101122IT

Page 17611

1 is empowered in exceptional circumstances to permit to a witness who has

2 made his concerns known to the side calling him that there are reasons

3 why certain protective measures should be employed.

4 So, could you, first of all, tell us what your concerns are; and,

5 secondly, what measures you are seeking that would allay your concerns?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation], first of all, I'm a family man. I

7 have two children. And it's because of my children, because I don't want

8 them to have problems in the near or further future because I'm appearing

9 as a witness.

10 As far as I'm personally concerned, all my neighbours know who I

11 was and, to some extent, the people in the organisation where I work, and

12 that's the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, since people were

13 looking for me, mentioning my name. But as far as I myself am concerned,

14 I wouldn't have sought protective measures. But if that is not possible,

15 we can go into open session and there should be no problems.

16 That's what I would have to say.

17 JUDGE HALL: There is an question that I'm direct to go counsel

18 for the Prosecution: Mr. Hannis, the -- I -- I don't have your motion in

19 front of me, but the -- was this the witness in respect of whom there was

20 the -- it was represented that the name was such that -- would you like

21 to ask the witness a question directly related to this.

22 MR. HANNIS: Yes, indeed, Your Honour.

23 Examination on Protective Measures by Mr. Hannis:

24 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. I want to ask you about the

25 information --

Page 17612

1 A. Good afternoon.

2 Q. I want to ask you about the information that I provided to the

3 Court concerning your request for protective measures. And in that

4 motion we indicated a couple of things. You had some concerns for your

5 family possibly being harassed, if it were learned that you had testified

6 here at the Tribunal. And one of the reasons you indicated was that your

7 name, Ranko Vukovic, is a rather common name in the territory, that you

8 had already been harassed once at least because some non-Serb persons

9 thought you were a Ranko Vukovic from Foca who allegedly had committed

10 some crimes against non-Serbs during the war. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct. It happened at the ministry, because I work

12 at the Ministry of Defence, and since there is one Ranko Vukovic who was

13 sentenced to 12 and a half years imprisonment by the court, and I was

14 born in Foca in 1952. So some individuals, one Suad Roko who is a

15 religious officer, said to me, Oh, so you're the Ranko. And I said,

16 There are many Rankos and where I live currently there is about a dozen

17 Ranko Vukovics within a circle of about 110 kilometres.

18 And the second thing, there was police director by the name of

19 Ranko Vukovic in the Republika Srpska who had his personal ID taken away

20 from him and his freedom of movement was limited. I believe these

21 measures were lifted recently. But I'm not that Ranko Vukovic either.

22 I'm a man who respects everybody irrespective of the colour of their

23 skin, their name, their ethnic affiliation and their religion. I am this

24 Ranko Vukovic.

25 I believe that this is enough. You're right, Mr. Hannis, and

Page 17613

1 when we spoke at Nedzarici in Sarajevo, you understood me correctly.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate that reference to

3 that second Ranko Vukovic was an individual suspected of having some

4 association with a network protected Mr. Karadzic when he was a fugitive,

5 and his reference to his ID and limitation on movement related to actions

6 taken by the UN High Commissioner.

7 Q. That's correct, Mr. Vukovic? That's the second one you were

8 talking about.

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. And finally, Your Honours, one last thing.

11 Mr. Vukovic, in our motion, we also indicated that you had some

12 concerns about possible harassment or retaliation against your family

13 members by Serb extremists simply by the fact that you were testifying at

14 the Tribunal in a case where the accused are Serbs. Is that correct?

15 Was that -- is that a concern you have?

16 A. I told you that I couldn't testify about some things of which I

17 have no knowledge. I cannot confirm some things for the OTP. And

18 possibly for that reason, some people who belonged to my ethnic group

19 could be induced to think that I stated some things that weren't true.

20 That's why I said that.

21 But I also said that my daughter who has a diploma in English

22 could come to work for the joint institutions in Sarajevo. And for that

23 reason, my child could face some problems caused by the Bosniak side or

24 another side, because I'm her father. Although I state with full

25 responsibility that I haven't had any problems with the law, that I have

Page 17614

1 a clean slate and clean hands, that's it.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vukovic. I don't have any further questions for

3 you.

4 JUDGE HALL: Do counsel for the Defence have any questions.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I don't need to question the witness, but,

6 Your Honours, because I don't want to use up the time. We know for a

7 fact that witness testified for the Defence in two previous cases or was

8 supposed to testify for Defence -- gave the statements for -- for the

9 Defence in Krajisnik and Karadzic.

10 None of the reasons which were stated over -- in -- in -- in our

11 friend's motion has been confirmed by -- by the witness basically. I --

12 I probably missed something, but I don't see how -- how the fact that

13 some other people have the same name and the surname is relevant for any

14 of this, because the witness will not be changing his name. That's for

15 sure.

16 So the problems with the same name and other persons having the

17 same name will persist whether he testifies publicly or testifies under

18 the protective measures, so I don't see how is that relevant for this.

19 And in my opinion, there is -- according to the witness there is -- there

20 is no -- there was no threats, he's just -- he's just having some

21 concerns which -- which have no basis for -- whatsoever at this point in

22 time in the -- or -- or any actual events.

23 Therefore, saying all this, we -- we do oppose now to the --

24 to -- to granting the protective measures.

25 Thank you.

Page 17615

1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

2 Mr. Pantelic.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, although this witness is not

4 related to our client, I mean, generally but as a matter of principle we

5 support position of Stanisic Defence with that regard.

6 Thank you.

7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. HANNIS: If I may, I'm not trying to continue to argue the

10 motion, just to clarify a couple of points. Mr. Zecevic said that this

11 witness testified before. To my knowledge, he has not testified before

12 at this Tribunal. He did give a one-page witness statement apparently to

13 the Krajisnik Defence but he was not called as a witness in that case,

14 and I think he may have been listed as a potential witness for

15 Mr. Karadzic's Defence but he has not testified in that case yet.

16 And the reason we're referring to his name is, that relates to

17 the request for a pseudonym.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I heard you say that you are -- that

20 you -- you -- you're currently employed in the Ministry of Defence. Is

21 that Republika Srpska Ministry of Defence?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's the Ministry of Defence

23 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Because the federal Ministry of Defence and the

24 Ministry of Defence of the RS have been abolished, and they were

25 integrated into one state level Ministry of Defence, for which I work.

Page 17616

1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. And you're of Serb ethnicity; is that

2 right?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE DELVOIE: And in 1992, you -- for -- you worked for the

5 Ministry of Defence as well?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE HALL: Having heard the witness -- having heard the witness

10 and having considered the submissions and representations made by counsel

11 on both sides, the decision of the Trial Chamber is that the witness may

12 be afforded a pseudonym. That is the limit of the protective measures

13 that we consider necessary in the circumstances of this case.

14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. We've asked for him to have

15 the pseudonym ST-219. He does have a pseudonym sheet down there, I

16 guess. I don't know how you want to deal with that in this videolink

17 context.

18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, the Court Officer has just passed to

19 you a pseudonym sheet. If you are satisfied that that correctly states

20 your name and your date of birth, please sign it and pass it back to him.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE HALL: Before we move into open session, I would remind the

25 parties and, indeed, ourselves, that having regard to the pseudonym,

Page 17617

1 which the witness has been granted to avoid mentioning his name, and, of

2 course, if the -- he would be other -- if there is any answer which would

3 compromise the pseudonym then, of course, we would revert to private

4 session.

5 So we move into open session.

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank

8 you.

9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you before I invite counsel for the

10 Prosecution who has called you, to begin his questions, the -- continuing

11 with the preliminary questions that the Chamber would have of you, the --

12 you have never testified before this Tribunal; is that correct?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.

14 JUDGE HALL: Have you testified before a court in any of the

15 countries in the former Yugoslavia, in terms of the events that --

16 that -- that arose out of the -- 1992?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never.

18 JUDGE HALL: The -- thank you - procedure is that the side

19 calling you would begin, and the -- then counsel for each of the accused

20 has a right to ask you questions arising out of the questions which the

21 Prosecution has asked. The Prosecution then has a right to re-examine

22 and at that stage or indeed at any earlier stage the Bench may have

23 questions for you. It is expected that the Prosecution would spent an

24 hour and a half with you and counsel for accused Stanisic has indicated

25 that they may be with you for as long as five hours, but I believe that

Page 17627

1 Q. There is a reference number --

2 A. That's the time when ...

3 Q. Go ahead. Please finish.

4 A. At that time, the contact was established between the two

5 teleprinter services.

6 Q. Thank you. And the reference number, 1-92, does that indicate

7 that this is the first message that's been sent by the new Ministry of

8 National Defence in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

9 A. Judging by the document, that should have been the first telegram

10 that was ever sent on the 16th of April, 1992; hence the number 1/92.

11 Q. And if could you go to the second page, at the bottom where

12 there's a typed signature for the National Defence minister, Mr. Subotic,

13 there's a "Transmitted By," on such a date at 1006, and then it says:

14 "Received" by a certain individual for Banja Luka.

15 In terms of how the teletype works can you explain to me when and

16 how the name of the recipient gets on the document? If, for example, I

17 were sitting in Pale typing this document into the teleprinter to be sent

18 from Pale to Banja Luka, who types in that name at the end where it says:

19 "Received."

20 Is that done in Banja Luka?

21 A. Yes, that is added in Banja Luka. The operative who received the

22 telegram he also signed the receipt of the telegram.

23 Q. And when you say "signed it," you mean signed it electronically

24 by typing in his name?

25 A. Yes.

Page 17628

1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

2 A. This telegram could have been sent manually or it could also have

3 been sent by means of perforated band. On the end of the sending of

4 either a telegram or any other document the operative who received it,

5 signed the document off to confirm that he, indeed, received it at a

6 certain time. And can you see it in the stamp at the end of the

7 document.

8 Q. That was my next question. The stamp at the end of the document,

9 can you tell us where that's from and when and where it would have been

10 put on this document? Is it a stamp at Pale or a stamp at Banja Luka?

11 A. When you look at the stamp, you can see that the document was

12 received under number 440/800 on the 16th of April 1992, at 1010 hours

13 than it was received by teleprinter. I can't read the signature. It's

14 illegible. I wouldn't be able to tell you who received the telegram,

15 whether it was Jerko Batinar, whether he was the one who put his

16 signature in the stamp, I don't know. There should be a log-book for all

17 the outgoing telegrams, as well as log-book of all the incoming telegrams

18 in Banja Luka where all the received telegrams are recorded. I can't

19 really tell you that that was that. I would have to consult the

20 log-books which I don't have.

21 If you could show me one of those log-books, I would be able to

22 complete my answer. I would be able to tell you who signed the stamp,

23 whether it was Jerko Batinar or somebody else. The signature itself is

24 not legible enough for me to tell.

