1 Tuesday, 6 March 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Could you 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: I thank you, Madam. All the accused are here. All

11 the Defence teams are here, minus Mr. Bourgon. Prosecution is

12 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.

13 Ms. Frease is present in the courtroom. I suppose we can proceed.

14 Mr. Zivanovic. And conclude. And after that, before we start

15 with the next witness -- then after that, before we proceed, we need to

16 address several issues and also give you some information.

17 You would have noticed that we don't have Judge Stole with us this

18 morning. But it will only be for a short while. He's got a personal

19 problem to attend to and will be with us as soon as he can -- as he can,

20 which is expected to be either during the duration of this first session,

21 or the beginning of the second one.

22 So good morning to you, Ms. Frease.

23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic will continue and finish his

25 cross-examination within the next five minutes.

1 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]

2 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic: [Continued]

3 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Frease, I would just like to clarify some

4 things about the pages where the reports were collated that we talked

5 about yesterday and that you explained that that was the result of

6 exchange of information between different services that were intercepting

7 conversations. What I'm interested in -- my question is, did you hear

8 from anyone that reports were exchanged, not information, but that reports

9 were exchanged between the military structures and those that are not

10 military?

11 A. My memory is that the first time I heard that was during the

12 course of an interview in 1999.

13 Q. That reports were exchanged, not information, but reports. You do

14 make a difference between those two things, of course.

15 A. Okay, sorry. And my answer was imprecise as well. I remember

16 during that interview first hearing that there was another agency working

17 at the north site during an interview in 1999.

18 Q. Thank you. You've already told us that. Well, if you cannot

19 answer this question, I will put the next one to you. Do you know whether

20 a document drafted in the form that was given to you was given to any

21 other organ of Bosnia and Herzegovina regardless of whether it was a

22 military or a civilian organ?

23 A. And which document are you referring to?

24 Q. Ms. Frease, all the time I'm talking about the binder of 550 pages

25 or the documents that comprise that binder. We have already said that

1 this is the printed material on perforated paper that was then cut and put

2 together in the binder?

3 A. No, I don't have any such knowledge.

4 Q. Thank you. Can you look at this binder and tell me -- you said

5 that certain documents there do have dates. What I'm asking you is, if

6 you recall or if you know whether there are documents in this binder where

7 the dates are entered by hand, thus the copies of these documents would

8 have the dates entered by hand in ink or felt-tip pen?

9 A. I have a vague recollection of there being a very small number, I

10 mean, I'm thinking even like one, but you know, it's possible.

11 Q. I'm going to look at -- ask you to look at page 63 of this binder,

12 please. We would just need to put the page on the ELMO. The page is --

13 [In English] Would you give the binder to the witness. She'll

14 find it.

15 [Interpretation] We have that page, yes. And if you can just

16 scroll down a little bit, please. Thank you. You can see that the date

17 there is entered by hand. My question is if you entered this date or

18 somebody from the team, your team, or if the date was already written in

19 the binder?

20 A. The date would have already been written in the binder.

21 Q. Thank you. Can you look at page 101 now, please. On the

22 right-hand side of this document, at the top, you can see the date, and

23 then there is one sentence is that states, "Description of the execution

24 and expulsion of civilians."

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. This is something also that you or your team did not put in. Is

2 that correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And we can say that the date and the sentence were written in the

5 original, that this is not a photocopy of this document?

6 A. Well, the document that we're looking at in the binder is a

7 photocopy, and the ink, or the -- if I can just take -- and -- and to me

8 this looks like a photocopy of what would have been on the original

9 document.

10 Q. Although you didn't see the original document at all, from what I

11 understood. You only received photocopies, you did not receive the

12 originals, did you?

13 A. I believe that this is what we received, this binder.

14 Q. Excellent. And now, if you can just tell me, the photocopy, the

15 date, the 16th of July, 1995, and the description of the execution and

16 expulsion of civilians, this is something that was written in ink or

17 felt-tip pen. It wasn't on the actual copy of the document, it was

18 written on this copy of the original.

19 A. I can't say that from looking at this. To me this looks like --

20 like this -- what's written on here has been photocopied. For example,

21 the last "a" is missing on here. I can't say for sure. It looks like

22 it's been photocopied to me.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me if there is a difference

24 between this text and the marking on the page, if you can look at page

25 101. You can see that the page is marked there at the top, it says "101."

1 A. Right.

2 Q. Is there a difference between that page number, the ink used to

3 indicate the page number, and this text that is written there below?

4 A. It doesn't look like it to me.

5 Q. Well, let's conclude this part. This clause, 16th of July, 1995,

6 "description of the execution and expulsion of civilians," is something

7 that was not added on later, that it was on the photocopy?

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, it's the break-through

9 of civilians, not the expulsion of civilians.

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Thank you. Ms. Frease, I'm going to put another question to you.

12 We found out that there was a January, February mission in 1998. I'm

13 sorry, I think that something was not entered into the transcript. The

14 answer of the witness to my question on page 5, line 9 has not been

15 entered.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, same comment -- same comment here. What

17 happened, Mr. Zivanovic, was that you had barely finished your question

18 when the interpreters butted in to make a correction. And because of

19 that, I do not at least recall Ms. Frease answering your question. So

20 perhaps we can go back to the question and she will answer it now.

21 Do you still have it on your monitor?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you answer that question, Ms. Frease, please.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, to me it appears that this notation was not

25 added later and that the second half of the question I find a little

1 unclear, that it was on the photocopy. Yes, it's on the photocopy. I

2 believe it was added at the time the photocopy was made. That's what it

3 appears to me.

4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. In other words, at the time that the photocopy was made, somebody

6 wrote this sentence in ink or felt-tip pen, is that what you're saying to

7 say?

8 A. No.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: -- try and follow as much as we can. We would like

10 to see that page that the witness is being referred to.

11 I'm sorry to interrupt you like this, Mr. Zivanovic, but I'm sure

12 you understand. Still we are a little bit lost here. Question -- your

13 answer was, "Yes, to me it appears that this notation was not added later

14 and that the second half of the question I find a little unclear. That it

15 was a photocopy -- that it was on the photocopy. Yes, it's on the

16 photocopy. I believe it was added at the time the photocopy was made.

17 That's what appears to me."

18 Do you mean to say that it was already there when the photocopy

19 was made, or that it was added at the time the photocopy was made?

20 Because that's what we have in the transcript. And the two don't seem to

21 merge harmoniously.

22 Yes, Madam Usher.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I find my answer also unclear. It seems to me

24 that there was a notation on the page before a photocopy was made of that

25 page.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: That's clear enough.

2 Mr. Zivanovic, again my apologies. Please go ahead.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Q. I wanted to go back to the dispatch of these daily reports. Well,

5 actually, before you actually talked about this January-February mission

6 which preceded the March mission that we did not know about, incidentally.

7 In light of the fact that it seems that at the time it was agreed that

8 this selection of material, of intercept material is made and the binder

9 is made, that is there in front of you, the binder of 550 pages. What I

10 would like to ask you now, since as of March you are in charge of

11 everything that has to do with intercept materials, what I would like to

12 know is whether you were informed about that?

13 A. I don't agree with your statement that I was in charge of the

14 intercept material from March. I wasn't on the March mission. I was

15 there in April. It wasn't clear at the time --

16 Q. Very well.

17 A. -- at what point I would be put in charge of the intercept project

18 or processing of the intercepts.

19 Q. Thank you. In any case, you took over the duties, if not in

20 March, then in April, from what I understood you as saying.

21 A. It -- it really wasn't -- it wasn't that clear. There wasn't a

22 date at which it was fixed that I took over the project. What I can tell

23 you is that also I mean just -- to try -- I'm not sure whether this helps

24 to clarify some of what we talked about yesterday with respect to the

25 March 3rd document that Jean-Rene Ruez signed and then my notes saying

1 that we received the material in March. My confusion about that comes

2 from an "IIF" report, that would be in the transcript in IIF -- report

3 that indicates, I believe, that someone else from the Office of the

4 Prosecutor, that Peter Nicholson received this material on -- in April, at

5 the end of April. I'm just trying to -- I'm trying to clarify --

6 Q. I think that you are not answering my question. You're talking

7 about a differently different topic, so I would like to ask you to answer

8 my question, in view of the time I have at my disposal. I would like to

9 ask you if you can to reply to my question. My question is, did you ever

10 take over the duties of dealing exclusively with the intercepts? Thank

11 you.

12 A. Yes, the one other thing that I wanted to add that --

13 Q. Thank you. Thank you, that is sufficient.

14 A. Well --

15 Q. All right. Go ahead.

16 A. It's just that in April we had already put together a small group

17 of people to begin to process the intercepts. So --

18 Q. Ms. Frease, you've already told us about that, about the group of

19 people in April. You've already told us during your examination-in-chief.

20 The Prosecutor questioned you about that, and you gave an answer. So I

21 don't know why you're repeating that. I assume, actually -- I know why

22 you are repeating that, but if you can just reply to my question. At some

23 point you took over custody, whether this was March, April or some other

24 month. But anyway, they were entrusted to you and my question is, when

25 you began to work on the intercepts, I assume that you were informed about

1 what was happening after that?

2 A. I don't understand your question.

3 Q. My question is, at one point you began the work on the intercepts,

4 you began to be in charge of that work, and you were informed by your

5 predecessors about what had happened or what had been done in that area to

6 date. Is that correct?

7 A. In general terms, yes.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, yesterday you took 22 minutes, and

9 today you have already taken 20 minutes. Please bring your

10 cross-examination to an end within the next five minutes.

11 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Frease, if you could tell me what an IIF report

12 is.

13 THE WITNESS: It's an -- it's an internal document that is

14 generated when people bring evidence back to the Court. It's a

15 registration form.

16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Is it correct if I say that the authorities of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not want to give you

20 the intercepts in the period from 1995 to March 1998 only because you did

21 not want to agree for them to make the selection of the intercepts that

22 would be handed over and that you agreed to this only in March of 1998?

23 A. I have no knowledge of that.

24 Q. Thank you. And now I'm going to move to my last topic. I would

25 like to ask you to look at 5D189. That is page 3, paragraph 4. This is

1 your report of the 24th of April. In the fourth paragraph there are two

2 subtitles, one is "urgent messages" and the other one is "other message."

3 Can you please read this and confirm for me the following: That this

4 gentleman, I'm not going to mention his name, told you at the time that

5 urgent messages were sent by telephone and then they were sent off by

6 teleprinter. Other messages were sent only by teleprinter?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I was just inquiring whether this page is being

9 broadcast or not. I can confirm it is not being broadcast.

10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understood that nothing was

11 being broadcast.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: My view is always to make sure that is so.

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's what it says.

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Can you please tell me, you also received information that the

16 messages were being sent by modem, that they were being encrypted first

17 and so on and so forth, you know about that; right? You've heard about

18 it, right?

19 A. I don't remember knowing that specifically. I mean I remember

20 learning about it later when, after I had left the court and these

21 messages were provided.

22 Q. Thank you. My question is, did you ever check those allegedly

23 encrypted messages that were sent off? Did you check the encryption, the

24 decoding of those messages, all of those procedures of the messages that

25 were sent in that form?

1 A. No. On the two disks that we received while I was here, we were

2 unable to open them. Our IT section was unable to open them and we were

3 unable to open them. And after that, when I returned on this, during this

4 period of time, I did not undertake a process of determining how the

5 messages were coded and decoded.

6 Q. My last question is, is it possible that you did not do that

7 because you knew that messages were not sent in that form at all, but

8 exclusively by teleprinter?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.

12 So I suppose that brings us to the end of the cross-examinations.

13 Mr. Vanderpuye, you said yesterday you had a short re-examination.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Good morning to you, good morning

17 Your Honours, good morning counsel.

18 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

19 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease.

20 A. Good morning.

21 Q. Ms. Frease, you've been asked a number of questions concerning

22 this binder of 550 pages and I wonder if you could just tell us with

23 respect to the intercepts that were compiled in relation to this

24 particular case whether or not those 550 pages are included, first of all,

25 within the binder collection? That is in physical form.

1 A. No, they are not included.

2 Q. And can you tell us to what extent, if any, those reports played

3 in either the verifying of the intercepts or in the preparation of the

4 materials or the intercepts that are offered by the Prosecution in this

5 case?

