1 Wednesday, 17 December 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So good morning everybody. And good morning to
7 you, Madam Registrar. Could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So all the accused are present. Prosecution today
11 is like yesterday, Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell. And the Defence
12 absentees, I notice Mr. Ostojic, Ms. Nikolic, Mr. Krgovic.
13 All right. Mr. Jevdjevic, good morning to you and welcome back.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to continue with your
16 cross-examination, with your testimony, and hopefully finish. That was
17 also my hope yesterday.
18 Before the end of the sitting yesterday, Mr. Josse raised an
19 objection -- made an objection to a question made by Mr. McCloskey which
20 referred to a particular document. We heard submissions on this
21 objection, both from Mr. Josse and from Mr. McCloskey. Our decision is
22 as follows:
23 We find that it is perfectly fine, correct, for the Prosecution
24 to put the question and even further questions based on or with reference
25 to this document. There is, of course, the fact that was raised by
1 Mr. Josse; namely, that contrary to other instances when we had
2 intercepts and the Prosecution brought as witnesses the persons or the
3 operators who were involved in the capturing of those intercepts, this is
4 not apparently the case in the present. Our position in regard is that
5 if that continues to be the case, obviously this will become a matter of
6 a question of weight to be given to the document itself in due course at
7 this stage of our deliberations.
8 So let's continue. I think it's the case of repeating your
9 question, Mr. McCloskey, because the witness I don't think had answered
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And, Mr. President, if I may, I have got a
12 question from the witness and at least two Defence counsels yesterday
13 about the timing of the 12 July intercept. And if I could briefly deal
14 with that issue, I hope it's brief. I think I can bring some of that to
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But let's finish with this witness today.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning, everyone.
18 WITNESS: MILENKO JEVDJEVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, Colonel.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go back to 65 ter 4807 -- 4087, excuse
24 Q. And, sir, I want to give you a little background on what I think
25 I had at least forgotten and perhaps, I think, Mr. Haynes and others may
1 have forgotten as well, is that this intercept - and we see the word
2 "izvestaj," pardon the pronunciation, on the top translated as "report."
3 This intercept, like all the print out intercepts that came from
4 (redacted) They are all part of
6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Can we go into private session for a
8 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I had forgotten that
13 that was important.
14 Q. Now, sir, what we learned from the intercept supervisor and
15 others, is that from this place, the operators wrote down their
16 intercepts --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
18 MR. HAYNES: Page and line reference, please, if we are going to
19 assert that this particular report that's been put to him as been dealt
20 with in evidence.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't know what he's talking about, I'm sorry.
24 MR. HAYNES: You don't know what a page and line references? I
25 mean the page of the transcript and the line of the transcript. You said
1 that "We have heard from the intercept supervisor." Who is it?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the name is protected, if I remember well.
3 MR. HAYNES: I think we are in private session, aren't we.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: No, we are in open session.
5 MR. HAYNES: Well, a PW number will do.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I provided that information in an e-mail last
7 night to Defence Counsel, and I can get it again, I'm sure.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's the position of the Prosecution that the
13 fundamentally the systems are the same and I think the Court recalls
14 that. And in any event it was witness -- did we get the number?
15 MR. HAYNES: It's PW-131, but he didn't give evidence about the
16 facility that this report came from.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: The problem seems to be the following: It's not
18 the -- you mentioned a particular facility or location to the witness,
19 okay, with specific reference to what we are talking about. It's being
20 put to you now, by Mr. Haynes, that if you are referring to the witness
21 that he has mentioned, PW-131, that witness did not operate from the
22 location that you indicated but from a different location.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can argue for a long time with Mr. Haynes about
24 these issues, but I think we recall that the witness was the supervisor
25 for both places, and so my question, my summary, was meant to be he
1 talked about the policy from both places. I think we recall that. And I
2 can just say both places, if that will clear up the issue.
3 MR. HAYNES: Well, I will go back to my original issue. Give me
4 a transcript reference of what he said that. Because I am not worried
5 about arguing with Mr. McCloskey, I am worried about the witness being
6 misled by this speech being made to him as was made several times
7 yesterday in the form of questions. If it is not the case there has been
8 evidence in this case.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's make it easy. Which part of the evidence are
10 you referring to, Mr. McCloskey, because that will be everybody's life
11 easier, otherwise we will continue and continue arguing.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have a right as Your Honours note to ask
13 questions that I have a good faith belief in. And we heard from multiple
14 witnesses on this point; they were cross-examined multiple times. I was
15 able to last night find the supervisor that talked about both of them,
16 and I actually sent them the areas. It's 28th of November, 2006, page
17 4641, and there are many people that spoke about this. They were
18 cross-examined at length about it, and I am asking -- I am informing the
19 Colonel that my basic understanding of that and I have every right to do
20 so as you know.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Assuming it's a generic statement without
22 particular reference to a particular part of testimony of this intercept
23 supervisor or anyone else. Let's hear your question, first, and then we
24 will decide.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY:
1 Q. Sir, it's my view that we had learned that these intercepts were
2 sent to the intel section of the Bosnian army in reports and that several
3 reports would go out each day, and in those reports there would be one or
4 more intercepts listed by time and date. And so when we see this
5 intercept that's on the page, this is one report of five reports that
6 came to the intel headquarters from this particular site. The first
7 report was dated -- excuse me, is 65 ter number 4113. Then another
8 report was 4114; another report was 4115; this report that we are looking
9 at is 4087; and another report was 1417.
10 Some of those reports had one intercept, some of them had
11 multiple intercepts. And it's also my view that we were told that the
12 date and time on the intercept in these print-outs reflected the actual
13 date and time that they were taken; but the witness made one exception to
14 that, which we may remember, and that was when an intercept was recorded
15 late in the day, perhaps 11.00, maybe midnight that it would take some
16 time to get that intercept typed up from the notebook and sent off to the
17 headquarters. And so sometimes it would have the date of the following
18 day when it was actually taken, the late night of the day that we were
19 talking about. That's an exception. I am sure everyone remembers that.
20 They were cross-examined on it. And -- but, as we are looking at this
21 intercept, we can see that it's not a late in the day intercept.
22 So that's my fundamental understanding of how this worked. And
23 we can go to, briefly, a --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MR. HAYNES: What's the question? And we've checked the page and
1 line reference, and the witness spoke about one intercept at Okresanica,
2 so the whole basis of this speech that has been made for now, 16 lines to
3 the witness.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish, Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES: Well, let him ask a question.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but let him finish. I mean it's not the first
7 time we have had questions going through pages sometime, and we have been
8 very patient. So please --
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I was asked questions by two counsel and a
10 witness. If they don't want answers, don't ask me the questions.
11 Q. And sir, I don't want to go over all the intercepts in these
12 various packets, but I did see one of them that had Jevdjo on them that I
13 didn't know about before. So I want to give you a chance to take a look
14 at that. It's 65 ter 4115.
15 And the -- as we get to it you will see the top page of this --
16 and we should -- it should not go out because it does indicate the site.
17 We see the place and we see the date, then we see the word "report," and
18 we go down -- there are several intercept, and we need to go down to the
19 intercept, it's page 2 of the English, and it's at 10.20 a.m. in the
20 B/C/S. So if we could find that one. The time sequence is not always in
21 chronological order, it is my understanding, because sometimes the way
22 they typed it didn't allow for that.
23 So if we can see 10.20 there and you could take a look at it. It
24 says this is 10.20, it should be -- it's the 12th of July.
25 And Jevdjo says:
1 "Listen, I am calling from Srebrenica, Domar."
2 Do you remember who Domar is? I should know that and I've
3 forgotten. Does Domar sound familiar?
4 A. Yes. If that's a question, Domar could be the code name of the
5 1st Podrinje Brigade or, in fact, of the Rogatica Brigade.
6 Q. Thank you. All right.
7 And Jevdjo says:
8 "Did you get my telegram?"
9 And it's talking about children and I can't make much of that.
10 Can you make anything of that? Is your recollection -- is that -- do you
11 know if that's you or?
12 A. We can comment on this conversation although the participants
13 mentioned here are Djevic, that doesn't ring any bells, Djevic, Domar,
14 Centrala Jevca. That doesn't seem to be a conversation I participated in
15 because I can't make head or tail of it. But the report that we now see
16 on the screen is dated as if it had been sent on the 12th of July from
17 the facility -- or from the location that we mentioned just a little
18 while ago.
19 As you spoke quite a lot about this at the beginning of today's
20 session, I thought I would have an opportunity to comment on this part as
21 a witness. If not, what you said will be taken as correct, and I
22 completely disagree with it. Could you please show me the original of
23 that report which you are holding in your hand so that I can see what
24 form it is in, what it looks like, and draw my conclusion as to what this
25 is about. The first conversation that turned up here yesterday and that
1 we finished discussing yesterday is very important. Two crucial
2 sentences are mentioned there which I do recognise and which are part of
3 my testimony, and I wish to explain to everybody here what this is about.
4 Q. Sir, we will get to that. I just want to first - before we get
5 to your big response to what I've hold you - is -- have you answered my
6 question? Do you recall this short intercept between Domar and Jevdjo or
8 A. No, it was impossible to establish relay communications from
9 Srebrenica. Any expert can provide you with a profile of the terrain,
10 but there is no optical visibility with the Veliki Zep node. Srebrenica
11 is a town in a deep depression. You have probably been there, so there
12 is no chance whatsoever that a communication line could have been
13 established from Srebrenica with this device for me to be able to say,
14 Listen, I am calling from Srebrenica. That's impossible. And the
15 content of this telegram, you, yourself, said was quite unclear to you
16 and I simply cannot connect it with anything I experienced in that period
17 of time.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. But I would like you, please, to let me see the whole of that
20 report because it's very important in my view, especially the part where
21 that conversation is that was seen on the screen this morning but which
22 we finished discussing yesterday. I wanted to thank you today for your
23 correct treatment of me, and ask you if you could give me that
24 conversation for me to see and that list of my unit, of the people in my
25 unit, because it reminds me of men that I would like to retain in my
2 Q. And we can give you a copy of that for you to take with you, I
3 don't think that's a problem.
4 A. Yes, but could you please give me that report with the
5 conversation that we discussed yesterday?
6 Q. I can give you the originals of these five packets so you can
7 study them for the break, but it's not realistic, I don't think now, to
8 give you all the five packets to study while we are waiting. But I have
9 no problem you getting the five packets and taking a good look at them
10 and -- so you can respond more fully if you like, if that meets people's
11 approval. Or we can do it now and take a break.
12 A. I'd also like to ask you in the notebook, that first original,
13 where the intercept is at the location we discussed yesterday which we
14 said we would not disclose, in the original notebooks were the intercept
15 noted down the communication transcribed it, I would like to see what
16 date and time he entered and whether it's consistent with this report
17 which his komandir drafted.
18 And, in my view, it was done on the following day, and we can't
19 see to whom the report was addressed. We can't see who signed it.
20 That's why I am asking to see it. It takes 24 hours to listen in to a
21 communication, and the people who were at those locations testified to
22 this. It's quite logical for a report on intercepts of the previous day
23 be drafted 24 hours later when the entire listening in is completed. And
24 the notebook containing the intercept of yesterday which was also shown
25 this morning would resolve all my dilemmas, provided that those people
1 were very precise in entering this information. Actually I have no
2 dilemmas, but I could probably resolve yours.
3 Q. Well, that's what the trial is trying to do. And the notebook we
4 learned also, I can tell you, that sometimes the person in the notebook
5 would write down the date, but many times they would just write down the
6 frequency and the time. And so it's not always clear from the notebook
7 what the date is, and I -- and we'll -- I don't think it's perfectly
8 clear from this notebook what the date is, but that's why we have it.
9 That's why Defence Counsel have it. And I don't think there is going to
10 be a real argument over -- over what I just said. I haven't put in the
11 study to determine a date and get it figured out from the notebook.
12 So in any event let me go onto one more intercept that's in this
13 group of stuff, ask you a couple of questions about it, and then you can
14 address your comments to the whole series of questions and what I have
15 put to you as the theory of the Prosecution's case. Okay?
16 A. I agree with you in what you've said. But, Mr. President, I
17 insist to get, while I am here testifying, the notebook. I know you have
18 the original notebooks where the server directly wrote down the time, the
19 frequency, and contents. That content that his commander framed into
20 some report and at some subsequent time sent to someone - and you cannot
21 see to whom he sent it - because in that conversation absolutely it
22 says --
23 Q. No problem. You can have the --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, it may be no problem to you,
25 Mr. McCloskey, but the thing is this: Are you alleging, Mr. Jevdjevic,
1 that what you are seeing on the screens on the monitor in front of you
2 does not correspond to what is contained in the original? Is that what
3 you are suggesting?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because there is one
5 intercepted conversation that appeared yesterday and that was disclosed
6 this morning here at the beginning which absolutely agrees with my memory
7 and with my testimony. And unbelievably so, it corresponds to the
9 In response to the --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Then let's limit ourselves to that one only. I
11 mean, why waste or lose precious time which we can use to proceed and
12 continue and finish with your testimony.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I agree, Mr. President. I can show him --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Then show it to him. If you have it here
15 available, let him see it now.
16 MR. HAYNES: Unless I am misunderstood the witness, he wants to
17 see P4087 again, and the underlying notebook, both of which I know the
18 Prosecution have.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: One at a time, okay? I understand that. We
21 understand each other.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I understood it, too.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. The notebook, for the record, is 65 ter
24 2315, and the handwritten version of the -- if we could get 65 ter 4087
25 which is the Badem 385 intercept that the Colonel and we are most
1 concerned about now. And if we could put that one back up on the screen,
2 65 ter 4087.
