1 Thursday, 25 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
6 IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 May we have the appearances for today, please.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. On behalf of the
10 Prosecution, I'm Tom Hannis, along with Alexis Demirdjian, and
11 Jasmina Bosnjakovic our Case Manager.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honour. For
13 Mr. Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic,
14 appearing for Stanisic Defence.
15 MR. PANTELIC: For Zupljanin Defence, Igor Pantelic and
16 Dragan Krgovic appearing today. Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: On the 18th February, 2010, the Prosecutor --
19 Prosecution filed a motion seeking leave, inter alia, to add 98 new
20 documents to its Rule 65 ter exhibit list. The Defence of both accused
21 opposed to the motion in this respect.
22 On the 22nd of February, the Prosecution informed the parties and
23 the Chamber by e-mail that it intends to use 23 of these documents with
24 Witness ST-166, who is about to take the stand. The Trial Chamber will
25 now rule on the motion in respect with these 22 documents.
1 Trial Chamber recalls that all documents on which Prosecution
2 seeks to rely -- to rely to prove its case must be on the Rule 65 ter
3 exhibit list. Amendments to the 65 ter exhibit list may be granted when
4 the interests of justice allow. Factors to be taken into consideration
5 include good cause, due diligence, lack of undue prejudice to the Defence
6 and judicial economy.
7 The Prosecution groups the 22 documents in two categories.
8 First, 21 documents related to communication within the RS MUP, Rule 65
9 ter number 03500 to 03520. And, secondly, two recently received or
10 re-evaluated documents, Rule 65 ter numbers 03557 and 03559.
11 The Prosecution seeks the addition of the first category of
12 documents, as a result of failure of the parties to reach agreement on
13 the issue of communication within RS MUP. According to the Prosecution,
14 these documents were disclosed to the Defence in September 2009. The
15 Defence claims that this is an issue in dispute since 2007, and that the
16 motion comes six months after the Defence refused to stipulate to
18 Moreover, only five of these documents pertain to municipalities
19 of concern to the indictment and similar documents already exists --
20 exist on the Rule 65 ter list exhibit list.
21 The Trial Chamber notes that one of these documents, document
22 with Rule 65 ter number 03507, in this category has already been admitted
23 into evidence as P395.
24 With regard to the second category, the Prosecution does not
25 provide any particular details about whether the two documents in
1 question were recently received or whether they were re-evaluated, and if
2 so, which reasons. Furthermore, the Prosecution does not provide any
3 specific information as to when the documents were disclosed to the
5 The Trial Chamber concludes that the Prosecution has neither
6 shown good cause nor due diligence to justify, less than one week before
7 the testimony of ST-166, the addition of these 23 documents to its
8 Rule 65 ter exhibit list. Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the
9 potential value of the -- to be attributed to these documents is such
10 that would outweigh the prejudice that the Defence will suffer, should
11 the request be granted.
12 Given the fact that ST-166 is to begin testifying today, the
13 Trial Chamber cannot see that it would be in the interests of judicial
14 economy to postpone his testimony to allow the Defence adequate time to
16 The motion is therefore denied in respect the 23 documents, and
17 the Trial Chamber remains seized of the motion in all other respects.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Judge Delvoie.
19 Mr. Hannis, we have been alerted that you have a preliminary
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. And it actually relates to the
22 oral decision just granted.
23 You may have noticed I came down to court yesterday afternoon
24 near the end of the extended sitting because I was advised that there
25 would perhaps be a ruling at that time. And I wanted to address some
1 matters to your attention. Now that the decision has been made, I do
2 want to put something on the record and perhaps try and persuade you to
3 reconsider at least as to four of the documents. Not all 23. Part of
4 what I was going to say yesterday afternoon was that, upon further review
5 and having proofed the upcoming witness concerning those documents, I had
6 decided that I only wanted to use four of the year-end reports, and later
7 in the day upon learning that one, the one from Sanski Most, 03507, was
8 already in evidence through Witness ST-161, back in November. I only had
9 three. And those are for municipalities that are there in the
10 indictment, Prijedor, which is document 3517; Teslic, as 65 ter 3519;
11 and Kljuc, which is 65 ter 320.
12 Regarding 3557, I was going to withdraw that document as well.
13 But I did want to make an argument for 3559.
14 All four of these documents do have some special pertinence to
15 the continuing to be contested issue of communications. I know the
16 Defence response included the argument that this has been an issue known
17 to the Prosecution for two years. That's is certainly true as to
18 Mr. Stanisic. Not to Mr. Zupljanin. He hasn't been here that long, for
19 one thing. And most of these document are more pertinent to
20 communications between Mr. Zupljanin's CSB and subordinate units and his
21 units up. They don't pertain as directly to Mr. Stanisic as they do to
22 Mr. Zupljanin.
23 And the reason that these remaining three communications year-end
24 reports have some special significance with this witness is that they are
25 direct responses to a dispatch that he sent requesting that information.
1 In his position as chief of the communications encryptographic data
2 protection unit in the CSB.
3 A. I didn't know that until I was proofing him earlier this week,
4 and he -- his name is not in the document. His identification is related
5 to the transmission number for the dispatch requesting the information,
6 and he will tell you that his designator is something like 11-1/04. It's
7 a particular identifier for him as the chief of the communications unit.
8 And can you see that on -- on the Kljuc document as well as in the
9 Sanski Most document.
10 We do have other information about communications, Your Honour,
11 but we don't think the issue is fully resolved. We have the draft MUP
12 annual report which has some total numbers for communications made. We
13 have in evidence a six-month report concerning communications from the
14 Banja Luka CSB and a report for the three-month period between July and
16 However, we think it is important to establish what
17 communications were made to and from these three indictment
19 You have described in your oral ruling, Judge Delvoie, some of
20 the factors that should be considered by the Trial Chamber in deciding
21 whether or not to permit the late addition of evidence like this. We
22 would urge you to consider that, absent a showing of intentional
23 misconduct or bad faith or malice on the part of the Prosecution, or on
24 any party, if it were later in this case, the ultimate sanction of
25 barring the evidence shouldn't be imposed, if there is an alternative
1 remedy. And since I'm now only asking for the three of the communication
2 documents, not 21, we think the adequate remedy would be to allow some
3 extra time. And I don't know how much time would be necessary to deal
4 with this issue.
5 These are not terribly complicated documents. They list the
6 communication equipment held by each of these SJBs, the number of the
7 communications they sent, and the state and functioning of those
8 communications during the relevant time-period.
9 So, with that, I just want to make an argument and request that
10 you reconsider that possibility. And because this witness is uniquely
11 placed to address them because he is the one who send the request out
12 asking for the information to be received. If I can't address it with
13 him, I don't know a witness later in the case that I could introduce it
15 With regard to 3559, I can't tell, Your Honour, I think that's a
16 document we had a long time. I'm not sure when it was re-evaluated and
17 consider to be added. There is a communications aspect to that document
18 as well, as there's a notation at the bottom of that message indicating
19 that this report had been conveyed by telephone, as opposed to the usual
20 means of transmitting such information, and again, we think that is
21 important to show the alternative means of communication that were
22 available in situations where the normal teletype equipment wasn't
24 I guess that's all I had to say on the point.
25 My other point was I -- I guess -- I was disappointed when I
1 learned this morning at 10.30 that the decision was going be announced
2 was not favourable to the Prosecution, and I -- I guess I suffered from
3 my -- as a consequence of my usual optimism, the fact that I had not
4 heard anything since last night, I thought perhaps the ruling was going
5 in my favour. And if it was bad news, I would have changed my
6 organisation and presentation for this next witness.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, the fact that the ruling that the
9 Chamber has given an oral ruling doesn't mean that it isn't a considered
10 ruling. And one of the reasons which you would have heard in
11 Judge Delvoie's -- when he delivered the ruling was that the Prosecution
12 had not shown good cause, so it is hardly of assistance if after the
13 Chamber has ruled that you seek to advance reasons which one would have
14 expected at the time the motion was made.
15 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, but some of the reasons - and I
16 have just advanced - I did not become aware of until I was proofing this
17 witness yesterday. Particularly his identity as the person who had
18 requested this information. And there was no way could I know that
19 before. His name does not appear in the documents; there's a numerical
20 code. I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't asked about that in the
21 course of proofing him.
22 JUDGE HALL: Is there a response from the other side?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Briefly, Your Honour. We say the standard for
24 reconsideration is the following. You may reconsider your discussion if
25 there is -- the existence of a clear error of reasoning has been
1 demonstrated. We say none has. Or if reconsideration is necessary in
2 order to prevent an injustice. And again, as you have quite rightly have
3 pointed out, Your Honour, your oral decision weighed the factors of
4 prejudice to the accused, and you have made that ruling. And there is no
5 argument been made to show that you were wrong on that.
6 As for the first -- the only opportunity to interview this
7 witness, that clearly can't be the case, since as we have been saying for
8 the last three years - not two, three years now - since the interview
9 with Mr. Stanisic, the Prosecution has been aware that it is a matter in
10 dispute. So they could have had their investigators any time in the last
11 two or three years meet with this or any other witness.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] As regards the position of
15 Zupljanin Defence, we fully support what our colleague Mr. O'Sullivan has
16 said. Our standpoint as regard communication has been known to the
17 Prosecutor since August at least, when we challenged the issue of
18 communication lines, so the OTP had time to interview the witness and
19 include exhibits on their list.
20 Any further reconsideration of this decision would be prejudicial
21 to the Defence.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, the Chamber is not unmindful of the
25 plank in your arguments, that you have only become aware of the
1 connection between the witness and these proposed three documents, having
2 proofed the witness upon his arrival in The Hague. Nevertheless,
3 inasmuch as the intimation by e-mail to the parties of the intended
4 ruling of the Chamber would have only gone out about midday today, the
5 Chamber is of the view that having become aware of this, it is something
6 that one would have thought the Prosecution would have taken steps at
7 some point, having become aware of this, to deal with their motion. And,
8 therefore, the Chamber does not intend to re-call the order it has given,
9 and that order stands.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may I ask a question about that.
12 Your position is that -- that when I became aware of what the
13 ruling was going to be, I should have taken some step? When I -- I --
14 JUDGE HALL: No. I may have misspoken.
15 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
16 JUDGE HALL: I will attempt to rephrase it.
17 Having become aware of -- having proofed the witness, but before
18 you would have received intimation of the Chamber's ruling, there would,
19 in the Chamber's view, have been time for you to approach the Chamber
20 again by way of an amended motion or whatever to indicate this new fact.
21 Which would have been absent, as you would have said, because you simply
22 didn't know, in the original motion.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I don't want to inundate the
24 Trial Chamber with needless paper. We had a motion pending. I guess I
25 could have filed an amended motion to add to the additional information
1 that I learned yesterday afternoon, but I was more focussed on trying to
2 organise my examination of all of the remaining documents so I could
3 complete him within the three hours of my time that I have allotted. And
4 I would only say I understand -- I understand the Trial Chamber's
5 decisions, but I think undue weight has been given to the allegation of
6 prejudice to the Defence. I'm only asking for three communication
7 documents, three reports. I don't think there has been a showing of
8 great prejudice. I don't think the extreme remedy of denying the
9 evidence is necessary --
10 I'll shut up. I know you've ruled. I'm ready to call the
12 [The witness entered court]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
14 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. Can we -- can we
16 have your name, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Drago Rakovic.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what is your date of birth?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 10th of September, 1951.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what is -- what is your ethnicity, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.
22 JUDGE HALL: And your profession.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An electrical engineer.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Is this the first time you testify
25 before this Tribunal or any Tribunal in -- on any matters, any Tribunal
1 in your home country?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I have
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Then, Mr. Rakovic, this is how the
6 proceedings will go on here.
7 You are a Prosecution witness. That means that the Prosecution
8 will first have some questions for you. After that, both Defence teams
9 can, as well, put questions to you. There will be re-examination
10 eventually from Prosecution after that. And, at the end, eventually, the
11 Judges could have some questions for you as well.
12 We sit in sessions from -- for -- from more or less 90 minutes
13 with every time a break of 20 minutes after one hour and a half. We sit
14 from 9.00 to quarter to 2.00, more or less. Or as today in the
15 afternoon, from 2.15 to 7.00.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 WITNESS: DRAGO RAKOVIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Mr. Hannis:
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
21 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. Concerning your appearance as a witness here, I understand when
24 you were contacted by the OTP about coming to testify, you didn't
25 volunteer. You didn't want to come. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you -- you came because you learned that if you -- you
3 refused, the Prosecution could request a subpoena from the Court,
4 ordering you to come.
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Thank you. You told us that you are an electrical engineer by
7 occupation. Are you currently employed; and, if so, where are you
8 working now?
9 A. I'm currently working in same workplace as before. Head of the
10 communications section. Earlier it was the section of communications and
12 Q. And in what organisation do you hold that position?
13 A. Public security centre. It used to be the Security Services
14 Centre in Banja Luka, Republika Srpska.
15 Q. And can you tell us a little bit about your training to become an
16 electrical engineer. Where did you go to school and when?
