110707IT

Page 16230

1 notes that the Defence has no objection to their admission, and,

2 therefore, the Chamber decided to receive these six documents into

3 evidence.

4 Mr. Registrar, could you provide us with the numbers, please.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 5568 shall be

6 assigned Exhibit P2463. 65 ter document 5570 shall be assigned

7 Exhibit P2464. 65 ter document 5573 shall be assigned Exhibit P2465.

8 65 ter document 5579 shall be assigned Exhibit P2466.

9 65 ter document 5580 shall be assigned Exhibit P2467. And, finally,

10 65 ter document 5582 shall be assigned Exhibit P2468. Thank you.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

12 Mr. Tolimir, you may now continue your cross-examination.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

14 I would like to greet everyone present. I wish peace unto this

15 house, and may this day in court and the final judgement reflect God's

16 will. May there be -- may the proceedings end in keeping with God's

17 will, not mine.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. I will pick up where we left off yesterday concerning what

21 Chief of Staff General Rose said concerning the allegations of the

22 American service and the information that leaked from American sources to

23 the Bosnian government.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Tolimir's microphone be brought

25 closer to him, please.

Page 16231

1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Do you have information that representatives of the UNPROFOR

3 shared information with the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

4 A. No, I have no such information.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 Could we call up in e-court D189, marked for identification.

7 Thank you very much.

8 Could we rotate it.

9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10 Q. This is a dispatch from the State Security Sector in Gorazde,

11 dated 18 June. It reads:

12 "The MUP of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the

13 State Security chief." Then: "Reference." And the text goes:

14 "Concerning your request in the above telegram, we hereby advise

15 you that we conducted an interview with Colonel Roger from the BritBat."

16 And:

17 "In this interview Roger confirmed the information we had

18 received from Officer Allen and said that regrouping of aggressor forces,

19 two to three brigades strong, had been observed in the area of Trnovo.

20 He also said this should not concern us because, according to his

21 assessment, there were about 1500 to 1600 aggressor soldiers?"

22 Signed: "Midhat Senovic, chief of the State Security Sector."

23 Now, is it evident from this dispatch that BritBat intelligence

24 officers were sharing information with the BH Army, thus taking sides in

25 the conflict?

Page 16232

1 A. Yes, from this document we can see that they were in contact with

2 the BiH side and that they shared certain information with them.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Could we now call up D188, also MFI'd.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last document we just have seen on the screen

6 was MFI'd. I don't know why it was MFI'd.

7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was tendered, but not admitted into evidence

9 yet.

10 Mr. Gajic.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not translated.

12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we will tender all

13 this after Mr. Tolimir finishes his questioning, and then we would deal

14 with this issue, with your leave. Translations were missing, and there

15 were some other problems.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The other problems, I was told by the Registry,

17 were that there was no witness yet to identify and authenticate the

18 previous document. We will see whether you will tender this document

19 again.

20 Go ahead, please, Mr. Tolimir.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

22 I would now like to call up D188, also MFI'd.

23 Thank you. Now we have it on the screen. It's poorly legible.

24 It's another date from the State Security Service Sector in Gorazde,

25 dated 2nd of July, 1995. I'll quote from the first page. This is sent

Page 16233

1 to an assistant minister and head of the State Security Service in

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina:

3 "We hereby inform you that on 1st July 1995, Colonel John Riley,

4 UNPROFOR commander in Gorazde, invited us to a short informal visit,

5 indicating that he was happy to share with us some information he had

6 obtained in a telephone conversation with General Smith."

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].

8 Q. After this first quotation, can we see that this officer was

9 collecting certain intelligence while being UNPROFOR commander in Gorazde

10 in a certain way, and that he is making promises to share that

11 information which he had obtained from General Smith?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you. I quote from the second paragraph:

14 "On this occasion, Colonel John told us that Karadzic's

15 terrorists, with a view to relieving their forces around Sarajevo,

16 planned to launch an attack in the area of Sapna and Kalesija in the next

17 few days (he didn't know exactly when)."

18 It goes on to say:

19 "Further in the conversation, Colonel John indicated the

20 possibility that in the coming period, following extensive mobilisation,

21 Karadzic's terrorists were planning ..."

22 And then I can't read the text that follows. But then it says:

23 "... attack enclaves in Eastern Bosnia. According to

24 General Smith, there are two alternatives, two variants of the Chetnik

25 plans, the first to carry out an attack and take control of Srebrenica

Page 16234

1 and Zepa, which according to the Chetniks is an easier task, and the

2 other being to attack and take control of Gorazde, which is a more

3 difficult task, bearing in mind the fact that the Chetniks engaged about

4 10.000 troops in the attack on Gorazde in April 1994 without being able

5 to enter the town."

6 "We note that in a similar situation in May 1995,

7 Colonel John Riley informed us that on a specific day, Tuzla would be

8 shelled, which proved perfectly correct, and we duly informed you about

9 it."

10 My question is: Can we see from this report that the UNPROFOR

11 commander in Gorazde is sharing intelligence and information he obtained

12 through his command concerning the strength of the forces of

13 Republika Srpska, forces to which they refer as the aggressor?

14 A. Yes, correct.

15 Q. Thank you. I would have another question.

16 Did you notice in the last paragraph, it's a reference to a

17 shelling of Tuzla that is yet to happen? Is it possible to know

18 something that hasn't happened yet unless you are, yourself, involved in

19 that operation?

20 A. It's possible that you have intelligence on what is planned.

21 On -- for example, here we have information that Tuzla will be shelled in

22 the future, and this might be coming out of some intelligence. And this

23 incident then, indeed, took place, so it means that the intelligence was

24 precise. It doesn't necessarily mean that you should be involved in this

25 operation.

Page 16235

1 Q. Thank you. Can we then doubt the authenticity of this document,

2 since you've just said that there was information that turned out to be

3 accurate?

4 A. There are several ways how to prove the authenticity of any

5 document, and also, in this regard, one of the ways is also checking what

6 is written there and how accurate that is. And I can say, for this

7 document, that it looks authentic to me, yes, although it would be always

8 better to talk and -- to the source of this document first to confirm

9 exactly how it was produced, when, and by whom.

10 Q. Thank you. We would like to do that, too, but the Prosecution

11 did not bring such witnesses, and we cannot call them because they don't

12 want to come when invited by us.

13 Judge Mindua asked yesterday, after you said you doubt the

14 veracity of certain information provided by the Army of Republika Srpska,

15 he asked for what reason, and you said that you were drawn to that

16 conclusion by the fact that I said that information was sometimes

17 deliberately distorted and there was a lot of deliberate misinformation.

18 I would like to ask you: Is it quite normal and usual to try to deceive

19 and dis-inform the enemy in the course of an air battle?

20 A. I would say it's normal. But based on my expertise, which is a

21 little bit different than yours, I can't say and confirm how often would

22 that happen. So but from what I know and what I gained throughout the

23 investigation here, I know that such issues occurred as well, so -- but I

24 can't be more precise than that because I'm not a big expert in

25 intelligence -- intelligence services.

Page 16236

1 Q. Thank you. But please tell us -- the information we read

2 yesterday when you said that, that was information from the Main Staff,

3 sent exclusively to the Army of Republika Srpska. The person who

4 processed the information, are they allowed to send misinformation to

5 their own troops or are they allowed to send misinformation only to enemy

6 troops? Thank you.

7 A. I think, generally speaking, it's always better that you have or

8 you provide the accurate information to your own troops, unless you want

9 to do something which you don't want your troops would know in advance.

10 So everything is possible, but in generally speaking, yes, most

11 information, I assume, are correct which are provided to your troops.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I just would like to make one

13 remark.

14 You said:

15 "... we cannot call these witnesses because they don't want to

16 come when invited by us."

17 I think you are well informed about your rights in preparation of

18 the Defence case. There may be some reluctance by certain persons you

19 want to have in court, but you know if you call them, if you would

20 include them in your 65 ter witness list, there are measures to be taken

21 by the Court to bring them to The Hague and to testify here pursuant to

22 our Rules of Procedure and Evidence. So it's up to you to decide if you

23 want to call them. I just want to make this very clear on the record.

24 Please continue.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for these

Page 16237

1 instructions and guide-lines.

2 Could we now have D248 on e-court.

3 And before that, I tender the two documents we used. Thank you.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, can you help me? Have you ever seen

5 this document which is on the screen now and the previous one you were

6 asked about the content?

7 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's quite possible I've seen them

8 before, because they are part of the OTP collection, but I can't confirm

9 for the fact right now that these are the two that I reviewed during the

10 my work for the OTP here.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Have you any information how this document and

12 the previous one came into the possession of the OTP?

13 THE WITNESS: No, right now I can't say anything about how the

14 OTP came into possession of these documents. For that, I would need to

15 take a look into the electronic database to see how did we receive them.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know anything about Colonel John Riley?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think he was commander of the UNPROFOR

18 troops in Gorazde at the time. But, again, I would need to check and

19 confirm that, checking the records.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

21 Mr. Vanderpuye, I saw you on your feet.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think you quite covered some of my concerns,

23 Mr. President. Thank you.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What are your concerns? What is your position in

25 relation to the tendering of these two documents?

Page 16238

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: We don't have an objection to it, in light of --

2 in light of the questioning that's been conducted by the Court concerning

3 Mr. Janc' familiarity with at least some of the content of the material.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both documents will now be received into

7 evidence, D188 and D189.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these documents have been admitted

9 into evidence. Thank you.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

11 I asked for D248, point 209 of that document. Thank you. 61 in

12 English and 77 in Serbian. Thank you.

13 Thank you, Aleksandar.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] "The security of the armed forces

16 in the course of the war."

