1 Monday, 14 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone.
10 May we have the appearances, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. Tom Hannis
12 along with Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic
17 appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, as the witness is being brought in, I
21 would just like to indicate I would like to save five minutes at the end
22 of the day, perhaps, to raise a procedural scheduling matter. But I
23 don't want to interrupt the witness's presentation.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: In relation to this witness?
25 MR. HANNIS: No.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
2 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please, Mr. Zecevic.
3 WITNESS: DRAGAN KEZUNOVIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kezunovic.
7 I'll have to return with you to some things we discussed on
8 Friday because not everything was recorded correctly in the transcript.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
10 document P1442.
11 Q. Sir, you may remember that I showed you a log-book of events of
12 the 15th of May, 1992. You're about to see it. And we commented on it
13 on page 11644, line -- lines 5 through 9.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's 65 ter 955, which, in the
15 meantime, was marked P1442.
16 Q. This usually happens on Monday mornings. Just a bit of patience,
17 please, Mr. Kezunovic.
18 Mr. Kezunovic, you remember that we were reading this document.
19 I showed it to you. It's dated the 15th of May, 1992, especially the
20 last sentence where it says:
21 "The daily reports were not submitted by CSB Doboj and CSB
23 And then I put it to you that they didn't submit their reports
24 because there were no communication lines with the com centre of the MUP
25 headquarters. Do you remember?
1 A. I remember that detail, but I don't see that in this document.
2 Q. The last sentence, sir, reads:
3 "In the area of CSB Trebinje, there were no events interesting
4 from the security point of view, and the daily reports were not submitted
5 by the CSBs of Doboj and Trebinje."
6 Can you see it?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. Do you remember your answer?
9 A. Well, probably the communication lines didn't work.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 My next intervention is about page -- page 11652, lines 18
12 and 19.
13 You remember that I asked you the death of two of your staff who
14 were ambushed in the surroundings of Caparde; they had, in the meantime,
15 been transferred to national security. And we were able to remember the
16 family name of one of them; his last name is Trobok [phoen].
18 A. Yes, Trobok. His first name is Momir.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 Now to pages 11657. This is about document P1426.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see it.
22 Q. Sir, you may remember that I showed you the document that will
23 appear in a moment. It's an activity report of the
24 Communications Department of Doboj CSB. It refers to the period from the
25 30th of July to the 30th of September, 1992, and it's dated
1 1 October 1992.
2 Do you remember that document?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. When I quoted that document to you - and I'm referring to the
5 third paragraph, the second sentence there. I'll paraphrase:
6 Connection with the ministry has been set up by KT connections.
7 The transcript of Friday reads KT or cryptographic connection. But KT
8 stands for short-wave communication, doesn't it?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic. Mr. Zecevic. Mr. -- where are we
11 in the English translation? The second sentence of the third
12 paragraph reads that telephone and telefax communications with all of the
13 above organs were established through the PTT.
14 Is that the same sentence that are you referring to?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, this -- it's the first --
16 it's the first sentence of the third paragraph. It starts with:
17 "The telephone and telegraph communications with the Banja Luka
18 CSB and a short-wave communication with ministry has been set up through
19 the use of appropriate documents and devices."
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: But the problem was that it was recorded in the
22 transcript of 11th of June as KT or encrypted, so short wave or
23 encrypted. And that's what I wanted to clarify with the witness.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
25 MR. ZECEVIC:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, sir, for these clarifications.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now please be
3 shown P625.
4 Q. This is an activity report of the MUP for April through
5 December 1992.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The page in the Serbian version
7 is 36. It's marked FI20-1311. That's the ERN number. Could we please
8 also see the corresponding English text.
9 Q. Do you remember, sir, that we read the first paragraph where it
10 says that the communications and cryptographic protection department of
11 the ministry was one of those who, at the beginning, had the most
12 problems. And then you explained what the word "problem" meant to you
13 and that you considered it to be something that could not be solved. Do
14 you remember?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In paragraph 2 of this page, it says that in the headquarters of
17 the Serbian ministry there was no technical equipment, no staff, and
18 no -- and no other equipment necessary for work; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the next page, in English, it says that the former MUP system
21 had fallen apart and that there had also been deliberate severing of
23 It's the third paragraph from above, under item 3, the last
24 sentence and the one before.
25 A. I can see it.
1 Q. And the next paragraph in the last sentence says:
2 "... with the disintegration of the single teleprinter link, the
3 system of cryptographic data protection for written communications in the
4 organs ..."
5 Do you see it?
6 A. I do, yes. And it's correct.
7 Q. And the next paragraph says that in the newly established public
8 security stations there is a lack of short-wave radio sets.
9 Can you see it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me, sir, do you remember that the information put forward in
12 this report is correct as you put it forward in 1992?
13 A. Yes, this information is absolutely correct.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the following
15 page, page 37 in the Serbian, to the witness. I believe that the English
16 page is the one we see now.
17 Q. The first paragraph says:
18 "The problems with the UHF network were the lack of radio sets
19 and difficulties with the work of the repeaters because the system is
20 such that it can be used by anyone who has radio sets with the
21 appropriate frequencies. And, among others, that there was also
22 electronic jamming in the system ..."
23 As far as can I tell, it's the third paragraph in the English
25 Do you remember that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. You say here that the communications system in paragraph 3 -- and
3 in English it's the sixth paragraph, it reads:
4 "A particular problem for the communications system was the
5 moving of the MUP from Vrace to Lukavica ..." as you said," and then to
6 Pale and then to Bijeljina."
7 Do you remember that also? And that is really true, isn't it?
8 A. I remember, and that is correct. It was a problem because we
9 were constantly moving to a new location where there was nothing, not
10 even a room for the communications system.
11 Q. The next paragraph, which is the fourth and I believe it's the
12 seventh in English, you say -- you say that:
13 Lately, which probably means late 1992, telex connections have
14 been introduced in our -- telexes were installed in the MUP and the CSBs,
15 and it -- have been installed in normal conditions ... amounts to almost
16 70 per cent installed connections.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So this was written in early 1993, this report; right?
20 A. Yes, correct.
21 Q. So, even in early 1993, you don't have telex communications with
22 about 30 per cent of the organisational units of the ministry; correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Because we can read here: The installment -- or, rather, the
25 installing has begun recently.
1 So actually these devices were connected in the latter half of
2 1992; correct?
3 A. Yes. A significant share. But let me explain.
4 In all the bodies which didn't have to move out from the
5 facilities in which they were before the war, those facilities were
6 completely equipped with telexes and everything else, but that doesn't
7 mean that this equipment was functional. This connecting meant that both
8 new equipment was procured and put into function or, alternatively, that
9 old equipment was also made functional. And that is the explanation for
10 the difference in numbers.
11 Q. Tell me, this -- these telex connections, about which we can read
12 in this paragraph, is the key segment of communications in the MUP
13 because that's the way of sending out dispatches; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Sir, you will remember that in this document - and we commented
16 on it on Friday, on page 11673, line 10 - we summarised that, according
17 to the annual report, a total of 8.570 outgoing and incoming dispatches
18 had gone through the telecoms or communications centre of the
19 MUP headquarters. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. And that relates to the period from the 1st of April through the
22 31st of December?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Sir, for 14 years you worked in the MUP of the Socialist Republic
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the administration for communications and
1 cryptographic protection?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Sir, the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BiH had ten CSBs in its
4 structure; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Tell me, sir, the total annual amount of communications of the
7 headquarters of the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BiH, and I mean the
8 system of dispatches, was several hundred thousand; right?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. If I remember correctly, you mentioned an approximate number of
11 300.000 received and sent dispatches from the communications centre of
12 the MUP HQ of the Socialist Republic of BiH; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So, if my math is correct, that means about 22.000 outgoing and
15 incoming dispatches per month, on average?
16 A. Well, if we divide 300 through 12, that would be 20-odd thousand.
17 Q. Sir, these are the data that are personally known to you because
18 you were this number-two man in the administration for communications and
19 cryptographic protection; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And certainly in the annual reports of the MUP of the
22 Socialist Republic of BiH this data can also be found.
23 A. Correct. And there were separate reports for cryptographic
24 protection with regard to the number of encrypted dispatches for
25 planning, for making code-books, et cetera, et cetera, because it was a
1 large number.
