130911ED

Page 16492

1 Prosecution's motion, the Chamber grants the Defence an additional two

2 weeks in which to respond, setting the new deadline at the 23rd of

3 September of 2013.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Butler.

6 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by

8 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony

9 and you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member

10 of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

11 WITNESS: RICHARD BUTLER [Resumed]

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

14 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

16 Q. Good day, Mr. Butler.

17 A. Good morning, sir.

18 Q. If you're ready I think we can begin. First of all, sir, are you

19 proficient in the Serbian language so as to be able to speak, read and

20 understand the same on your own?

21 A. No, sir, I'm not.

22 Q. During the course of review of documents at the

23 Office of the Prosecutor, did you reach conclusions based on a review of

24 English translations of documents or did you use the original Serbian

25 documents with the assistance of a translator?

Page 16493

1 A. All of the conclusions that I reached with respect to documents

2 that were written in B/C/S, as the language as we called it, were done

3 based off of the English-language translations.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, you indicated, I think, in some of your reports

5 that you reserved the right to supplement your reports and conclusions

6 because there still existed a large body of documentation at the

7 Office of the Prosecutor that had not been processed, and I presume

8 translated, am I right?

9 A. Yes, sir. Particularly in 2003, we were just getting what were

10 known as the tactical intercepts and then of course after I left we came

11 into possession of the Drina Corps documents, so obviously as an analyst

12 I hold open the possibility that new information may come available which

13 may change me to, you know, change an opinion or a conclusion.

14 Q. Now, in relation to these documents, and written materials that

15 had not yet been processed during your tenure at the Office of the

16 Prosecutor or had not been translated, do you have an idea

17 percentage-wise how much of the entire OTP collection relating to the

18 conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina are we talking about? How much material

19 did you not have access to to review for purposes of doing your work?

20 A. I guess I don't understand the question. I mean, obviously as an

21 employee of the Office of the Prosecutor I had access to all of the

22 materials in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor with respect

23 to documents. I could not hazard a guess as to what percentage the new

24 tactical material and the new Drina Corps material made of the larger

25 overall body of information. I don't think to this day anyone could even

Page 16494

1 give you a count of the exact quantity of documents the

2 Office of the Prosecutor thinks it holds.

3 Q. Fair enough, sir. Now, did you maintain a log of documents and

4 materials that you either reviewed or consulted during the course of your

5 work as an analyst and then also as an expert at the

6 Office of the Prosecutor?

7 A. I started to do that early on during my initial review of the

8 documents and very rapidly it became clear that the sheer volume of

9 documents if I were to continue that process I would spend all of my time

10 logging documents as opposed to actually analysing them. What I have

11 done and what I tended to do again is noted in my narrative reports is

12 I referenced a large documents or collections that I reviewed and

13 I extensively cite to the documents that I'm talking about in the

14 reports.

15 Q. Can I take from your answer, sir, that not every document that

16 you would have looked at or consulted can be found in the reports that

17 you've drafted, cited?

18 A. Oh, yes, sir, absolutely.

19 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to know from you how it was that the

20 documents would be selected to be processed or reviewed by you, and what

21 I mean by that is did other Prosecution staff come to you with documents

22 that they had preselected for your review or did you go through the

23 corpus of documentation to select and find documents to analyse?

24 A. It was the latter. It was my office, the military analyst team,

25 that had first crack at the documents, as it were, following the searches

Page 16495

1 of the Zvornik and the Bratunac Brigade. It was our team's

2 responsibility to go through all of the single documents -- all of the

3 documents in both particular collections as well as the Krajina Corps

4 collection which we obtained at the same time, and the first line of

5 attack it was essentially make an index of the entire collection. So the

6 military analysts did that portion. The second part obviously in looking

7 at the documents in question, for the construction of my reports, the

8 documents that I selected, I selected. They were not selected for me by

9 anyone in that particular context, so I mean it's entirely my discretion

10 as to what goes in those reports or what did not go in those reports.

11 Q. Thank you, sir. And now to segue into my next set of questions

12 I'd like to call up in e-court 1D1241 which I think we will see is a

13 portion of the transcript from the Popovic trial, and if we can have page

14 18 of that document in e-court, which should correlate to transcript

15 page 19592 of the underlying transcript. And, sir, if you could follow

16 along with me I'd like to read back lines 2 through 8 and then ask you

17 some follow-up questions about the testimony you gave there:

18 "Q. All right. And how about information from the investigation?

19 Did you have access to that kind of information?

20 A. Yes, sir. I mean, I had full access to the investigators as

21 well as all of the facets of the investigation that was going on,

22 certainly with respect to interviewing military personnel, interviewing

23 police personnel, things of that nature. So I -- I had full access to

24 all of the materials of the investigation during my time here from 1997

25 through 2003."

Page 16496

1 Now, sir, first I have to ask you, is this selection that we've

2 gone through together accurately recording the testimony that you gave or

3 that you remember giving in the Popovic case on this question?

4 A. Yes, sir, it does.

5 Q. And is it truthful?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Now, what I want to ask you about is did you still have full

8 access to the materials and all facets of the OTP investigation at any

9 time subsequent to leaving UN employment in 2003 and if so, when and why?

10 A. The answer is yes, sir, at least parts of the material. One of

11 the things that the Office of the Prosecutor agreed to and permitted me

12 was to maintain access to the EDS system which would allow me to access

13 documents on my own as I was preparing subsequent reports or preparing

14 for testimony here. The other practice that we normally did with the

15 Office of the Prosecutor is that perhaps six to eight months before a

16 projected period where I might testify, the US government would make me

17 available and I would come here to The Hague and spend several weeks

18 reviewing new documents, new statements, new issues like that, that have

19 come up from the Office of the Prosecutor. So I could look at any of the

20 new material and make an analysis as to whether or not that either

21 confirmed previous-held opinions or views or whether this new information

22 would cause me to modify those views.

23 Q. Now, during that time period when you say you would come here six

24 to eight months before your intended testimony to review new statements,

25 new documents, new issues, that have come up from the

Page 16497

1 Office of the Prosecutor, would those be selected or collated for you by

2 the Office of the Prosecutor or would you have to search through the

3 corpus of the documents to obtain that information and those documents?

4 A. I -- when I came here, the normal practice was Mr. McCloskey or

5 another member of the Prosecution staff would have a bunch of documents

6 that they would of course want me to look at. My normal practice was not

7 only to look at those but to also go talk to the remaining military

8 analysts who I knew handled these collections. I would normally get

9 copies of the large spreadsheets that they had accumulated, indexing

10 these documents, and very frequently I would ask for additional

11 information. Same with the witness statements. So I mean, I've never

12 felt in all my time since leaving the Tribunal that if I did not ask for

13 a particular document or set of documents, you know, I would not be given

14 immediate access to it.

15 Q. Now, am I correct that for purposes of the work that you did in

16 preparation for the Popovic trial, you did not obtain and comprehensively

17 review all of the documents with respect to the ABiH military from the

18 collection but, rather, limited your review for the month of July 1995

19 and material that you were able -- that the Office of the Prosecutor was

20 able to obtain in a search of the 2nd Corps as well as some ABiH

21 documents, the Zvornik Brigade of the VRS had, by virtue of their capture

22 of some documents from the 28th Division?

23 A. Yes, sir. My focus was limited to July 1995 that corresponds

24 with the crime base as charged in the indictments.

25 Q. But my question was, sir, is it correct that you did not review

Page 16498

1 all of the documentation from the ABiH military from July 1995 but,

2 rather, limited your review to documents obtained from the 2nd Corps

3 during an OTP search and some ABiH documents that were in the possession

4 of the Zvornik Brigade having been captured from elements of the

5 28th Division?

6 A. I did review the documents of the 28th Division that were

7 captured by the Zvornik Brigade, and I did review documents, not all of

8 them I presume but certainly some from the ABiH, the 2nd Corps, in

9 July of 1995. I can't tell you what documents I didn't review.

10 Q. Okay. If we can -- strike that. Can you tell me, subsequent to

11 your work in the Popovic case, have you undertaken to go back and review

12 any further material from the ABiH, that is ABiH documentation, that is

13 in the possession of the Prosecution relating to July 1995 to do a more

14 comprehensive review?

15 A. Well, I can tell you that I didn't start the process to do that,

16 but during my cross-examination by General Tolimir, we spent many hours

17 reviewing ABiH documents from July 1995, so obviously I have seen them

18 and have discussed them at some detail.

19 Q. And do you think discussing documents in some detail in

20 cross-examination is equal to the type of review that you would have done

21 had you been preparing your report, looking at the documents, cross

22 checking them, verifying them at your leisure?

23 A. No, I don't but again I go back to my original position which is

24 I would only spend my time and deal with issues that were relevant in the

25 sense of Srebrenica 1995. If I've already intellectually conceded that

Page 16499

1 the VRS had the military legitimate right to attack the 28th Division,

2 the actual day-to-day combat by the 28th Division did not have relevance

3 to what I was seeking to analyse.

4 Q. Okay, since you say that you would only spend your time with

5 items that were relevant in the sense of Srebrenica 1995, am I correct

6 that for purposes of your review and work for both the Popovic case in

7 2008 and the Perisic case in 2009 you did not have occasion to address or

8 analyse the so-called NIOD, N-I-O-D, report of the Dutch authorities as

9 to Srebrenica 1995 because it -- at that time it had not been translated

10 fully from Dutch into English?

11 A. Correct, sir, and also, I would tell you that I also did not

12 review that particular report because my understanding was that when I am

13 called before this particular Tribunal and others to testify about my

14 work, I testify about my work. I'm not here to testify about past ICTY

15 judgements and I'm not here to testify about the NIOD report so ...

16 Q. Since portions of that report now have been translated into

17 English, have you since that time undertaken to analyse or review the

18 NIOD report and if so, how much of it or what portions?

19 A. I have not, sir. I have not reviewed it. I have not analysed

20 it.

21 Q. Okay. Is it your position that the NIOD report is not relevant

22 material to the type of expert review that you were doing?

23 A. No, sir. My position is that when I'm called to testify here I'm

24 called to testify about my work and I don't want to be in a position of

25 testifying about my work somehow influenced by another body of work. My

Page 16500

1 analysis is limited in this respect to the military documents and what

2 they mean in relation to the crimes as charged in 1995. It is not to do

3 a comprehensive historical review of all things that happened in

4 Srebrenica.

5 Q. In relation to your work for the beginning of your tenure to the

6 present day, would you agree with me that the -- that you have never

7 obtained or performed -- the comprehensive corpus of the entirety of the

8 documents from the VRS Main Staff and thus did not have the ability to

9 analyse and review those documents?

10 A. To this date, I am not aware that we have an entire collection of

11 documents from the Main Staff. That is correct, sir. And when I say,

12 "We," I mean the Office of the Prosecutor in that sense.

13 Q. Okay. Now, for purposes of the review that you have done in all

14 the cases here at the ICTY where you are relying on a document said to be

15 issued by General Ratko Mladic, would you agree that most of these

16 documents would be the teletype printed signature which would be the copy

17 received on the receiving end of a teletype transmission rather than the

18 original with the originating stamp and original signature of either

19 General Mladic or whomever sent the communication under his name?

20 A. I'm not sure I would agree or disagree, simply because I've never

21 actually conducted that type of an analysis to determine what percentage

22 of documents fall into either category.

23 Q. Fair enough, sir. And is it correct that for purposes of

24 preparing your reports in this case, you did not take into account or

25 review either the SFRY constitution nor the constitution of its

Page 16501

1 constituent Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

2 A. I don't believe I've reviewed the constitutions of either. In

3 general I may have looked at them, but certainly for the type of analysis

4 that I'm doing from a military context, a review of a constitution for

5 either ABiH or the SFRY, I didn't think it was particularly useful.

6 Q. And when you say you didn't think it was particularly useful, was

7 that a decision you reached or a decision that someone else within the

8 Office of the Prosecution reached?

9 A. That would be my decision. Obviously the constitution of the

10 Republika Srpska and its laws would be the controlling factors, given the

11 fact that the officers that we were looking at with respect to their

12 potential involvement in the crimes were officers of that particular

13 entity or state. So again it was my decision, and that's why I believed

14 those other documents that you mentioned weren't particularly relevant.

15 Q. Now, in the course of your work at the Office of the Prosecutor,

16 did you have occasion to seek the consultation of any other experts,

17 whether military or otherwise, and whether internal to the Office of the

18 Prosecutor or external to the Office of the Prosecutor?

19 A. Well, first, I sat in an office with eight other military

20 analysts from various countries. I'm not sure how much they appreciated

21 it but I certainly was willing to reach out at any opportunity to float

22 any odd-ball idea I might have had off of them. So I had access to those

23 individuals and their professional observations on certain issues. Until

24 the Krstic case began and the documents began becoming public exhibits,

25 it was a closed collection. As a result, I did not have the opportunity

Page 16502

1 to consult with outside experts with respect to on a day-to-day basis.