17 In item 209, we have a definition of the degree of veracity of

18 intelligence which may be accurate, probable, dubious or false. And then

19 it says:

20 "Accurate intelligence is intelligence whose credibility is

21 corroborated with evidence. In most cases, it is confirmed by several

22 sources or obtained from the gathering organs or a single reliable

23 source, or from gathering organs several times."

24 Thank you.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 16239

1 Q. As you answered this question more or less in the same way as

2 described in this book, just tell us whether you and I have given a

3 proper definition and always spoken of the veracity of documents in line

4 with the fact that they have to be corroborated in practice.

5 A. Yes, correct, I can agree with you.

6 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, there was mention here of a letter to

7 van Baal, sent by General Milovanovic. That was 65 ter, I think, 774,

8 but I'm not sure. My legal adviser will check this.

9 Please, while we are waiting for the document to come up: You

10 will recall that there was a dispute there because van Baal was detained

11 at a check-point, and he complained to General Milovanovic. My question

12 is as follows: Are you aware, as you have read the agreement on control

13 of movement on the territory of Republika Srpska, on the basis of the

14 documents you have studied, was personal property subject to inspection

15 and control? Thank you.

16 A. I'm not quite sure now. I would need to check or to see the

17 actual agreement again to find this provision there, if it is there.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. It's P2443. Can it be

19 brought up in e-court. Thank you.

20 Yesterday, it was shown as 7445. Perhaps there is a translation.

21 Now we see there's no translation. It's an UNPROFOR document written on

22 the 18th of July, 1994, where General van Baal says that on the 15th of

23 July, he was detained at the check-point. They wanted to look at his

24 personal things, and he refused. And he wrote about this, complaining to

25 General Milovanovic. Based on this, Milovanovic sent him a letter

Page 16240

1 apologising for the inconvenience he had undergone.

2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

3 Q. My question is: Based on these documents, can you answer my

4 question or do we need to look at the agreement on movement, 977 -- or,

5 rather, D77?

6 Could we look at D77 to make it easier for the witness to answer

7 the question. Thank you.

8 Thank you. We see only the English version now. Ah, here is the

9 Serbian version.

10 This document was drawn up in the Main Staff of the Sarajevo

11 Forward Command on the principles of freedom of movement. Please glance

12 through it so you can answer the questions.

13 And can you see that it says that personal property will not be

14 checked? After you've read page 1, please ask to be shown page 2. Thank

15 you.

16 A. First, before I start reading this, I would like to point out

17 this document is dated 31st of January, 1995, so it's most probably

18 agreement which entered into force after that date. And this incident

19 with General van Baal happened in July 1994, so we don't know what kind

20 of agreement was in force at that time. So I can read this and confirm

21 what's written here, but it still doesn't answer the question if this

22 was, indeed, the case, the same regulations were in place at the time of

23 the incident.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you should continue.

Page 16241

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

2 If you have read this, could we turn to page 2. Could e-court

3 show page 2, please.

4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Q. My question is as follows: Is there anything in this agreement

6 about personal property of those passing through check-points not being

7 checked? Thank you.

8 A. I think on the first page, there is a provision that goods which

9 are in vehicles together with the convoy should be checked, and if

10 anything which is not on the list approved beforehand is found can be

11 confiscated. That, I think, is a provision there. So it's not that

12 precise regarding personal belongings.

13 Q. Thank you. Are you aware of any agreement, signed on the

14 territory of the former SFRY during the war, where an exception was made

15 for personal belongings when dealing with check-points and the control of

16 goods and people passing through check-points?

17 A. I don't have any agreement in mind right now, but I do remember,

18 for example, convoy notifications and approvals from the VRS side

19 allowing, for example, the UNPROFOR staff to carry their own weapons, for

20 example, through check-points, something like that. I do remember such

21 documents.

22 Q. Thank you. My question is: Were personal weapons visible, were

23 they easy to see, and therefore they could be checked visually? You

24 would know this?

25 A. Most -- in most occasions, yes, I would say you would see these

Page 16242

1 personal weapons which is carried by -- by the soldiers. They would be

2 visible, yes, but sometimes not, because you can carry it under cover.

3 Q. Thank you. Does it say here that goods not reported beforehand

4 can be confiscated, and would concealed weapons be included?

5 A. It's difficult to say what "goods" would entail. I would say for

6 sure what was part of the transport. What was carrying through the

7 check-point, if that entail also the confiscated weapons, I'm not sure,

8 based on this document only.

9 Q. Thank you. Are you aware whether members of UNPROFOR could carry

10 three or four or five rifles into an area and then come back with only

11 one?

12 A. I don't know how much -- actually, how many rifles they could

13 carry, so I think that was part of agreement -- part of an agreement

14 between UNPROFOR and your side, so for them, to how many rifles they can

15 carry.

16 Q. Thank you. As in this case we were not dealing with weapons, but

17 personal documents, I have no further questions on this.

18 Yesterday, you were shown 65 ter 05598. I didn't manage to note

19 down the number under which it was admitted. It's 65 ter 05598.

20 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 5598 has been admitted into

21 evidence under Exhibit P2460. Thank you.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please repeat. Your microphone was

25 not switched on.

Page 16243

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 I asked for document P2460 to be brought up on the screen.

3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

4 Q. We can see this document. Yesterday, your attention was drawn by

5 the Prosecutor to line 17, where it says that there was a farewell

6 ceremony in Banja Luka for 17 retiring generals of the VRS. Do you

7 remember this?

8 A. Yes, I do remember.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Along with this document, there is

10 also P4621 [as interpreted].

11 Could we have P4621, please.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Do you recognise this document, as it was admitted into evidence

14 yesterday? It's P --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is P2461.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P2461.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do recognise it, yes.

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Please, is the title "Relieved of the Hitherto Duty and Placed at

20 the Disposal of the Yugoslav Army":

21 "Tolimir (son of Stanko) Zdravko ... born on the 27th of

22 November, 1948"?

23 So is he being pensioned off or is he being placed at the

24 disposal of the Yugoslav Army?

25 A. I think it would be better to say that he was placed at the

Page 16244

1 disposal of the Yugoslav Army, and at the same time you were relieved of

2 duty from the VRS army.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 Could we now have 05525 on the 65 ter list of the Prosecutor. I

5 didn't note down the number under which it was admitted. Thank you.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P2437. Thank you.

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. Based on this document, you confirmed that I was a major general

9 as of the year 1994; is that right?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May it be admitted into evidence?

12 Thank you.

13 Could we now have 1D00196 [as interpreted]. Thank you.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, these documents are already in

15 evidence.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 Yes, I just want the witness to see them. 1D00916. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you have given two different numbers. Could

19 you please correct -- tell us which is the correct one?

20 Mr. Gajic.

21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The last number on the transcript,

22 1D916.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25 Q. My question is: Have you found, among the documents, this decree

Page 16245

1 of the president of Republika Srpska terminating service in the Army of

2 Republika Srpska in order to retire and move to the reserve force a

3 certain number of troops and officers? One of them is General Tolimir.

4 A. Yes, I think I've seen this document before.

5 Q. Thank you. This is a document dated 17 October 1997 -- sorry,

6 1995. My question is: Can we see, from the title of the document, that

7 a general can also be transferred from active service to the reserve

8 force?

9 A. Yes, that -- that's what it says here, yes.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 I tender this document.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D916 shall be

14 assigned Exhibit D298. Thank you.

15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Q. You were shown yesterday 65 ter 05549 that received

17 Exhibit P2455.

18 May I call it up now in e-court.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is behind tab 7 of the binder we received

20 yesterday.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can see this document on the

24 screen. It says that on the 30th June, General Tolimir is standing in

25 for General Mladic and is approving a certain request.

Page 16246

1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

2 Q. My question is: Did you have any other documents to make the

3 claim that General Tolimir was standing in for General Mladic?

4 A. Apart from a document which was also drafted by the authorities

5 of the Republic of Croatia, that intelligence report, we have no other

6 documents related to this issue.

7 Q. Thank you. In this document that is before us, a document that

8 you used and the Prosecutor tried to use as a basis to prove that I was

9 standing in for General Mladic, is there any solid information about that

10 or is it just a comment by the intercept operator?

11 A. In this intercept, which is a summary, actually, of the actual

12 conversation, we only see in brackets -- I can say the comment of the

13 intercept operator, that General Tolimir is "standing in for

14 General Mladic." But we cannot conclude from that, what is in brackets,

15 if that was actually said during the conversation or how that intercept

16 operator concluded that.

17 Q. Thank you. Do you have, among your documents, reports from the

18 Main Staff dated 30th June or the next date, 31st of June, and could you

19 see on these documents who signed combat reports and other documents? Do

20 you have ERN numbers for these combat reports?

21 A. I'm sure we have a lot of documents from around these dates and

22 also, I'm sure, some from that date, and, yeah, I would need to take a

23 look into the documents, who signed them. And I think I've checked for

24 your name and I couldn't see your name as a signatory on that date,

25 except, I think, on that intelligence report.

Page 16247

1 Q. Thank you. Then we will not waste time looking for those ERN

2 numbers. If you had found them, you would have certainly provided them.