2 Q. Sir, this data certainly refers to peacetime; correct?
3 A. Yes, before the war.
4 Q. It is logical to expect, isn't it, that at a time of imminent
5 threat of war or in war time the number of dispatches rises
7 A. Yes. Well, that's a logical assumption.
8 Q. Will you agree with my assumption that in war time it would be
9 logical to expect a rise of the number of dispatches by at least
10 30 per cent?
11 A. Yes, you're right. At least 30 per cent.
12 Q. Sir, the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BiH had five CSBs;
14 A. Yes, in 1992.
15 Q. So, by analogy, that's half the number as compared to the MUP of
16 the Socialist Republic of BiH, which means that it could be expected that
17 the MUP of the RS had about 150.000 outgoing and incoming telegrams in
18 peacetime; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That is something in excess of 11.000 a month?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Sir, it's a fact, isn't it, that, as we saw in the report, the
23 total number of dispatches in nine months was 8.570, which is below the
24 average monthly number of dispatches to be expected; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that this is the perfect
2 illustration of the conditions -- of the condition of the system of
3 communications of the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BiH in 1992?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kezunovic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
7 witness. Thank you.
8 JUDGE HALL: Before I invite Mr. Krgovic to begin his
9 cross-examination, I note without further comment that your very last
10 question of the witness was to invite him to give a conclusion.
11 Mr. Hannis didn't object. I suppose, again, the -- it was obvious, but
12 no matter.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I can rephrase the question.
14 JUDGE HALL: No, no, no. It's -- I understand why you asked the
15 question, but I'm just underlining the fact that at the end of the day
16 it's a conclusion that you're inviting the witness to -- the witness to
17 draw. And I underline witness as distinct from the Chamber.
18 But, as I said, no matter; we understand why would you have
19 done it.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. Sorry, Your Honours.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Kezunovic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Let me introduce myself. My name is Dragan Krgovic, and I will
25 be examining you on behalf of the Zupljanin Defence.
1 While giving answers in your examination-in-chief, you spoke
2 about being present at the meeting on the 11th of July in Belgrade. It
3 was a meeting of the senior officials of MUP; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please come closer to the
6 microphone; interpreter's note.
7 MR. KRGOVIC:
8 Q. [Interpretation] I will now show you a summary of --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, the interpreters ask you to speak a
10 little bit more into the microphone, please.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will have to bend down since the
12 microphone won't go up.
13 Could we now see P160.
14 Q. You were already put questions by the Prosecutor regarding this
15 document, and I will now show you the part that you did not discuss with
16 the Prosecutor. And this is page 0324-1855.
17 You remember that Mr. Zupljanin was at that meeting and he
18 discussed certain matters; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] In English, that's page 8, bottom
21 of the page.
22 Q. Now, please look at the bottom, the last paragraph of what
23 Mr. Zupljanin said, where he says:
24 "The functional system of communications has been broken down.
25 Some talks were made concerning purchase of equipment with the
1 representatives of the Rudi Cajavec company."
2 This statement by Mr. Zupljanin at the meeting faithfully
3 reflects the situation as it existed, not only in the territory of the
4 Banja Luka CSB but almost in the entire RS territory.
5 A. The situation was actually worse than depicted here.
6 Q. You also must know that after the conflict broke out in
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, at least when it comes to Banja Luka CSB, that a
8 large number of SJBs were attached to that CSB even though previously
9 they were not covered by the Banja Luka CSB communications system?
10 A. Yes. The situation changed significantly in relation to the
11 situation before the war. There was an increase of 50 per cent.
12 Q. Because some 14 or 15 SJBs covered by the centre were under the
13 centre before the war, and then once the conflict broke out, that number
14 increased to 25 or 26 SJBs; right?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, when it comes to a communications system, when
17 CSBs sent their periodical reports, be it annual or reports compiled up
18 to six months, they would always contain a chapter on encryption;
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I will now show you a report of the Banja Luka centre from the
22 1st of January until the 30th of June, 1992.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we now please see
24 Exhibit P595.
25 Q. See, this is a report that the centre provided on its work.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 18 in the
2 Serbo-Croatian version; whereas in English it's page 11.
3 Q. You see here the part dealing with other duties and tasks, and
4 then underneath it, it says:
5 "The functioning of the communications system and cryptographic
7 And then they go on to provide certain information about how the
8 communications system functioned. And then they say - I'm paraphrasing -
9 that the activities in the communications system and cryptographic
10 protection were mostly centred on monitoring and repairing the
11 communications system of the Banja Luka CSB.
12 So that was their main job, the main job of signalsman in the
13 centre, because there were frequent breakdowns, and they say that they
14 had to repair the lines and establish communications where there had been
15 none. And they mention Gornji Vakuf and -- and Bosanska Krupa. And then
16 they mention that there was a breakdown in telephone communications;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I said telephone and telex communication lines.
20 A. Yes, correct. Telephone and telex lines were down.
21 Q. And then they go on to say that due to war there were frequent
22 breakdowns and disruptions in the lines. And then they mention the SJBs.
23 And then they say that there were numerous breakdowns which were repaired
24 as possible, as they could. And then they go on to say that all of this
25 resulted in chaos in the communications system, especially in the
1 telephone -- telegraphic communications.
2 That is a accurate description of the system at the time in
3 Banja Luka; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then they go on to give an overview of telegrams, dispatches,
6 that were received from January to June. And then they say that they
7 received 9.956 open telegrams, 9.686 open telegrams which were
8 transmitted. And then they have other figures. And since this is a
9 report on the work of the entire centre, this report includes all SJBs
10 and the CSB; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if we were to deduct some four months of normal work,
13 January, February, March, and the larger part of April, then we get to a
14 very significant fact. And this figure needs to be analysed in this
15 context, that 60 to 70 per cent of the figures in this report pertain to
16 peacetime; right?
17 A. Well, a bit more than 50 per cent.
18 Q. I will now show you another document, and that is P621.
19 This is a report of the work of the CSB from the 1st of July to
20 the 30th of September when there were war activities in the territory of
21 the Banja Luka CSB.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we now see, in Serbian,
23 page 31, and the same page in English.
24 Q. Please look at the first paragraph. So in the territory of that
25 CSB, they received 1.996 non-coded dispatches and 152 coded dispatches,
1 and 1.385 non-coded and 43 coded were transmitted.
2 So this figure applies to all SJBs and the centre for the period
3 of three months, which is a very small figure as compared to regular
4 communication; right?
5 A. Yes, correct. And if I may add something; it's an explanation:
6 The public is not informed of this. Only people who are
7 professionally involved in this know about it. In peacetime, all members
8 of the service sit in their offices, except for operatives who are on the
9 ground, the uniformed policemen who have ultra short radios. There are
10 no disruptions, no interceptions, everything is functioning routinely,
11 and they can do their work calmly without any problems and hindrances in
13 During war time, you have to understand that it is not two
14 offices fighting. It's a war that takes place on the ground. And people
15 face two problems. There was a lack of communication between -- between
16 communications centres and then there was a shortage of operatives and
17 personnel on the ground who were supposed to stay in touch with the
18 communications centre. They were supposed to provide information to the
19 MUP seat based on which reports and dispatches were drafted and then
20 forwarded elsewhere.
21 So we have a complete disruption, breakdown in communications
22 from the source of events to the seats of organisational units. And then
23 there was another problem in communications between different
24 communications centres that was supposed to stay in touch. This is why
25 this problem is so complex.
1 If we were to look at it from a simplistic point of view, just on
2 the basis of these reports, then somebody could perhaps draw a conclusion
3 that we were not professionally capable as a service; but as I have said
4 to you previously, this was one of the major problems that simply could
5 not be solved.
6 Q. When it comes to these reports of lower organisational units,
7 especially SJBs and CSBs, a dispatch that was sent to SJBs would be
8 treated as a sent dispatch; and then SJBs, once they received it, they
9 record it as a received dispatch; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Whereas, in fact, it's the same dispatch?
12 A. Yes. If you look at it that way. But the communications centres
13 have different records as to what they received and what they sent. And
14 it's true for all communications centres. So there is some overlapping;
15 you're right.
16 Q. So the figure should actually be lower. We should have this in
17 mind. We should half these numbers, right, we should divide them by two?
18 A. Well, that's, in principle right, but not -- not fully.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now could the witness be
20 shown 2D52.