2 There were no outside -- if you're on staff, by definition you're not an

3 outside expert. I was, however, during the course of the Krstic trial,

4 able to present my work to General Dannatt, who was a military expert

5 witness for the prosecutor in that case, and he did have the opportunity

6 to review my narrative reports as well as the -- the narrative report and

7 the command report that were published at the time.

8 Q. And did General Dannatt have any contributions to your report?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. Okay. Apart from the review to personnel within the military

11 analysts office of the Office of the Prosecutor and General Dannatt that

12 you've just testified about, did you at any time subsequent to the Krstic

13 case submit any of the newer reports for any type of academic peer review

14 process?

15 A. I don't know if you could qualify it -- I mean I'm not an

16 academic obviously and I don't put myself off to be one, but certainly

17 since the publication of those original reports and subsequent reports,

18 I've been cross-examined by 20 Defence counsel and perhaps 20 some-odd

19 military experts, as well as six different trial panels on those

20 particular reports, so I would qualify that as peer review on steroids.

21 Certainly these reports are public. They have been public for over a

22 decade now, with the exception of the Main Staff report, and there has

23 been an enormous opportunity for a variety of people with military

24 experience to comment on them if they choose to.

25 Q. Now, did I understand you correctly that these written expert

Page 16503

1 reports that we have and the drafted Srebrenica narrative that's being

2 presented in this case, originally started off as internal aids - I think

3 "running guides" is the term that you used - to assist Prosecution

4 counsel and investigators to do their work?

5 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

6 Q. Did you at any time consult or review any treatises written by

7 others recognised as experts on the topic of the structure and

8 functioning of the JNA or the Yugoslav All People's Defence for purposes

9 of preparing these internal aids or running guides to assist Prosecution

10 counsel and investigators in doing their work?

11 A. Well, sir, at that particular time in 1997 and 1998, it would not

12 particularly surprise you that members of the RS or the SFRY were not

13 exactly keen to co-operate with the Office of the Prosecutor. So we

14 certainly did not have access to individuals from there. What I did have

15 access to, however, was, and I did follow to some degree, other

16 proceedings that were going on at the Tribunal, where various Defence

17 experts who were former SFRY military officers would testify in various

18 other cases in order to obtain snippets of information as to how the

19 various armed forces of the warring factions were organised.

20 Q. Now, you say the RS and the SFRY. By that time, did you mean the

21 FRY?

22 A. Yes, sir, that would be accurate.

23 Q. What about Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia? Did

24 you have good co-operation at the Office of the Prosecutor with the

25 military libraries in those countries?

Page 16504

1 A. We were able from the ABiH to obtain former JNA documents from

2 their military library which many of them were translated and used by me.

3 For obvious reasons, we did not go to ABiH military officers to try and

4 explain VRS military doctrine or tactics. So, again, we had a broad

5 collection of the doctrinal and regulatory material that was provided by

6 various countries. We did not avail ourselves to using ABiH or

7 Macedonian officers in that respect or Croatian officers to explain, at

8 least to the Srebrenica trial team, how the VRS may or may not have

9 worked.

10 Q. Perhaps we are not understanding each other, sir. I asked you

11 about treatises written, contained in libraries as to the JNA and the

12 Yugoslav All People's Defence system that would have been available in

13 Croatia, in Slovenia, in Macedonia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina dating from

14 before the conflict that would have discussed the types of structures

15 that you were tasked with reviewing to determine if the VRS operated

16 under those same rules, regulations and doctrine.

17 A. I didn't need to see that material, simply because once we had

18 the basic JNA rules and regulations that we were able to obtain and we

19 had them translated, we can do that analysis ourself. So generally

20 speaking, I mean, the only treatises or expert papers that I recall I did

21 read would be those papers relating to the SFRY and some analysis by

22 their legal branch as to the recent publication of the rules on the law

23 of land warfare and how they applied.

24 Q. Now I'm curious. How does this process work? Who is it at the

25 military analysts' office that decides we are going to look at this

Page 16505

1 treatise or document but we are not going to be concerned with any

2 others, we are not going to seek out the existence of any others? How

3 does that decision making process work? How do you know what is relevant

4 to look at, what is germane to look at, and what is considered to be

5 authoritative on the subject that you're looking at, if all you're taking

6 is the documents translating them and reviewing them without relating to

7 prior treatises done by professionals in -- who studied the forces of the

8 JNA and the All People's Defence system for an extensive period of time?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we have a foundation of what treatises he's

11 talking about? I'm not aware of any and we are creating this -- this --

12 perhaps it's real, perhaps it's a fiction, but what treatises is he not

13 reviewing.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you're reviewing to what the witness may

15 have missed. Could you give him any clue as to what he may have

16 overlooked so as a basis for this question?

17 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, it's my understanding that multiple

18 books and publications from the formation of the JNA through its demise

19 were written and are contained in all the libraries of the former

20 Yugoslav republics. If he looked and he knows what is out there then he

21 can choose what he can look at and what he cannot look at. Our position

22 is that they did not even seek those out, so I don't think they are

23 giving any kind of titles to this gentleman -- will assist him in

24 refreshing his recollection but he's quite capable of answering and

25 telling me whether I'm correct in my assertion.

Page 16506

1 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question but I express as

2 a concern at this moment that we are dealing with all these matters on a

3 level of abstraction which might not bring us very much, and does not

4 touch upon the substance of what the witness testified about, which is of

5 equal if not more importance to the Chamber.

6 MR. IVETIC: I agree, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before he answers the question I have a question

9 to the witness myself. Mr. Butler, in your brief that you were given by

10 the OTP, was it ever part of your task to review these treatises that are

11 being referred to in order to determine if the VRS operated under

12 those -- the same rules and regulations and doctrine of the various

13 countries that have been mentioned?

14 THE WITNESS: I think I can answer both questions at once, sir.

15 Given the fact that the VRS was created in 1992, I did not particularly

16 think that more abstract writings on various JNA topics in the 1970s or

17 1980s was particularly relevant to that. The question at hand was

18 whether or not the VRS, as constituted in 1992, was following the broader

19 rules and regulations of the former JNA and applying those in their daily

20 activities and in their combat operations.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And my question is: Were you tasked with making

22 the determination?

23 THE WITNESS: I was tasked with making the determination whether

24 or not VRS was operating in a similar manner to the JNA in accordance

25 with their rules. I don't recall if it's by the Prosecution, but

Page 16507

1 certainly I knew I had to accomplish that mission in order to go further.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thank you so much.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

4 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

5 Q. Now if we can get back to these original internal aids or running

6 guides that you drafted for the assistance of Prosecution personnel that

7 eventually led to the drafting of the expert reports, do you still have

8 those original written documents that were running guides for the

9 Prosecution and, if so, do you have a problem with them being disclosed

10 to the Defence?

11 A. I certainly don't have copies of those early initial versions.

12 They were on the -- if they still exist, they -- there may be electronic

13 copies of them on the share drive. I don't know whether or not they have

14 been disclosed or are disclosable.

15 Q. Were these early writings by you for the assistance of

16 Prosecution staff distributed only within the Office of the Prosecutor or

17 were they distributed to others at the Tribunal for their information and

18 potential use?

19 A. The distribution of that material at that time was limited to

20 individuals of the Office of the Prosecutor only, and the specific

21 investigation teams that needed them. I don't know who at that time

22 outside the Office of the Prosecutor would have had any interest in

23 looking at them.

24 Q. Okay. Well, how about your superiors at the US armed forcers

25 while you were still employed by them? Were you provided copies -- were

Page 16508

1 they provided copies of these?

2 A. I can tell you that they would definitely fall in the category of

3 people who had no interest of what I was writing.

4 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, you have been listed as a Rule 70 witness

5 as in prior trials and in the past there has been counsel from the US

6 embassy in court, so I do have to ask you, for purposes of the work that

7 you did, did you utilise any information or perhaps intelligence

8 resources of the United States or its armed forces in preparing your

9 reports which would not have originated from the

10 Office of the Prosecutor?

11 A. No, sir, I did not.

12 Q. And did the United States of America or personnel of the US armed

13 forces have a role in approving or vetting the final reports that we now

14 have before us?

15 A. No, sir, that would go back to -- again that would imply they

16 actually cared at that time.

17 Q. Okay. Now I want to take you back to that point in time during

18 your tenure at the Office of the Prosecutor to find out when it was that

19 the -- or how it came about that the decision was made to transform this

20 prior work into an expert report and then to change you from an analyst

21 to a potential expert witness to be used as evidence before the

22 Trial Chambers.

23 A. Oh, you want me to explain it in a running narrative or were you

24 going to ask me a question?

25 Q. I was going to ask you a question. How and when did that

Page 16509

1 decision become made, and who made it? Did you propose it to the

2 Prosecution or did the Prosecution counsel propose it to you? That's a

3 simple question.

4 A. If I recall correctly, sometime after General Krstic was arrested

5 and we were in a pre-trial phase, there was discussions as to whether or

6 not -- or maybe not whether or not but probably more accurately how the

7 Office of the Prosecutor could effectively explain in some context what

8 the military documents meant with respect to then General Krstic. The

9 various Prosecutors, and certainly it wasn't a unanimous decision, did

10 come to the conclusion that the best way to do that would be to

11 essentially have me publish those reports that I had created as internal

12 aids and testify behind them as a way of allowing the Court to understand

13 what all of the military documents meant in context to the crime scenes

14 and other military activities that were going on. So it was only after

15 General Krstic had been apprehended and we were preparing to go to trial

16 that that decision was made.

17 Q. Now, am I correct that during the first several years that you

18 were at the Office of the Prosecutor, during the time period when you

19 were still an active duty army officer, at that time, you were salaried

20 and paid by the US army?

21 A. Correct, sir.

22 Q. And at the time that you were still being paid by the

23 United States Army as an active duty army officer, but were on loan to

24 the Office of the Prosecutor, did you perform any additional duties for

25 the US army or was your work entirely for the Office of the Prosecutor of

Page 16510

1 this Tribunal?

2 A. No, sir. Once when I was loaned to the Office of the Prosecutor

3 or seconded, I took all of my tasking from them, them being the Office of

4 the Prosecutor and the ICTY. I had no other additional duties with the

5 United States Army.

6 Q. Okay. And now if you could tie that together with the answer you

7 gave as to when you would have been transformed into an expert, during

8 the time period that were you salaried by the US army were you at that

9 time already acting as an expert or did that take place sometime later?

10 A. Well, sir, the -- my official title as an individual who was

11 seconded like anybody else in the UN system was expert on mission. I was

12 acting as a military analyst like the other military analysts for the

13 Office of the Prosecutor. We certainly never called ourselves military

14 experts per se.

15 Q. You've mentioned other military analysts for the Office of the

16 Prosecutor. Are you familiar with an individual by the name of

17 Mr. Philip Coo?

18 A. Yes, sir, I am.

19 Q. Was he a colleague of yours at the military analysts office at

20 the Office of the Prosecutor doing similar work as your own, analysing

21 military documents and seeking to testify as an expert in court about the

22 same?

23 A. Mr. Coo was a military analyst who came years after I did. He

24 was working on a different set of cases. I -- again because of the fact

25 that I was working Bosnian Serb related cases and he was working

Page 16511

1 different cases, I don't know of the specifics of what the team that he

2 was working for had an intention with him to testify or not.

3 Q. Are you aware that two Trial Chambers in the Milutinovic case and

4 the Djordjevic case declined to treat Mr. Coo as an expert because his

5 methodology of analysis of military documents and giving the meaning of

6 the same would infringe upon the Chamber's domain of assessing the

7 documents and evidence?

8 A. I was -- I was aware that at one point I think that there was an

9 application out for him to testify. I don't recall I ever knew of the

10 ultimate decisions.

11 Q. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll move on. Now, I don't propose to go

12 through your CV with any great amount of detail but I would like to ask

13 you about some of your experience, in particular especially matters that

14 are not reflected in your CS, such as your formal education, for one.

15 I'd like to go back to the time period before the ICTY and, first of all,

16 why don't you tell us in relation to your formal education, am I correct

17 that your college degree was a bachelor's degree in political science at

18 the European division of the University of Maryland earned as part-time

19 evening student while were you simultaneously serving in the US armed

20 forces?

21 A. Correct, sir.

22 Q. Can you tell me if any of your course work towards this degree

23 involved any studies of the framework of the state of Yugoslavia or its

24 armed forces system or its national defence doctrine?

25 A. No, sir.

Page 16512

1 Q. Now then I want to move on away from your education to your work

2 in the US army. First of all, can you tell me if you attended courses at

3 or earned degrees at any military schools or academies and, if so, what

4 field your course of study was in?

5 A. As my resume notes, I did attend the military intelligence

6 warrant officer basic and advanced courses at Fort Huachuca. I passed

7 those courses successfully and have certificates related to that, but it

8 is not a military academy per se.

9 Q. And I think -- well, just to verify and that those courses would

10 not have dealt with the state of Yugoslavia or its armed forces or the

11 national defence doctrine as part of their curriculum?