3 Could we put the whole thing up there so we can see the whole
4 page. Okay.
5 Q. And just for one of your other questions, you can see that it's
6 addressed to the army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Okay.
7 So --
8 A. It was not sent to them. It wasn't sent to them. I think what
9 you said -- what you said is not correct. The army of Bosnia and
11 place, and the date; and the report is being sent without any
12 introduction about what its contents are, and there are no indications of
13 whom the report is being sent to. So let us be clear there.
14 Q. We are crystal clear, sir. We went over that for months in the
15 trial. So I don't think -- I don't think that's going to be a problem
16 for anyone. And let me hand you the original notebook, and it's this one
17 in pencil, it's this 909. You'll recognise the words. You might put it
18 up -- take a look at it and put it on the ELMO so everyone can see
19 what -- what you are looking at and what your observations are. It's
20 page 33 of 2315 that you are looking at.
21 A. I see here, and we can show it on the ELMO, that there is no date
22 written anywhere of this intercept, only the time. When you turn a page
23 back, you can see the date 5th of July, 1995, and then you don't see
24 anywhere any dates on the next pages; and then again, which is absolutely
25 consistent with my testimony and with this intercept where it says at
1 1850. And, according to me, this is absolutely on the 11th of July where
2 I rule out -- where, actually, I turned off the devices at Pribicevac and
3 I had to inform some of the participants for them to know. And then I
4 say, From now on we will be a Badem, extension 385; Badem is Bratunac,
5 this is my intention to go to Bratunac, because according to me Bratunac
6 is some new logical forward command post towards, which Krstic left on
7 the 11th; and this was my thinking. Badem you will get through Zlatar,
8 meaning I am informing some participants about my movements so that they
9 know that I left Pribicevac, and then, according to me, what is crucially
10 important, and I said that yesterday when you asked me precisely to say
11 what time I left Pribicevac, and I told you around 1900 hours.
12 Down, in this sentence, the last sentence, the server, who was
13 eavesdropping on this or listening in on this device simply said, At 1900
14 hours no carrier signal on frequency 295.850 -- 255.850, which means at
15 that point in time the devices were switched off and the receiver at
16 Pribicevac was not emitting its signal. All of this happened on the 11th
17 absolutely the way I testified eight years ago and throughout these days
18 of my testimony and now.
19 This report was sublimated by the commander of these serves and
20 then sometime on the 12th when all these conversations were listened in
21 to, then they were all put together and they were sent to some
22 intelligence organs of the 2nd Corps. It doesn't say that anywhere, but
23 I agree that. So what I am saying here now is the absolute truth, and
24 it's total consistent with all of my testimony about all the things that
25 you disagreed with.
1 Q. Okay. There is one more intercept that was in the view of the
2 Prosecution, that one more report containing -- actually two intercepts,
3 from the 12th. There is one I mentioned. I just want to ask you just
4 briefly ask you about, it's 65 ter 1417. And while we are up here, I can
5 give you a hard copy, just ignore my markings. There is just some
6 highlighter markings above in the top that I don't think anybody should
7 care about.
8 Now, this report of two intercepts was sent out on 12 July. And
9 this first intercept was -- you can see the frequency, it should be an
10 RRU-800, I think. And it's between 1, an officer from Srebrenica; and 2,
11 someone named Raso, and Raso was inaudible so they were only able to hear
13 And I just want to ask you about the third paragraph.
14 It says -- 1 says -- sorry, the first thing 1 says on the second
16 "As far as the road is concerned, it is free. I went this
17 evening in that direction and returned at 8.00. I was right there where
18 you can turn to Kravica" --
19 And I forget to mention this is at 22.00 hours. And then the
20 same guy says, we don't hear the answer from the other guy, apparently.
21 The same guy says:
22 "Well, it is. The one group came across a minefield over here,
23 and about 20 of them died. But anyway, it is very well blocked. In any
24 case, 25.000 requested to go. Did you watch the news? Did you see the
25 boss among Bulas down in Potocari. That was the big strong hold. UN
1 contemplated to declare Potocari and the villages around a safe area but
2 that also slipped from them. Now they can also declare whatever they
3 want, mother fuckers."
4 And then it goes on and talks about some other things. As we
5 scan through it, to be fair, I don't know if there is anything you want
6 to talk about in there. Do you have any comments on any of the rest of
8 A. I have no intention -- well, I don't know, I would like to help
9 you also to not to use so much time and not to read this enormous text to
10 the end, but what is your question?
11 Q. Okay. Doesn't this help date this particular intercept because
12 they are talking about the time that the Serb forces were able to take
13 the stronghold of Potocari? And we all know that happened on the 12th of
15 A. Yes, believe me, for me more or less on the basis -- from all of
16 this what the most relevant thing is what the servers wrote in their own
17 hand in the notebooks. When, at what point in time, their commander had
18 time, and when he assessed that some information should be summarised and
19 sent to someone in the form of a report. For me, this is a piece of
20 information with less relevant facts; and this question of yours to me is
21 something that I cannot rely on anymore, and I cannot speculate.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. What this is here is the frequency of the RRU-800 device. It's a
24 completely different device. The connection was intercepted along a
25 different direction and with different technology in comparison to the
1 intercepts that we commented on previously.
2 Q. Okay. That has pretty much --
3 MR. HAYNES: That document wasn't on any list, and we have had
4 three lists in relation to this witness now. We have had a list for
5 cross-examination, amended list, a second amended list, and a third
6 amended list at 8.30 this morning. That document wasn't on it. Are
7 there any more that the Prosecution are going to use that we don't know
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: If he'll check his e-mail, he will find that it
12 was originally numbered as 4116, but we found that it was already in
13 evidence at 1417. This material was all sent out last night when I
14 endeavoured to answer their questions and find this material to help with
15 the date issue. It was sent out all last night. Ms. Stewart was able to
16 get it out on to a list this morning.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's continue.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay.
19 Q. Sir, that has pretty much finished my questions on this issue.
20 So if -- and you were able to give, I think, much of your views. But if
21 you have any further views on this, now is the time, but try to be as
22 precise as you can be - if you have any other further views.
23 But Mr. Haynes will be able to ask you questions and so you will
24 be able to talk to him as well, but you can always explain any of your
25 answers to my questions.
1 A. All my answers so far have been made. Thank you for allowing me
2 to do this. What I want to say again is that when you look at this
3 report that you have given me, definitely other than some contents, other
4 than the meat on it, there is nothing it that we can relevantly claim
5 that it's a report. It doesn't state anywhere what period of time is
6 covered with these intercepts, when they were intercepted. It doesn't
7 say to whom the report is sent, who drafted it, there is no signature of
8 the drafter. So I am now in a position -- or I simply am in a position
9 mostly to believe the notebooks which were directly written into --
10 although, you can see in them that the server did not write a single date
11 from the 5th of July onwards. But I do recall my conversations, and they
12 all exclusively relate to the 11th of July at the times referred. Thank
14 Q. Thank you. One last intercept and this relates to the
15 question -- questions or question you got regarding - I believe it was an
16 intercept - and correct me if I am wrong, my memory is beginning to
17 fade - but between General Gvero and someone on the 23rd of July
18 regarding, I believe it was the western front, or that was the
19 interpretation of the intercept.
20 Now, we were provided collections of intercepts that the Croatian
21 government gave us, and the Defence has had access to those, and I can't
22 recall if perhaps the Miletic team may have shown you some of those. But
23 I just want to ask you about of those that we received.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's 65 ter 4110.
25 Q. And the reason I am asking you about that is it mentioned
1 General Gvero on the 23rd of July. But before we put that up there, can
2 I ask you, you were involved in the Zepa operation, and --
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Actually, go ahead and put it up. Basically from
4 the beginning to the end, I think you said you had gone back to the Drina
5 Corps Command maybe once. But if you could blow that up a bit so the
6 colonel can read it.
7 I have got a hard copy Colonel, if you -- it's a little tough to
9 Now, in the Croatian intercepts that we had, this -- they seem to
10 be more of a synopsis than the question and answer that we were used to
11 seeing from the Bosnian 2nd Corps. But basically we can see that from
12 this synopsis the people that took this said:
13 "An unidentified user who today, 23 July 1995, escorted
14 General Gvero during his inspection of the front line near Zepa regarding
15 this situation of the enclave, said the following: 'From the beginning
16 of the Serb attack on Zepa, 17 soldiers were wounded, including two of
17 them from today. The advance of Serb forces is stopped currently at the
18 bridge head and railroad tracks.'"
19 Q. Simple question, do you recall General Gvero ever inspecting the
20 front line troops, especially near -- you know, near or on 23 July?
21 A. No, no. I am also responding to the previous question. I am
22 hearing for the first time that you have the intercepts available
23 provided to you by the Croatian government. So General Miletic's Defence
24 did not inform me about those documents, but I am trying to more or less
25 analyse each document. And, for example, what strikes me forcefully is
1 this last sentence, "The advance of Serb forces is stopped currently at
2 the bridge head and railroad tracks."
3 The bridge head is the land feature that you would capture by
4 crossing the river in -- using the available means and then the unit
5 would reach the opposite bank and enables the entry of the rest of the
6 forces and that is the bridge head. That whole area only has one little
7 small creek call the Zepa, it's a small, tiny river called Zepa; it's not
8 on the map. And this other expression, "railroad tracks," absolutely
9 there was never any railroad or railroad tracks there. And so the
10 conversation or the information out of that context here -- well, close
11 to Sarajevo
12 kilometres away from Zepa. So this is not clear to me, I cannot help you
14 Q. How about the part about wounded soldiers. Does that sound
15 right? It says, "Up until today" -- it says, "17 soldiers were wounded,
16 including two of them from today, the 23rd."
17 A. We did have wounded soldiers in the Zepa operation, probably also
18 some soldiers were killed, I don't remember the specific numbers. But
19 this is quite usual data when you are waging war. It's quite normal.
20 Q. Okay, Colonel. Thank you very much. Nothing further.
21 A. And thank you for your professional conduct.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: I know that there is going to be re-examination, and
24 I know that the Chamber normally likes re-examination to take place
25 before any requests for further cross-examination, but, Your Honour, I
1 wish to ask a few questions about that intercept to help the Chamber as
2 to what I wish to ask about.
3 If the Court goes to page 29650 of the transcript, which was the
4 12th of December, in the middle of that page there was a question from
5 Mr. Ostojic to this witness about intercepts, and I simply want to apply
6 that test to this particular intercept.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. -- thank you, Mr. Josse. Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no objection to that. I think it's
9 appropriate he should ask about this intercept.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let me just consult -- yes, Mr. Haynes.
11 MR. HAYNES: Nor do I.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Josse. Mr. Petrusic, I take
15 it you are fine with having Mr. Josse put these questions before your
17 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I have no objection,
18 Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Josse.
20 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honours, and thank you to my learned
22 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Josse:
23 Q. Colonel Jevdjevic, in relation to that document that is no longer
24 on the screen, could we put back there please 4110. You have got your
25 own hard copy of it. I want to ask you, as I have already said, on the
1 12th of December of this year, when Mr. Ostojic on behalf of
2 Colonel Beara was asking you questions, he went through what he described
3 as several key elements that one needs to look for in relation to a
4 particular intercept. And I want to ask you about those as far as this
5 document is concerned based on the information that we have got.
6 First of all, the azimuth, does the information that we have
7 there help us in regards to that at all?
8 A. No.
9 Q. The frequency?
10 A. No.
11 Q. The channel?
12 A. No.
13 Q. The directions?
14 A. No.
15 Q. The participants?
16 A. No.
17 Q. And I can see that the last two are fulfilled; namely, does tell
18 us something about the date, the time, doesn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. I have nothing else.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse.
22 So, Mr. Petrusic.
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Petrusic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jevdjevic.
1 A. Good morning.
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at document P2670,
3 please. Can we scroll the document down so we can look at the bottom of
4 the page in the Serbian version. That is page 2 in the English version.
5 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, in the course of yesterday's testimony the
6 Prosecutor showed you this document from the command of the 1st Podrinje
7 Brigade. At the bottom in handwriting, it says, "Delivered at 1400
9 Based on this note, are you able to conclude that the telegram
10 was delivered at the Main Staff of the VRS?
11 A. No.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to see 5D1412
13 please. Could I see the last page in the Serbian version, please.
14 That's the last page in the English version, also.
15 Q. You were also shown this document which was issued by the Main
16 Staff of the army of Republika Srpska and is entitled, "Plan for
17 programme of the course for sniper shooter in the army of Republika
18 Srpska." And at the end there is a stamp, can you tell us whose stamp
19 this is?
20 A. This is the department of the military security service in the
21 command of the 5th Corps, or department.
22 Q. Do you know whether the 5th Corps -- or, rather, when the 5th
23 Corps was given its name?
24 A. The 5th Corps was established in 1997, sometime in February or
25 March, and I was the first chief of communications in that corps. Before
1 that I had been a brigade commander in Sekovici for a year. And as I
2 testified, even while I was brigade commander, I didn't get any orders
3 for training for sniper shooters and the 5th Corps was established in
5 Q. Please tell me, was that previously the Drina Corps?
6 A. Well, it comprised the Sarajevo Romanija, Herzegovina and Drina
7 Corps. It was a new formation established in 1997 in that area.
8 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] We won't be needing this document
10 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, several times in the course of your testimony you
11 said that you had made a statement to the OTP and that you testified in
12 the Krstic case. Do you remember that?
13 A. Yes, to the investigator of the OTP. I gave that statement in
14 April 2000.
15 Q. The event you describe concerning the 11th of July and the --
16 your departure from Pribicevac, is it identical in the statement you gave
17 to the OTP as to your testimony in the Krstic case as regards the time?
