and 18, up to "radio packet;" and even the
6 next line, yes, and even the next line and line 20, up to"reasons."
7 You're not being careful both of you, actually, in trying to avoid
8 mentioning names. Otherwise, we will have to revert to private session.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to confront the
10 witness with two reports. I'm not sure whether this should be done in
11 private session. We are discussing direct intercepts. Is it technically
12 possible for those -- for the content not to be shown or broadcast outside
13 the courtroom?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. That is possible, yes. That is possible.
15 The understanding is the following, with the technicians, please.
16 We will see the document or exhibit on our screen. Unless you have
17 specific authorisation from us to broadcast those images, then you're not
18 to broadcast them. Thank you.
19 Mr. Vanderpuye, I apologise to you. I saw you standing, but I
20 suppose you also had objection to retaining those four lines.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I supposed that was the reason. I forgot to ask you
23 again. Thank you.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's Defence Exhibit 1D72.
25 Q. You saw many such reports. I would like to focus your attention
1 to the heading, not the content of the report. By the heading, I mean
2 what can be visible above the line. You see the number of this report?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You can see the date?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You see it's a Daily Report RI?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You can see who it is addressed to?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. I would like the witness to see another report, ERN
11 number is 6644. It's not on e-court. I'm afraid that we are going to
12 have to show it in this manner. 6694 is the page, the four last digits.
13 I would like to focus your attention to the upper part of this
14 page, of this report. I'm not going to delve into its contents. First of
15 all, I have to tell you that this is not the same report as the one. Can
16 you notice that there is no number designating this report?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you notice that this report has no addressee?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you explain the content of this stencil? First of all, who
21 would put this rubber stamp here?
22 A. It is known to me. I will try to be as simple as possible in my
23 explanation. Of course, there is no indication of any addressee because
24 this report is the report received at Tuzla by the encrypter, and his duty
25 was to place such a rectangular seal or stamp on it and give it to his
2 Q. Could you explain the term "processed" in the third line?
3 A. This is the moment when this report was deciphered and made
4 available for use. Above it are the standard codes, and these codes were
5 matched at the end of each business day, in terms of how many reports were
6 sent and how many reports were received.
7 Q. Whoever received this sort of a telegram, did they have to erase
8 the addressee?
9 A. They did so. I wasn't there to control their procedures, but
10 generally I know the procedure. And you see that this document was just a
11 report, not a radio surveillance report.
12 Q. Could you tell us whether this report was sent by your unit or
13 from a unit under your command?
14 A. This report, I believe, was sent from our unit, this specific one.
15 Q. Can you tell it by the heading?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you print texts of the reports that you received?
18 A. Reports were printed at two places, and this is the reason why
19 this report was produced. They would be printed in the unit command,
20 within the company at Par Selo. The other two facilities we could not
21 print them. And the second place the reports would be printed out at
22 would be the security organ, and this particular report was printed there.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Intelligence organ.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record the last document that Mr. Zivanovic
1 made use of, the complete ERN number is 02046694. Thank you.
2 Go ahead. And we have a break in about four minutes or three
3 minutes' time.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Did you send printed reports to your higher command?
6 A. No. It was not permitted to transport the reports in a written or
7 a printed form. Our obligation was to store them in binders; and as
8 producers of such reports, we had the duty to save-keep them.
9 Q. And you kept them safe?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Deciphered?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Ciphered as well?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did anybody verify or check the accuracy of deciphering?
16 A. Your question is not very clear to me. Simply, people who were
17 engaged at encryption were specially trained. The training was performed
18 partly in Tuzla, partly in Sarajevo.
19 The cryptographers took an oath. They were certified for their
20 work; and from the state and military security organs, were licensed to
21 perform their work. Those people were not mobilised and simply appointed
22 among the conscripted. They had to follow certain procedure and be
24 Q. You would send the tapes to the units under your command?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you would receive filled tapes interest them?
2 A. Given the distance between the two facilities, whenever shift
3 would change, we would take erased blank tapes and take the full tapes and
4 would take them to the 2nd Corps command. And I told you already that the
5 largest problem we had, apart from paper, were the tapes, magnetic tapes.
6 Q. And then these tapes would be copied to some other tapes?
7 A. There was a team in that department who listened to the tapes, and
8 they were the second filter. They decided which conversations were
9 interesting; and on the basis of the material that they had available,
10 they would copy some conversation to other tapes. They would erase the
11 tapes at hand and send them back to the units for reuse.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe, Your Honour, this is
13 the right time to take a break.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Zivanovic, we'll have a break. How
15 much more time do you require for your cross-examination? You've been one
16 hour already.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe some 45 minutes more.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And then Mr. Ostojic?
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President. As I indicated
20 yesterday, 45 minutes, and I know the Court was kind with the last witness
21 with me. I will try to cut it short to approximately half an hour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Ms. Nikolic?
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I
24 believe I will fit within the announced 20 minutes. Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic?
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I'll stick to my yesterday's estimation. I
2 believe 20 to 25 minutes will do.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Fauveau?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] One hour, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Josse?
6 MR. JOSSE: Unlikely to have any cross-examination, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Sarapa has done his cross-examination
8 already. We have two hours and a half. We should try and make an effort
9 to finish this witness. Okay. Thank you.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, you will have all noticed that Judge
13 Stole is back with us. So we will resume the sitting with the
14 composition, with the full composition.
15 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Mr. President. We are just briefly we
17 are in the process of trying to organise the exhibits that we would tender
18 in relation to there witness's testimony, and there had been some
19 discussion yesterday on, I guess, marking some exhibits for
20 identification, for tender at a later time. They were intercept-related.
21 We have other documents such as maps and photographs and chain of
22 custody evidence that we are not entirely sure whether that should also be
23 put off to a later time. We would appreciate the court's guidance in that
24 respect, because--
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put it like this: The only point we made,
1 when the question of intercepts arose and the tendering into evidence, was
2 that since intercepts generally, across the board, in other words, were
3 being challenged by all the Defence teams, all intercepts for the time
4 being will not be formally admitted until we have an opportunity -- we
5 would have had an opportunity to go through all the relative evidence, and
6 they will only be entered into the records temporarily and marked for
7 identification purposes only.
8 But that's as relates to the intercepts and to no other documents.
9 All other documents we cannot advise you as to what to do, whether you
10 wish to tender them now or whether you wish to tender them later. That's
11 up to you, your choice, and we will not interfere with that. But I speak
12 for myself for the time being and I stand to be corrected. I haven't
13 heard as yet any objections brought forward to these other ancillary
14 documents. Not the intercepts themselves. I'm referring to ancillary
16 If we receive objections, then obviously we will hear what the
17 objection is and decide whether to admit them now or postpone that until a
18 later point in time and have them marked for identification purposes as
19 well like the intercepts. So that's the position.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. In your unit, among other things, you also stored tapes; is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. These were only the tapes that were sent to you from the higher
2 command, or did they include also tapes sent to you from subordinate
4 A. I'll try to explain this. We always had a given amount of tapes
5 which did not even remotely meet our requirements, not even the 5 percent
6 of what we needed. In late 1995, after the signing of the Dayton Accords,
7 the army was restructured and the platoons of subordinate units became
8 part of the whole structure.
9 Q. Thank you. You've discussed this already, but I wanted to clarify
10 something else. You had the tapes that you received from your subordinate
11 units and which you later on forwarded to the higher command. The higher
12 command partly copied these conversations on to other tapes and returned
13 the erased tapes to you or returned the recorded tapes to you which you
14 then reused.
15 My question to you was: Did you use only the tapes that you
16 received from your subordinate structures, or did you also use tapes that
17 you received from the higher command?
18 A. No. We did not keep the tapes in our unit. The higher command
19 would take the tapes at the end of the shifts and take them to the other
21 Q. In other words, these tapes did not stay with you for longer
22 periods of time than that?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, Mr. Zivanovic and witness, please, again,
25 may I appeal to you to allow a short pause between question and answer. I
1 can sense the stress in the interpreter's voice trying to catch up with
2 both of you, when you overlap.
3 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Can the witness please be shown Exhibit number -- that's the
6 Prosecution Exhibit number 1075.
7 Q. Do you recognise the document? Can you see it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You signed this document, didn't you?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No broadcast of this document on the air, please,
12 unless we issue a counterorder. Thank you.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Can you please look at the first column, which has the
15 heading,"Title or Name?" Can you explain to me what this abbreviation
16 stands for, STPOV, and the number?