6 A. They provided background, and provided us an ability to be able to

7 find the cleaner electronic copies that we are using in this trial.

8 Q. And did you have an opportunity at any point to compare

9 transcriptions as they appeared in the hard copies of the 550 page binder

10 against transcriptions as they appeared as a result of printing out the

11 electronic versions of those intercepts?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And did you find that there existed textual differences with

14 respect to the conversations that were transcribed between the two?

15 A. No.

16 Q. You were also asked some questions by my colleague --

17 A. There were none, let me be --

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. -- clear about that.

20 Q. You were also asked some questions by my colleague about a

21 certain --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please make pauses

23 between question and answer.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can do that.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, you've both heard what the interpreter enjoins

1 you to do. Please comply. It creates big problems for the interpreters,

2 so I encourage you to be as cooperative as you can. Thank you. --

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I apologise to the court. I'm just trying to be

4 as brief as I can.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

6 Q. You were asked some questions by my colleague about a conversation

7 that occurred on April 20th, I believe it was, between Mr. Popovic and Mr.

8 Nikolic?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And in particular you were asked about the transcription of tape

11 recording of that conversation and whether or not the presence or absence

12 of certain words changed the meaning or reliability of the content, as you

13 determined it? Do you recall being asked questions to that effect?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And can I ask you, did you review any documentation or was any

16 documentation brought to your attention with respect to the veracity as to

17 the content of that communication?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. May I have please P02467 displayed in e-court, please. I just

20 want to inquire whether or not this is being broadcast. I would assume

21 not?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I assume not as well, but I better check.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Not broadcasted.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE:

1 Q. Ms. Frease, do you recognise what's displayed in e-court now?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And can you tell us what that is, for the record?

4 A. It's an order that was issued by the Drina Corps command with a

5 confidential number at the top dated the 20th of April. It's directed to

6 the command of the Zvornik Brigade. And it references a document, an

7 order that had been issued to the Drina Corps command by the Main Staff of

8 the VRS with respect to the deployment of two volunteers, Polish

9 volunteers.

10 Q. Okay. And in your view, is this corroborative of the intercept

11 communication of the 20th of April, 1995?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. May I have also another document displayed in e-court, please.

14 That is P02469. Do we have a linkage problem? We do. Okay. I can hand

15 the witness a document on the --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, if you could kindly do that, please.

17 MR. VANDERPUYE:

18 Q. Okay, Ms. Frease, do you recognise this document? Could you tell

19 us what it is?

20 A. This is a document that is a list of Polish volunteers, the title

21 of it says a list, it's in B/C/S. Maybe I should just read it out loud

22 and the interpreters can translate it.

23 [Interpretation] "List of fighters killed of the Zvornik Brigade."

24 Q. Now could I just refer your attention, if I could -- you will have

25 to turn some pages to get to it, but to page number 17.

1 A. Can you give me an ERN number?

2 Q. Yeah, the ERN number is 0082-4652. And if I could at the same

3 time have P02467 displayed again on e-court.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Page 3 again?

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: P02467 is one page. This isn't being broadcast,

6 right? Okay.

7 Q. Now, if I could just refer your attention to the name that is

8 preceded by the number 2 on that page. Do you see that name? Just don't

9 read it out, but do you see it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Let me refer your attention to the document you have in front of

12 you on the ELMO and can I refer your attention to number 450 on that page?

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And does the name that appears on 450 on ERN 0082-4652, does that

16 correspond to the number 2 on the document that's displayed in e-court?

17 A. Yes, it appears to. There are some misspellings in the name, in

18 the first and last name, but yes.

19 Q. And is that corroborative of the intercept that's dated 20th of

20 April, 1995?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Let me just move on to another area, if I could.

23 A. And...

24 Q. You indicated in response to some questions put to you by my

25 colleague, Mr. Ostojic, you were put some questions about an intercept

1 involving Mr. Beara, a series of three intercepts, one at 9.55, one at

2 9.57 and one at 10.00 a.m. Do you recall that testimony?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And if the course of that testimony you indicated that there was

5 an intercept that was corroborative of that 15 July intercept which was on

6 the 13th of July at 19.19; do you recall that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could I have 65 ter 1147A, please, displayed in e-court. I think

9 the B/C/S version of it is B.

10 All right. Do you see what's displayed in e-court now?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is this the intercept to which you had previously referred?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Can you tell us, first of all, how you assessed this

15 particular intercept as corroborative of the intercept referred to by my

16 colleague, Mr. Ostojic, during his questioning of you involving Mr. Beara

17 on the morning of the 15th of July, 1995?

18 A. There are several points. The content of this information -- of

19 this intercept, from the 13th of July at 19.19 references individuals and

20 locations that I'm aware of that -- that confirm the information that

21 Mr. Beara referred to in the conversations from 9.55, 9.57 and 10.00 on

22 the -- on the 15th.

23 Q. Okay. In particular, can you tell us what it is that Mr. Beara

24 refers to in the intercept on the 15th that has bearing on this particular

25 intercept?

1 A. From my memory, he talks about the fact that he needs 15 to 30 of

2 Indzic's guys. He first starts off saying that Furtula, who is the

3 commander of the Visegrad Brigade wasn't following the commanders orders

4 and that he needed 15 to 30 of Indzic's guys.

5 Q. Can I just stop you for a second. Can you tell us, if you know,

6 what the relationship between Indzic is to Furtula?

7 A. One of the three intercepts from the 13th -- from the 15th of

8 July, I think it's the one at 9.57, could be the one at 10.00 too, I'm not

9 sure, but it says that Boban Indzic is Fortula's deputy. So in that

10 conversation from the 15th of July, Colonel Beara goes on to say that if

11 the commander's orders had been carried out and if things had been done on

12 the 13th, then he wouldn't still be asking for the -- I don't remember the

13 exact word that he used, but for -- for what he was asking for on the

14 15th, which were Indzic's guys, Boban Indzic's guys.

15 Q. And does this give -- this particular intercept give an indication

16 as to what happened to those guys, as you put it, on the 13th?

17 A. Yes, their bus broke down.

18 Q. Could I just -- just a moment. Could we have 65 ter 1179H and I,

19 please, on the e-court.

20 All right. Do you recognise what's displayed in e-court now?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And I'm going to refer you to the page on the left, third

23 line up or so from the bottom. Do you see -- well, not anymore. Was the

24 third line up from the bottom. I think it is still now the third line up

25 from the bottom. Could you take a look at that, please.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And could you just tell us how that relates to the intercept that

3 you've described on the 13th?

4 A. Well, it -- it says, "Indzic, Indzic, Lukic's deputy."

5 Q. Okay. Is there a specific reference to 30 men?

6 A. Yes. 15 to 30 men.

7 Q. All right. Now, if we could just go down a little bit, please.

8 Now, I just want to refer you to what appears to be the eighth

9 line up from the bottom. Now, you had indicated previously that there was

10 some portion of the conversation which Mr. Beara purportedly was

11 essentially saying that -- essentially saying that he hadn't received the

12 30 men, the 15 to 30 men, is that right?

13 A. That's right, that that's what he needed, 15 to 30 men.

14 Q. And you can identify that on this intercept? You have to answer

15 for the record. If you can.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. And can you tell us where it is in the intercept and what

18 it says?

19 A. It's halfway through on that first page where it says, "Look, I

20 need 15 to 30 men with Boban Indzic."

21 Q. Do you see a reference lower down in the intercept specifically

22 where Mr. Beara purportedly says, "I don't have any"?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. "And that's why I'm asking for the third day."

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, with respect to that particular statement, do you -- tell me

2 what you understand that to mean, what he doesn't have?

3 A. That he doesn't have the 15 to 30 men that he needs.

4 Q. The reference to the third day is the 15th?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. And does that relate to the prior intercept on the 13th?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. How so?

9 A. Well, there were supposed to be men from Indzic's group, Boban

10 Indzic's group who were supposed to arrive and they didn't, they couldn't,

11 because their vehicle broke down.

12 Q. Okay. Now, you had indicated previously that there was a

13 reference to Boban Indzic, and Indzic was Furtula's deputy. You see here

14 on this intercept, there is a reference to Indzic being Lukic's deputy?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And can you tell us, if you know, who Lukic was or is?

17 A. I assume that it refers to Milan Lukic, who was from Visegrad.

18 But that's as much as I can -- as much as I know.

19 Q. Okay. Let me refer you to a -- well, just a moment. 1179A and B.

20 A is the English version, please. In e-court.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please tell me the time of the

22 intercept? Because we have two documents in e-court under the same 65 ter

23 number.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it's 10.00. This is 9.57 still, what's

25 in e-court.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have the hard copy? We will move faster.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: You know what, I think I can move to a different

3 area while we try locate it.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.

6 Q. You were asked a number of questions by my learned colleague,

7 Mr. Ostojic, about a certain reference allegedly made on the 15th of July,

8 1995, concerning some certain parcels.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. And you were asked particularly whether or not you had made

11 inquiry of intercept operators about the meaning of the particular term.

12 Do you recall that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the meaning of that particular term,

15 did you determine, through reference to other materials, what was meant by

16 that term?

17 A. Yes, one reference in particular comes to mind.

18 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what that is?

19 A. May I refer to the index?

20 Q. Which index are you talking about?

21 A. The index to the intercepted conversations.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: With the Court's indulgence.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem with us, but does any of the Defence

24 teams have any problems? No.

25 Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Frease.

1 THE WITNESS: There is a conversation on the 2nd of August at 1240

2 involving Krstic and Popovic in which -- I'll -- may I just read the

3 summary? It says, "It's Popovic. Go ahead boss. Get over to Bajina

4 Basta. You know what you have to do. He has sent -- he has set out

5 towards me -- towards me." That's a question. "He's on his way. He went

6 up there because he had some parcels to check what they know."

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. If I could have 65 ter 1164A and B,

8 please, on the e-court.

9 JUDGE KWON: Before that, can we get the 65 ter number of the

10 intercept Ms. Frease just read out?

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: August 2nd.

12 THE WITNESS: I have it. 1392.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think the English version on the left is not

14 corresponding to the B/C/S version on the right. The B/C/S version is

15 several pages and that's the beginning of it on the right, but the English

16 version doesn't seem to correspond to it. Is there a following page?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Can someone help us in this? I don't think it

18 corresponds too, but I want someone to assure us of that.

19 THE REGISTRAR: There are two exhibits under 1164B.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Two exhibits under 1164B. Well, all right. I'm

21 referring to the one specifically on 14th July at 2102.

22 In the meantime, I have a hard copy I can provide to the witness.

23 Maybe we can proceed with the ELMO. All right. I think we have it.

24 Thank you. Could I just go to the second page of the English version,

25 please.

1 THE REGISTRAR: There's only one page.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I think on page 21, line

4 21, he's looking for the 14th and I think this document, from other

5 witnesses, was established another date, and I thought Ms. Frease already

6 testified that it was -- she thought the 15th. I'm not sure if counsel is

7 referring to this --

8 THE WITNESS: No.

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm actually referring to the 14th. Insofar as

10 it relates to the definition of "parcel."

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I wanted to make sure Mr. Ostojic is okay with that.

12 So let's try and go ahead.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE:

14 Q. Ms. Frease, if I could refer you to -- all right. Do you see

15 where it says, "Number 55" in the middle of the page, on the left, in the

16 English version?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. If I could refer you to just a couple of lines below that, do you

19 see a reference to "parcels" in that line?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And could you just read that into the record?

22 A. It's J speaking. He says, "There are big problems. Well, with

23 the people. I mean, with the parcel."

24 Q. Does that in any -- in your evaluation of what the term "parcel"

25 meant, did that play any role in determining what the meaning was?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And based upon that, is that consistent with your

3 understanding of what the term "parcel" means?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can I refer you to an intercept on August 1st at 2245 hours. The

6 65 ter number on that one is 1380A and B. If I could, I'm just going to

7 refer you to -- if you can see, it appears to be a full paragraph in the

8 English version that's attributed allegedly to Mr. Beara. Could you read

9 that into the record and tell us what your assessment in terms of what the

10 definition of "parcels" is?