18 A. Yes, absolutely.
19 Q. When you made that statement to the OTP in April 2000, did you
20 have any contacts with the Defence of General Krstic?
21 A. No.
22 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that would be all.
23 I have no further questions. Just a moment, please, excuse me. Yes, I
24 am finished. Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Petrusic.
1 Mr. Zivanovic.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jevdjevic, good morning first of all.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. I will begin with that part of the Prosecutor's cross-examination
7 which refers to the testimony of witness Velo Pajic on the 26th of
8 November, 2008. A part of this testimony was read out in the courtroom,
9 and if you recall that's transcript page -- it's dated the 25th of
10 September, 2008.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could Counsel repeat the line, pleases, and the
12 page number.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And Mr. Pajic, with reference to the part of that transcript, was
15 on the 26th of November, 2008. Page 28841, lines 22 to 23. He told you
16 or he read out to you that Mr. Pajic stated that on the 0764 line, the
17 frequency was 783, on that route. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I listened to the tape with Mr. Pajic's testimony, and I will
20 read to you what he said about that in his own language, in B/C/S:
21 "Now the transmission and reception frequencies were determined,
22 the number of the transmission frequency, let's say 783, on the route
23 0674, in 1993, that number was the same in 1995. That means the
24 frequencies were not changed when the transmission was, let's say, 783."
25 Let me tell you right away that the Prosecutor read out correctly
1 the English text of the transcript. The Prosecutor did not make a
2 mistake. The mistake is in the interpretation. The witness said three
3 times the word "recimo," "let's say," which was not interpreted. Could
4 you please explain how you understand this word which Mr. Velo Pajic used
5 when he said that the frequency was "let's say 783"?
6 A. Well, he only wanted to give an example to illustrate either to
7 the Prosecutor or to you how frequencies were determined. This word,
8 "let's say," can be used as a synonym for the words "for example." So he
9 was just giving an example. He wasn't saying what the precise frequency
10 on that route was. I was very surprised when I heard the Prosecutor say
11 that because he was an exceptionally good signalsman. So I was surprised
12 that he would have some other sort of information from the information
13 that the Chief of Staff had.
14 Q. On the same day, the 15th of December, the Prosecutor also told
15 you that most of the intercepts were intercepted from this frequency,
16 783. Do you remember that?
17 A. Yes, I know that that frequency was mentioned.
18 Q. That's on became 29715, line 24 to 29716, line 2. And now there
19 is no error in the interpretation.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's take a look at 1D321,
21 please. That is Mr. Rodic's finding. Page 20 in the B/C/S version and
22 24 in English.
23 I have just been informed that only the English version is on the
24 screen, but it doesn't matter because there is no text.
25 Q. You will see that these are just numbers. In the first column of
1 the intercepts and in the second column, the ERN numbers, as we call them
2 here, those are the numbers under which they are registered in the
3 Tribunal's database; and in the third column are the frequencies from
4 which these alleged intercepts allegedly originate. So please pay
5 attention to the third column, or, rather, the last one, where the
6 frequencies are mentioned. And pay attention to frequency 783, and tell
7 me how many intercepts can you see here as originating from frequency
9 A. That frequency isn't mentioned in this list at all.
10 Q. Well, let's look at the next page, please. I would like to ask
11 you again to look at the last column and tell me how many intercepts you
12 notice on this page originated from frequency 783?
13 A. That frequency is not found in this list, either.
14 Q. We have one more page, that's the next page. It's a little
15 shorter. So, again, please tell me on this page how many intercepts
16 originate from frequency 783?
17 A. That frequency is not found here, either.
18 Q. Very well. Thank you.
19 Mr. Jevdjevic, the Prosecutor showed you this intercept dated the
20 12th of July, 1995. I think it's 4087, but I missed it now. You know
21 what it's about. It's that very brief report, and you were interested in
22 when that conversation was recorded and whether the date from the report
23 corresponds to the date when the conversation was intercepted. I will
24 try to assist you in that, and I will tell you that there is a notebook
25 dealing with that. I think it was admitted into evidence when
1 Prosecution Witness 130 was testifying, and that was on the 6th of
2 December 2006.
3 And the part I am going to read to you now, which refers to the
4 reports, is on page 5078, lines 2 to 12. I will read you what it says in
5 the transcript:
6 [In English] "Tell me please, I did not quite understand
7 yesterday your answer to the Prosecutor's question in relation to
8 entering dates into the computer. Could you tell me whether that date
9 was automatically typed into the computer or did it actually have to be
10 typed out by the operator who was transcribing the text?"
12 "Well, in the morning when a report would be made for the
13 previous day, it would be sufficient if we would report to the command in
14 the morning. That's when the date would be entered."
15 [Interpretation] We won't read that text any further. Can you
16 tell me, please, how you understand from these explanations, because
17 these are operators who were or are entering information into this
18 notebook, what you understand to be the date of the report and the date
19 of the intercept?
20 A. I understand from this that the report was dated a day later than
21 the day when the conversation was intercepted, and this is fully
22 consistent with what I stated at the beginning of today's testimony
23 without knowing what you just read out to me.
24 Q. Thank you. Please, let's look at this Prosecution exhibit which
25 was shown to you this morning, that's 4115. And let's look at the first
1 conversation recorded here -- or, rather, the last one, excuse me I
2 misspoke. The last conversation on this page.
3 Assuming that you were actually a participant in this
4 conversation, you'll see it's very brief. The first question is:
5 "What's new?"
6 J. says:
7 "Nothing, everything is great. And we expect in two or three
8 days everything will be ours."
9 Can you tell us, it follows from this -- I think this was on the
10 12th of July, I think it says that up here at ten past 10.00. Can you
11 tell me, if you remember that you really did engage in this conversation,
12 how do you understand this phrase, "Everything will be ours"? What could
13 that refer to?
14 A. Well, I can't think of anything concrete. Let me just read the
15 whole conversation.
16 Q. Well, it continues on the next page. Of course, if you can
17 provide us with an explanation, if not --
18 A. No, I can't provide an explanation.
19 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions for you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. Mr. Haynes.
21 MR. HAYNES: I wonder if for technical reasons we could take the
22 break ten minutes early.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, of course.
24 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: How long do you think you will be cross-examining
1 this witness?
2 MR. HAYNES: I would hope to do it in one standard session.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. 25 minutes.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
7 Re-examination by Mr. Haynes:
8 Q. Well, Mr. Jevdjevic, you're on the home straight now. With good
9 luck and a following wind, we should be done before the afternoon.
10 I want to start, please, by just reminding you of some of the
11 questions you were asked by Mr. McCloskey by showing you a document,
12 which is 65 ter P2894.
13 As with all documents, please take your time to familiarise
14 yourself with it, but do you recall being shown that document by
15 Mr. McCloskey when he was asking you questions a few days ago?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that's a document that's authored by General Zivanovic and
18 concerns, as it were, instructions to Legenda whom we know is
19 Major Jovovic, bad pronunciation. He was the commander, we he not, of
20 the so-called Drina Wolves?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And I use the phrase "so-called" advisedly. That was, in fact, a
23 nickname for the unit, was it not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What sort of unit were the Drina Wolves and do you know what
1 their technical name was?
2 A. They were the Podrinje Detachment of Special Forces, and I think
3 they later became one of the battalions. But they were part of the
4 Zvornik Brigade as one of the regular units of the Zvornik Brigade.
5 Q. Were you part of the Drina Corps when that unit was created?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And just approximately can you help us as to when that happened?
8 A. They were not established right away. I think it was sometime in
9 1993, thereabouts.
10 Q. Thank you. I am now going to show you another document, 7D1089,
11 and this is a document I am going to need your help with. And to be fair
12 to you, I am going to give you a hard copy for you to look at.
13 Now, the reason I am going to need your help with this,
14 Mr. Jevdjevic, is there no English version of the document at the moment.
15 So I'm going to ask you to read it quite slowly for the interpreters.
16 Firstly, can you tell us what sort of document it is?
17 A. This is an order issued by the command of the Drina Corps from
18 the time stated here, which orders the units to carry out certain
19 organisational and establishment changes in their composition in line
20 with the establishment books.
21 Q. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't appear to be
22 receiving any translation.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I am, too. So --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear me.
25 MR. HAYNES: Yes, I can hear you. It was my jack plug wasn't
1 pushed in far enough.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I see, all right.
3 If you look at the transcript, I think you can --
4 MR. HAYNES: Yes, thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
6 MR. HAYNES:
7 Q. And the paragraph I would like you to read to us slowly enough
8 for the interpreters to follow you is paragraph 4, please.
9 A. "The motorised brigade [as interpreted] of the Zvornik Light
10 Infantry Brigade remains in the establishment composition of the same,
11 but it is to be kept in the books as a maneuver unit of the command of
12 the Drina Corps under the direct command of the corps. Bring the
13 battalion up to manpower levels, up to a hundred per cent, according to
14 the personnel and material establishment. It has the role of a complete
15 battalion, which may be strengthened with units at platoon and company
16 level from the OMJ anti-aircraft defence and artillery units.
17 "The battalion must have personnel who are relatively young,
18 experienced, and the most fit and able to carry out combat tasks. The
19 strength of the battalion may be between 500 and 900 men with
20 establishment equipment. This battalion is to be reformed, brought up to
21 manpower levels, and organised as the first unit of the professional army
22 of Republika Srpska. And for its formation, bringing up to manpower
23 levels, training, and fitness, ask for help from the command of the Drina
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could we scroll down a little, please,
1 interpreter's note.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jevdjevic, if you could kindly slow down a
3 little bit, please.
4 MR. HAYNES:
5 Q. In fact, Mr. Jevdjevic, I think we can stop there. To what unit
6 do you understand this order to refer?
7 A. This is the command of the Drina Corps, establishing a unit. The
8 motorised battalion of the Zvornik Brigade, this refers, in fact, to the
9 Zvornik Brigade.
10 Q. But which battalion in particular does it refer to? It said it
11 is a maneuvers battalion, the first unit of the army --
12 A. Yes, that refers to the motorised battalion of the Zvornik
14 Q. Let's not beat about the bush, does this refer to the Drina
16 A. They were colloquially called the Drina Wolves, so the wolves
17 from the Drina
18 this order. I remember that, and they had their barracks in Kozluk.
19 Q. And what is meant by the phrase, "under the direct command of the
20 corps command"?
21 A. This unit participated in almost all the operations carried out
22 by the Drina Corps and in almost all the operations where the Drina Corps
23 sent its units to say area of responsibility in other war theatres, and
24 it means that the Drina Corps had the role of commanding that unit.
25 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you were asked some other questions by
1 Mr. McCloskey about P29. So if you can just see that, briefly, to remind
2 yourself of the document I am talking about.
3 Again, Mr. Jevdjevic, just familiarise yourself with it in your
4 own time and tell me when you're ready.
5 A. Is it necessary for me to read any of the paragraphs in
6 particular? Are we going to be discussing them specifically?
7 Q. Do you recognise that as Directive 4?
8 A. Yes. It states that it's from the Main Staff, and the Directive
9 4 is being sent to the Commander Chief of Staff personally, probably the
10 corps are involved, but I didn't have the opportunity to see these
11 documents, neither did I know about them.
12 Q. Now, as a military document, would you describe a directive as
13 strategic, operational, or tactical?
14 A. This is a strategic level document.
15 Q. And --
16 A. That is why it did not ever reach me. It couldn't have done so.
17 Q. And what about the brigades, would a strategic document such as a
18 directive be sent to the commands of the brigades within the army of
19 Republika Srpska?
20 A. I was the commander of a unit at the level of a regiment or
21 brigade. These documents do not reach units of that level, regiment
22 brigade level.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. HAYNES: Can we now please have in e-court P0329 [sic].
25 Q. Now, this is another document you've seen before. I think I
1 might have called the wrong document up into e-court, here. Nope.
2 MR. HAYNES: P3029, that's P329. I recognise that.
3 Q. Now, this is the Drina Corps order to the Zvornik Brigade on the
4 basis of Directive 4 sent to the Zvornik Brigade on the 24th of November
5 of 1992. Is that the document you've got in front of you in your own
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Just one of the initial phrases in this document, "personally to
9 the commander or the chief of staff." Does that mean that the document
10 would be given to the commander if there was one or if there was not to
11 his chief of staff and deputy?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you know how many commanders the Zvornik Brigade had in 1992?
14 A. The date is immediately after the forming of the Drina Corps, and
15 I personally went to the Zvornik sector to take the RRU-800 device there
16 and to set up communications with them. And I recall that their first
17 command in that period was in the Orahovac elementary school for a while,
18 after that they looked for other locations. There was an old
19 lieutenant-colonel there. I could remember the name if somebody mention
20 it first. His deputy was Captain Dragan Obrenovic, whom I knew very
21 well. And at that time, until the forming of the Drina Corps, or,
22 rather, until General Pandurevic came, there was a time when at least a
23 few commanders replaced each other in a very short period of time. So I
24 remember that very well.
25 Q. We know in this case that Lieutenant-Colonel Pandurevic became
1 commander of the Zvornik Brigade about a month after this document. So
2 it doesn't appear it would have been delivered to him personally. Do you
3 know yourself who was the commander in November of 1992?
4 A. There was an old lieutenant-colonel, but throughout that who
5 whole time the Chief of Staff was Captain Obrenovic, and he remained the
6 Chief of Staff of that brigade when Pandurevic came to that sector. I am
7 practically certain that the person who issued the order knew about the
8 problem there, that there was no permanent commander and that is why he
9 probably either put the Chief of Staff there because it's very unusual to
10 address it -- to address a document either to the commander or the Chief
11 of Staff personally you knew -- you had the opportunity to see that for
12 yourself on a series of documents here.