21 Q. This is a report of the work of the CSB for the first nine months
22 of 1991. At that time, you were in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we now see page 14 in the
24 Serbian, which is page 11 in English.
25 Q. At the time, you were at the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1 Would you please look at page 4 -- paragraph 4 from the top where
2 it says that in the telex -- in the teleprinter system, a total of
3 188.168 telegrams were received both uncoded and coded, and 39.858 were
4 handed in, which is some over 200.000 dispatches, just for the first nine
5 months of 1991.
6 So if you compare these numbers --
7 MR. HANNIS: May I pose a question or an interjection,
8 Your Honour. On the document, I read -- says "telegrams." The question
9 now is about dispatches. Can I have it clarified with the witness
10 whether all dispatches are telegrams and whether all telegrams are
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps there was a mistake in
13 interpretation. It says here in the teleprinter system.
14 MR. HANNIS: Yes, it says:
15 "In the teleprinter system, a total of 188.168 telegrams were
17 My question is: Are all telegrams dispatches; are all dispatches
19 Because the second question that was asked by my learned friend
20 said "dispatches." And it's not clear from this document whether all
21 telegrams are dispatches.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the problem obviously is with the
23 translation. The Serbian text - and this can be probably proved by if
24 the interpreters would be kind to read this. The original says:
25 In the teleprinter system, a total 188.168 "depesa" was received.
1 And sent: 39.858 "depesa."
2 So it doesn't -- it refers to the very same thing.
3 JUDGE HALL: To -- to -- in order to clarify this, which is, as
4 Mr. Zecevic has pointed out, may be a matter of translation, and even in
5 English the terms tend to be interchangeable in popular usage, although
6 technically there is probably a distinction.
7 Perhaps a way out of this is for Mr. Krgovic to inquire of the
8 witness what his understanding was and then build from there.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, we had a minor problem with interpretation. How
11 do you understand this "depesa"?
12 So these are not telegrams; these are "depesas"?
13 A. Everything is "depesa," a dispatch. We never used the word
14 "telegram" in our service. It's the same thing. Dispatches in our
15 internal system were used under that name. A dispatch is nothing else
16 but a telegram.
17 Except that the text that I have here says "in the teleprinter
18 system." So there should be no dilemmas as to what we're talking about.
19 Q. That is, dispatches are sent via the teleprinter system; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And let me return to my initial question: If you compare this
22 number of dispatches from the peacetime period of the first nine months
23 in 1991 and compare them with the data from 1992 that I showed you, that
24 isn't even 10 per cent of the total amount of communications; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kezunovic. No more questions.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HALL: Re-examination?
4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:
6 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, I want to follow up with one of those last
7 questions. In your answer, you said "everything is a dispatch." I'm
8 confused because I understood in some of your testimony in direct that
9 not every message that was sent by the teleprinter system or by fax in
10 the RS MUP was what you considered to be a dispatch. I had understood
11 from your -- from your earlier testimony that, for you, a dispatch, the
12 meaning had a connection with the content and with the volume of the
14 Am I misunderstanding? Did you not say before the dispatch was
15 something that was usually brief and it required some urgency? It was a
16 request for information or it was a direction to carry out some kind of
18 A. I understand your dilemma.
19 I tried to explain that to you. Anything received in the
20 communications centre to be sent out in any form is treated as a
21 dispatch. During the proofing we spoke about it, and there was the
22 comment that everything that was not urgent or of an operative nature was
23 sent out that way, and it is included in the total number of
24 communications. They would not have been treated as dispatches if they
25 had been transmitted by couriers. So, in peacetime, everything that
1 wasn't urgent was sent by regular mail, which certainly transmitted a
2 high -- larger number of documents than were transmitted by technical
3 means, electronic means.
4 So anything that wasn't urgent or of an operative nature was part
5 of the total number of documents that were treated as dispatches. And
6 certainly these numbers show the total amount of everything that was
7 transmitted through the communications system.
8 So the number of dispatches from the operative point of view is
9 smaller than the number that we'll find in these statistics.
10 Q. Okay. Let me follow up on that.
11 You said "everything that was transmitted through the
12 communications system." I infer from that that there were some things
13 that were transmitted through some system other than your communications
14 centre. Is -- would that -- would I be correct in inferring that?
15 A. Well, that is possible, but this is not the only possibility.
16 Possibly the original document that was drawn up by some organisational
17 unit was submitted to be transmitted through the electronics
18 communications system. And if it had to be encrypted, then that would be
19 done, but it would be entered as a dispatch to account for the use of
21 Q. If there were some other administration within the MUP
22 headquarters that sent a communication not through your centre, for
23 example, state security or national security, as it was later called, did
24 they have separate communication facilities available to them outside
25 your centre in 1992?
1 A. I don't know of any.
2 Q. And how about the minister's office, Minister Stanisic. At any
3 time during 1992, did his office have any kind of communication equipment
4 that they could use to send a message without sending it through your
5 centre? For example, a fax machine?
6 A. It's possible they had one, but that was not my responsibility.
7 My responsibility was to establish a communications centre and draw up
8 instructions for the work of that centre, for the staff working there, as
9 well as instructions for the work and conduct of all ministry staff.
10 Everybody was duty-bound to read those instructions because they
11 had to know what they are allowed and what they're not allowed to do and
12 what they can transmit. So if anybody was in breach of these rules and I
13 found out, I would intervene to prevent them from repeating that. Of
14 course, if I didn't know, I couldn't intervene.
15 Q. I understand. I understood from your earlier testimony that in
16 the early weeks of -- of the war - April and May - you were in Vrace --
17 physically located in Vrace and Lukavica for part of the time?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And at least for a part of that time the minister was physically
20 located in Pale; is that right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Do you know what the minister in Pale was using to send and
23 receive communications during that time-period?
24 A. I explained that already. I established two communications
25 centre in parallel. They both belonged to the MUP HQ organisationally.
1 That's the communications centre at Pale and the communications centre at
2 Vrace. When you hear those designations "communications centre," you
3 understand them to be units that are fully equipped with technical means,
4 staff, and everything else. But both communications centres were in the
5 same situation. They were both established from scratch.
6 We first provided a number of telephone lines at Vrace, but then
7 they were disconnected. And then we took those two numbers -- the two
8 lines from the two neighbouring houses and then we were somehow able to
9 supply one fax machine for each for -- to be able to transmit some
10 messages. But in the early days, our capacities were very modest, both
11 in terms of equipment and staff.
12 So, in normal conditions we couldn't even provide round-the-clock
13 operational capabilities. The staff would sleep at their workplaces, and
14 if in case of need they would be awoken to work.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm really sorry to interrupt, but the 21 --
16 page 21, 24, I believe the witness explained what kind of messages were
17 sent by fax. Maybe you can clarify that. It says here, "some messages,"
18 but that's not what he said.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, you heard what Mr. Zecevic said. Can you clarify
21 that for us?
22 A. Perhaps you could explain to me what this is about because I
23 don't quite understand.
24 Q. Well, I'm not sure I do either, but he said in your last answer
25 you mention that:
1 "... we were somehow able to supply one fax machine for each
2 for -- to be able to transmit some messages. But in the early days, our
3 capacities were very modest ..."
4 Mr. Zecevic thought you said something different. Rather than to
5 be able to transmit "some messages," you said something different.
6 Transmit a certain kind of message?
7 Unfortunately, I don't know Serbian, and I can't tell what you
9 A. If that -- if this is what the question was about, to explain
10 what kind of messages. If there was a fax machine at the communications
11 centre, then we could only send out open messages and only to those to
12 who we were physically capable of transmitting it. These are the
13 messages I meant. Not all messages, certainly, for this reason.
14 Q. To your knowledge, in 1992, did some RS MUP personnel use the fax
15 machines to send out messages that should have been coded and not sent on
16 fax? Did that happen?
17 A. I think that this wasn't supposed to happen. Of course, I wasn't
18 on duty all the time to watch them, but the signalsmen were not supposed
19 to do that. That wasn't allowed.
20 Q. But you can't rule out the possibility that that didn't happen
21 because you weren't able to watch every fax machine in the RS MUP
22 24 hours a day; right?
23 A. I personally wasn't supposed to watch any one fax machine. Only
24 if I happened to be there and talk to them and watch what they were
25 doing, learn about their problems. Only then would I be in the position
1 to learn something or hearing something.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 Let me ask you a couple of questions to try and clarify for me
4 something about the number of dispatches sent in -- in 1992 and how those
5 were kept track of in the records.