11 A. It's B who is defined as Ljubisa Beara, "From Caura, we were

12 there. Now we have just returned. Zoka Cavcic was also with us. So far

13 there are about 300 parcels. They, whoever captures a parcel hands it

14 over to the cops and now they are keeping that. I've talked to the chief

15 of the SUP (secretariat of the interior) from Uzice. He says, 'I can't do

16 anything for you now but we'll be in touch. But the chiefs have to make a

17 decision as to what they want to do.' So we should now tell our chief and

18 the supreme chief. They -- this is the information confirmed by my

19 people. There are up to 1.000 parcels in the place which is like ours.

20 It's all crammed in over there. They said there was big trouble over

21 there. Some commotion and so on. But he says that you can't do anything

22 because those are valleys, caves and nothing can be done there. Small

23 parcels go first and the big ones are left for the end. And they will

24 probably all go in the same direction."

25 Q. Now, do you see, following that line, a further statement

1 attributed to Mr. Beara?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. And that statement reads, "We can't do that. Morina was

4 here and she brought some people from the ICRC and the UNHCR and they

5 filmed a pile of parcels, the motherfuckers, and they'll show that on TV."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Given what you see on this page, is that something that you

9 considered in determining how to attribute a meaning to the

10 word "parcels"?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is it consistent with your understanding that it meant people?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Bear with me for one moment. Now, you were also asked some

15 questions concerning extension 155?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And I don't recall exactly who asked the question, although I

18 think it might have been my colleague, Mr. Beara -- I mean Mr. Ostojic,

19 excuse me, Mr. Ostojic.

20 And I believe you were asked some specific questions about that

21 and you indicated, or it was suggested to you that that extension

22 corresponded to Tolimir, and you responded that that was not the

23 information that you had. Do you recall that testimony?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. And could you tell us what information it is that you had

1 concerning that particular extension?

2 A. My understanding is that that was General Manojlo Milovanovic's

3 extension, but he was away for a period of several months, during this

4 period of time, and that in his absence General Miletic was using

5 extension 155.

6 Q. May I have 65 ter 2438A and B, please, displayed in e-court.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau.

8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like the

9 Prosecutor to specify with the witness where it is that she gets this

10 information, how does she come to those conclusions and I would also like

11 for some additional time for a -- additional questions.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Very pertinent remark, Madam Fauveau.

13 Could you please address that, Mr. Vanderpuye.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Address where the witness got the information? I

15 think that's exactly the question I put to her. Or maybe not. I asked

16 her what information she had, so I guess I'll follow and ask -- well,

17 what's the source of that information, if that will satisfy my colleague?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: That's exactly what your colleague wants to know.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.

20 THE WITNESS: I should answer that question before we continue.

21 In an investigation one accumulates a lot of knowledge, and with

22 respect to General Milovanovic's absence, I don't remember -- I can't put

23 a specific document to that. But an intercept from the 28th of October

24 references extension 155, and various inquiries have been made, and we've

25 looked through the intercepts for references to 155, and I believe that

1 there are also other witnesses who have -- who have knowledge about the --

2 that extension and who was working on that extension at the time.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. May I refer, please, to 65 ter 2438.

4 I think it's A and B.

5 Q. Do you recognise this intercept, Ms. Frease?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And is this the intercept to which you just made reference?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And can you tell us how you derive from this particular

10 intercept -- how you can attribute that extension to either Milovanovic or

11 Miletic?

12 A. If I could just take a minute to read through the whole thing.

13 Q. Please.

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] While the witness is examining this

17 document, could I please have the exact reference of this intercept?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Do you mean the 65 ter number? I believe I said

20 it was 65 ter 2438A and B.

21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, but was this document on the 65

22 ter list? Because this number was not on the 65 ter list. Not on the

23 initial list anyway. It must be an added exhibit, and I would like to

24 know if the Prosecutor requested the authorisation to add this document on

25 the list.

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I can answer that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that this particular intercept was

4 added -- was the result of the January 10th decision of the Court

5 permitting the addition of nine intercepts. I think in other motion we

6 called them 10, because two of them were precisely from the same date.

7 The Court had ruled on it. In fact, I think perhaps as recently as last

8 week or a week and a half ago when the Court made its decision on whether

9 or not to add an intercept operator, there was a specific reference to the

10 decision talking about the relevance of an intercept that was dated

11 January the 19th in that same motion this intercept was a part of it.

12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I believe you

13 are right.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So let's proceed.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE:

16 Q. Okay. Have you had an opportunity to review the -- the intercept,

17 Ms. Frease?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. And can you tell us how this relates to General Miletic or

20 Milovanovic, as you've indicated?

21 A. About one-third of the way down on the conversation -- in the

22 conversation, P, who I guess is Panorama says, "Just a moment, General,

23 nobody is answering at that extension." Then they say then, "Give me 155

24 right away." And then M says, "Milovanovic." X says, "Hey Mane, tell me,

25 I needed Miletic or one of those who give permits." And then it goes

1 on, "Did you promise anything to Balas."

2 Q. And did that leave you with the impression that the person that

3 asked for the extension was trying to reach General Miletic at that

4 extension?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And is that the reason why you drew the conclusion, if you did,

7 that that extension was associated with General Miletic?

8 A. Yes, for that reason. But there's also other -- other knowledge

9 which I can't pinpoint right now.

10 Q. All right. Is it fair to say that this was part of the reason

11 that you drew that conclusion?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay, and did you rely on other information provided to you by

14 investigators, military analysts and so on?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. I just want to refer you back, if I could, this hopefully

17 will take only a minute. I had referred you previously to an intercept on

18 August the 1st where you had read out a long paragraph. Do you recall

19 that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And at the beginning of the paragraph there was a reference to

22 Caura?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And can you tell us where that is?

25 A. Yes. It's -- it's the Visegrad Brigade.

1 Q. Okay. And then there's a further reference to, "We were there and

2 we've just returned."

3 A. Mm-hmm.

4 Q. Okay. And do you know what the -- what's being spoken about here?

5 I would like to -- if it's possible, to put those conversations back up

6 on the screen, that would be helpful to me.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's 65 ter 1380A and B.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe that -- well, what they're referring

9 to is what Colonel Beara is referring to as having returned from Bajina

10 Basta.

11 MR. VANDERPUYE:

12 Q. And can you tell us where that is?

13 A. It's across the river, it's in Serbia. It across the Drina River

14 in Serbia.

15 Q. Is that related to the conversation that you indicated that

16 occurred, I think, on August the 2nd?

17 A. Yes, there -- conversations on the -- from the 1st to the 3rd, I

18 think that relate to this issue. Is there one more thing that I could say

19 just about this Zoka Cavcic?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I believe that that is a -- a typographical -- well, not -- maybe

22 not a typographical error, but that the intercept operator didn't hear the

23 name correctly. Because I believe it should be Zoka, Zoka is a nickname

24 for Zoran, first name Zoran, and there's -- the last name, instead of

25 Cavcic, I believe, should be Carkic. They sound very similar. And Zoran

1 Carkic was the security person at the Visegrad Brigade. At Caura -- Caura

2 was the nickname for the Visegrad Brigade, so that ties it, it's very

3 consistent.

4 Q. Okay, thank you for that. And did you consider that, by the way,

5 in assessing the reliability of the content of this particular intercept?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. And is it consistent with your understanding, historical

8 and otherwise, as concerns the events in and around the 1st of August of

9 1995?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And do you have any indication in relation to the parcels that are

12 being spoken about in this intercept, where they might have originated

13 from and where they were located?

14 A. Yes. That they had mostly originated from Zepa, and that they

15 were at that point located in Serbia in Bajina Basta, having swam or

16 somehow made it across the Drina River.

17 Q. And based upon your review of the intercepts is concerned, that

18 particular matter, did you have an opportunity to review an intercept in

19 which General Krstic was a participant in and around August 2nd of 1995?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And do you recall just basically the substance of that intercept?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And can you tell us about that?

24 A. Yes. That was an intercept that had been picked up by both the

25 northern and the southern site for which we played -- we also had the

1 audio recordings and played those in court. It's a conversation between

2 General Krstic and Major Obrenovic from the Zvornik Brigade, the deputy.

3 The time in which they're talking about having encircled or trapped --

4 trapped people on minefields and General Krstic says, "Well, kill them

5 all, goddamn it, kill them all."

6 Q. Sorry, you were asked some questions -- hang on one second. Bear

7 with me one moment. You were asked some questions about the name Ljubo?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. I think it was put to you specifically that there was a

10 person whose name appears in the intercept by the name of Ljubo Bojanovic?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And I think my colleague had essentially asked you if there was --

13 you had some ability to distinguish between the name Ljubo as a full name,

14 first name, and as a nickname, whether or not you were able to identify or

15 distinguish essentially between Bojanovic and Beara, perhaps.

16 A. Mm-hmm, yes.

17 Q. Can I ask you, are you able to do that, or were you able to do

18 that in looking at these intercepts?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And how were you able to do that, if you can tell us?

21 A. Well, I remember I think there are three conversations on the 23rd

22 of July. One of them references a Major Bojanovic, and I think the one or

23 two others might just reference Ljubo, and it was -- it also happens that

24 on that date he was the duty officer at the Zvornik Brigade.

25 Q. And with respect to your ability to distinguish between the two,

1 did you do that as a result of how the name appeared in the -- in the

2 intercept itself or did you do that as a result of analysing the context

3 in which the name was used?

4 A. Yes, it was the context in which the name was used.

5 Q. Okay. And can you remember a specific context in which the name

6 was used?

7 A. May I refer to the index?

8 Q. Please.

9 A. In one of them his name comes up just as Bojanovic, Major

10 Bojanovic, and not as Ljubo at all. And that's on the 23rd of July at

11 6.40 in the morning.

12 Q. All right. Could I have, please, 65 ter 1307A and B displayed in

13 e-court, please.

14 All right. Do you see what's displayed in e-court now,

15 Ms. Frease?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you recognise this intercept?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Is this the intercept that you had previously -- you have just

20 spoken about?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And can you tell us how, in this case -- well, tell us how

23 in this case you were able to determine according to this intercept, who B

24 is attributed to? Do you see the letter B?

25 A. I do.

1 Q. And can you tell us, based on your view of this intercept, who

2 that relates to?

3 A. Major Bojanovic.

4 Q. Okay. Now, in this particular intercept, I think you had

5 indicated that as a result of context you could determine that it was

6 Major Bojanovic. Is that right?

7 A. Yes. Yes, because he was the duty officer. And he was -- this

8 conversation is between General Krstic and Major Bojanovic. It starts off

9 with Major -- sorry, General Krstic saying, Is everything all right? And

10 Major Bojanovic giving a report essentially of what had happened that

11 previous night, that there were some attacks, mainly without casualties,

12 that he says here that six Turks were captured. And then it goes on to

13 give an update of what's happening, that the detention facility is full,

14 there are more than 30 of them.

15 Q. All right. Are there any other intercepts that come to mind with

16 respect to the identification or distinction that you can draw between the

17 name Ljubo as it's applied to Bojanovic or as it's applied to Mr. Beara?

18 A. Well, there's this one at 8.05 also on the 23rd.

19 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what your recollection is of that

20 intercept?

21 A. I have to put it, I think, in a little bit of context. It's a --

22 the conversation previous to that is one at 8.00 in the morning between

23 Vinko and an unknown participant in which in my -- in the summary it says,

24 Vinko says, We're still catching Turks. I have some prisoners, I have

25 some wounded. I don't know what to do with them, where to send them. Did

1 anyone talk about an exchange for those guys from Lisaca, that letter

2 arrived stating the wounded should be sent to Zvornik hospital however

3 there is a problem with that and I would ask you for a solution today.

4 And then in the next conversation this same unknown participant,

5 who is indicated in both of these conversations by a question mark, says

6 that this unknown participant says in a previous conversation he called

7 and asked for Vinko again but Ljubo answered. And I believe that's Ljubo

8 Bojanovic again because he was the duty officer at Zvornik Brigade

9 headquarters that day.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. I'm sorry to interrupt you like that.

11 Yes, General Miletic.

12 THE ACCUSED MILETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what is she

13 talking about? Perhaps we can have it put on the screen. And on the

14 screen at the moment we can see a previous transcript of an intercept. We

15 would just like to be able to follow and see on the screen what the

16 witness is talking about.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's a fair comment, General Miletic.

18 Ms. Frease --

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have the 65 ter numbers. I just wanted the

20 witness to give the background.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: But General Miletic is perfectly right.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: He is.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: She is reading in English. Perhaps it is being

24 translated of course. But the question is not just receiving an

25 interpretation, it's also seeing the document.