13 Q. Thank you. And we'll move, and in fact we'll move on a few
14 months to the beginning of 1993 when I think we can all agree that
15 Vinko Pandurevic was both the commander of the Zvornik Brigade and
16 engaged in combat activities outside his area of defence together with
17 you on a number of occasions. Do you agree with that?
18 A. Yes, I do. I think another commander was a person who was
19 seriously wounded in the stomach, a major, he came from Sarajevo front;
20 and I cannot believe how it is that I cannot remember his name right now.
21 But I think I gave a lot of answers already. His last name was Petkovic,
22 Petkovic, Petkovic. Before him there was another old lieutenant-colonel
23 and this Petkovic was seriously wounded in the stomach in these combat
24 activities at the time, and he hails from Zvornik.
25 Q. Now, just focussing on, as it were, the initial paragraphs of the
1 document that's in front of you. Did the Zvornik Brigade have in
2 military responsibilities in relation to Visegrad, and if so to your
3 knowledge what were they in the early part of 1993?
4 A. That was not its area of responsibility, the Visegrad section.
5 Q. My fault, bad question. Did Vinko Pandurevic have any
6 responsibilities in command of a unit in relation to the area of Visegrad
7 in the early part of 1993 and did it relate to the dam?
8 A. I know that when war began in that area, Vinko Pandurevic came
9 with a battalion. But I believe that it was in 1992 -- no, actually, I
10 don't believe it was in 1993. It was in 1992. There was a large
11 thermo-electric power station built in Visegrad of 1992 of 350 megawatt
12 capacity and the Muslim forces from Visegrad in 1992 -- in the spring of
13 1992, captured the dam, took up -- occupied the dam. They placed
14 explosives there and they threatened to blow up the dam thereby flooding
15 the whole of Visegrad and endangering all the towns that were along the
16 river Drina
17 know that Pandurevic came, he was probably captain-first-class with of a
18 battalion of either the Uzice Corps, I assume that, and he successfully
19 solved the problem. And he informed the barracks up there that was in
20 Visegrad earlier.
21 If this reflects what you were thinking of.
22 Q. It does, thank you. You were also asked by Mr. McCloskey about
23 your knowledge of any involvement Vinko Pandurevic may have had at
24 Kamenica. And with respect, the questions were left hanging in the air,
25 as if there was something deep, dark, and suspicious involved. Can we
1 have a look at what did happen at Kamenica.
2 MR. HAYNES: And I would have put into e-court, please, 7D1006,
3 please. And can I just say for everybody's benefit, the underlining in
4 paragraph 2 occurred in my office, I am sorry to say. This happens from
5 time to time, lines get put on documents, so that was not on the
6 original. But it appears to have been replicated in the translation.
7 Q. Would you read paragraph 2 to yourself, please, Mr. Jevdjevic.
8 A. "Our units focussed on fortification of the achieved lines and
9 preparation for the forthcoming operations establishing the 4th -- the
10 line of the 4th infantry battalion, line trig point 599, Breznik, and in
11 depth, some village."
12 "Then continual ambush in the Star Selo, Crni Vrh sector.
13 Surveillance and reconnaissance and monitoring of enemy movements. Next,
14 an interview was conducted with a Muslim who was captured yesterday in
15 Krizevici, but no significant information could be obtained. It was
16 decided to send him to the village of Kamenica
17 the Zvornik VRS command' offering the Muslim people, children, women, and
18 the elderly, that they can safely depart from the territory of combat
20 "A corridor shall be provided through which they can move without
21 fear ..." Probably that's the corridor Glodi, Kamenica, Redzici, Samapi,
22 Brezik, Cepik, Caparde, Vijaca [phoen], Crni Vrh, to Kalesija and Tuzla
23 "... because in this manner we wish to prevent unnecessary
24 innocent casualties. The corridor is opened from 0700 hours, to 1700
25 hours every day."
1 That's what it says here.
2 Q. Thank you. Now you've read that and had the opportunity to
3 refresh your memory of what happened in Kamenica in 1993. Do you recall
4 that accommodation made by Vinko Pandurevic in relation to that combat?
5 A. Yes, I did hear that he opened a corridor for women, children,
6 the elderly and the innocent could leave in order to avoid unnecessary
7 casualties. I did hear of that, yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Well, having considered that and given your earlier
9 evidence which I don't think was challenged about Ustipraca, I am going
10 to have -- ask you to look please at certain rules which applied to the
11 army at the time. And I would like you to look please at P409. And to
12 cut matters short, I think we will just look at point 80, which is B/C/S
13 page 32 English page 33, because many of the other rules have already
14 been put into evidence.
15 A. What would you like me to read so that I could comment on it?
16 Q. I would just like you to remind yourself, by which I don't mean
17 read out loud regulation number 80. So if you take just a moment or two
18 to read that, I've got two very short questions to ask you about.
19 A. I've read it.
20 Q. Thanks. You were asked by Mr. McCloskey on certainly one
21 occasion, but possibly more than one, to comment on the legality of
22 certain documents or actions. In the light of reminding yourself of that
23 regulation, would you express your view as to the legality of
24 Vinko Pandurevic's behaviour at Kamenica, please?
25 A. It accords with Article 80 of the rules, and he even made it a
1 little bit more difficult for himself because he secured the corridor
2 regardless of the fact that there might have been armed people there even
3 though it says here if the bombardment in question would endanger or make
4 uncertain the military operation concerned. So he opened the corridor
5 regardless of this it possibility, and it was open every day from 0700 to
6 1700 hours. What I am saying is that he might have jeopardized the
7 outcome of his own military operation in order for the civilians to leave
8 that theater if they wished.
9 Q. Thank you. And similar comments to what you witnessed at
10 Ustipraca, please.
11 A. Yes, it's absolutely the same situation. And simply
12 General Pandurevic was such an officer.
13 Q. Now, moving on a couple of years, you were the communications
14 officer in relation to Operations Krivaja 95 and Stupcanica 95. Can you
15 now recall when you first learned that Vinko Pandurevic as commander of
16 the Zvornik Brigade had allowed the 28th Division to walk to freedom to
17 Nezuk through a corridor at Baljkovica?
18 A. I think that I had that information some time towards the end of
19 our operation, specifically that a corridor was open. Not a lot of
20 information about this in Zepa, but I don't know if it was on the basis
21 of intelligence data that a corridor was opened. According to the same
22 principle, more or less, to reduce casualties. And Obrenovic personally
23 told me that he had at his disposal the entire brigade artillery and
24 anti-anti-aircraft guns, Pragas, to combat that column. But for some
25 reason they decided to open the corridor and for that column to pass. I
1 know that he had an agreement about opening the corridor with the
2 commander of the other side, a certain Semso Muminovic.
3 Q. And hearing that Pandurevic had done that, did it surprise you
4 knowing him as you did as a man and as a soldier?
5 A. It didn't surprise me. The only thing was that I was concerned
6 that that level of self-initiative is something that the superior command
7 may not tolerate since in this last instance what was involved was armed
8 column of the 28th Division which was conducting a regular military
9 action, and that is the withdrawal from the theater. So I left open the
10 possibility that he personally would be reprimanded or punished because
11 of the column, because he knew it consisted exclusively of armed men who
12 were taking all the available possibilities, taking advantage of all the
13 available possibilities, and there was an option that they might have an
14 all-out battle against them.
15 Q. Now, thank you for that. We are going to move on, now. I want
16 to see if I have understood correctly how a communications centre works
17 at an operational forward command post. Does it work as an extension to
18 the corps command's main switchboard?
19 A. Yes, we had that at the IKM, the communications centre at the IKM
20 had an extension and was the only one to be able to get in touch with the
21 Drina Corps command.
22 Q. And the number 385, firstly, was that used both at Pribicevac and
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And secondly, I simply don't know the answer to this, was it
1 always used as the forward command post extension number by the Drina
3 A. Yes. During those two operations in Krivaja and Stupcanica,
4 definitely, I know that. I am not sure whether we had that same number
5 in 1993 let's say, and so on.
6 Q. And what was the extension in existence during the period of
7 time, whenever that was, between the closure of one IKM and the opening
8 of another?
9 A. From the technical aspect it doesn't make any difference. It's
10 the same as if the switchboard in the apartment where you live assigns
11 you a number and then gives your neighbour another number; and since it
12 doesn't mean anything to you if you go from one operation to another.
13 It's possible that it was a different number earlier. I cannot be clear,
14 but the principle is absolutely the same.
15 Q. Yet again, to see if I've understood it correctly, it's a radio
16 communication via the transmitter at Veliki Zep, isn't it?
17 A. Yes, but it's a radio relay connection, to be specific, and in
18 all cases from the beginning to the end of the war, it's same relay
19 connection using the same devices through the Veliki Zep communications
20 node. We can allow for the possibility that earlier there was a
21 different extension, perhaps, but from a technical point of view it
22 didn't mean anything or from the point of view of organising and
23 functioning of communications.
24 Q. So did it work a bit like a modern mobile telephone; namely, when
25 it's switched on you can receive calls but when it's not you can't?
1 A. Yes, more or less, but the devices were switched on throughout
2 the duration of these operations.
3 Q. And just like a modern mobile telephone, it can receive both, as
4 it were, voice communications and text communications; is that right?
5 A. Yes. You can send oral and written information through the
6 device. I am talking about the air RRU-1 radio relay device for
7 communications from the IKM to the corps.
8 Q. And for those who are very adept with modern mobile phones, just
9 like that, you can send information to multiple recipients, can't you?
10 You can send text messages to an address book?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objects object to leading, we are really getting
12 into different technologies here and dangerous territory.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think Mr. McCloskey is right, Mr. Haynes. I am
14 sure you can move faster on this.
15 MR. HAYNES: Yes. Sure.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 MR. HAYNES:
18 Q. So between the period of time when the communications centre at
19 Pribicevac was closed down and the communications centre at Krivace was
20 established, what would happen to encrypted telegrams or messages in
21 written form which were sent to the extension number of the forward
22 command post?
23 A. The telegrams remained at the communications centre of the
24 dispatcher. They would pile up and wait for the time when the
25 communications with the receiving end would be established so that they
1 could be dispatched. If, for example, the deadline was -- had expired or
2 was close to expiry because of the urgency of some telegram, then the
3 server at the communications centre had to inform the person who was
4 seconding the telegram about that. But in the briefest terms, the
5 telegrams would pile up at the dispatcher's communications centre, then
6 you would wait for the connection to be re-established with the receiving
7 side, and then these telegrams would be dispatched to them.
8 Q. Thank you. Was signal strength ever a problem with a
9 communications centre at a forward command post?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Well was there ever an interruption in the signal or the loss of
12 a signal?
13 A. There was no interruption or loss of signal. Occasionally, we
14 would have brief difficulties while sending the telegrams, but we never
15 had any problems in the transmission of oral communications.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, you've told us in detail about three separate
17 actions in which you ran a communications centre. And I'm going to deal
18 with each of them very briefly. In relation to Operation Mac, you told
19 us that you originally set up a communications centre at Trnovo but that
20 it did not remain there, it move to Lubardici. Do you remember telling
21 us that?
22 A. Yes, but this place is called Lubardici, just for the record.
23 Q. Forgive me, my pronunciation improves but will never be perfect,
24 I suspect. Why did it move?
25 A. Because it's a logical military action, which I described. The
1 communications centre moves when the forward command moves, and the
2 forward command post follows its units so as to be at an appropriate
3 distance for purposes of observation and successful command. The forward
4 command post moves and then the communications centre moves with it.
5 Q. And did the removal of the command centre from Trnovo to
6 Lubardici require any written order from your commander?
7 A. No. That was a daily need.
8 Q. In relation to Operation Stupcanica 95, you told us that after a
9 few days the communications centre moved from Krivace to Godjenje. Was
10 that for the same reasons?
11 A. Yes, it moved to the village of Godjenje
12 the operation to trig point Zlovrh, without any written orders because
13 it's a logical military action.
14 Q. Thank you. And what does a mobile communications centre at a
15 forward command post actually amount to? What is it in physical terms?
16 A. We have a truck, quite simply, with a cabin. The truck is on
17 wheels, that's why it's called "mobile," and the exclusive purpose of
18 this is to be able to make fast leaps and bounds following the combat
19 disposition, to follow the combat disposition and the forward command
20 post at an appropriate distance.
21 Q. In your view, is a truck with some communications equipment on it
22 synonymous with a command post within the meaning of the rules shown to
23 you by Mr. McCloskey yesterday?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, while we're on the subject of command posts, who
1 is the first person you would expect to find at a forward command post?
2 A. The first person who has to arrive is someone from the staff
3 command to set up tents, tables, an ops room. Very soon these people are
4 followed by signalsmen, comms men, to set up communications, which is why
5 I went there a day ahead of Krstic. When all this is ready, the
6 commander arrives to the forward post, at the forward command post.
7 That's the logical military sequence.
8 Q. And what determines when a forward command post moves, or who
9 determines when a forward command post moves?
10 A. The forward command post moves according to need, but it's up to
11 the commander to make that decision.
12 Q. Can we just remind ourselves, where was General Krstic on the
13 11th of July of 1995?
14 A. On the 11th of July, he was in the village of Krivace
15 Pribicevac, until the late afternoon.
16 Q. And where did he go then?
17 A. And then, together with General Mladic and General Zivanovic, in
18 two separate vehicles, he left for Srebrenica. To the best of my
19 knowledge, he went to the command of the Bratunac Brigade from there.