25 Q. Okay. One more thing before we leave this document. At the top

Page 17629

1 of the first page, there is what appears to be a fax header. Do you see

2 that?

3 A. I can see that.

4 Q. And what does that indicate to you? Was this actual hard copy of

5 this teletype message then also faxed after it was received, or can you

6 say?

7 A. The top of the document, you can see that the memorandum was in

8 the centre in Banja Luka and as far as I can remember, the number

9 indicated on the document was the number of the fax in the Banja Luka

10 centre.

11 I can't tell you whether the operative faxed this document to

12 somebody else. I don't know that. I'm not able to see it from the

13 document without the log-book. If I saw the log-book I would be able to

14 tell you who the document was sent to.

15 Since Banja Luka was a regional centre at the time, and this

16 document applied to all Serbian municipalities, I suppose that he did fax

17 the document to the municipalities in the Krajina region.

18 Q. Thank --

19 A. And that's what I can conclude, based on just looking at the

20 document.

21 Q. Thank you. I don't have all the log-books I would like to have

22 to show you, and I don't have all the time to show you everything.

23 One last thing: There is a stamp on the first page in the upper

24 right-hand corner. Can you tell us what that is, where it's from?

25 A. I'm not familiar with the stamp.

Page 17630

1 Q. Thank you.

2 A. And judging by the inscription, I can see that the stamp had

3 something to do with the Krajina region.

4 Q. Thank you, sir. If you could next take a look at the document

5 that's behind tab 5 in your binder. This is Exhibit P467.

6 This is a document that's dated the 4th of May, 1992. And if you

7 would look at the second page, you'll see the name of the sender as being

8 a Colonel Miodrag Sajic of the Regional Secretariat for NO. Can you tell

9 me what NO stands for in this context?

10 A. The Regional Secretariat for National Defence.

11 Q. Did you know Colonel Sajic?

12 A. No, I did not.

13 Q. Do you know how many Regional Centres of National Defence there

14 were in May of 1992 in the Republika Srpska, or the Serb Republic of

15 Bosnia?

16 A. After such a long time, I can only try to recall how many there

17 were. But I'm not sure that I will be able to give you the exact number.

18 You know, I have already told you that had a car accident. I had

19 a retrograde and antegrade amnesia. It is possible that I will not be

20 able to remember. I forgot a lot of things. There was a regional

21 Secretariat for National Defence in Banja Luka. There was also one in

22 Bijeljina. There was regional Secretariat for National Defence in

23 Trebinje. There was another one at Pale, in the then-Serbian Sarajevo.

24 And there was also Regional Secretariat in Doboj, I think. This is as

25 much as I can recall after such a long time.

Page 17631

1 Q. Okay. And as I understand it, the MOD republic communications

2 centre had links with all of those regional centres at this time;

3 correct?

4 A. There were certain periods of time where -- when there were

5 connections but those connections were rather impaired, so contacts were

6 not so easy to establish. There were very frequent outages of

7 electricity, there were also works in the territory of the armed forces

8 or some groups, telephone cables were damaged so it was not so easy to

9 establish communication at all times. Therefore, there were periods when

10 we had to use some other means in order to be able to communicate tasks

11 to each other.

12 We were successful [as interpreted] all the time. We had to use

13 open communications means, even radio communications at times.

14 Q. And you see from the first paragraph in this document it makes

15 reference to that 16 April decision of Minister Subotic that we looked at

16 before; correct?

17 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I'm looking at the document I

19 can see that it is the 16th of April.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... I need to

21 mention in transcript, 26, 20, I believe the witness said, "We were not

22 successful all the time." And it was recorded as, "We were successful."

23 MR. HANNIS: I'm sure that will be caught when the transcript is

24 reviewed.

25 Q. Yes, and I'm sorry, did I understand your answer, Witness, that

Page 17632

1 this document is referring to that 16 April dispatch number 1-92 from the

2 minister of defence?

3 A. From the preamble of this decision that I have before me, I can

4 see that the document was number 1-92 dated 16 April 1992. However,

5 after such a long time, without consulting the log-book of outgoing and

6 incoming telegrams, I cannot say anything for certain.

7 This is not the original of the document. Therefore, I wouldn't

8 be able to tell you whether this document corresponds to the original

9 document. This is a photocopy; that's what I'm saying.

10 Q. I understand that.

11 A. It's not an original.

12 Q. I understand that. But 1-92 from the Ministry of Defence, is

13 that one that we looked at earlier, announcing mobilisation and the

14 declaration of an imminent threat of war; correct?

15 A. It is possible. However, after such a long time --

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. I cannot interpret the minister's decision or the decision of any

18 other official, for that matter --

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. -- anybody who used the services of our centre.

21 Q. Thank you. Let me show you the next tab. Tab 6. This is

22 Exhibit P555.

23 This is also dated the 4th of May, 1992. And looking at the

24 format, can you tell me what kind of document this is? Would this have

25 been sent by teletype or teleprinter? Can you say?

Page 17633

1 A. It was probably sent as a teletype message.

2 This is a document that was sent by a Siemens teleprinter

3 machine. However, I have not seen this decision before. And the

4 signature is of the centre chief, Stojan Zupljanin.

5 Q. Okay. If you will look at the first page at the top, it's

6 addressed to all public security stations and it says: "We received a

7 dispatch from the government of the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina

8 and we hereby forward to you in full ..."

9 If you look what's below it appears that they're forwarding that

10 document that we just looked at, from Colonel Sajic which makes reference

11 to the 01- -- the 1-92 decision of April 16th from the minister of

12 defence. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, can I see that. I do.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, I've ...

17 However, I've not seen Stojan Zupljanin sign his name as the

18 centre chief and then somebody called Dusko. I suppose that this was

19 sent by the MUP communications system.

20 Q. Thank you. I'd like you next to take a look at tab 7. This is

21 65 ter number 3362. And your first page in the B/C/S hard copy is simply

22 a cover page which I think is translated into English as -- as

23 "register," or "registry."

24 Could you take a look at the second page in the B/C/S. Do you

25 recognise the name of the person that signed on this document, which

Page 17634

1 purports to be a registry for the Republika Srpska Presidency and

2 National Assembly in Pale. Do you recognise the name?

3 A. Yes. That was a lady, Mrs. Rajka Stanisic. She worked in the

4 office of the president of the Assembly, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, and the

5 stamp also belonged to that office. But this is a copy from the

6 log-book.

7 To answer your question, I'd like to say that I did know

8 Mrs. Rajka Stanisic personally.

9 Q. Thank you. And I want to ask you, did you know a man named

10 Dragan Kezunovic, who worked for communications in the RS MUP in 1992?

11 A. Yes, I did not see him that often. However, during the first few

12 months, Mr. Kezunovic often visited our centre Colonel Kotlica, Milorad,

13 was working with me, and he was the head of the cryptographic data

14 protection, and he was an officer of the Ministry of Defence of the

15 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 Q. Let me ask you about a man named Radovan Pejic who worked at the

17 CSB Sarajevo for the RS MUP in 1992 in communications. Did you know him?

18 A. I know Mr. Pejic from the Security Services Centre of Serbian

19 Sarajevo. However, I only met him after the war.

20 Q. Thank you for that --

21 A. I don't know if he worked there at the time or not. I didn't

22 know him at the time.

23 Q. Thank you for that.

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, this is would be a good time for me to

25 break, if that's convenient for you.

Page 17635

1 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, as I indicated earlier, we take breaks

2 in the course of today, and now is the time for the first break. We will

3 resume with your testimony when we return in 20 minutes.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 --- Recess taken at 3.40 p.m.

6 [The witness takes the stand]

7 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.

8 JUDGE HALL: Before we continue with the witness, I just need to

9 bring counsel up to date with where we are. I'll -- we'll let you know

10 as we are told but as for tomorrow, for certain administrative reasons we

11 couldn't adjust the scheduled afternoon sitting to the morning, so when

12 we rise at 7.00 we would resume at 2.15 tomorrow afternoon. I will let

13 you know what the position is, for the two following days, Wednesday and

14 Thursday as soon as we are informed.

15 MR. HANNIS: In connection with that, Your Honour, I should

16 advise you that we have been informed that the next witness to follow

17 this one won't be ready till Wednesday. He was called in anticipation of

18 the estimated time for cross-examination of this witness that he wouldn't

19 begin until that day, so I think he's only arriving tonight or tomorrow

20 morning and won't be ready to begin before then.

21 So we have as much time as we need tomorrow if we don't finish

22 this witness today. And I alert you that in the event that there is

23 something else that we may usefully spend or time on as a group or

24 separately.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But he would be available by Wednesday morning.

Page 17636

1 MR. HANNIS: Yes, yes.

2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE HALL: You may continue with your examination, Mr. Hannis.

5 MR. HANNIS:

6 Q. Witness, next I would like you to take a look at the document

7 that's in tab 4 of the binder.

8 These are -- I will tell you. These are excerpts from a

9 communications log-book which we have evidence that the -- the first --

10 the first 50 entries were for the RS MUP headquarters at Vrace in the

11 beginning weeks of the war in April and May of 1992 and a later portion

12 of the book was used by CSB Sarajevo.

13 And so the first thing I want to ask you about is, I think it's

14 page 4 in your hard copy. It's item number 18. Do you see there beside

15 item 18 a reference that says: "MUP BiH."

16 It's a report and it's sent to: Government, Serb republic?

17 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry to interrupt, counsel. If could you please

18 mention the number of the document for the record. Thank you.

19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much and this is Exhibit P1428 in

20 evidence. And the e-court page, I think is, 4 for both the English and

21 bias.

22 Q. I'm sorry, Witness, for that interruption. Do you see the item

23 I'm asking about?

24 A. Just a moment, please. Bear with me. 18? Report?

25 Q. Yes, yes. To the government Serb republic and there's a phone

Page 17637

1 number, 783460.

2 Let me ask you; if a document were sent by CSB Sarajevo in late

3 April of 1992, would it have gone to the MOD centre in Pale, if it was

4 meant for the government of the Serb Republic; do you know?

5 A. No. It should not have gone there. The stations all had their

6 system of communications and they could send their dispatches directly to

7 the government without those dispatches having to go through the MOD.

8 Q. And to where would that document sent from MUP headquarters

9 communications in Vrace have been sent to reach the government? To what

10 person or what building?

11 A. It would reach the secretary of the government. I can see a

12 signature. I don't know who the signature belongs to. Whether it

13 belongs to the courier or to the person who dispatched the dispatch. In

14 any case, it would arrive at the desk of the secretary of the government.

15 Q. And who would that be? What person; if you know.

16 A. At the time, the secretary of the government was Mr. Nedeljko

17 Vakic.

18 Q. And I know it's been a long time, but do you recognise that phone

19 number, 783460?