17 A. Since we didn't have the originals that were used for that
18 purpose, we gave a reference number to each of the notebooks in order to
19 make them retrievable. This designation means that the notebook was
20 entered into a logbook under this number and with this date. We would
21 enter 15 or 20 notebooks into the log and take them to these facilities.
22 Q. In other words, you would do this at the time when the notebooks
23 were still empty, before they were filled up?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At the end of the document, can we please turn to page 5? It is
1 at the very bottom of page 5. There, it reads, "Handed over by," then
2 there is your name and signature; and on the right-hand side, "Taken over
3 by," and then another name. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If I understood you correctly, the handover of the notebooks and
6 of the material was not done on that date. Can you tell us why do we have
7 this written; who handed over and who received the documents?
8 A. If I remember correctly, the list and the documents were an annex
9 to the minutes, which clearly state the date when the transfer of
10 documents took place. This is merely an annex to the minutes, and I was
11 authorised by my superior to sign the list and I handed it over to the
12 gentleman whose name we see here.
13 Q. Can we go back to page 1 of the document? Do you see the column
14 which says "facility" or building? And you can see that it's empty. Can
15 you tell me or explain to me what this means?
16 A. Since the notebooks were entered in chronological order, we left
17 this column empty, because some of the notebooks were sent to the northern
18 facility and some were sent to the southern facility.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at page 2 of the document? Under
20 number 23, if you look at this row, under the column "building," there is
21 this one word. Can you tell us what this means in the context of the
22 minutes or the record?
23 A. The fourth column states that the notebook did not contain any
24 information as to when it was made available for use or when it was filled
25 up. But we know which facility it came from; in this case, it came from
1 the northern facility.
2 Q. Numbers 26 and 27, the same thing applies to them?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In row number 22, we have the information as to when the notebook
5 was made available for use, but not when it was filled up. Does it come
6 from the same facility?
7 A. The fact of the matter is that probably the notebook was not
8 filled up. It wasn't fully filled up, and that's why we have only the
9 date when it was made available for use.
10 Q. Thank you. With regard to the notebooks being made available for
11 use, which amount of notebooks would you normally send to a given facility
12 and what did it depend upon?
13 A. Except for the chain of command and the receiving of reports from
14 facilities, before one shift would end, we would normally receive requests
15 from different persons concerning their needs. Commanders of these
16 facilities would monitor the expenditure of supplies and would regularly
17 notify their requests accordingly.
18 Q. Did you keep a record of the notebooks you issued?
19 A. You see, in the second column, the notebooks were entered into the
20 logbook kept at Par Selo. Of course, we kept a record, and we always went
21 back to check which of the notebooks were sent back.
22 Q. You said that normally the shift that was leaving would take out
23 the new notebooks and would then come back with the old, used up ones.
24 Did I understand you correctly?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When a shift would be going out into the northern facility, say,
2 how many notebooks would they take with them?
3 A. On average, a dozen.
4 Q. And how many would they come back with?
5 A. The number of notebooks coming back would always be by 1 percent
6 lower, because they always kept some for use.
7 Q. The notebooks that would be taken over there, would they be
8 circulated into use immediately? Would they be used immediately?
9 A. It depended on the notebooks that they used up. As they used up a
10 notebook, they would automatically take a new one.
11 Q. Was it possible for one notebook to be used even before an older
12 one that was earlier in use was actually filled up?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You said that you, yourself, controlled and saw that the notebooks
15 matched or whether they matched with the reports.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you notice that some of the notebooks lacked dates?
18 A. Well, it happened. That's why we had shifts, and that's why we
19 insisted on the adherence to the rules governing notebooks; but, of
20 course, people committed mistakes.
21 Q. Let's say you had four intercepting posts on a given -- in a given
22 facility, and let's say you had ten notebooks that were being used. Could
23 mistakes take place there?
24 A. We were not required, under the law, to keep the notebooks. The
25 report that was typed up in the computer was given a date, and we did
1 things this way because we had to be quick.
2 Q. In other words, if you wanted to double check a date, you could
3 not do that by consulting the notebooks?
4 A. I would match the report that was typed up with the notebook.
5 Q. If the typed up report contains the date and the notebook does
6 not, then you would not be able to see if the dates tallied?
7 A. I will be frank again. I did not pay particular attention to the
8 dates. I looked at the contents.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: This is a daily business, so you can understand why
11 he was more bothered with the content, rather than the dates, Mr.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand.
14 Q. Can you explain to us why some of the notebooks - and you were
15 able to see that for yourself - do not contain the dates of when they were
16 first put to use and when they were closed?
17 A. They were either empty or halfway filled when they came out of
18 use, or simply persons who used them forgot to put these dates on.
19 Q. Subsequently, these notebooks would end up in your hands to be
20 double checked?
21 A. As the notebooks came back, they were all stored in a metal safe
22 that was kept in the office.
23 Q. The fact that the date was missing as to when the notebook was no
24 longer used, could also mean that the notebook was only halfway filled?
25 A. Well, believe me. I did not pay particular attention to that,
1 because the report that was typed up into the computer was the official
3 Q. For some reason, we find quite interesting one of the dates, and
4 that's the 15th of July. That's the focus of some of the events we've
5 been dealing with in this case. Looking at this list of yours, I arrived
6 at the conclusion that at the time, on this date, there were 12 notebooks
7 in use, based on the information you have in this list; and if you want me
8 to, I can also give the numbers of the notebooks, but would you agree that
9 this is possible?
10 A. Yes. And I will explain this quite -- in simple terms. I
11 remember this quite clearly. We had ten-day shifts. One shift would
12 change on the 4th, the other one on the 14th. And, of course, on the
13 15th, it would so happen that there were many notebooks open, because the
14 air waves were quite busy and many reports had to be produce.
15 Q. When I said 12 notebooks, I referred only to the notebooks that
16 were entered into the records. The dates were there. We were able to see
17 that the dates when they were made available for use were prior to the
18 15th, and they were still in use after the 15th. However, there are 15
19 more notebooks, according to this list, that were in circulation in this
20 period of time, quite certainly, but we don't have a date of either when
21 they were put to use or when they were closed, when they were no longer
22 used. Is this possible?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. Please, again, both of you - I'm not just
25 referring to one or the other - both of you again you've fallen back to
1 the practice of overlapping. So please go ahead, Witness. You can answer
2 the question now. The question has been put. I think it's his turn to
3 answer the question. All right. Is that all you need to answer? You
4 have to answer. Okay. Then let's proceed to the next question.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can I ask you to look at the notebook under number 111? That's
7 page 4, I believe. Can you please read the date? There is the question
8 mark, and in brackets it says, "torn off." What does it mean?
9 A. In my opinion, this means that someone had torn off a part of the
10 cover page, and that's why we wrote it down this way.
11 Q. Can you explain to me the following? Number 112, for instance,
12 and there are several such notebooks, where you don't have this reference
13 number strictly confidential and the date.
14 A. Whatever features could identify a notebook were written down on
15 this list. In this case, this notebook was not entered into the record.
16 There was no reference number. We only knew that the notebook said that
17 it was RRU-1. And we wrote that it was an A 4 format notebook, a large
18 notebook; and in the last column, we wrote the dates of when it was first
19 used and last used.
20 Q. Can we go back to page 1?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, because item 111 is not on page 4,
22 as we have in line 3 of the transcript. It's page 4 to 5, but on page 5
23 of the document. Also while we are at this, you used the word which was
24 translated to us as torn off, and the witness agreed with that. Could we
25 have an indication, at least for our purposes, of which is the relative
1 word. Is it the one in brackets [B/C/S spoken], or which is the word
2 that would be translated into English as "torn off"?
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] This would mean that this part,
4 which contained the date, was torn off from the page. That's what I --
5 that's how I understood it.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: You have not understood me. I just want to hear the
7 word in the -- the relative word, corresponding word, in B/C/S, pronounced
8 by one of you.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The word is [B/C/S spoken].
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you see on page 1 - and I believe that it can be scrolled
13 down - under 5, you also have a notebook without the strictly confidential
14 mark, and under number 8. And we can scroll up to see more such examples.
15 Can we scroll up or scroll down, rather?
16 Under 11, under 14, there is a number of such rows, 16, 17, 18,
17 19. You can see for yourself. So there are many notebooks that have not
18 been recorded and marked with the strictly confidential remark.