17 A. I can.
18 I finished primary school in my village of Sljiva near
19 Banja Luka. In fact I started school there, and I continued my primary
20 school eight years in Banja Luka and finished high school in Banja Luka
21 too. That's where I studied electrical engineering in the university in
23 From 1977 to 1978, I served in the JNA, my compulsory military
24 service, after which, I found employment in the factory called
25 Rudi Cajavac, and that's where I worked until 31st March, 1992, and then
1 on 1st of April, 1992, I took a job in the Security Services Centre of
2 the MUP. It was still the MUP of the B and H.
3 Q. Could you tell the Judges a little bit about what the
4 Rudi Cajavac enterprise was, what kind of work was done there, and, in
5 particular, what was your job?
6 A. Rudi Cajavac was a big conglomerate employing about 10.000
7 workers. It had three main work organisations and two auxiliary ones.
8 One was the organisation of professional electronics where I worked.
9 There was one enterprise producing car equipment. One factory producing
10 TV sets, radios, and similar. And there were another two units one of
11 which produced switches for washing machines and such. The last two were
12 smaller units. They all comprised Rudi Cajavac.
13 I worked in professional electronics. We called it military
14 industry. I worked with measuring and detection devices, based on radio
15 isotopes and chemical poisons. I worked there for 14 years, with one
16 stint in research and development. It was called Independent Designer.
17 For a while, I worked in the technology of preparation for production,
18 and then some four or five years, I worked as chief of the production
19 section in this unit, supervising around 700 to 800 workers. That was
20 until 1992.
21 Q. Thank you. In 1991 and 1992, were you a member or active in any
22 political party; and, if so, which one?
23 A. Yes, yes, I was. I was a member of the Serbian Democratic Party
24 from the very first day, when it was founded.
25 Q. And can you tell us how, after working at Rudi Cajavac for
1 14 years, did you come to have a post with the MUP. How did you get a
2 job at the police department?
3 A. Well, you know how it was. There were multi-party elections, you
4 know, and positions in power were divided between the parties, and within
5 political parties, people agreed who would work where.
6 In many companies, including the one where I worked, we could
7 feel there was a shortage of work, and I thought it would be a good idea
8 to find a new job. It was not originally my idea to go to that sort of
9 work, but it so happened that I was on sick-leave for a while, in
10 hospital. I wasn't very active in the party either. People from my
11 local commune, from my neighbourhood and community thought it would be a
12 good idea to nominate me to the ministry, to the Security Services
13 Centre, because I was an honest man and could be useful, both to the
14 party and the people whom I would represent. That's what they thought.
15 My first idea was to find employment in the postal services
16 company where the salaries were and still are much better. But
17 unfortunately wasn't around when these posts were being filled.
18 Q. Who -- who recommended you for a post in the MUP? Do you know by
19 name, or affiliation with a political party?
20 A. I had recommendations from my political party, my neighbours and
21 people from my local commune. People who worked together with me who
22 were activists, one of them was Momo Blajic, a good friend of mine.
23 Vojo Jugovic, and late Miro Kraljevic. Those were people from my local
24 commune who nominated me and recommended me. As far as I know.
25 Q. Thank you. What was your job title or -- and your duties when
1 you started with the CSB in Banja Luka on April 1st, 1992?
2 A. My post was called chief of section for communications and
3 encryption, as far as I remember. And my duties were -- in fact, the
4 unit consisted of two sections. One section dealing with the maintenance
5 of the existing equipment and machines, and another section dealing with
6 the transfer of non-speech information, although this unit also contained
7 the switchboard of the centre, and the encryption of messages. That's
8 why it was called section for exploitation, in other words, encryption
9 and data transfer.
10 Q. Do you remember approximately how many people worked for you in
11 the centre?
12 A. In the centre, in the base itself, the unit that I headed had, to
13 the best of my recollection, around 20 employees. Out of these 20, there
14 were three supervisors, myself and another two unit supervisors, one of
15 whom was systems engineer, that's how it was called. There were five or
16 six workers dealing with maintenance. And around ten workers, some of
17 them working on the switchboard, and around five of them were operators.
18 And we had a special acronym for them because in the afternoons when the
19 lady who worked the switchboard was away, they also served as telephone
21 Q. Did you have any employees under you who worked outside the
22 centre, or is that the sum total of people that were under your
24 A. That's what I was about to say. Outside the centre, across
25 police stations, a certain number of our men also worked. The number
1 depended on the size of the station, and it varied from one person to a
2 team of five or six. The greatest number was in Prijedor, where we even
3 had one chief of unit, one engineer, one technician, working on
4 maintenance, and I believe six radio telegraph operators and encryptors.
5 I'm talking about the situation as it was when arrived. In Jajce
6 also we had a larger number.
7 In other police stations, we had smaller numbers, except
8 Bosanska Gradiska which had five or six, one of them for maintenance and
9 around five were radio telegraph operators and encryptors. Other
10 stations had about two people.
11 My competence was, so to speak, line competence, meaning
12 professional work. In terms of their official status, they were attached
13 to these people to the corresponding public security station, so that I
14 supervised only the technical part of the work and perhaps hiring.
15 Q. Thank you. I next want to ask you about the means of
16 communication that were available in CSB Banja Luka in 1992, after you
17 started working there.
18 And, first of all, for voice communication, what were the means
19 available to communicate by voice within CSB Banja Luka in 1992?
20 A. There was a number of communications. When you say "voice
21 communication," that means primarily telephone traffic. Other means were
22 not used much, at least at that time. It was called the so-called KT
23 traffic but also voice communication, UKT.
24 Telephone traffic, one, two KT, and three UKT, and non-voice
25 communication radio telegraph. That was the fourth.
1 Q. How many -- how many phone lines were available to the outside
2 world from the CSB in Banja Luka?
3 A. If I remember well, at the Security Services Centre there was a
4 small number of what we call direct telephone lines. Those were mostly
5 available to supervisors and chiefs. I was one of those who had a direct
6 telephone line.
7 There was several, perhaps three or four telephone lines, in the
8 state security sector, and five or six in the public security sector.
9 The chief had one telephone number, and the rest operated through the
10 switchboard. Everyone who wanted to make calls would call the
11 switchboard and most incoming calls would come to the switchboard of the
12 Security Services Centre.
13 Q. And for those of you who had direct lines, you could make and
14 receive calls without using the switchboard; is that correct?
15 A. Correct. As far as I know.
16 Q. And to the best of your recollection, how were those direct
17 outside phone lines working in Banja Luka in 1992? Could you communicate
18 with Bijeljina, Pale?
19 A. I cannot say how they communicated because I personally didn't
20 communicate with anyone. That's why I don't know. I really can't talk
21 about that. Whether communications were available or not, I can't say,
22 because I had no need to call anyone, and I didn't call anyone. Whether
23 the lines actually worked, whether they were breakdowns or not, I can't
24 say with any certainty. I know there were breakdowns, but how long and
25 how often, I can't say.
1 Q. Who would have been responsible for the maintenance of telephone
2 lines when they broke down? Would that be one of your two unit
3 supervisors, the one for maintenance of equipment?
4 A. Well, you see, the most breakdowns were caused by breakdowns of
5 communications at the PTT, the Postal Services Centre. And then you
6 either had to call the PTT - I don't know what they were called later,
7 telecom or whatever - but it was the section that was in charge directly
8 of telephones.
9 The chief of maintenance was an experienced person. He had
10 worked there for a long time, and he knew exactly who to call. He was
11 the one. Stipo Ojdenic [phoen] was his name. He would always call his
12 own people with whom he had worked for 20 years back. He would say, We
13 have a breakdown here, what are we going to do about it.
14 We had another person dealing with other sort of maintenance
15 Mustafa Hasanovic, an engineer. He even replaced the chief for a while.
16 They would stand in for each other.
17 As far as the maintenance of the switch board is concerned,
18 Mile Sakic was in charge. I don't know if the name means anything to
19 you. He was a Croat. He was the chief maintenance master for the
20 switchboard, the telephone switchboard, but also the telegraph
21 switchboard, which connected the teletype system.
22 Q. If there had been severe problems with the phone lines, as the
23 chief of communications, would you not have heard about it in some
24 fashion? For example, seeing increased request for short-wave radios or
25 other kinds of communication to make up for the shortage caused by
1 problems with the phone lines?
2 A. Clearly, I was informed. The people who worked in that section
3 would came and say, Chief, we are in trouble. There's a breakdown there
4 and there, and, of course, I was aware of these things.
5 We would then talk and try to see if there's another way, an
6 alternative. But if the problem arose in the system itself, and
7 regardless of how old our equipment was we had a telephone switchboard
8 that was installed in 1970. Therefore, it was 20 years old. We had a
9 telephone switchboard OM 60 that was installed at the same time when the
10 Security Services Centre was set up in that building. Also very, very
11 old. But we had not much problems with that. The greatest problems
12 arose at the post office. That's where the lines broke down.
13 So our job, in that case would be to contact people from the post
14 office, their maintenance section, and that's why I told you that we used
15 our employees who had worked with the post office employees in those
16 places for 20 years back, and sometimes we had other problems, such as
17 power blackouts. It happened very often. Every now and then, there was
18 no electricity. At one point in Banja Luka, we had no electricity for
19 two months. Then we would have to use power generators. Then there were
20 shortages of fuel. Problems were everywhere. It was not just in our
22 Q. Let me stop you there. What time-period are you talking about
23 where there was no electricity for two months? When was that?
24 A. At the beginning of the war. It was -- I can't say exactly. It
25 could have been in the second half of 1992. But I think it must have
1 been in that initial period, in the first half of 1992.
2 As far as I know, the territory was also cut in half. We
3 couldn't pass through. The corridor was opened on the 28th of June. All
4 the way until the 28th of June, you couldn't travel. And the main
5 sources of electricity were near Brcko and the lines went from there
6 towards Croatia and towards Krajina, and we in the Krajina, had great
7 problems. Sometimes we would be able to provide electricity from this
8 power plant, only to -- for the barest necessities. And I always tried
9 with the electricity company to get priority for our centre, to get them
10 to allocate to us a special line, but I can't tell you exactly whether it
11 was in May or June, or sometime later, perhaps, but around that time,
13 Q. In spite of these problems, based on our preparation for your
14 testimony, it seemed as though teletype communications, dispatches, were
15 occurring on a regular basis to and from the centre in Banja Luka.
16 So you managed to get the power to run your teletype machine just
17 about everyday, didn't you?
18 A. Could you say that. But you couldn't say it was true of the
19 entire territory. That is the point. We could get it to work for a
20 short time, perhaps in Banja Luka, for instance. But it couldn't work in
21 some other place, and we couldn't switch on the teletype communication in
22 -- in whatever direction, when there was no electricity.
23 You can't say we were able to work all the time. Yes, we did
24 work all the time, but how? There was perhaps a possibility to work from
25 two or three stations or to send to two or three stations, but not the
1 fourth, and the fourth station would have to wait for two or three days
2 until the problem was solved.
3 The system worked. Our switchboard was plugged in; but the point
4 was that I couldn't contact the person I wanted to contact.
5 Q. In the event that you weren't able to have communication by phone
6 or teletype, did you sometimes use couriers to deliver messages?
7 A. You know, in my service, when a dispatch comes in and we do
8 whatever we are able to do with it, I have to tell you we didn't have a
9 courier service in my section. If a courier service existed it was
10 attached to the centre. We still have the registry office where mail is
11 sent or delivered, and when somebody happens to travel they could take it
12 with them. But in my section, we didn't have a courier service. I
13 didn't have a messenger to whom I could give whatever I needed to send.
14 We would sometimes return dispatches to the sender and what
15 happened after that, I don't know. I can only make assumptions. But
16 assumptions are no good to you, I suppose.
17 Q. Well, sometimes assumptions can be useful. When you were not
18 able to send something that had been delivered to you for transmission
19 and you returned it to the person who gave it to you, wouldn't it be
20 logical that they would try to use a courier?
21 A. Maybe it would be logical. My duty, our duty, stopped once we
22 returned the dispatch. I don't know what happened next.
23 Q. Thank you. Before we leave this topic, I wanted to ask you about
24 two other means of voice communication that you mentioned.
25 You talked about KT and UKT. Can you explain for the Judges what
1 those two things are and how they differ, one from another?
2 A. Here's the thing. The UKT system is the traditional system used
3 by the police, the operative police. The UKT system was relatively well
4 preserved, in the sense that the main repeaters on Mount Kozara were
5 working. It was operational. So with mobile patrols, we could, from
6 Novi Grad and the Banja Luka municipality, use that. In individual
7 police stations, there were local repeaters. They were also preserved.
8 However, the problem with a part of the UKT was that we didn't have an
9 adequate number of devices. Our devices were already obsolete and this
10 part of the factory at Rudi Cajavac, the section that produced TV sets
11 and radios, did not have enough raw materials, and their production
12 nearly stopped in 1991/1992. Supply ran dry. And UKT is the traditional
13 traffic for operative police. I can see it here and everywhere. Not
14 much new has been invented in that sense.