20 A. As for the number, 783460, we had a similar number to this one at

21 our centre. I don't know whether that would be that number. I believe

22 this is the fax number for the government.

23 Q. And where was that fax machine physically located in April and

24 May of 1992; if you know? Was that in the MOD centre?

25 A. We had our telefax at the centre and the government had its own

Page 17638

1 fax machine on its premises. And so did all the police stations.

2 Q. Do you know where the premises where the government and

3 Presidency sat were in April and May of 1992?

4 A. The government and Presidency sat in Panorama Hotel, some of the

5 staff. And the rest were at the Kikinda facility.

6 Q. Could you look at the very next page at item 21 in that list of

7 sent and received dispatches. You see it's sent by MUP Vrace, Sarajevo.

8 It appears to be a summary, a security events report and it is sent to

9 the president of the government at that same phone number.

10 A. 783460?

11 Q. I think you've told us enough about that. Let me ask you to move

12 on to -- I think you have to go on about five or six pages to find item

13 number 81 and 82.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. These are --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. These are dated the 18th of July, 1992. The first one is

18 information on the work of MUP and military police. And the second is an

19 order for establishment of mixed traffic check-points.

20 There are to be sent to or given to SRBH staff. Can you tell me

21 who that refers to in that context? That's the Serbian Republic of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but the staff of what? Is that the government? The

23 Presidency? Do you know?

24 A. I don't know. I don't know what institution is meant by this.

25 Q. And --

Page 17639

1 A. I can see the word "staff."

2 Q. My English translation translates farther as "Main Staff,

3 security organ, Serbian army of the Serb BH."

4 In July of 1992, the VRS was in existence. Can you tell us by

5 what means and through which facilities a message from CSB Sarajevo would

6 go to reach the Main Staff of the army? Would that go through MOD

7 centre, or did the MUP have a direct connection from the CSB Sarajevo to

8 the army?

9 A. I am not familiar with the organisation of communications within

10 the MUP. However, at that time, the MUP had a lot of problem with

11 organising its system of communications. And I think that for a long

12 time they didn't function properly and they could not protect information

13 for a long time. And that's why our centre sometime provided services to

14 them and held them with the transmission of certain documents to their

15 end user. We used our communications system to do that. We had our own

16 problems. Those were the first months of combat operations, and those

17 communications systems would be down quite often.

18 As I look at this document, I can't tell you anything else about

19 it. This document doesn't emanate from my sector. Besides, I don't see

20 in the document that the document was sent to our centre and then

21 transmitted through our centre, the republic centre of communications,

22 and cryptographic data protection. I really can't tell you how this was

23 sent. This is a copy from a log-book. Somebody put a remark in order to

24 confirm the receipt of the document and file it away. I don't know how

25 they sent this document. This is a report or perhaps not. I don't even

Page 17640

1 know that. I can't tell you because I don't see anything to indicate

2 that.

3 Q. Let me ask you: Were you aware, did a CSB -- or particularly the

4 CSB in Sarajevo have a direct communications link with the VRS in July of

5 1992, do you know? Or would they have go throughout MOD centre?

6 A. In June, or July, rather, when if come to the MUP, I don't know

7 whether the MUP had a direct communications link with the Main Staff or

8 not.

9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I think it's three more

10 pages to item number 1048. And, again, we're still looking at the

11 communications log-book for CSB Sarajevo.

12 And this is an item dated 7 November 1992. It's a solution to

13 protect against fire and the issue of ownership of the Pale culture

14 centre, sent to the Pale Municipal Assembly, the mayor, the president of

15 the Executive Committee. Do you know if CSB Sarajevo for the MUP had a

16 direct communications link to the political offices of the municipality

17 in Pale or is that something that would go through your centre?

18 I'm sorry, hold your answer for a minute while Mr. Zecevic raises

19 a procedural matter?

20 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I have -- I have a

21 serious concern with the -- with the line of questions that my friend now

22 is posing to this witness.

23 One of the witnesses --

24 MR. HANNIS: Could we ask the witness to take his headphones off.

25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, could the witness please remove his headphones.

Page 17641

1 Yes.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue?

3 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, one of the witnesses for the Office

5 of the Prosecutor was a chief of the CSB Communication Department.

6 Department of Communication of CSB Sarajevo. It was never put to him

7 or -- or was he asked that, is there a connection between the CSB

8 Sarajevo or General Staff or CSB Sarajevo and Pale?

9 I simply do not understand the line of the -- of the questions

10 that we are now asking the witness who doesn't obviously know anything

11 about it, and when we had the first-hand knowledge from the witness who

12 was here, none of these questions was asked of him. He was able to give

13 us a -- a -- the best evidence about that.

14 That is just my observation, Your Honours, and I don't really

15 understand this -- where this line is taking us.

16 JUDGE HALL: Isn't the short answer to that, Mr. Zecevic, that if

17 the witness is unable to answer the question that is being posed, he

18 would say he doesn't know, and if the Prosecution has confused matters by

19 the way they have led their evidence of the several witnesses then that

20 is something that would -- I'm sure that Defence would not hesitate to

21 remind the Chamber of when it comes to final submissions.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

25 JUDGE HALL: The witness may replace his headphones, please.

Page 17642

1 MR. HANNIS:

2 Q. Thank you, sir. I think my question was - I don't know if you

3 recall - is, do you know whether or not CSB Sarajevo had a direct

4 communications link to the political offices in Pale in November 1992 to

5 the Pale Municipal Assembly or the mayor or the president of the

6 Executive Committee. Do you know?

7 A. I cannot provide an answer to that question, because I don't

8 know.

9 But since they were at Pale, they could have used a courier to

10 send some documents. It sounds logical. It is -- I don't know whether

11 they had a direct communications link but they didn't need one, neither

12 would the president of the municipality or the president of the Executive

13 Committee. I don't know.

14 Q. Okay. One more, or maybe two more. I think it's the next page,

15 item number 1534 is -- the content is: Rejection of requests for

16 vehicle. Referred to Ministry of Defence. Apparently sent to the RS

17 Ministry of Defence. Was there a direct communications link between CSB

18 Sarajevo and the Ministry of Defence, do you know? In December 1992?

19 A. During that period, no. In December 1992 there were links

20 between the communications centres, that is, the communications centre of

21 the MUP and the com centre of the republic. But as the headquarters was

22 at Pale, everything was carried by couriers.

23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

24 A. I can see here that the request to be given a vehicle was denied.

25 Q. All right. And then I think I have one more. I am afraid you

Page 17643

1 have to go backwards. I want to find item number 292. And then we will

2 be done with that tab.

3 The sender is listed as the SR Presidency, it's a document

4 numbered 01-518/92, dated 22 August 1992. The content: Accreditation of

5 reports from the territory of SR. And the dispatch is given to

6 apparently Mr. Borovcanin and Mr. Mitrovic and all the departments in the

7 CSB Sarajevo, so this appears to be a document they received from the

8 Presidency. Do you know how that document would have been transmitted

9 from the Presidency in order to reach the CSB Sarajevo in August of 1992?

10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic has a --

11 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Witness, don't answer yet. We have a

12 legal matter to discuss.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, it's basically not legal. It's again an

14 issue of interpretation. I believe the -- the original says --

15 MR. HANNIS: Again, could we ask the witness to take his

16 headphones off?

17 MR. ZECEVIC: May I?

18 I believe the 292 document is accreditation of the reporters from

19 the territory, not the reports. Accreditation of reporters on the

20 territory of SR.

21 MR. HANNIS: Could we have the witness put his headphones back

22 on. I can ask him to help us with that.

23 Q. Witness, in terms of the -- the name of the document or the

24 content of the document, could you read the B/C/S so we can get an

25 interpretation? There's a question about what one of the words should

Page 17644

1 say in English.

2 Could you just read it out for us?

3 A. Serbian Republic, Presidency 01-518/92 of 22 August 1992.

4 Accreditation of reporters from the territory of the Serbian republic.

5 CSB Borovcanin, Mitrovic, all services.

6 Q. Thank you. And now could you answer my question: If this was

7 sent from the Presidency to reach CS -- CSB Sarajevo, how would it go, if

8 you know? Would that go through your centre or would it go from the

9 Presidency directly to MUP headquarters or directly to the CSB, if you

10 know?

11 A. I cannot say, based on this register how exactly this document or

12 letter was forwarded to the CSB; that is to Mr. Borovcanin and

13 Mr. Mitrovic and all services, because this is a copy of a register that

14 is unfamiliar to me, and I cannot know if any document with such a number

15 was delivered to the centre at that time.

16 From today's vantage point, I would be led to conclude that this

17 document was not delivered this way from the Presidency to the CSB, but

18 had to travel by another route. That is my opinion.

19 Q. And "by another route," what do you mean? Through whom or what?

20 A. Through a courier or through a regular exchange of mail. A

21 courier could come from the Presidency and take the mail to the MUP.

22 That would be the way. I cannot see from this that this document was

23 dispatched in a different manner.

24 Q. You cannot rule out that it was sent by electronic means or by

25 radio or by fax from your centre to the MUP headquarters for furthering

Page 17645

1 onto the CSB, can you?

2 A. After so much time, I cannot be precise as to the way this

3 document was handed over to the CSB because from the -- this registry and

4 the sum review of incoming and outgoing mail, I cannot tell which route

5 this took. Probably it was delivered by a courier, but that's an

6 assumption of mine. Based on such registers as this, I cannot make

7 accurate statements. I don't have the document in front of me, or

8 anything else that has to do with accrediting reporters from the

9 territory of the RS or the SR. If I had the document in front of me or

10 the telegram, I may be able to say more. But as things stand, this is

11 all I can say.

12 Q. Okay. Let's see if can I help with one thing, one aspect. If we

13 can look at tab 7; that's 65 ter 3362. This is the one that's described

14 as the registry for the Presidency and the National Assembly that has a

15 Ms. Rajka Stanisic's name on it.

16 If you could turn to the page that has item number 01-518, the

17 ERN is 0084-5621. I believe that's page 20 of the English in e-court and

18 page 56 of the B/C/S.

19 A. All right. I've found it.

20 Q. And you see that item number is 01-51892 and it appears to be an

21 accreditation of the -- my English says reports, but I think from the

22 other it is probably "reporters" from the territory of RS dated 18th of

23 August. This, indeed, appears to be that document that was referred to

24 in the CSB Sarajevo log-book. Would you agree?

25 A. It probably is. But I don't know the handwriting. And at the

Page 17646

1 republican centre, no registers were kept -- no handwritten registers

2 were kept. But, again, after so much time, I really cannot say anything

3 about a document which was sent from the National Assembly and entered

4 into their log-book. I'm not able to say anything about it because that

5 document never reached me. I cannot say anything about its route either.