3 Let me ask you: If I was standing in for General Mladic, would

4 it have been logical for me to sign documents on his behalf as well, and

5 have you found such signatures anywhere?

6 A. Yes, it would be logical you would sign these documents for him

7 if you are standing in, but the problem here is that we certainly don't

8 have the entire collection, all documents which you produced on these

9 dates in our collection. So we have a lot of documents which are missing

10 from your collection, so we don't know, actually, what was signed on that

11 date. The second problem is that we don't need -- that we don't know,

12 from this intercept, for how long you have been standing in. Was that

13 for one day, several hours on that day, or a few consecutive days? So

14 these are the problems. And if General Mladic was missing for only a few

15 hours or one day, it's not necessary you would find any document, because

16 perhaps no documents were provided on that day that would need any

17 signature. So it's just my speculation, but we don't have any such

18 documents.

19 Q. Thank you. When the commander is not in the area of

20 responsibility, in this case Republika Srpska, whereas his chief of staff

21 is present, do you know that nobody else is allowed to stand in for the

22 commander but the chief of staff? Do you know that rule?

23 A. Yes, I think I know that rule, yes, and I'm sure that the witness

24 following me will be in a much better position to explain this, better

25 than me.

Page 16248

1 Q. We'll ask the witness who comes after you, but just tell me your

2 opinion about this.

3 P244 is the next document I would like to call up in e-court,

4 Article 10.

5 It's the wrong number. Sorry.

6 While my adviser finds the right number, let us look at

7 65 ter 05827, a document you used to try to prove what was contained in

8 the intercept.

9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Do you remember that? That's a report from the

11 Intelligence Administration of the Croatian Army from 31st July.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P2459. No, sorry, P2458.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just look now at P2458.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is off.

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Is this a report from the Intelligence Administration of the

20 Army of Croatia, dated 30th July 1995?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Let us look at paragraph 1. It reads:

23 "After the successful attack by the Croatian Army and the

24 Croatian Defence Council on the Grahovo-Glamoc front-line, and the

25 creation of prerequisites for directly threatening Knin, the local Serb

Page 16249

1 population is still obviously in fear and panic, which are intensified by

2 the news of the HV grouping forces and preparing to attack the entire RSK

3 territory."

4 According to this intelligence, did the Croatian Army attack

5 Republika Srpska and Republic of Serbian Krajina before the 30th July, as

6 this report says?

7 A. Yeah, it's possible that it was also before, but not necessarily.

8 It might be also on that day, on 30 of July.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the sake of the record, this report from the

10 Intelligence Administration is dated "Zagreb, 31st of July 1995," and

11 it's called an intelligence report for the 30th of July, 1995.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is

13 the 31st of July, then.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Let us look now at page 2, because it's important, since you said

16 that General Tolimir was sent to Glamoc and Grahovo because they had been

17 captured.

18 We can now see it.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the English, it should be page 3, I suppose.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It's

21 page 3.

22 Thank you, Aleksandar.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Let us look at this section headed "Bosanska Grahovo and Glamoc

25 area." Let us look at the fifth paragraph below the heading. It says:

Page 16250

1 "During the day, General Tolimir (chief of security) and

2 General Djukic (assistant commander for logistics) from the VRS

3 Main Staff have been sent to the Grahovo-Glamoc front-line in order to

4 consolidate the situation and undertake measures to consolidate the

5 forces. For this purpose, a special team will be set up on the -- in the

6 assembly area of the 2nd Krajina Corps in Drvar, in keeping with the

7 directive of Mr. Karadzic."

8 It says --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters be given the next page

10 in English.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. It goes on to say:

13 "In addition to staffing reinforcements in the command of the SVK

14 and VRS commands, these commands carried out activities to prepare and

15 bring in reinforcement to ensure conditions for launching a

16 counter-attack on HV forces ..."

17 Et cetera.

18 Can we see from this that Tolimir was, indeed, sent to the area

19 of Grahovo and Glamoc?

20 A. Yes, it's written there that you were sent along with

21 General Djukic.

22 Q. Thank you. Is it an unlawful activity to send two generals into

23 their native places in order to organise forces for defence against the

24 Croatian aggression that had been launched at the time against Grahovo

25 and Glamoc? Would that be illegal, wrong?

Page 16251

1 A. No, there is nothing wrong with it. I think it is legitimate.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at the next page

3 of this document.

4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Let us look at the next page, because this document no longer

6 refers to the units of the Army of Republika Srpska. It deals, down

7 below, with units of the Croatian Army.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page do you want to have on the screen?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone, please, microphone.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last page. The last page, to

12 see who signed the document.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's the penultimate page in English.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Was this signed by the chief of the Intelligence Service of the

16 Croatian Army, Rear Admiral Davor Domazet, also known as Loso?

17 A. On the document, we can see a typed signature of this individual,

18 yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Can we see on this page that the document was sent to

20 a number of addresses, officials and leaders of the Croatian Army and the

21 defence ministry?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The Prosecutor asked you, in examination-in-chief, whether

24 authenticity is also confirmed that it was sent -- by the fact that it

25 was sent to a number of persons. My question is: Can the veracity of

Page 16252

1 anything be judged on the basis of the number of addressees or does it

2 have to be confirmed by double-checking and further corroborating

3 information?

4 A. It is always better to be confirmed by double-checking and

5 further corroborating.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Could we now look at a report dated 30th July that you also

8 used -- or the 31st July that was also used by the Prosecution to prove

9 authenticity. 65 ter 7450, that's the number I noted down. I'm not sure

10 if it's correct.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P2456.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 This is a report from 1 July 1995. We can see the Croatian word

14 for "July" here. Let us see the second page now, where it says

15 "Bosnian Grahovo and Glamoc area." Thank you.

16 Q. The subheading is "Other Activities." It says:

17 "After our meeting with the commander of the UN forces for

18 ex-Yugoslavia, General Brinkman, on 29 June in Zvornik, General Mladic

19 left for Belgrade and, during that day, spent time at the Main Staff of

20 the Army of Yugoslavia. During his stay in Belgrade, he is also

21 scheduled for a medical check-up at the Military Medical Academy because

22 of Mladic's kidney problems. In his absence, General Mladic will be

23 replaced by the chief of staff -- by the chief of security of the

24 Main Staff of the VRS, General Tolimir."

25 Those people who are making this claim, do they have any grounds

Page 16253

1 for it or are they just blindly accepting the comment made by the

2 intercept operator? Have you seen any primary-source document on this?

3 A. From information we can see on the screen now, we can't say what

4 was the source for the Government of Croatia to put this information into

5 this intelligence report, so we can't say was that, for example, an

6 intercept or any other independent intelligence, other information they

7 obtained through other means.

8 Q. Thank you. Tell me, does one appoint a replacement if one is

9 just going for a medical check-up? Is it something that takes a long

10 time or is it just a very brief absence, perhaps shorter than the meeting

11 General Mladic had in Belgrade?

12 A. I can't say for how long this medical check would be needed, so

13 it might be several hours or even shorter or longer period.

14 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't receive any interpretation at the

16 moment.

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's apology. We did not turn on

18 the microphone.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please repeat, Mr. Tolimir.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was asking: Has the witness

21 found any documents, in his capacity as investigator, from which we could

22 see what General Mladic was doing the next day? Did he have any

23 communication with the commanders, and UNPROFOR, and other forces in his

24 area of responsibility?

25 THE WITNESS: I would need to double-check that. I'm sure I've

Page 16254

1 seen some reports or some information that he is back at the beginning of

2 July already. But for exact dates and exact information, I would need to

3 take a look into further documents.

4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Q. Have you perhaps seen a document saying that General Mladic

6 returned the very next day and pursued his regular activities after that

7 medical check-up at the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade?

8 A. I can't recall that document right now, but if you have it

9 available, I would like to see it and I can comment it on if I came

10 across this document before.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

13 Just briefly, I noted that at page -- at the end of page 27, line

14 25, into page 28, line 2, the witness stated that he had some information

15 that General Mladic was back at the beginning of July already. And in

16 the context of this line of questioning, we're talking already about the

17 end of July, so I just wanted to clarify that. My inclination is that

18 the witness was -- meant to say the end of August, but maybe he can

19 clarify that just so the record is clear. Or, rather, the beginning of

20 August, I think.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Janc, could you clarify that? To which date

22 or time-period were you referring?

23 THE WITNESS: I was correct, actually. I was referring to July,

24 and I still think that you're talking about July, because the document in

25 front of us is dated 29 of June, when he's going to Belgrade. So he's

Page 16255

1 back in Bosnia at the beginning of July.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

3 Mr. Tolimir, are you able to finish your cross-examination before

4 the break? We started a bit later, so that we are now -- we should have

5 the break five minutes before 4.00. I just want to inquire your

6 position. How much additional time do you need?

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's better to go on the break, and

8 then after the break I have perhaps just two or three more questions, if

9 you allow me. But if you don't allow it, I can finish now, since the

10 witness has answered this question.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's no need to stop you in your

12 cross-examination. I just wanted to inquire if it's better to have the

13 break now or if you're able to finish.

14 We will take our break now, and we will resume 20 minutes past

15 4.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

20 I would like e-court to show P2458, document P2458. Thank you.

21 Please, for the sake of the record, let us say that this is

22 information dated the 31st of July, as it says here.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. So that's July; is that right? Thank you.

25 A. Yes, for this document, it's dated 31st of July, 1995.

Page 16256

1 Q. Thank you. Could we look at page 2 now. Thank you. It's page 3

2 in English.