20 Q. And do you know where he was in the evening of the 11th of July?
21 A. The evening of the 11th of July, he was in the command of the
22 Bratunac Brigade, and he attended the meeting I spoke about at length.
23 Q. Are you aware of any other meetings he attended that night?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Very well. Was there any reason on the 11th of July to continue
1 having a communications centre at Pribicevac?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And just remind us, what is at Pribicevac, what physically is
5 A. Pribicevac is and was a place where there are clearings in the
6 woods, some meadows and some cottages. It's a small scattered mountain
7 village which had been previously inhabited by Serbs, and then cottages
8 were razed to the ground, burnt down. So now it's mountainous terrain
9 with woods and clearing in the woods and meadows.
10 Q. And what men would have been tied up in the continued manning of
11 a communications centre?
12 A. I didn't understand your question.
13 Q. A simpler question: Who was present at the communications centre
14 before you packed it up?
15 A. I was there and six of my men.
16 Q. And what sort of men are they? Are they ordinary soldiers or are
17 they men with some technical ability?
18 A. These were ordinary privates, one of them was also a driver as
19 well as being a signalsman. They were just ordinary privates who had
20 been with me through part of the war. And in my view, they were able to
21 respond to the tasks I assigned them.
22 Q. How would you have gone about communicating with General Krstic
23 in Bratunac during the evening of the 11th of July had you remained at
25 A. Well, it would have been almost impossible. I would have had to
1 have been a magician. I could have tried to find him through various
2 communication centres, through couriers, but the task would have been
3 almost insurmountable to reach General Krstic.
4 Q. Now, just one other point on this topic. You were shown some
5 documents which had been either sent or received by the forward command
6 post which had been marked by hand. And Mr. McCloskey drew a distinction
7 between those which had apparently been marked with a "1" and those which
8 had been marked with a "2." Do you recall being shown those documents or
9 would you like me to show you an example of them again?
10 A. If you are referring to what someone wrote in handwriting at the
11 top of the document, then I know what you are referring to.
12 Q. Good, then we can save some time. Just to confirm what you said
13 to Mr. McCloskey, those markings were not in your writing; is that right?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And do you have any idea what they indicate?
16 A. As I said yesterday, probably that was a number in command
17 logbook, when those telegrams were being accounted for after the
18 operation had been completed.
19 Q. And was that a process you had anything to do with?
20 A. No.
21 Q. It was suggested to you that the two numbers indicated different
22 communications centres. But can I ask you this: How many combat
23 operations did you take part in in the month of July 1995?
24 A. In the month of July, I participated in two operations, Krivaja
25 and Stupcanica.
1 Q. And when were the written orders for Operation Stupcanica 95
3 A. On the 13th of July.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, just going back to something we were discussing
5 earlier. In order for a telegram to arrive at the forward command post -
6 have I got this right? - it's important that you know the right extension
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In terms of how the telegram is addressed, does that matter as
10 long as it's sent to the right extension number?
11 A. Whoever addressed the telegram to someone probably was unaware of
12 the technical means used to have that telegram reach the addressee.
13 Q. Thank you. I would just like to show you one document to
14 illustrate the point.
15 MR. HAYNES: It's P2085. And can we start, please, by showing
16 the witness the second page, the bottom of this document.
17 Q. I am going to give you the floor on this one, Mr. Jevdjevic. The
18 stamp and the handwritten information at the bottom of that document,
19 what does that tell us?
20 A. This stamp is the stamp used when this document was entered into
21 the logbook of the command of the 1st Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade.
22 Q. Okay. And the date on it is the date when it was entered into
23 their book, the 14th of July it appears to be?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. HAYNES: Can we go to the top of this document.
1 Q. We can see it's addressed to the Drina Corps IKM-1. Does that
2 mean anything to you?
3 A. That's -- at that time, the Drina Corps throughout this period
4 had simultaneously or, rather, had only one forward command post at the
5 time. That's what this marking means. Had there been one in Pribicevac
6 and one in Sekovici, they would have been called IKM-1; that would have
7 been Pribicevac; IKM-2 would have meant Sekovici. As throughout July and
8 throughout that period, the Drina Corps had only one forward command post
9 at a time. That meant that forward command post. I don't know what the
10 date of the telegram is. It's illegible, so I can't tell where we were
11 at the time at Pribicevac or at Zepa, but that's immaterial because it
12 simply implies the forward command post where we were.
13 I am saying this even before seeing the date because that's how
14 it was. If someone has the original, maybe they can assist me and help
15 me see the date, but it was sent to the forward command post. Whether it
16 was at Pribicevac or at Zepa, that's what IKM-1 means.
17 Q. Thank you. That was really the purpose of my question.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we could help if we just went to the end
19 of the document and he can clear that up where I think it is legible.
20 MR. HAYNES: Certainly.
21 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, would you have a look at the end of the document
22 again and see whether there is anything you can help us with.
23 A. What I said at the outset. This is the seal of the logbook of
24 the 1st Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade, so that's the date, the 14th of
25 July, when the document was entered into the logbook under the number we
1 see here.
2 Q. Well, that probably doesn't take matters any further forward. I
4 Now, you were asked a number of questions yesterday afternoon and
5 this morning about one particular report.
6 MR. HAYNES: And I am going to ask now, please, that we have in
7 e-court P4087. And that the witness be provided again, please, with
8 P2315, the handwritten intercept notebook number 231. And the page ERN
9 number is 7909 that I want him to start at.
10 JUDGE KWON: Page 33.
11 MR. HAYNES: Yes, that's in e-court, but I don't think his will
12 be marked the same.
13 Q. Now, just a few simple questions, Mr. Jevdjevic. Do you have in
14 front of you the page which has written in handwriting a conversation
15 which is said to involve Major Jevdjevic and the switchboard?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is there any date on that conversation?
18 A. No.
19 Q. If you go backwards in the book, what is the first date you find?
20 A. That's the conversation. Previously several such conversations
21 were recorded and the first date back is the 5th of July, 1995.
22 Q. And how many pages are there in that book between the 5th of July
23 1995 and the conversation which is in this report?
24 A. Only one page, that's this one. And half of the next.
25 Q. I don't know if you think you are able to do this, but how many
1 conversations does it appear to you are recorded between the 5th of July
2 of 1995 and the conversation that is the subject of this report?
3 A. From the 5th of July to this conversation where I am mentioned,
4 only five conversations were recorded.
5 Q. And just looking at those conversations, do any of them contain
6 the words, "Titanik, Atlanta
7 terms, Mr. Jevdjevic, can you find the conversation that's at the top of
8 the report we've got?
9 A. In this notebook here, which I think the original, there is no
10 record of a conversation mentioning Titanik, Atlanta, Vezuv, and some
11 five digit numbers in between. But -- well, it's included here. I don't
13 Q. Now, you've been given a lot of information about evidence you
14 were not here to experience, but do you have any understanding yourself
15 of the process of monitoring radio communications made by enemy armed
17 A. I know quite a lot about that because in the JNA, in the 1980s,
18 there was a whole branch of the army that was established called
19 electronic surveillance and anti-electronic activities, and as this
20 branch is very similar to the communications branch all the personnel in
21 that branch initially --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt the
24 witness, but since he's on this topic, perhaps he could move the book
25 forward in time from the key conversation to see what the next date is,
1 if any, and then the explanation may have more meaning and save me some
3 MR. HAYNES: I am perfectly happy to do that, but in seven hours
4 of cross-examination, if you have failed to ask questions you want to
5 ask. Please go forward and tell us what the next date in the book is,
6 Mr. Jevdjevic.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jevdjevic, if you flip over, you could
8 tells perhaps what the next date.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I mean the other -- the other way, from the
10 5/6 -- 5/12, see what the next date is right after the conversation in
12 MR. HAYNES:
13 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, what's the next date after the 5th of July in that
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we go up, can't see the whole book.
16 MR. HAYNES: Well, he can answer the question, can't he? We
17 don't need to see the book.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next date is the 13th, and
19 that's been entered here a few pages later. So between the 5th and the
20 13th there is not a single date entered. Everyone can see that.
21 MR. HAYNES:
22 Q. Thank you. Now, in terms of writing this record down, is it your
23 understanding that this was written in realtime or was, as it were, the
24 subject of a study of a tape recording?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: He doesn't really have the ability to answer
2 that, and --
3 MR. HAYNES: Your microphone's not on. Can't hear you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes. Let's leave it in the hands of
5 the witness, and he can perhaps tell us -- yes, Mr. Haynes.
6 MR. HAYNES: Sorry, I wasn't hearing anything, and it was because
7 I had my microphone on as well. I'm sorry.
8 I will leave this, but it seems to me when the witness was
9 treated to a very long speech about the process of recording these
10 intercepts, it's only fair to him that he should have the complete
12 Now, we can agree that -- how this document, this written
13 document can came to be, or I can ask him whether he knows.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jevdjevic, we don't want any speculation from
16 you. If you know, you know, if you don't, you don't. But if you know,
17 you also need to tell us how you know.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I completed the
19 military academy, the communications stream, and the same personnel were
20 used to man the arm of service dealing with electronic surveillance and
21 anti-electronic activities. And that's why I am so familiar with this,
22 and that's the basis of my knowledge and why I can talk about it. All
23 conversations are intercepted on certain channels of transmitters. And
24 when a soldier who is intercepting a conversation hears someone speaking
25 on a certain frequency, he immediately switches on the tape recorded
1 which we used to refer to as "uher," and he would record that
3 He knew that it was a military channel. After several
4 conversations had been taped, when the soldiers were finished with their
5 shift, they would take those tapes and listen to them again after the
6 lapse of a certain amount of time, and then they would transcribe them in
7 these notebooks. So the data here is correct, but it was transcribed
8 after the conversation was actually recorded. Then they would give these
9 transcripts to their komandir, their commander, who would then compile a
11 So they tried to listen into a conversation, then they would make
12 an arbitrary decision as to whether the conversation was important enough
13 to be recorded or whether it was purely personal in nature and,
14 therefore, need not be recorded. That was how it happened in practice on
15 the ground.
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. Did they, to your knowledge, have any information as to when
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. Now, you've looked at the small conversation at -- that is
21 recorded in the second part of the report. Is this a conversation that
22 sitting here now you actually recall?
23 A. Yes, I assume so. It's completely logical to me. I remember and
24 I testified about this yesterday that when I wanted to switch off the
25 devices at the Pribicevac IKM, I informed the other participants about it
1 so that they could know and not to call me at that location anymore
2 because I would not be there anymore, and where I would be next and
3 where -- to which section I would be moving. And that is why yesterday I
4 found this intercept so important. [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I now am not receiving.
6 MR. HAYNES: I don't think it's my jack plug this time, no.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I am not receiving interpretation.
8 So Mr. Jevdjevic, I think you need to start all over again and
9 hopefully we will get interpretation this time.
10 MR. HAYNES: How far back to we need to go?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Just we started the --
12 MR. HAYNES: Yes, okay.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I didn't get Mr. Haynes's question.
14 MR. HAYNES: Getting a sense or hear or understand.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's start from there.
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. What date did that conversation take place, Mr. Jevdjevic?
18 A. The conversation was conducted on the 11th of July.
19 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going --
20 JUDGE KWON: At the end of his answer previously he added
21 something previously which was not translated which was triggered by
22 Mr. Haynes's question. So what did you say at the time? Do you remember
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This conversation was conducted on
25 the 11th of July, at 1850 hours, and just before I said that, I believe
1 it absolutely, I believe the people who intercepted the conversation. It
2 was intercepted precisely at this time as stated here. And at the
3 bottom, the sentence that is very important is that at 1900 hours there
4 is no carrier signal or frequency 255.850, which was the one that I used
5 because the one who wrote it down wrote it down as a very important piece
6 of information which indicates that he no longer had anyone to hear at
7 that frequency, that no signals were being emitted which means that the
8 device was switched off. And this happened on the 11th of July at 1900
9 hour, which is what I told the Prosecutor yesterday.
10 MR. HAYNES:
11 Q. And just before we completely depart this issue, we've heard in
12 this case from your brother, I think his name was Marinko. Was he in the
13 army of Republika Srpska in 1995?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does he have a nickname like you?
16 A. At the time he was the commander of the anti-terrorist company in
17 the protection regiment.
18 Q. Yes, thank you.
19 A. His nickname is also Jevdjo, but he is not a participant in these
20 communications because he never used these devices. These are units that
21 use exclusively Motorolas.
22 Q. That's very helpful. Now, when it army of Republika Srpska
23 entered the town of Srebrenica
24 as to the status of Operation Krivaja?
25 A. I don't quite understand the question.
1 Q. Well, I don't want to belabour it. Did you think Operation
2 Krivaja 95 had been completed when the -- when General Mladic and his
3 commanders walked into the town on the evening of July the 11th?
4 A. I personally did not consider it to be completed because we still
5 had not defeated the armed formation of the 28th Division in Srebrenica.
6 It just relocated and regrouped in the northwestern part of the enclave.
7 Until General Mladic at the meeting did not say that tomorrow everyone
8 should go to Zepa, I thought that we would still have major fighting
9 there with the column.
10 Q. When operations are concluded, irrespective of your views of it,
11 what do commanders customarily do?
12 A. The commanders come back -- or they go back to their home
14 Q. Did you think on the 11th of July there was a need for the
15 commanders to meet?
16 A. It's essential to conduct an analysis, to debrief, to see what
17 had been done, and then to get to some kind of corrected decision which
18 would then be followed by other assignments. That is what is essential
19 whenever a task is being executed. At the end, to go over it again,
20 analyse it, and to issue the next assignments to the units.
21 Q. And on a separate point, was the taking of Srebrenica a
22 significant event for the army of Republika Srpska?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Something to celebrate?