15 It was not scrambled -- KT [as interpreted], I mean. KT was not
16 scrambled. Anyone could switch into it. Our people who came back to our
17 country from abroad started bringing all sorts of ham radios, and
18 everyone could get involved in this KT traffic.
19 As for UKK traffic, that was a short-wave system. In our system,
20 at that time, it wasn't used for regular traffic. We just did occasional
21 checks to see if the system was working. I know that in some tactical
22 exercises the police used these KT devices and within this KT system we
23 had two mobile communications centres, RTU 100 and RTU another one in
24 Prijedor, but that didn't mean much in terms of communication.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Previous translation continues] ... to my friend.
1 I think it a page 21, line 24, witness said it was not scrambled KT, I
2 mean, I believe I heard that witness mentioned UKT. So please,
3 Mr. Hannis, if you can clarify that with the witness just for the
4 accuracy of the transcript because obviously there are difference between
5 KT and UKT.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. HANNIS: Well, I think the rest of his answer makes it clear,
8 but I'll ask him.
9 Q. Can you tell us, sir, what was scrambled? Was it KT traffic or
11 A. What I said was that UKT was the operative system. We did not
12 have any stations with scramblers. So anyone who had a UKT station could
13 join in the traffic. They would just tune into the frequency, and they
14 would join in. There was no way you could exclude them. There was no
15 way you could tell who was jamming the line or hindering communication,
16 which is why I said that the UKT system was not set up properly, and it
17 still hasn't been set up properly. There is no money now again, so it
18 was never set up properly, in fact.
19 Q. What does the abbreviation UKT stand for, if you know?
20 A. Ultra short-waves.
21 Q. And KT stands for short-wave?
22 A. Yes, that's right. Short-wave.
23 Q. And was short-wave traffic scrambled? Did you have scramblers to
24 do that?
25 A. No. It was open traffic. It was used by ham radio operators,
1 amateur radio operators use that system frequently. There was no
2 protection, and it wasn't really used in police work, to the best of my
4 Q. So then for UKT that was your primary means of radio
5 communication within the MUP, is that correct, voice communication by
7 A. The operative police, the police stations, that is public
8 security stations, mostly used UKT traffic for police work.
9 For regular police work, these were mobile patrols, patrols on
10 foot. Any police station had a stationary radio station. That's why I
11 say that this was the system that was mostly used by the police. Those
12 who sat in offices used telephones, but the police were not sitting in
14 Q. And what was the approximate effective range of those units for
16 A. That depends on how it was set up, if there was a stationary
17 station with large watt output. Ours were mainly 25 watts. But there
18 was a repeater on Mount Kozara, so if the station was operating in duplex
19 or semi-duplex, that is, you would have a station and repeater and
20 another station, then the range, because these waves travel in a straight
21 line, so they could go as far as 80 kilometres. So if you had a station
22 on Mount Kozara and there was a patrol which had a station, a mobile
23 station in their car, of some 20 watts or so, they could communicate by
24 means of the repeater on Mount Kozara to a distance of some
25 70 kilometres. It would depend on their position.
1 As for the UKT stations operating in simplex, that would actually
2 be only a few kilometres provided there was no wall or obstruction
3 intervening, so these handheld radio stations were used, for example, on
4 football stadiums, they could communicate across the football stadium,
5 for example.
6 Q. Let's talk now about written documents and how they were
8 First of all, can you tells what the term "dispatch" means to you
9 in the MUP, in the communications section. What is a "dispatch?
10 A. A dispatch is, in actual fact, a telegram. That's how we used
11 the word. Sometimes we even used the word "telegram." I found forms
12 saying telegram form, rather than dispatch form.
13 A dispatch should be brief, clear, it should contain a message or
14 information up to a certain number of words in A-5 format. Anything
15 exceeding A-5 format, which is half of A-4, would no longer be a
16 dispatch; it would be some other sort of material, an instruction or
17 something like that.
18 Q. And how were they created in your centre? What equipment did you
20 A. In our centre we didn't write dispatches. We retyped them and
21 sent them. It was the senders who wrote them. They created the
22 dispatches. And they were typed in their offices or services. We would
23 take the typed dispatches over. They would be taken to the room from
24 which dispatches were sent. It would be re-typed on the teleprinter and
25 sent to the addressees mentioned on the form. And when that had been
1 done, when it had been sent or not sent, because sometimes it couldn't be
2 sent to all the addresses, then the dispatch, the original dispatch,
3 should be sent back to the sender, and if there were some addresses where
4 we had not been able to send it, we would note that on the dispatch,
5 saying that we couldn't send it to such and such an address.
6 Q. Help me a little on the process. If I'm the chief in your centre
7 and I want to send a dispatch, I, or my secretary, type it up, is it
8 signed before you receive it?
9 A. According to the rules, dispatches were supposed to be signed by
10 the sender. There was more than one sender in the security service.
11 There wasn't just one person who would send dispatches. It could come
12 from two different sectors, two different services, and we lower-ranking
13 officers who are in charge of smaller units were able to write and sign
14 dispatches. As a rule, they would arrive with the signature of the
16 Very often it would happen that a dispatch would arrive with a
17 signature, but it would have a heading and, underneath, there would be
18 the first and last name of the person in whose name it was being sent;
19 but the sender would put a comma and sign their name. It would be
20 someone else. For example, I would know if I was sending a dispatch to
21 an external organ, a company, for example, because it was my duty to
22 contact with the post office, with the electric power supplier, and so
23 on, and then I would put the heading there. If I thought that the centre
24 of the service is one organisational unit, and I was authorised to do
25 their job on behalf of the whole unit, I couldn't put my heading there
1 and my name and then write on behalf of the whole centre, because then I
2 would be using the centre's heading. I would write the dispatch, and I
3 would put the name of the head of the centre, and then I would put a
4 comma, because I was authorised, and then I would sign my name. I would
5 stamp this with the stamp of the centre. I would enter the number of the
6 centre, and then send it. And a dispatch of that kind couldn't emanate
7 my service on behalf of the centre. It had to be sent as a centre
8 dispatch, so to say, so that I saw some dispatches -- I never actually
9 looked at the other dispatches. I only looked at the ones that I had
10 written, and it was the operatives who took over the dispatches and
11 retyped them and entered them into the log-books who would read them,
12 actually. I never read anybody else's dispatches.
13 Q. According to the rules, I take it from your last answer, then,
14 that only certain persons were authorised to send -- or to author
15 dispatches for sending; is that right?
16 A. Well, yes, that's right. For example a subordinate of mine could
17 not send a dispatch on behalf of my department, so that there were lines
18 work, you see. And, of course, people dealing with the uniformed police,
19 for example, could send a dispatch on behalf of their service. Those on
20 behalf -- or, rather, they could send dispatches on behalf of the centre.
21 So it's correct that the stations on the ground, for example, had
22 certain rights and work they could do. No one, especially determined
23 this, but it is something we inherited and something that was common
25 Q. And in CSB Banja Luka, where were you and your unit or your
1 section physically located? Were you all together in one portion of the
3 A. My unit was on the third floor. When you go upstairs, it was in
4 the left -- or, rather, in the right wing. Half of the third floor was
5 my unit. We all sat there together. We even had a door through which
6 one entered our unit with a little window for the delivery of dispatches,
7 and there was a bell you could ring, and there was a code for employees
8 so they could enter, just as you have badges do enter certain parts of
9 the building.
10 Q. So I take it there was limited access to your area. Who was
11 allowed in, other than you and your subordinate workers? Anyone else
12 have the code and access to your area?
13 A. In the area where I was sitting and where maintenance was,
14 various people could enter there. Somebody would ring the bell, be
15 admitted, bring in a station and wait around for it to be repaired.
16 People would come to see us on business, and so on.
17 But there was this other area where dispatches were sent. That
18 was the unit for cryptographic protection for encryption and so on. And
19 there, unauthorised persons could not enter. Only the personnel actually
20 working there could go there.
21 The chief, the operator, the switchboard operator, there were
22 several officers there. There was one where there was a teleprinter,
23 another with Faraday's Cage where we encrypted and decrypted dispatches
24 or decoded dispatches, and no one else could enter that area. Well,
25 maybe if somebody reported to me and then we went there together to take
1 a look or the republican inspector arrived to inspect the documents for
2 cryptographic protection and so on. But if someone entered without
3 authorisation, under the old rules, which I then thought were the normal
4 rules, in the centre, the centre would be locked up until the -- all the
5 premises were looked at to make sure that nothing untoward had happened.
6 This never happened while I was there, but that's what I heard happened
7 before. For example, a republican inspector could arrive and say that
8 work was prohibited until certain things were -- had been checked, and so
10 Q. How about Chief Zupljanin? Did he have access to any or all of
11 your communications section?
12 A. Nowhere did it say he didn't have access. But, as far as I know,
13 he never came there. Whether he dropped in, in the afternoon I really
14 couldn't say. But most probably, no one would have prevented him, as the
15 chief, from entering, or any other chief.
16 The chief could enter. The personnel working there could enter.
17 I or the chief of communications could enter. The republican inspector
18 could enter. And they would bring in colleagues sometimes. They were
19 considered to be persons under oath, persons who were duty-bound to
20 preserve the confidentiality of the encryption system. And when people
21 retired, for a year or two afterwards they still had to keep confidential
22 information secret and not divulge anything. So if the chief had dropped
23 in and said to me, Rakovic, can I look around and see what is going on?
24 Of course, I would have let him. Or he might have done that in the
25 afternoon and said hello to someone. Well, probably yes.
1 Well, the cleaners would go in as well.
2 Q. Okay. Let me stop you there. You mentioned encryption. I take
3 it there were certain kinds of written communications that needed to be
4 more confidential than others. And those were encrypted before being
5 sent out? Yes or no?
6 A. I didn't understand your question fully.
7 Q. I take it that there were certain written communications that
8 were not sent open text, that they had to be encrypted or encoded before
9 being sent out of your centre; is that right?
10 A. If it said "encrypted," then it had to be encrypted. If there
11 was a sign saying that it is to be encrypted, then that's what had to be
12 done. If there was a letter S, with a diacritic, that is, that meant it
13 had to be encrypted. It was obligatory.
14 Q. Who made that decision? Was that you in the communications
15 centre or the author or someone else?
16 A. To the best of my knowledge there were certain instructions.
17 When I arrived there, the instructions were already in place.
18 Every dispatch that was send -- well, it was the sender who thought about
19 whether it should be encrypted or not. If it arrived from a higher
20 level, for example, I would get a dispatch from a higher level which said
21 it had to be encrypted, then I had to collect certain information, and I
22 was passing it on, I would have to send it as an encrypted dispatch, and
23 they would have to send it back as encrypted. So I couldn't say, Well,
24 the guy higher up said it had to be encrypted, and I'm not going to
25 encrypt it. That was not something one would do if one was working
1 according to regulations, but what happened in actual fact, well, the
2 rules may not always have been respected. Some people may have broken
3 the rules.
4 Q. Did you ever see the reverse situation where you given something
5 that was not for encryption, but upon looking at it, you realized that
6 maybe it should be? Did that ever happen?
7 A. Sometimes staff members would come to see me, and they would say,
8 Chief -- these were experienced staff members. They would say, Chief,
9 look at this. This should be encrypted. And then we would send a note
10 saying we thought this had to be encrypted. Because, of course, you
11 know, there were multi-party -- there was a multi-party system, new
12 people arrived. They didn't even know what a dispatch was. Security
13 station would get a new chief, and they wouldn't know. There was no way
14 he could find out that something should not be sent as open text, and
15 then, most probably, such things did happen.
16 And on my part, I may have warned people on the ground. I think
17 I even sent a dispatch to that effect, saying that such things should not
18 happen. And I informed the chiefs of the public security stations. I
19 think I sent out a message of that sort after all those warnings and
20 employees coming to tell me that this was not something that should be
21 done like that.
22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about the actual physical act of encrypting
23 a message.
24 Can you tell us briefly in the simplest layman's terms or
25 non-engineer terms, that you can, how that was done, in your centre?
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Hannis, I don't know
2 long this answer is going to be, but although we are a minute shy of the
3 ordinary time for taking a break, it may be convenient to take the break
4 now, and then --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. HANNIS: I suspect it may be a longer answer, so time -- now
7 would be a good time.
8 JUDGE HALL: We resume in 20 minutes.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, while we're waiting for the witness,
13 I shouldn't conceal my curiosity as to how the question of encryption is
14 relevant to the case, but I'm sure you will enlighten us.
15 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I think some of these that we
16 have been talking about are things that are probably fairly common
17 knowledge most of us here, but absent judicial notice, I think it is
18 necessary for me to put some things in the record. I will try to keep it
19 brief. I take your point.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Rakovic, I have been alerted that sometimes the interpreters
23 are having a hard time keeping up with you when you're giving some of
24 your longer answers, because you are speaking quickly, which is
25 understandable. But I have been asked to request that you try and slow
1 your answers down about a bit. Thank you.
2 When we broke, I wanted to ask you to explain briefly, if you
3 could, in layman's terms as best as possible, how a dispatch was
4 encrypted when it was received in your unit?