12 A. Correct, sir.

13 Q. Now I want to focus on your actual duties, duty posts within the

14 US army. First of all, am I correct that your first operational

15 assignment started in January of 1982 and lasted until 1985 when you were

16 assigned to a military intelligence group in Europe?

17 A. Yes, sir, from January of 1982 to July of 1985, I was assigned to

18 the 66th military intelligence group, at that time stationed in Munich,

19 Germany.

20 Q. During your time from 1982 to 1985, with the 66th military

21 intelligence group, did have you any duties involving work in relation to

22 or exposure to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, its armed

23 forces or its national defence doctrine?

24 A. No, sir, I did not.

25 Q. After that you were deployed to Texas for sometime and eventually

Page 16513

1 transferred to the United States central command where for two years you

2 studied the Soviet army operations in Afghanistan; is that right?

3 A. Correct, sir.

4 Q. Did you at that time --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down please for the interpreters,

6 thank you.

7 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.

8 Q. Did you during that time at the central command have any duties

9 researching or studying the JNA for any purposes whatsoever?

10 A. Clearly not, sir.

11 Q. Am I correct that you did a second tour of duty in Europe after

12 being made a warrant officer, being assigned to the all-source production

13 section of the 3rd infantry division in Wurzburg, Germany?

14 A. Correct, sir.

15 Q. And at that time, did any of your work involve collecting

16 intelligence on or studying the state of Yugoslavia or its armed forces

17 or national defence doctrine?

18 A. Actually, for a several month period at the end of that, I did

19 look a little bit into Yugoslavia. At that time, in 1992, or 1991 and

20 1992, there was some discussion of a European rapid reaction force

21 potentially deploying to the former Yugoslavia and as a part of the US

22 component of that, the 3rd Infantry Division was assigned to start

23 potentially looking at military options and obviously supporting the

24 intelligence portion of that, I did have to start making myself aware of

25 general aspects of the ongoing conflict. Having said that, it did not

Page 16514

1 include an in-depth analytical review of the Yugoslav National Army,

2 All People's Defence, things of that nature.

3 Q. Now, you've said that there was discussion of a quote/unquote

4 "European rapid reaction force." Did you mean to say that there was

5 contingency planning going on with respect to the possibility of NATO

6 forces being deployed to Bosnia in some form or fashion?

7 A. At that time, it wasn't necessarily NATO. It was still this

8 thing called the Western European union and a European rapid reaction

9 force that was supposedly being put together for it. There was a US

10 component but it -- as it was designed, it was supposed to operate

11 outside of NATO. I think as history notes it wasn't a particularly

12 successful military cohesive body, and as a result everything kind of

13 fell back on NATO again.

14 Q. So was the contingency planning foreseeing the Western European

15 union or NATO action in Bosnia, sir?

16 A. Well, when I was there it was a WEU, as I recall. It may have

17 transitioned to NATO sometime in 1992 but by then I was already leaving

18 the division and going on to my next assignment, so I don't know any of

19 those issues.

20 MR. IVETIC: If we can call up in e-court 1D1241 and page 12 in

21 e-court. It should correlate to transcript page 19586 from the Popovic

22 trial.

23 Q. And I'd like to review with you, sir, the answer you give

24 starting at line 2 on this page, and if you could follow along I'll have

25 some questions for you:

Page 16515

1 "A. After finishing up with my assignment in south-west Asia,

2 with US 7th Corps, doing what is now known, I guess, as the first

3 Gulf War, I reverted back to my original position in 3rd

4 Infantry Division in Wurzburg, Germany. At that time it was early 1992

5 and as part of NATO, and part of the central army group, there was

6 contingency planning going on with respect to the possibility of NATO

7 forces being deployed to Bosnia in some form or fashion."

8 Does that refresh your recollection, sir, if the work you did was

9 specifically geared towards having NATO intervention in Bosnia?

10 A. Again, yes, sir, I mean obviously my mind is playing a little

11 trick on me. It's been 20 years since that period of my life.

12 Q. And if we could turn or focus on line 24 of this transcript and

13 go on to the next page, I'd like to explore the types of sources that you

14 reviewed at that time to plan the contingencies of NATO involvement:

15 "We were not engaged in a day-to-day monitoring of the military

16 activities of any of the warring parties, if that's what you're getting

17 at."

18 If we go to the next page:

19 "Q. Any general materials for historical background?

20 "A. At that time it would probably be whatever news and media

21 reports were coming out of Yugoslavia. I guess it's a matter of fact at

22 this point that certainly when the civil conflict in Bosnia started, it

23 wasn't a primary focus of the United States."

24 Sir, is this a fair and accurate rendition of the testimony you

25 gave as to the types of sources that you looked at during this time in

Page 16516

1 August of 1992?

2 A. Yes, sir. We -- Yugoslavia was not of intelligence collection

3 priority of the United States at that time, and therefore most of the

4 information that we were receiving about the warring parties and the

5 conflict in general was a result of open-source information generally

6 from the media.

7 Q. Okay. Now, as part of the work that you were doing during this

8 time period, potentially to support a deployment of NATO and US troops to

9 Bosnia, can you tell us were you preparing, participating in any

10 contingencies to have NATO forces intervene or act militarily against the

11 Army of the Republika Srpska or any Serb structures?

12 A. No, sir. Simply from our perspective, what we were doing at the

13 division level was trying to assemble basic information with respect to

14 the terrain, the road network, those general pieces of information that a

15 military force would have to know in order to move or garrison in an

16 area, things of that nature, rail movement issues to move the division if

17 possible. I don't recall that I ever participated in any meeting or did

18 any work with respect in 1992 with respect to any mission planning for

19 combat activities against anybody in the former Yugoslavia.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.

21 MR. IVETIC: This would be a good time for a break, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted out of the

23 courtroom.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: We will take a break and we will resume at

Page 16517

1 10 minutes to 11.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.31 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

5 By the way, Mr. McCloskey, we still need to find time to

6 accomplish what we started, that is to receive the comments of the

7 witness on the list of, I think on documents, which he may have

8 consulted. That's still to be done. I would rather do it than later

9 today. Or, Mr. Ivetic, if this would be a suitable moment to hear from

10 him on that matter first.

11 MR. IVETIC: Why don't we do it now before we lose sight of it,

12 Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 [The witness takes the stand]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Butler, before we continue the

16 cross-examination, there was an outstanding issue that is you giving some

17 comments on a list of documents which were -- you were invited to review.

18 Are you ready to do it at this moment or would you rather take your time

19 in the next break to look at them again and then answer any questions in

20 relation to those?

21 THE WITNESS: No, sir. I'm prepared to do that now.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. McCloskey, what we asked, more or less, is

23 to look at the documents and I think that you would comment on whether

24 you had reviewed them while preparing your reports. That was the main

25 question, I think. And then do you have the list before you?

Page 16518

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And I think the first one was 65 ter 05385.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Any comment on whether you reviewed it, any further

5 comments on the documents?

6 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I have reviewed that document. When

7 I look at these documents I recognise many of them from not only my

8 review but I believe I also testified about them in the Tolimir case.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And do the parties -- do you have a similar

10 report for all of the documents or are there some which receive a

11 different report?

12 THE WITNESS: No, sir, there are a total of 16 documents that are

13 highlighted in yellow, three of which have exhibit numbers but the

14 remaining 13, the report is the same, I have reviewed the particular

15 document and in most cases I recall testifying about this particular

16 document in another context.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further questions on these documents?

18 MR. IVETIC: None from the Defence.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey?

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: None.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think a list has been prepared.

22 Madam Registrar is then invited to --

23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar will prepare a list of the documents

25 and provisionally assign numbers so that we can decide on admission.

Page 16519

1 Then, Mr. Ivetic, having dealt with this matter, you may proceed.

2 You may continue your cross-examination.

3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Sir, I'd like to focus back again on this time period in

5 August of 1992, when you were working with the -- with the

6 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, working on contingency plans for NATO

7 intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You've mentioned the open

8 intelligence sources that were you looking at. Did your work deal with

9 the results of any HUMINT from covert operatives already on the ground?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. In relation to the work or the contingencies that were being

12 worked on for purposes of this time period, was it foreseen that NATO or

13 US forces would militarily intervene or act against the Bosnian Muslim

14 armed forces or the Croats, or were those factions considered to be blue

15 or friendly forces?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Relevance.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

19 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, this gentleman is here as an

20 expert witness, not as a fact witness, so to delve into the reliability,

21 independence and ability of someone to be an expert it would be important

22 to know whether they were a -- involved in any way preceding the party

23 that they are providing expertise upon as an enemy and if they had any

24 allegiance during the conflict. The jurisprudence this Tribunal has

25 disqualified persons who did have a role as an opposing force and so I'm

Page 16520

1 quite entitled, I think, to ask these questions.

2 JUDGE ORIE: However, your question was whether it was foreseen.

3 You did not ask the witness anything about his personal involvement in

4 that. So that's commenting on what others may have foreseen. Would you

5 please rephrase your question.

6 MR. IVETIC: Yes.

7 Q. In relation to the work that you did on these contingencies for

8 NATO to intervene in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were the Bosnian Muslim armed

9 forces and the Croat forces designated as blue or friendly forces?

10 A. No, sir. The work that I did was simply trying to assemble

11 information with respect to how the division could move from where it was

12 currently garrisoned in Germany to the effected region. If work like

13 that was being done by NATO staff, I mean, I wasn't a part of it and we

14 didn't see any of it.

15 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, at transcript page 16113 of last week's

16 transcript, you indicated your role as being to advise your commander

17 what an armed adversary is doing and assist him in their goal of

18 defeating said armed adversary. In the context of the contingency

19 planning that you were doing in August of 1992, did you at that time

20 consider the Army of Republika Srpska to be an armed adversary?

21 A. No, sir. We didn't consider anyone to be an armed adversary. I

22 believe that the assumption was that if NATO did deploy there and I don't

23 know under what circumstances they were thinking about, that it would be

24 as a peacekeeping force, not as a party to the conflict.

25 Q. Did any of your work whilst at the United States Army involve

Page 16521

1 planning the contingency of NATO or US forces clandestinely arming the

2 Bosnian Muslim or Bosnian Croat factions in Bosnia?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Now, if we could just focus again on the last part of that

5 testimony that's still on the screen in front of us, when you say that

6 the types of materials that were used for this work were primarily news

7 and media reports coming out of Yugoslavia, would those have been media

8 and news reports of the domestic former Yugoslav news agencies or of

9 international news agencies?

10 A. It would have been whatever information we could have laid our

11 hands on at the time. Again, as I indicated, Yugoslavia, the Balkans

12 region was not an intelligence collection priority of the United States

13 at the time, certainly not the United States Army in Europe. And as a

14 result, we found ourselves having very little information of usable value

15 during those days.

16 Q. Would you agree with me that what you've just described as fairly

17 standard operating procedure when you come to a situation where you don't

18 have already-developed dossiers that you try to get your -- lay your

19 hands on everything you can about the topic, as a military analyst

20 working in your field?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Was that done when you commenced your work for the

23 Office of the Prosecutor for purposes of generating the reports that you

24 subsequently authored?

25 A. Yes, sir. In the sense that when I was doing my initial

Page 16522

1 research, I tried to obtain material obviously translated in English that

2 would be useful for me to conduct my overall analysis. I tried to lay my

3 hands on whatever I thought would be useful.

4 Q. Okay. Now --

5 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could Mr. Mladic lower the volume of

6 his voice.

7 Mr. Ivetic, when you referred to transcript page 16113 and talked

8 about an armed adversary, may I take it that you wanted to refer to a

9 potential armed adversary --

10 MR. IVETIC: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- as the language?

12 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, I misspoke if I did not include

13 that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

15 MR. IVETIC:

16 Q. Now, sir, I'd like to move to your training and experience.

17 First of all, prior to the Office of the Prosecutor am I correct you had

18 no education or background in law or law enforcement?

19 A. Correct, sir. Prior to my coming to the ICTY, I -- my career

20 pattern was strictly military intelligence.

21 Q. And as a US army intelligence officer, you were forbidden by law

22 from having been -- from being involved in any criminal investigatory

23 work by virtue of your position; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, sir. At the time that was correct.

25 Q. Would you agree with me that you essentially learned techniques

Page 16523

1 and tactics while you were dealing with the law enforcement personnel and

2 lawyers at the Office of the Prosecutor?

3 A. Not necessarily learned techniques and tactics, but I certainly

4 had to adapt the techniques and tactics and methodologies that I would

5 traditionally use in a military intelligence sense in order to satisfy my

6 customers, which in this case were investigators and lawyers, yes, sir.

7 Q. And when you say to satisfy your customers, that would be the

8 Office of the Prosecutor, that would be lawyers and investigators within

9 the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?