25 A. In any event, yes, in military terms, yes.
1 Q. Give us your opinion of General Mladic. Would you describe him
2 as a patient man?
3 A. For professional reasons, I would ask not to answer such
4 questions. But General Mladic was a very authoritative commander and an
5 impulsive one. He made decisions very quickly. He would issue them very
6 curtly and so on and so forth.
7 Q. Well, I'll --
8 A. And, excuse me, he insisted that they be carried out without any
9 talking back. That was the kind of commander he was.
10 Q. I will put this to you for your comments, was he the sort of man
11 that was likely to wait either to celebrate the taking of Srebrenica or
12 to give further orders to his tactical forces?
13 A. I think that he personally wasn't up to any kind of celebration.
14 He very briefly conducted an analysis and immediately issued orders to
15 his forces to regroup the following day to Zepa.
16 Q. Thank you. The commanders of the units of Tactical Group 1, how
17 many of them were in Srebrenica town centre in the early evening of 90 --
18 July the 11th of 1995 to your knowledge?
19 A. When I was passing myself through Srebrenica, I didn't see any of
20 our soldiers in the town itself. Our units remained at the reached
21 positions. Some closer to the entrances to the town, some farther away.
22 I literally passed through an empty town.
23 Q. Have you either in preparation for this trial or your previous
24 testimony seen the trial video?
25 A. In Srebrenica, I saw the video footage when in the town itself
1 General Mladic, Colonel Trivic, and General Krstic met up, General
2 Zivanovic also, and probably a few other soldiers. And then, after that,
3 this was followed by lightening-quick command of General Mladic in his
4 style, And now let's go straight to Potocari, straight to Bratunac; and
5 after that when I passed through Srebrenica around 1900 or 2000 hours at
6 that point in time there were no soldiers of ours in Srebrenica. I am
7 thinking about the town itself.
8 Q. Thank you. And are you also aware that on the evening of the
9 11th, General Mladic and General Krstic were at the two meetings at the
10 Hotel Fontana in Bratunac?
11 A. I did see something of those meetings in clips via the television
12 monitors. And that was that they had some meetings where representatives
13 of the Muslim authorities from Srebrenica were present as well as the
14 representatives of UNPROFOR. So I know that only in that sense.
15 Q. Do you know where the Hotel Fontana is in relation to the
16 headquarters of the Bratunac Brigade?
17 A. The Hotel Fontana is in the centre of town, the town of Bratunac
18 and the command of the Bratunac Brigade at the time was located in the
19 administrative building of a company, Kaolin company; so there is a
20 certain distance between those two locations.
21 Q. How long would it take even to walk between the two of them?
22 A. About a 15 minutes, I think.
23 Q. Did General Mladic generally walk anywhere?
24 A. No. At the front he did have a habit of moving around on foot,
25 but in Srebrenica, in such situations in town I never saw him walking.
1 Q. All right. And just remind us, what time it was that you got to
2 the command of the Bratunac Brigade on the evening of the 11th of July?
3 A. I arrived between 2100 hours or -- and 2130 hours.
4 Q. And how long did you stay?
5 A. I stayed until approximately 2300 hours.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, you told us at the meeting that Vinko Pandurevic
7 stood up and protested about Mladic's plans to go on to Zepa. In a
8 nutshell, what were the principle reasons voiced by Pandurevic for not
9 going to Zepa?
10 A. The principle reasons were of a purely military nature because he
11 said that the situation was that we still had not cleared that part of
12 the front in terms of the final defeat of the forces of the 28th Division
13 and that they were expected to try to break through in the
14 Kasaba-Konjevic Polje section towards Tuzla and that this could create
15 problems with major consequences. And he, if I can put it that way, in a
16 roundabout way told General Mladic about this problem so that it was not
17 literally a protest; but in that kind of gingerly language he did come
18 out with this problem that evening that General Mladic had.
19 Q. And what was the state of the information available at that
20 meeting as to the whereabouts of the forces of the 28th Division?
21 A. We all knew at the time that they were mainly concentrated in the
22 northwestern part of the enclave, and that it was their intention to go
23 to Tuzla
24 address of General Pandurevic, regardless of all the things that you
25 said, Tomorrow we will all be footing it to Zepa, I thought that he had
1 some additional information that the rest of us did not because he had
2 decided so quickly for a military action that could carry considerable
3 amount of risk.
4 Q. I just want to show you a couple of documents, please, about this
6 MR. HAYNES: Can we have P1103 into e-court. That's A in the
7 English, B in the B/C/S.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, will we be needing the notebook
10 MR. HAYNES: No. Actually, a thought has just occurred to me.
11 The notebook was put on the ELMO, wasn't it? Is there any reason to
12 protect that information that may have been broadcast? I hadn't intended
13 it to be put on the ELMO.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I will see, I will see if there were some
15 initials. I don't think there were.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, how much longer do you think we have?
17 MR. HAYNES: We are getting to the end.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So, because we have been an hour and a half
19 already. Do you think you will finish in the next ten minutes.
20 MR. HAYNES: No, shall we take a break now?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Then we will take had a break now. Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
25 MR. HAYNES:
1 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, if you don't mind, I just want to recap on one
2 small issue before we go on, and I wonder if we could just have back into
3 e-court P4087, which appears to be on the screen anyway. Certainly, the
4 Serbian version is on the screen. Thank you very much.
5 Just two issues about this. You told us about your understanding
6 of how operators worked in listening posts, but I just wanted to see if
7 you could identify for us how many processes are involved in the creation
8 of a document like P4087?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that is just time consuming and he's
10 not really qualified.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
12 MR. HAYNES: I'll move on. I've got another question.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
14 MR. HAYNES:
15 Q. You were asked some questions about it typefaces and whether they
16 matched up or not. The document in front of you, particularly the
17 document in your own language, is that typeface at all familiar to you?
18 A. Yes, this is in the Roman -- or Latin alphabet, probably typed on
19 a computer keyboard or printed on the computer printer.
20 Q. Did you have available to you in 1995 this sort of printer that
21 could produce a document like that? It appears to be a matrix printer,
22 if nobody minds me suggesting that.
23 A. We didn't have printers like this, no.
24 Q. Could that document, in your view, have been printed in 1995 in
25 the former Yugoslavia
1 A. According to my information, not in the JNA. No.
2 Q. We know it wasn't. So you've confirmed that. Now, just before
3 the break, we were dealing with the information available to you at the
4 meeting of the 11th of July. Was there any information at that meeting
5 as to the whereabouts of the commanders of the 28th Division?
6 A. That was not in the information where the commanders were but
7 where -- or what the location was of the bulk of the forces of the 28th
8 Division. No.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry --
10 MR. HAYNES: I think something is going wrong. We are getting no
11 translation and the --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The Counsel needs to wait for the translation
13 in English to be completed before beginning his question in English
14 because it's on the same channel.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Did you get that?
16 MR. HAYNES: I did.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
18 MR. HAYNES: It came through encrypted telegram rather than by
19 oral communications.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed and try to conclude, please.
21 MR. HAYNES: My fault, Mr. Jevdjevic, entirely.
22 Q. You were in the middle of telling me what information there was
23 or not as to the whereabouts of the commander of the -- commanders of the
24 28th Division. Can you complete your answer, please.
25 A. This precise information about the location of the commanders of
1 the 28th Division was not something that I had. I don't believe others
2 had it. We just knew in which area the bulk of the forces of the 28th
3 Division were regrouping and what the bulk of the -- or what the main
4 intentions were of the forces. That was something that we had over our
5 surveillance communications.
6 Q. We are still not getting communication through the headphones.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I did get translation, so is it the ... is it the
8 jack again?
9 MR. HAYNES: Yes, it is. I think we might have a problem here,
10 but never mind.
11 Q. And my next question was -- my technical assistant has just
12 helped me out. My next question was, was there any information about an
13 immediate threat to Serbian settlements at the meeting?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Now, you've told us you arrived at Bratunac at about 9.30. About
16 what time did you pass through Potocari on your way there?
17 A. It was just getting dark, so I think it was about 2100 hours or
19 Q. And when you passed through Potocari, did you see any buses?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Any forces of the United Nations?
22 A. There were just a few in small groups of two or three. The
23 majority were in their base which was to the right-hand side looking from
24 the direction that I was coming from.
25 Q. And where were the civilians that you saw? Were they on the road
1 or were they behind the fence which we know to be the United Nations
3 A. A large enough civilians were on the road and around the road
4 along that entire section that I was passing through.
5 Q. Now, the evidence we have heard in this case suggests that on the
6 evening of the 12th of July, civilians were being bussed away from
7 Potocari. You didn't see anything like that, I take it?
8 A. I assume that you are talking about the 11th. In the
9 interpretation what I got was the 12th. I didn't see any of that on the
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. HAYNES: Can we have P438 into e-court, please.
13 Q. Now, this is a document that was shown to you in your
14 cross-examination. I want to show you it to you for rather different
15 purposes. It's an order from the Drina Corps to block the forces of the
16 28th Division dated the 11th of July.
17 MR. HAYNES: Can we have a look at the second page of the
18 document, please.
19 Q. And as you told us, the second page of the document shows the
20 time it was send, doesn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that was 2230 in the evening?
23 A. Yes, 2230 hours and 2250 hours when it was dispatched to the
24 other parties that it was intended for.
25 Q. Now, at 2230 on the evening of the 11th of July, 1995, I think we
1 can all agree that General Zivanovic was still the commander of the Drina
2 Corps; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And his dispute and chief of staff was General Krstic?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But this document is signed by who?
7 A. It was signed by Colonel Pedrag Jocic.
8 Q. Can you tell us where General Zivanovic and General Krstic were
9 at 10.30 on the 11th of July such that neither of them were able to sign
10 this document?
11 A. General Zivanovic was sitting at the head of the table to the
12 left of General Mladic, and General Krstic was sitting to the right side
13 of General Mladic at the meeting in Bratunac that I also attended.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Now, you've told us something else, again,
15 about which you weren't challenged, that a man called Bajagic arrived at
16 the meeting you attended with a big fish for a meal. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Just so that we are clear, is fish an appropriate food to eat on
19 a fast day?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the meeting occurred, you say, on a fast day before what
23 A. Before the major Christian feast day, St. Peter's day.
24 Q. And what would you eat on St. Peter's day itself, would it be
25 fish or something else?
1 A. The day before St. Peter's day is the last day of the major fast.
2 And on St. Peter's day itself, all the Christians go to the church. They
3 come home, and then they eat food that is not -- that doesn't contain a
4 lot of fat.
5 Q. I just want to show you 7D1086, please.
6 Now, I don't suppose you read English do you, Mr. Jevdjevic?
7 A. No.
8 Q. I am going to have to help you with this. This document is a
9 Serbian Orthodox calendar for July 2007?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I could probably stipulate to a lot of the
11 religious stuff.
12 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. If we can stipulate that the festival of
13 St. Peter was the 12th of July, 1995, then we can move on. And one
14 further stipulation, the 12th of July was a Tuesday in 1995.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: No problem, and I think it's in the record about
16 four places. But no problem.
17 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much indeed.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you, both. Let's proceed.
19 MR. HAYNES:
20 Q. Now, I want to move on, please, to people who you recall or you
21 suppose were at that meeting that you attended. Can you tell us who
22 Svetozar Andric is?
23 A. Svetozar Andric is now a general. At the time he was a colonel,
24 and he was the commander of the Sekovici Brigade.
25 Q. And did he take part in Operation Krivaja 95?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you recall specifically whether he was at the meeting on the
3 11th of July?
4 A. Later he confirmed to me, and I recall, that most of the
5 commanders were there. I think only Colonel Blagojevic was not there,
6 and this is why I didn't want to specify. But later when I spoke with
7 General Andric, he was at that meeting, and he recalls all of the
8 information that I talked about.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction to one answer of the
10 witness regarding the fast food and food that is appropriate on the day
11 of the holiday, what the witness said that on actual St. Peter's day
12 itself, the food that they were permitted to eat would contain meat and
14 MR. HAYNES: Well, we learn something new every day.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I am told that Tuesday was the 11th.
17 MR. HAYNES: That may well be correct. The next document in
18 e-court was intended only to establish the day of the week.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let's proceed.
20 MR. HAYNES: Can we have in e-court please 7D1090.
21 Q. Now, this was an interview conducted by Mr. McCloskey who sits to
22 your right with Svetozar Andric in February 2002; and I am going to read
23 it to you because I am not sure that you have it in front of you in your
24 own language.
25 Mr. McCloskey said to him:
1 "We have very reliable sources that say there was no meeting on
2 the 11th, that the meeting was on the 12th. And, General, think about
3 this before you answer the questions, because you got into trouble last
4 time. We have General Mladic, General Krstic, and many other officers on
5 video in meetings most of the evening of the 11th of July at the Hotel
7 that the meeting was on the 12th. We know what General Krstic said, he
8 said the 11th, but no one believed General Krstic. But I'm not God. You
9 were there. It's your duty to answer the question as best you can."
10 Svetozar Andric replied:
11 "As far as I can remember, I think that that was on the 11th in
12 the evening."
13 And Mr. McCloskey asked him:
14 "So you could be mistaken, it could be on the 12th?"
15 And he said:
16 "According to my estimation, according to what I have in my head,
17 I think that was on the 11th. Because on the 12th we had a meeting at
18 the Vaga area, Viogor, so I think it was on the 11th, but I have to tell
20 Now, do you know Svetozar Andric?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What sort of a man is he?
23 A. Later, he became the chief of staff of the corps, and after the
24 war he became the commander of one of the two corps of the army of
25 Republika Srpska; and that tells you all you need to know about that
2 Q. Can you think of any reason he would have to be untruthful in
3 talking Mr. McCloskey about the date of that meeting?