6 MR. HANNIS: If we look first at Exhibit 1D73. This was tab 20
7 in my original package.
8 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, we've looked at this one before. And you'll see
9 that the number of this document at the top is 01-25 from -- from the
10 minister, and it has to do with the CSB heads appointing personnel to
11 certain positions within the CSBs.
12 Now, keep in mind that number, 01-25.
13 MR. HANNIS: If we could look now at Exhibit P1428. And I need
14 to look at page 3 of the English, and it's also page 3 of the B/C/S.
15 [Microphone not activated]
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MR. HANNIS: Sorry. I want to look at item number 9. And if I
18 could have the left half of the English.
19 Q. When we discussed this earlier in your testimony I think you had
20 agreed with me that the entry in sent and received dispatches under
21 number 9 apparently refers to that document we just looked at,
22 Exhibit 1D73, and it's the Serb MUP number 01-25.
23 And my question is: As I understood explanations we've had about
24 how documents were numbered, it appears that before 25 April 1992 there
25 must have been a series of documents that were 01-1 through 01-24, some
1 24 other documents from the minister, but we're only at number 9 of
2 dispatches sent.
3 What does that say about those other documents? Were they sent
4 by some other means and not recorded in here? Can you help with us an
5 explanation for that?
6 A. I think that these are two totally different numbers. What I can
7 see on the screen now, at item 9, reads "Serb MUP number 01-" and then
8 there's nothing. You can see -- can you see? And below that, there's
9 the date, 25 April 1992 -- or, rather, 25/04. So there is no number; it
10 just reads "01-" and there's an empty space after that. And below that
11 the date is 25/04/92.
12 And the previous document that you have just shown, as far as I
13 remember, is, indeed, marked 01-25. Whether there is really a
14 coincidence that the previous document had -- was numbered 25 as the 25th
15 document in a sequence drafted in the office, that is a coincidence
16 between that serial number and the date, the 25th, is a conclusion I
17 cannot make. But here, the number is missing. It only reads "01-" and
18 then no number after that.
19 Then what we see on the screen now is a document of the
20 communications centre. And the previous one is a document from the
21 organisational unit.
22 Q. I take your point, but you'll see under the --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Is a list of
24 documents from the communications centre.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. Okay. I take your point. But from our prior discussion in your
2 direct testimony, we showed you that document. And you'll see here in
3 the list, under summary of the content, that this document in item
4 number 9 is described as decision on powers of heads of security centres.
5 From having just looked at that document a few minutes ago. Or do I need
6 to go back and show you the contents? That's what this was about, wasn't
8 A. If that's the title of the document as entered here, then it's
9 the same document. If not, then they are -- then we're talking about
10 different documents.
11 Q. Okay. Let me show you one more.
12 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to the next page in English and
14 Q. Item number 13 is described as MUP and BiH 01-26, dated the next
15 day, the 26th of April, 1992, and is described as a supplemental memo
16 regarding reception of workers with attachments. Keep that number in
18 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness Exhibit P1420.
19 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, it's not the best copy, but at the top you can see
20 this is number 01-26, and it is addressed to the five heads of the CSBs.
21 And the first line under the addressees -- you say -- you can see it
23 "In accordance with our act number 01-18/92 ..."
24 MR. HANNIS: If we can go back to the log of dispatches, P1428,
25 to page 4 of the English and B/C/S once more.
1 Q. All right. You see item 13, 01-26, 26 April, and makes reference
2 to memo 01-18/92.
3 Would you agree with me that the document we just looked at
4 appears to be the document that is referred to as item number 13 in "sent
5 and received dispatches" log-book?
6 A. Yes. It is written here that this is an addendum to the dispatch
7 01-18 of the 20th of April.
8 Q. So even though this one is number 26, we've only got a total of
9 13 documents sent and received, according to the log-book.
10 My question is: Is it possible that some communications were
11 either not recorded in the log-book, as one possibility; another
12 possibility is that they were sent by some other organisation than your
13 communications centre and therefore not in the log-book.
14 You allow for either of those?
15 A. According to me, the most likely explanation is that this
16 addendum was sent. We described that log-book as the log-book of the
17 communications centre at Vrace. Previously that's how we did it. And
18 it's possible that --
19 MR. HANNIS: Let me stop you. I think we agree on that, that it
20 was sent. My question is -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... you interrupted the
22 witness when he tried to explain, explain --
23 MR. HANNIS: I -- I interrupted --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... give an answer to your
1 MR. HANNIS: I interrupted because he was not answering my
3 MR. ZECEVIC: No, he was. Believe me, he was. I don't know what
4 you were getting through your ear -- your headphones, but he was
5 explaining -- giving an explanation to your question.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm reading the transcript. The
7 answer I was getting was:
8 "According to me, the most likely explanation ... that this
9 addendum was sent."
10 JUDGE HALL: In fairness to the witness, could you please ask the
11 question --
12 MR. HANNIS: I will.
13 JUDGE HALL: And we will hear his answer in full.
14 MR. HANNIS: I will. Thank you.
15 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Kezunovic. Maybe we had a miscommunication. I'm
16 trying to understand how this document in item number 13, listed as
17 01-26 -- I had an inference that there were 25 earlier documents, and yet
18 we only show 13 having been sent. And I was asking if you allowed for
19 the possibility that one reason we only have 13 documents listed is that
20 in the series 01-01 through 01-026 some of those documents may have been
21 sent by other means than through your communications centre?
22 Would you allow for that possibility?
23 A. You are trying to get me to give you a yes or a no answer.
24 Theoretically, yes. But there is an explanation that I can give you: I
25 said earlier there were two communications centre of the MUP in its seat.
1 One was located in Pale; one was located at Vrace. And it's possible
2 that the previous document was sent from the Pale centre, whereas this
3 one was sent the Vrace centre. And this is why there is this discrepancy
4 in numbers.
5 Q. Okay. That makes sense to me. Because in this log-book, between
6 the 22nd of April and the 13th of May, it appears that there were only a
7 total of 49 dispatches sent and received. That seems like a low number,
8 even given the fact that there were problems with communication links.
9 It seems like a low number for MUP headquarters to be sending and
10 receiving during that time-period.
11 So if I understand you correctly, you're telling me we need to
12 look and find a similar log-book for Pale for that time-period to get an
13 idea of the total number of dispatches?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
16 And regarding the question of communications sent by courier, I
17 think you said last week that you personally didn't establish any kind of
18 courier system within your communications centre. Was that right?
19 A. Yes, correct. It wasn't within my job description, within my
20 administration. It didn't fall under our scope of duties, to organise
21 the courier service.
22 Q. Were you aware that couriers were used within the RS MUP in 1992
23 to deliver communications between some of the organisational units within
24 the RS MUP?
25 A. I think it would be best if I were to illustrate it with an
2 Whenever I went somewhere from Pale, I always asked whether I
3 should take anything to anyone, whether somebody should come with me just
4 to take advantage of the transportation I had.
5 So the term "courier" does not include only an organised courier
6 service; it also includes any member of the service travelling to another
7 location. That person could also be deemed a courier, taking anything
8 that needed to be taken, including mail.
9 Q. And that was done in 1992 on occasion, wasn't it, that mail was
10 delivered by courier?
11 A. Conditionally speaking, by couriers. Equipment and written
12 documents that I was supposed to send somewhere. I would, for example,
13 say to my men, Is there somebody who's travelling on Wednesday, Thursday,
14 Friday to such and such a location, and could that person take this with
16 Q. Thank you. Next --
17 JUDGE HALL: Is this a convenient time for the break, Mr. --
18 MR. HANNIS: It is, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, yesterday at page 11.637, in one of your answers
1 to Mr. Zecevic, you talked about how sometimes in your communications
2 centres you could send dispatches by circular. As I understood it, a
3 circular was a means -- an electronic means where could you send a
4 message to multiple recipients at the same time. For example, the CSB
5 might be able to send the same dispatch to 15 SJBs at the same time, and
6 that was called a circular. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, you're correct. But it pertained to the period before the
8 war. In the republic SUP, at its seat in the communications centre,
9 there was a piece of equipment where all the lines ended, all the
10 teleprinter system ended, from all centres for communication, from all
11 municipalities. So by simply pushing a button, an operator would link up
12 the seat of the MUP with another communications centre, and there were
13 several types of circulars, MUP towards centre, MUP towards SJBs, MUP
14 towards everybody.