10 A. Yes, sir, at the early stages of my work, that is correct.

11 Q. Now, I'd like to take a look at 1D1260 with you, and page 35 of

12 the same in e-court, which should correlate to transcript page 20155 of

13 the Popovic transcript. And the part I want to focus on with you is in

14 the beginning of the first dozen lines. And if you could again follow

15 along with me, sir:

16 "Q. Tell me what those techniques and tactics were that you

17 learned with respect to dealing with law enforcement since you had no

18 education and experience in those areas prior to that.

19 A. Well, by virtue of having access to not only a world-class

20 body of lawyers but also investigators from both common law and civil law

21 backgrounds, what I was able to do is, by watching them work, looking at

22 what they were doing, and what they were trying to accomplish with

23 respect to their own investigations, it gave me the foundation to be able

24 to look at what types of military information they would need to support

25 their investigative processes.

Page 16524

1 "Q. I honestly don't know if I understand you. Was that a

2 technique or a tactic that you explained to me?

3 "A. That would be a combination of both."

4 First of all, sir, does this accurately describe or depict your

5 testimony describing the process by which you learned techniques and

6 tactics whilst at the Office of the Prosecutor?

7 A. Well, learned or modified, yes, sir.

8 Q. Okay. Now, when you say that you were looking at what the

9 Prosecution staff were trying to accomplish, and that this gave you the

10 information you needed to know what type of military information they

11 would need to support their investigative process, am I correct that you

12 also wanted to provide them with military information that would let them

13 successfully accomplish their purpose of prosecuting persons for war

14 crimes?

15 A. I would walk it back from prosecute and certainly acknowledge in

16 the early years I wanted them to be able obviously to successfully

17 investigate these crimes. So clearly for the first two and a half years

18 of my tenure here, one of the things I was very focused on doing working

19 with the investigators and lawyers was, again, as part of a joint

20 process, figuring out all of the facts related to the Srebrenica crime

21 base, how they lined up and identifying individuals who were potentially

22 responsible.

23 Q. When you "say figuring out all of the facts relating to the

24 Srebrenica crime base" but you limited yourself to just the documentation

25 that the Office of the Prosecutor had and did not look beyond that to

Page 16525

1 NIOD or any other compendiums of information about fact relating to

2 Srebrenica in 1995?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That is inferring that NIOD existed

5 at these early days which Mr. Butler is talking about and that would be

6 not true so I -- please, inferences like that are inappropriate.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I would like to add that the purpose of

8 what you're doing and the sources you were doing for that purpose are two

9 different matters and they should be clearly distinguished.

10 I think both may deserve attention but they are not to be mixed

11 up.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I can move on.

14 Q. We've mentioned a couple times today the Yugoslav national

15 defence doctrine. Would you agree with me and have you understood that

16 we have been talking about what is referred to in the vernacular in the

17 former Yugoslavia as the quote/end quote "All People's Defence"?

18 A. Correct, sir.

19 Q. In that regard, I believe you conceded in the Popovic trial at

20 transcript page 20565, lines 18 through 20, that you don't pretend to be

21 an expert on the issues of the All People's Defence doctrine. Do you

22 still hold that position or concession?

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we get the page on the screen, please.

24 MR. IVETIC: Yes, we can. If we go to 1D1246. And page 61 of

25 that document should correlate to transcript page 20565, and lines 18

Page 16526

1 through 21.

2 Q. And perhaps since we have it up on the screen, sir, I'll read it

3 into the record and then ask you to confirm it:

4 "Q. Have you studied the concept of All People's Defence once you

5 had finished at the OTP?

6 "A. No. And I don't -- I don't pretend to be an expert on the

7 issue of All People's Defence."

8 Sir, does this transcript selection accurately report the

9 testimony that you remember giving in the Popovic case?

10 A. Yes, sir, it does.

11 Q. And is it truthful?

12 A. Yes, sir, it is.

13 Q. And is it still accurate that you still do not consider yourself

14 to be an expert on All People's Defence of the former Yugoslavia?

15 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, would you agree with me that both the JNA

17 and the VRS had within their composition units that were referred to as

18 belonging to the regiment echelon both of the artillery and infantry

19 type, albeit they were more common in the JNA prior to 1995?

20 A. Well, again, the JNA didn't exist in 1995. The former JNA did in

21 the late 1980s, early 1990s have regiments as their primary subordinate

22 formation for divisions. There may have been one or two units still

23 organised as regiments or called regiments in the VRS but I don't believe

24 that was common by any stretch, in 1995, particularly.

25 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that you have not in fact done much

Page 16527

1 research on regimental rules or regimental formations as either under the

2 JNA or the VRS?

3 A. Correct, sir, the Drina Corps in 1995, to my knowledge, did not

4 have regiments and was not organised in a regimental system. So while

5 I recall back in the day probably going through the JNA rules on

6 regiments that we had, it didn't seem particularly relevant to what I was

7 looking at in July of 1995.

8 Q. But there was a 65th Protection Regiment in the VRS, was there

9 not --

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. -- operating in Srebrenica in 1995?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. Would you hold yourself out as an expert on the topic of

14 regiments in the VRS in terms of their structure, what rules they

15 operated under, and so forth, or would you be reticent to do so given

16 your lack of research on the topic?

17 A. Again, before I started testifying with respect to much of the

18 internal processes of a regimental organisation, I'd like to refresh my

19 memory on some of the regimental materials, but with respect to other

20 aspects of the 65th Protection Regiment, obviously I have testified to

21 those, how they relate to command and control and other issues, and I'm

22 comfortable in that realm because they followed the normal command and

23 staff processes. So I guess my answer is it will be on a case-by-case

24 basis.

25 Q. Okay. And do you consider or hold yourself out as an expert as

Page 16528

1 to those items relating to regiments in the VRS that you have testified

2 about or have mentioned in your reports?

3 A. Again, I never hold myself out to be an expert on any of these

4 particular issues. I, as a military intelligence officer, I'm an

5 intelligence technician. This is what I do as a profession. I'm not a

6 classical academic expert in that sense. However, obviously, if it is in

7 my reports or if I have testified about it, I feel secure in my knowledge

8 of those issues to be able to discuss them before this Trial Chamber and

9 defend them as necessary.

10 Q. Are one of those areas that you did review and spend considerable

11 time upon that you feel secure in your knowledge of that issue, would one

12 of those areas be the rules of service of the Army of Republika Srpska?

13 A. Yes, sir, those are referenced in my

14 Command Responsibility Reports, those are the rules of service. I think

15 they are dated, if memory serves, sometime late 1992.

16 Q. Okay. In that regard I'd like to look at 1D1263 with you, and

17 page 64 of the same, which should correlate to transcript page 20826 of

18 the Popovic case, I think it is. Yes. And I'd like to go through lines

19 7 through 17 with you, sir, and ask you some follow-up questions:

20 "Q. Now, before we move on to the questions, these rules are

21 rules of the -- the rules of service of the Army of Republika Srpska.

22 "A. Yes, sir.

23 "Q. And if the average battalion soldier was aware of anything,

24 these are the rules he's likely to be aware of, aren't they?

25 "A. Yes, sir.

Page 16529

1 "Q. And just to complete the picture, these rules were in force

2 in 1995 and carried on being in force until they were revoked in 1997.

3 Did you know that?

4 "A. I wasn't aware when they were revoked, but I certainly knew

5 they were in force during the period that we are talking about."

6 Does this selection accurately depict the testimony that you gave

7 in the Popovic case?"

8 A. Yes, sir, it does.

9 Q. Okay. Now, is this the kind of thing that you would think would

10 be germane to your analysis and review to know when the main documents

11 that you are relying upon, when they were issued, when they were revoked

12 or superseded, wouldn't those be the basic elementary tasks of an expert

13 such as yourself conducting the type of review that you were conducting?

14 A. Yes, sir. And what I was taking issue here was the fact that he

15 used the terminology "revoked." My understanding is that those

16 particular rules were in fact superseded in 1997. The fact that they

17 were superseded in 1997, while interesting, had no bearing on what was

18 happening in July of 1995.

19 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to move on to another topic. In the course

20 of the time period that you were at the Office of the Prosecutor, I would

21 like to know precisely how many total interviews you conducted or were

22 present for of VRS personnel in relation to the Srebrenica component of

23 the case, of their case.

24 A. I used to remember -- at least give a ballpark estimate on that.

25 Q. Let me help you out on that. I can refresh your recollection,

Page 16530

1 sir. If we can have 1D1241 in e-court, and it should be page 21 of the

2 same and that should correlate to page 19595 of, again, the Popovic

3 transcript, just a different day, and lines 11 through 25 which I would

4 like to read with you, sir, to refresh your recollection. If I may just

5 switch microphones so it's easier. And I quote from line 11:

6 "A. When we started getting access to military officers of the

7 VRS to be able to interview them, I started to participate in those

8 interviews in order to assist the investigators and whatever lawyers were

9 there with understanding some of the answers of the accused with respect

10 to the context of the JNA, as well as to pose my own questions to either

11 confirm or deny our working thesis at the time that the rules, the

12 regulations and the procedures of the JNA were, in fact, followed by the

13 VRS.

14 "Q. So did you actually question some witnesses?

15 "A. Yes, sir, I did.

16 "Q. Do you have -- can you give us a rough number?

17 "A. For the OTP, I probably personally participated in many --

18 in maybe 24, 25, two dozen. I mean, I think there are about three

19 separate missions where I participated in direct interviews, and in those

20 missions where I didn't participate in direct interviews because I had

21 other commitments to do, I certainly read the transcripts of the

22 interviews afterwards."

23 Now, sir, first of all, we can discard with my prior question and

24 just deal with this. Does this accurately reflect the testimony as you

25 recall giving it in the prior proceeding as to the interviews that you

Page 16531

1 would have directly participated in?

2 A. Yes, sir, it does.

3 Q. And did any of the 24 to 25 or perhaps two dozen interviews that

4 you directly participated in involve any members of the VRS Main Staff

5 and, if so, what individuals?

6 A. Colonel Bogdan Sladojevic at that time, who was then general;

7 Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic; I had an opportunity -- obviously I did

8 interview or at least have a discussion with General Milovanovic. Those

9 are the ones that are coming to memory now, that I personally

10 participated in. There may have been other interviews where I just read

11 the transcripts afterwards but those are three that at least at the

12 moment I recall participating in.

13 Q. That's fine.

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. IVETIC:

16 Q. In relation to these three now, when would those interviews have

17 taken place? Would they have been early in your work? Would they have

18 been later in your work? Is there any way you can give us some idea of

19 when that would have been without of course giving -- I don't expect

20 precise dates and time but --

21 A. I appreciate that. I think those particular interviews took

22 place in the period between the Krstic trial and the Blagojevic and Jokic

23 trial.

24 Q. Okay. And now I'm going to have to ask you to explain, you, I

25 believe, used the terminology of saying that you did an interview or at

Page 16532

1 least have a discussion with General Milovanovic. Could you please

2 clarify what exactly was the nature of your contact with

3 General Manojlo Milovanovic?

4 A. I recall at the time that General Milovanovic had contacted the

5 Office of the Prosecutor and wanted to reach out to the Office of the

6 Prosecutor, and to make contact with him to discuss some issues related

7 to Srebrenica. I accompanied team leader Jean-Rene Ruez to Banja Luka,

8 where we had a meeting with him. It was not an interview per se. There

9 was not notes taken, at least by me. I can't tell you this day what

10 notes, if any, Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez may have taken. I'm not sure if it was

11 considered to be off the record or not, the discussion. But we did spend

12 an hour and a half with him discussing issues related to the broader

13 aspect of Srebrenica, the broader aspects of some of the VRS in

14 July of 1995, and what he was doing in July of 1995.

15 Q. When you say there were not any notes taken, at least by me, do

16 you know if the encounter with General Milovanovic was recorded or

17 memorialised by any recording equipment?

18 A. We did not have -- I don't believe we had an audiotape recorder,

19 no, sir.

20 Q. Did --

21 A. Or video for that matter.

22 Q. Did anyone else in the meeting appear to be taking notes?

23 A. Again, I didn't. I don't recall if Jean-Rene did. I certainly

24 don't recall if the general himself was taking notes or not.

25 Q. Was anyone else present for this meeting, apart from the three of

Page 16535

1 Q. Do you recall in relation to the discussion that you had -- that

2 you and Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez had with Mr. Milovanovic, whether on or off

3 the record, was he a suspect at that time that you had that discussion?

4 A. No, sir, he was not. I mean we had already been able, as far as

5 our investigation was concerned, given his location and his activities in

6 the western Krajina region, and from the information that we had

7 available at the time, he was not considered to be a suspect with respect

8 to the events of Srebrenica in July of 1995.

9 Q. Okay. And now, in relation to these 24 or 25 interviews, did you

10 in all of them actually pose questions as opposed to just giving advice

11 to the other Prosecution staff?

12 A. In many of the interviews I was invited to pose questions, yes,

13 sir.

14 Q. In relation to those interviews, were there occasions where you

15 had to provide guidance to the Prosecution staff that were asking

16 questions including guidance on proposing questions for them to pose to

17 the interviewee?