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: No problem. I notice the time. And I won't put

2 it up in the e-court. I just suspect it will take probably longer.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we will have the break here, and after the

4 break, we will take this matter up again. And be prepared, please, to

5 have it on e-court. We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.

6 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

7 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Judge Stole is not yet back from his

9 appointment. As soon as he arrives he will come into -- in here and join

10 us. So for the time being, and until then, we will continue sitting

11 pursuant to Rule 15 bis, all right.

12 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Frease and also do we have -- can we put

13 on e-court the document that Ms. Frease was reading from or to which she

14 was being referred?

15 THE WITNESS: Can we just make one little correction to the

16 transcript?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Frease.

18 THE WITNESS: At 34/7 at 10.30.21 there was a "but Ljubo", I

19 think, but it should have been -- and I think -- sorry, I think it

20 says "for Ljubo" and it should say "but Ljubo" answered.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. So instead of "asked for

22 Vinko again for Ljubo answered," it should be "asked for Vinko again but

23 Ljubo answered."

24 THE WITNESS: Right.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think we were last in the process of displaying

2 the intercepts that Ms. Frease had referred to, the first of which is the

3 8.00 intercept on the 23rd of July. The 65 ter number for that one is

4 1309. Okay. I think we have that in e-court.

5 Q. Could you take a look at that, Ms. Frease?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is this the intercept that you were referring to?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what about this intercept is indicative

10 of the following one, the 8.05 intercept that you referred to?

11 A. Well, the following conversation refers to the previous

12 conversation between the same two unknown participants, but -- and I don't

13 have the text of the 8.05 conversation. I'm sure --

14 Q. We'll put that up in a minute.

15 A. Yeah, of course. But this one indicates that they -- here, V,

16 Vinko Pandurevic is saying, "Well, we're still catching Turks. I have

17 some prisoners. I have some wounded. I don't know what to do with them,

18 where to send them."

19 Q. If we could please have 65 ter 13 -- 1310. 1310, I think that's

20 probably A and B as well, displayed in e-court.

21 Okay. Do you see what's displayed in e-court now?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And is this the conversation to which you'd previously referred?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And having evaluated this particular intercept, it's your position

1 that the Ljubo that's referred to in this intercept is not Ljubisa Beara?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And is Ljubo Bojanovic?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. Okay. And why -- is that because of the context of the intercept?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. Now, you were asked several questions concerning changes,

8 modifications or alterations that were made particular to an intercept

9 involving Mr. Beara. Do you recall that testimony?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you circled and marked on a document indicating certain

12 changes or modifications that you found on the respective intercept?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, in evaluating the collection of intercepts, looking at the

15 notebooks, did you come across changes of that nature, cross-outs, things

16 of that nature, that were done in a manner that was inconsistent with the

17 process by which the interceptors described these transcriptions took

18 place?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Okay. And that concludes my re-direct examination. Thank you,

21 Ms. Frease. No further questions.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

23 Madam Fauveau.

24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to request

25 leave to ask a few additional questions an P2438 that was not at all

1 foreseen to be used with this witness and that refers directly to my

2 client.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, what's your position on that, Mr. Vanderpuye?

4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, we have no objection.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no objection, but I would

8 like to examine the witness about the documents used by the Prosecutor in

9 redirect. It's practically only one document, and that's 2469.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: What is your position on that?

11 MR. VANDERPUYE: To the extent that Mr. Zivanovic is asking for

12 leave to re-examine the witness.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: The document was presented to the witness, I

15 don't see that it's outside the scope of redirect examination, so I think

16 it's appropriate. I would defer to the Court's discretion with respect to

17 the scope that would be permitted, but I think it's -- it's relevant.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

19 Madam Fauveau first and then we'll come to you, Mr. Zivanovic, and

20 Mr. Ostojic. I think -- yes. Go ahead, Mr. Ostojic.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Mr. President, I think I am also asking for

22 leave to conduct a recross of this witness based on some of the questions

23 that were raised during --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Which are they?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Which areas?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Which areas do you want to recross the witness

2 about?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Utilisation of an intercept that was not testified

4 to during her direct examination; namely, the October 23rd, 1995

5 intercept. Also, utilisation and identification of Ljubo Bojanovic on 65

6 ter 1307. Also what she claims to be testimony of who this Lukic is and

7 obviously on page 19, line 17, she used the word "I assume." I'm going to

8 ask her if that is just pure speculation on her part. Specifically, I'll

9 also ask her on 65 ter 1147A which she now claims, although did not during

10 her direct examination, that that was corroborative evidence of any other

11 intercepts, specifically, the intercept dated the 15th of July, 1995. And

12 then also with respect to her identification of Ljubo, whether she's

13 identified, based upon her purported knowledge of B/C/S, whether there was

14 a dialect difference in any of Ljubo Bojanovic's intercepts, if she could

15 detect what his dialect was from and if it was consistent with the other

16 ones she claims now were Mr. Beara's. Also, I was going to ask her a

17 question with respect to this extension 155, that they claim is now

18 somebody else. And my question to that point, regardless of who is

19 extension 155. Then there it clearly indicates that the purported

20 participant, Mr. Beara, did not know whether it was General Milovanovic or

21 anyone at that extension. And then I wanted to know what her information

22 is as to what role Mr. Milovanovic had in the Main Staff or any position

23 she thinks he held at that time.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose none of you requires a lecture from us on

25 the limits to recross. Could I have a printout of this part of

1 Mr. Ostojic's intervention, please. Let's start with you, Madam Fauveau,

2 if you restrict yourself.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Fauveau and all the others, as you know

5 that -- yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour, with respect to my learned friend

7 Mr. Ostojic's submission concerning the scope of the proposed

8 recross-examination, I do object to that one. And the reason why I object

9 to it is I think there are a couple of things that maybe I should bring to

10 the Court's attention. I'm sure that you've probably already considered

11 that.

12 But first of all, with respect to the October 28th intercept, it's

13 reflected 23rd in the transcript, I think he means the 28th. Now with

14 respect to that intercept, that relates specifically to the identification

15 of the extension 155 that Mr. Ostojic rather put to the witness, not my

16 colleague, Madam Fauveau. So it is relevant to the extent that perhaps

17 Madam Fauveau wants to question the witness or recross-examine the witness

18 on -- as concerns what we have put forward is the extension of her client.

19 But is not with respect to Mr. Ostojic in terms of his recross-examination

20 of the witness. And the reason for it is directly responsive to an issue

21 that was broached by Mr. Ostojic. And he had the opportunity obviously on

22 cross-examination to explore that issue. It's not a surprise intercept;

23 it's an intercept that actually was the subject of -- of considerable

24 motion practice, and of which he was aware. And to the extent that that

25 issue was broached on cross-examination, he had that opportunity at that

1 point to confront the witness with the intercept to the extent that he

2 differs with her interpretation of it as she has put forward today.

3 With respect to 65 ter number 1148, I refer to 65 ter number 1147

4 on redirect examination. I think maybe that is what Mr. Ostojic is

5 referring to. In any event, that is the 13th of July 19.19 intercept

6 which was also raised in response direct response to a question that was

7 put to the witness by Mr. Ostojic in his cross-examination in the first

8 instance. Specifically asked her -- he specifically asked her, and if you

9 bear with me for one moment, I think I can get the precise question. He

10 specifically asked her about corroboration with respect to the -- to the

11 July 15th intercept and in response to that questioning the witness

12 indicated that she had referred to an -- to an intercept on the 13th of

13 July, 19.19 which was directly corroborative of the July 15th intercept.

14 That was on cross-examination. It wasn't elicited on direct and is

15 directly responsive, obviously, to the issue that arose during

16 cross-examination because Mr. Ostojic elicited that. If there was a

17 question as to what her interpretation was of that intercept or what it

18 contained, or the conclusions she draw from -- drew from it or how it was

19 corroborative of the 15th of July intercept involving his client, he had

20 every opportunity on cross-examination to do that. There was no

21 objection, there was no limitation to the scope of the cross-examination

22 as concerns that particular issue.

23 With respect to the extension 155 as concerns the questioning by

24 Mr. Ostojic, he also put forward that it was information or the position

25 of the Defence that that extension corresponded to Tolimir and the witness

1 responded that's not what her information was. And that is I think the

2 grounds upon which -- that was opened on re-direct examination. To the

3 extent that she had represented that her information was different to know

4 what her information was. And I think there was some question about what

5 was the basis of the information, which I think we -- was explained on

6 re-direct examination through the examination of these various intercepts

7 that indicate at least to the witness to whom that particular extension is

8 ascribed. So I don't think that Mr. Ostojic, my colleague, has set forth

9 any grounds upon which to permit re-cross-examination to the extent that

10 he actually elicited most of the information, it was -- that was the

11 subject of the re-direct examination.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

13 Madam Fauveau, go ahead. We'll come to each one of you. In your

14 case there is no objection on the part of the Prosecution, and therefore

15 we grant you the exceptional -- exceptional possibility to

16 re-cross-examine the witness. For the record I notice that Mr. Bourgon is

17 in the courtroom.

18 Yes, Madam Fauveau. How long do you expect to be?

19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I believe 20 minutes, 15 to 20, Your

20 Honour.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: You are limiting your cross-examination to that

23 particular intercept document that you mentioned earlier, Madam Fauveau,

24 and to nothing else, so we're giving you five minutes to do that, please.

25 Go ahead.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness

2 Exhibit P2438.

3 Further cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:

4 Q. [Interpretation] Is it true that General Milovanovic first

5 requested to speak to a colonel?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And that colonel could have been one of the subordinates of

8 General Miletic?

9 A. It would just be speculation. It's unclear who this colonel is.

10 Q. Very well. And then he asked to speak to a certain Dubovina?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then the third thing, or the third person or the third

13 extension was number 155?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And when the person on extension 155 answered General Milovanovic,

16 that person was not General Miletic?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And General Milovanovic said, "I was looking for Miletic." He

19 didn't say "I am looking for Miletic". Is that true?

20 A. What --

21 Q. I think there is a mistake in the transcript. General Miletic did

22 not say "I am looking for Miletic," he said in the past, "I was looking

23 for Miletic?"

24 JUDGE AGIUS: There is another mistake in the transcript, line 11.

25 It's not General Miletic who said that.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Indeed, it

2 was General Milovanovic.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: So your answer -- your question, Madam Fauveau, was

4 General Milovanovic said "I was looking for Miletic", he didn't say I was

5 -- "I am looking for Miletic." Is that correct? Would you agree to that

6 Ms. Frease?

7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you agree with that proposition?

9 THE WITNESS: May I see the B/C/S version, the next page of the --

10 of the B/C/S version? But yes, in English it says "I needed Miletic or

11 one of those who gives permits. Who give permits, it says, but who gives

12 permits. Hmm...

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

14 Q. You speak B/C/S. Is it true that the first sentence is also in

15 the past tense, that the B/C/S version also says, "I was looking for

16 Miletic."

17 JUDGE AGIUS: What do the words [B/C/S spoken], as they appear in

18 the transcript, if I am reading them well, mean? Is that in the present

19 tense or in the past tense or in the past perfect.

20 THE WITNESS: I would say in the B/C/S it should be [B/C/S spoken]

21 which would be past tense. But yes, this is -- this is -- yes, this

22 should be past tense. It says -- it's a slightly shortened version for

23 what I know of the past tense.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

25 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].

2 Q. Would it not be logical, if General Miletic was on extension 155,

3 that General Miletic [sic] would have said I need Miletic, please give me

4 Miletic?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it's a question that should be asked.

6 It can become a submission.

7 Are you in a position to answer that question?

8 THE WITNESS: Not -- no, not really.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's being put to you that if General Miletic was

10 on -- available on 155, or would have been available on 155, Milovanovic

11 would have said I need to speak to Miletic.

12 THE WITNESS: Maybe he just wasn't there.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: This is why I'm saying it can become a submission

14 because it allows for so much speculation as it is. Go ahead.

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Do you agree that upon analysing this conversation - I am limiting

17 myself to this conversation - you can absolutely not conclude that General

18 Miletic should have been or would have been on extension 155.

19 A. I think it's possible to conclude that he could have been on 155.

20 Q. But what you've just said is speculation on your part. It's also

21 possible that he could have been at the first extension, a colonel whose

22 name we don't know and who is one of his subordinates. Would you agree?