19 A. I'm trying to explain, although I'm not quite sure. There is a
20 possibility that some of these notebooks originated from the 21st
21 Division. There is a possibility that these notebooks came from the 21st
22 Division; and that material, when we handed it over, was in a heap. We
23 had to work very quickly. And we just jotted down the basic elements that
24 were on the notebook, and we record them as such.
25 Q. You are fully right, because if we -- if you want, we can count
1 them. There are 47 such notebooks which do not bear the strictly
2 confidential mark, but only ten come from the 21st Division. And we can
3 see under number 20 is one such notebook, if we could go to that spot on
4 the page. Number 20, if it's possible, yes. We can see it now. It says,
5 "RRU-1, 21st Division." So out of 47 notebooks, ten come from the 21st
6 Division, and the other 37 originated from your unit.
7 Can you agree with me - and I've been perusing this overview -
8 that 135 notebooks were delivered on that occasion?
9 A. I can tell you that 135 documents were handed over. Out of that
10 number of 135, 134 were notebooks. And the number 135 was a heap of
11 papers, which was put together to resemble a notebook.
12 Q. Fine. If you take a look at all these documents, you will see
13 that out of the documents and pertaining to the relevant period under our
14 scrutiny that only six notebooks have all the required elements, have this
15 strictly confidential remark, and the date of opening and the date of
16 closing. All others lack at least one of these elements.
17 A. Yes. Whenever coming to my duty at the unit, one of my tasks was
18 to perform my -- to make my men more military-like. Many of them were
19 civilians, and they were -- had to be instilled with some security
20 mindedness and some military discipline. Otherwise, I will agree with
21 what you said.
22 Q. Could you take a look at notebook number 3 -- under ordinal number
23 3. You see that it was recorded as at 13 of May, but it was put to use a
24 day earlier. How can you explain this?
25 A. Probably it was a mistake in recording. It was done by the
1 officer of the company, and he simply made a mistake as to the dates.
2 Q. Fine. On the 24th of April 1998, you were there when this
3 documentation was handed over to representatives of the Tribunal?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you see this document? If you wish, you can be shown it.
6 That is from the Prosecutor's list, document number 1068.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's decide whether we are going to show it to him
8 or not, because otherwise we will be wasting time. Do you want the
9 witness to see this document or not?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I asked the witness whether he
11 wishes to be shown it. As far as I'm concerned, it is not necessary for
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you explain what it's all
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be best for the
16 witness to see the document. The document 1068.
17 Q. It's a report from the handing over of these materials to the
18 Tribunal's representatives. You can see it for yourself. Did you draft
19 this document?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did somebody dictate the content, or did you draft it yourself?
22 A. Of course, my superior officer ordered me to draft this document,
23 and he signed. I was just the typist.
24 Q. I can see that these documents were handed over as per a written
25 order of the commander of the division, I mean, commander of the corps.
1 It's stated somewhat lower in the document, if we could scroll down,
2 please. There is this statement in the last paragraph. Is that right?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. You handed this documentation to Stephanie Frease, as an ICTY
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I see that you did not seek any documents, ID documents, from her
8 to confirm her identity and capacity of ICTY representation?
9 A. Everything that was done was done by -- with the superior
10 officers. Of course, they must have performed these formalities with the
11 corps commander or Chief of Staff; and since these concerned the
12 documents, I just typed the document and drafted.
13 Q. This would be the same what you did when you made a list of
14 documents with the ICTY representative Nicholls?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you tell me, on the next day, you handed over certain tapes.
17 Do you know why these tapes were not handed over on the same date, on the
19 A. The reason -- there was no reason which would concern us. The
20 person representing the Tribunal had some other tasks on the ground. He
21 packed everything into a box. He went somewhere else and returned the
22 next day to take the documents. We both signed our names across that box.
23 Q. Thank you. Could you tell me when that person selected the tapes,
24 he, with you, did not or did you listen to the tapes?
25 A. We did not listen to the tapes. We listened to just a small
1 portion, because the tapes had some stickers indicating roughly what was
2 recorded on them.
3 Q. Thank you. Let us take a look at Prosecution document 1069. This
4 is a report on the handing over or handover of these tapes.
5 Can we scroll down, please, the text?
6 You drafted this document as well on the basis of what your
7 superior officer dictated?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you read the penultimate paragraph of this text? And could
10 you tell me that apart from writing down, "Hunter, Jack, US Army, and
11 social security number," how did you know this information?
12 A. We knew that because the gentleman introduced himself civilly to
13 us, and he gave us this document, this ID document.
14 Q. Did he purport at the same time to be an ICTY representative?
15 A. Yes. He did say that, and his task at the time was to establish
16 and determine whether it was possible from the locations that we used to
17 overhear and survey the -- and intercept such conversations. I believe
18 that he was an electronic surveillance expert from the US.
19 Q. I see that you had no reservations towards Ms. Frees and Mr.
20 Nicholls on the previous occasion, but how come that you sought that he
21 proves his identity?
22 A. No, we did not. He did it on his own volition.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, you're not allowing a pause between question
24 and answer, please.
25 Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Well, I do not doubt that he showed you the ID, but this is --
3 what is unclear is that you did not have to do that and write it in this
5 A. The gentleman demanded that we do so.
6 Q. It was done on his -- at his request?
7 A. I believe that the reason for that was that he left the documents
8 with us and had to take them the next day, I mean the tapes.
9 Q. But he did take them on that date?
10 A. Yes, but the tapes were packed and packaged together. Previously,
11 they were put in a warehouse; and as I stated, this gentleman and I signed
12 the box, and he had some other obligations out on the ground.
13 Q. And this is why he produced an ID document to us?
14 A. I don't know, I presume.
15 Q. As the text continues, in the next paragraph -- in the same
16 paragraph, there is the following piece of information:
17 "Together with an obligation that in the intelligence and security
18 department, to listen, select the tape, and to resolve the issue of
19 further use and return."
20 Did your superior officer demand that such a clause be included?
21 A. Superior officers, it is stated in the last paragraph, state that
22 there should have been a prior approval from the Department for
23 Intelligence and Security for any handing over of such sensitive
24 material. And it's stated in the lower left-hand corner, one copy of this
25 document was sent to our superiors in Sarajevo, because orders came to us
1 from Sarajevo down the chain of command.
2 Q. Do you think that these tapes were much more important than the
3 notebooks that you handed over?
4 A. At that point, when the ICTY representatives came, initially we
5 did not know what was of their interest; and only as we worked and as we
6 went along, we concluded that there might be some additional material that
7 could be useful.
8 Q. Thank you. As far as we are discussing, the last paragraph, could
9 you tell us, as I see, there is an important difference between the
10 handing over of this document and the previous documents, as per the
11 previous material you had written, "Order of the corps commander." But
12 here in this case, you have another name and an indication that he's a
13 member of the intelligence and security department. What does this mean?
14 A. Specifically, it went for the person who was in charge of
15 counter-intelligence and security, and he was my superior in terms of
16 security; and since we had to do this quickly, my boss contacted this
17 person and sought approval for the handover. We stated this as a per
18 standard operating procedure, where you have both oral and written
19 orders. And it is stated here that that person issued an oral order and
20 approval for the materials to be handed over.
21 Q. But this was not sought from the assistant commander for security
22 intelligence or head, chief of -- chief of intelligence and security
23 department, as in the case of the first batch of documents?
24 A. This depends on what was put in the report. I personally know
25 that the procedure would be either that or an alternative. So certain
1 persons would carry out orders given by their superior officers.
2 Q. I see that this approval was delivered over the phone. So it
3 wasn't in writing.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Thank you. Let us now take a look at the report from the 10th of
6 May 1999. That's Exhibit -- Prosecution Exhibit 1071. As you can see,
7 under 1, it is stated that original transcripts of intercepts are handed
8 over in original notebooks of A5 format, and that there is a total of 55
9 such pieces. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You drafted this report?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you execute the handover of these documents?
14 A. I cannot be certain.
15 Q. Could you -- could we scroll down, please, to see the signatures?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you tell me now, what reasons didn't you produce an overview
18 of the notebooks to be handed over?
19 A. I cannot really say that at this moment. I believe that it went
20 for notebooks which were not particularly important. In the first
21 handover case, we selected notebooks which were pertinent to a certain
22 case. After that, ICTY representatives would subsequently take and grab
23 whatever was in relation to that relevant period.
24 Q. And this is your explanation for why you did not produce such a
25 table for the 55 notebooks now in question?
1 A. I cannot really recall at this point. I think there should be a
2 table or an overview or a list.