18 A. Yes, sir. Particularly when it came with respect to a technical

19 issue on applications of command or applications of the security branch

20 or certain other applications of, you know, technical staff officers,

21 I would discuss with the -- with the investigator, if he was leading the

22 interview, what issues that I would like explored and more importantly

23 give him enough background so that he would understand or she would

24 understand the answer that that officer would presumably give back.

25 Q. Now, when you say you -- what issues you would like explored,

Page 16536

1 were you directing the investigators in the work of their interview? Is

2 that what you mean?

3 A. No, sir. The interviews were always conducted under the

4 leadership of the investigator. Again, I provide technical advice and

5 assistance. If we are interviewing somebody who was a logistics officer

6 in a particular unit, as you might expect, you know, a police

7 investigator is not going to have a really broad base of knowledge on

8 convoy operations of an armed force, you know, and the rules and

9 regulations pertaining to that. So again my role was to work with those

10 investigators so they would be able to ask pertinent questions,

11 understand the answers that were received back by them, and if I was in

12 the room, if I had to clarify any particular issues, I did so.

13 Q. Did you for purposes of these 24 to 25 interviews you

14 participated in meet with Prosecution personnel before the interview to

15 discuss strategy with them?

16 A. As a normal process of our interviews that we did at the time, we

17 would meet in advance, we would discuss the strategy in the sense of what

18 issues we wanted to explore with a particular witness. We would also

19 obviously acquaint ourselves whether or not the individual was being

20 interviewed as a witness or as a suspect. That was a normal practice,

21 yes, sir.

22 Q. And would you have been involved in such strategy meetings as

23 part of the normal process even for those interviews that you did not

24 personally directly participate in?

25 A. It would depend. I mean, there were -- obviously there were

Page 16537

1 interviews going on along a wide range of issues. If one of the

2 investigators who was going, you know, from The Hague to Bosnia was going

3 to interview a VRS military officer, it would be customary that they

4 would approach me or the other military analysts who were supporting the

5 Srebrenica team at the time, and ask basic information about, you know,

6 what documents that we had about an individual's potential role in the

7 VRS, what questions we might want asked or answered regarding some

8 question that we would have as military analysts. So, again, we were a

9 resource that the investigators could utilise to prepare ultimately for

10 their interviews.

11 Q. As part of this process or normal procedure that you've just now

12 described for us, did you have a role in suggesting what individuals

13 should be sought to be interviewed?

14 A. I recall that I was part of meetings where decisions -- where we

15 would nominate individuals who we wanted to interview for various

16 purposes, be they suspects or witnesses, from a military perspective,

17 yes, sir.

18 Q. And how about at trial? Did you have any role whatsoever in the

19 selection of witnesses slated to testify for the Prosecution at any

20 trials? And if so, on how many occasions?

21 A. Well, if it were to happen that way, it would only be obviously

22 during my tenure here so it would cover only the Krstic case and the

23 Blagojevic and Jokic case, and with respect to that, I mean,

24 Mr. McCloskey and the other lawyers always gave me a voice at the table

25 when discussing some of these issues, but at the end of the day it was

Page 16538

1 the decision of the Prosecutors who were trying the case which witnesses

2 to call and under what circumstances. So, again, in my role, advising

3 them of what information we had with respect to various people, what the

4 expectation or the anticipation of that they might testify based on what

5 we understood of their military role in a particular issue, again, that

6 was part of servicing the customer, so to speak, from an intelligence

7 perspective, giving them as much information as possible in order to make

8 the best-informed decision. So again I always had a voice at the table,

9 but at the end of the day those decisions were made by the prosecutor,

10 not by me or any other military analyst.

11 Q. Did you have a voice at the table, and was it part of servicing

12 the customer, to partake in discussions as to what witnesses should not

13 be led at trial?

14 A. No, sir. That -- that part wasn't my responsibility, to advise

15 anybody what witnesses not hear from.

16 Q. Did you participate in the proofing of any witnesses that

17 appeared for the Prosecution in any of those trials? Again while you

18 were still here, from up to 2003.

19 A. I do not recall participating directly in the proofing. If

20 I did, obviously, it would be in the proofing notes, which I assume you

21 have access to. What would normally happen in those particular cases is

22 that during or after a proofing session, I might be asked questions from

23 a prosecutor or another lawyer dealing with the case with respect to,

24 This is what a particular witness said, do we have documents which will

25 confirm or deny that particular statement?

Page 16539

1 Q. Okay. Now I want to move to a somewhat related topic, the

2 investigations themselves. To do so I propose to review a statement you

3 made or -- in the Popovic trial. If I could have 1D1261 in e-court,

4 page 17 of the document in e-court, which should be page 20367 of that

5 trial's trial record, from line 12 onwards. And again, sir, I invite you

6 to follow along and listen carefully to the questions that I pose

7 afterwards:

8 "Q. And I suggest to you that initially the plan was for them,

9 'them,' them being the lawyers and the Prosecutors, to go to you, but in

10 your case the relationship was reversed and you went to them and you told

11 them how this investigation would be conducted. Would that be a fair

12 statement?

13 "A. Within a refined avenue, I'm not sure how it works in other

14 militaries, but in the United States military, intelligence is a customer

15 service enterprise. We are expected and trained to be able to push

16 information to our relative commanders. In the context that I was

17 working, you know, the investigative team and the lawyers therein were my

18 designated commanders. I would provide intelligence product to them in

19 the form of my analysis and opinions and I would make recommendations as

20 to avenues that I felt the investigators should pursue with respect to

21 individual -- well, not only individuals, but areas that we wanted to be

22 able to confirm or deny, not only with respect to military issues but

23 crime-base issues. So in that respect, you know, I had the lane I was

24 responsible for and I walked down it."

25 Sir, does this selection that I've read for you accurately record

Page 16540

1 the testimony you recall giving on this topic during the Popovic trial?

2 A. Oh, yes, sir, it does.

3 Q. And would you testify the same way if asked this same question?

4 A. Yes, sir. The fact is that with respect to particularly the

5 early Krstic and Blagojevic and even the later trials, we collectively,

6 the Office of the Prosecutor, were dealing with very many technical

7 military issues involving things like the chain of command, the role and

8 functions of the security branches, and things of that nature. So I was

9 very active with respect to advising the lawyers and the investigators on

10 issues relating to who needed to be interviewed in order to be able to

11 provide information on those particular topics. You're not going to get

12 the type of information that you're looking for about the chain of

13 command by interviewing victims of an atrocity. So my goal, you know,

14 and my job was to be able to overlay the military context of the

15 Drina Corps, the Republika Srpska police, and other units that were

16 involved in what happened in July of 1995, to allow for those issues to

17 be appropriately investigated by the investigators and the Office of the

18 Prosecutor.

19 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to focus for a bit on the methodology that

20 you employed while at the Office of the Prosecutor and some of the

21 material that you did have at your disposal.

22 Now, in relation to your review of JNA material, we've talked

23 generally about it. I'd like to get very specific. Would it be very

24 fair -- would it be fair to say that the documents relating to JNA

25 publications that you had access to in doing your work were only

Page 16541

1 documents from the former JNA 4th Corps and 17th Corps which you then

2 utilised as a model to determine whether or not the VRS was organised

3 along the same lines?

4 A. Initially that is correct, sir, yes.

5 Q. And, first of all, why don't you go ahead and explain for me your

6 qualification of initially that is correct. When did it become

7 different?

8 A. What became different is obviously our access to more documents.

9 At some point we received documents from the 2nd Military District or

10 some 2nd Military District-related documents. We had access to something

11 known as the 5th Corps collection which were VRS documents captured by

12 the ABiH 5th Corps in July 1995. And then of course later on down the

13 line, we were able to confirm -- we had access to the Zvornik,

14 Bratunac Brigade and Krajina Corps documents, and again, as time

15 continues on, the Office of the Prosecutor gets more and more

16 information. But in the very early stages of my analysis, I had to rely

17 on the existing material, which was the JNA 4th Corps and 17th Corps

18 material in order to lay out my initial thesis.

19 Q. I'd like to tie this in with something you said earlier today.

20 Am I correct that the material you were relying upon to lay out your

21 initial thesis from the 4th Corps, 17th Corps, 2nd Military District of

22 the JNA, all were provided to the Office of the Prosecutor by the Armija

23 BiH, that is by the opponents of the Army of Republika Srpska?

24 A. I presume they were, yes, sir.

25 Q. Now, I'd like to actually focus for a bit on your actual work

Page 16542

1 product.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Before we --

3 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I see we are at the time for the break,

4 Your Honours.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move to the next subject matter, we should

6 take a break. Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

7 [The witness stands down]

8 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 10 minutes past 12.00.

9 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 12.14 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12 Meanwhile, I put the following on the record: On the 6th of September of

13 this year, the Chamber issued its decision on the 11th Rule 92 bis

14 motion. There was a slight typographical error in the disposition where

15 the Registry was instructed to lift the confidentiality of certain

16 evidence. That instruction refers to the admitted evidence of witnesses

17 RM219, RM298, and RM300. And not, as indicated erroneously, to the

18 evidence of witness RM247 and witness RM336.

19 [The witness takes the stand]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may continue.

21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Q. I propose now to look at something from your testimony in the

23 Perisic case about the reports that you offered -- that you authored and

24 which are being offered here today. If we could turn to document 1D1240

25 in e-court, and thereafter turn to page 51 of this document. It should

Page 16543

1 be transcript page 6271 of the underlying transcript, if we could scroll

2 up just for a little bit, I think -- the 2721 of the underlying

3 transcript. If we could focus on line 13, please, and again, sir,

4 I invite you to follow along and then pay attention to my questions.

5 For purposes of background, this is where you were being asked

6 about some corrections to your reports and language issues raised in

7 relation to the same:

8 "Q. With regard to these issues, and the only reason I'm asking

9 the question is because when we started your testimony you were kind

10 enough to correct a discrete portion of your report by deleting some

11 language in a footnote so that your report would be technically accurate.

12 "A. Yes, sir, but I'm operating under the assumption that

13 everybody has my prior transcripts and all the prior corrections that

14 have been made over the course of trials on this and that the corrections

15 that I made was one that had not been caught previously.

16 "Q. I see. So apart from what I have just noted, then, any

17 other corrections to be made to your report are, as you put it, to be

18 found in your prior testimony?

19 "A. Yes, sir. I believe there were a couple of identified

20 footnote citations and things of that nature that were either transposed

21 or in the wrong location. And I think we have dealt with them as part of

22 my prior testimony, yes, sir.

23 "Q. With regard to your testimony here, however, we have not had

24 the benefit of those corrections; correct? I don't mean here today,

25 I mean just since the time you have been with us.

Page 16544

1 "A. Again, like I said, they are all former transcripts. I

2 don't know what has gone by with regard to that."

3 Now, Mr. Butler, is this prior testimony from Perisic both

4 accurate and indeed truthful such that you would again testify the same

5 way?

6 A. Yes, sir. Again, I am aware that as a component of the reports,

7 we discovered through time that some of the hyperlinked footnote

8 translations don't correspond to the document that I cite. Things of

9 that nature. Again there are also in some cases variations in

10 translation between one Trial Chamber and another on how a document is.

11 You know, again I accept the fact that these reports with respect to the

12 Srebrenica narrative, the brigade command report and the corps command

13 report, you know, have not been updated by me in writing since 2003.

14 Q. Have you, or has anyone gone throughout prior transcripts to at

15 least locate and identify all of the corrections that you did make during

16 all these prior trials, such that the report could be updated -- or the

17 reports, I should say, could be updated?

18 A. I have not. I don't know what the Office of the Prosecutor has

19 done with respect to that. Certainly I know that the Defence counsel is

20 usually diligent about picking out anything that they think is incorrect.

21 Q. Okay.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, would it be wise to ask the Prosecution

23 whether any such exercise has been done or whether they are willing to do

24 the exercise, that is to point at corrections made during testimony, I'm

25 talking about correction, not interpretations, corrections made and then

Page 16545

1 to give us the portions of the documents to which these corrections

2 apply?

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, as you can imagine, I over

4 the years always review Mr. Butler's testimony in preparing for the next

5 trial, and I do not recall any significant changes we felt the need to

6 make regarding a potential typo or -- when he's talking about hyperlinked

7 what he -- there was a CD product that Mr. Ivetic has that is the reports

8 where the footnotes -- many of them are hyperlinked. You click on them

9 and a document pops up.

10 JUDGE ORIE: We know what a hyperlink is, Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: In this context some of the documents that he

12 cites are hyperlinked, or many of them, and what he's just said is

13 sometimes there has been the wrong one. This is not the kind of thing we

14 felt needed to be changed.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So the brief answer is that you have not

16 systematically done such an exercise and that you felt there was no need

17 to do that because there was nothing significant to be corrected and that

18 you admit that there may be small mistakes here and there. Is that the

19 short summary of --

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I won't argue with that summary, no. I might be

21 considered more systematic than you might but, no, I think that's fair.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we can turn to 1D1261, and page 23 of

24 the same, which ought to correlate to transcript page 20373 of the --

25 I think it's the 24th January Popovic transcript, if my notes are

Page 16546

1 correct. And if we could focus on line 17 and thereafter.