3 In the third paragraph, can we also see that it says, the 30th of

4 July:

5 "The communications system between Knin and Drvar which

6 previously also included Grahovo and Glamoc, attempts are being made to

7 redirect it, and this system must be ready to work by 2400 hours on 30th

8 of July"?

9 A. Yes, correct.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now have the

11 next page. Thank you.

12 So let's look at page 4 in the Serbian language and page 8 in

13 English so as to avoid discussing areas not covered by the

14 examination-in-chief. Thank you.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone, please.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Let's look at the chapter dealing with the 7th Knin Corps. It

19 says here, in the last paragraph:

20 "With regard to providing security during the visit by

21 General Mladic and Patriarch Pavle, a police unit (company) from Knin has

22 not been sent to the Dinara area (Jancija Glava - elevation 1525), and it

23 is estimated that it will be sent to the said area after the

24 above-mentioned officials arrive."

25 My question is as follows: Is it evident from this that

Page 16257

1 General Mladic visited Knin immediately after being in Belgrade,

2 according to what it says here?

3 A. According to what it says in this document, which is from 31st of

4 July, 1995, we can see that and conclude that General Mladic was in Knin

5 area. But what we cannot say from this document is that he was in

6 Belgrade before -- just before that. He was in Belgrade at the end of

7 June 1995, based on the previous document, so it's one month of

8 difference.

9 Q. Thank you, all right. And can you see what it says here, "The

10 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska"? It's the next page in

11 English.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Does it say that on the 31st of July, a meeting would be held in

14 Mrkonjic Grad between General Mladic and General Smith? Thank you.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to page 2 now. Thank you. It's page 3

17 in English. Thank you.

18 In the third -- or, rather, fourth paragraph, it says:

19 "During the day, General Tolimir (chief of security) and

20 General Djukic (assistant commander for logistics) from the Main Staff

21 have been sent to the Grahovo-Glamoc front-line in order to consolidate

22 the situation and undertake measures to consolidate the forces."

23 So that's the 2nd Corps in Drvar. Does it transpire from this

24 that General Tolimir and General Mladic were on the territory of the

25 Drvar Corps together on those dates, the dates mentioned here?

Page 16258

1 A. I can't say from the document that they were down there together,

2 but they were both at that area at around same time, end of July, on

3 30 July and 31st of July, 1995.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Could we now see 296, D -- 2D26 [as interpreted], page 16 in

6 Serbian and English.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please repeat the number.

8 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We didn't receive the English translation of the

10 number. Please repeat.

11 Mr. Gajic, you may help us.

12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] D296.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. As we can see, it is the interview you had with Mile Micic, and

16 it says here: "I am Dusan Janc," where you are introducing yourself.

17 And you mentioned this yesterday in the course of your examination.

18 Thank you.

19 So now look at page 16, please. Thank you.

20 We can see the first page here -- or, rather, page 16 - thank

21 you - the first paragraph, where it says Mile Micic, whom you

22 interviewed, was asked how long the operation lasted, and he says:

23 "... I don't know exactly, but maybe around seven to ten days."

24 So he's speculating, he's speculating about the time-period.

25 "... until the moment when Grahovo and Glamoc fell, and I think

Page 16259

1 that was at the end of July or the very beginning of August. Then, from

2 Boksanica or from the surroundings of Zepa, we went to Banja Luka or

3 Drvar."

4 Do you recall that Mile Micic said this to you when you were

5 interviewing him in the OTP premises in Sarajevo in 2009? Thank you.

6 A. Yes, I do remember that, and I can confirm that he said that

7 during the interview.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told that perhaps some translation issue

11 was on the first page. As you are just dealing with dates of this

12 interview in 2009, you should have a look on pages 1 in both versions and

13 to check if there's anything wrong with it.

14 If you look at the headline, it is said "Interview with

15 Mile Micic Conducted in the OSCE Offices in Banja Luka on the 24th of

16 August, 2009." In the B/C/S, it is the 17th of November, 2009. There

17 seems to be a certain inconsistency.

18 First, Mr. Gajic - he was the first on his feet - and then

19 Mr. Vanderpuye.

20 Mr. Gajic.

21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we noticed the

22 discrepancy. Mr. Elderkin from the OTP told me a few days ago that this

23 is a mistranslation. Perhaps the witness could clarify on what date this

24 interview was held, whether it was the 17th of November or the 24th of

25 August.

Page 16260

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

2 Mr. Vanderpuye.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 That is my understanding as well. I had a chance to speak to

5 Mr. Elderkin a few days ago, but I think the date, as you can see in the

6 text of the interviews, themselves, is translated -- is properly

7 reflected in the content of the interview, rather than in the headings

8 respectively.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, we see at the beginning "EG," it seems to

10 be Erin Gallagher - is referring to November the 17th at 3.10 in the

11 afternoon.

12 Mr. Janc, do you recall when this interview was conducted?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. From -- it was on 17 November

14 2009, and it was conducted at the Sarajevo Field Office, not in

15 Banja Luka.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The field office is located in Sarajevo; is that

17 correct?

18 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

20 After this clarification, you may continue, Mr. Tolimir.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would

22 like to thank everyone.

23 Let's go back to page 16 now, which we were looking at before

24 this intervention.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 16261

1 Q. You go on to ask Mile Micic:

2 "Just the two of you?"

3 He says:

4 "We went to Banja Luka or Drvar."

5 He says:

6 "Just the two of you?"

7 He says: "Yes."

8 You say:

9 "And how long did you stay at that area, then?"

10 "At which area?" he said.

11 And you said:

12 "To Banja Luka and Drvar."

13 And he says:

14 "All the time until the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed,

15 because the general was in -- I don't want to say team, but in that

16 delegation. He left some 10 days before the Dayton Peace Agreement was

17 signed, and I returned from that area sometime around the 1st of

18 December."

19 Please, tell me, do you recall that the witness said this, and

20 can you confirm that this is what he actually told you? Thank you.

21 A. Yes, I do recall that, and I can confirm that's what he told us.

22 And everything can be double-checked because this interview was

23 tape-recorded, so everything is on a tape.

24 Q. Thank you. We ask you this because this witness left earlier

25 because of some problems. He was not cross-examined, so we didn't get

Page 16270

1 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:

2 Q. Could you state your name for the record, please?

3 A. Yes, sir. My name is Richard Butler.

4 Q. And can you tell us, what is your current work and profession?

5 A. I am an intelligence officer. I am currently employed by the US

6 Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,

7 where I work as the intelligence operations manager for the Human Rights

8 Violators and War Crimes Unit.

9 Q. All right. And I am going to remind myself and you that we need

10 to go a little bit slower than we, frankly, have done before, because, as

11 you know, General Tolimir is representing himself and is an active

12 participant, unlike the other cases, where there has been an attorney

13 that spoke English. So I will try to delay, and we will both try to do

14 that.

15 And if we could --

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And especially you should both pause between

17 question and answer. That's the most important thing.

18 THE WITNESS: I understand, sir.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, if we could go to 65 ter 7436.

20 Q. This is a new 65 ter number, but it's your updated resume that

21 you did for us recently. I won't go through it completely. I see that

22 you've done a summary of your professional background as a professional

23 intelligence officer, and we'll get to that. But you've just told us

24 what your current job is for the United States. Can you tell us how long

25 you have had that -- you worked for that organisation, and just,

Page 16271

1 basically, what your job has been.

2 A. I began with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in February of

3 2004, and shortly thereafter I started working human rights violator

4 cases, as they're known in our law enforcement vernacular. I've been

5 doing that more or less full time now since about 2006.

6 Q. And what was your job before that?

7 A. Before that, not only did I do human rights violator cases, but I

8 would also work more traditional law enforcement issues; for example,

9 human smuggling and trafficking, other such crimes. But because of my

10 unique background, in part from my time here at the ICTY, and my military

11 intelligence background, clearly my current employers believed I was more

12 suited to be doing war crimes full time than other forms of criminal

13 activity.

14 Q. So who did you -- what organisation did you work for before the

15 United States Government?

16 A. Before the United States Government employed me, I was an analyst

17 for the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor for a total of almost seven years.

18 Q. All right. And we'll get into that in more detail, but can you

19 tell us -- you used the vernacular "human rights violator" cases that

20 you're involved in. Can you tell us what that involves and your role in

21 it?

22 A. That phrase is how we define investigations that are conducted by

23 our agency relating to individuals who have committed human rights

24 violations or war crimes in other countries prior to coming to the United

25 States, where they have gained some form of immigration benefit. And in

Page 16272

1 conducting -- in committing those crimes, they're not eligible for those

2 benefits under our law, so it is, in part, the job of our agency to

3 investigate those allegations. And when we can confirm those

4 allegations, we bring either criminal or administrative proceedings

5 against the accused in order to strip him or her of the immigration

6 benefits that were derived by misrepresenting facts related to their

7 involvement in those kinds of crimes. It could be as simple as, you

8 know, individual acts of persecution. In some cases, it could be denying

9 their involvement in acts of genocide.

10 Q. And in your work now, several years for the United States that

11 you've just described, were you involved in the investigation and

12 prosecution of anyone that had been involved in war crimes in Bosnia?