15 Q. Are you aware that during 1992, at least in CSB Banja Luka, there
16 was still some capability to send circular to a partial number of the --
17 of the SJBs under Banja Luka because there was the equipment and the
18 connections still in place? Did you know about that?
19 A. Perhaps in some stations. In some, perhaps. I would now have to
20 go back and think about each station, how they were linked with
21 Banja Luka, what lines existed, and then give you a separate individual
22 answer for each station, and then add that all up.
23 Q. At page 11.640, on Friday, you were asked by Mr. Zecevic about
24 the time when you had to go to Banja Luka to help establish the
25 communications there. I think you were taking some of the -- some of the
1 equipment and the documents for purposes of -- of sending coded
2 communications. Is that correct? Is that why you went there personally?
3 A. Among other things, yes. The greatest reason was to go there for
4 the first time since the war started, to go there physically to the area,
5 and to see what the situation was like on the ground, to talk to people,
6 to see what problems they encountered.
7 Q. Let me show you a portion of something in Exhibit P573. This is
8 the performance report for the period April to June 1992, dated 29 June,
9 and it's regarding the work of the -- of the RS MUP.
10 I'd like to show you something at page 8 of the English, and it's
11 page 11 in the B/C/S.
12 And this is the section of this report talking about duties and
13 tasks related to communications and cryptographic protection.
14 Yes, in that -- in that paragraph above item number 2, which is
15 administrative and legal duties, I'm reading --
16 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I think -- I need to go back one more
17 page in the B/C/S. Yes.
18 Q. Here at the very bottom of the page, I think you're talking about
19 some of the problems that existed because of the relocation of
20 MUP headquarters to Pale, Vrace, Lukavica, and Jahorina.
21 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the top of the next page in
23 I'm sorry, we're on the right page of English, but I needed to go
24 to the next one of B/C/S.
25 Q. Sorry, Mr. Kezunovic.
1 And this report, dated 29th of June, 1992, says:
2 "At this point, the Ministry of the Interior at its headquarters
3 in Pale uses public telephone and telefax communications services [sic]
4 to maintain contact with the Security Services Centres in Banja Luka,
5 Bijeljina, and Sarajevo, and short-wave systems for contact with the
6 Trebinje and Sarajevo CSBs ..."
7 You were shown by Mr. Zecevic today -- or Friday, and then it was
8 referred to again today, about the report from -- from Doboj. If you
9 didn't have a telefax or telephone communication with Doboj but only a
10 short-wave contact, how were they to send in their daily reports? Do you
11 know how that was done?
12 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Zecevic on his feet.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I don't -- I don't -- I
14 hear what Mr. Hannis is reading, but the Serbian text does not
15 correspond. I don't think that -- that the witness can see what -- what
16 Mr. Hannis was reading to him.
17 Maybe -- if am correct, this should be -- this should be page 12
18 of -- of Serbian text in the e-court. Maybe this can be shown to the
19 witness so you can --
20 MR. HANNIS: I'll defer to my learned friend.
21 Can he indicate to me whether or not we're on the right page now?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat which
23 paragraph you wanted me to look at on this page?
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. I will, if I can get some help from my learned friend across the
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I believe you started reading from page 11,
3 that's the previous page. Page 11 of the e-court in Serbian, the last
4 paragraph. And then went on to -- to page 12, the first paragraph.
5 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
6 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, can you see the bottom of the page there?
7 MR. ZECEVIC: It should be page 11 of the e-court in Serbian.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 9. I can see the heading --
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry.
10 A. Tasks concerning aliens, et cetera.
11 Q. I'm sorry, I think the problem is the pages are numbered
12 differently in the hard copy than they are in e-court, and I need to
13 go -- yes, now I think we're on the correct page.
14 And what I was reading from, Mr. Kezunovic, is the big
15 paragraph above the number 2 at the bottom.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And my question was: If there was only a short-wave link with
19 Trebinje and Sarajevo CSBs, how were communications made with them, in
20 terms of sending coded dispatches?
21 A. May I read this paragraph to myself first so I see what it says?
22 Q. Please.
23 A. Can you please state your question now.
24 Q. Yes. It appears that there were telefax and telephone
25 communication links between headquarters in Pale with Banja Luka,
1 Bijeljina, and Sarajevo, but only short-wave links with Trebinje and
2 Sarajevo. How were Trebinje and Sarajevo able to send in, for example,
3 their daily reports that they were required to send? How was that done
4 physically in 1992 prior to 29 June?
5 A. Well, if you read it, it says, in the third or fourth line from
6 the top, that connections have been established via the public
7 communications systems. Sarajevo is mentioned here also. And then an
8 ultra short-wave link has been established with the Sarajevo CSB. This
9 may be a -- an error in the text, but Sarajevo is mentioned twice,
10 which -- and here it is stated that Sarajevo was connected both by
11 short-wave radio and by public communications systems.
12 Further down, it says: Short-wave link with the Sarajevo CSB --
13 or, rather, short-wave systems with contact with the Trebinje and
14 Sarajevo CSBs. But this text is a bit confusing. Maybe the author
15 wanted to show where telephone and telefax links existed and where just
16 short-wave communications --
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I understand, but my
18 question is: Do you know, if indeed there were only short-wave links
19 with Sarajevo and Trebinje CSB, how did they send in their daily reports
20 prior to 29 June 1992? Did they use courier, did they send it by relay
21 from some other station that he had a link with and ask them to forward
22 it along some sort of relay? Do you know?
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic has a --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, again, witness was interpreted --
25 interrupted when -- when he started to -- to give an explanation to the
1 previous question. And it wasn't recorded at all. He was mention being
2 something about analytics department. Maybe you can clarify that.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. I'm still trying to get an answer to the question. So either
5 continue your previous answer or answer my repeated question, if you can.
6 How would Trebinje and CSB Sarajevo get their daily reports to
7 MUP headquarters in Pale, if there was only a short-wave link? Do you
9 This is prior to 29 June 1992.
10 A. If this is your question, how they transmitted their reports if
11 they only had short-wave communication, then, well, short-wave
12 communication must have been the way they transmitted their reports. But
13 I suppose that at this time, in the month of June, they already had
14 telephone lines.
15 Q. Thank you. That relates to another question I was going to ask
16 you. You remember last Friday we looked at the MUP annual report, and
17 there was a reference to some 9.585 short-wave communications during
18 the -- the reporting period for April through December 1992.
19 Do you recall that?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. And --
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
24 JUDGE HALL: If I may, the intervention that Mr. Zecevic had made
25 about an incomplete answer, we aren't sure whether that has been
1 clarified, whether it is completely out of the way. Do we need to return
2 to that?
3 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure I'm able to. What I propose to
4 Your Honours is: When I'm done, if Mr. Zecevic feels it needs to be
5 re-addressed, I don't oppose you allowing him one or two questions on
6 re-cross to clear it up. But I think it would take me more time and
7 effort than it's worth.
8 JUDGE HALL: I think that would confuse matters. But if the
9 witness could be assisted with whether he -- there was a portion of that
10 earlier answer that he hadn't completed and that he would wish to give.
11 You have the advantage of the transcript, Mr. Hannis. If you could take
12 him back to the question and ask him directly whether there is a portion
13 of his answer which he did not -- which we didn't get.
14 MR. HANNIS: I'll try to do it, Your Honour, but I think I have
15 the disadvantage that the part that's missing is not in the transcript.
16 And so I don't know if Mr. Zecevic can help me with me.
17 I would ask if he can. Or Judge Harhoff.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think -- I'm sorry, the simplest thing is to
19 repeat your question. And your question was:
20 "How were Trebinje and Sarajevo able to send in, for example,
21 their daily report atlas they were required to send. How was that done
22 physically in 1992, prior to the 29th of June?"
23 And ...
24 MR. HANNIS: But --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness then continued in -- and answered
1 that, referring to the document in front of him:
2 "... if you read it, it says, in the third or fourth line from
3 the top, that connections have been established via the public
4 communications systems. Sarajevo is mentioned here also. And then an
5 ultra short-wave link has been established with the Sarajevo CSB. This
6 may be an error in the text, but Sarajevo is mentioned twice, which --
7 and here it is stated that Sarajevo was connected both by short-wave
8 radio and by public communications systems.