2 Q. Sir, this is a similar topic in relation to your reports that I'd

3 now like to go through with you so, again, please bear with me reading

4 into the record the prior testimony. And I begin:

5 "Q. Mr. Butler, you are aware that you already said that a number

6 of new documents have been obtained by the Office of the Prosecution.

7 Would you agree with me that the documents obtained impact on every

8 single aspect of your report because they were from the Drina Corps

9 collection and it touches upon everything? Would you agree with that?

10 "A. I would believe or I would concur that they are relevant.

11 In many cases, they would not impact the report because they are -- in

12 some cases, they are the identical documents or in other cases they are

13 just larger collections of documents which serve to confirm an earlier

14 analysis that I've conducted. So while every document is obviously

15 important, whether it's relevant or whether it would change my

16 conclusions is a case-by-case issue. That's it.

17 "Q. You don't know that.

18 "A. No, sir, I don't know the unknown.

19 "Q. The new documents might infirm -- and might confirm but you

20 don't know until you look at all the new documents along with your

21 reports; is that correct?

22 "A. Yes, sir. In the perfect world, I would have several years

23 necessary to do that."

24 First of all, sir, does this transcript section that I've just

25 read accurately reflect the testimony that you gave as you remember

Page 16547

1 giving it in the Popovic case?

2 A. Yes, sir, it does.

3 Q. Okay. And would you maintain that same testimony if asked these

4 same questions here today?

5 A. Yes, sir. My view is essentially the same. From the documents

6 that I have had the opportunity to review, from the collections that were

7 not available to me at the time, those documents tend to confirm the

8 analysis and the conclusions that I draw in the reports. In many cases

9 they are just exact copies of documents that I already have from another

10 military unit, the report. And, again, I have seen nothing to date which

11 causes me to pause and suggest that the narrative reports that I drafted

12 in 2003 are no longer valid. I suggest one of the reasons why I'm here

13 and why the prosecutor keeps offering me as a witness in this particular

14 case is because of the fact that with the thousands or tens of thousands

15 of documents that have found through the-- that the

16 Office of the Prosecutor has found or obtained through the years, you

17 know, the fact is that the narrative reports that I have drafted still

18 reflect the logical layout of facts related to Srebrenica and the

19 activities of the VRS in July of 1995. There has been no alternative

20 narrative surfaced by anyone in those intervening years which suggest

21 that my narrative view and the conclusions therein are not valid.

22 Q. Now, when you say the documents that you've been able to review

23 from these collections that were not available to you at the time, don't

24 you really mean those documents that were in the bundle given to you by

25 Mr. Peter McCloskey of the Prosecution as well as any that you may have

Page 16548

1 reviewed on the EDS system? Isn't that a fair definition of the

2 documents that you would have reviewed that were not available at the

3 time you did your reports?

4 A. I would not say simply Mr. McCloskey but other members of the

5 Office of the Prosecutor would confront me with documents. Again,

6 I would remind you that I did testify in the Karadzic case and it was a

7 different trial team and therefore, again, other prosecutors from other

8 cases providing me documents. And again, as I've noted, I've never had

9 the impression that I've been denied access to any material that I felt

10 that I needed to see or wanted to see that would be germane to my

11 analysis or certainly my testimony here. But, you know, I concede that

12 there are tens of thousands of documents that the OTP has obtained

13 through the years which I have not been able to review and, again, I

14 don't know the unknown.

15 Q. Well, let me ask you this. Apart from the documents that either

16 Mr. McCloskey or some other Prosecution counsel selected for you to

17 review, have you individually found documents on the EDS system out of

18 your own searches that you've also reviewed that fall under this opinion

19 or conclusion that you've just stated to us?

20 A. No, sir.

21 Q. So if I can understand correctly, while you've had access to the

22 EDS system, you have not actually utilised the EDS system to

23 independently look for documents and you've only looked at those

24 documents selected by the Prosecution for you to review?

25 A. I have not --

Page 16549

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, compound. There are several questions

2 in there. It's hard to answer all of them.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, would you rephrase, please.

4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.

5 Q. Let's start at the beginning, sir. Is it correct that while

6 you've had access to the EDS or electronic disclosure system, you have

7 not actually utilised the EDS system to locate documents of your own

8 accord?

9 A. That would be accurate probably for the last two years, perhaps

10 even three years, correct.

11 Q. And would it also be correct that when you say none of the

12 documents that you looked at that were not available to you when you

13 drafted your reports have caused you to reconsider the conclusions in

14 your reports, are you referring to only documents that would have been

15 selected and provided to you by Prosecution counsel from the

16 Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?

17 A. Yes, sir.

18 MR. IVETIC: Now I'd like to call up 1D1261 in e-court. It will

19 be page 2 of the e-court version which should correlate to transcript

20 page 20352 of the 24 January Popovic transcript.

21 Q. And, sir, this is in relation to section 4 of your report for the

22 responsibilities of the VRS Brigade commander. And I'd like to have you

23 follow along as I read from line 6 and then I'll have some questions

24 about that:

25 "Q. Now, when you reviewed the materials, so it would be my

Page 16550

1 understanding that you read all this, all those laws which are written in

2 a plain language, trying to understand what the disciplinary authority of

3 a brigade commander is.

4 "A. Yes, sir. I believe that was crucial with respect to

5 understanding, you know, the authority limits as well as the potential

6 league limits that a brigade commander or even a corps commander would be

7 faced with, with respect to his role in ensuring the discipline of his

8 subordinates.

9 "Q. And did you try to make a parallel between your experience

10 in the United States Army?

11 "A. No, sir. That's why we have about a million lawyers to do

12 that.

13 "Q. And did you obtain any assistance from the lawyers within

14 the OTP in drafting this part of your report?

15 "A. No, sir. Like I said, my goal was not to find out what our

16 lawyers were saying about it. My goal was to go out via the

17 investigation and to find out what the appropriate VRS military

18 prosecutors and military judges were saying about how these were applied.

19 "Q. So would I be right in saying that in this section,

20 section 4, it is in your capacity as a former soldier, your layman

21 understanding of this most important topic?

22 "A. Yes, sir. It is my understand of this topic, and if I'm

23 defined as a layman, so be it."

24 Does this selection of the transcript appear to accurately recite

25 the testimony that you gave in the Popovic case as to these questions,

Page 16551

1 sir?

2 A. Yes, sir. It was a rather spirited exchange between myself and

3 Mr. Stephane Bourgon. Clearly, Mr. Bourgon was taking advantage of the

4 fact that as a former member of the OTP staff, he had a very inside view

5 of the role of the military analysts, as having used them himself.

6 Q. And you'll forgive my reading -- my reading not being as spirited

7 as the exchange may have been, but do I have to ask you, would you --

8 would your answers to these questions change or would you in essence

9 repeat the same answers if I were to ask the questions at this trial?

10 A. The only -- the change I would say is a technical one where it

11 says "league," it should be "legal." But my answer would not change.

12 Obviously, my goal in researching the VRS military prosecutor's office or

13 the RS prosecutor's military offices at some point it went from the VRS

14 to the Ministry of Defence control, was from a perspective of how they

15 were applying it in the context of what was happening on the ground in

16 1995 during the conflict. It was not to get an opinion from any legal

17 analyst from the Office of the Prosecutor or whether or not those were

18 proper applications of the law or not proper applications of the law. My

19 goal was just to explain what was happening.

20 Q. And do you consider, as you sit there today, that this -- I

21 believe it's section 4 of that particular report, can be relied upon in

22 an expert sense by a Trial Chamber?

23 A. Yes, sir. I believe it is a fair accounting of the various

24 mechanisms by which VRS military commanders had at their disposal at the

25 time in order to enforce discipline among their subordinates.

Page 16552

1 Q. If we could for a moment turn to another transcript at 1D1260,

2 page 37 in e-court which should be transcript page 20157 of the 22

3 January proceedings in the Popovic case. And if we could focus on

4 line 12 and onwards, sir. And I propose to read for you again what may

5 have been a spirited exchange, I don't know, but I think we can get

6 through it faster if I just read it to you and ask for your comments upon

7 it, if there are any, to indicate changes. So please, follow along from

8 line 12, it begins:

9 "Q. I want to talk a little bit about -- we discussed

10 independence of you, were kind enough," pardon me, it's, "or you were

11 kind enough to say you're human, as we all can see, and that you may have

12 certain biases. Do you agree with me, sir, that you're not an

13 independent outsider?

14 "A. Yes, sir.

15 "Q. And would you also agree with me that you're not independent

16 per se?

17 "A. That entirely depends on how you define per se.

18 "Q. Okay. Well, let's look at your testimony in the Blagojevic

19 case, pages 4755, lines 13 through 18, where you say, 'You are not

20 independent per se.' Why don't you tell me, sir, what you mean by per

21 se?

22 "A. Okay. I'm not independent inasmuch as I work for the

23 Office of the Prosecutor and, in that context, the material that I am

24 reviewing for the most part is within the possession of the

25 Office of the Prosecutor. I am independent in so much as the purpose,

Page 16553

1 the focus and the conclusions of my analysis.

2 "Q. Okay. We'll get to that shortly, I'm sure. And you also

3 describe yourself, sir, as being an integrated member of the OTP;

4 correct?

5 "A. I believe it was an integrated member of the investigative

6 team. If I said OTP, I certainly mean within the Srebrenica team.

7 "Q. And you also describe yourself not only as being integrated

8 but as a strategic member of the OTP, do you not?

9 "A. With respect to the Srebrenica team and investigation, yes,

10 sir."

11 Now, does this have -- have we accurately seen everything -- seen

12 how you recall testifying as to these specific questions, sir?

13 A. You've accurately recounted the testimony, I think is what you

14 were saying, and yes, sir, that is correct.

15 Q. And is that all truthful? Is there any part that you think needs

16 an additional clarification on your part?

17 A. No, sir, I mean, as the -- you know, obviously within the broader

18 context of the discussion, I am well aware, as Mr. Ostojic was pointing

19 out, that there was certainly a perception of bias based on my

20 association with the Srebrenica trial team and with the Office of the

21 Prosecutor. It is obviously something I've dealt with through the years

22 and has been a topic of discussion in previous cases. How much bias

23 there is and whether it affects my work, obviously, is an issue that the

24 Defence can raise and the Court will take into account when it reviews my

25 work. With respect to the last issue, again, I was integrated into the

Page 16554

1 Srebrenica team as their military analyst. The OTP is a big place and

2 I would not suggest that somehow I was integrated into the OTP in the

3 same manner. But as their military analyst, it was my job to be

4 available as a resource to them. Consequently I had to be with them.

5 I did not sit in their direct area but certainly I was engaged in

6 discussions with their various individuals on a daily basis.

7 Q. Thank you, sir. And now in relation to the work that you did

8 while at the OTP, would you agree with me that this type of work is what

9 is commonly referred to or known especially in the intelligence community

10 as more historical analysts' work insofar as in your reports you're not

11 being asked or tasked to do any predictive analysis?

12 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

13 Q. And I believe I have a definition of what that means and I'd like

14 to go through it with you. If we can have page 56 of this same

15 transcript, which should correlate to transcript page 20186 of the

16 underlying transcript, and I'd like to start at line 20 -- whoops. If we

17 can go ten pages forward, and then if we could focus on line 24. And

18 again to make sure that the record is clear, this would then be the 66th

19 page in e-court of this transcript whereas the underlying transcript page

20 remains transcript page 20186. And, sir, again if you could bear with

21 me, I believe this is part of your answer dealing with the description of

22 what this all means:

23 "A. ... however, as I've noted in the context of my very first

24 report, it's not designed to be a historical overview. There are many

25 political, there are many military, there are many diplomatic issues that

Page 16555

1 are obviously related to these things that are beyond my ability to

2 analyse and intelligently comment on. So in that respect, you know, I go

3 back to the original purposes of my report, which were to set the

4 framework for the military context and how they related to the crime

5 bases that were being investigated with respect to the actual linkage of

6 military units to crime scenes and the actual roles and responsibilities

7 of individuals designated as commanders or other members of those units

8 with respect to their roles and responsibilities under the VRS rules as

9 they applied. By design, that is where I limited my analytical focus

10 to."

11 Sir, have I -- does this accurately reflect your testimony on

12 this matter and do you still stand by, and are you satisfied with these

13 answers as being correct and truthful?

14 A. Yes, sir. This is how I testified in response to this question.

15 My answer has not changed in this respect. I lay out the objectives of

16 my reports very clearly in the introductions of my reports, and what it

17 is limited to. It has never been my intention to create a broad-based

18 historical accounting of Srebrenica in July of 1995. One only has to go

19 as far as the UN report and other various national reports to find that

20 information. And again, with respect to the predictive part of the

21 discussion, I was looking at and remain in this context looking at a

22 static point in time, that the events that occurred in July of 1995.