13 A. Yes, sir, I have.

14 Q. And can you give us any -- a brief example of one -- one case

15 that was -- that you were involved in and that was prosecuted by the

16 United States?

17 A. Yes, sir. Perhaps one of the better examples is the case of an

18 individual named Marko Boskic, who, in July of 1995, was a member of the

19 10th Sabotage Detachment and was one of the individuals who directly

20 participated in the executions at Branjevo Farm. Following his

21 involvement in those crimes by a number of years, he made his way to the

22 United States and ultimately became a lawful permanent resident. As a

23 result of investigation that was undertaken by our agency and other law

24 enforcement agencies, we were able to criminally prosecute him for the

25 crimes related to his lying on immigration applications to gain that

Page 16273

1 legal permanent resident status. He was convicted of those crimes. He

2 served a jail sentence in the United States and has subsequently then

3 been removed by our agency back to his home jurisdiction, Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina, where he subsequently has pleaded guilty to his involvements

5 in those crimes as he was charged by the Bosnian State War Crimes Court.

6 So that particular case gives a good representation of the scope of the

7 work of our unit, in general, and my work, in particular.

8 Q. Well, can you briefly describe what role you played in that? And

9 we will, of course, get to your fundamental back -- you know, your

10 education and your background, but just tell us where you fit into

11 that -- to that investigation and/or prosecution.

12 A. My role, specifically, and with our intelligence people, in

13 general, is to provide the necessary background expertise to allow for

14 our special agents to investigate the case properly, what areas that they

15 should focus on. In my particular case, because of my detailed knowledge

16 of Srebrenica, I obviously brought a good amount of information to the

17 table in this particular case and, following that, worked with

18 United States attorneys who are prosecuting the case in Boston. And

19 ultimately in that case, I also testified as an expert witness as to the

20 circumstances related to the Branjevo Farm massacres.

21 Q. And have you testified as an expert on Bosnia and former Yugoslav

22 issues in the United States in other cases?

23 A. Yes, sir, I have.

24 Q. And have you testified as an expert in this Tribunal before?

25 A. Yes, sir. This is my fifth occasion.

Page 16274

1 Q. Can you tell us what the other cases were that you testified as

2 an expert in?

3 A. I testified initially in the case of the Prosecutor versus

4 General Krstic. I testified as an expert in the case of the Prosecutor

5 versus Blagojevic and Jokic. I testified in the case of Popovic et al.

6 I testified in the case of the Prosecutor and -- versus Perisic. And so

7 this is my fifth time in these courtrooms.

8 Q. And have you testified as an expert in the State Court of Bosnia?

9 A. Yes, sir, I have.

10 Q. All right. I would like now to -- let's turn the page. It

11 should be page 3 in English, where we go beyond your experience for the

12 United States, and we start to talk about your experience in the

13 United States Army. In fact, let's go to page 4. I want to work -- I

14 want to work backwards and work up towards your job for the OTP. And --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page in B/C/S?

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's page 6.

17 Q. And it begins with the August 1981 through January 1989, various

18 intelligence-related assignments as an enlisted soldier and, later,

19 non-commissioned officer in the US Army.

20 So can you tell us, did you enlist in the army at that time?

21 A. Yes, sir. I enlisted in August of 1981.

22 Q. And briefly describe, very briefly, those first eight years.

23 A. Briefly, those eight years were a mixture of intelligence

24 postings at various military units, some of them strategic intelligence

25 units, some of them tactical ground units, where I learned my profession

Page 16275

1 at the very -- from the very bottom starting up, serving first as an

2 enlisted soldier, then as a non-commissioned officer. That is -- that is

3 the developmental, you know, plan, so that's where they sent me for the

4 first eight years.

5 Q. And how old were you when you first enlisted in the army?

6 A. Goodness. Twenty.

7 Q. And what was your grade or rank, if you could call it?

8 A. I started as a private first class.

9 Q. Like everyone else?

10 A. Pretty much.

11 Q. And by the end of those eight years, until we get to the next

12 segment on your CV, what was your rank or position?

13 A. When I finally left the non-commissioned officer corps and was

14 appointed a warrant officer, I was a staff-sergeant.

15 Q. Can you tell us, again briefly, what the difference is between a

16 non-commissioned officer and a -- what you've just described as a warrant

17 officer?

18 A. In the United States Army, the grades are broken down; enlisted

19 soldiers, non-commissioned officers and officers. Officers -- at some

20 juncture, all officers will hold a commission. In my particular field as

21 a warrant officer, I'm not immediately commissioned. We are appointed to

22 that position. And once being appointed for several years, I received my

23 commission.

24 Q. Let me interrupt. What's the difference between an appointment

25 and a commission?

Page 16276

1 A. Functionally, there's no difference at all. It is just a

2 holdover of the military tradition in one part, and in a second part it

3 is a recognition that as I make that jump from the non-commissioned

4 officer corps to the officer corps, it might not be permanent. If I fail

5 to perform in the requisite manner, that appointment can be withdrawn and

6 I would find myself reverted back to the non-commissioned officer corps.

7 Q. As a --

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

9 THE INTERPRETER: We can't hear a thing, if Mr. Gajic is saying

10 something.

11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps you can see

12 that I'm on my feet for a long time after Mr. McCloskey and the witness

13 are finishing speaking. The transcript is about six to seven lines ahead

14 of the interpretation into B/C/S, so I would appreciate it if the witness

15 and the Prosecutor would slow down a little, especially when using

16 specialised terminology, because the interpreters find it sometimes hard.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this information. We are not able

18 to listen to the B/C/S translation, and, therefore, it is appreciated

19 that you draw the attention to that fact.

20 I realise that you, Mr. McCloskey, were talking quite slowly, but

21 Mr. Butler should slow down a bit --

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- and pause between question and answer.

24 Please carry on.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY:

Page 16277

1 Q. We left off, I believe, where you had been a non-commissioned

2 officer, as a sergeant, and you went into the ranks of the warrant

3 officer. And can you explain, as a warrant officer, is that -- does that

4 have the equivalent of any rank -- officer rank that we're used to

5 hearing in every day parlance?

6 A. It does, and it is, in fact, a rank in -- recognised in the

7 United States Army. Warrant officers are the technical experts of the

8 army in various fields. We have different career paths from other

9 officers, which is primarily designed to allow us to specialise in very

10 narrow fields. So in that way, we're different from other officers who

11 will take a more general career path and have a much broader range of

12 experiences, many of them which will not even be related to the field

13 that they specialise in, but will still require their officers

14 experience.

15 Q. So does it make any sense to compare you at all to a lieutenant,

16 for example?

17 A. No, it does not. I mean, in the grade of rank, the highest

18 warrant officer is still not superior to the youngest lieutenant.

19 However, in the function of position, a US Army second lieutenant will be

20 an individual who is 22 or 23 years old, with very little actual

21 experience and training, in the beginning of his developmental cycle in

22 the army, where a warrant officer will be someone who already has 10, 15

23 or 20 years, perhaps even more for the senior warrant officers, in the

24 developmental cycle in their specific field.

25 Q. All right. We -- looking at your CV, we see that from February

Page 16278

1 1989 to 1992, you call yourself a Warrant -- you were a Warrant Officer

2 1, and later a Chief Warrant Officer 2, and your job description was that

3 of an all-source evidence technician.

4 A. It should read "intelligence technician."

5 Q. Can you tell us what an all-source intelligence technician --

6 what was your job?

7 A. My job at that particular period was to analyse information that

8 would come in from all aspects of either formal intelligence collection

9 or other forms of information that, as a military unit, we would gain as

10 part of our activities, traditional intelligence sources such as human

11 intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence. It would --

12 non-traditional sources, such as the evaluation of open-source or

13 publicly-available information that we would get from magazines or other

14 military types of documents that were not necessarily classified but are

15 part of a military's -- they produce them. So in that sense, it is all

16 source. I was expected to be proficient in my ability to analyse and

17 synthesise the information from all of those various disciplines of

18 intelligence collection.

19 Q. Now, I know from the record and from -- as the Defence is aware,

20 we are not allowed to get into -- nor is it particularly relevant to get

21 into the specifics of your intel work in the field. But generally, were

22 you doing this work of analysing this material ever in a combat zone,

23 during armed conflict?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. And can you give us, roughly, the years that you would have been

Page 16279

1 working in and around a combat zone in an armed conflict?

2 A. In this particular context, it would be, I guess, what is now

3 referred to as the first Gulf War. We called it Desert Storm back then.

4 So that would be 1991, I believe, 1990-1991.

5 Q. And were you in the field in the Gulf?

6 A. Yes, sir. I was taken from the 3rd Infantry Division, and I was

7 re-subordinated or attached, if you were, to the headquarters of

8 United States 7th Corps which had already deployed to South-West Asia.

9 So I joined the unit there.

10 Q. Okay. You've mentioned the kinds of materials that an all-source

11 evidence technician analyses, but tell us for what purpose. What are you

12 analyse -- just roughly, without specifics, what are you analysing, for

13 what purpose, and who, if anyone, does your analysis or conclusions go

14 to?

15 A. The work that I did, specifically, given the context of the

16 Gulf -- the first Gulf War, was to essentially analyse the combat

17 dispositions and operations of the Iraqi Army for the purpose of

18 targeting them and destroying their military capability during our

19 offensive operations. As with any other military intelligence

20 professional in our army, our ultimate customer is our commander, so the

21 intelligence products that we worked on and that we produced were for the

22 benefit of our commanders in order to make their precise plans and to,

23 you know, as effectively and efficiently as possible, defeat the enemy.