9 "Further down, it says: Short-wave link with the Sarajevo CSB --
10 or, rather, short-wave systems with contact with the Trebinje and
11 Sarajevo CSBs. But this text is a bit confusing. Maybe the author
12 wanted to show where telephone and telefax links existed and where just
13 short-wave communications --"
14 And this, Mr. Witness, is where you were cut off. Could you
15 clarify the last part of your answer, if you remember?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I wanted to
17 say. That probably the purpose of this sentence was to say what there
18 was, what was in existence by type of communication. And the centres
19 mentioned first, Banja Luka, Bijeljina, and Sarajevo, could be reached
20 through public telephone and telefax communications; whereas, short-wave
21 systems had to be used to contact Trebinje and Sarajevo.
22 We were able to go to Trebinje physically through Montenegro.
23 That was possible. We didn't, however, but that's another matter.
24 Probably phone lines and telefax communications could be used at
25 the beginning, so there was no need to insist on short-wave
2 But, you see, the question, as it was put to me, can be
3 understood and answered only at a general level, not -- without going
4 into the specifics; this or that existed or was established on such and
5 such a date, et cetera.
6 So I believe that I cannot give a yes or no answer. Something
7 that I may have explained at great length on three to five pages, they
8 wanted to put into one sentence, and then what you get is what you see
9 here. I simply cannot make out what they wanted to say with this. I can
10 only suppose that they wanted to say what -- the same that you concluded.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. And I certainly agree that you should
12 not try and testify beyond your interpretation of -- of this letter.
13 Mr. Witness, did you mention in your answer something about
14 things being coordinated through an analytics department?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned it to say that this
16 summary report was made by the analyses and information department. We
17 submit all our information to them, and they extract something from that
18 in accordance with their methodology so as to give -- so as to present
19 the essential things by organisational units.
20 Before the war, these matters were not mentioned in any reports,
21 if everything functioned all right. Communications are only mentioned
22 when something is wrong. I was even criticised on several occasions that
23 my maintenance staff were sitting idle. And I said, But that means that
24 everything is working fine. But their answer was, No, no, you must give
25 them something to work.
1 And when communications are working impeccably, nobody commends
2 us for it; but when something's wrong, then everybody complains that --
3 complains about it.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: That seems to be a common experience in life.
5 Thank you. I think this clarifies the matter.
6 And, Mr. Hannis, I would ask you to proceed.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Judge Harhoff.
8 Q. Mr. Kezunovic, now I want to show you a document that's
9 Exhibit P173. We looked at this before, but I think it relates to the
10 subject at hand. And I need -- I will show you the first page. It's a
11 communication from MUP headquarters, the minister. It's signed by
12 someone else for him, it appears. It's dated the 16th of May to all the
13 CSB chiefs. And I want to look particularly at something on page 3 of
14 the English, page 2 of the B/C/S.
15 And in this section, the request is for reporting about war
16 crimes. And for you it's the last paragraph above the stamp and the
17 signature. And at the bottom of the page in English, it says:
18 "In exceptional cases (breakdown of long-distance lines) you may
19 send your reports to the following phone number ... which can you
20 call ... if you have any questions or if something's not clear."
21 First of all, do you recognise, by that phone number, where it
22 would have been, geographically speaking?
23 A. 071 is the network prefix for Sarajevo. Probably this is a
24 mistake, what we can see here in brackets. It probably shouldn't be long
25 distance lines, but other lines. That is, breakdown of other lines.
1 Q. But does is say in Serbian "long distance"?
2 A. It does. But I think that's wrong. It should be "other" rather
3 than "long-distance." So if other lines of communication are disrupted,
4 then they should call this phone number, et cetera.
5 Q. And the disruption of either long-distance lines or other lines
6 was an exceptional circumstance; isn't that what it says?
7 A. It says "in exceptional cases."
8 Q. Thank you.
9 On Friday, you were asked about a document, I think, that was
10 attempted to be sent from Prijedor at page 11.654.
11 MR. HANNIS: If we could have a look at Exhibit P668.
12 Thank you. That's good for the English. If we could go to the
13 next page on the B/C/S.
14 Q. This was a communication, and there was an indication handwritten
15 on it that "we are not able to send this."
16 It's addressed to MUP of the Serbian Republic of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to the army of the Serbian Republic. Was the
18 Prijedor SJB, would they have the communications, connections, or links
19 to send something directly to the army? Was there that kind of
20 communication link between SJBs and the VRS?
21 A. I don't think so because you cannot communicate with the army
22 directly. In the army, it all has to go through the command and then
23 down downward. That's why my conclusion would be that no direct link
24 could have existed.
25 Q. So this -- this message about "we're not able to send this" could
1 refer to the addressee of the army?
2 A. These two, which are underlined: The MUP of the Serbian Republic
3 of BiH and the army.
4 Q. Were the SJBs physically able -- were any of the SJBs physically
5 able to communicate directly to MUP headquarters in 1992?
6 A. I have never issued such an order. So if it isn't possible from
7 our side, it isn't from the other either.
8 But what does that mean any way, army of the Serbian Republic of
9 BiH? It's the same as if I were to say, Send it to the people of
10 Sarajevo or something. It's a much too general statement. It should
11 have been much more specific, which unit, which body, et cetera.
12 Q. Okay. In -- in your previous answer, you said:
13 I have never issued such an order. So if it's [sic] possible
14 from our side, it's ... from the other either.
15 I'm not sure your answer was correctly translated. Are you
16 saying it was not possible from MUP headquarters to send a communication
17 directly to an SJB in 1992?
18 A. To the SJBs. I was just saying that I never gave orders for SJBs
19 to be able to link up with the military units, if that's what you mean.
20 Q. Well, I'm not talking about police and military. I'm just
21 talking about within the MUP. Was the Ministry of Interior, in
22 headquarters, could the minister send a communication directly to an SJB?
23 For example, in Zvornik?
24 A. Yes. If it was technically possible. I would have to know
25 whether, on that date, it was physically possible for -- for him to send
1 out a communication.
2 And what do I mean by technical possibilities? If it's a coded
3 dispatch, they must have encoders and decoders and codes-books and what
4 have you.
5 Q. But how about an open communication, uncoded?
6 A. In principle, if, on that date, whichever date you're talking
7 about, it was possible to send something to Bijeljina, then it was
8 possible to send it to Zvornik too because both belonged to the same
9 network area. They have the same network prefix. If you dial 06 to call
10 some number in Bijeljina -- sorry. 076. Then you could also reach a
11 number connected to the exchange in Zvornik.
12 Q. You agreed with Mr. Zecevic on Friday, at page 11.661, when he
13 asked you about the communications centre of the Ministry of Defence
14 facing identical problems because it was linked up with the PTT system.
15 And he went on further, and you agreed with him, when he said:
16 "... they," I guess meaning the Ministry of Defence, "needed at
17 least three months, or rather, over three months to establish any kind of
18 communication at all from that centre?"
19 And you said:
20 "Yes, that's right."
21 What was your source of information about the
22 Ministry of Defence's communications centre and whatever difficulties
23 they may have had?
24 A. My source were the people working there, that is, from the
25 assistant minister Colonel Kotlica, through Major Regopagic [phoen],
1 through to the office -- the other officers working there. Kotlica
2 called me once from Pale to come and see them and to talk to them. And
3 on that occasion, he spoke to me about their problems. He had to
4 integrate all the municipalities, that is, the municipal Assemblies, the
5 civilian structures, and all the various services which was much more
6 demanding than the problem that I had with the police. Because they
7 didn't have communications centres in the municipalities. They used to,
8 in peacetime; but in war time, it was an open question what had remained
9 in existence.
10 Q. And can you tell us approximately when you had that conversation
11 with Colonel Kotlica, what month?
12 A. It would have been late April or early May, thereabouts.
13 Q. Thank you. Yes, I started to ask you this before. In the MUP
14 annual report, there's a reference to short-wave communications. This is
15 Exhibit P625. And I don't know if you'll remember the number, but it's
16 at page 30 -- I'm sorry, page 27 of the English, and I believe in e-court
17 it's page 37 and going on over to page 38.
18 In Friday's transcript at page 11.671, Mr. Zecevic was asking you
19 about this and pointed out that this seemed to be an extremely high
21 Actually, I think for the substance of this part of the
22 sentence -- we see the last three words on this page, Mr. -- the last
23 three or four words on this page, Mr. Kezunovic.
24 MR. HANNIS: And if we could show him the next page in B/C/S
25 regarding the 9.585.