6 If you wish to show me one of my log-books to show whether anybody sent

7 it, then I may be able to comment.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm again sorry. Maybe can you clarify with the

9 witness, Mr. Hannis. 41, 7, I know that the witness didn't say that:

10 "No handwritten registers were kept." He meant something completely

11 different.

12 MR. HANNIS:

13 Q. Witness, it's been advised that your answer may have been

14 misrecorded. At the beginning you said you didn't know the handwriting

15 here in -- in this register for the Presidency and the National Assembly.

16 And you said:

17 "At the republican centre, no registers were kept, no handwritten

18 registers were kept."

19 Is that what you said, or did you say something else?

20 A. No, I didn't say that no handwritten registers were kept but that

21 I was unfamiliar with the handwriting in this register which is a

22 register of the Assembly of the RS because they had their own registers

23 and log-books; whereas at the centre, there were other log-books such as

24 log-books of incoming telegrams or outgoing telegrams and so on.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 17647

1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would like to tender 65 ter 3362.

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: For what purpose exactly, Mr. Hannis?

3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, this is --

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Because if I can just put my question: I'm not

5 quite sure that I understand how this is relevant.

6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, one of the contested issues that still

7 remains in this case is the manner of communications within the

8 Republika Srpska. This is a log-book kept regarding communications from

9 the Presidency and from the National Assembly that were sent out

10 throughout the Republika Srpska. I think you'll see there were over

11 2.000-some entries during the time period of the log-book. I've shown

12 just one connection where a document that is in this log-book shows up in

13 Exhibit P1428, the CSB Sarajevo log-book, demonstrating that it was

14 dispersed down to the level of CSB. And that's just one example. But

15 it's a contemporaneous log of those Presidency and National Assembly

16 documents. You will see other links, and I don't think there's any

17 question about the authenticity of this document. This was seized by

18 Mr. Pat Treanor and two investigators from the OTP in December 1997 from

19 a Mr. Milos Vukasinovic, who -- an official of the RS Ministry of

20 Justice. So I think we've shown authenticity, and I think from my

21 comments, there is relevance and probative value particularly on the

22 issue of communications and communications between alleged members and

23 participants of the joint criminal enterprise.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, we do object.

25 First of all, the witness -- this witness has nothing to do with

Page 17648

1 this log-books [sic], never saw them, it was not within his purview,

2 never had these documents before, so he cannot give us any kind of

3 indication to the authenticity of these documents or provenance or

4 whatever.

5 Now, the second thing, if my learned friend suggests that this --

6 this particular document or dispatch, the accreditation of the reporters

7 was sent to MUP, I would like to know where did he found that reference,

8 from this log-book. Because this log-book does not contain the -- the --

9 the intended recipient of the -- of any of the documents. We don't know

10 even -- even if that's -- even if that's a log-book of all the documents

11 that were prepared. Maybe some were sent, maybe some were not. Really,

12 on the basis of such a scarce information that we have from the contents

13 of this document as it appears right now, I don't think we can -- that it

14 reaches the threshold to be admitted.

15 Thank you very much.

16 MR. HANNIS: May I reply?

17 Your Honours, this witness has identified Ms. Rajka Stanisic as

18 the employee who worked for the -- as a secretariat for the National

19 Assembly. She is the person identified on the cover of the register. It

20 is logical that she would be a person to keep this book.

21 I didn't really hear a response to what I said about where this

22 document was seized and who it was seized from. I guess I'm asking if my

23 learned friend has a serious objection about whether this document is

24 authentic. We -- we haven't listed Ms. Stanisic as a witness because we

25 have a limited number of witnesses to call. And if he wants a document

Page 17649

1 that goes to MUP, there is one at item number 180, which is from

2 President Karadzic ordering that two platoons of special police forces

3 report to Tomo Kovac, so there are documents like that referred to within

4 this registry. That document would be 65 ter 1581, not on my list to be

5 used with this witness but a document contained within the register log;

6 that's 65 ter 3362.

7 JUDGE HALL: As I understand it, Mr. Hannis, I don't think that

8 there is any challenge to the provenance or authenticity. I shouldn't

9 say provenance, authenticity of the proposed exhibit. The reservation

10 that I have is that we're dealing with a document which, arguably, is

11 illustrative or an example of these communications going back and forth.

12 But the -- its admission as an exhibit would form the basis for

13 submissions and argument down the road, and my question is: How does

14 this add to -- how does this assist the Chamber beyond similar documents

15 which we already have no shortage of? That's -- that's my difficulty,

16 Mr. Hannis. It appears to be somewhat vague and insubstantial by itself

17 and it doesn't assist to add it at this stage.

18 MR. HANNIS: I apologise, Your Honour. I feel that I am letting

19 you down because I haven't been able to persuade you. I would think that

20 in a document-heavy case like this, you would relish the opportunity to

21 have a document like this, which has 2100 documents from the Presidency

22 and the Assembly all in one place, listed by numbers, which will help you

23 cross refreshes them when you find them appearing in other places. It

24 has some descriptions of persons that you have heard testify here which

25 will corroborated some of their evidence about when they went on a trip

Page 17650

1 somewhere because there will be a travel order for that witness on or

2 about that date when he says that he was at a meeting in Zvornik, for

3 example. I -- and it's all conveniently located in one document.

4 If I can't persuade you now, I'll try to do it through a written

5 submission in the bar table motion. But I would think this is something

6 that you would like to have.

7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just one clarification. I'm not --

8 it was my understanding that Mr. Hannis is offering this document, and I

9 believe Your Honours commented accordingly, as -- as a log-book of

10 communications. I would like that clarification from Mr. Hannis. Is

11 Mr. Hannis saying this document is the log-book of communications coming

12 from the Presidency and the Assembly?

13 MR. HANNIS: I'm saying it's a registry of documents from the

14 Presidency and the Assembly, and I'm saying other evidence will show that

15 these documents moved through means of communication to other

16 participants of the alleged joint criminal enterprise. And some of the

17 communication's contents itself related to actions that we say were part

18 of the joint criminal enterprise.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Well, you heard our objection anyway.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber is of the view that the document may be

22 received as an exhibit and therefore admitted and marked.

23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P01723, Your Honours.

24 Your Honours, the 65 ter number is 03362. Thank you.

25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much, Your Honours.

Page 17651

1 Q. And I would now, Witness, like you to take a look at the document

2 that's at tab 8 of the binder you have there. You mentioned you would

3 like us to try and talk about some log-books from the republican centre.

4 This is 65 ter 1303. Do you recognise that cover page? It's

5 telegrams -- log for telegrams to be transmitted over the radio between

6 April and November 1992.

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. HANNIS: Could we can go into private session for one or two

9 questions.

10 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in private session.

12 Thank you.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

14 Q. Sir, is -- are these pages that were copied out of that republic

15 centre log-book and given by you to investigators from the OTP back in

16 1998, I believe?

17 A. Yes, I believe that it was that way, more or less.

18 Q. And after that meeting - I think it was in February 1998 where

19 you gave these few pages to the OTP investigators - do you know what

20 happened to the original log-book from which these pages come?

21 A. In 1998, when the authorities moved from Pale to Banja Luka, the

22 Ministry of Defence also was moved to Banja Luka. Part of the documents

23 were taken to Banja Luka and others remained in use at the centre at Pale

24 until around 2004, when the centre was searched and some documents

25 pertaining to the war period from 1992 through 1996 were seized and taken

Page 17652

1 probably to the office of the ICTY in Sarajevo or Nedzarici to be

2 precise.

3 Assistance was provided by the staff the CSB Sarajevo with -- the

4 headquarters of which was at Pale. The team leader was there too. I

5 don't need to mention his name. We -- I can tell that by looking at the

6 signature on the document. And some of the documents were taken away

7 during that period; whereas, the other portion of the document was handed

8 over to the municipalities when the Ministry of Defence of the RS and the

9 Ministry of Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina became --

10 were merged to become a single Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Those documents were then given to Banja Luka and the municipalities.

12 Where those documents are, since it happened five or six years ago, well,

13 they may be in some office probably, at least I can draw that conclusion

14 from the information I have at the office of the old headquarters, or

15 they were also moved to Banja Luka. I don't know exactly what happened

16 to the documents, but some documents probably still remain at the old

17 site of the fire-fighting building, which was the seat of the monitoring

18 and information centre at Pale.

19 This is an excerpt from the log-book of radio communications.

20 Q. And you have not seen -- you have not seen the original from

21 which these excerpts came since 19 -- well, since they went to

22 Banja Luka; is that correct?

23 A. This log-book of telegrams was kept at the republican centre in

24 Pale. I recognised the handwriting.

25 Q. Thank you. But my question was: You have not seen the original

Page 17653

1 since it went to Banja Luka.

2 A. The republican centre in Pale has not been in function since

3 1998. And the centre stopped working in 2004.

4 Q. Let me interrupt you.

5 A. And it --

6 Q. Let me interrupt you. My question is: You have not seen the

7 original telegram log-book from which these excerpts came since they --

8 since the original went to Banja Luka; correct?

9 A. I have not seen them since then.

10 Q. Let me --

11 A. Since the documents were handed over, I have not seen them.

12 Q. Thank you. Look at the excerpt, page -- number 190, item 190,

13 dated 13 July 1992. The sender is Bijeljina and the addressee is

14 Banja Luka. Did this telegram go through your centre from Bijeljina to

15 Banja Luka?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And how about item number 192. 14 July, regarding surrender of

18 weapons. The sender is the Presidency, and it's to all municipalities

19 around Gorazde. It says: "Delivered to the municipalities."

20 I take it this was a telegram that was sent out throughout MOD

21 centre in Pale?

22 A. Yes. This document was sent through the republican

23 communications and cryptographic protection centre, the centre where I

24 was the chief.

25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, maybe we should have a redaction for

Page 17654

1 that last sentence.

2 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

3 MR. HANNIS: And if I could tender --

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for the record, there will be

5 no need for redaction since we are in private session.

6 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were still in private

7 session. That's good.

8 I would like to tender 65 ter 1303.

9 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P01724, Your Honours.

11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

12 Q. Let me stay in private session then for the next question.

13 If you could look at the next tab, number 10 -- I'm sorry,

14 number 9; this is 65 ter 2914.

15 Witness, have you seen this document before? It's dated the 18th

16 of June 1992 from the Minister of Defence, Bogdan Subotic?

17 A. The minister of defence.

18 Q. Yes. And in it he says the communications centre at Pale can

19 send telegrams to the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina and to other

20 Serbian autonomous regions. And his message is directed to the

21 ministries of the government. Is that communications centre that is he

22 referring to the one of which you were the chief in June of 1992?

23 A. The English version -- oh I see, on the other side. I'm -- I

24 don't speak English. This is not the minister of the interior; it's the

25 minister of defence who signed, Colonel Bogdan Subotic.