3 Q. I did not see any such lists in the materials available to me.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can the Prosecution help? Is there any such list?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Are you referring specifically to the 55 A4
6 notebooks and the one A5?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm referring to what the witness supposes there
8 should be.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have not come across one that was prepared per
10 se by the witness. There is such a list, but it was not prepared by this
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
13 Mr. Zivanovic, go ahead, please. Go ahead.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have not received such a list.
15 Maybe it does exist. It would be interesting to have one.
16 Q. At any rate, was there anybody else apart from you who would
17 prepare such lists?
18 A. Mainly, I was in charge of such tasks. There were some other
19 people. I believe that we prepared a list. Why it is not here, I don't
20 know. Maybe it hasn't been taken over. Because it was one year later.
21 We had already gained some experience in this task.
22 Q. You signed this report on handover?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you see that there is an indication that it was produced in
25 three copies and that there were no schedules or annexes?
1 A. Yes. I can see.
2 Q. I will now ask you to turn to a record dating back to 2000. This
3 is also Prosecution Exhibit 1072. Were you present when the files were
4 the archive stated here and were handed over?
5 A. I believe I was.
6 Q. Would taking a look at the signatures help you? Can we please
7 scroll down to see the signatures?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let us look at annex 2, which is the list of the daily logs of the
10 station containing information on electronic reconnaissance. Can we turn
11 to page 2? Because this is annex 1. We need to take a look at annex 2.
12 That would be the next page. That's it.
13 Was this list drafted in the same way as the earlier one; that in
14 one column we have the number of the station's daily log, and then the
15 last column the dates of the period which these daily logs covered?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Please look at number 4, according to which this station logbook
18 was opened on the 28th of May 1995?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you see that in fact it was first used on the 13th of April,
21 and that its ending date was actually 28th of May?
22 A. I said that there occurred errors in the transcription.
23 Q. Thank you. Please look at number 5.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you see there that the station's daily log was entered into
1 the record on the 24th of April 1995; but that in fact, it was first used
2 on the 10th of April?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then look at number 6, which doesn't bear a date at all?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please look at number 10, please.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Your Honour, could I interrupt for one
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we have a translation issue, because we've
11 switched translators. I may be wrong, but we are switching from the term
12 notebook to logbook. And there can be a very significant difference
13 between the two, and I just wanted to alert everyone to that. And it can
14 get confusing. Because a logbook, in the context that we normally see it,
15 is something where there is entries made, and it's a document that is kept
16 by regulation many times, as opposed to these notebooks.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I appreciate what you are saying, but yesterday one
18 simple direct unequivocal question was put to the witness; whether one --
19 whether we ought to distinguish between logbooks and notebooks, and he
20 said that they are one and the same thing. So I think you need to explain
21 yourself somewhat better in order that we can understand exact your
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I can get you to the part of the transcript,
25 yesterday's transcript. But again take my word for it that the question
1 was put and answered in that manner using exactly the same words rather.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I recall that. What I think is happening, and I
3 may be wrong, but I think the translations are using -- one is using
4 logbook and one is using notebook. And I think that's the only
5 difference, and my point is so that in this context of this witness, is
6 they are the same thing. But if we do start talking about logbooks, which
7 could come up at any time because there are military logbooks that are
8 associated with this record keeping, then we are going to get very
9 confused. And I just want to alert people to it. I don't know exactly
10 what's happening, because I don't understand the language.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I don't think we ought to discuss any further
12 in the presence of the witness. But the witness has heard what you had to
13 say, Mr. McCloskey. I haven't given the word -- the floor to Mr.
14 Zivanovic, if he wishes to respond to that. But then I will come back to
15 you, Witness, to hear what you have to say about what is alleged to be or
16 what is being submitted to be a possible source of confusion.
17 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, let me put a question to the
19 witness, and that will clarify the matter.
20 Q. In view of these questions, or rather, the questions that I put to
21 you, do they actually relate to the notebooks that we discussed earlier?
22 A. Mostly, yes.
23 Q. When you say "mostly yes," does it mean that among the documents
24 that I quoted to you now, there are documents that are not notebooks of
1 A. This was a heap of material. There were around 50 notebooks, and
2 then different forms that had cover pages and that we would use as
3 notebooks. The purpose to which these documents were put was the same,
4 regardless of whether they were called stanicni dnevnik, station logbook
5 or something else.
6 Q. It was interpreted as "station logbook or something else." I
7 believe you said or "sveska," notebook.
8 All of them, in fact, contained intercepted conversations?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at number 10 now? Was this
11 notebook entered into the record on the 28th of April, and was it first
12 used on the 4th of April?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Please look at number 11. Was it first used 27th of March and, in
15 fact, was put to use earlier on the 8th of March?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Again, Mr. Zivanovic, please do appreciate
18 that the interpreters spend an hour and a half in that restricted space,
19 trying to catch up with a barrage of evidence that is most often or very
20 frequently overlapping. It's very difficult for them; and if you don't
21 cooperate, what we get is half-baked meals, you know. I mean, the
22 interpretation or the transcript will not reflect completely what is being
23 testified. So, please.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will bear that in mind. I
25 apologise to you and the interpreters.
1 Q. Can you please look at number 14 -- no -- yes, number 14. Does it
2 bear the date of opening the notebook on the 7th of April, and it was
3 first put to use on the 14th of March?
4 A. Yes, and I can explain this. We found notebooks; and whichever we
5 could get hold of, we would use as notebooks.
6 Q. You've already explained this to us, thank you. There is quite a
7 few of such notebooks, and whoever wishes to find them will be able to.
8 They are in evidence.
9 We've discussed this -- is there something else here? You said
10 that the encryption department kept their own records. Were these records
11 in fact stored?
12 A. The encryption department had a notebook containing telegrams that
13 were incoming and those that were outgoing.
14 Q. Were these notebooks handed over to the ICTY?
15 A. I can't recall at this time, but I believe that the entire
16 documentation was handed over to Sarajevo.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, please, you overlapped. Please try to allow
19 a pause. Don't jump straight in with your answer, even before Mr.
20 Zivanovic has finished his question. Allow a short interval of time, a
21 pause, a brief pause. But it is necessary.
22 Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. You saw this working map here. You said that you made it pursuant
25 to the request by the ICTY representatives, and that you produced it as
1 per the state of affairs in 1995?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you have an original working map in 1995?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you hand it over to the ICTY representatives?
6 A. I can't remember.
7 Q. Thank you. Can we please look at another annex? And the number
8 it bears is 0204-0772.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, both Judge Kwon and myself and Judge
10 Prost have found it's not in the system, or at least the number you gave
11 us 0204-0772.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] At the outset, I said that a
13 number of these documents have not been uploaded into e-court, and that we
14 ought to use other technical equipment to show it to the witness.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Technical help, advice required. What
16 can we do? Is it available? Is the witness seeing it? Okay. But we
17 need to see it, too. Do we have a hard copy of it?
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, we do not.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I have a nod from the Prosecution side, which
20 indicates that they do have a hard copy. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I understand we have a hard copy
22 of -- well, we have the original. I don't know if that would be useful in
23 terms of displaying that to the witness or for counsel's purposes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it a single-page document or a multiple-page
25 document? What is it?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] There are several pages there, but
2 one would suffice, just as an exemplary. Can we show the witness
3 0204-0834 in that case?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it the right page?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is the page.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: And I'm grateful to the Prosecution team. We can
7 put it on the ELMO, please, and no broadcast unless we authorise it. We
8 had better focus.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you see the date of the report under which date it was sent?
11 Is it the 11th of February?
12 A. That's what the heading of the report says.
13 Q. Did you notice that the number is missing?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you see the date when this report was received as a telegram
16 and processed?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is the date?
19 A. The 14th of February.
20 Q. Does it mean that it was done three days later?
21 A. These are not our reports. This report originates from the
22 intelligence department.
23 Q. In other words, the stamp we see here is the stamp of the
24 intelligence department?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me the following? Admittedly, if you
2 weren't the person placing stamps on these reports, then you cannot give
3 me an opinion as to why this was done only as late as the 14th. Thank
4 you, I have no further questions for you.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
6 questions of this witness, thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. I suppose you're
8 going next, Mr. Beara -- Mr. Ostojic.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, that would be correct.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic is appearing for Colonel Beara. We have
11 a break at 12.30.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, may I proceed?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. I'd like to begin by asking you a couple questions in connection
19 with the map that you have behind you there. Do you see it there?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, that map, sir, you have written on it that it is a working
22 map, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. But it's true, isn't it, that that map is actually a map that you
25 produced at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Well, why wouldn't you just put on that map, sir, that it was at
3 the request of the Office of the Prosecutor, instead of simply placing
4 that it is a working map from a certain period; namely, the beginning, as
5 it's indicated in black marker, January 1995, and purportedly the ending
6 period September 1995?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I would object to the form of
9 the question, to the extent that it presumes that Mr. Ostojic and the
10 witness have a common understanding of the word "working map."