24 Q. And did you write reports for your command?

25 A. My reports were both written and -- when time did not allow for

Page 16280

1 them to be written, I gave verbal situation reports, not only to my

2 command but, as required, to subordinate commands.

3 Q. And during that wartime experience, can you describe the kinds of

4 an all-source evidence that you were able to see and analyse, and was it

5 similar to the material you've previously described?

6 A. Yes, sir. Obviously, for a time the Iraqi military used radio

7 communications, and there was intelligence derived from that. We had

8 access to human intelligence, both in the form of civilians who would

9 cross the lines and would provide us information as to where Iraqi

10 military forces were dug in and in what strength, as well as once the

11 actual conflict started, access to Iraqi prisoners of war, who would be

12 debriefed, and we would then take their information and use it for our

13 intelligence purposes. We obviously had access to imagery products,

14 being that it was a desert, so we had an ability to use imagery in order

15 to physically see the dispositions of the enemy forces. So in that

16 context, that was the all-source analysis and production methodology.

17 Q. How about documents, Iraqi military, political, or civilian

18 documents; did you have access to any kind of material like that for your

19 analysis?

20 A. Yes, sir. Certainly after our offensive operations started and

21 we began over-running Iraqi military positions and command posts, we had

22 access to Iraqi military documents, operations orders, map graphics,

23 which we would get immediately translated. And then using that

24 information for our intelligence purposes, analyse it, process it, and

25 get that information out to our corps commander, as well as the

Page 16281

1 subordinate commands, so they had a more accurate picture of the enemy

2 dispositions and what their military intentions were.

3 Q. All right. I think that will cover it for the US Army for me.

4 We can refer to the CV for anything else. I now want to get to: How was

5 it and when was it that you came to the Office of the Prosecutor of the

6 ICTY.

7 A. I came to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY in April of

8 1997 as a, at that time, Chief Warrant Officer 3. The United States

9 Government essentially seconded me to the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor

10 in order to assist the Office of the Prosecutor in analysing

11 military-related information in order to assist their investigators and

12 their Prosecutors.

13 Q. And how long did you stay employed by the US Army? At some

14 point, did you make a change?

15 A. My initial assignment was scheduled to be two years. Because of

16 circumstances related to the Srebrenica investigation, it lasted five.

17 At that point, I had reached the 20-year mark of military service and was

18 eligible for -- and I retired from active military service. At that

19 point in time, the Office of the Prosecutor then hired me as a UN civil

20 servant, I guess is the term of art, where I served from September 2001

21 to, essentially, November of 2003 as a UN employee, working the same job

22 as I had before.

23 Q. Now, which case did you primarily work on during your time at the

24 OTP?

25 A. The bulk of my professional work related to the

Page 16282

1 Srebrenica-related cases that were under investigation and later trial by

2 the Office of the Prosecutor.

3 Q. All right. Having in mind the description you just gave us of

4 the kind of materials you analysed and reported on in combat for the

5 United States Army, can you tell us, your work for the Srebrenica

6 investigation and case, did it involve anything in terms of similar

7 material or analysis?

8 A. The work was remarkably similar to what I had done in the US

9 Army. Initially, when I joined the investigation in probably around

10 May/early June of 1997, most of the information related to what I would

11 refer to as open-source information; magazine articles, newspaper

12 articles, news videos that would depict aspects of the crime scene.

13 Later, following searches by members of the Office of the Prosecutor of

14 various military units, we gained access to military documents from

15 various units of the Army of the Republika Srpska, particularly the

16 Bratunac Brigade, the Zvornik Brigade, and some related to the

17 Drina Corps. We then gained access to intercepted Bosnian Serb Army

18 communications that were taken by the Bosnian Muslim military forces in

19 and around July of 1995, so we actually had communications intelligence

20 related to that. And, finally, I think we started, in 1997, getting

21 access to interview military officers who were in official positions in

22 July of 1995 related to Srebrenica, so we were able to interview them to

23 have them fill in many of the blanks, to get their statements, so to

24 speak. So in that context, much of the work that I did here for the

25 Office of the Prosecutor is exactly what I did for the United States

Page 16283

1 Army.

2 Q. And when you say "military officers," primarily, were they from

3 one side?

4 A. For the most part, these were military officers from the Army of

5 Republika Srpska.

6 Q. And in your analysis work for the Office of the Prosecutor, did

7 you get imagery products?

8 A. Yes, sir. I am aware that the US Government, as part of their

9 role in cooperating with the work of the Tribunal, had made available

10 various overhead imagery products related to various aspects of the

11 Srebrenica crime base, most of them pertaining to the locations of

12 suspected mass graves, some of them actually showing photographs of

13 groups of individuals who we later came to learn were captured prisoners.

14 Q. Did you, yourself, ever actively take part in the interview of

15 officers of the Army of Republika Srpska?

16 A. Yes, sir, I did.

17 Q. And what was your function?

18 A. In a manner similar to what I do today, the first part of my job

19 would be to work with the investigator who would be conducting the

20 interview to bring that investigator fully up to speed with all the

21 information that we had on an individual officer and what we believed his

22 role might have been during the relevant period. The interviewer would

23 then conduct, in most cases, the first part of the interview. At some

24 point, if there were a particular military issue that needed to be

25 explored or the answers that we were hearing were not answers that we had

Page 16284

1 prepared for or had anticipated, the interviewer would ask me to step in

2 and take over various parts of the interview in order to clarify issues

3 or in order to deal with particularly technical issues of a military

4 officer interview.

5 Q. As part of your analysis of materials for the Office of the

6 Prosecutor, did you review any laws related to armed conflict in the

7 former Yugoslavia and any military regulations/rules that you believed or

8 were possibly in effect at the time of the war in the former Yugoslavia?

9 A. Yes, sir, I've reviewed a great deal of those.

10 Q. And did you write any reports for the Office of the Prosecutor

11 based on your analysis and review and involvement in the investigations

12 and knowledge gained?

13 A. Yes, sir, I've drafted a number of reports for the Office of the

14 Prosecutor.

15 Q. And can you go over just those reports briefly? And I mean, very

16 briefly, because we all know that much of those reports are made up of

17 the documents that we're going over. So if we could just -- so if you

18 could first tell us what report you started off with, and what it was,

19 and what its purpose was.

20 A. My original two reports were the Srebrenica military narrative

21 and the corps command responsibility report. In the particular context

22 of the time, the accused was General Radislav Krstic, so the purpose of

23 the corps command report was to examine the role of a corps commander

24 within the Army of the Republika Srpska. And this report dealt with all

25 of the structural, legal and military aspects of what it means to be a

Page 16285

1 corps commander in a particular army, including what his duties and

2 responsibilities were under the relevant law that the Army of the

3 Republika Srpska was operating under, as well as the broader Law of War

4 or International Humanitarian Law, which was also applicable to

5 General Krstic at the time.

6 The Srebrenica military narrative was designed to place the

7 relevant military documents that were in the possession of the Office of

8 the Prosecutor in the context of the crime base and the military events

9 that occurred related to Srebrenica. So the initial report was focused

10 primarily from the period of 4 July to, roughly, 20 July 1995, and it

11 essentially tells, in the form of a narrative, what various military

12 documents and orders were issued at various times and how they relate to

13 situations on the ground. And in that context of military documents, I

14 also referred to the military intercepts from the BiH which also were

15 integrated into that picture.

16 Q. Did you cite and integrate into this narrative any statements of

17 survivor witnesses or, as you've, I think, said, crime-base witnesses?

18 A. As a matter of practice here, I did not, or only did so to the

19 absolute minimum degree required in order to set a particular crime so

20 there would be some context. Unique to this situation in the legal

21 aspect of this, as opposed to my own military one, you know, I am aware

22 that many of these witnesses will obviously be testifying before the

23 Tribunal and will give their own evidence, so I did not feel it was my

24 place to incorporate their testimony from statements in any way into

25 that, since that is, obviously, you know, more properly the role of the

Page 16286

1 Court, not an analyst. So by design, wherever possible, I did not use

2 statements from military officials that were interviewed. In the case of

3 survivors, I only used it in order to set the context of a particular

4 crime scene. For example, you have to have the statement of accounting

5 of survivors from Orahovac to know when it happened and where in order to

6 allow for the military documents and the communications intercepts to

7 make any sense relating to that particular crime base.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. I see that it's break time, and this,

9 I think, would be a good time.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We must have our second break now, and we will

11 resume in half an hour, quarter past 6.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, please continue.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

16 Q. Mr. Butler, you just briefly described your original narrative

17 and your original command report on the corps for the Krstic case. Can

18 you tell us, going as far back as Krstic, was the -- was there an issue

19 in that case regarding the role of the corps commander and the role of

20 the corps security officer, as well as the Main Staff security officer,

21 their various roles and inter-relationships? Was that an issue in the

22 Krstic case and in your command report and testimony?

23 A. Yes, sir. It was one of the primary themes of the Krstic

24 defence.

25 Q. And can you just briefly tell us what you believed the theme of

Page 16287

1 the Krstic defence was that you were -- that you were dealing with, not

2 so much that that's an issue, but what were you dealing with, what was

3 your perception of that defence that you had to deal with in your reports

4 and your testimony?