4 A. The questions that were put to me and the suggestions put to me
5 reminded me of what Investigator Ruez asked me two and a half years ago,
6 and I gave him the same answer.
7 Q. By the date of this interview, General Krstic had already been
8 tried, convicted, and sentenced. Can you think of any reason
9 Svetozar Andric might have to try and align his account with
10 General Krstic at that time?
11 A. No.
12 MR. HAYNES: Can we have 7D1092 into e-court, please.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps we can save time and go down a little bit
14 more in that interview where it asks whether there was a meal at that
15 meeting? Yes, I think we only have the one page in e-court.
16 JUDGE PROST: I think there is another page, because I seem to
17 have read it. I think it goes over at least one page.
18 MR. HAYNES: Okay.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Could counsel verify the exhibit number, please.
20 MR. HAYNES: It's 7D1090.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: We can agree that he was asked whether there was
22 a meal and he said "no" and then --
23 MR. HAYNES: Fine, let's move on. Can we go to 7D1092 while
24 we're on the subject of meals which was just on e-court.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While we're waiting for this
1 material to come up on the screen, I do apologise, but at the meeting
2 nothing was eaten. The fish arrived after the meeting when we had got up
3 to leave and I didn't even taste it. Nothing was eaten during the
4 meeting, the food arrived when the meeting ended and I rushed out through
5 the door. I just glanced at the food, but I didn't have time to eat it,
7 MR. HAYNES:
8 Q. Thank you, and we need to go to paragraphs 5 and 6 of this which
9 is a 92 bis statement which has been served on everybody in relation to
10 Zvonko Bajagic.
11 Just reading that to yourself, Mr. Jevdjevic, do you know
12 Zvonko Bajagic?
13 A. Very well.
14 Q. What sort of a man is he?
15 A. He is a fervent believer, and he assists many churches and
16 monasteries. He has anyone commended by Patriarch Pavle. He has a large
17 house in Vlasenica, and he is a highly respected eminent householder
18 there. He put himself at the disposal of the Drina Corps as a person who
19 had contacts, and he worked in the rear to help with logistics quarter
20 master supplies with ammunition, fuel, whatever was necessary.
21 Q. Can you think of any reason he would have to be untruthful about
22 the date at which he brought a fish to the meeting at the Bratunac
24 A. No.
25 Q. Let's move on, please. Do you know who Momir Nikolic is?
1 A. Yes, do I. Although Zvonko Bajagic says here that the officers
2 came to dinner after the meeting. We didn't eat anything in the course
3 of the meeting. Mladic would never have allowed that. But I know who
4 Momir Nikolic is.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any objection to this, but this will
7 be opening the door to much of what else Mr. Nikolic may have said on
8 these topics and related topics, and I'm not sure we need to go there.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes doesn't seem convinced.
10 MR. HAYNES: I am not sure it's opening any doors. Momir Nikolic
11 was on the Prosecution 65 ter list, and they decided to abandon him. I
12 am not sure in those circumstances what use they could make of anything
13 he might have said on other occasions.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Clearly he will be opening the door to this,
15 going through this kind of material that he could have led in his direct
16 examination. He's going to be opening the door to me completing the
17 picture on Momir Nikolic, a key player on this. And he wants to do that
18 I will make my motion when it's time, but --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed.
20 MR. HAYNES:
21 Q. Did you see Momir Nikolic on the night of the 11th of July of
22 1995 when you were at the Bratunac Brigade?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Are you aware that he pleaded guilty on the 7th of May 2003 and
25 entered a plea agreement with the Prosecution?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: How is this relevant at this point in the
2 examination? I mean, we all know these facts.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey is questioning the relevance of
4 these similar questions, Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES: I will move on.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. HAYNES:
8 Q. You were a witness in the trial of General Krstic?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Are you aware that he said in evidence in his own defence that
11 this meeting that you referred to took place on the 11th of July?
12 A. I am not familiar with General Krstic's testimony.
13 Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Jevdjevic, I don't know because to this day
14 nobody's been good enough to put the suggestion clearly to you, neither
15 Mr. Ruez nor Mr. Harmon nor Mr. McCloskey; namely, whether it is
16 suggested that you are a liar or mistaken. So let's explore both
17 possibilities, shall we.
18 Sitting here today as a witness in this case, do you have any
19 reason not to tell the truth about the date of the meeting you attended
20 at the Bratunac Brigade?
21 A. Absolutely not.
22 Q. As you've already told us a number of times, in April of 2000 you
23 were interviewed by Jean-Rene Ruez, the Prosecutor's main investigator in
24 this case. And I get the impression you recall that quite clearly?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And at the time had you had any contact with General Krstic in
2 the sense that he had asked you to be a witness in his Defence?
3 A. No.
4 Q. In April of 2000, did you even know that Vinko Pandurevic had
5 been indicted?
6 A. No.
7 Q. In April of 2000, did you have any reason not to tell
8 Jean-Rene Ruez the truth about when this meeting took place?
9 A. No.
10 Q. And did you tell him the truth in April of 2000?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. And what day did you tell him you attended the meeting?
13 A. The 11th of July, 1995, at a meeting which began at around 2200
15 Q. And do you recall that in the course of that interview after a
16 lot of questioning, Mr. Ruez eventually accepted that?
17 A. Yes. He insisted trying to jog my memory and convince me that it
18 had been the 12th. Then I asked him quite simply on what basis he was
19 asserting that. I asked him when the evacuation of the civilian
20 population from Srebrenica began, I remember that very well and one can
21 find that there. He said on the 12th. And I said, Excellent, I wasn't
22 there then. I was already at Krivace. I am absolutely certain of that.
23 He challenged this many times asking me what road I took to Bratunac and
24 so on, but I always remained certain it was on the 11th which is why I
25 was so anxious today when this intercept turned up which confirms this to
1 demonstrate that it does that.
2 Q. And I am not necessarily going to put another exhibit into
3 e-court, but if anybody wants to check that it's 7D1093 at page 39 in the
5 Now in November of 2000 you gave evidence in the trial of
6 General Krstic; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did you tell the Trial Chamber then that you had packed up
9 your communications centre and attended a meeting at Bratunac on the 11th
10 of July 1995?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, do you recall that you, in fact, attended, as a witness in
13 the trial of General Krstic, on two occasions?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you were cross-examined by Mr. Harmon twice; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Were you shown many of the same documents by Mr. Harmon that you
18 were shown by Mr. McCloskey during the course of this trial?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you make the same observations about them?
21 A. I continued to assert that that meeting was held on the 11th,
22 that I left the forward command post on the 11th, but at the time I did
23 not have the most precise answers as to how those documents could have
24 been created. But mostly, it all boiled down to what I said today.
25 Q. The teleprinted documents that Mr. McCloskey says that he's going
1 to have analysed at this point in time, they were put to you eight years
2 ago were they or eight and a half years ago?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that could mean a lot of document,
4 and --
5 MR. HAYNES: I'll move on.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- it was only just a very few.
7 MR. HAYNES: I'll move on.
8 Q. Now, you may not understand the terminology, Mr. Jevdjevic, but
9 the first time you attended as a witness in November of 2000 was during
10 the Defence case. Did you understand that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the second time was after the Defence had concluded its case
13 and the Prosecution had produced some more evidence and then you were
14 recalled by the Defence about five months later; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, the following year in the spring of the 2001.
16 Q. And this might be stretching your memory a little bit, but do you
17 remember whether when you attended as a witness on the first occasion as
18 part of the Defence case in November 2000, whether Mr. Harmon suggested
19 to you at all that you had attended a meeting of the 12th of July and not
20 the 11th, or whether it was only on the second occasion when you came
22 A. Mr. Harmon always asserted I did not attended that meeting on the
23 11th of July.
24 Q. Very well. Well, I'm leaving that issue now and moving on to the
25 second of the possibilities. Mr. Jevdjevic, on a scale of 1:10
1 one means almost impossible to remember and 10 means utterly
2 unforgettable, where would you place the 11th of July 1995 as a day in
3 your life?
4 A. Absolutely as regards when I left the forward command post, where
5 I went, what I saw, and the meeting that was held in the brigade command,
6 absolutely all this is number 10.
7 Q. And is there one per cent of one chance that you are wrong about
8 the date on which you attended the meeting of the Bratunac Brigade?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jevdjevic. I am done.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So that -- Mr. Jevdjevic, you will be
12 pleased to hear me say or confirm that your testimony ends here. You are
13 free to go. Our staff will assist you. On behalf of the Trial Chamber,
14 I wish to thank you for having come over and stayed all these days with
15 us giving evidence, and on behalf of everyone, I wish you a safe journey
16 back home.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Exhibits. There is the long Miletic list which has
20 been circulated. Any objections, Mr. McCloskey?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objections to that list.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Any objections from the other
23 Defence teams? None. So they are all admitted. If there are any that
24 still require translation, they will be MFI'd.
25 Mr. Zivanovic, you don't have any documents do you?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have one document.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One document.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is one e-court document. It is actually the
4 map of the witness. Thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objection from anyone? None.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So it is admitted.
8 Mr. Haynes.
9 MR. HAYNES: Can you give me a moment to catch up by going to
10 Mr. McCloskey first?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey, your list?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's been sent out. Ms. Stewart has sent it all
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? Yes, Ms. Fauveau.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is not really
16 an objection. It is about document P14, 14, the same document is on our
17 list, 5D1412. What embarrasses me here with the document on e-court, on
18 the list of the Prosecutor, is number P4094, which was the B/C/S version
19 which doesn't completely correspond to the English version. And, in
20 particular, for the last page of the document in e-court it has nothing
21 to do with the document which concerns the -- the training course for
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Do you wish to comment, Mr. McCloskey?
24 Or will you see to this?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: We will just get together with her and sort this
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think it's better. I think it's better.
3 Any further -- otherwise there are no objections, I take it, from anyone?
4 All right. So the Prosecution list is also -- documents is also
5 approved. They are admitted, saving what you need to discuss.
6 Any -- yes, Mr. Gosnell?
7 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, this is slightly belated, but there
8 is an objection on our part to 5D1374.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: From the Miletic?
10 MR. GOSNELL: Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: 5D?
12 MR. GOSNELL: Sorry, 5D1374. Mainly this is a question of
13 principle. The document was put to the witness, the witness didn't know
14 anything about it, counsel moved on. That is not a submission basis for
15 admission of the document with this witness.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but this is not a strictly common law
17 jurisdiction. You know that. The way we proceed -- I mean, we are in a
18 position then to decide whether to just ignore the document or -- yes,
19 Mr. --
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, I think it's important to the
21 credibility of the witnesses sometimes when he -- or a witness may
22 particularly remember lots about lots of details and then suddenly
23 doesn't know something about something significant. I think that's
24 something you could take into consideration in a particular context.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in the realm of admissibility only here. So
1 anything else? We still have not got -- yes, Mr. Josse.
2 MR. JOSSE: We've got one document. In fact, Your Honours, if I
3 may make a correction. On the list that we provided, there are two
4 documents, but only one was shown to the document -- to the witness. So
5 we are only seeking to tender 6D328.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. JOSSE: And we are anxious to know if anyone is taking a
8 point on that document bearing in mind what was said when it was put to
9 the witness.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you will soon know. Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Before I get into that
12 particular area, I would like to just make -- refer the Court to one
13 thing. There was a cross-examination on my questioning regarding the
14 frequency, and my suggestion that roughly half or over half the majority
15 of our documents were from that frequency. And I wanted to direct the
16 Court's attention to Mr. Pajic's testimony at page 2882 where, when he
17 was testifying, he said that:
18 "These frequencies weren't changed, and that was the case until
19 the end of the war. If there were any disturbances, one would go a
20 megahertz up or down."
21 So my factual conclusion when I asked that question was - and
22 suggested that - a majority of our intercepts came within that particular
23 frequency, I was including a megahertz up or down based on his answer. I
24 could have formed the question more clearly so that would have been
25 clear, but I did not; and I think Mr. Zivanovic was correct in pointing
1 that out.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Now, any objections to
3 Mr. Josse's proposed exhibit, 6D328?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We would like time to investigate this
5 further. These are significant documents. We have heard that the story
6 where they came from. It is apparent to us, as they told us, that there
7 are more documents from this source, and they have chosen not to provide
8 us with any of those documents. And so in always in looking at the
9 authenticity of a document, if you can have the other source document
10 that came from the same source --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- it's a very good idea to have those. We were
13 not given those, so we would like a chance to look into this document,
14 and if we could treat it maybe like we treat the translation issues.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we MFI it for the time being and
16 then you will let us know in January.
17 MR. JOSSE: Well, I don't suppose there is much I can say about
18 that save for the fact that we had the original in court. It's no longer
19 here; it's on its way back to Serbia
20 here available to the Prosecution to look at, and that's one of the
21 reasons why I am only putting 328 in, because that's the one that was the
22 original. So if it's being suggested that that document that was shown
23 to the witness is not authentic, that really is the only question in my
24 submission, this Chamber should asks ask itself.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understand Mr. McCloskey, he's not saying
1 that. He just wants to make a find out, and then he will tell us later
2 if he still objects to this document or not and on what basis on that
3 case. That's how I understand him.