5 A. The operator who is sending dispatches would take over the
6 dispatch, look at it, and see that it was encrypted marked S with a
7 diacritic, Sh. He takes it to the so-called cage which contained all the
8 equipment, the tele-type and the encryption and decryption machines. He
9 would go into the cage, re-type the dispatch. First he would type out
10 the text from the dispatch, and then this re-type was on a tape, on a
11 roll that would -- he would install on the encryption machine, and the
12 encryption machine turned the text into code, into symbols. And it would
13 sent it to destination; that's the point of encryption.
14 At destination the same procedure runs vice versa. The receiving
15 employee sees that he has receiving encrypted, puts it into the
16 decryption machine, and it comes out as normal text. Like we would do
17 when we received encrypted material.
18 I never personally did this work. I never entered this cage to
19 see how it was done, but I know what a teletype is; it is basically a
20 type writer with some additional accessories. I saw how it works, but I
21 never actually did it myself. I didn't go into that cage.
22 Q. Part of the process when -- when the operator has typed in the
23 message that needs to be encrypted, what happens to the original message
24 that he was working from, the one that had been signed by the author and
25 delivered to your unit? What becomes of that?
1 A. The initial message, either encrypted or not, was returned to the
2 sender. The person who brought the message in the first place would come
3 to recover it, or sometimes the signalsman would go and return it himself
4 when nobody came for it. Whoever sent the message would put some sort of
5 sign or initial to indicate it was sent, and then it was returned to the
6 sender. All the dispatches looked the same. It's ordinary letters and
7 everything, except when it is marked Sh, S with a diacritic, it means
8 that it had been encrypted before sending. So that nobody between our
9 end and the other end could sort of intercept it and see it as it was.
10 They couldn't decrypt it.
11 Q. So in addition to the operator putting his initials or some mark
12 on the copy that is returned to the author after the dispatch has been
13 sent, did you within your unit keep some kind of record of dispatches
14 that you have sent and dispatches that have you received?
15 A. In our organisational unit, the section for transmission, we had
16 log-books. I believe we had at least four. At this moment I have 25
17 log-books, for instance. We, as the centre, with lots of incoming and
18 outcoming messages, had four log-books. Two log-books recorded incoming
19 dispatches; one book was for open dispatches, and the other one for
20 coded. And two log-books were for outgoing messages, both open and
21 encrypted. Sometimes when we would need it to run checks, when somebody
22 wanted to check if something was really sent or received, et cetera, we
23 would be able to trace it in the log-book because we would enter in the
24 log-book various codes. SJB, for instance, stood for a police station or
25 PS, we would know who the receiving party was. And accordingly, we would
1 log in all the open messages and encrypted messages in outgoing mail
2 log-books. And thanks to these books we could prove, if somebody was
3 claims otherwise, that we have or have not received something or have or
4 have not sent something.
5 In smaller stations they had fewer log-books. First of all,
6 there was a shortage and, in any case there were maximum two log-books.
7 One for incoming, one for outgoing. And the incoming then would contain
8 both open and encrypted.
9 As far as I remember, encrypted messages accounted for 5 to
10 10 per cent of the overall, whereas as all the others were open,
11 90 per cent.
12 Q. Thank you. I'd like to show you a document now. This is 65 ter
13 number 2402. And it's a long document. The first page will be up on
14 your screen in just a second. And I'll ask you if you can recognise it.
15 Do you recall having looked at this before testifying today?
16 A. I looked at these books in the course of proofing and interviews.
17 I just can't remember whether this is the precise book I've seen, judging
18 by the dates. It says: Received open, from 27 November 1992 to
19 2nd August, 1993.
20 Q. I'm sorry. If we could go to page 3 in both the English and the
22 Could you take a look at that, and by looking at the headings and
23 the various entries under those headings, can -- can you tell us anything
24 further about what this is a log-book of.
25 A. You can see, looking at this page, B 0071010, that dispatches
1 were logged here as they came in. So they are received dispatches.
2 One column indicates from whom, Grahovo, Teslic, Mrkonjic Grad,
3 Bihac, Prijedor, MUP Teslic, Srbac, Laktasi. This is in the "from"
5 The next column is "to." It's mainly full of CSB, CSB. All I
6 can see is this is a log-book of received dispatches. I can see from
7 whom they arrived, and I know for whom they were intended, CSB, but I
8 don't know if they were to be sent on somewhere else.
9 I can see in one of the lines, 29 November, marked that there is
10 an indication, operations duty service. I can't see much more.
11 We can see from whom they arrived and for whom they were
12 intended. It is mainly CSBs, the addressee.
13 Q. [Microphone not activated] On the far right of the document, I
14 think it's being scrolled over now for you to see. There are what appear
15 to be initials or signatures. Is that how it was normally done?
16 A. It's the signature of the person who received it. I think it was
17 signed by operators, radio telegraph operators. They would initial as a
18 sign that they received it.
19 You see this bracket encompassing several lines and then he would
20 sign next to it.
21 Another thing could be, is that this is the signature of the
22 person who recovered the dispatch, when the operator gives the dispatch
23 to the person for whom it was intended, such as someone in the CSB. And
24 then he would call somebody, like a secretary, and the secretary would
25 then come, and perhaps it's the secretary who signed to indicate that she
1 took the dispatch and physically took it to -- to whomever.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document. I
4 would indicate that it goes beyond the 31st of December, 1992, but I
5 would suggest that we should have the whole document in now. I think it
6 will link up with other evidence to come in the case and some that has
7 already been in. It will assist us perhaps in tracking certain documents
8 as to when they were received in Banja Luka, and that may carry
9 significance later on.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 Q. Now --
13 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1001, Your Honours.
14 MR. HANNIS: My apologies. It's been too long since I moved to
15 tender a document.
16 Q. Witness, next I'd like to show you a document that is in evidence
17 already, just to ask you a question about some markings on it.
18 MR. HANNIS: And it is P553.
19 Q. And this -- sorry. This is appears to be a dispatch or a
20 telegram from your centre, addressed to various SJB chiefs and the
21 President of certain Serbian municipalities.
22 Can you tell us what this is? Can you recognise this by the
23 format and the typing?
24 A. Looking at this document, it's marked 0043264, I see the heading:
25 Security Services Centre Banja Luka, dispatch number 11-115. And then it
1 says: SJB - everybody - and then many places, because I don't know why
2 it's written like this, because when you say "for everybody," then you
3 don't indicate all of them by name.
4 Q. Let me --
5 A. And, at the bottom, I believe it is the chief of the centre who
7 Q. Let me stop you there and ask a couple specific questions.
8 Do you recognise this typewritten format as being distinctive of
9 a teletype, or a telegram?
10 A. Could you show me the bottom, the signature?
11 Well, just from looking at it, it's a classic dispatch. It has a
12 header, indication of addressees, text, and signature. It looks like it
13 was transmitted by teletype, whether it could indeed be sent to teletype
14 to all of these entities. When I see written "president of the Serbian
15 municipalities," and then I see which municipalities, we did not have
16 teletype communication with all of them. So it doesn't really fit. I
17 don't see how it could have worked.
18 Q. Let me ask you a couple of specific questions.
19 At the top, where it has CSB, Banja Luka, there's a dispatch
20 number 11-115. Can you tell us what the 11 signifies? What does that
21 refer to in a dispatch from Banja Luka?
22 A. Well, there were all sorts of numbers. I suppose this number was
23 a reference to our centre. It says Security Services Centre, Banja Luka,
24 dispatch number 11. There are no additions, if we had something added,
25 for instance, my service was "11-1/" and then the number of the dispatch.
1 Looking at this, I suppose it went from the chief -- the chief,
2 and I see the signature is also from the chief, and that that -- that's
3 logical. Then we should look up this number in the log-book or notebook
4 of the person who recorded dispatches at the chief's office, and we would
5 find the same number in our log-book of messages transmitted.
6 Q. Let me stop you there. Didn't all the dispatches sent from
7 Banja Luka CSB begin with a number 11 in 1992?
8 A. I think so. Can you see from here that it is the case. Because
9 the other numbers would indicate another organisational unit. That's
10 what I said. 11-1/01, was general police. We were/04.
11 So this first number is the same for everyone. And then have you
12 this other number that indicates the date and the year.
13 Q. Let me stop you there. We will have more dispatches to look at,
14 and I think we will see some with those -1/01 or /04, et cetera, that you
15 were just telling me about.
16 Here, though, for -- the number is 11-115. What is the 115? Is
17 that a sequential number. In other words, is that the 115th dispatch
18 sent out by 11, CSB Banja Luka in 1992? Is that what that second number
19 refers to?
20 A. This second number should be the number of the dispatch, the
21 sequential number of the dispatch. That means that the previous number
22 should have been 114. The next one should be 116. That's how it should
23 be if it were sent from the same service.
24 Q. Thank you. And I see typewritten to the right of that in
25 quotation marks the letters "DX."
1 Can you tell us what that is and what it stands for.
2 A. DX indicates urgency. It's the third order of urgency, so it is
3 not operationally urgent. The first order was very urgent; the next one
4 was DD. It had to be sent back then within two hours, nowadays it would
5 also have to be sent immediately. And DX was to be sent within four
6 hours. All this has been changed by now. Then the next order would be
7 within 16 hours. We can also see from this that it is an open dispatch.
8 Q. Let me try and clarify that. How many levels of urgency were
9 there, and what were the designators?
10 First of all, what was the designation for the most urgent, and
11 how quickly did that have to be sent?
12 A. According to the rule book on dispatch transmission that I was
13 familiar with, the levels were as follows: Very urgent. We had no such
14 dispatches in our centre, at least I don't remember.
15 Then the next level would be DD --
16 Q. Wait, let me stop you.
17 What would be the letter or abbreviation for that, even though
18 you didn't see one in your --
19 A. It would be spelled like that, "very urgent."
20 Q. Thank you. Tell me about the next level down.
21 A. The next level down was DD. An urgent dispatch that would be
22 transmitted within two hours, but it's been changed now, especially since
23 we don't have any dispatches marked "very urgent." The DDs are sent
24 practically immediately.
25 DD is followed by DX. The level of urgency was four hours.
1 The next down was D. Means eight hours, one work shift.
2 And after D, followed O. That was operative urgency. It to be
3 transmitted within 16 hours. So that dispatches created within one work
4 shift would not be late. They would have to be transmitted in the next
6 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. And the last question on this
7 document --
8 MR. HANNIS: If we could scroll to the bottom of the page in both
9 English and B/C/S.
10 Q. I see the name Mirko -- and my translation says: Received by
11 Mirko 30 April 1992 at 0942?
12 Do you know anything about who that is and what that means on
13 this document?
14 A. Well, it means it was received by Mirko. We had at that time a
15 signalsman called Mirko Dentaric [phoen], and we can see when we received
16 it at, 0942 hours. Fact he sent it at 0942; he didn't receive it. He
17 sent it.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 Let me show you next 65 ter 00103.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, please, this you said this was
21 exhibited as P553; right? You said that --
22 MR. HANNIS: That's what I said.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. And could you -- could you indicate where I
24 can find it on your list to use with this witness? Perhaps your
25 Case Manager could assist. Because I can't find it.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do you have a 65 ter number?
3 MR. HANNIS: I have a 65 ter number, 00104.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: 000 --
5 MR. HANNIS: I thought we sent you a --
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: 104.
7 MR. HANNIS: Yeah, 104, I thought we sent you a list.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, I have it, okay, thank you.
9 MR. HANNIS: It's a consolidated list, which --
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, but the P number isn't mentioned on the
12 MR. HANNIS: I know, but for ease of future reference,
13 Your Honour, I think it's sorted in the chronological order. So this the
14 29th of April and --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, thanks.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 Q. Next, 00103, 65 ter.
18 You see this one, then, Mr. Rakovic. Again, is this a dispatch
19 that would have gone out from your centre in Banja Luka?
20 A. Can we just enlarge this writing a bit? This is fine.
21 It's similar to the one before. The heading, the number, to whom
22 it is sent. Everything is almost the same.
23 Q. Now, in the last one, and this one as well, we see some
24 handwriting on the top. Can you tell us anything about where that comes
25 from and when it would have been put on?
1 A. Well, this handwritten addition, I suppose, could only have been
2 made by the recipient. That's what I think. Because the sender, if the
3 sender had written this, we would have been unable to transmit it. We
4 wouldn't know what to write. However, the recipient, one of these police
5 stations or chiefs of police stations, they would, and I'd do the same
6 thing, they would write something about what had to be done about the
7 dispatch in longhand. Maybe he made copies, and it says something like
8 it has to be sent to other police stations. And then I see initials.
9 That means the person who received this dispatch made a note what had to
10 be done, probably had it copied, because, as far as I know, these are
11 police stations. They did not have the equipment. It could have been
12 transmitted to them by fax or somehow.
13 The rest is the same as in the previous dispatch, apart from the
14 text, which I didn't read.
15 Q. Well, I think you're right.
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, it would indicate that the ERNs that
17 begin with a P are from a Prijedor collection, and that is where this
18 document came from.