5 A. The specific issues raised revolved around the assertions by

6 General Krstic that, first of all, during the period he was not the corps

7 commander and, secondly, that the Main Staff and security officers,

8 exercising independent authorities, essentially hijacked the Drina Corps

9 intelligence and security apparatus and the subordinate brigade security

10 apparatus, and used them to commit the crimes, and as the commander, he

11 had both -- or, actually, not even as the commander, but in the

12 alternative, as the commander he had no knowledge, or no responsibility

13 even if he had did have knowledge. So it was in that context where I

14 laid out, as part of the corps command responsibility report, what his

15 nominal role would have been as the commander, also as the chief of

16 staff, during the various period, as well as the laws, rules and

17 regulations of the military and how they pertained to both the functions

18 of command as well as the functions of security within the Army of the

19 Republika Srpska.

20 Q. And what sources were you able to look at to determine what a

21 commander's responsibilities would have been in the VRS, or a security

22 officer's responsibilities were? What did you look at?

23 A. The initial sources, as they were obtained by the Office of the

24 Prosecutor, were former operational regulations or manuals from the

25 former Yugoslav national army. One of the working early theses that we

Page 16288

1 had, as analysts, was that, to the largest degree possible, the Army of

2 the Republika Srpska was following the rules, regulations and doctrines

3 of the former Yugoslav national army that had then dissolved by then.

4 Those rules, regulations and manuals lay out, in a good sense of detail,

5 the roles and responsibilities of command as well as the roles and

6 responsibilities of those involved in security and intelligence.

7 Q. Now, this Trial Chamber has seen, as part of this case, quite a

8 few JNA, Peoples -- the army you referred to, JNA rules regarding

9 command, security, and other key points. You said it was a working

10 thesis. After your ability and the investigation's ability to interview

11 VRS officers, have you reached a conclusion whether or not those JNA

12 rules and regulations were actually used or not used by the VRS?

13 A. Yes, sir. I mean, very early on in the interview process, we

14 were able to confirm that information as we would interview these various

15 officers, who told us that these were still in use, and further as we

16 obtained military documents from the Army of the Republika Srpska, from

17 the various searches that were done by the Office of the Prosecutor, not

18 only myself but other military analysts from other cases, we could

19 clearly see where, in some cases, entire passages from those former

20 Yugoslav national army regulations were quoted in VRS documents as the

21 procedures to be followed.

22 Q. Okay. You have described your first two reports. Could you

23 briefly tell us what other reports you had done?

24 A. The next series of reports were more directed towards issues

25 coming up with the second Srebrenica-related trial, that of

Page 16289

1 Colonel Blagojevic and that of Major Jokic. In that particular case, I

2 was asked to do a command report, but to focus it on issues that were

3 relevant to brigade command, since Colonel Blagojevic was the brigade

4 commander of the Bratunac Brigade, as well as issues related to the duty

5 officer roles at a brigade level and intelligence and security roles at

6 the brigade level. So it was essentially taking the work from corps and

7 dropping it down one echelon to the brigade level.

8 Q. All right. And was there a revised narrative that you did as

9 well?

10 A. Yes, sir. In order to incorporate new information that had been

11 learned as a result of the ongoing investigation from my previous

12 narrative, I used that opportunity to incorporate that new material into

13 what I call a revised narrative.

14 Q. All right. And I also see that you did something called a

15 report, Chapter 8, Analytical Addendum to the Srebrenica-related

16 Narrative, Revised. What was that?

17 A. That particular chapter dealt with an issue that had cropped up

18 relating to documents concerning individuals who were known to be in the

19 custody of the Army of the Republika Srpska as either prisoners or

20 wounded, and who later ended up disappeared. So that additional annex

21 dealt primarily with individuals who were captured at the Milici -- or

22 were known to have been captured by the VRS and were also known to have

23 been treated at the Milici Medical Centre in July -- I believe it was

24 July 12 or 13, who were subsequently transferred to Zvornik and then are

25 now disappeared.

Page 16290

1 Q. And do these six reports comprise your full reporting on the

2 events and the laws and the rules in play? Are there any others, is what

3 I'm getting at.

4 A. The final report that I did was for the Popovic trial. Because

5 of the issue of individuals who were members of the Main Staff who were

6 on trial, I was asked by the Office of the Prosecutor to draft a report

7 related to the roles and responsibilities of those various officers who

8 were members of the Main Staff.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, I have 65 ter numbers for

10 these six reports. And while they do have some overlap, as you may have

11 gleaned from the description, they all deal with separate and new

12 information, and I would like to -- I can provide a piece of paper with

13 their numbers on it later, if that would save some time, or I can read

14 them.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They are only a few. It's, I think, the best way

16 to put it on the record.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.

18 Well, let me start with Mr. Butler's updated CV, which is

19 65 ter 7436.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At this point in time, I would like to ask the

21 Defence if there are any objections to add this document to the 65 ter

22 exhibit list.

23 Mr. Gajic.

24 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no

25 objection on this particular document.

Page 16291

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Leave is granted to add it.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, no. Wait a moment, please.

4 Mr. McCloskey.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Then I would tender that 7436.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7436 shall be

8 assigned Exhibit P2469. Thank you.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: And the corps command report, 65 ter 651, and I

10 would offer that as well.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you'd just read out the numbers of the

12 different reports you have dealt with, and then we will come to a

13 solution.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Those numbers are: 651, the command; 653

15 for the military narrative original; 652 for the brigade command; 654 for

16 the revised narrative; 661 for the Chapter 8 analytical addendum; and

17 65 ter 2001 for the Main Staff report.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it they are all on the 65 ter exhibit

19 list.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are there any objections by the Defence against

22 their admission?

23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.

24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Registrar has drawn my attention to one

Page 16292

1 problem.

2 You are referring to 65 ter 661. That seems not to be included

3 in the list of documents you have provided us with, but there is a

4 document 662. Could you please check that again.

5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, don't worry. It is found. That

7 was a misinformation.

8 I take it that there is no objection by the Defence against the

9 admission of these documents. Is that correct?

10 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President, no objection.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These six documents will be received as exhibits.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 651 shall be

13 assigned Exhibit P2470. 65 ter document 653 shall be assigned

14 Exhibit P2471. 65 ter document 652 shall be assigned Exhibit P2472.

15 65 ter document 654 shall be assigned Exhibit P2473. 65 ter document 661

16 shall be assigned Exhibit P2474. And, finally, 65 ter document 2001

17 shall be assigned Exhibit P2475. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY:

20 Q. And, Mr. Butler, I also note that we have on the list a series of

21 what we have referred to as proofing notes, which were lists of -- and

22 packets of reports and materials that were provided you at various dates,

23 and I see those are in 2007, 2008, two in 2008, and one in 2010.

24 Can you just very briefly describe what you did when you were

25 provided these packets of documents?

Page 16293

1 A. Yes, sir. As the Court is aware, I've not been an employee of

2 the Office of the Prosecutor since November of 2003. However, I am

3 called back by the Office of the Prosecutor to testify in these various

4 cases. In order to ensure that my reports and my analysis and

5 understanding of the various issues remains current and is accurate, as

6 part of that I asked to review new tranches of documents or materials

7 that are related to the issues concerning my report and my prior

8 analysis. So what normally happens is that, at various points in time, I

9 will take a week or a ten-day period sometime prior to my

10 testimony - sometimes it may be a month, sometimes it may be a year - to

11 review new material that has come to light as a result of the ongoing

12 investigation. As I review that material, I'm asked to comment on that,

13 particularly with respect to does this new material change any of my

14 previous analysis on any particular topic that I've discussed. My

15 opinions as to what the material is and how it's relevant to any given

16 situation is then incorporated by the Office of the Prosecutor into

17 proofing notes and then made available to the Defence.

18 Q. All right. And can you tell us for this particular trial, the

19 trial of General Tolimir, what have you done to prepare for your

20 testimony in this case?

21 A. I believe it was late March or early April of 2010, I spent a

22 week here reviewing new documents and materials related to

23 General Tolimir, and, of course, some of them I had seen before, but not

24 in the context of General Tolimir. Some of them were new documents that

25 I've not seen at all. So, again, in that particular situation I reviewed

Page 16294

1 the material, I commented on how it did or did not affect my previous

2 analysis, and those were incorporated into notes. And then several weeks

3 ago, when I came here to testify, there was a several-day period where

4 additional new information was either provided to me or, in some cases, I

5 wanted, myself, once I became aware of them, to review them because I

6 thought they might have an impact on something that I had either said or

7 on some previous analysis. So, again, I reviewed additional material

8 and, I believe, a couple of witness statements as part of that last final

9 proofing, and that information also, I believe, is incorporated into

10 proofing notes and turned over to the Defence.

11 Q. Were you able to review any past testimonies?

12 A. Yes, sir. I also reviewed individuals' testimony - I believe the

13 specific case, the testimony of General Milovanovic as he testified here

14 in the current trial - to determine, based obviously on his position

15 within the Army of the Republika Srpska, whether or not my conclusions on

16 the use of doctrine or other issues remains valid.

17 Q. Okay. And aside from General Milovanovic's testimony in this

18 case, did you review any other witnesses' testimony in this case?

19 A. Yes, sir. I believe his name was - I'll probably butcher it, I'm

20 sorry - Rakovic, but it was the intelligence and security officer for the

21 Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade, the Rogatica Brigade, who had been

22 interviewed - and had testified here - by the Office of the Prosecutor.

23 I was not previously aware of any information provided by him. And,

24 again, given the context of what I talk about with the security organs,

25 you know, I wanted to review his testimony in that context.

Page 16295

1 Q. Does the name Razdoljac ring a bell?

2 A. There we go. Yes, sir, that's it.

3 Q. And do you recall what his position was with the

4 1st Podrinje Brigade?