23 A. May I read the conversation?

24 Q. Yes, of course, if the Trial Chamber will allow it.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Go ahead.

1 THE WITNESS: The way I read it, it would have been Miletic who

2 was on 155.

3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]

4 Q. And can you explain to me what is the basis for this conclusion?

5 A. M says, "Then give me 155." P says, "Right away. Hello. Yes,

6 Milovanovic. Eh, Mane, tell me. I needed Miletic or one of those who

7 gives permits. Did you promise anything to Balas?" To me it indicates

8 that he was looking for Miletic or one of those who gives permits on 155.

9 Q. But do you agree that before speaking to extension 155 he tried to

10 reach two other people and found no one?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So how can you rule out the possibility that Miletic should have

13 been either with the colonel whom he was first looking for, or with

14 Dubovina?

15 A. [Microphone not activated]... right now.

16 JUDGE KWON: Could you speak again?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, because the -- your microphone was not

18 activated all the time.

19 THE WITNESS: It seems to be fading in and out like it was a

20 couple of days ago.

21 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask Ms. Frease. What's the first word that the

22 man on extension 155 said for the first time to Milovanovic? Was

23 it "yes"?

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that -- yes.

25 JUDGE KWON: If Milovanovic had expected Miletic, he could have

1 noticed it is not Miletic by hearing "yes" from this man. Am I correct?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's what it appears to be.

3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Proceed, Ms. Fauveau.

4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to ask leave to show

5 the witness 5D128 that directly refers to the phone number that could be

6 the number of General Miletic, and it will be my last question.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness Exhibit

9 5D128.

10 Q. Would you look at the introduction to this conversation. It

11 refers to Panorama 166, the phone number that the operator thought

12 belonged to General Miletic.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you allow for the possibility that General Miletic was never

15 at 155 but rather at 166?

16 A. No.

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no other questions, Your

18 Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.

20 Mr. Zivanovic, you only referred -- you also referred to just

21 one -- I just have one -- I need to find.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's document 2469 from the

23 Prosecutor's list.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: So you too have five minutes and your re-cross is to

25 be limited to re-examining the witness on this or in relation to this

1 document and to nothing else or anything that arises out of it but nothing

2 else.

3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Further cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Frease, can you please look at this document,

6 2469. You saw it a little bit earlier. It's the list of those killed

7 from the Zvornik Brigade.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You told us that the list, or a part of the list, number 450, I

10 think that's the number, confirms the conversation of the 20th of April.

11 We can look at item 450, and I think that is on page 003246.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number.

13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The number is 450. That's three

14 or four pages before that one.

15 THE WITNESS: Mr. Zivanovic, could -- could you read back my --

16 what I said about that document and whether I used the word "confirms."

17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Then I will just have to find that in the transcript. It's page

19 14 from -- actually from pages 11 to 14, 9 to 11.

20 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot hear the counsel.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Lines are 18 to 20, and it's page

23 14, line 18 -- 18. Yes.

24 Q. Are you able to find it?

25 A. I don't -- I can't -- I'm not able to scroll through or I don't

1 know how to scroll through the document to -- I mean my transcript. I

2 can't do it.

3 JUDGE KWON: It's page 15.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Kwon is suggesting --

5 JUDGE KWON: Line 14 of page 15.

6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] From line 14.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think maybe it's just a question of a term of

9 art, but I think the question is -- that was put to the witness was

10 whether it was corroborative of the intercept which is a different

11 question than Mr. Zivanovic has posed which is whether or not she can

12 confirm something, and those are two different concepts and two different

13 questions and I think that's what the distinction is and maybe we can

14 resolve it relatively quickly this way.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I just said if that corroborates

17 the intercept of the 20th of April.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's -- that's what line 18 on page 15 tells

19 us. So -- and Mr. Vanderpuye is correct, the question that was put was

20 whether it was corroborative of the other intercept.

21 Anyway, could you rephrase your question, please.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. I'm just noting that you told us that this document, the list, of

24 those killed from the Zvornik Brigade supports the intercept of the 20th

25 of April. Did you say that --

1 A. [Previous translation continues]...

2 Q. -- or did I understand you incorrectly?

3 A. Sorry, my answer wasn't recorded. And my answer is, yes, that it

4 supports the intercept of the 20th of April.

5 Q. Can we now look at the list, please, that was on the screen a bit

6 earlier. And this is item 450. When you said that it corroborates the

7 intercept, you were talking about item 450 where we have the name of one

8 of the Polish volunteers?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. First, I would like to ask you this: My learned friend, the

11 Prosecutor, already submitted that to you, that in the intercept and in

12 the document that you were shown before that the names of two Polish

13 volunteers are mentioned. Did you find the name of the second Polish

14 volunteer on this list of persons who were killed?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me now if in the last column there

17 is a date -- or the column, the one but last, there is the date, the 14th

18 of September, 1995?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. Can we note that this is almost five months after this

21 conversation?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you please tell me now, can you tell me in which way does this

24 name, the name of this person who was killed, five months after the

25 intercept at a place called Ostrelj here, how does that corroborate the

1 content of that conversation?

2 A. Could we go back to the first page of this document so that we're

3 able to see the headings of each of the columns. Okay. So column 4, I'll

4 read it in B/C/S for the translation. [Interpretation] "Participation in

5 the VRS."

6 [In English] Then if we go back to number 450 on that list, you

7 will see that he participated from the 21st of April, 1995. So one day

8 after he had been assigned to the Zvornik Brigade. And then it gives his

9 date of death as the 14th of September, 1995.

10 Q. Ms. Frease, I just am interested in the following: Does that mean

11 that the veracity of this intercept is corroborated by the fact that he

12 joined the army of Republika Srpska on the 21st of April, the day after

13 this conversation?

14 A. I would say that the contents of the intercept -- let me start

15 from the other end. I would say that this document corroborates the

16 contents of the material contained within the intercept dated the 20th of

17 April, 1995, along with the document, the order that was received in which

18 the two men -- the two Polish volunteers were deployed to the Zvornik

19 Brigade.

20 Q. I just want to clarify the contents because the contents are

21 different. There's a lot of stuff in that document. Does that mean that

22 you are corroborating, and you say that you believe that the document is

23 reliable because the intercepted conversation was recorded on the 20th of

24 April and, from this document, it turns out that already on the 21st of

25 April he joined the VRS, he became a member of the army of Republika

1 Srpska. That just that corroborates your assertion that this -- that that

2 confirms or corroborates this intercept?

3 A. I need to re-read your question. It's a little long. Or if you

4 can summarise it, otherwise, I'll just re-read it and see if I can give

5 you an answer.

6 I'll have to go through it bit by bit, I think. When you say

7 there is a lot of stuff in that document, I assume you mean this list of

8 people who died while in the service of the VRS, correct?

9 Q. No, you are not. We are talking about just one topic, we're

10 talking about the intercept of the 20th of April and on the other hand we

11 are talking about this part of the list for which you say that it

12 corroborates this intercept of the 20th of April. So I'm asking you if

13 just the fact that the Polish volunteer who was killed joined the army of

14 Republika Srpska on the 21st of April, 1995, is that piece of information

15 that you claim asserts the contents of the intercept of the 20th of April,

16 1995?

17 A. That is not the only piece of information. The other information

18 comes from the tape and the documents, and this just further reinforces

19 the intercept.

20 Q. But this specific document that is in front of you, only this

21 corroborates that intercepted conversation?

22 A. Yes, it also corroborates the intercepted conversation.

23 Q. When you say "also," from this document, is there anything else

24 that corroborates that intercept?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: She has already answered that question,

1 Mr. Zivanovic. Please bring your cross-examination to an end.

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, all right. In that case, I

3 have no other questions. Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. As regards your request, Mr. Ostojic, to

5 re-cross the witness, we have followed your submissions as they are

6 reflected in the transcript from page 38, line 24 to line 14 on page 39

7 and we have also reviewed the submissions of your colleague,

8 Mr. Vanderpuye from page 39, line 22 to lines 42, line -- page 42, line 1.

9 In each of the instances that you claim you have a right to

10 re-cross the witness, we come to the conclusion that no such authorisation

11 should be given, giving such authorisation for the reasons that you

12 yourself specified would run against the basic principles as in the

13 jurisprudence of this Tribunal and in relation -- or regulating re-cross,

14 we in particular would refer to the response of Mr. Vanderpuye that

15 explains in detail why in some of these instances re-cross shouldn't be

16 granted and we fully agree with those reasons. Where Mr. Vanderpuye's

17 response doesn't touch on some of your submissions such as, for example,

18 ask one -- wanting to ask the witness whether by "I assume" she means that

19 she is speculating when she refers to certain Lukic. Again, this is not a

20 matter that can be reserved for re-cross re-cross. So the matter ends

21 there.

22 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have some -- an

24 issue to raise with the witness. It's a very short issue that deals with

25 the same documents that were used by my colleague, Mr. Zivanovic. And the

1 reason for asking leave at this time to ask the question to the witness,

2 is because these documents were -- are new documents which the Defence was

3 not given warning in advance that they would be used in redirect until we

4 got the list this morning.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: What is your question?

6 MR. BOURGON: The question is very simple. My colleague says, and

7 that's on page 14, and it's on line -- the question simply is my colleague

8 asked a question to the witness, Was documentation brought to your

9 attention concerning this intercept? And she said, Yes. And then with my

10 colleague, they looked at documents number 2468, 2467, and 2469 and I

11 would just like to know when these documents were brought to the attention

12 of the witness and to ask also one question concerning one document, which

13 is 2468. And I will quote the exact page.

14 And Mr. President, the question was asked by my colleague, it's on

15 page 13, lines 5 to 7, and it goes like this: "You were asked some

16 questions by my colleague about a conversation that occurred on 20 April.

17 I believe it was between Mr. Popovic and Mr. Nikolic." Answer was, "Yes."

18 Then the question was: "Can I ask you, did you review any documentation

19 or was any documentation brought to your attention with respect to the

20 veracity as to the contents of that communication?" The answer

21 was, "Yes."

22 My question is simple, when was this documentation brought to the

23 attention of the witness?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we don't need you to respond to that. I

25 think in both instances it's perfectly all right to proceed with a

1 re-cross.

2 Go ahead, Mr. Bourgon. You've got five minutes and not more,

3 please.

4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you.

5 Further cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:

6 Q. Ms. Frease, two questions for you. So I will read again what I

7 just said from the transcript and I refer to the 20th of April

8 conversation, so you know which conversation I'm talking about.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The question by my colleague was, "Did you review any

11 documentation or was any documentation brought to your attention with

12 respect to the veracity as to the content of that communication?" Your

13 answer was, "Yes." And then we proceeded to look at document 2467. My

14 question is very simple: When was this documentation brought to your

15 attention? A long time ago as part of your project or just recently?

16 A. Is document 2467 the order?

17 Q. Indeed it is.

18 A. That documentation was brought to my attention a long time ago.

19 When I say a long time ago, I believe sometime in January.

20 Q. January of this year?

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. So just to be clear, because I'm not quite sure what the date was,

23 was that before the beginning of your testimony for the first time before

24 a Trial Chamber?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. BOURGON: Can we show the document 2467 to the witness. Can

3 we have the document displayed on e-court. And if we can have the English

4 version as well, please.

5 Q. Now, Ms. Frease, in response to a question by my colleague, you

6 answered that this was an order issued by the Drina Corps command, and you

7 explained that it was the -- it dealt with the fact that the deployment of

8 two volunteers, Polish volunteers. My question is, on this document which

9 was brought to your attention, do you know who is the signatory of this

10 document, Radenko Jovicic?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Maybe I was under the misapprehension, but I

13 thought that Mr. Bourgon had indicated that his examination was limited to

14 the question of when it was, that the document in question was brought to

15 the witness's attention. But obviously that is within the description of

16 the Court. I would just simply raise it just for a point of clarification

17 and if that's not the case, then it simply is --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you may be right, but I think it would be

19 dangerous on our part to anticipate. So we'll stop Mr. Bourgon if he goes

20 beyond, but let's first hear the answer to this question and then your

21 next question and we will see whether it is related or not.

22 MR. BOURGON: Thank you.

23 Q. So do you know who is Radenko Jovicic?

24 A. Yes, I believe I do. And if I want to be absolutely certain, if I

25 could refer to the index of names, we can make absolute certain.