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Ostojic, before
12 we decide?
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I do not, Your Honour.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to avoid, as much as possible, cross
16 talk. So would you rephrase your question, please, taking into
17 consideration what has been pointed out by Mr. Vanderpuye, and making sure
18 that you're talking of the same thing. When you say working chart or
19 working map, he understands exactly -- you make him understand exactly
20 what you mean.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll do that, Your Honour.
22 Q. Sir, on the top of the map it plainly states, I believe you
23 testified in your handwriting, "working map" in B/C/S, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, sir, what that means.
1 A. At the request of the Tribunal, we were tasked with drawing a
2 working map; because in the period of 1995, it was labelled as such. The
3 only difference is that we drew the map over a transparent leaf, and we
4 were asked to draw the VRS communications scheme and system, how it looked
5 like in 1995.
6 Q. And you did this in 1998, correct, sir?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Reconcile for me, if you would, the line in the centre of the
9 page, which forms actually the triangle, and underneath where you have the
10 reference to NATO bombing which occurred in 1999. How were you aware,
11 sir, that that would have happened in 1998, the time that you did the map?
12 A. Your question is completely unclear to me.
13 Q. I'll break it down. If you could look on the triangle in the
14 middle of the portion of your map where you have certain indications for
15 radio relay stations, do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And yesterday, sir, you spoke of the handwritten notation under
18 the triangle there. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you once again for us, please, read what it says in your
21 handwriting underneath that triangle, please. Right under the centre of
22 the map.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Where is that? I asked you read yesterday myself,
24 and they referred to NATO bombing; and then you followed up with saying
25 it's -- you were not surprised at all that that was one spot that was
1 targeted to be eliminated by NATO. And you said at the time that it
2 referred to NATO bombing of 1999. And Mr. Ostojic is asking you how could
3 you have marked bombing, which happened in 1999, on a map that you drew up
4 in 1998. This is basically the question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try to explain. Maybe I did
6 not word my sentence correctly, but I know what I meant to say. To wit,
7 to confirm knowledge that these radio relay nodes were located there, the
8 fact they were bombarded and shelled, meant that our maps were correct in
9 assuming their locations in 1995, 1996, 1997. This is the reasoning that
10 I use.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: The question is -- the point is that you have not
12 answered Mr. Ostojic's question. I mean, I will not formulate the
13 question myself, because he is not my witness. Perhaps you can formulate
14 it again, and the witness can then try to explain why in 1998 he's,
15 supposedly according to you, referring to bombings of 1999.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Sir, did you have a map at the time in 1995, which depicted or
18 reflected the various radio relay stations that we see on this map here
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you still have those maps in your possession, sir?
22 A. No.
23 Q. To whom did you give those maps to?
24 A. To my superior commander; I believe that everything ended up in
1 Q. Do you know if those maps still exist?
2 A. I couldn't really say at the moment.
3 Q. Now, going back to this specific map where you reference the NATO
4 bombing, am I clear - and help me with this - you created this map at the
5 request of the office of the Prosecution in 1998, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And in this map, in the centre of the map, sir, underneath the
8 triangle, you referenced the NATO bombing of what seems to be 1999,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you reconcile for me, sir --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- how in 1998 -- can you reconcile for me, sir, how in 1998, you
14 and the Prosecutor knew that specifically those radio relay stations were
15 going to be bombed by NATO in 1999?
16 A. We didn't know that.
17 Q. Well, how were you able to place that on the map in 1998 when you
18 created it?
19 A. For each month and each year, there is a written record about the
20 system of communications of the VRS and we simply took the report from
21 1995. We placed the stations where they were, the frequencies, the codes
22 that were used at the time. This working map reflects or represents a
23 copy of the working map dating from 1995. These elements of
24 communications were used by the VRS in 1995.
25 Q. Well, let me ask you a straight --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm taking over for a while. You have been
2 referred, Witness, to those words which say, "NATO strikes, NATO strikes."
3 When did you write those words?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not understand this, Your
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we download on the screen, please, the map? I
7 don't know the exhibit number. Someone help me. It's one of the -- we
8 have a lot of static in the headphones, but they are trying to fix it. We
9 had several maps or blowups yesterday; one of which contained of words
10 that are being referred to by the witness. I think it would be either the
11 first or the second of the blowups that we used, if we can have that map
13 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can help, Your Honour, I think it was a map
14 that was identified as IC with the next number, which was approximately 46
15 or so. And the witness marked the map at the court's request the various
16 lines and the designations of that line.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see if it is 46, IC46.
18 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is the Court referring to a specific marking on
20 the map bearing the words "NATO," that was prepared --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We used several parts of that big map yesterday,
22 blew certain parts up, and then there were markings on each and every one
23 much these blown-up maps. On one of them, we have those words. That is
24 the map that I'm looking for. And I am -- if I was reading her lips well,
25 I think it's 44 and not 46. 44, isn't it? 44, and not 46. If we can
1 have IC46, please? All right. It's coming.
2 All right. So now you need to concentrate. If you can zoom in
3 the centre at the base of that triangle, at the top.
4 Yes. Now, Witness -- I beg your pardon, Mr. Ostojic, let me
5 handle this, so that we can try and get over and done with sooner perhaps.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: May I sit down?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, or you can stand up.
8 You see the words "trasa uspostavljena nakon nato udara," those
9 words. It's being put to you that you couldn't have written those words
10 in 1998, if the NATO strikes took place in 1999. This is a 1998 map that
11 we are talking about. So my question to you is: Could you confirm to us
12 when you wrote those words? If you look at your monitor, you should see
13 the words.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the end of war operations,
15 certain routes were extinguished. I clearly stated that yesterday, and we
16 should stick to it, that it seemed to me it was in 1999. I did not claim
17 that these were NATO strikes, but this is how it's stated here because we
18 continued working with -- on our job long after the war was over, and OTP
19 wanted to -- us to create a picture of how it functioned at the time.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So, in other words, your answer is - and this is the
21 last time I'm putting the question - that those words were written by you
22 in 1998, before you handed in this map, in that same year, to the Office
23 of the Prosecutor?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This map was drawn up by a team. I
25 wasn't working alone, and what is written down here holds.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: It was not written after that you had handed it over
2 to the Prosecutor?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think that should satisfy your
5 curiosity, Mr. Ostojic. And I'm not going to stop you from any further
6 questions on this, but I suppose we can safely move to the next series of
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Sir, I'd like to discuss with you the issue of reliability of
10 information. Yesterday, in your testimony, specifically on page 41, line
11 14, you state, "I would not wish to discuss the reliability of
12 information." Let's begin, sir, by you telling me why you do not want to
13 discuss the reliability of information.
14 A. For the simple reason that my task, and the task of the people in
15 my unit, was to relay information and data collected in the form that they
16 heard them. There was another team in the intelligence department who
17 could assess and judge whether a piece of information was reliable or not,
18 because they collected information, received information from other
19 sources as well.
20 Q. So am I correct in understanding, sir, that it's your position
21 that the intercept operators at those various stations that we discussed
22 up at the north, on the mountain top, and in the south, that they also
23 would not want to discuss the reliability of information, because they did
24 not have the experience or knowledge or understanding as to whether or not
25 any of that information was reliable or not?
1 A. I would agree in part with your statement and would disagree in
2 the other part. The reason was simple. We could not encumber or men with
3 those tasks as well. They were operators, and their task was to reproduce
4 the information they received faithfully on to another medium.
5 Q. Let's talk about this, then. What about significant changes,
6 modifications, additions, or alterations that an intercept operator would
7 make on his logbook or notebook, if you will? Would that be something
8 that can perhaps dilute or in some way reduce the reliability of the
9 information that's ultimately transferred to your command or anywhere
11 A. The basic problem that would appear was audibility, as to whether
12 information was received or not. There was trouble in transcribing what
13 one could hear from the tapes into a notebook.