Page 17655

1 Q. There must've been a miscommunication. But, yes.

2 Colonel Subotic.

3 And the communications centre in Pale that he refers to in this

4 document, that's the centre where you were the chief in 1992; right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to tendered 65 ter 2914.

8 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P01725, Your Honours.

10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

11 Q. Indeed, your centre could, and did, send telegrams for other

12 ministries besides the Ministry of Defence in 1992; is that right?

13 A. Yes, you're right.

14 Q. Thank you. Next I want to ask you know a man named Nebojsa

15 Savic, who used to work for the SUP in Sarajevo, in Sarajevo CSB before

16 the war. Did you know him?

17 A. I didn't know him before the war, but Nebojsa Savic showed up in

18 Pale during the war, so I had the opportunity of meeting him. I didn't

19 see him very often. I might have seen him on a couple of occasions.

20 Q. All right.

21 MR. HANNIS: Are we in open session now, Your Honours? I have

22 lost track.

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: We're in private.

24 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Could we go into open session.

25 [Open session]

Page 17656

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank

2 you.

3 MR. HANNIS:

4 Q. Witness, can you tell us where the republic communications centre

5 for the Republika Srpska was physically located in 1992?

6 A. The republic communications centre of Republika Srpska was at the

7 fire station in Koran.

8 Q. Is --

9 A. In Pale.

10 Q. Thank you. And I would like you to take a look at the document

11 that's at tab 12 in your binder. It's 65 ter 1938.

12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I realise I'm getting near the end of

13 my allotted time, if I haven't reached it, but given that the original

14 one and a half hours that the Court allowed for direct examination was at

15 a time when we thought the witness was going to be here live and now he

16 is on videolink, there is some inherent extra time built into doing a

17 videolink examination. I'd like to ask if I can have another 20 minutes

18 or so to finish with this witness.

19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.

20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much.

21 Q. You will see this document appears to be a statement of

22 Nebojsa Savic given to representatives of the State Security Service on

23 or about the 9th of September, 1992. I will note for Your Honours that

24 in the English translation the date of 9/9/1992 is missing from the first

25 paragraph. It is in the original of the B/C/S.

Page 17657

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I -- I -- I suspect that Mr. --

2 Mr. Hannis is going to offer the statement as an exhibit, if I correctly

3 understand.

4 But, in any case, this is the statement of another person. I

5 don't see how can we admit it through this -- through this witness,

6 despite the fact that he knows this person by name. I don't -- I don't

7 really see the connection, the nexus between these two.

8 And if I correctly remember, we had a long conversation about

9 this when the Office of the Prosecutor was actually opposing our -- our

10 line of questions where we wanted to -- to -- to -- to talk to the

11 witness about the -- the contents of the statements which he, himself,

12 took, and then the Office of the Prosecutor was -- was opposing that, as

13 not being a proper line.

14 Therefore, if -- if Mr. Hannis is going to introduce this as --

15 as -- or try to introduce this as an exhibit, I believe I gave my reasons

16 for the objection.

17 Thank you very much.

18 MR. HANNIS: If I may, could I ask the witness to take his

19 headphones off. I need to be precise about some things. Yes, as I

20 recall, I personally raise as fuss when the Defence was trying to

21 introduce certain Official Notes that were taken at Omarska. And I don't

22 think that any of them that they were trying to introduce were taken by

23 the witness who was actually testifying. They were not signed by the

24 persons who gave the statements. And they weren't statements. They were

25 Official Notes which was part of the way, I guess, the Trial Chamber

Page 17658

1 decided that you would be able to admit those in the face of my argument

2 that they shouldn't come in, because, in effect, they were statements of

3 absent witnesses.

4 So I would be pretty red in the face if I got up now and tried to

5 say, You, we should admit this statement of a witness. But there are two

6 essential differences between this statement of a witness and those

7 Official Notes of detainees at Omarska. There's no indication or

8 suggestion or reason to believe that this witness, a Serb who is being

9 debriefed after his release from captivity by Muslims, was beaten by any

10 MUP members of Serb ethnicity; and, in addition, this witness signed the

11 statement.

12 However, I'm not intending to introduce a statement, but I'm

13 planning to read certain portions of what this witness said to ask if

14 this witness can confirm some or part of what he says about what happened

15 at the communications centre in Pale and setting up a communications

16 network in the RS in 1992.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, not to mention that I have a

18 great problem when we are talking about -- what -- what I -- what I see

19 as a problem is that the Office of the Prosecutor keeps -- keeps dividing

20 the -- the victims from -- from -- from the different sides by their

21 ethnicity. I just don't see why -- why is that relevant at all if the

22 victim is whoever, whichever ethnicity it belongings to, but apart from

23 that, I don't think that Mr. Hannis can use this statement to ask the

24 witness. He can openly ask the witness about the certain event if he

25 wants to find out whether the witnesses knows about it.

Page 17659

1 JUDGE HALL: Which is precisely the question I was just about to

2 ask Mr. Hannis.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

4 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, aren't you unnecessarily complicating

5 the matter by using the statement which you said you aren't going seek to

6 exhibit? Just ask the witness -- wouldn't it be simpler to just ask the

7 witness the relevant question?

8 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, I would like to show that I have a

9 good-faith basis for my questions, that there is a source document for

10 where I'm coming up with questions. But you are right, I will just ask

11 some questions.

12 If we can have the witness put his headphones back on.

13 Q. Thank you. Witness, were you aware that Mr. Nebojsa Savic moved

14 a certain short-wave radio station to -- from the Panorama Hotel to the

15 fire brigade where the republican communications centre was located in

16 1992?

17 A. I don't know about that.

18 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Savic met with --

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm sorry.

20 I believe the witness is looking at the document, so the document

21 should be taken away from him.

22 MR. HANNIS: He said he didn't know. But that's fine. He can

23 set the document aside.

24 Q. Witness, were you aware that Mr. Nebojsa Savic met with

25 Colonel Kotlica in the communications centre in 1992?

Page 17660

1 A. I was aware of that, yes.

2 Q. And did you know that the two of them were working on

3 communications plans for connecting the Crisis Staff of the Serb Republic

4 of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the autonomous regions?

5 MR. ZECEVIC: This is leading questions [sic], Your Honours.

6 MR. HANNIS: Calls for a yes-or-no answer. Do you know?

7 JUDGE HALL: Let's get on with it.

8 MR. HANNIS:

9 Q. Do you know, sir?

10 A. I didn't know about that. I wasn't a member of any party. I was

11 an officer in the Territorial Defence and in the monitoring an

12 information centre. I wasn't a member of any party, so whether there

13 were contacts between the late Colonel Milorad Kotlica and Mr. Nebojsa --

14 what was his last name? I don't know. I know there were some contacts

15 but to what effect, I don't know.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Let me show you one more document. This is at

17 tab 14. It's 65 ter 1305.

18 This is a document dated April 1993. It's from the VRS. It's an

19 analysis of the combat readiness and activities of the Army of the

20 Republika Srpska in 1992.

21 And I think I will skip to the second page that you have, which

22 should have a chart at the top of the page. It's Figure 4. Okay?

23 Did you find that? The chart is entitled:

24 "The use of the PTT and military automatic telephone exchanges

25 outside the Army of Republika Srpska."

Page 17661

1 Do you see that, sir?

2 MR. ZECEVIC: Can we be given the indication which page I was

3 supposed we supposed to [Overlapping speakers] ...

4 MR. HANNIS: [Overlapping speakers] ... page 36 of the English

5 in e-court and it's page 33 of the B/C/S.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have found it.

8 MR. HANNIS:

9 Q. Thank you. I have a couple of questions about some of the

10 entities listed in the chart.

11 Can you tell us about the Sokolac Warning and Reporting Centre?

12 Was that a subordinate to the republic centre in Pale?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. Now, in the paragraph immediately under the chart I want

15 to read and ask you a question. It says:

16 "In addition to PTT links of great importance within the system

17 of communications of the army were the communications of the very

18 developed warning and reporting centres in the territory of RS. Most of

19 the 67 of such centres are linked with the military communications

20 system, and they have played a major role, to date, in warning and

21 reporting communications, in particular the Pale Warning and Reporting

22 Centre."

23 That is the communications centre in Pale that we have been

24 talking about this afternoon; correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 17662

1 Q. Thank you. And the last thing, sir, I'd like to show you tab 15.

2 It's Exhibit P1319. I wonder, if you have a pen that you could use for

3 marking. I'd like, if you could, just on that map of the Pale area mark

4 four locations for me. First of all, with the number 1 and a circle

5 around it, the approximate location of the Pale Republican Communications

6 Centre in 1992 in the fire station. I know it's not the biggest map in

7 the world, but if could you give us an approximate location.

8 A. This map is not very accurate, but the republic centre could be

9 under the number 1. Here.

10 Q. Number 2, are you able to locate on there the approximate

11 location of Kalovita Brda?

12 A. Kalovita Brda? I can, yes.

13 Q. Thank you, sir. That's all I ask.

14 MR. HANNIS: May that be given an exhibit number and admitted?

15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, the marked version of P1319

17 shall be given Exhibit P01726, Your Honours.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, my colleague, Mr. Cvijetic, is

19 suggesting that maybe this would be an appropriate moment to take the

20 break and then we can start after the break immediately.

21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, although it is nine minutes early, I think it

22 would probably be more efficient to shift the time that way.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 [The witness stands down]

25 --- Recess taken at 5.17 p.m.

Page 17663

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 --- On resuming at 5.38 p.m.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: May I, Your Honours?

4 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.

8 A. I didn't hear you. I apologise. Good afternoon.

9 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, you were affiliated with the

10 Secretariat of National Defence at Pale up to April 1992, right?

11 A. Yes. I worked at the Territorial Defence and then I joined the

12 secretariat, and I worked there at Pale until 1992.

13 Q. You said that at the moment when the regional centre was

14 established in the fire brigade hall at Pale, that, for a while, you also

15 had communications with the centre in Sarajevo, right?

16 A. I said that when the republican centre had been established, not

17 the regional centre at Pale. The rest of us were part of the

18 organisational scheme and we were part of the organisation, together with

19 the city centre in Sarajevo. I believe that that was the Federation

20 centre, or the centre affiliated with the Federation, while Sarajevo was

21 still one city; when it was not divided.

22 Q. Let's just clarify one thing. That communications centre, that

23 belonged to the city of Sarajevo with which you were linked, as you say,

24 that was under the control of the Muslim forces, right?

25 A. When we were part of the line of command of the city centre, that

Page 17664

1 was before the conflict started. In 1992, in the month of April, we

2 remained linked with the same city centre and we could still communicate

3 with them freely.

4 Q. Very well. The city centre with which you communicated in

5 April 1992, that centre was under the control of the Muslim forces,

6 right?

7 A. Yes, yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown a

10 document, 1D04-3886. Tab number 10 in our binder.