1 Q. What was his job? That's mostly what I'm interested in. What

2 position did he hold at the time?

3 A. May I refer to the index?

4 Q. Absolutely.

5 A. His position was chief of reinforcements and personnel for the

6 Drina Corps.

7 Q. And my last question is simple. Did you, when you were shown this

8 document, when it was brought to your attention, did you establish any

9 link between this document coming from reinforcement and security at any

10 level within the Drina Corps?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to follow up

14 after that, when we come to the admission of documents, I will have a

15 submission to make at that time. Thank you, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we'll have -- need another session for -- to

17 conclude the admission of documents.

18 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

19 MR. HAYNES: I'm not sure that either of the Pandurevic Defence

20 team or the Borovcanin Defence team formally indicated that they have no

21 questions of this witness, but if we didn't, I do now.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I said it yesterday at some point in time,

23 is it just Mr. Josse and Madam Fauveau and Mr. Zivanovic left, and I had a

24 confirmation of that. Thank you.

25 So, Ms. Frease, we come to the end of your testimony. I wish to

1 thank you on behalf of everyone for having come over to testify in this

2 trial. And we wish you a safe journey back home.

3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I see that we don't have a list from you, from the

6 Nikolic team. All right. So let's start with the Prosecution list. This

7 has, I understand, been circulated. Mr. Vanderpuye.

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that we had

9 distributed -- okay. We did, in fact, distribute --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm taking it for granted. Unless I hear any

11 declaration to the contrary.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I guess I should go through them number by

13 number. The first --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, let's confirm, first, that all the Defence

15 teams have got a copy of the Prosecution lists of intended documents.

16 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. If we can just identify

18 which documents we get -- from time to time many documents just so we have

19 the most current one, which I think we do.

20 JUDGE KWON: A quick question to Mr. Vanderpuye whether this

21 includes the exhibits shown in re-direct.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. The list of exhibits to tender do not

23 include the exhibits that were shown in redirect. And in particular --

24 are you referring in particular to documents that Mr. Bourgon and

25 Mr. Zivanovic had cross-examined about? That's correct, it does not

1 reflect that.

2 JUDGE KWON: My question is whether you wish to tender it or not?

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: We do, most definitely.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So they need to be identified.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think Ms. Frease has testified on different days.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: They were identified actually on the

8 Prosecution's exhibits for re-direct, which we furnished as a courtesy to

9 Defence counsel before the re-direct was undertaken.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to know whether --

11 JUDGE KWON: There are some exhibits which were not used during

12 the course of redirect. For example, 2468, did you use that?

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I did not use 2468; you're right.

14 JUDGE KWON: That's the point.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: You're right. I can identify for the record

16 which ones they are. I would imagine you would expect me to do that, or

17 alternatively I suppose we could amend the list and I could submit it in

18 writing at a later point but ...

19 JUDGE KWON: If it is the only addition, I'm fine with it.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay, I believe it is the only one. So in

21 addition to the Prosecution's exhibits to tender, if there are objections,

22 I can address those individually, but we do intend to tender all of the

23 exhibits that are listed on that sheet. And in addition to that, we would

24 like to tender what's demarked -- demarcated as P02438 which was the

25 October 28th intercept; P02467 and P02469. The P02467 was the order, that

1 was referred to, indicating the two names of the volunteers, signed by

2 Jovicic. The ERN number on that document was 0433-3819. And then the

3 last one which was P02469 was the list of Zvornik Brigade dead.

4 So I would be offering those documents in addition to what is

5 indicated on the exhibits to tender sheet that had been previously

6 provided.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now, shall we go through the list?

8 First of all, are there any objections from the Defence teams in relation

9 to any of these documents?

10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. We do object to the

11 documents 2467 and 2469, and I can explain why at this time or if you want

12 me to do that at a later time.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead now.

14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to

15 refer the Trial Chamber that these are two documents which do not appear

16 on the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter list of exhibits.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry, because I'm losing my voice. But prior to

18 your arrival in the courtroom today Madam Fauveau raised the same issue in

19 relation to P2468, it was 2468 that she referred to actually, if you look

20 at the transcript. And that matter was addressed by Mr. Vanderpuye who

21 explained how 24 -- that document, together with others were included in

22 the 65 ter list following a decision that we took 12th -- I forgot the

23 dates now, but 12th January, I think it was. Or 10 January.

24 So maybe you can verify that because I understand that these were

25 in the same category.

1 MR. BOURGON: I will indeed, Mr. President. Although I note to

2 that's documents were not included in the list of documents --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: In the original one, no.

4 MR. BOURGON: The fact that they were not on the Rule 65 ter list,

5 that's one thing. The second issue is that these documents were not

6 included in the list of documents to be used with the witness. So before

7 a witness begins the testimony we should be given a list of documents that

8 are likely to be used by the Prosecution. These documents were not there.

9 They appeared for the first time on the list given with the witness this

10 morning. Now, that's the second issue.

11 The third issue is, once we -- once we have these documents, the

12 question I asked to the witness, the Prosecution has been aware of the

13 existence of this document, the Prosecution has shown the witness, the

14 witness those two documents or there were three -- these three documents

15 and yet there were never -- they were never included in a list given to us

16 that they were likely to be used with this witness. If they come into

17 this later time and times in terms of redirect and give us a list this

18 morning and they include these documents at the last minute, we believe

19 that is not the proper procedure to be followed. That is over and above

20 the fact they were not initially in the Rule 65 ter and I will check the

21 transcript for the issue that, Mr. President, you just mentioned. So

22 those are the bases for the objection that these three documents from

23 2467, 68 and 69 should not be admitted even should not even be given a

24 number for identification. Thank you, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, I think there are two issues at play here.

2 First, has to do with the requirements of 65 ter as they relate to the

3 question of unfair surprise to the Defence. I think first of all in

4 addressing that concern or that consideration of my colleague, there has

5 to be a balance that is struck in terms of the notice requirements under

6 65 ter together with the question of what the Defence reasonably can

7 anticipate in terms or rather as is predicated upon their

8 cross-examination. That is to extent that the Defence raises an issue

9 that directly relates to an issue, a document for example that the

10 Prosecution has that fairly addresses on re-direct examination, a question

11 put by the Defence, I think that the Court should examine that in relation

12 to the requirements of 65 ter. That is, that the Defence can't claim

13 unfair surprise in violation of 65 ter when the issues that they've raised

14 on cross-examination essentially elicit that information.

15 I should also point out that reference to corroborative

16 information of the intercept which is dated the 20th of April, 1995, that

17 was made -- a specific reference to corroborative information as regards

18 that intercept was raised in the Defence submission on the 9th, I believe,

19 of January of this year. And there was a very specific reference to

20 documents corroborating that particular intercept which was -- which was

21 deferred, for which an application to submit those documents on the

22 Prosecution's 65 ter list or amend the list to reflect those documents was

23 deferred pending a decision on the admissibility of the -- of the given

24 intercept.

25 So the Defence has been aware, if they read the submission, that

1 there -- such documents do, in fact, exist. And in a sense to attack the

2 reliability, the veracity, and the credibility of the particular intercept

3 steps into the hornet's nest, as it were. Because that particular attack

4 directly implicates what the Defence has been on notice of for well over a

5 month. And that particularly, if the language is correct, is a submission

6 that we made back in January detailing the documents that are at issue.

7 Moreover, we have ERN numbers that were -- were indicated in -- in the

8 submission itself. One relating to the document that Judge Kwon just

9 referred to that we didn't use in redirect which I submit we could have

10 used in redirect. Naming the writer of the document also indicating the

11 ERN number, the ERN number of 04333820 was specifically cited in that

12 submission.

13 Moreover, the -- the other document that I had indicated had been

14 written or indicated had been penned by Jovicic which we are using was

15 also mentioned in the same -- also mentioned in the same submission. As

16 well as the document relating to -- relating to the killed and actions.

17 With ERN numbers. So there is not a position here, I think, that

18 Mr. Bourgon can advance genuinely that A, he is surprised by fact that the

19 Prosecution had these documents or surprised by the fact that the

20 Prosecution would deign to use them in redirect examination where his

21 colleague has specifically and pointedly attacked the witness's ability to

22 establish the viability of the intercepting question.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

24 Yes, Mr. Bourgon. Are you withdrawing your objection?

25 MR. BOURGON: Not at all, Mr. President. What I'm saying is

1 that -- first of all, when this witness was called to testify, we were

2 given the list of exhibits, and the idea was they wanted to lead evidence

3 about the 20 of April intercept. That was the Prosecution, as part of its

4 case, they want to lead evidence as part of the intercept. It is our

5 submission that if they are going do that and they know of the existence

6 of any other documents that either tend to corroborate or that can be used

7 by the witness, it should be placed on that list of exhibits given to us

8 ahead of time.

9 Furthermore, Mr. President, I'm looking right now, doing a final

10 verification concerning whether these documents were ever admitted on the

11 Rule 65 ter list and the answer I have right now, subject to final

12 verification, is that they were never admitted under the Rule 65 ter list

13 of exhibits. What was admitted is the intercept itself, but none of the

14 other material my colleague is referring to in his submission. These

15 documents were not admitted on the Rule 65 ter list of exhibits. I may be

16 wrong, I am doing a final verification. The answer I come up with right

17 now, at this stage, these documents are not on the Rule 65 ter list. They

18 are not placed on the list of exhibits to be used with the witness and

19 they pop up on the last morning on redirect. We're given a list and these

20 documents suddenly appear. Moreover, I look at the use of these documents

21 and what these documents are intended to show has nothing to do with what

22 my colleague raised in his cross-examination concerning whether there

23 are -- these two Polish volunteers existed. That's not what my colleague

24 tried to do in his cross-examination and that's not what the witness was

25 trying to answer either.

1 Thank you, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, and let's conclude it here.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I can make it relatively brief. I don't

4 know if Mr. Bourgon was here when Madam Fauveau raised the objection -- to

5 the intercept and perhaps this is the source of the confusion. But the

6 objection was raised with specific regard to the intercept which I

7 indicated was part of a 65 ter amendment application which had been

8 granted and I don't think that's in dispute. With respect to the

9 documents in question, I have submitted that those documents were

10 submitted in relation to -- were part a submission by the Prosecution in

11 relation to the admissibility of the April 20th intercept, which I think

12 was a separate submission all on its on, in which corroborative

13 information was specifically indicated in relation to that intercept, and

14 was reserved from being added to the 65 ter list pending the decision on

15 the admissibility of the intercept in question.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: As regards the other proposed Prosecution exhibits,

17 are there any objections? We hear none.

18 So let's start from the back. All the intercepts that are being

19 proposed will be marked for identification purposes, as per our constant

20 practice. The other documents, 1070, 65 ter number, 1074, I'm referring

21 to the 65 ter numbers, the intercept authentication binder.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: The -- this last has already got a Prosecution

24 number. It was miffed already, and this is the other intercept

25 authentication binder prepared by Ms. Frease. Then 1084, which is index

1 to the code-names; 1085, index to names and positions of individuals;

2 1086, colour map of locations; 1087, 1088, 1089, the same, colour maps;

3 P2399, is a receipt of -- for diskettes, 240 receipt for printouts; 2443,

4 index to code-names referenced; and 2444, index of names and positions of

5 individuals referenced. So these are all being admitted.

6 Now we come to 2438, 2467, 2469. I understand -- just want to

7 make -- have a confirmation, you are not tendering 2468, are you?

8 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, we're not.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: So it's 2438, 2467, 2469, if you could give me some

10 time to confer with my colleagues, please.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.

13 MR. BOURGON: Before you enter the final decision, I would like if

14 we could confirm whether, yes or no, these documents were subject of an

15 application by the Prosecution. Again, the information I have from my

16 team is that there were never any application made for these specific

17 documents. There is an application dated 9th of January where the

18 Prosecution, according to the information I have, says that an application

19 will be filed. And no application, to our knowledge, has been filed and

20 I'm still checking that information.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it shouldn't take more of our court time.

22 Could you please, Mr. Vanderpuye, or Mr. McCloskey, file with the Trial

23 Chamber, of course with a copy, the history of -- as -- or filing as it

24 relates to these three documents, please.