23 Obviously, as it is a historical event, nobody is asking me to take the

24 events of what happened in July of 1995 and extrapolate how that might

25 affect what the VRS will do months or years later. So, again, in that

Page 16556

1 sense, it's a historical product. It's dealing with a static event in

2 time. It is not taking that static event and then trying to predict

3 future military behaviour based off of it.

4 Q. Okay. And am I correct that the intentions and review of your

5 analysis focused on, in addition to the limited military documents that

6 the Office of the Prosecution had in its possession, also to the

7 intercepts or alleged intercepts of radio communications by the ABiH

8 which you also were tasked to integrate into your analysis and reports?

9 A. I wouldn't say limited military documents, because, you know,

10 certainly 13.000 military documents is far more than I am normally

11 accustomed to having at my disposal when asked to answer these types of

12 questions. It also did, though, as you are correct, include an analysis

13 of the ABiH intercepted radio communications and how that fell into the

14 context of the military operations.

15 Q. Now in relation to this type of reporting that you did do, what

16 we've agreed is the historical analysis reporting method, would you agree

17 with me that in the US army, as an intelligence officer, such form of

18 reporting was not your primary purpose although you did on occasion

19 produce such products?

20 A. Well, in the sense that, again, my military customer's only

21 interest in what happened historically is off of the basis of what that

22 can then be used to allow them to predict future actions or events by an

23 armed adversary and take advantage of them. So while I've obviously

24 created various military reports in this narrative style throughout my

25 career, the focus on those reports is less as to what happened at a

Page 16557

1 particular point in time and far more on what that means projected into

2 the future with respect to capabilities and intentions. So that's what

3 I mean when this is not normally the type of work that I do. Obviously

4 in my Srebrenica narrative reports there is no discussion of future

5 capabilities or intentions.

6 Q. Can you tell us, roughly speaking, what percentage of your work

7 that you normally did within the US army intelligence corps would have

8 been this type of historical analysis as opposed to the more predictive

9 issue type of reporting that you've just described?

10 A. I can't give you a percentage, but clearly the ability to

11 understand the historical context, in any degree, is important to be able

12 to accurately predict future intentions or capabilities. So unless it

13 was a particularly technical report about a particular piece of

14 communications equipment or something of that nature, the reality, if it

15 was a broader military event that occurred on the ground or a broader

16 political event that occurred, I mean, I would obviously have to discuss

17 the historical context of that in order to be able to lay the foundation

18 for a future assessment of potential courses of actions by an opponent.

19 Q. And as part of the work that you did with the

20 Office of the Prosecutor for the Srebrenica team of the Office of the

21 Prosecutor, could you clarify for us if you sat in planning meetings

22 where the Prosecution staff discussed and decided how to draft

23 indictments against officers of the VRS in relation to Srebrenica?

24 A. During my time here, I did sit in planning meetings related to

25 the indictments of both General Krstic and Colonel Blagojevic and

Page 16558

1 Major Jokic. As noted, my role was again to be able to advise them as

2 to, you know, the military documents and the contextual view that

3 I understood of the military so they understood at least my perception of

4 what the military situation was or was not occurring at the time for

5 their -- for their purposes in writing the indictment.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, was it only the understanding or

7 was it also a matter of advising them on what body of evidence would be

8 available and therefore to make any technical assessment of how

9 successful an indictment drafted in one way or another would be in view

10 of the available evidence?

11 THE WITNESS: No, sir, just as I did not operate in isolation,

12 certainly neither did our lawyers. The lawyers on the various trial

13 teams had a very good understanding of the body of the documents in

14 question, as well as the body of the intercepts in question.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --

16 THE WITNESS: They knew exactly what the limits of those were.

17 JUDGE ORIE: But did you advise them on it as well, to say, well,

18 this is a lot or there it's perhaps -- you should be cautious there

19 because the body of evidence might not be abundant?

20 THE WITNESS: No, I certainly with respect to advising them on a

21 potential legal strategy -- it probably would shock you to learn that

22 lawyers don't like taking advice about things like that from non-lawyers.

23 So my role in that was technical, to advise them of what documents that

24 we had, what my interpretation of the meaning of it was.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, many persons in this courtroom, being lawyers,

Page 16559

1 can decide whether they are shocked or not.

2 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. I want to follow up on something you just said, your technical

5 role, and again I understand that you previously testified, and you might

6 have just mentioned -- I can't see it in the transcript. I understand

7 that you did not have a vote in the drafting of the indictment. That's

8 understood. But in terms of providing documents, were you called upon or

9 did you volunteer of your own accord, what evidence or documentation

10 could be utilised to successfully prosecute indictments once they were

11 drafted?

12 A. I would say that that is slightly backwards because, again, in

13 the sense of the original purpose of my reports, you know, as working

14 aids for the Office of the Prosecutor and for the investigators, they

15 already had access to my current understanding of what the military

16 situation was or what the issues relating to command and control were or

17 what my views of the role of the security branch, prior to them actually

18 writing an indictment. So it wasn't a situation where I was trying to

19 conform my view or get them to conform their indictment to my views.

20 I mean, they knew my opinions and views going in.

21 Q. And you've mentioned the three cases that were -- that proceeded

22 to trial during the time period that you were at the

23 Office of the Prosecutor. Did you have any role at any time while at the

24 Office of the Prosecutor in relation to either suggesting amendments to

25 or selecting evidence for the Mladic case or the Mladic indictment?

Page 16560

1 A. I've never suggested amendments for the Mladic indictment. And

2 in fact, I don't think I can even -- I don't believe I've even read the

3 current indictment of General Mladic in its entirety. So in that

4 particular context, yeah, the answer is no.

5 Q. Okay. Then I would move on to another topic. I understand --

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, I believe there was two trials during

7 his time frame, not three.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I think there were two trials but I think that three

9 accused were named.

10 MR. IVETIC: Three accused.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

12 MR. IVETIC: Yes. I apologise if I misspoke in that manner.

13 Q. Sir, I understand that you had some assistance that worked with

14 you in the drafting of your reports. In relation to those individuals,

15 could you tell me whether they too had military and indeed military

16 analyst experience and whether they had any prior previous academic or

17 military experience in relation to the JNA, the VRS, the

18 All People's Defence?

19 A. No, sir. The people who were working directly with me, one of

20 them was a former, although she had military service, she was a -- by

21 trade or profession, she was a police criminal analyst, and the other

22 person working with me was an administrative assistant, I don't recall

23 she had any military experience whatsoever. And, you know, the members

24 of the -- or the group of individuals that we had doing sorting and

25 translation of military documents, again, they were there for translation

Page 16561

1 and language support. They were not people I was going to lean on for

2 military advice or expertise.

3 Q. Focusing on the persons that worked directly with you or assisted

4 you directly in your work, have any of them authored any professional

5 publications on any of the topics that you collaborated with them on or

6 that they assisted you with?

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we get a foundation of what kind of

8 assistance? I mean there is many, many ways to assist, and so far we

9 don't know what that is.

10 MR. IVETIC: I believe the witness has just stated what type of

11 assistance he has. I'm referring to those assistants. He hasn't

12 identified them by name but he has identified them by education. I'm

13 sure that Mr. Butler has in his mind precisely who his assistants were

14 that he's just now described.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: My objection is we heard there is people helping

16 him with translation, we hear that there is other assistants but we have

17 not heard what they are assisting him with, aside from his report in

18 general.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's limit it to the members of the team. Is that,

20 Mr. Ivetic, what you had in mind?

21 MR. IVETIC: Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Are you aware, and again, the relevance escapes me

23 at this moment, Mr. Ivetic, but nevertheless let's first get the question

24 on the table, have any of the members of the team in which you worked

25 authored any professional publications on any of the topics that you

Page 16562

1 collaborated with them on, or that they assisted you with? That's the

2 question.

3 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, the two individuals that I have in

4 mind, Ms. Amanda Brettle and Ms. Sally Latin, have not.

5 MR. IVETIC:

6 Q. Okay. And in relation to yourself, sir, I believe apart from the

7 one book authored in 2004 or co-authored with first Lieutenant

8 Epstein of the USMC in 2004 you have not published any published works on

9 the same topics as contained in the reports that you authored for

10 purposes of trial?

11 A. It was not a book. It was an article in a military law review

12 magazine and the topic of that was not related to Srebrenica 1995. It

13 was a broader legal issue on the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and its

14 potential relevance to US military Tribunals.

15 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to move through some of your reports, to

16 highlight certain preliminary methodological issues. If we could first

17 start off with your report on the responsibilities of the Main Staff

18 which is 65 ter number 05601, and if we can pull up that report, and

19 while we wait for that, sir, perhaps a general question: What type of

20 reasoning methodology did you use in preparing this report? Would it be

21 described as being deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning?

22 A. Many of the conclusions would be related to deductive reasoning.

23 Q. Okay.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we have some help on what Mr. Ivetic means

25 by that? Because I don't know.

Page 16563

1 MR. IVETIC: Well, rather than testifying I'm going to ask

2 Mr. Butler what he means by it since he apparently does understand what

3 the difference is.

4 THE WITNESS: Deductive reasoning, as I understand it from an

5 analytical tool perspective, is taking some facts and using then using

6 those to draw a conclusion. At the moment, I don't -- I know intuitively

7 what inductive reasoning is but at the moment I couldn't give you a

8 technical definition of it.

9 Q. But in any event you consider your report to have been the

10 deductive form of reasoning?

11 A. Yes, sir, I mean I am working off of issues that I consider to be

12 obviously known facts and, you know, deducing conclusions as to what they

13 mean based on those facts and how they line up in a logical sequence.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, apparently the witness does not fully

15 understand your question because he has difficulties in defining what

16 inductive reasoning is, so could you please explain to the witness what

17 you meant by that so that the witness can also understand whether the one

18 system excludes the other or if he says in -- many conclusions are

19 obtained by deductive reasoning, that whether the others perhaps were

20 then obtained by inductive reasoning. So would you please put to the

21 witness what you understand by inductive reasoning so that he can fully

22 answer your question?

23 MR. IVETIC: My understanding, and again this was suggested to me

24 by our expert consultant, but it's whether it's a process whereby you

25 begin with the thesis and then build upon it or whether you review

Page 16564

1 materials and then conclude a thesis at the end, so it's whether it's an

2 ends-based approach or not.

3 Q. Is that -- more clear to you, Mr. Butler?

4 A. That's fairly consistent. I mean, where I -- where I take both

5 deductive and inductive reasoning in this is the fact that I recognise

6 that as a component of my work, I am somewhat bound by the existing

7 indictments in a various case. So I don't have a complete free range to

8 explore any particular issue that I want because those issues would not

9 be relevant to the Trial Chamber.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.

11 MR. IVETIC: We can have a break, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will take the break but not until

13 after the witness has been escorted out of the courtroom.

14 [The witness stands down]

15 JUDGE ORIE: And we will resume at half past 1.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The witness will be escorted into the courtroom.

19 Meanwhile I use the opportunity for the following matter:

20 During Witness Emir Turkusic's testimony on the 30th of August,

21 the Prosecution used the stabiliser fin from a 12- millimetre mortar

22 which was allegedly recovered at the scene of the Markale II shelling.

23 Its pictures have been admitted as Exhibits P2053 as shown on transcript

24 page 15924. The artifact itself was not admitted awaiting further

25 clarification on whether it can be admitted in the present case despite

Page 16565

1 the fact that it had already been admitted in the Karadzic case. Having

2 consulted with the Registry, the Chamber understands that the same piece

3 of physical evidence can be admitted in two different cases, considering

4 that it is kept in the Registry vault. A photo of the exhibit and a

5 surrogate sheet indicating that the original is kept in the vault are

6 included in e-court with a note that it is also admitted in another case.

7 The Chamber notes that if the exhibit would need to be examined,

8 the regular chain of custody procedure would need to be followed, and any

9 forensic analysis of the physical evidence required would need to be done

10 in consultation with the Karadzic Trial Chamber.

11 Considering the above, the Chamber hereby admits the stabiliser

12 fin into evidence as Exhibit P2053, together with the pictures already

13 admitted into evidence and the Chamber instructs the Prosecution to

14 upload a surrogate sheet and the Chamber instructs the Registry to add

15 the surrogate sheet to Exhibit 2053 once it has been uploaded.

16 [The witness takes the stand]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready, you may proceed.

18 Mr. Butler, we had to deal with a small procedural item. Apologies for

19 having you wait. Please proceed.

20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Now, if we can look at the document that we have up on e-court,

22 sir, this is again your report from 2006 on the VRS Main Staff and it is

23 reflected therein that this particular report was mandated because of the

24 context of the prosecutor versus Miletic et al trial, and due to the

25 Prosecution having obtained a large documentary collection commonly

Page 16566

1 referred to as the -- and it's said in there, "Drina Corps archives."