11 Q. Sir, this is an order which was signed by the commander of the

12 Territorial Defence, or, rather, the staff of the Territorial Defence of

13 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colonel Hasanefendic. Do you see the document?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Is that a document that, in April 1992, you received at your

16 republican centre at Pale?

17 A. Yes, that's the document.

18 Q. Tell me, I assume that you received that document pursuant to the

19 existence of your links and communications with the centre in Sarajevo,

20 right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Sir, if I remember correctly, in the statements that you provided

23 to the OTP, your comment was that when you had seen this order issued by

24 Colonel Hasanefendic on the 29th of April, 1992, that you lost all hope

25 that the conflict would be restricted and that it would come to a

Page 17665

1 peaceful resolution.

2 A. Yes. I received that document at the centre by means of a

3 teleprinter communication from the city staff or rather, from the

4 republican centre which was on the Federation side. They believed that

5 they could send this type of documents and orders in order to put

6 pressure on us who were part of their organisation until the beginning of

7 combat activities. I received a second document as well, however, that

8 second document arrived from Banja Luka. In other words, there were two

9 identical documents.

10 Q. Are you saying that the contents of both documents were

11 identical? But we are still talking about one and the same document that

12 was signed by the commander of the Territorial Defence, Colonel Hasan

13 Efendic. However, you received it from two different sources. One came

14 from Banja Luka; and the other came from Sarajevo, right?

15 A. Precisely so.

16 Q. If I understand you correctly, you received this document, or,

17 rather, this order, and you understood that to be the beginning of very

18 serious armed conflicts in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

19 A. Yes. When we received this document, I personally handed that

20 document to the president of the republic. And the second copy went to

21 the then-commander, General Kukanjac. Again, I delivered it personally

22 to him.

23 When I spoke to the gentlemen from the OTP, I asked them to show

24 me this document which was first went missing but then it was discovered

25 and I asked them to explain item number 4 to me, because there is a

Page 17666

1 reference to combat activities in there. And that's when I lost all hope

2 that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict that had just

3 started. Because their number one man, the commander of the BiH army,

4 ordered foot soldiers to launch attacks across the entire territory of

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to remove the civilian population which means that

6 this was, de facto, a declaration of war.

7 Q. However, this document is something that you received and you

8 took it to President Karadzic first and General Kukanjac, the commander

9 of the 5th Military District of the JNA; did I understand you properly?

10 A. Yes, you did.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections I would

12 like to tender this document into evidence.

13 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D00397, Your Honours.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Q. Tell me, sir, my learned friend Mr. Hannis asked you about the

17 communications systems. That was earlier today. Do you remember that?

18 He asked you about the existence of different communications systems.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You listed three different systems: One belonged to the MUP and

21 it was the MUP communication system; the second one was the

22 communications system which you worked within, that was the Territorial

23 Defence or rather the Ministry of Defence communications system; and the

24 third system was the military communications system. Am I right?

25 A. There was an independent system which belonged to the Ministry of

Page 17667

1 the Interior. The second system was the system of the armed forces and

2 the third system was the communications systems which belonged to the

3 civilian authorities -- or, rather, it belonged to the Ministry of

4 Defence but was used by the civilian authorities. And the third system

5 carried out tasks given to it by the civilian authorities under civilian

6 power and that was the republican communications centre with all of its

7 subordinated centres.

8 Q. Tell me, please, the fact is that all those three communications

9 systems were independent of each other. They worked independently,

10 right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Sir, when you, within your system, which was the system of the

13 Ministry of Defence, when you wanted to establish any kind of

14 communication to send confidential telegrams, you were first supposed to

15 contact the opposing side, the receiving side, and provide them with

16 code -- the so-called code keys; right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I'm going to show you a document. It is 1D04-3893. Tab 14 in

19 your binder.

20 This document was signed by the minister of defence, Colonel

21 Bogdan Subotic. You can see it, can't you?

22 A. Yes, I can.

23 Q. Unfortunately, we do not have a date on the document. However,

24 if I remember it correctly, in one of your statements provided to the OTP

25 or somewhere else, you confirmed that the first telegrams that you could

Page 17668

1 send from the centre at Pale to your regional centres under seal, as it

2 were, that it was only towards the end of June 1992.

3 A. Yes, thereabouts. Sometime around the 20th of June.

4 Q. This document reflects what we have just said. Before you

5 started using a communication with sealed telegrams, you were supposed to

6 establish prior communication with all the centres listed here. You had

7 to physically get in touch in them and convey the key codes to them.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And this order reflects that and goes along the same lines,

10 right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it says here that the document should be sent to the six

13 listed regions in the Territory of the Serbian Republic of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina as it was called at the time?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you remember this document at all, sir?

17 A. Yes. I remember the document and I remember the code-name Vatra

18 or fire.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections, I'd

20 like to tender the document into evidence.

21 MR. HANNIS: No objection, although we don't have a date, as he

22 indicated.

23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D00398, Your Honours.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 17669

1 Q. Sir, I suppose that this document was drafted sometime in the

2 month of June 1992, because, if, in late June 1992, you managed to start

3 sending telegrams to at least some of the regional centres, that would

4 mean that prior to that, those codes had been submitted to them in

5 keeping with the document that is before you, right?

6 A. Yes, you're right.

7 Q. Tell me, please, the code keys that you delivered to the regional

8 centres in the territory, you delivered those key -- code keys only to

9 them and not anybody else.

10 A. Yes. That went along the line of command and control.

11 Q. Your code keys were specific for your communications system and

12 they made sense and they could be used only in your communication system,

13 right?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Likewise, the military communication system also had its own code

16 keys that they delivered to their regional units or communications centre

17 in order to be able to communicate?

18 A. Yes, the military had its own system of communications and they

19 used those communication systems to communicate. However, we knew that

20 we could also exchange our code books. I don't know whether this was

21 done pursuant to this document or not. Sometime at a later period, we

22 made use of that. They didn't. They never did. But we did.

23 Q. The fact is that every communication system had its own code keys

24 which differed from one system to the next. And on the basis of their

25 own code key, they established communication with the regional parts of

Page 17670

1 that communication system, right?

2 A. Yes, you're right.

3 Q. And, in that sense, if you didn't know, if you were not familiar

4 with code keys, you would not be able to read the contents of a message,

5 and that's how you made sure that the message did not fall into unwanted

6 hands. That was the whole purpose of the code keys, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Tell me, this gentleman, Kotlica, before the war, and

9 before the hostilities started sometime in April 1992, he was an

10 assistant commander of the Territorial Defence of the Socialist

11 Federative Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and he was in charge of the

12 communications system there?

13 A. Colonel Kotlica was the head of communications in the former

14 Secretariat of National Defence of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

15 which means that he was at the -- at a level of an assistant minister.

16 He was a military official within the administration for communications

17 and cryptographic protection.

18 Q. Sir --

19 A. He was a member of the Secretariat, or rather he was affiliated

20 with the republican Secretariat for National Defence. Today, that would

21 be the Ministry of Defence.

22 Q. And due to very well known circumstances, he was transferred to

23 Pale but he remained working at the Ministry of Defence of the Serbian

24 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25 A. Yes, he was affiliated with the same centre where I was and he

Page 17671

1 was the head of communications and cryptographic protection of the

2 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

3 Q. The fact is, sir, is it not that that some of the documents that

4 you dispatched due to the situations which you explained for us which was

5 very difficult when it comes to communications and maintaining the system

6 of communications, you used -- used different ways and means to

7 communicate with municipalities and regional centres and that depended on

8 what was available to you at the time and how you could communicate with

9 those centres at the time.

10 A. Yes, you're right.

11 Q. I will show you another document for illustration. 1D04-3910.

12 That's tab 12.

13 This document is dated 14 July 1992 and in the signature block we

14 see the name of the late Colonel Milorad Kotlica. Basically, this is

15 forwarding a message of the president of the Presidency, Radovan

16 Karadzic. Do you remember this document, sir?

17 A. I do.

18 Q. In this document, the president of the Presidency, Dr. Karadzic,

19 in mid-July 1992:

20 "Orders the presidents of the municipalities that in all villages

21 in which the Croatian Bosnian population surrender their weapons and show

22 no intention of fighting us, must enjoy the full protection of Serbian

23 state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The municipality presidents must be

24 held accountable for that."

25 Do you remember that?

Page 17672

1 A. Yes, yes. And that's how it was.

2 Q. And after that, the telegram was dispatched to the municipalities

3 in various ways. Over the phone, by teleprinter, by radio communication

4 or radio relay communications. Can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. This illustrates the problem, that you did not -- or you could

7 not communicate with every municipality in the same manner. Depending on

8 the time.

9 A. Yes, exactly. The system of communications was disrupted and it

10 was very difficult to dispatch any telegram, especially during that

11 period that encompassed the first few months after the beginning of the

12 hostilities and then we tried to manage whichever we way could. We used

13 teleprinters, radio communications and other times of communication.

14 But, we did use code tables and with great efforts, we were able to do

15 the work but some telegrams never made it to their intended recipients.

16 Q. If I'm not mistaken you said you remember the document and you

17 also remember the signature of the late Milorad Kotlica, don't you?

18 A. Yes, this is his signature.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there is no opposition I seek to

20 tender this document.

21 MR. HANNIS: Well, I do have an objection. This document has

22 something on the top called "The Hague against Justice Revisited,

23 document number 7" I think this is from some -- publication of a group

24 that was preparing a Defence for Radovan Karadzic. There's no stamp on

25 the document, so I don't know where The Hague against Justice Revisited

Page 17673

1 got this document. That's the essence of my complaint.

2 JUDGE HALL: That apart, Mr. Hannis, hasn't the witness confirmed

3 that he remembers?

4 MR. HANNIS: He says he remembers it is but I don't know from

5 when or where he remembers it. Does he remember it from seeing it in

6 this book or does he remember it from seeing it in Pale in 1992? We need

7 some further elaboration on that.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Sir, let me ask you the following: The document which we're

10 discussing now, dated 14 July 1992, do you remember seeing this document

11 in 1992; and, if so, where?

12 A. The document dated 14 July 1992 was brought to the republican

13 centre of communications and cryptographic protection where I worked by a

14 courier. And in 1997 or 1998, when I met the investigators of the ICTY,

15 when I and General Bogdan Subotic gave our first statements in the

16 investigative procedure to the investigators of the ICTY, I gave this

17 document to Mr. John Ralston, who then was an investigator, because they

18 demanded these documents.

19 Q. I suppose that at the time you gave them a copy of this

20 document -- just a minute, let me finish. Which did not have these

21 indications as -- that we see here, document number 7, and the

22 association, The Hague Against Justice Revisited and so on.

23 A. It was just this same telegram, but without this title document

24 number 7. I showed them the original document and they copied it and

25 took it to The Hague.