19 Q. Is this a standard practice by the receiving party when you
20 receive a dispatch to, perhaps, make some handwritten notations on it as
21 to how it should be distributed or any remarks? Would you do that in
22 your centre in Banja Luka when you received a dispatch?
23 A. Well, I can say that I did, for myself.
24 Sometimes a dispatch would arrive addressed to someone, usually a
25 high-ranking chief, and we would call the secretary who would probably
1 write 01, 02, 03, 04, and so on. It says here to stations various
2 stations, crime investigation service, police department, and so on and
3 so forth.
4 So it might happen, that would be the practice. When a dispatch
5 arrived addressed to someone, something had to be written on it. When
6 you sent me a request to come to testify here, if it arrived in my
7 chief's office, he would have initialed it to show his approval and that
8 he was aware of why I would be absent, and so on.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to tender that one, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1002, Your Honours.
13 MR. HANNIS: Next, if we could show the witness 65 ter
14 number 1469. This is dated the 13th of May, 1992.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I suppose that all of this goes to showing the
18 mode of communication from and to the various MUP departments, and in
19 particular, the CSB in Banja Luka.
20 I wonder if this is disputed and if it could be stipulated?
21 What's the position of the Defence?
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you have anticipated
23 my standpoint.
24 The witness may describe the manner of communication and the form
25 of the document, whereas, we are admitting the whole document including
1 it's content, and the witness knows nothing about the content of the
2 document. Those are my reservations. I do not object to the witness
3 testifying about the forms of various documents, the manner of their
4 sending. However, if a document is admitted into evidence and we also
5 admit the contents of the document, there is always a danger that the we
6 will admit a document that the witness knows nothing about as regards its
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's not necessary, he doesn't have
9 to know about the content. If it is authentic - and he's a person who
10 can establish its authenticity because of his work - then the document
11 comes in and speaks for itself. Other witnesses can come in and talk
12 about the contents and say whether they are accurate true or false, but
13 it's in. That's my position.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not rise when
15 the first document was admitted because it was already in evidence in
16 fact. But this second document was not an exhibit. It is my standpoint
17 that perhaps Mr. Hannis should have used dispatches that had already been
18 admitted into evidence so that this witness could describe the form, the
19 manner of sending, and so on.
20 Now there is a latent danger that a document might slip in that
21 the witness can not comment upon.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: As far as I have understood, Mr. Cvijetic, this
23 witness is testifying to the authenticity of these documents and -- and
24 as I started out by saying, the gist that I get of this is the evidence
25 of how communications were made between, as I said, the MUP departments,
1 and here, in particular, to and from the CSB in Banja Luka, that, of
2 course, is important evidence. But my question to you was whether --
3 whether this is at all in dispute, and if it is not, then we might as
4 well just go ahead and admit these documents.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I had to written -- I thought I copied
6 Mr. Cvijetic, but I know I wrote Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Pantelic a couple of
7 days ago indicating that with this witness, what I was primarily doing
8 with most of the documents was simply trying to have them authenticate
9 him, and I was not going to be asking him about content per se. I'm
10 asking him about some of the markings, numbers and, you know, routing
11 information and urgency, et cetera, because that is what he knows about.
12 But not about the content itself.
13 And I -- I ask, if they had a position about whether or not we
14 could reach some agreement. Mr. Zecevic was sick and told me he would
15 try get back to me, but I haven't heard. And if I need to do this way, I
16 will do it this way. But it takes the witness and I a little longer than
17 I hoped it would to go through them.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, if I may be of assistance. The
20 position of Zupljanin Defence is the following, and of course along the
21 lines that my learned friend Mr. Cvijetic just made his submission.
22 First of all, yes, I agree with the Prosecution that this
23 particular witness, Mr. Rakovic, is of primarily assistance to explain
24 technical point of view with these communications. We don't have problem
25 with that, absolutely. Mr. Rakovic is obviously [indiscernible]
1 professional, of course.
2 On the other hand, I think that Mr. Rakovic can speak only on
3 behalf of himself and his department, and these particular number of
4 dispatches can be admitted as exhibit through this particular evidence.
5 The prudent and, I would say, fair way would be for the other dispatches,
6 which I don't have any problem with Mr. Hannis to offer, should be marked
7 for identification. And then, at certain stage with the relevant
8 witness, Mr. Hannis can, or Defence can, tender it into evidence.
9 Otherwise, Your Honour, as you -- I'm sure you follow this very detailed
10 explanation ever Mr. Rakovic, the practice in CSB Banja Luka was the
11 following. And Mr. Rakovic also did it in his work. He, himself, signed
12 Stojan Zupljanin as a signatory in dispatch and sent it to telecom or the
13 other public companies, et cetera. And then if we are looking at the
14 particular dispatch, the author is Stojan Zupljanin, but in fact he
15 isn't. The author is, in this particular case, Mr. Rakovic. He
16 explained that in his previous testimony.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that misstates his evidence. He didn't
18 say he was the author of the document.
19 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, he said when -- when he said that on
20 behalf of head of centre --
21 MR. HANNIS: And perhaps we should have this discussion outside
22 the presence of the witness.
23 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, I'm sorry, we can clarify that at a later
25 So basically, yes, we don't have --
1 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. We should have this discussion outside
2 of the presence of the witness. I don't want him tainted by something
3 that I say or something that one of my learned friends says across the
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Rakovic, the usher would escort you out of --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic and Mr. Pantelic, on a purely practical
10 level, inasmuch as in a trial we can only deal with witnesses
11 sequentially and what from Mr. Hannis has said about the purpose of the
12 identification, for want of a better word, of the -- of the documents
13 through this witness, wouldn't it make -- wouldn't it be practical and
14 convenient and cause no real harm to the Defence if they exhibited it, as
15 Mr. Hannis proposes?
16 MR. PANTELIC: First of all, yes, Your Honour, I will give my
18 It is a page 26, line 10, of today's transcript. This witness
19 said the following:
20 "I would write the dispatch, and I would put the name of the head
21 of the centre, and then I would put a comma because I was authorised ..."
22 et cetera.
23 That was my particular submission with regard to the testimony of
24 this witness, this -- this afternoon. Where -- I'm coming now to my
25 previous submission. Where I don't have any particular problem that
1 Mr. Hannis offers a number of these pages going from department where
2 Mr. Rakovic was a head. I have any problem with that. That but I have a
3 problem with the other number of dispatches where the name of my client
4 is at the end of dispatch, and in accordance with the practice it was
5 made by, I would say, public security or financial centre, et cetera,
6 then we are loosing our track. And it is not fair. It is not in the
7 interests of justice or my client to have these dispatches exhibited
8 through this witness where, obviously, the practice was -- was very, very
9 specific in CSB.
10 So that's why I'm asking and kindly request that all other
11 dispatches should be marked for identification. I don't know how many
12 Mr. Hannis will offer. And that a limited number, where this particular
13 witness can say, Yes, I was the author, Yes, I know this dispatch, I
14 don't have any problem to be admitted. Because at the end of the day we
15 should come to the confusion point, Your Honours. Where we shall have a
16 number of dispatches allegedly where author is Mr. Zupljanin, but it is
17 not in fact the case, according to the page 26, line 10, and the
18 testimony of this witness. Where we shall, of course, go in more details
19 in our cross-examination, but, I mean, at this stage, I think it's --
20 it's quite sufficient.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think, Mr. Pantelic, that it is a very common
23 practice and, indeed, a necessary practice, that the chief of any
24 institution would see letters and dispatches going out in his name and,
25 of course, also thereby taking responsibility for the -- such letters and
1 dispatches that are issued in his name, even if the chief of the
2 institution didn't author the -- the documents itself. I think this is
3 very normal administrative practice and, of course, the chief of the
4 institution will have to rely on the skills and the faithfulness of his
6 Now, when these documents are being presented by the Prosecution
7 and -- and we have the person who, in this case, authored some of the
8 documents, the dispatches that we have seen and who signed them on behalf
9 of your client, and when we admit these documents, the first thing that
10 follows from our admission into evidence is, of course, that the document
11 is authentic. It was, indeed, the document that was send.
12 But the second thing that happens is that it goes into evidence
13 also with its contents, and, I mean, this is a fact of life, that these
14 documents were issued in the name of your client, and if it turns out
15 that the there's something incriminating in these documents, then you
16 will have to fight it. But you cannot refuse that they go into evidence.
17 Am I getting myself clear?
18 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour, and in general terms, I
19 am along your lines also.
20 As I said, I don't have any particular problems that the number
21 of dispatches will be admitted on a basis of MFI. I don't have problem.
22 But, Your Honour, only dispatches where this witness is the author and
23 signatory, then, I mean, also I don't have problem to be admitted with
24 the full exhibit number.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Where is the distinction you make? This witness,
1 the author, and the other ones are what then? I mean, I just try to
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I will try to be clearer.
4 For example, there are some dispatches where a signature is
5 Mr. Zupljanin, but the author was chief of criminal department where, I
6 don't know, certain informations were sent, et cetera, et cetera. I
7 think the proper way to know with these codes that Mr. Hannis just
8 mentioned, 01, 02, 03, 04, at certain stage, we could see who actually
9 was the author of this particular dispatch and who put the name of
10 Mr. Zupljanin. Again, Your Honour, I don't have in quality terms any
11 problems with the professional aspect of work of my client, but as a
12 matter of principle, I think it is not fair to admit dispatches where
13 this particular witness is not aware of the -- who -- who made that
14 particular dispatch.
15 That's why we have certain codes, 01, 02, 03, et cetera,
16 et cetera, depending of the departments of the CSB, and then we know who
17 the author is, actually.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: The document -- the -- when the witness returns to
20 the stand, the documents may be admitted as exhibits, as the Prosecution
21 has -- has applied.
22 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P --
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I understand correctly, what I
24 propose -- I'm sorry.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. This will be Exhibit P1003, Your Honours.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, your application was in respect of a
5 particular document. The -- having regard to the discussion that that
6 provoked, wouldn't it be practical to seek to admit the whole batch of
7 documents and -- so that we can get on with the substance of the
8 witness's testimony.
9 MR. HANNIS: I would like to do that, Your Honour. My list is in
10 chronological order. The majority of the dispatches are sort of regular
11 in form with what we have seen so far. I have a some particular
12 questions about a few of them, but it would be nice if I could give you a
13 list of 20 and say, These are all the same as the others, and I would
14 tender them at that point in time, and then have them numbered and ask
15 particular questions about them.
16 I have a total, I think, of something less than 30. There are a
17 few in there that are not dispatches from CSB Banja Luka but to
18 Banja Luka, perhaps from the ministry, for example, for from an SJB, so I
19 might have to treat those differently.
20 But as far as the ones that are dispatches done by the teletypist
21 we've seen and as described by the witness, I would like to put those in
22 sort of as a lump collection, in light of the comments we've made.
23 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... for the record, no doubt,
24 counsel for the Defence would wish to enter their objection.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a suggestion.
1 From the material I have seen on the 65 ter list, these
2 dispatches should be grouped by type, because there are dispatches sent
3 from the Banja Luka centre, others who are received in some other centre,
4 some received from the ministry or sent from the ministry, so that to
5 admit them all together, I think is too ambitious.
6 I realize the Court wishes to save time, but, in addition to this
7 chronological order, I think they ought to be classified by type, because
8 this would be of assistance, I believe, both for the Prosecutor and for
9 the Chamber.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: For the record, we would enter our objection,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Mr. Hannis, it appears to us that
15 Mr. Krgovic's suggestion has some merit, so at some -- at your very
16 earliest convenience, perhaps you can organise the documents in --
17 classify them in some fashion.
18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I guess I will do that. I think it
19 might be just as quick now for me to go through them one by one. And
20 those are similar to the ones that we have been talking about, if I have
21 some special question for the witness, I will ask him that question about
22 that marking. But otherwise, I'm just going to move to tender it. If
23 it's from CSB Banja Luka forwarded to the CSB -- CSB -- I'm sorry, the
24 SJBs, I'll tender them. And others I'll treat differently. Ones from
25 the -- from MUP headquarters or from a SJB to the centre, I'll treat
1 differently and ask further questions before moving to tendered them.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, we were thinking that perhaps if you
4 would be good enough to organise the 30-odd dispatches in such a way as
5 to classify them into groups, say, to the CSB and from the CSB, and --
6 and whatever useful classification or organisation we could make, then we
7 would suggest that you simply have them moved into evidence now. You can
8 still put one or two of some of them to the witness, if have you any
9 particular point that you wish to raise with the witness. But,
10 otherwise, for the sake of convenience and expediency, we will just admit
11 them now, and then can you subsequently provide us with a list of the
12 dispatches in the organised manner that you see fit.
13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time figuring out
14 mechanically how to best do that, now standing on my feet. If --
15 And part of I'm trying to do is, for example, in P1003 that we've
16 just admitted, you will see in the first paragraph, it says:
17 "We are hereby sending the integral text of order number 01-1/92.
18 That document is the next one I intend to show because it links to this
19 document, but it is not a CSB document. I think it makes most sense to
20 connect it with a document which refers to it directly.
21 I'm sorry, I appreciate --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, no, let's just go ahead and move on now, but
23 do it as quickly and swiftly as you possibly can.