25 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we will do that, Mr. President. But I also,

2 to clarify the Prosecution's position and policy on the use of documents

3 in re-direct, as you know, we do have a great respect for the system that

4 you have set up for 65 ter. It is not our interpretation of your rulings

5 that a document used on re-direct must have a 65 ter number. If -- of

6 course it must be used properly on redirect to -- to rebut or contradict

7 something on direct. But were I to get 65 ters for every possible

8 document that may be used on redirect, I would need to apply for thousands

9 of documents. So the mere fact that whether or not we have or not, I

10 don't know we'll check, but the mere fact that something doesn't a 65 ter

11 number should not be dispositive of whether it's admissable on redirect.

12 I imagine the same thing will come up when it is the Prosecution's turn to

13 cross-examine witnesses. Must we have a 65 ter number to cross-examine

14 witnesses? I will ask Mr. Bourgon his position of that, we'll discuss it,

15 but we know each other well enough, that I have a feeling I know his

16 response.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think this deserves more court time.

18 Actually, Mr. Bourgon, in his intervention, did say it's not 65 ter you

19 need to seek permission first. Declare it that it is not a 65 ter

20 document and seek permission before you proceed to make use of it. This

21 is how I read, at least, his intervention.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: We do need to know from the Court whether you

23 expect us to seek 65 ter numbers for documents we use on redirect, because

24 it is not currently our intention to do so.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: We will defer our decision on these three documents

1 until after we have historical -- yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would only wish to say that I

3 support Mr. Bourgon's request.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I am sure Mr. Bourgon is quite happy to hear that.

5 So I -- I am not going to ask other Defence teams whether they support

6 Mr. Bourgon. I take it for granted that you all do.

7 So our decision is deferred on this. We will come back.

8 Now, before we -- yes, yes. Before we -- we adjourn -- not

9 adjourn, before we have the break, let's start with the first list of

10 Defence documents. Mr. Zivanovic has got 20 documents that he seeks to

11 tender, the first five of which are not yet translated, and so in any

12 case, will be marked for identification.

13 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have submitted the list,

15 and some documents are being translated. They will be delivered as soon

16 as we have the translations. Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, may I ask the Prosecution, you have a copy of

18 this -- you have a copy of this list? Mr. Vanderpuye.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, we do.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: And do you object to the introduction of -- or the

21 admission of any of these documents, subject to what I said about marking

22 them for identification in certain cases?

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have no objection to the use of these

24 documents. There are, as I recall, some information reports and personal

25 notes of -- of the witness.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but you released them.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is true. I don't know whether or not they

3 contain information. My recollection is that they do contain information

4 or may that require some redaction, but other than that, I don't think

5 there is an issue with respect to those.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. --

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know if my learned colleague may object

8 to having them tendered -- admitted under seal, but that's what I would

9 propose.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: What I propose is something different. Do you wish

11 to contribute anything on this matter, Mr. Zivanovic?

12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So it can be easily dealt with.

14 Does any of the other Defence teams object to the admission of any

15 of these documents? The 1D documents? None.

16 So the first five will be marked for identifications. The others

17 are being admitted with the following proviso, that when it comes to

18 5D189, 5D191, namely, information report of Ms. Frease and personal notes

19 on the April 1998 visits to the northern and southern sites, these are

20 adopted but these last two documents will not be released or made

21 available to the public before the Prosecution has had time to go through

22 them and suggest -- suggest redactions to Mr. Zivanovic. This exercise

23 needs to be done by not later than the end of business of tomorrow. And

24 Mr. Zivanovic and Mr. Vanderpuye will come back to us and then we will

25 lift the confidentiality afterwards. Yes.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Kwon is pointing out that they are marked as

3 5D documents and they are basically madame -- the last two, yeah. 5D189

4 and 5D191. So perhaps what I have said will be applied to your documents

5 rather than Mr. Zivanovic. So you need to consult with both of them,

6 particularly Madam Fauveau, who is the one who sought the introduction in

7 the first place.

8 All right. And then you need to come back to us after tomorrow so

9 that we finalise this matter.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: So the others are admitted as I stated. The Miletic

12 Defence team, we have -- Madam Fauveau, we have 12 documents. Is that

13 correct?

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's right. And I

15 would like to say that the document 5D160 is not translated yet, and I

16 will let you know as soon as a translation is available.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's start with number 7 is the intercept which

18 is not translated, that will be marked for identification on a temporary

19 basis until translated. 189 and 190 and -- and 189 and 18 -- 191 we have

20 already dealt with. I think 190 has to be dealt with in the same manner.

21 Because it's an internal memorandum, and you will need to look into that

22 and communicate first with the -- Madam Fauveau and later on with us.

23 Are there any objections in regard to the admission of any of

24 these documents, please?

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there's no objection.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. My other question to you is

2 in the list itself the -- for example, the first document refers to the

3 northern site. Does it, on the -- on the face of it, because if it does,

4 I think we will need to keep these under seal.

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honour, I believe that

6 the five -- the first five documents will either have the name of the unit

7 or the name of the site. So it is preferable that those documents be

8 placed under seal.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. My preference is to keep them in their

10 integrity and preserve them under seal. So from 5D182, 184, 183, 185, 186

11 will remain under seal. And number 11, you need to check whether the

12 names of the sites or the unit is mentioned, and proceed accordingly,

13 Madam Registrar. If the names of the sites are mentioned there, obviously

14 they have to be kept under seal. As to 5D128, I cannot remember what it

15 was. What's 5D128, if you could remind us, Madam Fauveau.

16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It's an intercept from the SDB, and

17 in fact it should be placed under seal because I believe the name of the

18 operators is on those documents.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Then it will be kept under seal and it

20 is also marked for identification as per our practice.

21 Then last but not least there is the Gvero Defence team that

22 wishes to tender three documents. Mr. Josse 6D22, 23 and 45.

23 MR. JOSSE: That's right, Your Honour. I have nothing to add.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And Mr. Vanderpuye, any objections.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there is no objection.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Any one of the Defence teams wishes to object?

2 None. They are so admitted.

3 And that brings us to the break. Next witness is 179, is that

4 correct? Yeah. All right. And he enjoys --

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One issue we would like to raise with you, while

7 take advantage of your presence in the courtroom, Mr. McCloskey, is the

8 following: We are acting under the presumption, or understanding that

9 there are only three more intercepts operators left. Is that correct?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hate to put this back on Mr. Vanderpuye. He is

11 my intercept expert. We have two that -- two regular intercept operators

12 and one tactical intercept operator who is a bit of a different animal.

13 And so I -- if that's the three you're referring to, I'm -- I believe

14 there's one other intercept that -- an acts-and-conduct intercept and we

15 are trying to trace down the handwriting of who that belongs to, I believe

16 it's a 21st Division person, and I'm told that that's it. We haven't

17 found that person yet, but I believe we'll be able to find him. And I

18 don't think the person has very many intercepts. But that is the one

19 caveat I would add. But we're -- we're close to the end.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: You are close to the end. We are happy to hear that

21 because we will soon have use for you. Can you identify these witnesses

22 without mentioning the names? When is the next one, 179.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that witness is ready to go. He's -- he's

24 here. It should be five or 10 minutes on -- on direct. It --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. The other one, is it 186?

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: And would the third one, the -- would it be 75?

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: That sounds familiar. Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we are due to finish these three

5 witnesses shortly. In other words, I wanted to make sure that you haven't

6 spaced them out. Okay. All right.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: They're here. We put them altogether and they're

8 ready to go.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Next thing I wanted to bring to your

10 attention at earlier on in the day, I signed a decision on Rule 94 bis on

11 some outstanding issue relating to the applicability of Rule 94 bis and

12 that in the wake of the issues that you raised last week in relation to

13 what you should put to witness on cross-examination and what you should or

14 are bound or not bound to disclose to the other party, we have of course

15 had time to discuss. We utilised that time, and we had meant to come with

16 an oral decision, we decided to hand down a -- an order, a written order

17 setting out the guidelines that you asked for and perhaps going a little

18 bit beyond. You will be able to see in the course of the day.

19 Before we bring in the witness also, and I think we can postpone

20 the break by a couple of minutes further, I think -- I think this can

21 wait -- I think this can wait until -- until after we hear. Except for --

22 there is a motion -- no, I'll come to you on this after the break. Let's

23 have a 25-minute break now. We didn't have any redactions, no? Yeah, 25

24 minutes. Thank you.

25 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

1 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Is there a reason why the witness -- all

3 right.

4 So this will be Witness number 179 [sic].

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, sir.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Welcome to this Tribunal. You are about

10 to start your evidence as a Prosecution witness. Before you do so, you

11 are required to make a solemn declaration that you will testify the truth.

12 Madam Usher is going to hand you the text. Please read it out aloud and

13 that will be your undertaking with us.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

15 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

16 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-154

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, sir. Please make yourself

19 comfortable. We have put in place two protective measures for you which I

20 understand have already been explained. One is the use of a pseudonym.

21 You are Witness PW-154. And you will not be referred to by name. The

22 second is we are going to hide your face by distorting your image and that

23 I suppose has been explained to you. I just want to confirm that this is

24 to your satisfaction.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey will go first and then he will be

2 followed with -- by members of the Defence teams.

3 Go ahead, Mr. McCloskey.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:

6 Q. First, Witness, we're going to show you a sheet. It's been marked

7 P02461. Is that your name on the sheet?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. And were you born in -- and grew up in Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And did you do your JNA mandatory service from August 1976 through

13 October 1977?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And during that time in the JNA, were you trained as a -- in radio

16 relay communications?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And did you spend a good part of your time working as a

19 switchboard operator for radio relay?

20 A. Yes. While I was doing my military service.

21 Q. Okay. And when the war broke out in 1992, did you become a member

22 of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in July 1995, did you work as an intercept operator in what we

25 have been referring to as the southern site?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. All right. And I had told you previously what we meant by the

3 southern site; I don't think there is any doubt there. Okay.

4 And when you worked there at this southern site, did you work

5 according to the procedures set in place at the time?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. Okay. And in my office recently, have I shown you the original

8 handwritten notebook entries and typed printout entries for two

9 intercepts?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And for the record, that first intercept is 65 ter 1314, dated 23

12 July at 1132 hours. The second one is P02454 at 23 July at 1358 hours.

13 Now, when you saw those original notebooks, did you recognise your

14 handwriting for both those intercepts?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And so were you the one that had transcribed those intercepts from

17 a tape into the notebooks?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. And did you -- can you tell us between the handwritten

20 notebook and the typed printout, what do you feel reflects the most

21 accurate version of the -- of the intercept that you heard?

22 A. The handwritten version.

23 Q. All right. And in the two -- in each of the two intercepts, did

24 you notice one mistake in the typed-written version, for each of the two

25 intercepts?

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. Okay. And perhaps I can save a little time by just referring to

3 the intercept at 1132 hours, the -- did you -- do you recall that in the

4 handwritten version you had written the word "personally," basically that

5 Krstic had wanted Vinko to report to him personally?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And when you reviewed the typewritten version, was

8 that "personally" left out of the typed version?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. And the next intercept on 23 July at 1358 hours, in your

11 handwritten version, did you note down in the intercept a number "272"?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And in the printout version, was it mistyped and put "292"?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any further questions, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

17 Who is going first? I have on my list, subject to updates,

18 Popovic Defence team, 20 minutes; Beara Defence team, 30 minutes; Nikolic

19 Defence team, 20 minutes; Borovcanin Defence team, 10 minutes; Miletic, 20

20 minutes and none for the remaining two Defence teams.

21 So, Mr. Zivanovic.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. I have had occasion to read

25 your statement, and I would only like you to say whether you can confirm

1 some points from your statement.

2 The first refers to the date. I see that you stated in your

3 statement that you were not sure whether you had entered the dates into

4 the notebooks. Can you confirm this?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. My second question is the following: You said you never typed out

7 the texts of the conversations but only entered them into the handwritten

8 notebooks?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And finally, you also said that, as regards the typing and

11 forwarding these statements further on, you had nothing to do with this?

12 A. That's right.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could there be a pause between question and

14 answer, the interpreters request.

15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. You also said --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Witness, since both Mr. Zivanovic and

18 yourself speak the same language, you tend to go fast between question and

19 answer, and there is overlapping too. So please allow a short pause

20 before you start answering any questions that are put to you.