1 Q. Mr. Zecevic said:
2 You gave us an explanation then that this number was extremely
3 high ... but you also explained that these were only tests of
4 connections, that there was no actual traffic using that backup system."
5 My question is: Are you saying this number of 9.585 short-wave
6 radio connections mentioned in the annual report, those are all nothing
7 but sound checks - someone calling up and saying, Can you hear me; yes, I
8 can hear you - and nothing else?
9 Is that what all 9.585 were?
10 A. Mostly it was that way. Whether somebody sent a short
11 dispatch -- well, what I explained, the difference between sending coded
12 dispatches by teleprinter, that is, machine processed, as compared to
13 manual processing or coding of dispatches, which is very slow. And we
14 would have gotten nowhere.
15 But this backup system was meant to enable us to send out
16 dispatches if everything else fails, to send them out and receive them.
17 And perhaps somebody had time enough and decided, Okay, we'll send out
18 this dispatch through short-wave communication. But because there was
19 no -- there were no explicit orders that they should or should not do
20 that. So perhaps they had lots of time and wanted to test this type of
22 Q. Okay. But if I understood you correctly when we looked at the
23 MUP performance report for the months April through June 1992, you
24 remember we discussed that and it showed that there were public telephone
25 and telefax communications with Banja Luka, Doboj, and Bijeljina; but for
1 Trebinje and CSB Sarajevo, there were short-wave links. And, if I
2 understood your answer earlier to that, you said that they must have sent
3 their daily reports by short wave because they didn't have a telephone or
4 telefax communication as of 29 June.
5 Is that correct?
6 A. But -- but let's me add something and then I'll answer your
8 In one of the documents, you could see telephone numbers. And
9 you saw that next to Trebinje there was a 089, which is a Montenegrin
10 number. I don't know from which switchboard. In any case, telecom
11 provided for the functioning of the public system via Montenegro. Nobody
12 could ban that or any such thing, which means that somebody from the
13 centre took a number. And now can I answer your question.
14 I can provide a complete answer. Maybe a number of dispatches
15 were sent by KT, but most of them were sent via this telephone number.
16 Q. Thank you. Just one last question on -- 9.585, it -- it seems
17 unusual to me that in an annual report for the working of the MUP in a
18 section about the communications and cryptographic data protection
19 administration that you would mention 9.585 sound checks. Do you
20 understand my question? That's -- that seems kind of silly. Who cares
21 that you called up 9.000 times to see if the sound was working?
22 A. Again, I have to answer in the following way: You're absolutely
23 right. Your question is very justified. Believe me, it doesn't make
24 sense to me either. But what's on paper is highly in disputable. I
25 never checked; I never did the maths; somebody else did the maths. This
1 may be a mistake. Maybe it's 958, not 9585. It might be 958, which
2 would have made much more sense. Maybe there was a centre which could
3 carry out more checks, but that was up to them.
4 In any case, what you see on paper are the facts. And what I'm
5 telling you are just my views. You're absolutely right. Why would
6 anybody in their right mind make so many checks? Still, there have to be
7 checks. For example, if you have reserve vehicles parked somewhere for a
8 long time, you still need to check whether they are in a good state of
10 Before the war we had a situation - have you to believe me when I
11 tell you - when it was -- that it was totally unexpected for all of us
12 when we checked the status of some vehicles that were on stand by, it
13 turned out that only one of them could actually be started. And even
14 that vehicle had a problem, either the tank was empty or something. So
15 from then on, everything had to be checked weekly. There was an order
16 for weekly checks of all the equipment.
17 Q. Thank you. I understand your answer.
18 I'm asking if you would entertain the possibility that that
19 number, 9.585, not only includes sound checks but also includes
20 substantive short-wave communications where information was exchanged.
21 Perhaps somebody sending in their daily report from Trebinje, for
23 A. In theory, yes. Why do I say "in theory"? Because everything
24 that was done had to be recorded. There had to be a paper trail after
25 everything. Which means that somebody handed over ten; those ten had to
1 be recorded in the short-wave log. There's no dilemma about that. And
2 now that you are asking me and you want a general answer, I can tell you
3 that, in principle, yes, that was the case. I agree.
4 Q. And as I understood the way the annual report was prepared was
5 that, for example, for your administration, the communications
6 administration, you prepared a report that went to the analytical guys
7 who wrote up this overall report and that before it became final, all you
8 administrative heads got together in a meeting with the analytical guys
9 and went over the report. So you had a chance to make any corrections or
10 additions that you thought were necessary.
11 That's right, isn't it? Isn't that what you told me last week?
12 A. We didn't gather all of us together. There were people who were
13 tasked with writing a paper. That person would make rounds of all the
14 units and discuss the matter. If somebody had asked me, for example,
15 when it comes to the short-wave links, I would have never recorded them.
16 But they thought that that was an important data, and I didn't have any
17 reason to oppose them. If they thought it was important, why not? In my
18 view, it wasn't. And I'm sure that I voiced that opinion with the
19 person, if they asked me about my opinion. I'm sure that I told them
20 that there are much more important things that weren't even mentioned in
21 this report.
22 Q. Okay. You strike me as a person who might also voice your
23 opinion about something like that even if you weren't asked, because you
24 were a professional in communications. Is that fair?
25 A. Well, yes. I am -- even now, I am telling you everything. I'm
1 answering your questions, but I'm also telling you things that you don't
2 ask me.
3 Q. I understand.
4 Next I want to ask you about a few things that came up today.
5 At page 7, line 6, Mr. Zecevic was asking you about in early 1993
6 you don't have communications with about 30 per cent of the
7 organisational units. You remember that he showed you the part of the
8 report that talked about 70 per cent were conducted. And -- and most of
9 that, it appears, was done recently.
10 Isn't it correct that during 1992, from April 1992 on, that there
11 were certain portions of the territory in the former Bosnia that were
12 captured or liberated, depending on your term of choice, that had
13 previously been held by the Bosnian Muslims and/or the Bosnian Croats,
14 and it was necessary, then, to establish new connections with this newly
15 conquered or captured territorial where there was now a new SJB for the
16 RS MUP.
17 Isn't that true?
18 A. It is true.
19 Let me just give you one example: At the time, Mostar was called
20 Serbian Mostar. Actually it was a village Zimlje [phoen]. And if I gave
21 you all topographic maps, a guide, a car, I'm not even sure that he would
22 be able to locate it in the course of one day.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Next I want to ask you about this topic that Mr. Zecevic covered
25 with you regarding the number of dispatches pre-war.
1 First of all, pre-war, do you know how many SJBs were there in
2 Bosnia, in all of Bosnia, in early 1992 or late 1991? Do you know that
4 A. I know. 109. Ten centres and 109 SJBs.
5 Q. And in -- in April or May of 1992, after the -- after the war
6 started, I understand there were five centres in the RS MUP.
7 Do you know how many SJBs there were in May, approximately?
8 A. With some reservation, I counted them, and that number
9 oscillated. We didn't know for sure. But it may have been even 60,
10 plus/minus a few.
11 Q. In that question, he said you mentioned an approximate number of
12 300.000 received and sent dispatches from the communications centre of
13 the MUP headquarters; is that correct?
14 A. In the MUP headquarters, in the Republican SUP. I remember I --
15 I remember the data about coding. There were about 120.000 coded
17 Q. I want to be clear. Is that sent and received in the
18 headquarters of the MUP, or is that number for all the organisational
19 units of the MUP? It seems like an extremely high number.
20 A. It is a high number. And that's what was sent and what was
21 received by the MUP headquarters.
22 Q. During what time-period?
23 A. Before the war.
24 Q. Going back how many years?
25 A. In the 1990s, let's say. Or in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
1 You see, when I started working in the Republican SUP, not even
2 50 per cent of the bodies had their codes, and I mean municipal
3 secretariats. The development of the system is of a recent date, and the
4 development followed a project system that provided for the complete
5 overhaul so nothing had to be added to the system. Everybody could
6 contact everybody else. They could send the dispatches but coded and
7 uncoded to everybody else. And we had physical capacity, according to
8 the then-technology of the coding of dispatches that Mr. Zecevic
9 mentioned, according to which the dispatch was brought to somebody, it
10 was coded on teleprinter or, rather, sent by teleprinter, coded, and so
11 on and so forth. Following a procedure.
12 Q. Let me try and understand this. That number, 300.000, is it for
13 a period of one year, three years, ten years? What time-period are you
14 talking about?