5 A. I believe he was the security officer, sir.

6 Q. I believe he was the logistics officer. I don't know if you --

7 A. I'm mistaken, yes.

8 Q. And, I don't know, does the name Carkic ring any bells to you?

9 A. Not off-hand. It's some -- depending on when I reviewed the

10 material, the name is not ringing the bell. I'm sure in you refreshed my

11 memory, it will be there.

12 Q. That's all right. And aside from those two testimonies, have you

13 followed this trial at all?

14 A. No, sir, I have not.

15 Q. And aside from some of the work that you've described related to

16 the war in the former Yugoslavia that you did in your United States job,

17 have you tried to keep up with the investigation and all the additional

18 evidence and witnesses and things that have occurred over the many years

19 since you haven't been here?

20 A. Given my current job responsibilities with the Department of

21 Homeland Security, and the fact that I deal now with global issues,

22 unless I am dealing with a very specific Bosnian-related case, I just do

23 not have the time or ability to continue to follow these cases as they

24 proceed here in detail.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right, fair enough. Now -- Mr. President,

Page 16296

1 it's my plan now to change gears a little bit. So if there's any

2 questions regarding Mr. Butler's background or expertise --

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I see Mr. Gajic on his feet.

4 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I can see that things

5 are speeding up. Until a moment ago, the speakers were following a tempo

6 that the interpreters can follow. I would just like to draw everyone's

7 attention to this problem, not only because of the transcript, but it

8 happened at the end of the last session. The guard was urging

9 Mr. Tolimir to stand up because he was still busy listening to the

10 interpretation that was late. We have to deal with this problem also

11 with the Guards Service. Of course, Mr. Tolimir and I want to do nothing

12 that would be disrespectful of this Trial Chamber, but I really need to

13 draw everyone's attention to this issue because sometimes even at the end

14 of the day, when the session is over, the interpretation is still going

15 on.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I saw and I heard you speaking very

17 fast -- very much faster than Mr. McCloskey, and we had to wait for the

18 interpretation. It is an ongoing problem, of course, in this and all

19 other trials, and everybody is invited to do his best to let the

20 interpreters translate everything which is said in the courtroom.

21 Mr. McCloskey, you may continue.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And --

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you continue, Judge Mindua has a question.

24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 Mr. McCloskey said he was moving on to a new area, and said that

Page 16297

1 it was a good opportunity to ask general questions on the witness's

2 background and experience.

3 Mr. Witness, what difference do you make between your work as an

4 intelligence officer and the work of a police officer?

5 THE WITNESS: The work of an intelligence officer is geared

6 primarily towards the collection of and the analysing of information in a

7 military context related to a potential adversarial armed force,

8 politically to an opposing government. From a law enforcement or police

9 context, it is related to law enforcement. The fundamental methodologies

10 of the collection and the processing and analysis of the information is

11 the same. Where you have a difference is with respect to what I would

12 call the output. From an intelligence perspective, my goal would be to

13 take that information and, in a predictive nature, to advise my superior

14 what future events may transpire, and give my superior the ability to

15 affect those future effects. From a law enforcement perspective, a

16 police perspective, that intelligence is used to define a static event or

17 situation that has already occurred in the past and to gather as much

18 information and to clarify it, as possible, so the crime can be properly

19 investigated.

20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

21 According to you, an immigration and customs officer can also --

22 can be an intelligence officer as well as a judicial police officer?

23 THE WITNESS: No, sir. In my particular agency, as an

24 intelligence officer, my role is to provide criminal intelligence support

25 and analysis. While, as an immigration officer, I have some limited

Page 16298

1 functions with respect to law enforcement, in our particular agency the

2 majority of the law enforcement activities are undertaken by what we call

3 special agents. Those are individuals who are specifically trained for

4 and certified to conduct domestic law enforcement investigations in the

5 United States.

6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] How about customs; is it the same?

7 Because there is immigration and customs enforcement.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It is a reflection of the fact that

9 after the events that occurred in 9/11 and the Department of

10 Homeland Security was created in 2003, the Immigration Agency and the

11 Customs Agency were joined together as one singular law enforcement

12 agency. So as a result, the particular agency has all of the enforcement

13 powers of immigration, as well as all of the enforcement powers of

14 customs enforcement, as well as retaining other criminal and civil

15 investigative authorities.

16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I understand

17 better now. Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one additional question.

19 Is this particular institution more an executive institution or

20 an administrative institution?

21 THE WITNESS: A combination of both, sir. In the United States,

22 the investigative portion, we are -- ICE is an investigative agency. The

23 application of immigration law in the United States is an application

24 of -- it's considered administrative law. So in that sense, where

25 individuals are placed in removal proceedings, while they are judicial,

Page 16299

1 they are administrative, they are not criminal. We also have, of course,

2 our abilities to investigate crimes related to both immigration and

3 custom and other activities, but in that sense, where we take cases to

4 court criminally, just like, for example, the FBI, we are not the

5 investigator and the prosecutor. Those cases are brought by the

6 United States Attorney's Office or the Department of Justice. So we do

7 have both criminal and civil authorities or administrative authorities in

8 that sense.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

10 Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY:

12 Q. I recall that Mr. Gajic has helpfully noted that in the Serbian,

13 they heard, in your discussion of aerial imagery, the term "unmanned

14 aerial imagery." Did you ever say or suggest whether this aerial imagery

15 was manned or unmanned?

16 A. I don't recall that I did, no.

17 Q. Okay. I just want to clarify that for the record.

18 Now, I would now begin to just go into some of the documents that

19 get us started in the former Yugoslavia, and I would go past, in our

20 books, tab 2, which is your old CV, to tab 3 and ask that we put up I

21 believe it's 65 ter 1976.

22 And this is a document that is dated 12 of May, 1992, entitled

23 "Information About Post Assignments Delivered." And it's to the

24 commander, personally. And we see at the bottom: "Command of the

25 5th Corps."

Page 16300

1 Now, can you tell us: What army is this a document from, going

2 back to this date of 12 May 1992?

3 A. At this time, we're discussing the Yugoslav national army.

4 Q. And we can just see from this document references to decrees,

5 assigning General Mladic to the post -- well, two different posts - I

6 won't read them - 1 and 2, and then, by the same decree [Realtime

7 transcript read in error "degree"], it talks about, as we can see before

8 us, jobs for Milan Gvero, Djordje Djukic, and Colonel Zdravko Tolimir.

9 Can you just put this in context for us? May 12th, this is the JNA.

10 What is this document doing? How does it relate, if at all, to the

11 creation of -- and the formation of the VRS, just briefly?

12 A. The particular document discusses personnel assignments to the

13 Staff and Command of the 2nd Military District, which was at that time

14 the over-arching JNA command dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

15 5th Corps was one of their subordinate corps, which would later become

16 known as the 1st Krajina Corps when the JNA withdrew and it was

17 redesignated. Many of the officers who were assigned to the

18 2nd Military District, particularly if they were of Bosnian Serb

19 ethnicity, when the JNA pulled out of Bosnia and Herzegovina, those

20 officers later formed the nucleus of what would be then known as the

21 VRS Main Staff.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And I would offer this document into

23 evidence.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, on page 74, line 4, would you

25 agree that the word "degree" should read as "decree"?

Page 16301

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, it should be, as we see from the document,

2 "decree," d-e-c-r-e-e.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. It will be received.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1976 shall be

5 assigned Exhibit P2476. Thank you.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Now, can we go to tab 4. It's P22.

7 Q. And this is a document, as we wait for it to come up, entitled

8 "Decision on Strategic Objectives of the Serbian People in Bosnia and

9 Herzegovina." And we see down the left-hand corner a date, both

10 languages, of 12 May 1992.

11 Now, the Court has seen this before, and I don't want to get into

12 it in a lot of detail, but do you recall, Mr. Butler, we see that this --

13 well, can you just tell us what this is a section taken out of? What is

14 this decision? And we see it's in the name of Momcilo Krajisnik. Just

15 very briefly, what is this?

16 A. As --

17 Q. Not the document, so much, I'm sorry, but the -- where does it

18 come from?

19 A. As part of the Bosnian Serb Assembly session where they

20 essentially begin the creation of their own state and their own army, a

21 series of strategic objectives are laid out as part of the discussions.

22 For whatever reason, while these strategic objectives are laid out in

23 that Assembly meeting, it was not until 1993, I believe mid-1993, when

24 the information was actually published in the Official Gazette, laying

25 these out as formal strategic objectives. So these objectives that you

Page 16302

1 see here are part of the discussions laid out in context at that 12 May

2 Assembly meeting.

3 Q. So, unfortunately, it didn't make it on the translation, but if

4 we look at the Cyrillic up in the left-hand corner, we see the date of

5 1993. Actually, the 26th of a month of 1993. Is that what you're

6 referring to when you say "a date in 1993"?

7 A. Correct, sir.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, and I see it's 7.00.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that this should be "November 1993."

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hear no objection to that, so --

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Defence, indeed --

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- I agree with you.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

14 We have to adjourn for the day.

15 Sir, as you know, there is no permission to have contact about

16 the content of your testimony with either party during the break.

17 We adjourn now and resume tomorrow, in the morning, at 9.00 in

18 Courtroom III, in this courtroom.

19 And we wait a moment until the translation has finished.

20 We adjourn.

21 [The witness stands down]

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 8th day of July,

24 2011, at 9.00 a.m.