24 MR. HANNIS: I will.
25 Q. Witness, before we leave this document, you will see in the first
1 paragraph after the addressees, it says:
2 "We are hereby sending you the integral text of order number
3 01-1/92, dated 4 May, which we received from the minister."
4 Do you see that? I need to you answer out loud. Did you see
6 A. On the 13th of May? The 13th of May.
7 Q. Yes. But in the text. Under the addressees, it says, We're
8 sending you the text, and then order number such and such, dated the 4th
9 of May, which we received from the minister.
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes. I see it, yes.
12 MR. HANNIS: Now can we show the witness exhibit 65 ter 106,
13 dated the 4th of May.
14 Q. And on this one do you see that this is a document from the
15 Ministry of the Interior numbered 01-1/92?
16 A. Well, judging by the heading, you can see what it says here,
17 Serbian republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of the Interior,
18 Sarajevo. And there is a number, and there is a date. And what follows
19 is the text.
20 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 A. And what follows is the text. I don't know what there is at the
23 Q. Let's have a look at the last page.
24 See a name and a signature?
25 A. I don't recognise the signature. It says, Minister of the
1 interior, Mico Stanisic. I don't see anything to indicate it might have
2 been signed by someone else. I don't recognise -- well, I'm not
3 familiar, in other words, with Mr. Stanisic's signature. It appears to
4 be -- well, I don't know who signed it, actually. And --
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I would move to tender this document as
6 directly linked to P1003 that's now in evidence.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, maybe we should take
8 the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Hannis during the break. We
9 have no problem with the content of this document but, in principle, we
10 have a general objection to the manner of its tendering, because the
11 witness should identify this document: Is it a telegram, is it a
12 dispatch, in other words?
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I just --
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's the part that's missing, in
15 addition to the signature.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I just ask one thing?
17 Is the witness able to tell us that this was the attachment to
18 the dispatch you are linking it with? In this way, that he can -- he can
19 tell us that the dispatch -- that the dispatch and the attachment were
20 processed in his centre?
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, for this particular document, it's the
22 Prosecution position he doesn't need to. The documents themselves do
23 that. You will see P1003 says, We're sending you the integral text of
24 document number such and such, dated 4th of May. Then a quote from the
25 text. You read the quoted text in P1003, and you see it is identical to
1 the text --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, I don't think we understand each
3 other. My question is not whether the witness remembers but whether this
4 is -- this just -- this would be the normal procedure. I just want to
5 know that this is -- it is more or less obvious, but I want so have the
6 confirmation that this is what happens. If that is in a dispatch that
7 hereby we send you, et cetera, et cetera, that the attachment goes
8 through his services as well.
9 For instance, would it be -- would it be encrypted? Would there
10 be a necessity to have it encrypted? Would the attachment be encrypted
11 as well? So my question is, does -- does this attachment -- did this
12 attachment go through his centre or not? Or did he only make the
13 dispatch and send the dispatch to, I don't know what other service, where
14 -- where in the other service they attached it?
15 It's just a question. I don't know -- I don't say it is crucial
16 to the answer.
17 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure I understand. Let me ask him a
18 question, and then maybe you will see whether I'm understanding or not.
19 Q. Witness, if we can go back and look P1003, the one that we were
20 just looking at. And basically this is a document being forwarded from
21 the centre in Banja Luka, and it's forwarding a -- it's forwarding the
22 text of an order that it says was received from the minister.
23 Do you have the document in front of you yet?
24 MR. HANNIS: Perhaps I can hand the witness a hard copy.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The document is still not on the
1 screen, and the witness does not have a hard copy.
2 MR. HANNIS:
3 Q. Do you see, Witness, the information that begins in the quotation
4 mark. And my English translation says: "Given the reliable report [sic]
5 that certain Ustasha forces, acting on Izetbegovic's instructions are
6 attempting to recruit ..."
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, yes, I'm reading.
9 Q. From where would you, in the communications centre, have received
10 that information to put in your outgoing dispatch? Would you have a
11 document in hand?
12 A. Look, you see the heading. It's our centre's dispatch. It's
13 indicated to whom it should go. Then it says from the minister of the
14 MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH, we received order number so-and-so,
15 that we transmit to you in its entirety. That means that this part of
16 the text had to be attached. Otherwise, it couldn't have been
18 Our service typed out one bit and then included this other part.
19 We didn't have computers to copy and paste. I'm just typing out
20 something that had arrived already. And then after the signature, where
21 it says the minister, you just add, Please act on this, and so and so.
22 Otherwise, it couldn't work. Nobody could have retyped this. You
23 couldn't just glue this piece of paper on.
24 I suppose it's a document. It -- it wasn't probably even a
25 dispatch. It was some document. We received a document, and that
1 document was typed out again ...
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... now let me go back to 65 ter
4 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure when the time for the break is.
5 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] you have another six
7 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Rakovic, I want to show that you document that appears to be
9 from the minister of the interior. It has that same reference number and
10 the date of May the 4th that we were looking at.
11 This document itself, based on what I've seen and we've been
12 talking about, that this does not appear to be a dispatch. This is not a
13 teletype -- tele-printed document. Correct?
14 A. I looked at it a moment ago. The second page of this document
15 ends with a signature.
16 Page 2 of this document, didn't we see it a moment ago on the
17 screen? There was a signature.
18 Q. Yes, we can put it on the screen for you. If we go to the last
19 page. There did appear to be a signature.
20 A. And you see that this document wasn't sent by the Security
21 Services Centre. You can see where it come from. It had come from the
22 ministry in Sarajevo as indicated at the top. And, secondly, it wasn't
23 communicated through this system. You see the signature which means it
24 could have been faxed, or it could have been copied and sent by mail.
25 So it couldn't have been received through our system of
1 encryption. As soon as you see the signature, you know that it is not
2 our system. You can see the name and surname and signature.
3 Q. Let me ask you two questions about that. One, could this
4 document that we see on the screen have been sent to the communications
5 centre in the ministry and from which a teletype was prepared and sent to
6 your centre?
7 Is that one possibility how could you is gotten this information?
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Parallel to the signed version?
9 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I think we heard testimony before when he
10 explained how a document got sent by teletype. It was prepared by
11 someone, perhaps the chief or his secretary, signed, delivered to the
12 communications centre, then typed up into the teletype machine by the
13 operator. And the original document then was initialed and returned to
14 the author. I think I'm stating that correctly.
15 So I'm asking if, in the MUP headquarters, in the ministry, this
16 could be the document that was authored by, apparently, Mico Stanisic,
17 delivered to their communication centre from which a dispatch was
19 The other possibility that I intend to ask him about is whether
20 or not this actual document itself was mailed or delivered by courier to
21 Banja Luka. But somehow they had the information that is contained in
22 this document obviously. I'm just trying to explore the possible means
23 of how it got there.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: I guess the issue is rather whether this witness
25 was taking part in the processing of the document, in the communications
1 processing, whether it went through his office somehow.
2 MR. HANNIS: Well, it seems to me it must have, because the
3 contents of are contained within an outgoing dispatch sent by his centre.
4 So they must have gotten it from somewhere.
5 Am I missing something?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. HANNIS: Perhaps Your Honours haven't had a chance to read
8 the text in Mico Stanisic's document to compare with what goes in the
9 outgoing fax. The outgoing fax contains the identical information that's
10 in Mico Stanisic's document. Therefore, in Banja Luka, they must have
11 had a copy of it.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] We are still talking
13 about 65 ter 106; right?
14 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: So the document is admitted and marked.
17 And it is time for the break.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1004, Your Honours.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 5.42 p.m.
22 MR. HANNIS: As the witness is coming in, Your Honours, I would
23 indicate that I have gone through my list. I have identified 14
24 documents that I see as being outgoing dispatches from CSB Banja Luka.
25 My Case Manager has created a list. We'll send to the legal officer and
1 to the Defence, and perhaps they can have a look and advise whether they
2 have an objection to those.
3 The other documents are either from a CSB or incoming -- incoming
4 to the CSB from an SJB or from the ministry, or otherwise not like these,
5 and I need to treat those separately, I guess.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. HANNIS: So I will skip dealing with outgoing CSB documents
8 for now and concentrate on the others until I hear from the Defence and
9 the Your Honours about the remaining ones.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 Next, if we could show the witness exhibit -- it's an exhibit in
13 evidence, but I have a question for him. It's P565.
14 Q. Mr. Rakovic, this document coming up on your screen is dated the
15 18th of May, 1992, and appears to be from a man named Zoran Josic, and
16 it's directed to the CSB Banja Luka.
17 Can you make any comment on this document? Is this what an
18 incoming document from one of the SJBs would look like?
19 A. At that time, Banja Luka had its own public security station on
20 an equal footing with others, but the largest one. And this Zoran Josic
21 was, I suppose, I can't say that he was chief. He says head of section,
22 Zoran Milosevic.
23 He was head of the section at the public security station in the
24 criminal department, I suppose. And he is sending a dispatch to the CSB
25 Banja Luka, the SNB sector which is national security sector. I don't
1 know what this would mean. SB -- since CSB Banja Luka was divided into
2 two sectors, public security and national security. It used to be state
3 security. But at that time it was national security. It says, your
4 reference, dispatch such and such.
5 Q. I understand, let me ask you a question.
6 In the CSB in Banja Luka, did communication documents to and from
7 the national security side go through your communications centre, or did
8 they have a separate communications centre; do you know?
9 A. When I started working, documents sent by the state security, or
10 to the state security, if they went through this system -- they mainly
11 went through our system, the teletype system. I cannot associate
12 anything with this dispatch because both seats were there so it probably
13 didn't go through us. It was printed, signed, and then the secretaries
14 probably took it from one room to another; that's the way I see it. But,
15 otherwise, generally speaking, most dispatches during my tenure were
16 processed by us even for the State Security Service, although by that
17 time, they were already separating and creating their own computer
19 But for the most part, dispatches for them and by them were
20 processed by us.
21 Q. Let me ask you: Banja Luka SJB, where was that located vis-a-vis
22 Banja Luka CSB? Were you in the same building?
23 A. The public security Banja Luka, the crime police and the chief
24 were in the same building. In addition to the crime police and the
25 chief, there were also police stations in Banja Luka. At that time we
1 had three police stations, and the traffic police station, PC centre,
2 PC Bucak, and another one, and that was all SJB Banja Luka.
3 Q. Two more questions on this document. At the top, number 11-2/02,
4 what does that tell you about what unit or person it comes from?
5 A. Eleven is the centre; -2 could mean SJB Banja Luka; /02 is crime
6 police; 01 was uniform police; and 02 was crime police. And the rest is
7 clear. You can see that the head of section sent it to the addressee
8 indicated above.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, for clarity, the English says:
11 Reference your dispatch number 11-1401. I think from the original you
12 can see that should be 11-140. I don't know if we need to send it for a
13 corrected translation, or if we can just note it on the record that the
14 English should be 140. And I would indicate 11-140 is a document in
15 evidence as P561.
16 Next if we could show the witness 65 ter 442.
17 Q. Mr. Rakovic --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry.
20 Q. This appears to be a document from the Prijedor SJB addressed to
21 the Banja Luka Security Services Centre to the head and to the operative
22 duty service.
23 First of all, can you tell us what the operative duty service is
24 in Banja Luka CSB?
25 A. Well, the operative duty service at the CSB Banja Luka was a duty
1 service that worked 24 hours/7 doing mostly police work, and it also
2 coordinated with other public security stations, as far as I know. At
3 that time, and they are doing that still today, they gathered
4 information, they prepared morning bulletins, and they continue to do the
5 same today.
6 We see the person who sent this was from CSB Prijedor, and a
7 person from CSB Prijedor has signed. But normally you should write
8 "chief" first among the addressees and then operative duty service.
9 At that time and today the operative duty service would work
10 round the clock, and there would be two duty officers, and they
11 practically stand in for the management and coordinate. Still today when
12 a dispatch arrives from the -- from whoever for the chief or chief of
13 sector, we give these dispatches to the operative duty service.
14 Q. I'm sorry, I'm running short on my time, and I need to stop you
15 there. We need to focus on 1992.
16 At the bottom of this page I see something that is translated as
17 2 June 1992, Dusko, CSB, at 20/20 hours; and then Dragan, operative duty
18 service, at 2025 hours.
19 Do you know who those individuals are and what that notation
20 refers to?
21 A. From what I see, I suppose this first item means that at 20/20,
22 Dusko, the signalsman received the dispatch, and at 2025, he gave it to
23 Dragan, the operative officer on duty, because I don't know any other
24 Dusko. We have the date, the time, and Dusko.
25 Q. And this apparently is not a document sent by teletype because we
1 see handwritten number and signature. So how would this document have
2 come in to the CSB? Via courier?
3 A. Looking at this document, I don't see any indication that it came
4 by fax. Because with faxes you always get to see the number from which
5 it was sent. It must have come -- it's possible that it came in some
6 other way and that other way -- if it is obviously not from dispatch
7 traffic and there is a signature and it's not a fax, it could have come
8 by courier.