Page 17674

1 MR. ZECEVIC: I hope that satisfies the requirement by

2 Mr. Hannis. If I can have the 1Dnumber, please.

3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, admitted and marked.

4 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D00399, Your Honours.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Sir, you know that Mr. Kezunovic who was assistant minister of

7 the interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a friend

8 and acquaintance of the late Colonel Kotlica, wasn't he?

9 A. Yes, I know that he was.

10 Q. I believe that you stated today that Mr. Kezunovic on several

11 occasions came to your centre to consult and discuss the problems they,

12 just as you, faced with the functioning of the communications system,

13 right?

14 A. Yes. Especially with regard to the disrupted state of that

15 system.

16 Q. Did you know that the communications system of the MUP - and I

17 mean the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina - initially

18 was established at Vrace. Do you know that?

19 A. Yes. They had some of their communications system there in the

20 former school building. I mean the MUP school at Vrace.

21 Q. And after that, the communications centre of the CSB of Sarajevo

22 was partly moved to Lukavica. Do you know that? Or another building

23 anyway at Lukavica.

24 A. Yes, something like that. But I don't exactly remember where

25 they went.

Page 17675

1 Q. You know that Mr. Kezunovic worked on the establishment of the

2 centre at Pale and that at some time in the summer of 1992, they moved

3 the communications centre again but this time to Bijeljina, right?

4 A. As far as Mr. Kezunovic is concerned, I didn't speak to him about

5 the establishment of any centres. But the then-chief of that

6 communication centre at Pale was my friend, the late Milenko Paunovic.

7 And for that reason, we had good communication and we assisted each other

8 in some segments where he was unable to do something, we helped him do

9 so. But not in all situations.

10 We had a disrupted communications system but he also complained

11 about serious problems that they had in communication. And when they

12 came to Pale, they had problems with the facility at Kikinda and the

13 facility at Kalovita Brda where part of the communication system was,

14 because the infrastructure was limited and they could not establish

15 sufficient communications to cater for a stationary communication centre.

16 They had huge problems. Only very late did they start to function under

17 more or less normal conditions because it was extremely difficult,

18 especially in their segment of the communications system.

19 Q. Thank you. Sir, let us go through some documents shown to you by

20 Mr. Hannis.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

22 document number 5 -- or, rather, under tabs 5 and 6. And I mean P467 and

23 P555.

24 Q. Sir, do you remember that a short while ago you spoke with

25 Mr. Hannis about this document? It's a document of the regional

Page 17676

1 Secretariat of National Defence, dated 4 May 1992. And it was signed by

2 Lieutenant-Colonel Milorad Sajic pursuant to the decision of the ministry

3 that you saw earlier, the Ministry of National Defence, I mean. He

4 ordered general mobilisation.

5 Do you remember the document? You saw it some two hours ago.

6 A. Yes, I have it in front of me.

7 Q. And then Mr. Hannis showed you another document, tab 6 in his

8 binder and that's document P555, bearing the same date, and it's a MUP

9 document. Remember that too?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. It was put to you then that these are two identical documents

12 with regard to their contents. The MUP was dispatching it to their

13 regional stations using their communication system that. That's what was

14 put to you, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Please take a look at the second page of this document, sir.

17 On page 1, we saw the decision with its five items. And here,

18 there's a reasoning which also includes five items. Can you see it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the last item, item 5 says that this decision takes effect

21 forthwith.

22 Can you see it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And it's signed: Regional Secretariat for National Defence,

25 Lieutenant-Colonel Milorad Sajic.

Page 17677

1 Now, please take another look at document P476 [as interpreted],

2 which is tab 5, and please focus on page 2 on the reasoning. I'm

3 referring to tab 5 in the Prosecution binder and the document number is

4 P467. We saw it a minute ago.

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's turn to page 2, please.

7 Q. Can you see, sir, that, here, the reasoning of this decision has

8 only four items. The fifth one is missing.

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. So, the documents are not identical after all, are they?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 Sir, I'll show you another document. P1723. It's tab 7 in the

14 Prosecution binder.

15 It's that log-book allegedly kept by one Rajka Stanisic. It's

16 the log-book of the Republika Srpska Presidency and National Assembly.

17 Let us go to page 00845673. Please ask the usher to turn to that page.

18 A. Found.

19 Q. Thank you. I remember you said that you hadn't seen this

20 log-book before but you commented on it with Mr. Hannis, so I would like

21 to comment on it too.

22 021098 is the item number. And it's the first entry on this

23 page, right?

24 A. I can see it.

25 Q. And it says, under narrative: "Travel order for Radovan

Page 17678

1 Colovic," I believe?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Then the fourth item from the top 01-1101, can you see that

4 entry?

5 A. I can.

6 Q. It says: "Approval for fuel."

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And underneath, 1101 again, it says: "Fuel for the villa of

9 the" -- either Presidency or president. Can you see it?

10 A. Yes, I can see it.

11 Q. Sir, this document has nothing to do with the communications

12 log-book. This is a register of the documents of the Presidency and the

13 National Assembly, right?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Sir, thank you very much. I have no further questions for you.

17 A. Thank you as well.

18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Thank you,

19 Your Honours.

20 MR. PANTELIC: We don't have question for this witness,

21 Your Honour.

22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

23 Mr. Hannis.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 If we could look first at ... what's now been marked -- mm-hm.

Page 17679

1 Sorry, Your Honours, I'm having trouble finding the reference.

2 It's the document from Colonel Efendic, which is dated the 29th

3 of April.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: 1D397.

5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Judge.

6 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

7 Q. You mentioned receiving this document, actually, two versions of

8 this document; one from Sarajevo and one from Banja Luka.

9 From whom, or from what entity in Banja Luka, did you receive a

10 copy of Efendic's order? Do you recall?

11 A. I received this document from Sarajevo, from the former republic

12 communications centre located in the building of the former Executive

13 Committee.

14 Q. I understand that --

15 A. Which now houses.

16 Q. I'm sorry. I understand that, but I thought you went on to say

17 that you also received a second copy from Banja Luka.

18 A. We received the second one, yes. We received the second one from

19 Banja Luka. The second one which was identical to this one, we received

20 from Banja Luka.

21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

22 A. They were.

23 Q. My question is from whom or what in Banja Luka? From the MUP?

24 From your regional centre? From the army? From whom?

25 A. From the centre it says here "Banja Luka SUP."

Page 17680

1 It bears their number, and they sent it to us because they had

2 received this document -- the first to receive it was the municipal

3 centre which received it from the BH government, the former republic

4 centre in Sarajevo. And it was sent to Sanski Most, to 45484. And then

5 this same telegram was sent from the teleprinter of the Banja Luka SUP,

6 45254 is the number, and was sent to Pale.

7 Q. Okay. So you had --

8 A. As you can see here.

9 Q. You had telegraphic connections with Banja Luka on the 29th of

10 April; is that correct?

11 A. It was a teletyping communication. It was open text.

12 If you will allow me, I have a book here written by

13 Colonel Hasanefendic.

14 Q. I'm sorry --

15 A. And it's called --

16 Q. I'm sorry, I'm not interested in a book by Colonel Efendic. If

17 that's something that the Defence wanted to ask you about, they could.

18 I just need to address a couple of particular things that they

19 asked you about.

20 At page 60, line 22 today, you were asked about -- I'm sorry.

21 Page 62, line 5, you were asked about the three communications systems

22 of -- for the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior, and the

23 army or the VRS system. You said that they all worked independently.

24 Did your centre in the MOD have a direct communication link with

25 either the MUP communications centre or the VRS communications centre in

Page 17681

1 1992? Did you have direct communication links with either of them?

2 A. Later communication was established between the two centres,

3 direct communication, manual communication, after certain technical

4 conditions were put in place for such communications to be established.

5 But not in the first few months. There was a courier service.

6 Q. Okay. And did you not have telephone communication with either

7 of those systems in 1992?

8 A. We did have telephone communications, regular PTT lines.

9 Q. And you had fax communication as well, right?

10 A. Yes, we did have all PTT communications.

11 Q. At what point in time in 1992 did you begin to share

12 cryptographic documents with either the army or the MUP; do you recall?

13 A. I already said that: Around the 20th of June, 1992. I can't

14 tell you the exact date but it was around the 20th of June. June, that

15 is.

16 Q. Yeah, I wanted to ask you a question about that. That was tab 14

17 of the Defence binder. Did that get an exhibit number? Yes, it's 1D398.

18 Could we have a look at that for a second?

19 You see the -- the top of the page. And it has a registry

20 number, 21-33.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know what that number refers to? What's -- what's the 21

23 refer to? Is that Ministry of Defence?

24 A. No, it's not. This is a log-book which was in the republic

25 centre --

Page 17682

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. -- and an operative wrote that number in hand. It's a number

3 from the log-book.

4 Q. Okay. So does 21 refer to that communications centre? And 33 is

5 the 33rd document sent in 1992?

6 A. Exactly.

7 Q. And we don't know the date because it doesn't appear to be here

8 on the original.

9 Could we look at Exhibit P1725.

10 This is the one you saw earlier from Minister Subotic advising

11 the ministries about the capability of sending telegrams to the

12 autonomous regions, et cetera.

13 And you see the number on that one? That is 21-72, and it's

14 dated the 18th of June.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry -- I'm sorry, Mr. Hannis.

16 MR. HANNIS: Could we have the witness take off his headphones.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I wanted to suggest that.

18 I'm sorry. I'm not aware if the witness have taken the

19 headphones off. Okay.

20 Your Honours, I believe there is a difference between the

21 numbers. The first one, this is -- this is -- the first one -- the first

22 document was strictly confidential document number 33. 21/33. This is

23 obviously not a strictly confidential document so there might be --

24 MR. HANNIS: That's not in evidence. That has not been

25 established yet.

Page 17683

1 MR. ZECEVIC: No. But what I'm say something that you are -- I

2 anticipate your question would be 72 and 33 and those are probably the

3 two different log-books. That is what I'm just suggesting.

4 MR. HANNIS: That's for a submission. That's not an objection to

5 my question.

6 Could we -- I don't know what Your Honours ruling is.

7 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Hannis.

8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Could we have the witness put his

9 headphones back on.

10 Q. Thank you. Do you have P1725 in front of you? That 18

11 June document from Minister Subotic?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And you see that was numbered 21-72. Does that not

14 suggest to you that 21-33 must have been sent sometime far in advance of

15 the 18th of June?

16 JUDGE HALL: Isn't that a submission rather than asking the

17 witness to -- you're asking the witness for a conclusion, Mr. Hannis.

18 MR. HANNIS: Well, he seems to be a person in position to perhaps

19 be able to give us one. If he doesn't know, he doesn't know.

20 JUDGE HALL: I don't know why I'm instinctively troubled by the

21 form of that question.