15 A. One year.
16 Q. Okay. From January 1991 to December 31st, 1991?
17 A. As I've told you, in the late 1980s or the earlier 1990s, as of
18 1991, I was no longer privy to the system. I've already described my
19 position. I did that in answering Mr. Zecevic's questions.
20 Q. Okay. By my rough math, if that's for a one-year period, 300.000
21 works out to something like 820 a day. That's like one dispatch sent
22 and/or received every two minutes or less than every two minutes for a
23 24-hour period. Is that right?
24 A. You can do your maths in very general terms. However, that's how
25 things were. I don't know how long the dispatches were. But we had five
1 teleprinters and all people did were -- there was typing 24/7, five
2 people typed dispatches. They were three other men who were in charge of
3 coding. Seven or eight were working in the communications centre of the
4 MUP. There was a procedure. And before the war, we had a short-wave
5 network that also functioned and had a machine code through which a
6 number of dispatches were sent in order to double-check the functioning
7 of the system. But, having said that, I also have to tell you that at
8 that time we had more staff and we could entertain a bigger workload.
9 Q. Where does that 300.000 number come from? Is that just a number
10 you have in your head, or is it that in a report somewhere that I could
11 find and look at?
12 A. There were reports. And in those reports, there was a separate
13 report for the department in charge of the data transfer or, rather, this
14 sending of dispatches, both coded and uncoded. They had to record the
15 quantity of materials that -- that was used, the codes used, and things
16 like that.
17 Q. Mr. Zecevic asked you, and you agreed with him in his assumption,
18 that in war time it would be logical to expect a rise in the number of
19 dispatches by at least 30 per cent. And you said, Yes, you're right, at
20 least 30 per cent.
21 What do you base that number on? I mean, before 1992, you never
22 had the experience of the MUP being in a war in Bosnia; right?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. So how -- how did you estimate that, Oh, the war started,
25 dispatches are going to go up by 30 per cent? Why did you think that?
1 It just seemed like a guess.
2 A. Well, the question was this: Would the quantity of dispatches go
3 up by at least 30 per cent? And that word "by at least;" that's the key.
4 Not 30 per cent, but "at least," a minimum.
5 And it was my logic, if the activities were the same, if the
6 state of crime was the same, if the traffic control was the same,
7 wouldn't it be logical that new events emerged during war time that would
8 increase that quantity of events by at least one third? That was the
9 logic that I followed in my answer. I don't know whether that was the
10 whole logic followed in the question that was put to me. I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this way: During peacetime, before
12 the war, when there were 300.000 dispatches sent and received, it seems
13 to me a lot of those dispatches during peacetime would have been about
14 things that were not important during war time.
15 I mean, didn't you have dispatches about Ahmed Ahmic or
16 Mile Milic is appointed to a certain position in Zvornik SJB or some
17 minor police station? All kinds of administrative and logistical and
18 technical kind of things that weren't crucial in the war time situation?
19 A. You're absolutely right.
20 Q. So to me, as a civilian and not having gone through that
21 experience, it seems like you might just as well expect the number of
22 dispatches to go down by more than 30 per cent.
23 A. If we're talking about one's impressions or your impressions as a
24 layperson, as a civilian, who is not savvy in the work of the police, but
25 from the point of view of somebody who lived with the police, I know how
1 the police think. And the only way things could go was up. Because in
2 war time, people would even send dispatches to ask the time because they
3 did not coordinate their times.
4 Q. Did you see any examples in -- in 1992 of people sending a
5 dispatch to ask the time?
6 A. I had a watch; I didn't have to ask.
7 Q. Okay. Mr. Kezunovic, I don't have any further questions for you.
8 Thank you.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Kezunovic, we thank you for your assistance to
11 the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness, and we wish a safe
12 journey back to your home. Thank you.
13 The usher will escort you from the courtroom.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, where are we in relation to your
17 following witness?
18 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
19 One is in relation to the next witness. It's my understanding
20 the Prosecution is requesting that we not begin her testimony until
21 tomorrow morning because of her arrival time and the proofing that's been
22 going on.
23 I understand the Defence doesn't have an objection to that
24 request, if it's agreeable with Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HALL: Was this the matter in respect of which you had
1 asked for the five minutes?
2 MR. HANNIS: It's one. I have a second one.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
4 MR. HANNIS: This is a short one.
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Could we hear your second issue?
6 MR. HANNIS: The second one, Your Honour, relates to your oral
7 decision or indication Friday at the end of the day concerning the
8 Prosecution's pending motion to add witnesses.
9 And we -- we'll certainly be able to provide the list of
10 summaries for those witnesses we want to add and have asked for a report
11 on the state of disclosure. I can give you a preliminary report on the
12 state of disclosure and then make a request.
13 It's my understanding that the correct number of witnesses we're
14 talking about is 53. I think it said 57 somewhere, but I've learned that
15 I think we have four names duplicated. So the correct number, I believe,
16 is 53. It's my understanding that we're up to date on disclosure
17 regarding 22 of those witnesses that we've disclosed statements and prior
18 testimonies for. There are an additional four for whom we have made
19 partial disclosure already. This is at least a statement for four of
20 those witnesses. Another eight are common witnesses with the Karadzic
21 case, and that should be easy to make the disclosure because cut and
22 paste. That leaves 19 that we haven't made any disclosure yet.
23 We would like to request Your Honours consider the possibility of
24 delaying the disclosure on those 19 witnesses until perhaps you have made
25 an indication about whether any of them may be called by the Prosecution.
1 My reasoning is this: If these witnesses aren't going to be called, then
2 we will have made disclosure, including some personal information,
3 et cetera, that will be out there, and they're not coming as witnesses.
4 We think that there will be sufficient information in the motion
5 and the summary for you to make an informed decision about whether or not
6 it might be appropriate for the Prosecution to call this witness.
7 If you decide no, well, then no disclosure has been made, and
8 that witness has no privacy concerns about things that have been
9 disclosed relating to them. If you decide, Yes, we are going to call
10 that witness, then we will make full disclosure for those remaining 19
11 witnesses. And if the Defence has an issue at that time saying, This is
12 10.000 pages; I need more time to prepare for these 19 witnesses, we can
13 address it at that time.
14 That's my request.
15 JUDGE HALL: And so we appreciated that the matter of disclosure
16 would be a running exercise.
17 MR. HANNIS: Yes. And there are some protective measures,
18 motions, for the Trial Chamber to deal with that may pertain to some.
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just two comments.
21 We were very explicit about the fact that we cannot give a proper
22 response to the motion unless we receive the disclosure. And it's -- I
23 am quite astonished that my learned friend uses the word "out there."
24 It's not out there; it is given to the Defence. And the Defence
25 has the obligations as it has. So the information is not out there; it
1 is given to us with all the limits that we have to disclose this
2 information to anybody else, and we need this information to be able to
3 respond to the motion. It's a very simple situation, Your Honours.
4 Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE HALL: You were -- and I thought Mr. Krgovic was about to
6 say something.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 When it comes to the disclosure, the issue is that some of the
9 statements and parts thereof were disclosed at different times, in
10 different forms, and now we have to connect all those materials and
11 identify them. We would kindly ask the Prosecutor to put all those
12 materials together and disclose them all at once. That would save us a
13 lot of time because some things may have been disclosed recently. Some
14 may have been disclosed six months ago. All of which is demanding on the
15 Defence resources and time.
16 JUDGE HALL: Well, in my comment at the end of Mr. Hannis's
17 statement, I used the word -- I used the phrase "running exercise" as a
18 way of explaining that contrary to Mr. Krgovic's desire that this happens
19 all at once, that the Trial Chamber appreciates the practical
20 difficulties or practical considerations which the Prosecution has to
21 bear in mind.
22 However, notwithstanding that, as Mr. Zecevic has, in my view,
23 correctly put his finger on the -- on the resolution, that is, that it is
24 simple in the sense that the Prosecution would appreciate that whatever
25 choices they make, there are consequences that flow from it. And they
1 would - we assume - prudently conduct themselves accordingly.
2 So the requirement that the Defence is not embarrassed or caught
3 by surprise is something that the Chamber is very alive to. And it is
4 part of the Chamber's duty to safe-guard the interests of the Defence in
5 this regard.
6 So if there is nothing further that need delay us, we would take
7 the adjournment to 9.00 tomorrow morning.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.02 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day
10 of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.