14 Q. Well, who, sir, other than, since you're not the individual and
15 the intercept operators at those two sites were not the intercept
16 operators who would assess the reliability of information, could you tell
17 me first in what unit were those individuals were assessing the
18 reliability of the information that they received from you?
19 A. In the intelligence department of the 2nd Corps, there were men,
20 and this was the place where all information came together, from the
21 ground, from us. And they would then match what we intercepted to other
22 sources of information.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I would like to ask the witness the
24 names of those individuals, but I think we should do it in private
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I agree. Let's go into private session.
2 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. Sir, a couple more questions before the break if I may ask you, in
21 connection with the -- the dossier that you mentioned that every member or
22 every person had - yesterday, on page 40, lines 1 through 3, Your Honour -
23 can you please tell me a little bit more about there dossier? When was it
25 A. Those dossiers were produced from the beginning of the war to the
1 end. They would be supplemented and filled with updated information and
2 data we received from captured persons, from intercepts, from people who
3 were loyal to the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was done in the
4 intelligence department, and each person in the command structures had
5 their ID dossier, so to speak.
6 Q. Now, are these dossiers still in existence?
7 A. I don't know exactly. Everything was sent to Sarajevo.
8 Q. Who had the dossiers of the members of the VRS, prior to it being
9 sent out to Sarajevo?
10 A. As far as I knew, the intelligence department.
11 Q. What specific department, if you don't mind?
12 A. In the intelligence department, there was an analysis section
13 which would update those dossiers, which would key in these pieces of
15 Q. And now these dossiers you mention would refer to various family
16 members of officers, and it would also from time to time - again, on page
17 40, I believe, 1 through 3 - mention accents that various officers had,
19 A. Yes. But that was within the purview of the people who worked at
20 those facilities. This is what we are taught at the former JNA. This is
21 only natural to keep a dossier on the features and properties of the
22 people who were being listened in, of those who were operating switch
23 boards. And this served the purpose of facilitating the detection of the
24 route and the extremities, extreme points, where the conversations an
25 originate from.
1 Q. And, sir, when you say "accents," yesterday and today when we
2 discussed accents, you're really talking about the linguistic terms, which
3 really means the dialect of the language. You could be from either one
4 part or a different part of the country, correct?
5 A. This was one of the elements. When I said "accents," I meant
6 there were officers who would curse very much. Some officers used some
7 peculiar terms. There were several elements which would pinpoint a
8 certain person or distinguish between two persons.
9 Q. Now, sir, when we speak of dialects, though, you also maintained a
10 list of what the dialects were of the various officers at the VRS in 1995,
11 did you not?
12 A. If we had such data, we would of course enter them into the
14 Q. Just one question before the break. I know we are there, Your
15 Honour. I just wanted to finish there topic. Sir, because your intercept
16 operators or these intercept operators were supposed to record faithfully,
17 as I think is the term used, faithfully the information that they were
18 purportedly listening to, would you expect those radio operators to record
19 the actual different dialects that officers would use, as opposed to
20 incorporating their own dialect which may be different from the officer?
21 A. My men working at such facilities would transcribe what they
22 heard. They would transcribe words as they were uttered. They had their
23 own notebooks which would contain certain things that would help them in
24 their job. I must note that my operators were ham radio operators, which
25 used to have thousands of connections with people from around the world.
1 Q. One last question on this topic, Your Honour, if you don't mind.
2 Sir, so am I correct then if an officer that you -- your people were
3 intercepting his conversation spoke in the Jekavski language, as opposed
4 to the Ekavski dialect your, officers would faithfully record that
5 conversation in Jekavski, correct?
6 A. In principle, that is how it should have been.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's a good time for a break now, Your
8 Honour. I'd like to go into another area, though.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 30-minute break starting from now,
10 thank you. And I'm beginning to think that we will certainly not finish
11 with this witness today. So you need to make an assessment as regards the
12 next witness, because we have only got two days for him.
13 When we come back, could you tell us whether you have any
14 reservations or objections to the Prosecution's motion to have the next
15 witness be considered under 92 ter, rather than 92 bis? I think I see Ms.
16 Condon saying that they do. So we will need to discuss that later. Thank
18 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.08 p.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We are still in private -- in open session.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. We may have to move but I think I'll be ready
24 for it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I leave it in your absolute discretion, Mr. Ostojic.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Sir, did you give a statement to the Dutch authorities sometime in
4 A. I think so, yes.
5 Q. If we can go briefly into private session?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that.
7 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 MR. OSTOJIC:
15 Q. Sir, I want -- thank you. Sir, I want to ask you a couple
16 questions about these logbooks or notebooks that we referenced yesterday
17 and today, and it's my understanding that there was no rule for retention
18 of such documents in your different intelligence units; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, sir, there was no specific protocol or practice by any of the
21 units to designate or to preserve any of these logbooks or notebooks;
22 isn't that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. In fact, sir, when you explained to the Court, and to us yesterday
25 and today, that these logbooks were kept in safes and that there was some
1 sort of chain of custody with respect to those logbooks, isn't it true,
2 sir, that it's just by happenstance that these notebooks and logbooks were
3 kept? It was just by a chance, correct?
4 A. Absolutely correct.
5 Q. In fact, sir, you don't know which logbooks you had at any given
6 time, or which logbooks any other intercept operator had at any time,
7 until there was a process that was initiated by the Office of the
8 Prosecutor to try to gather these materials in 1998, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And, sir, when we talk about chain of custody, am I correct to
11 understand that the chain of custody for these notebooks that we've been
12 reviewing can be established only from, at the earliest, April 24th, 1998,
13 but we don't know what links or links are missing prior to April of 1998,
15 A. Until the end of 1997 or the beginning of 1998, for those
16 notebooks they were stored in my safe. In 1998, a new unit was
17 established, and the people had the same duties that had been in my unit
18 in that newly established unit.
19 Q. I'm not sure if I fully understand it, but I do have your answer
20 there. Thank you, sir. Let me ask you a couple of other questions, if we
21 can have P02312 placed on the e-court system, please, Your Honour. If we
22 just take this document, sir, which is the first page of a stack of
23 documents the Prosecutor gave us, which is a typed version; and it's your
24 testimony that this is the typed version from a handwritten version,
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, what I'm asking you, sir, should the typist or the person who
3 generated this document, should they make a notation on this document,
4 since it's going forward to a command, that there were changes made on the
5 original notations, so that the forward command or the people who analyse
6 the document will know how much to rely or to give any weight to such a
7 document? Was that a requirement by the intercept operators?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Well, explain to me how the analyst at the command would be able
10 to rely on a document, if the intercept operator doesn't share with them
11 the basic information that they were either unsure or unclear of the raw
12 data that they were reproducing for them?
13 A. This involved a process of work, and this process did not start or
14 end on any given date, because the information had been gathered over the
15 years throughout the war. What the people from our section wrote was not
16 taken as the official report. This was merely a -- one view, one
17 perspective on the contents, based on what had been heard.
18 Q. Sir, can you tell me, being in those various units and in your
19 capacity in those units, can you tell me if you recall any intercept
20 operator or commander making at least 15 modifications, changes,
21 additions, or alterations on his logbook in connection with a purported
22 conversation that was intercepted?
23 A. I wouldn't be able to remember these details at this time, but I
24 don't believe that they did. It was only within the intelligence
25 department that the report was given the shape that it was intelligible
1 for the commanders. It wasn't words or sentences that were being quoted,
2 rather, they produced assumptions as to what might happen or what might
3 follow in a given area, in a given locality in the country.
4 Q. Now, you say on page 78, line 21 and 22, "But I don't believe that
5 they did." In response to my question. Is it true, sir, that you don't
6 believe that one of your intercept operators, much less a commander, would
7 be able to make so many mistakes and faithfully, according to you, be able
8 to record such purported conversations; and you yourself, sir, know, as
9 you're sitting here under oath that anyone who makes those 15 or so
10 mistakes would be considered incompetent by your very own command and
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait before you answer that question. First of all,
13 it's a very compound question, but Mr. Vanderpuye?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I rose
15 before it became compound and the reason for it is that I think it
16 unfairly Mrs. Characterises the witness's prior testimony and his
17 statement in response to counsel's question. The question concerned
18 whether or not the witness was aware of any intercept operator making 15
19 modifications, changes, or additions, which does not connote or denote
20 that they were errors or they were erroneous or they were mistakes or
21 anything of that nature. And I think it was unfair for counsel to assume
22 that in his question as propounded to the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic? Your comments on that?