9 I'm not sure, but I can't think of any other way.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. I would like to tender 442.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness is still sure -- is nevertheless sure
14 that this is a document that was processed in his centre. He recognised
15 it as such.
16 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I think he indicated the
17 signature saying received for persons who worked in the CSB.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. I missed that, thank you.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness was not
20 asked the basic question, whether there is evidence it had been received
21 by the centre, to make the connection between the witness and the
22 document because this is not a telegram. This is just the letter.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, my argument --
24 JUDGE HALL: The witness seems -- wished to add something.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to come back to this paper,
1 the Honourable Judge asks if it was done in our centre. Obviously it was
2 not processed at our centre. We certainly did not receive it through our
3 means of communication.
4 I thought, since Dusko was signed that it may have arrived by
5 mail or some other way to our centre. Maybe directly to the operative
6 duty service. I don't know who this Dusko could be. I know one Dusko
7 who worked in communications. Because we had the operations duty service
8 and the communication service that worked 24 hours a day. So if somebody
9 came in the evening or at night, they would have no one to hand the
10 document to. It could have arrived -- it could have been handed in to
11 communications, then Dusko would sign for it, and five minutes later he
12 would hand it to the operations duty service. That's how I thought our
13 communication section could have been involved. But we can't see
14 anything else. We see it didn't go through dispatch traffic. It doesn't
15 mean that it had arrived at all. It could have been copied anywhere.
16 There is no signature of the recipient. We see just Dragan,
17 operations duty officer.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Rakovic.
19 Mr. Hannis, the answer that the witness volunteered, doesn't this
20 give substance to Mr. Krgovic's objection?
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it does give some substance. Maybe I
22 can ask the witness one further question.
23 Q. Are you telling us now, sir, that you seriously doubt that this
24 document was received in CSB Banja Luka?
25 A. Well, judging by this, you can't make a conclusion because
1 there's no signature. There's no signature. It says Dusko and Dragan.
2 Some Dusko and some Dragan. If somebody had signed, then we could say,
3 Yes, it was received at the operations duty service.
4 I'm just talking about assumptions that somebody could have
5 handed this to this Dusko who worked in my section, and then Dusko could
6 have given it to Dragan in the operations duty service. And it's
7 addressed to the operations duty service.
8 I'm not talking that it was received. I'm just saying that this
9 is what could have happened.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, doesn't it leave you sort of stranded in
11 terms of this document?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I ask that it be marked for
14 JUDGE HALL: Pending?
15 MR. HANNIS: Pending some further verification by another
16 individual in the future.
17 JUDGE HALL: I suppose so. Marked for identification.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1005, marked for
20 identification, Your Honours.
21 MR. HANNIS: Okay. I'd like to show the witness now exhibit 9 --
22 I'm sorry, Exhibit P654. It's dated the 25th of May, 1992.
23 Q. Witness, what can you tell us about this document? Is this a
24 dispatch that went out from your centre?
25 A. From what I see, that's what it looks like. There is an heading,
1 an indication to whom it was addressed, there is a reference to an
2 earlier dispatch number, 11-140, and we see the chief of the centre at
3 the bottom.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. It went by teletype, DX. We see it was an open dispatch.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. HANNIS: And can we now have a look at 65 ter 412?
8 Q. The one that we were just showing you was asking about asking the
9 CSBs to carry out their obligations about the delivering plans for
10 confiscation of illegally-owned weapons.
11 And now 65 412 is a document dated 25th of May. Same day as the
12 previous document.
13 Do you see this? Is this a dispatch or the original document
14 that would have been sent to be dispatched?
15 What can you tell us about it.
16 A. Well, that's what it would look like, a document from which a
17 dispatch has to be created. It should be sent in the form of dispatch
18 through our system. It's obviously that SJB Prijedor sent it, but the
19 signatory is not exactly the chief of the SJB. Somebody signed for him.
20 If it had been sent through our dispatch communications, then there would
21 have been no signature. If it had been a fax, there would have been a
22 header indicating the fax.
23 So I suppose this was something that was just prepared for
24 sending but never went anywhere. Well, maybe it was sent. Maybe the
25 dispatch went out, but we don't see the part that was transmitted. But
1 this is obviously a draft.
2 Another typical thing, another noteworthy thing, you see there's
3 a mark at the top, PS Roman numeral II-10. I think somebody scrolled on
4 this paper.
5 Q. You have no idea what that marking would mean?
6 A. I don't know, it could be PS police station. What the Roman
7 numeral II means, I don't know.
8 Q. And the number on this document, 11-12. Do you know -- 11-12
9 refers to Prijedor SJB?
10 A. Eleven is the centre, and 12 is the SJB Prijedor, like number 2
11 was SJB Banja Luka. These numbers indicated the public security station
12 in question.
13 Q. Let me next --
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may have I that marked for
16 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: The previous document, had that been previously --
19 was that exhibited?
20 MR. HANNIS: It had, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HALL: Oh, I see.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1006, marked for
23 identification, Your Honours.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
25 Q. Witness, you mentioned fax machines. I'd like to show you 65 ter
1 number 144. This is dated the 29th of May.
2 This appears to an outgoing document from CSB Banja Luka. And
3 can you tell us how this was transmitted?
4 A. Well, from the copy of this document, I see the initial mark is
5 that of our centre. I see in the header it's addressed to the chief, but
6 I also see that somebody signed for the chief of the centre using the
7 number indicating the chief's office.
8 I'm not reading the document. If I read it, I would probably
9 find out it was created by the crime police. I think it was the crime
10 police who wrote this, because they mentioned robberies, breaking and
11 entering, et cetera. And somebody sent this out on behalf or under the
12 name of the chief, and it was sent by fax, because it shows our fax
13 number, 7839155; that was our fax number.
14 I can't see anything else. It didn't go by dispatch. I see DX,
15 which means it was a normal dispatch. CSB, to everyone in the region.
16 Whether everyone was able to receive it is another matter. I don't think
17 everyone had fax machines. Maybe some stations typed this out and sent
18 it to other stations which did not have a fax.
19 Q. Let me ask you a question about that. Where was the fax machine
20 located? Was that in your comm. centre, in your area?
21 A. I think it was in our centre, yes.
22 Q. And --
23 A. It was where the teleprinters were. I didn't see it often.
24 Q. Yes. If -- if there was a SJB that did not have a fax machine by
25 which to receive a fax document like this, wouldn't there be some
1 indication on this document that alternate means of transmission were
2 made for that SJB?
3 A. Well, you know, the sender never did this unless they were
4 sending a document. They would mostly send a message to us, and if on
5 the document it said it had to be encrypted, then we certainly wouldn't
6 have sent it by fax. But as the document is open, there's no marking so
7 that means it was open, we were able to send it by other means of
8 communication, including a fax.
9 So it's possible that somebody received it by fax or by some
10 other means.
11 Q. But my question is, in your comm. Centre, the operator or the
12 comms. worker who got this document and sent it out by fax, if there was
13 not a fax machine in a particular SJB so that it could be received by
14 fax, wouldn't there have been some notation or indication that alternate
15 means were used to send this document to that SJB by courier or by some
16 other means? Didn't you have to keep a record of what you sent out so
17 that you could prove to the author that the requested document had been
18 sent to all the addressees?
19 A. If it was not possible to send the document to all the
20 addressees, then when the original dispatch was being sent back, the
21 operator would inform the sender that the dispatch could not be sent to
22 one or more of the addressees. He would know to whom he had not been
23 able to send it and he would make a note of that.
24 The sender, in that case, might think that, Well, it wasn't
25 absolutely necessary to send it to that particular addressee, or he might
1 decide to use some other means of communication, or mail it, or send it
2 by courier, or if he had a teleprinter available, he could have it
3 re-typed and sent by teleprinter.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'd like to tender 144.
6 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1007, Your Honours.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
9 Could we next show the witness 65 ter 2571.
10 Q. Mr. Rakovic, this is a document dated the 22nd of June, 1992.
11 And it appears that you were the author of this document.
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. Okay. Two questions. At the bottom, the last line is translated
14 as, Received by, question mark, Sunkic, on 22 June at certain hours.
15 Do you know who he was and where he worked?
16 A. Vidosav Sunkic, I think his first name was Vidosav, was a retired
17 employee of our service. He had worked there before I came. He was
18 probably engaged as a reservist because he was a reserve police officer.
19 He had previously worked on communications in RT Tej.
20 Q. Then we see some handwritten information on the top in the upper
21 right. I see there's a number 11-12/513.
22 I think you agreed with me before that 11-12 appears to be the
23 number associated with SJB Prijedor; is that correct?
24 A. Based on the numbers up here and the names I see written here, I
25 think it was the SJB Prijedor, yes.
1 I sent it to the chief of the Banja Luka CSB for his information,
2 to the chiefs of the SJBs on the ground, all of them, and to the
3 communications departments of the SJBs. The larger ones had their comms.
4 departments, Prijedor and so on, and the text you see here is one that I
5 wrote and sent out.
6 Q. The names in handwriting at the top, Jankovic, D; Mijic, R; and
7 Jankovic, M, are names you associate with Prijedor SJB?
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, there was a Jankovic and a Mihic
9 working in Prijedor, and they probably added these names to their
10 dispatches, and they might have copied the dispatch and given it to other
11 people so they would learn how to send dispatches, because that was the
12 point of this whole dispatch that I sent.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'd like to tender 2571.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1008, Your Honours.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. And if next we could show the witness
18 65 ter 488.
19 Q. Mr. Witness, this is a document dated the 24th of July, 1992,
20 purportedly from Prijedor to the Banja Luka Security Services Centre.
21 Can you tell us anything about the handwriting at the bottom on
22 the left? There's a date and the name "Rodic." Do you know who that
23 might be?
24 A. I can assume that it was the only Rodic who was in comms., and he
25 is still employed there. He probably received it at 1950 hours and
1 signed it. You can see that it arrived from Prijedor. It was addressed
2 to the Banja Luka CJB, and a man called Djuro Prpos was authorised,
3 probably he worked there. But the only thing that is not clear is how
4 this dispatch arrived there. So signature there. I don't -- well, it
5 couldn't have come through the system bearing this signature because you
6 can say by authorisation and everything else, but then you can't initial
7 it, so it didn't come through or teleprinter system. I don't see any fax
8 numbers here either of any sender or addressees, so in view of the time
9 entered here, I am assuming it might have been sent by courier. Somebody
10 might have brought it along who was coming to visit our centre on other
11 business, perhaps, and Rodic received it and then forwarded it on.
12 Q. In the circle are two letters that are in my English translation
13 as BM. Do you know what that would stand for in this context, under
14 Rodic's name?
15 A. I see that, but I don't know what it means. I know that Rodic's
16 first name is Milorad. So what BM might be, I don't know. I couldn't
17 tell you. Everything else is familiar. I see the time, the date, the
18 name. I assume it's our Rodic, not another Rodic. This was done in the
19 afternoon or in the evening. I know that five or six years ago there was
20 a Rodic in operative -- doing operative duty service, and he retired.
21 Whether it might that be Rodic, I don't know.
22 Q. Can you tell us whether or not this document was received in your
23 security centre in Banja Luka?
24 A. As I said just now, I cannot confirm that. If this Rodic is my
25 Rodic, the one who worked under me, then, yes. But it doesn't say here
1 what Rodic it was, and it didn't come through the teleprinter system. So
2 I can't see any evidence that it came through our system. I don't see
3 our fax number here.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
5 A. There might have been somebody else whose last name was Rodic,
6 although there was a Rodic working under me, yes.
7 Q. Let me show you next 65 ter 1264.
8 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Is this being marked for
10 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, may I?
11 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P1009, marked for
13 identification, Your Honours.
14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. And if we could have 65 ter 1264.
15 Q. I can tell you, Mr. Rakovic, this is a document dated the 3rd of
16 August, 1992. This appears to an outgoing document from your centre and
17 the -- the written name of the author is Sreto Gajic. Did you know
18 Sreto Gajic?
19 A. I knew Mr. Sreto Gajic, yes. But I can't see that this could
20 have been sent from the CSB. I see the number, yes, 11-1/01. Whether he
21 was using the number of the uniformed police department, I don't know.
22 But this doesn't seem to make sense. The MUP of the Serbian republic of
23 Bosnia Herzegovina to the minister Sarajevo and then CSB. Well, this
24 seems to have been written unprofessionally. CSB Banja Luka is on the
25 right-hand side, maybe it should have been on the left-hand side, and --
1 Q. Let me ask you --
2 A. Then would you have to state the addressee.
3 Q. Stop. I just asked if you knew Sreto Gajic. Please just answer
4 my question, and let me move on to the next question.
5 Mr. Gajic was an inspector from the ministry that came out to
6 Banja Luka to conduct an inspection in connection with the special unit.
7 Did you know that?
8 A. No, I didn't know that. I knew Sreto Gajic superficially. I
9 thought he was working in the border police, but I wasn't sure. All I'm
10 sure of that is that he was a member of the police force, but whether he
11 was working in the centre, or the ministry, I really don't know. I know
12 we met, said hello, but I'm not sure exactly where he worked. He was not
13 in a position of leadership or authority, so I didn't really -- I don't
15 It says here chief of the department for organisation and
16 mobilisation. I had no idea there was such a department in our unit.