22 MR. HANNIS: Okay. May I should just ask an open-ended question

23 and say: Do you have any idea of how you might correlate a date for item

24 number 21-33 if the document sent on 20 June is 21-72?

25 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps if would be more helpful because the issue

Page 17684

1 is the reconciliation of these two apparently conflicting documents so to

2 the extent that the witness can assist the Chamber in this regard, I

3 suppose the way the question is now phrased may be more helpful.

4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Witness, do you understand the question I'm asking you now or I

6 do need to rephrase it, ask it again?

7 A. For your question, I can give you my opinion, an answer which

8 might not correspond with reality.

9 According to the rules of office work, this number, 21, might

10 have been assigned to the Ministry of Defence, and General Bogdan Subotic

11 at the time was minister of defence so it could that be this was the

12 classification number of the Ministry of Defence. I don't know exactly.

13 But that would have been the logic of things.

14 Q. I understand that. But my understanding about the way that

15 documents are then numbered within the ministry are they're sequential,

16 so the first document sent in 1992 would be number 1, and so on, up

17 through 100 or 1.000. 72 would be sent at some date after 33. Would you

18 agree?

19 A. Yes. Only I don't have the log-book here in which this document

20 was recorded. This is probably a log-book that was kept at the Ministry

21 of Defence.

22 Q. I understand ...

23 A. And that's the -- that's the number of the Ministry of Defence.

24 Q. I -- I share your pain in missing the log-book, sir. Let me ask

25 you about the code systems. You talked a little bit about the code keys.

Page 17685

1 And at page 64, line 13 in your answer you said:

2 "Yes, the military had its own system of communications. And

3 they used those communications systems to communicate. However, we knew

4 that we could also exchange our code books. Sometime at a later period

5 we made use of that."

6 Do you mean you exchanged code books with the military in 1992?

7 1992; and, if so, can you tell us when that was?

8 A. In 1992, we had certain documents which we used to work with the

9 army. We shared the same documents. We had documents we used to send

10 certain orders and other documents to the army, and they had the same

11 document to decode what we sent and then decide what was being sent to

12 which end user.

13 Q. Okay. And do you recall when that was, approximately?

14 A. The republic centre in Pale started sending information using

15 cryptographic data protection sometime around the 20th of June, and it

16 was one of the centres that played a great role in the communications

17 system of the VRS, because it communicated between the army and the

18 civilian authorities in the government and other structures as necessary.

19 Q. Okay. Did you ever exchange code books with the Ministry of

20 Interior in 1992?

21 A. We didn't have a developed code system with the Ministry of

22 Interior, but based on certain documents, if necessary, we were able to

23 carry out exchanges. But that was in the later period, that we were able

24 to communicate using the same documents.

25 Q. And when you say "the later period," when do you mean,

Page 17686

1 approximately?

2 A. After they had managed to establish their centres and when they

3 were able to use -- to work with full capacity and to service their

4 communications, which, as I said, was limited, because of technical

5 difficulties. They didn't have the capacity to communicate with

6 everybody. It was later on.

7 Q. Okay. But having exchanged code documents with both the army and

8 the MUP, did your centre then have the capability to send coded

9 communications for either the army or the Ministry of Interior?

10 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were able to do that. However,

12 since the MUP was close to our centres, it was not necessary for us to

13 encode anything because it consumed too much time. We sent the documents

14 via couriers because we had a courier system. However, for example,

15 between the army and the MUP and not only the MUP but the government of

16 the RS and others, we were able to receive certain regular reports and

17 then send them to the addresses marked on them, including the minister of

18 the interior.

19 MR. HANNIS:

20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

21 A. Or the ministry of finance are or anybody.

22 Q. Okay. Thank you. Next, I wanted to ask you about tab 12. This

23 is the document dated 14th of July signed by Colonel Kotlica, and I don't

24 know what exhibit number it got. I think it's 1D399, yes.

25 This apparently is one particular document that you show -- that

Page 17687

1 you chose to show the OTP investigators when you and Mr. Subotic spoke

2 with them, when, back in 1997 or 1998? Is that right?

3 A. Yes. There was a meeting in the -- December of 1997 and the

4 second one was on the 10th of January, I believe, of 1998.

5 Q. Do you recall why you chose this particular document to show to

6 the OTP investigators?

7 A. I don't remember that now. They asked to copy some documents, so

8 these documents were provided to them. I wasn't personally present when

9 they made the copies. They had their own people. They came to the

10 former building of the government.

11 Q. Do you have the document in front of you right now?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. It -- it seems to be in an unusual format. It -- it doesn't have

14 any -- any number on it, so do you have any explanation for that?

15 There's no registry number either from the Presidency's registry or from

16 the com centre. Is that unusual?

17 A. I remember this document, and I remember that there was some

18 problems regarding certain groups which came into conflict with the

19 then-Muslim and now-Bosniak population in certain areas and for that

20 reason, as communication was very difficult at the time, a telegram

21 arrived to be sent to all these municipalities to protect all the

22 population who have expressed their loyalty and surrendered their

23 weapons. It related to people who had no intention to oppose the Army of

24 the VRS and these people were to be protected. They were to enjoy the

25 full protection in the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

Page 17688

1 Herzegovina. I remember that. That's how it was.

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

3 A. This telegram, because communications were difficult, this

4 telegram was sent by telephones, teletype -- via teletyping in any way

5 that was possible.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

7 A. It was very difficult for us to carry out this task, but in the

8 end, we managed to send it to all the addressees.

9 Q. Okay. But in your documents that you gave the OTP, which is now

10 Exhibit P1724. Item number 192 is dated the 14th of July. It's about

11 the surrender of weapons from the Presidency to all municipalities around

12 Gorazde.

13 So that sounds like that's the same document that you have in

14 front of you right now. Would you agree?

15 A. I apologise. What was the number again?

16 Q. Well, if you want to see where it is it in your log-book, that's

17 Exhibit P1724, which was tab 8 today. And it's item number 192.

18 A. I can see it now, yes.

19 192, yes.

20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

21 A. That's the document.

22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... from the log-book of

23 telegrams to be transmitted over the radio. Would you agree that this

24 log entry appears to be referring to this document dated the 14th of

25 July?

Page 17689

1 A. Yes. Here, under 192. This log-book, since the original

2 log-books were missing, this log-book comprises quite a few pages of A4

3 papers and all the entries were made by hand. A log-book of that kind

4 existed at the centre, and it is true that that particular thing was

5 recorded under this number.

6 Q. My question is: Do you have any idea why there is no document

7 number on this, either number 192 from your communications log-book, or a

8 number from the RS Presidency and Assembly registry of documents? Is

9 that normal?

10 A. I can't give you any comment as to why there's no number, whether

11 it was omitted or what, I'm sure that this telegram was dispatched to all

12 the addressees and I'm sure that you will be able to find this telegram

13 in the files of some of the municipalities, in their archives. I'm sure

14 that it was sent. We did not have any archives. We were just the

15 department that received telegrams and dispatched telegrams to the end

16 users.

17 Q. Okay. I'm almost done with this document.

18 Can you explain for us who this document is intended to be for?

19 The original message is from President Karadzic to the municipalities

20 about surrendering weapons. But on the bottom of it it appears that

21 Colonel Kotlica has added the information about delivering documents.

22 Where is this document supposed to be registered in your communications

23 centre or at the Presidency or somewhere else? It seems an odd

24 combination that Colonel Kotlica has put this information on and typed

25 his name, but there's no indication that he is mailing it back to the

Page 17690

1 president to let him know or sending it to the file.

2 Can you help us with that?

3 A. Under 192, the handwritten entry, this is not the handwriting of

4 the late Milorad Kotlica. This is the handwriting of one of the

5 operatives who was employed at the radio department. The -- those

6 telegrams, according to the logic of the matter, should have been

7 registered with the presidents of the municipalities. Because the

8 presidents of the municipalities were instructed to protect the Croatian

9 and Muslim populations which had been involved in the activities

10 described in the dispatch. Those people who had handed over the weapons.

11 They did not intend to fight the army and therefore should enjoy the full

12 protection of the bodies of power in -- in the -- in the area. That's

13 what I meant when I said that this should be registered with the heads of

14 municipalities.

15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... let me stop you there.

16 Maybe you didn't misunderstand -- maybe you misunderstood earlier.

17 Page 67, Mr. Zecevic was asking you at line 9: "Do you remember

18 the document and you also remember the signature of the late Milorad

19 Kotlica, don't you?"

20 And you said: "Yes, this is his signature."

21 Didn't you just say now that that signature is someone else's?

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Mr. Hannis, if I may be of assistance. I believe

23 the witness was commenting the log-book entry, 192, when -- when he was

24 referring to the handwriting. Not the document that you are talking

25 about.

Page 17691

1 MR. HANNIS: Okay.

2 Q. Is that correct, sir? Did I misunderstood you?

3 A. Yes, that's correct. The signature in -- on -- in the document

4 is the Colonel's document whereas the log-book was signed by the

5 operative who dispatched the telegram. It may be for that reason that

6 the number was omitted.

7 So the document bears the Colonel's name, whereas the log-book

8 bears the signature of an operative.

9 Q. Thank you. My apology.

10 Let me ask you about -- at page 69, line -- well, line 25. You

11 mentioned that you had a disrupted communication. And then you were

12 talking about the MUP system. "When they came to Pale they had problems

13 with the facility at Kikinda and the facility at Kalovita Brda. They had

14 huge problems. Only very late did they start to function under more or

15 less normal conditions."

16 Because of those difficulties, did they not ask you sometimes to

17 assist them in delivering documents; and did you do that for the MUP in

18 1992?

19 A. Yes, but not often. We always lended a helping hand. Not only

20 to them, but also to the municipality, and to anybody else who wanted our

21 assistance.

22 Q. Thank you. And did they return the favour on occasions when they

23 were able to help you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

Page 17692

1 A. For example, when our system of communications was down.

2 Q. And, likewise, with the army. Did the army help you and the MUP

3 when it could, if you know?

4 A. Yes, I'm sure that they did. There was a level of cooperation

5 between all of us. We had to help each other, in order to be able to

6 protect the population. They helped us when we needed to dispatch

7 certain documents to certain stations. And the MUP used the police

8 stations in the municipalities which could then forward documents that we

9 had not been able to forward to. For example, presidents of

10 municipalities, or socio-political organisations. This was all with a

11 view to creating the most resistant and resilient system of

12 communications because our systems of communications were targeted, and

13 they were down for one reason or the other.

14 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I don't have any further questions for

15 you. I appreciate your coming in.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well, sir.

18 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, we thank you for your assistance to the

19 Tribunal. Your testimony has been completed within the compass of

20 today's sitting, so you are now released.

21 We thank you, sir.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And I would like to

23 thank you for your fairness.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, we are scheduled to resume at 2.15