24 MR. OSTOJIC: In the interests of time I think I could break it
25 down, and we could go right to the heart of the issue, Your Honour.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Just make sure that you break it down, that you do
3 not put words in the witness's mouth at the same time, so go ahead.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I will, Your Honour, thank you. I will abide by
5 your instructions is what I'm saying. May we please have IC 00040 on the
6 e-court system, please?
7 Q. Sir, while that's being brought up, maybe I could give you a
8 little background, if I may, on this document. It's an intercept that
9 purports to be taken on the 14th of July 1995, and it's taken of a
10 certain-- by a certain individual on the northern mountain top that we
11 were discussing here earlier, both in public and private session.
12 And here, the witness, sir, has identified for us some, as I call
13 them, differences, modifications, alterations, changes, and additions in
14 his intercept. And with the Court's permission, here we see that there
15 are four such on the first page; and if we can be kind enough to bring up
16 IC 00041, Mr. Witness, we'll see that there is an additional, I believe,
17 11 changes made on the document. My question to you --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, let him see the next document; and if I
19 remember well, there is even a third document with --
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe these were tendered or under seal. My
23 concern is if they are being broadcast? They are not? Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure they are not being broadcast, but registrar
25 if you could. I have a confirmation of that. The instructions have been
1 clear. No broadcast unless we say yes, go ahead, you can broadcast this.
2 Okay. Thank you. Also, the important thing is that you do not reveal who
3 the person is. But I take it that it's fully understood already.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 MR. OSTOJIC:
7 Q. Now, sir, you've had an a chance to look at the second page of
8 this purported intercept conversation, where there is an additional 11
9 modifications, changes, and alterations to the intercept. Have you ever
10 seen an intercept conversation recorded in a logbook with so many changes
11 or modifications to it?
12 A. The changes that I can see on my screen now are part of the
13 ordinary process of work. I will try to explain this simply. When the
14 operator records the conversation, he first listens to it and then rewinds
15 the tape. And he goes back in order to transcribe the conversation as
16 accurately as possible. And that's why you have up these modifications
17 here. What's more, two or three other operators would join him and listen
18 to the tape together to see whether they heard words accurately or not.
19 And they would rewind the text, so I don't see anything peculiar in these
21 Q. Okay. Well let me try to out something that I find peculiar, sir.
22 If you look on the intercept on this IC 00041 document, if you look at the
23 name that was the initial that's on the left-hand side, do you agree with
24 me that that's been changed and the letter E was added after the letter B,
25 and that's why we've circled it and identified it as some sort of change?
1 Do you see that?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to show him that.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: It's right in front of him, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but exactly. Let's -- no, no.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Number 10.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: If you can bring it a little bit further down. Do
7 you understand where Mr. Ostojic is directing your attention to?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bits that were circled, or
9 rather, the circle number 6?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. That's close.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I just wanted to make sure he's focusing on exactly
13 where you are directing him, because there are --
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. We will' focus you to number 10, sir, the 10th correction. Do you
16 see the number 10 that's written there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. After the name of the individual who was purportedly participant
19 in this conversation, can you tell us by reading this logbook, based upon
20 your experience and education, what that individual said?
21 A. I will try to explain. When one listens in to a conversation, it
22 often happened that initially you would hear both participants; and later
23 on, you could hear only one of them. In my assessment, this letter stands
24 for the person allegedly designated by that letter, but they did not hear
25 it very well.
1 So that was why they placed J; but then as they rewound the tape
2 and listened to it again, they were able to hear it and that's why they
3 placed it again.
4 Q. I'm not referring to the J, sir. I'm referring to the B and the
5 little E that's written next to the letter B. Help me with this. This is
6 peculiar to me; maybe you'll agree, maybe not. Out of the eight entries
7 that are purportedly intercepted conversations representing this Be
8 individual, that they couldn't hear any conversation whatsoever on six
9 separate occasions, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you find that peculiar at all?
12 A. I find it quite natural, because I'm aware of the features of the
13 devices they worked with. This isn't only such case. There are several
14 such cases where you would have initials placed without text following
15 them. This is the conversation between two persons and you can hear what
16 one person is saying, but you can't hear what the other is saying. And
17 that's why they have this marking here.
18 Q. Well, taking a lot of time but, sir, with all due respect to you
19 and I know you haven't had an opportunity to look at this intercept.
20 There is more than two people in this conversation, is there not? There
21 is an X, there is a Y. There is just a plain B, and there is a J, and
22 then there is a Be, correct?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if he has had the opportunity, and I
24 don't know if he has had the opportunity to go through the entire
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Quickly, if I may, just to put another question to
3 Q. Sir, would you expect your intercept operators, and at the very
4 least your commander at the northern mountain site, to record that this
5 individual, Be, was actually a participant of the conversation of 14 July
6 1995? Was that his duty and obligation?
7 A. That was their duty. However, if they were not certain of it, you
8 can see the beginning of the conversation. Nobody introduced themselves.
9 You have markings, X and Y. As the conversation went along, they came by
10 the information as to who the participants were and what they were talking
11 about. I believe that the marking B and Be designates one and the same
13 Q. Okay. Well, sir, let's go take a look at the first page of that
14 document, IC 00040, please, which was the document immediately preceding
15 this. If we could just scroll it up a little, so we could just start with
16 the first aspect, past the signatures, if you don't mind, or initials, I
17 should say.
18 Sir, do you see there the entry for this, although there is no
19 date. We can talk about that for some length I'm sure, but we'll pass on
20 that. Do you see that there is a megahertz indication on the document,
21 the time on the document, as well as the channel, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, the next line typically I think in the typewritten form has
24 the abbreviation "UCC..." But here in the written form you actually
25 immediately under the section where you put the megahertz, the channel and
1 the time, you would put the participants of the conversation, correct?
2 A. I didn't write this. The persons up at the facilities did. But
3 this is how this specific text reads.
4 Q. Right. And this text, sir, can you distinguish who the B or the
5 Be are in this conversation at all?
6 A. This was not part of my duties. The text was typed up, as it is
7 in the original; and with due respect, I wish to say that there was a war
8 on. There were many tasks to attend to, and one did not pay particular
9 attention to such details.
10 Q. In light of the war, sir, and in light of all that was going on,
11 isn't it fair to state that mistakes can happen in identifying individuals
12 in intercepted conversations, correct?
13 A. Mistakes are always possible.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I have nothing further.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Who is next? Ms. Nikolic? Ms.
16 Nikolic, we have roughly less than 15 minutes. I would like the last five
17 minutes for us to hear what the objection of the Popovic Defence team is
18 in relation to the testimony of the next witness. So you have ten
19 minutes, and then you continue tomorrow.
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
23 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. I would like to put several questions to you concerning the
1 matters that were already inquired of you by my colleagues and which have
2 to do with your work. You said that audibility was one of the greatest
3 difficulties obstructing your colleagues in transcribing what they heard
4 accurately on to the notebooks?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When you spoke of audibility, I suppose you meant the interference
7 in the frequency and other types of noise, which one could come across
8 whilst listening to a conversation?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Tell me, what sort of an influence on all of this can be exerted
11 by a person speaking in a modulated voice?
12 A. Listening in to radio communications is a very complex job. There
13 are several elements that can affect audibility, that can either worsen it
14 or make it better. It depended on the time of day, night or day-time, and
15 -- and the season. One would write down whatever they heard and what
16 they did not hear.
17 Q. My question to you, sir, was what does modulated voice mean? When
18 does it mean when someone is -- speaks in a modulated voice?
19 A. I hope I will make myself clear. This means that the voice was
20 distorted in a segment. This was not a faithful reproduction of the
21 voice, due to a fault in the devices; and when I say devices, I mean the
22 devices used by members of the VRS.
23 Q. In relation to this, or coupled with this, if we have
24 unintelligible speech, would it affect the text that would be reproduced
25 in a notebook?
1 A. Of course, it would. However, we would lower the speed on the
2 UHER; and in this way, the voices and what was said came across to us more
4 Q. Very well. As far as the entire process is concerned, you said
5 that there was no rule for retention of notebooks or these notes.
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. Would you agree with me that they are just a side product, a sort
8 of a work product that would serve to shape the final document that would
9 serve its purpose in the process?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you agree with me that the tapes were in fact the sources of
13 A. Yes. It would have been best if at the time we had had several
14 thousand tapes, because we would be able to have them all here today.