21 Mr. Zivanovic.

22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 Q. And finally, you said that at (redacted) you used only empty tapes and

24 that these tapes were not reused. Can you confirm this as well?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. We have to be careful, Mr. Zivanovic.

1 Please redact. Please don't refer --

2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] My mistake, I apologise.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't refer to the sites by their name. Simply as

4 the northern site or the southern site.

5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. It's my mistake.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Can you confirm this? That is that only empty tapes were used and

9 that they were not reused?

10 A. They were not reused, to the best of my knowledge.

11 Q. Thank you. And finally, could we go into private session for just

12 a moment, please? Because I will mention a name.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's go into private session for a short

14 while, please.

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 [Open session]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now.

3 Ms. Nikolic.

4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

5 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:

6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. I would like to put a few

7 questions to you related to the first intercept disclosed to us by the

8 Prosecutor. It's Exhibit 1314. Could we please have 1314A and B in

9 e-court?

10 Before the document is put in e-court, sir, the question I wish to

11 put to you is the following: When you listened to a conversation, what

12 was the first thing you would note down?

13 A. First, I would note down the date, the time, and the participants.

14 Q. And where would you get the time information?

15 A. Frequency and then the time, the hour, of course.

16 Q. And where would you note down this information?

17 A. Can you repeat? I didn't understand your question.

18 Q. Where did you write down this information?

19 A. In the notebook or on this paper we had to use for the machines.

20 Q. Could you please explain to us what sort of paper this was?

21 A. Well, it was the kind of paper used for typewriters or notebooks.

22 Just plain paper.

23 Q. I apologise, but your reply to my question as to where would you

24 get down -- where would you get the information from about the time has

25 not entered the transcript. So can you repeat your answer again, please?

1 A. We would get the information about the time using the clock. The

2 clock was there and then we would say 11.32, for example.

3 Q. Did you use your personal watches or was there a -- were there

4 clocks on the equipment you used at the location where you intercepted

5 these conversations?

6 A. Well, there were clocks on the equipment, to the best of my

7 recollection, but there was also a clock there, near this equipment.

8 Q. And which of the two did you use to decide what the time was? Did

9 you use your personal clock or what was on the equipment?

10 A. I can't remember that. I really don't recall.

11 Q. When you started listening in to a conversation and when you noted

12 down the information you just mentioned, the frequency, time and

13 participants, how did you determine who the -- the participants were if

14 they didn't introduce themselves?

15 A. Well, in this case this gentleman introduced himself, General

16 Krstic, of course he would be designated as K because he was a

17 participant. And then we would hear who the next participant was, Mr.

18 Cerovic. So we noted them down in the order they spoke in.

19 Q. Sir, would you be kind enough to carefully read this conversation,

20 because according to my analysis, I never found that Mr. Cerovic

21 introduced himself as a participant.

22 A. Well, he couldn't have. Because...

23 Q. I don't see --

24 A. Just a moment, please. There's Mr. Krstic here. I don't know

25 how, but...

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me put the question. Can you give us an

2 explanation why at the beginning of this intercept transcript there is

3 also the name of Colonel Cerovic or -- Cerovic anyway? How come there is

4 the name if he did not -- if in the text itself there is nothing

5 indicating that he introduced himself?

6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness, could you answer that question, please?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. This

9 K, "Hello, Krstic." It was probably General, or rather Cerovic. No, I

10 can't answer that question. I can assume that possibly it's General

11 Cerovic where Krstic says Mr. -- Or rather General, but I'm not sure.

12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. You don't actually know how the name of Cerovic came to be noted

14 as one of the participants. When you carefully look at the text of the

15 entire conversation?

16 A. No, I'm not competent to answer that question. I can't answer.

17 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Nikolic. Who is going next? Mr.

19 Lazarevic is inviting --

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe that Your Honours will be pleased to

21 hear that we have no cross-examination for the witness.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. So that eliminates -- yes,

23 Mr. Petrusic.

24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at Exhibit P2454

25 on the ELMO.

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrusic:

2 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, could you please clarify the following: The

3 term "operator" when you said that you were an operator in the army, is

4 that the same type of work that you carried out as an operator at the

5 southern location?

6 A. Yes, it was more or less the same kind of work.

7 Q. So you are trying to say that as a soldier, while you were serving

8 your military term of duty, you intercepted conversations and that was a

9 task that was given to you by a command of yours?

10 A. No, that's not what I did. I worked on radio relay equipment, and

11 there were no conversations for interception. There was nothing like

12 that.

13 Q. So it would be more like setting up radio relay connections,

14 setting up antennas, directing antennas, it had to do more with that

15 technical aspect of the work? Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can we please just make sure to make a pause between my question

18 and your answer, because of the interpretation.

19 First, I hope that this document is not being broadcast, the

20 document that is on the e-court, on the screen right now. Is this your

21 beginning at the end of the conversation? Actually, we see an irregular

22 line. Does that mean that at the top and at the bottom of the page that

23 is your personal mark, that's how you marked this conversation? Can you

24 see that at the end and at the beginning of the conversation?

25 A. Just one moment, please.

1 Q. Can you see underneath number 5 there is an irregular line that

2 ends on the number 3?

3 A. I don't know. I can't remember. That most probably is not

4 something that I made. I didn't put that line there. It's possible that

5 it's a typo or something.

6 Q. You put this marking in there, 255.950. Can you please tell me

7 what that indicates?

8 A. That indicates the frequency.

9 Q. Which frequency is that?

10 A. Well, I really don't remember. My commander or somebody more

11 expert would know that better. They're the ones who did that. I don't

12 know that.

13 Q. Then you put in the time?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. As well as the participants X, Colonel Deic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And Miletic?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Based on just these two parameters, the frequency 255 and the

20 time, were you able to determine where the conversation was taking place,

21 the location of the conversation?

22 A. No, no. I -- I'm not an expert for those matters. There is an

23 expert who is versed in that, the commander.

24 Q. So you are trying to tell me that on the basis of the frequency

25 and the time you were not able to establish the location where the

1 conversation was coming from?

2 A. I wasn't able to do it, but other expert people were able to do

3 that. I wasn't able to do that, but others could. Do you understand?

4 Q. From what I can understand, any further insistence on these

5 questions -- well, I withdraw the question.

6 You, as an operator, did you ever receive from your commander an

7 order about which elements needed to be entered into the notebooks?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Did you hear these speakers before on the communications? Did you

10 hear them speak before?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You had the opportunity to hear Colonel Deic before?

13 A. I really cannot remember. I really cannot give you an answer to

14 this question. It's been a long time since then.

15 Q. Well, let us clear up this matter. I'm asking you if you had had

16 the opportunity to hear these speakers before, you said yes. After that,

17 I asked you if you had heard Colonel Deic before, and you say that you

18 cannot answer that.

19 A. I did listen to all of the participants, but I cannot remember.

20 Q. Which speakers were you able to recognise by their voice?

21 A. Well, these people here, whose names are down on the papers. They

22 were the participants, the speakers. We couldn't recognise the X person,

23 so it means X indicates an unidentified speaker. The person with the

24 letter D is of course this Mr. Deic.

25 Q. You don't know, you didn't hear Miletic introduce himself by his

1 first and last name. You didn't hear himself -- himself introduce

2 himself?

3 A. Well, in the text it says Miletic. And then in the text it says,

4 "Is Miletic there?" Deic says, "Yes."

5 Q. Can you read the conversation?

6 A. Yes. "Is Miletic there?" So an unknown person picked up the

7 phone. Deic says, "Yes." X says, "Let me speak to him." D, "Just one

8 moment." X, "Very well, very well." And then M says, "Hello." X, "Mico,

9 hello. It's open." Meaning the line was open. There -- had to be

10 careful. And then later, Miletic answered and there were no more

11 introductions after that.

12 Q. Where do you see that? I mean, you only assume that it's Miletic?

13 A. Well --

14 Q. I'm asking you if you assume that this is Miletic or you can see

15 that from this conversation?

16 A. Based on this conversation, I assume that it was Miletic.

17 Q. Do you know that Mico was a very common name in that area of the

18 former Yugoslavia?

19 A. I cannot remember that. I don't recall that.

20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps Your Honours, we would need

21 to move into private session.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that. Let's move into private session.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I take your suggestion, Mr. McCloskey.

15 Please slow down. And if you could raise your voice a little,

16 Witness, that would help.

17 Yes, go ahead. Incidentally, are you aware, because I don't speak

18 the language, are you aware if we have missed anything substantial? All

19 right. Let's go ahead. If you draw your -- our attention to anything

20 we'll -- we'll give it attention.

21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Witness, would each or any Miodrag, Milodrag, Milomir, could each

23 one of those names have the nickname Mico?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further

1 questions for this witness.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Who is next? Mr. Meek.

3 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:

5 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. How are you?

6 A. Good afternoon. How are you?

7 Q. I'm fine, thank you. Earlier today on page 75, lines 24 to 25 and

8 page 76, lines 1 and 2 you answered a question posed by Mr. McCloskey that

9 the handwritten versions of these intercepts were the most accurate in

10 regards to the typed version. Do you remember that, sir?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you explain for me, please, why that is your opinion and

13 position?

14 A. I think so. I wrote that in my own hand. I didn't add anything.

15 That's what was spoken. And that's what I wrote down at that time.

16 Q. Witness, do you also believe that that would hold true with other

17 intercept operators that you worked with at your location?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, I take it that you, at some point, kept one notebook

20 containing intercepted conversations from the period around the fall of

21 Srebrenica. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You also, it's my understanding, kept a stack of notes of

24 conversations from a location. Is that correct?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey. One moment.

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think this may be another witness, I'm -- I'm --

2 apologise, but because there's no facts in the record regarding that,

3 and -- and it sounds very familiar, but I get them mixed up as well,

4 but...

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek. I'm not in a position to know who is

6 correct. Go ahead.

7 MR. MEEK: I would just like to follow up on the last question.

8 He did say that he did keep a notebook containing intercepted

9 conversations from that period around the fall of Srebrenica, and he -- so

10 I would just like to follow up on that, if I might.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: That's different. Okay. Go ahead.

12 MR. MEEK:

13 Q. Witness, where did you keep that notebook?

14 A. In front of the equipment on the desk.

15 Q. And how long did you keep the notebook, sir?

16 A. We used it until it was filled. Perhaps for a day or two. After

17 that we would be given other notebooks or papers, typewriting paper.

18 Q. Thank you. Now -- so you never kept one after, say, the end of

19 July or the middle of August of 1995. Is that correct?

20 A. No, there was no need.

21 Q. And Witness, where would you turn in these notebooks and who would

22 you turn them in to when you finally did?

23 A. They were taken by the commander.

24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of what the commander did with

25 these notebooks after he received them, sir?

1 A. They were probably sent off to the command.

2 Q. Well, I thank you for that answer. That's speculation on your

3 part. Do you have any personal knowledge of what happened to those after

4 you turned them into the commander? That was my question, sir.

5 A. They were taken to the command. That's it. The commander took

6 them to the command.

7 Q. And can you tell me then how the commander took them to the

8 command? Did he drive them, and if so, were you with him?

9 A. No, I really couldn't give you an answer to that. Please believe

10 me.

11 MR. MEEK: Your Honours, I have no further questions.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. That I take it concludes the

13 cross-examination of this witness. Because both Mr. Haynes and Mr. Josse,

14 I suppose, you don't mean to -- to cross-examine this witness.

15 MR. JOSSE: I can confirm that, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So, Witness, I thank you so much for having

17 come over to give testimony. On behalf of the Tribunal, I wish you a safe

18 journey back home. You will now receive all the attention you require.

19 So before we adjourn, I just want to make sure that we've got it

20 right. Next witness is number 186, correct?

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct.

22 [The witness withdrew]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So I want to make sure that everyone is

24 prepared for him. And possibly even the other -- for the following

25 witness, Witness number 75 as it looks, because you had put them together

1 in one day together with Ms. Frease. Okay.

2 So, documents.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, the P02461, the pseudonym sheet,

4 and 1314A, B, C, the first intercept and P02454A, B, C, the second

5 intercept.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? None. And the intercepts of course

7 will be marked for identification as per our policy. All right.

8 Just -- I don't think there is any markings that would identify

9 the witness, so -- but please look into them to see whether they -- any of

10 the others need to be under seal.

11 We stand adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of

14 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25