4 MR. JOSSE: In the Chamber thinks that's reasonable, then I am
5 not going to stand in the way. The only thing about it is this: If
6 there is some challenge to its authenticity, then I accept we need to
7 prove it; and we need to make arrangements to do just that which requires
8 effort and work on our part which we will do if need be. However, I
9 repeat, the purported original was here for him and his team to inspect;
10 he chose not to do that.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have been discussing that with them, and there
12 is obviously some confusion. Sometimes they have allowed us to see
13 things, sometimes they have not. I'm sure we can reach some kind of an
14 agreement, but I would ask against Defence counsel when they obtain
15 original materials that they intend to use to save those originals so
16 that we can review them. That is part of what is in the ethical rules
17 and I would hope that you would do that as we do our documents.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We will postpone our decision on that
19 until we have got more information.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, so, as I said this final decision will be
22 postponed. For the time being, it will be MFI'd.
23 Mr. Haynes.
24 MR. HAYNES: Can I apologise profusely, the cake is still in the
25 oven as it were; it should be cooked in a few seconds. But I can tell
1 the Prosecution and everybody else which documents will be on it. They
2 are all 7D documents.
3 They are 1006, 1086, 1087, 1089, 1090, and 1092.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we will take a quick look at that,
5 but I don't know if you're interested; but there will certainly be major
6 arguments about this reference in a notebook. And it might be
7 interesting for you to actually see the handwriting and the 13 July date
8 on the other side, as well as the Defence might want you to go look at
9 the material to the other side going to the 5th. But I think you --
10 because it's very hard to see in the -- in any kind of photograph the
11 original handwriting, and it does mean something that the handwriting in
12 the subject intercept is all the same until -- in our view, until it
13 bumps into 13 July.
14 So it may be something you want to see, it may not be, but I have
15 it here if you would like to.
16 MR. HAYNES: Well, I'm frankly dizzy. 1006 is an order in
17 February 1993. 1086 was the order of September 1992. And 87 to 92, I
18 think were sections of people's witness interviews or testimony. I don't
19 quite know how we got into P4087, which I thought we left discussing a
20 long, long time ago. Are there any objections to those documents being
21 put into evidence? That's what I am dealing with now.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would especially like to look at the sections
23 that are referenced in testimony. In fact, given that you can tell from
24 the comments that it may not be the full and appropriate sections and
25 it's getting into that area that we have gone over with many times.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's close it here.
2 MR. HAYNES: That's 90 and 92. They can be marked for further
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Well, what I would suggest we do is we close
5 this now for the time being, and we debate, briefly, in the time
6 remaining -- yes.
7 MR. JOSSE: I'm very sorry to interrupt, but I need to put the
8 record straight. I was wrong, the document 6D328 is physically here,
9 it's in front of me. We need to decide what we are going to do with it
10 over the next few weeks, but if the Prosecution wish to see it, this
11 afternoon would be a very good time I would suggest.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fine. That's fine --
13 MR. JOSSE: It's important --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 MR. JOSSE: -- that I state that position accurate.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for your frankness, Mr. Josse, as usual.
17 As always.
18 Now, yesterday, Judge Prost asked you on our behalf to be
19 prepared to -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I very much apologise, Mr. President, but one
21 last issue. Mr. Haynes in the last couple of questions brought up the
22 issue with the witness that the typeface on the Serbian print-outs could
23 not have been something was printed out during the war. That is based --
24 and that's correct, and it's based on information that I had just learned
25 and provided both to Mr. Zivanovic and to Mr. Haynes. Since it does
1 potentially go to the authenticity of these intercepts, I would like to
2 have the opportunity to provide that information to you at some point or
3 I will discuss it with my colleagues and perhaps we can come to a
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, thank you. We will await for a feedback on
7 this from you, Mr. McCloskey, after your consultations with Mr. Haynes.
8 Now, yesterday, Judge Prost asked particularly the Borovcanin
9 Defence team and the Prosecution to come back to us on document P210 as
10 it relates to Borovcanin motion, and particularly -- yes, it's part of
11 the mobilization, basically, as it relates to Rules 89(c) and (d),
12 specifically, relevance, probative value and any possible prejudicial
13 effect to a fair trial.
14 Mr. Gosnell, Mr. Lazarevic, who is -- and Mr. Haynes --
15 Mr. McCloskey, I think you should go first, Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I've invited Mr. Vanderpuye to deal with this
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Very briefly, please, Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours; and good
20 afternoon to you, and good afternoon to my colleagues.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Please speak into the microphone, thank you.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, as I understand the issue, the
23 question was whether or not P210 as proffered by the Prosecution, you
24 wanted us to address its relevance pursuant to Rule 89(c) and the
25 question of potential prejudice to the Defence in terms of the
1 administration of a fair trial under Rule 89(d).
2 There are several reasons why we believe that this evidence is
3 particularly relevant in the circumstances. For the sake of brevity, I
4 think I will address the most obvious one first; and that has to do with
5 the Defence submissions as derived from their opening statement. And in
6 particular in respect of their submission that at the time that
7 Mr. Borovcanin returns to Bratunac - and this is at page 26642 of the
8 transcript - that at the time he returns to Bratunac and he assumes
9 command of the units that are assigned to him, that he has no choice but
10 to rely on the VRS commander in whose area of responsibility he is
11 assigned for logistical support, security support, and perhaps most
12 importantly for information.
13 And the reason why I raise this first is that what P210
14 establishes is that Borovcanin, when he returns to Bratunac, is not
15 returning in a space of a vacuum. He is returning to Bratunac to an area
16 that he's familiar with, to individuals which he's familiar with, that
17 are part of the political -- part of the political leadership of the
18 municipality. What P210 shows is that his association with the SDS is
19 directly related to this issue. He arrives with contacts in the
20 political establishment of Bratunac municipality, will show his
21 affiliation and association with memberships, with the membership of that
22 leadership. The Defence's claim therefore, in our view, opens the door
23 to these associations, the nature and the extent of the associations, and
24 his ability to gain information other than the information which the
25 Defence has argued. He is bound or constrained to rely on only emanating
1 from the source of the VRS commander in the area.
2 Clearly, the question of Mr. Borovcanin's associations with
3 members of the political leadership, membership -- members of the SDS, in
4 Bratunac in 1995 is responsive to this particular issue.
5 Secondarily, his association with the SDS and the political
6 leadership in Bratunac is relevant to the question of character which was
7 specifically raised during the course of the opening statement - and
8 that's at page 26654 of the transcript, where Mr. Gosnell says
10 "You are going to hear and read evidence of the good character of
11 Mr. Borovcanin."
12 And we are all familiar with the basic rules as concerns the use
13 of character evidence in criminal cases, but, fundamentally, the chief
14 concern with respect to the consideration of such character evidence has
15 to do with the potential to conflate the evidence that's used to rebut
16 the character evidence that's proffered with the crimes that are charged
17 in the case; in other words, that there might be some confusion that may
18 arises as a result of considering those underlying bad acts, uncharged
19 crimes in the context of the crimes charged.
20 What we propose here is that the evidence is relevant to the
21 extent -- what this -- well, the evidence in this case relates
22 specifically to his association with members of the SDS. It goes to his
23 closeness to the membership -- to the members of that organisation, it
24 goes to the strength of his ties, to the key players in the political
25 group, and it also goes to his association with members of the
1 organisation whom we know - and whom the evidence establishes - have a
2 clear record of criminality as concerns conduct during the course of the
3 war; specifically, Miroslav Deronjic and Radovan Karadzic.
4 Miroslav Deronjic, in fact, was said to have been a close friend of the
5 witness who testified, Ljubisav Simic, in this case. And he was said to
6 have taken care of the party about the quality composition of the
7 membership of the party, et cetera; and that and P210 specifically
8 relates to the witness's function in that respect and also establishes
9 the ties, that we submit, Mr. Borovcanin has to the organisation and the
10 individual members of the organisation that reflect on his character
12 And, in fact, Radovan Karadzic, as you know, is alleged to have
13 been a member of the JCE -- both JCEs that are alleged in the indictment
14 in this case. He obviously has very close ties to Miroslav Deronjic, who
15 was the sponsor, at least according to the document, of Mr. Borovcanin's
17 For these reasons and the more clear reasons that have to do with
18 the credibility of the witness, we submit that this evidence is clearly
19 relevant and probative. The question as to whether or not it imposes any
20 undue hardship or undue prejudice to Defence on 89(d) so as to effect the
21 administration of a fair trial is a slightly different issue; but it
22 relates to the Defence's decision to put forward a case and to put
23 forward evidence to which this document directly responds.
24 I think I will cut it short there since we are just about out of
25 time. I want to give my colleague a chance to respond.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Gosnell.
2 MR. GOSNELL: Well, Mr. President, I suppose I start in
3 auspiciously having been just several minutes ago reminded that this is a
4 hybrid Tribunal in which the concepts expressed in the rules must be
5 applied flexibly, and certainly that's an important thing for all of us
6 to remember. But nonetheless, every legal system, civil law or common
7 law, is modelled on a certain progression of presentation of charges,
8 presentation of Prosecution evidence, presentation of Defence evidence,
9 and once that evidence is actually created, a submission of arguments
10 based on that evidence which has been presented in a certain fashion.
11 And Rule 89(c) is one piece of a larger structure of the rules
12 that in fact embodies that progression. And if he start to deviate from
13 that progression in various ways by saying, Well these concepts are
14 flexible, they can be applied in different ways and different
15 circumstances, that's fine for individual cases as long as we preserve
16 that progression and that notion of orderliness. So what I am appealing
17 to you, Your Honours, to remember or to bear in mind in addressing this
18 issue is that there is a larger question of ordinariness at steak.
19 And frankly, Your Honours, I expected the submissions of the
20 Prosecution to be somewhat more anodyne and pedestrian than what I heard,
21 because what I heard quite frankly was an amend the indictment. One of
22 the key arguments that was just presented my friend is that now, I learn,
23 that Mr. Borovcanin is alleged to be involved in some kind of a JCE with
24 the political leadership in Bratunac. That was the essential argument
25 being presented by my friend opposite.
1 Now, this is nowhere to be found in the indictment and it's
2 nowhere to be found for that matter, at least in terms of any explicit
3 fashion, in the Prosecution evidence presented during its case. And this
4 is the kind of thing that is precisely what prejudices the fair trial of
5 my client. It's the introduction of this kind of argumentation without
6 having proper notice that this is what is being charged, that these are
7 the mechanisms by which a crime in which my client allegedly participated
8 are being presented. This is at the essence of what prejudices a fair
10 Now, to be quite honest with you, Mr. President, we think that we
11 have done a very good job of showing that what was alleged during the
12 cross-examination of the witness was utterly unfounded. That the
13 document does not show that the my client was a part of the SDS, that he
14 was not part of some cabal of individuals that were engaged in some
15 parallel structure of any kind. We think we have shown that quite well.
16 But the principle is important.
17 Allowing the Prosecution to introduce these new elements is
18 dangerous for the progression, the orderly progression of the trial. And
19 it's primarily on that base that we assert that Rule 89(c) has not been
21 Because the question or the conditions that are set by Rule 89(c)
22 is that there must be relevant evidence that has probative value.
23 Relevant to what and probative of what? And that's where the charges in
24 the indictment and in the pre-trial brief and in the Prosecution case are
25 concerned. That's the benchmark against which they are presenting their
2 Now, just to take the second point, moving on from the political
3 leadership argument, the second point being this character evidence
4 argument. Your Honours, we are in a non-bifurcating structure where we
5 must present character evidence in relation to the accused to the extent
6 that you are consider it in sentencing. Is the Prosecution now
7 suggesting that if we present character evidence for any purpose that now
8 means that they can present all manner of character evidence which -
9 according to my learned friend - essentially comes down to, he was
10 associating with bad people whom they identify as the SDS.
11 This is the kind of thing, that frankly is beneath the dignity, I
12 think, of the Bench. It leads to swelling of submissions in the final
13 briefs. It leads to the Chamber being flooded with all kinds of
14 arguments on essentially extraneous issues. And this is the kind of
15 issue that really burdens the Chamber and slows down the progress of the
17 Mr. President, subject to any questions you may have, those are
18 my remarks.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: The -- yes, Mr. Gosnell. At the risk of
23 evaporation. Yes, go ahead.
24 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, you may not need these additional
25 remarks, simply to say, this document concerns February 1994, three days
1 before Mr. Borovcanin left Bratunac.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
3 MR. GOSNELL: And the indictment says the JCE starts in March
4 1995, 14 months later.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. So we are handing now an oral decision both
6 as regards this document and the other one, which was - correct me if I
8 MR. GOSNELL: 3838.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: 3838. All right. We start with P3838. This
10 document we have decided will be admitted but limitedly for impeachment
11 witness purposes. P210 we are not admitting and the reasons for our
12 decision are is that we believe or we have come to the conclusion that
13 the facts that the Prosecution made reference to in substance of their
14 request for admission of this document fall outside the parameters of the
15 indictment as it refers to Mr. Borovcanin; and, therefore, we do not feel
16 that it should be admitted.
17 Having said that, before we wind up ten minutes after schedule,
18 may I, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, first of all thank you all, not
19 only Prosecution and Defence, but all our precious staff, in the
20 courtroom and behind the dark windows. I was approached yesterday by one
21 of you, who said maybe you have never seen me, but I am helping from
22 behind the stained windows. We appreciate very much all that you have
23 done throughout these months that we have been sitting after the last
24 recess. It has been a long session. I want you to believe me when I say
25 that we really appreciate all your efforts.
1 And before we all leave this courtroom for the recess, I wish to
2 wish you all and your representative loved ones and family, all the very
3 best for this festive season and for the new year which will, hopefully,
4 see the end of this trial. Have a great time, enjoy yourself, relax, and
5 rest as much as you can because still the journey is long haired, and we
6 have still got months and months to work together.
7 So happy Christmas and happy new year to all of you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
9 1.57 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the
10 12th day of January, 2009, at 9.00 p.m.