15 Q. This is precisely what I was about to get back to. The topic you
16 discussed with Mr. Zivanovic, which concerned the tapes taken over by the
17 Office of the Prosecutor, I have a question in connection with this.
18 Your tapes were erased and copied at the command in Tuzla and then
19 they came back to you, and then you handed them over to the ICTY?
20 A. No. The tapes that were listened or rather that were handed over
21 to the Tuzla command were then forwarded to Sarajevo; whereas, these tapes
22 are the tapes that we kept at our facility. The original tapes.
25 Q. What happened with the tapes that ended up in Sarajevo, that were
1 from Sarajevo?
2 A. They were handed over to the command in Sarajevo. I don't know.
3 Q. The list that was drawn up, you took part in the production of the
4 documentation in the year 2000; is that right?
5 A. Yes, I believe so.
6 Q. Can the witness be shown document 10725?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, let's redact line 23 in the
8 previous page, please, and line 24 which goes with it; lines 23 and 24.
9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] P1072, page 2. Number 2. Next
10 page, 1018569, please.
11 Q. This is my question, sir: Under items 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14 of the
12 document, there is the list of audio material handed over to the OTP in
13 2000; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This is the total of 20 pages of audio material, in my free
17 A. That's what it says.
18 Q. And you don't know what the contents of the tapes are except for
19 what -- for the little that you were able to listen to?
20 A. I don't know exactly. I believe that as far as the lists are
21 concerned, it was written down in pencil what roughly or approximately was
22 contained in the tapes.
23 Q. That would be your assumption, since you did not listen to the
24 tapes as you handed them over?
25 A. There were people listening to the tapes. I myself did not.
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
3 questions. Thank you, sir.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
5 So there is no point in moving to the next cross-examination.
6 Witness, I think we can send you back to your hotel. We will
7 continue tomorrow morning at 9.00 and certainly finish with your
8 cross-examination -- with your testimony tomorrow.
9 Again, same exhortation as yesterday: Please do not contact or
10 communicate with anyone on the matters that you are testifying upon.
11 Let's deal with the Prosecution motion to convert the testimony of
12 the next witness from 92 bis Witness to a 92 ter one. I understand that
13 the -- Ms. Condon for accused Popovic would like to make some submissions
14 on --
15 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour. We intend to file a motion
16 this afternoon in response to the Prosecution's motion. We'll certainly
17 require a ruling from the Trial Chamber prior to cross-examination of the
18 witness involved.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Do you have an idea what the substance
20 of your objection is?
21 MS. CONDON: Well, obviously I'll have greater clarity in writing.
22 Your Honour doesn't want to hear at this stage, I presume, what the
23 arguments are.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: But if you have the arguments with we would like to
25 hear them now, might even possibly spare you having to put them in
2 MS. CONDON: Can I say this? I would prefer for the Trial Chamber
3 to actually have the written motion as well, but I can indicate that this
4 is a matter that affects the accused, Mr. Popovic, more than any of the
5 other teams. We have not, up until yesterday, had any notice whatsoever
6 that this particular piece of the witness's evidence is proposed to be
7 relied upon by the Prosecution. It is a significant piece of evidence, to
8 say the least. It's a purported identification of the accused Popovic at
9 the "White House" on the 13th of July. Essentially, our argument is,
10 procedurally, three days is simply not sufficient notice for something --
11 for a piece of evidence that significance.
12 And secondly, that the prejudice that befalls us is twofold.
13 Firstly, there is the question of adequate preparation for a piece of
14 evidence of that nature; and secondly, there is obviously the forensic
15 issue that - and this is outlined in more detail in our motion - that
16 there have already been a number of witnesses from the DutchBat that have
17 dealt with the topic of the "White House." And they have all been
18 cross-examined by us; but in circumstances where we certainly weren't
19 aware of the nature of this subsequent allegation, and that has, as I'm
20 sure the Trial Chamber would appreciate, some significant impacts in terms
21 of the approach that is taken in cross-examination as a result of that.
22 Now, that's a matter that obviously the Trial Chamber has to
23 consider in terms of whether or not the prejudice is such that that
24 affects Mr. Popovic's right to a fair trial. But as I said, those matters
25 that I've outlined in more detail in my motion. But essentially it's
1 significant enough that a ruling obviously has to be made. We also
2 appreciate that it may be able to delay our cross-examination of this
3 particular witness and other teams can go first. But we certainly require
4 the ruling from the Trial Chamber before we start.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand there are two issues that you have
7 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. First of all, is there any other Defence
9 team that shares the same concerns? Yes, Mr. Ostojic?
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. We do. There are two
11 concerns. One we've raise the when the Chamber before with the documents
12 that from time to time we think are late, even throw they are in the
13 possession of the Prosecutor, now we've seen the transformation from just
14 not the documents but witnesses coming forward, who previously didn't have
15 any such evidence, who are coming forward at a late stage of the game,
16 which in my view also prejudice the rights of all the accused.
17 And I would join in Ms. Condon's motion, and we would ask that
18 that evidence be restricted in the manner in which she has requested.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Anybody else? Any other Defence team? Yes, Madam
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'd like to say that
22 yesterday we received a statement from this witness, which is a lengthy
23 one and only in Dutch. I'd like to be able to start the cross-examination
24 when I have received the translation into B/C/S or into English. I must
25 be able at any rate to apprise myself of the contents of the statement.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, I hear no more comments, Mr.
3 MR. THAYER: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. I'll
4 just take up that last item first. There is a statement that we recently
5 learned the witness had in his possession. He faxed it - and I've
6 notified Defence counsel about this - to me. After our first proofing
7 session, It got lost under a pile flex to a fax machine shared by several
8 teams. I didn't even realise it was in our possession until Sunday. It
9 was submitted as of Monday morning for translation.
10 It is a document which is his testimony before a commission that I
11 don't think any of us are familiar with, and I was not familiar with until
12 I read his parliamentary inquiry testimony. From his parliamentary
13 inquiry testimony, it's indicated it's not subsequently different from his
14 other testimony that he's given. In any event, I believe we can proceed
15 as we have in the past. If upon receipt and review of the translated
16 version, this witness needs to be recalled, we'll certainly make him
17 available. He lives in the area, and we can certainly bring him back to
18 be subjected to further cross-examination based on that document.
19 With respect to my learned colleague Mr. Ostojic's comment, this
20 is not a case of new evidence coming in that a witness recently
21 remembered. It is a case of the Prosecutor standing before you failing to
22 realise during initial preparation that this witness in fact had
23 identified a photograph, in which an individual whom the Prosecution will
24 allege is the accused Popovic was recognised; and again, as stated in our
25 motion, this witness did not identify the accused Popovic by name. He
1 simply recognised him as somebody he saw in the area of the "White House."
2 I just want to make that clear. This is evidence that we also
3 included in a list, I believe, provided at the court's request, and which
4 we also forwarded to Defence counsel on 20 July which showed every exhibit
5 that had been either introduced through or shown to our proposed 92 bis
6 witnesses. Now, again, I obviously didn't read that list. Had I done so,
7 I would have flagged this issue earlier. Unfortunately, that did not
8 occur, so we are where we are. That is the only other piece of evidence
9 that I'd like to add. We do have this information, and we can furnish it
10 if Defence counsel doesn't have it handy.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: The last point raised by Ms. Condon that you have
12 not addressed; namely, that other DutchBat witnesses have come over and
13 testified; and had they been made aware of this, they would have possibly
14 addressed the matter to those witnesses. What's your position on that?
15 MR. THAYER: Our position again, Your Honour, is if the Court
16 decides that recalling those witnesses on that limited issue is something
17 we need to do, we will go ahead and do that as well.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. I think we've heard enough on
19 this, but it was important to know beforehand where we stand, the
20 substance of the objections. And we'll await your written motion, Ms.
21 Condon, and we'll come back tomorrow with a ruling. Yes, Mr. Ostojic?
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry, Your Honour. I'm just hoping I have one
23 housekeeping matter to address with the President of the Court unrelated
24 to this issue, if I may. Both my colleagues, Mr. Meek and Mr. Mrkic, with
25 the Court's permission will not attend tomorrow or Thursday. They will be
1 out on business. If that's okay with the court.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly okay with us. Okay. Yes, certainly okay
3 with us. Thank you.
4 So we stand adjourned. Again, thanks to the operators,
5 technicians, and everyone, interpreters, for overstaying for these four
6 minutes. Thank you so much.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 29th day of
9 November, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.