17 Q. I'm not sure there was. Do you know if there was such a
18 department in the ministry, at the higher level?
19 A. I know about that even less. To the best of my knowledge, there
20 was no such department where we were. But I know even less about what
21 there was at the ministry. I was very far away from the ministry, so I
22 don't know.
23 Q. If Mr. Gajic is an inspector carrying out work on behalf of the
24 ministry in your centre and he wanted to send a dispatch or telegram back
25 to the ministry, how would he go about it? Wouldn't he have to work
1 through you your people, your comms. centre?
2 A. If it arrived through the system, then he would have had to send
3 it through us. It looks like it might have been a dispatch. Maybe he
4 used the number of the uniformed police, and somebody might have brought
5 it along with his signature on it, up to the centre, and it's possible
6 that someone sent it, but I really couldn't know that. But nobody could
7 come from the outside and send a dispatch from our office. Only our
8 staff members were authorised to send dispatches. Nobody could just walk
9 in and send a personal message, for example. It all had to be entered
10 into the log-book, it all had to be registered, signed --
11 Q. This has a number on top of 11-1/01. What unit or section would
12 that be in your centre? Is that the uniformed police?
13 A. Well, that's what I'm saying. It is all incomplete. It is 11-1,
14 all right, that's the centre. Eleven is the centre. One, I know what it
15 stands for. But 01 should stand fort uniformed police. And can you see
16 he put CSB Banja Luka here and to whom it should be sent.
17 Q. [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. The individual named in the document, Tomo Mirosavic. Do you
21 know who he was?
22 A. I've never heard of him.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, could I have this marked for
24 identification, please.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, so marked.
1 Mr. Hannis, its -- we would be adjourning for the day in 30
2 minutes. Three minutes ago you had 40 minutes left, so by my arithmetic,
3 that would give you about five minutes in the morning when we resume.
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours you're aware of the difficulties I've
5 had. I will -- I will try to my best to finish within that time. But
6 part of it depends on the response I get from the Defence about the 14 or
7 so documents that I am requesting to admit, sort of, en masse; meanwhile,
8 I'll move through the remaining ones I have that are not in that list.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, one more question to the witness on
10 this document, on the top of the right-hand side, there is DX and 0.
11 Is that -- I didn't pay attention to it in other documents, but
12 there are two different --
13 MR. HANNIS: He can explain that, Your Honour. We did talk about
14 DX as being one of the designations for level of urgency --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah, and 0 as well.
16 MR. HANNIS: I think it talked about 0 -- also --
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, that's a lower level. So can there be two
18 levels at the same time?
19 MR. HANNIS: He can answer that.
20 A. DX0 means DX open. Usually people omitted to say open. They
21 would say DX, X with a diacritic, if it had to be encrypted, and they
22 would usually not bother to put the 0 for open. So I'm saying whoever
23 wrote this got mixed up, and this is all sloppily written.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 1264 becomes P1010, marked
25 for identification.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
3 And the next one, could we show the witness 65 ter 521.
4 Q. Now, this is a document that is headed Prijedor public security
5 station. At the bottom, we see a signature for Chief Drljaca in the SJB,
6 and on the left-hand side we see typed, chief of centre,
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 Can you tell us how this document came to be? Is this something
9 that was sent and then Mr. Drljaca's name was added to it before it was
10 put in the files or circulated to his subordinate units? Can you help us
11 with that at all?
12 A. I'll try. It is evident from this that the original dispatch was
13 sent from the Prijedor public security, and that the author of the
14 dispatch was someone who signed on behalf of Sime Drljaca. I don't know
15 who that person might be.
16 On the left where it says, chief of centre, Stojan Zupljanin,
17 this is just typed here, and I don't see why or how. There's no system
18 here. This is all topsy-turvy. It is all something that was not sent
19 either by teleprinter, the ones we had, or by fax. I fail to understand
20 this document. It says chief of centre on the left-hand side, and
21 whereas it is being sent by the station. And the signature of the chief
22 of the station, it's actually signed for him by someone else. But his
23 name is there. And all of this really is something that I cannot explain
24 at all.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm making no requests concerning that
2 one then.
3 I would like to show the witness 65 ter 1263. And perhaps --
4 this is a lengthy document. If the usher can hand him a hard copy, I may
5 be able to move more quickly through it. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Rakovic, this is a document that appears to be sent from the
7 Ministry of the Interior to all the CSBs, SJBs, administrations at
8 headquarters, and the national security. And it appears to be a request
9 for information from all those units and individuals for the purposes of
10 preparing an annual report, or at least for the past nine months.
11 Did -- were you aware of this document in late 1992? Did you
12 have to do any work as far as providing information for the preparation
13 of an annual report?
14 A. It's evident that this document has a signature, it has a stamp.
15 This is not the minister's signature, if the one we saw just before was.
16 And they're asking for a report on work in 1992, and it says here exactly
17 what the report should contain.
18 I never saw this before my interviews here and proofing sessions,
19 but I know that in my service, a brief version, a shorter version of such
20 a dispatch might have arrived, because I know that, together with my
21 fellow workers, we prepared such information. And if we view the
22 ministry as the centre, I would have the stations send me reports on work
23 for 1992. That was the usual practice, and it's still done today. There
24 would be -- I didn't ask for information on crimes, but staffing
25 documents, that was our line of work. That was what we asked for.
1 MR. HANNIS: Can I have that marked for identification, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: So marked.
3 MR. HANNIS: And if we could --
4 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. That would be P1011, marked for
5 identification, Your Honours.
6 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness next exhibit in
7 evidence, P395. This is a document dated the 12th of January, 1993.
8 Q. This is a document that is addressed to your group in the centre
9 in Banja Luka. And it makes reference to a dispatch number, 11-1/04-01.
10 Can you tell us who or what 11-1/04 in the centre was?
11 A. 11-1/04 is the section for communications and encryption that I
13 At the top, SJB Sanski Most, on the request in this dispatch that
14 I sent --
15 Q. Okay. Let me stop you, and try to keep it to short questions and
16 short answers because I have limited time.
17 So that was you. And this document appears to be a response to
18 your dispatch that had been sent out the day before on the 11th of
19 January seeking, it appears, information about the cryptographic data
20 protection staff and devices and a survey of telegram flow. Correct?
21 A. Yes, see what it says here: Overview of the status, overview of
22 the documents, overview of the traffic of documents, everything fits. I
23 asked the station to make this available to us.
24 Q. Okay. And on the last page, we see a summary of the number of
25 dispatches sent and received, both open dispatches and encrypted
1 dispatches, for the period from January 1, 1992, through December 31st,
2 1992; correct?
3 A. Precisely. That's what was requested, and that's what they sent
4 to the chief.
5 Q. Now, I want to ask you about your regular reports about the work
6 of your section. Do you recall preparing reports at the end of June or
7 the beginning of July 1992 on the work of your unit?
8 A. I can't remember clearly whether I prepared them towards the end
9 of June, but it's the usual practice to prepare monthly, six monthly and
10 annual reports. The basic one was the monthly report.
11 We, as the section, received reports from police stations on the
12 amount of dispatches received and sent. That's the usual way.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 I'd like to show the witness Exhibit P595 in evidence.
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not sure this appears on my list,
16 but it was indicated in an e-mail that was sent to Chambers and to
17 Defence counsel as one of two additional documents I intended to use with
18 this witness. Can I cite you to the e-mail and time and reference, if
19 you need it.
20 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] It's already exhibited.
21 MR. HANNIS: It is. Both of them are. I think by an e-mail
22 dated 24th at 8.57 a.m., I indicated that I was going to use this one,
23 P595, and also P261.
24 Q. Witness, this is a report on the work of your centre from
25 1 January until 30 June. And I would like to turn to page 11 of the
1 English. And I believe in e-court, it's page 18 of the B/C/S.
2 Yes, if we could scroll in the B/C/S page. Yes, thank you.
3 Section 5.1 is the functioning of the communications system and
4 cryptographic protection.
5 Do you remember looking at this during proofing?
6 A. I do. In proofing.
7 Q. Yes. In does talk about some of the problems that were
8 encountered and about, about six or seven lines down in my English, you
9 will see the parentheses with the names of certain CSBs, Kupres,
10 Donji Vakuf, Bosanska Krupa, et cetera.
11 That sentence reads:
12 "Due to war operations there were constant interruptions in
13 telephone and telegraph links with some SJBs, and then it names those,
14 and numerous breakdowns which were required as the situation would
16 Now I take it that since Sanski Most, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, and
17 others are not named in this list, they didn't have that same kind of
18 problem with numerous interruptions in telephone and telegraph links.
19 Would that be a fair conclusion?
20 A. If you read this more carefully, you can see that I, because I
21 wrote this part of the report, say in the first part that there had been
22 problems in teletype traffic. There were problems, interruptions,
23 et cetera. And then I go on to say that interventions were made to
24 repair breakdowns and to re-establish communications where there were not
25 any. So there were none. There were no problems in Vakuf Kupres, et
1 cetera. But in this existing system which worked, more or less, there
2 were some problems. Whereas in the other areas, there was no
3 communication system in Krupe, in Kupres, there were no communications.
4 I went three times with telecom, I remember, to try to set up some sort
5 of line towards -- through civilian authorities, so you could make one
6 phone call a week.
7 Q. Let me stop you there. Maybe there is a problem in translation.
8 My English translation reads --
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Krgovic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: Well, the witness is not accurate, so please ask
12 the witness to repeat the answer, so that it's --
13 MR. HANNIS:
14 Q. Your answer seemed to be saying that these named municipalities,
15 Kupres, Donji Vakuf, Krupe, Glamoc, et cetera, were ones were there were
16 not problems. As I read the document, those were the very SJBs where you
17 had constant interruptions in telephone and telegraph links. Is that
18 correct? Those were the ones where you had lots and lots of problems.
19 Is that right?
20 A. Let me read to you what is written exactly in Serbian.
21 The activities in the area of communications and cryptographic
22 protection was carried out --
23 Q. [Microphone not activated]... could you start at the sentence
24 that says: "Due to war operations ..."
25 That's the one I'm confused about. Could you start with that
2 A. It is below what I have been reading; right?
3 Q. yes. I think it's the third sentence.
4 A. Which line is it? Which line from the status of communications
5 is it?
6 Q. Well, do you see the parentheses with the names of SJB
7 Donji Vakuf?
8 A. Yes, yes. Vakuf, Krupa, Kupres.
9 Oh, I see. Due to war operations, yes.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... [Microphone not activated]
11 A. I'd like to, but it is moving constantly.
12 "Due to war operations" --
13 Now I have lost it again. Can you stop moving the text. Let me
15 Due to war -- again.
16 MR. HANNIS: You have a hard copy.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: We're sorry, sir. The system is not functioning
18 well. You will get a hard copy.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. Sorry, Mr. Rakovic. I think it's in the area marked with the
21 blue highlighter.
22 A. I'll read slowly:
23 "Due to war operations, there also occurred constant
24 interruptions in TT communications with some public security stations
25 (SJB Kupres, Donji Vakuf, Bosanska Krupa, Glamoc, Bihac, Teslic,
1 Bosansko Grahovo, Drvar, Sipovo, Mrkonjic Grad, and others) as well as
2 numerous break downs that were addressed to the best of our ability. In
3 addition this problem there were shortages of electricity, fuel for power
5 Q. And if we could go do page 12 in the English, and, sir, at the
6 bottom of the page that you were reading from. There's a number; it says
7 how many total open telegrams were sent and received and how many coded
8 telegrams were received and transmitted.
9 Do you see those numbers?
10 A. I see, I see. In addition, 9.956 open dispatches were received;
11 9.686 were transmitted; 728 closed dispatches were received; 898 closed
12 dispatches were transmitted; and 2.297 were in transit. That's what I
13 wrote, and I suppose it's correct.
14 Q. Okay. Can you explain to us what you mean about 2.297 were in
15 transit. What is that? How is that different from received or sent?
16 Are these ones that you simply forwarded on without any additional
18 A. In proofing, we discussed about this transit, and I wasn't quite
19 clear myself what this category "transit" is supposed to cover. I can't
20 really explain. I can't explain the term "transited." What could it be?
21 Could it be extended communication or what? The chief probably gave me a
22 ready formulation, and I just noted it down. I -- I really can't think
23 of what it could be mean. Maybe we just sort of forwarded something that
24 couldn't be sent directly.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I know it is about five minutes early,
2 but this has been a difficult session. I wonder if we could stop now.
3 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]
4 Mr. Rakovic, we're about do take the adjournment for today. Your
5 testimony will continue tomorrow morning. We will resume at 9.00.
6 Having been sworn as a witness, you cannot communicate with the lawyers
7 from other side, and in such conversations as you may with persons
8 outside of the Tribunal, you cannot discuss your testimony.
9 Do you understand? Do you understand what I just said?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 So we will take the adjournment now and resume at 9.00 tomorrow
13 morning. Thank you.
14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of
17 February, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.