2 Now, these Drina Corps archives that you've identified, am I

3 correct that they are not the official archives of the Drina Corps but,

4 rather, are the conglomeration of documents from several sources commonly

5 referred to the other day by Mr. McCloskey and I as the quote/unquote

6 Drina Corps collection; is that right?

7 A. Yes, sir, that's consistent with my understanding.

8 Q. Did you personally participate in any efforts to track down or

9 obtain this so-called Drina Corps collection from the various sources

10 from whence it was gathered?

11 A. I certainly participated in efforts by the trial team or the

12 Srebrenica team to find military documents. Of course, these would be

13 included in that during my tenure here employed. I was not involved

14 obviously after I left the Tribunal in November of 2003.

15 Q. Now, would you agree with me that you end up utilising quite a

16 few documents from this Drina Corps collection for purposes of this

17 report that we have on the screen, which is 65 ter number 05601, and also

18 in your Srebrenica narrative report as revised, and in your oral

19 testimony these previous days before the Trial Chamber?

20 A. I don't believe I used the documents from the Drina Corps

21 collection broadly. We had other documents that were coming in from --

22 from different sources and I used those in my revised narrative. I did

23 use the Drina Corps collection documents in my 2006 report. And the

24 tactic that the prosecutor has used in respect with me on that is in

25 order to discuss those documents, obviously I've been made aware of them

Page 16567

1 and I've discussed those documents in my testimony from Popovic and other

2 cases.

3 Q. I want to focus on this 2006 report that we have up on the

4 screen. For purposes of this report, I think based upon the testimony

5 that you've given today in relation to other questions of mine, that the

6 documents you would have used from that collection for purposes of

7 generating this 2006 report, those would have been the ones that were

8 selected and provided to you by Prosecution counsel, is that -- is that

9 accurate?

10 A. No, sir. I mean I had a list of -- I had one individual from the

11 Office of the Prosecutor, my former assistant, would at various points in

12 time as they were exploiting the Drina Corps collection and cataloguing

13 it, she would send me the various lists of documents from the index that

14 they were developing. So because I had that basic document list, I had

15 to a very large degree an ability to pick the documents I wanted to use,

16 to explore certain areas.

17 Q. Okay. Now I understand. Now, prior to utilising the documents

18 from this Drina Corps collection, did you personally undertake to either

19 take steps yourself or ask that steps be taken to confirm the provenance

20 and authenticity of those documents from the collection that came from

21 various sources?

22 A. Yes, sir. I'm aware of the protocols that the

23 Office of the Prosecutor takes in order to verify the authenticity of a

24 document. My -- obviously my practice is that if I'm not convinced that

25 the document is authentic I don't use it in my reports.

Page 16568

1 Q. Okay. So were you relying upon the protocols and relying upon

2 other people to do their work or did you affirmatively undertake steps

3 either yourself or to direct others to check the provenance of those

4 documents that ultimately you did use in your report?

5 A. Obviously I relied on the individuals within the

6 Office of the Prosecutor for -- with, you know, verifying the

7 authenticity of the document, that it was not -- and when I talk about

8 authenticity I'm obviously referring to a document not being a forgery.

9 Because I'm aware of the background of how they normally do that, and how

10 the investigative process works to do that, I have a high degree of

11 confidence in it. I have to confess I'm not exactly sure what you mean

12 by provenance of a certain document, if you could explain that, I can, if

13 necessary, comments on that.

14 Q. Sure. Provenance, where it came from, the source.

15 A. Well, that for me would be the -- that would be part of the

16 authentication process.

17 Q. Did you undertake to investigate the chain of custody of these

18 documents at any point in the process or to direct others to investigate

19 the chain of custody of where these documents were held before arriving

20 to the Office of the Prosecutor?

21 A. I did not personally investigate the chain of custody. I am

22 aware of the various iterations that these documents went through prior

23 to arriving to the Office of the Prosecutor.

24 Q. Did you keep a log or list of what documents you utilised

25 originated solely from the so-called Drina Corps collection as opposed to

Page 16569

1 those that could be found in other sources that you had access to?

2 A. No, sir. Again, just like in my other reports, I cite the

3 documents that I rely on.

4 Q. If we can turn to page 3 of the English and 3 of the Serbian of

5 this document, I'd like to focus on what you say there. It's in the

6 middle of the -- of this last paragraph of your introduction to the

7 report. And it says, "In their totality," well, first of all, here

8 you're talking about how this particular report on the VRS Main Staff

9 must be read in conjunction with your corps and brigade reports as well

10 as the Srebrenica Military Narrative report, and then you say that:

11 "In their totality, these reports form the foundation of my

12 understanding of VRS military command and the specific linkage to the

13 crimes as charged in the indictment. Also, utilising the same

14 methodology as noted in these earlier works, I continue to rely primarily

15 on a document-based analytical approach."

16 Now, the question I have for you, sir, is you say primarily.

17 Could you please identify for us what, if any, other analytical

18 approaches comprised your methodology for this particular report, if any?

19 A. Well, sir, as I've testified, I think it's last week now, clearly

20 if I were producing a similar type of report for my normal customer,

21 I would include in that report information related from human sources or

22 HUMINT. As I also noted, I mean, obviously I am aware, as a member of

23 the Prosecution team and with law enforcement in general, that these --

24 many of these same people would be testifying before the Court, and

25 therefore it's the Court's responsibility to weigh their testimony and

Page 16570

1 the information they provide on a variety of factors. As I've said, if

2 there is anything artificial about these four reports per se it is

3 because I rely almost totally on my analysis of documents and I only use

4 witness testimony or human intelligence, as it were, in order to set the

5 necessary limited context in order to make the rest of the report have

6 any meaning. And I gave -- I guess I gave you that example of, you know,

7 it doesn't make context of what's happening in a crime scene if you don't

8 at least have somebody explain what the basis of the crime scene is

9 occurring, you don't -- you can't lash up the military or other documents

10 to it without at least that kind of basic knowledge.

11 Q. If we could take a step backwards and look at the prior page in

12 both versions of this report, which would be page 2, at the top of the

13 page, it is recorded that the Drina Corps archives, which we now know to

14 be the Drina Corps collection, are said to compose the bulk of the

15 wartime records of the VRS Drina Corps and its subordinate units.

16 Now, I take from this, sir, that you are relying upon someone

17 else's representations as to the Drina Corps archives which we now know

18 to be the Drina Corps collection. Could you please identify for us on

19 whose representations are you relying for purposes of this statement in

20 your report?

21 A. It would be various lawyers and analysts, military analysts from

22 the Office of the Prosecutor.

23 Q. And am I correct in understanding this to imply that the

24 Drina Corps collection may be the sole source for most of the actual VRS

25 documents in the possession of the OTP that relate to the Drina Corps?

Page 16571

1 A. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. There are a variety of

2 documents that -- and document collections that I've encountered through

3 the years that relate to the Drina Corps, and, again, I'm not necessarily

4 saying you're wrong but I've never done a percentage analysis of what

5 you're asking, so I can't intelligently comment on that.

6 Q. That's fair, sir. Now, if we look towards the middle of this

7 same page in both languages, it is the second -- the second paragraph in

8 the English, and it says there:

9 "With respect to the second issue, a review of my earlier

10 analytical products does indicate a necessity to expand on a number of

11 issues directly related to the VRS Main Staff, particularly with respect

12 to the positions and functions of the assistant commander for morale,

13 legal and religious affairs; the chief of operations; and to a lesser

14 extent the chief of security."

15 Can we conclude or infer from this, sir, that your methodology of

16 preparing this report did not focus on the commander of the Main Staff or

17 the Chief of Staff, who was also the deputy commander of the Main Staff?

18 A. I would disagree, because I believe that it's not possible to be

19 able to understand the roles of the various principal staff officers, the

20 assistant commander of morale, legal affairs or the chief of operations,

21 or the assistant commander for intelligence and security, without having

22 the ability to describe and discuss the roles of the commander and his

23 Chief of Staff. I believe that is inherent in not only this particular

24 report but the other command responsibility reports.

25 Q. Now, let me ask you this: In the course of your review of

Page 16572

1 documents, I take it that you had occasion to review a number of

2 documents that were drafted by General Mladic, including those for which

3 you only had the receiving end of that document, without any signature;

4 is that right?

5 A. I take it the electronic versions of those, yes, sir, that is

6 correct.

7 Q. Do you have any indication of the quantity of such documents that

8 you would have had access to and reviewed that were said to have

9 originated from General Mladic, what quantity were signed by his own hand

10 as opposed to sent out in his name, including those mysterious documents

11 with the notation, "svojerucno," by his own hand that we saw that date

12 from the time period when he was not physically present in the

13 Main Staff?

14 A. I think you asked me that question a couple of hours ago and my

15 answer was that I've never done an analysis to determine which documents,

16 you know, the percentage of documents that were signed personally by

17 General Mladic versus those that are in possession of the OTP that are

18 telegraph versions of them and I have not done an analysis to determine

19 how many of the documents are signed by General Mladic and how many

20 percentage of those documents have the ubiquitous SR on them. So I mean,

21 I can't answer that question.

22 Q. Well, in relation to all those documents that say that they are

23 signed or came from General Mladic, including those mysterious ones that

24 say SR at the end, I would ask you --

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object to the term "mysterious" as unnecessary,

Page 16573

1 and I don't want the record to reflect that Mr. Butler agrees with that

2 or has to argue with him about it. I don't think there is anything

3 mysterious about them but that's for argument.

4 MR. IVETIC: I'll be happy to call them ubiquitous like

5 Mr. Butler did, if that helps.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first listen what your question will be

7 because the introduction -- let's forget about the introduction for a

8 second.

9 MR. IVETIC:

10 Q. I would like to focus on whatever portion of those documents that

11 you looked at that originated from General Mladic that would have

12 constituted the form of a military order to subordinate units and would

13 ask you if I'm correct that not a single such document called upon

14 subordinate units to commit crimes?

15 A. With respect to July 1995, and the scope of my analysis related

16 to Srebrenica, I have not come across a document by General Mladic

17 specifically ordering the execution of the prisoners. I would suggest

18 that the order from General Mladic to Trbic with respect to the fuel for

19 the reburial operation could arguably fall into that order directing the

20 commission of a crime but, again, that's an issue beyond my competence.

21 Q. And beyond that one document, you don't recall any others that

22 would even come close to fitting the definition of ordering a crime?

23 A. A document signed by him with respect to Srebrenica, July 1995, I

24 believe that is fair. I have -- I don't recall ever seeing a document

25 like that. I obviously am not in a position to comment about other

Page 16574

1 aspects and time periods as charged in the indictment, so --

2 Q. I -- I --

3 A. I just want to be clear on that.

4 Q. And thank you for making that clarification. Whenever I ask you

5 questions I'm asking specifically about the time period that you're

6 talking about, which is July 1995, and Srebrenica.

7 Now, in the course of your reports, all of them, and in the

8 course of your narratives, both of them, both the original and the

9 revised, and also in the testimony of prior cases that I've read, you do

10 not mention very frequently or at all the Chief of Staff, the deputy

11 commander of the VRS Main Staff, General Manojlo Milovanovic. Is that a

12 conscious omission on your part of that individual?

13 A. Conscious only in the sense that to the best of my knowledge and

14 as reflected by the documents, his role in what I was looking at in my

15 reports was limited. For example, again, I know that both the

16 investigation and in his own commentary, he was not present in the

17 Eastern Bosnian area, nor was he present exercising a command function at

18 the VRS Main Staff headquarters. He was in fact dealing with issues

19 pertaining to the western Krajina. So because of that, and because

20 essentially for whatever purposes the VRS felt they needed to do, the

21 logical chain of command did not go from General Mladic to

22 General Milovanovic. It went in fact from General Mladic to

23 General Miletic. As the chief of operations he was the person who would

24 stand in for the Chief of Staff in his absence.

25 Q. And to link this with prior testimony you've given us, the

Page 16575

1 General Milovanovic we have been talking about is the same individual

2 whom you'll recall having had the discussion with in the presence of an

3 interpreter, and I believe you said Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez, but first of all

4 is that the same General Milovanovic we are talking about now?

5 A. Correct, sir.

6 Q. Okay. Could you perhaps be mistaken about the identity of

7 Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez and perhaps was it Mr. Barry Hogan, who was present

8 for that discussion that you recall? Would you permit that possibility?

9 A. Yes, sir, I mean, it was many years ago and, again, it's not a

10 topic that I have been asked very much so I certainly hold open the

11 possibility that the investigator was not who I think it is.

12 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to move again to some questions in relation

13 to your Srebrenica narratives, and for the record, when I use the term

14 "Srebrenica narrative," I'm referring to 65 ter numbers 04626, which is

15 the original done for the Krstic case, and 04627, which is the 2002

16 revision of the same.

17 Now, during the direct examination last week, and indeed even

18 today, you have made reference to the fact and stressed several times

19 that you wanted to stay away from witness references in your reports. In

20 that regard, would you agree with me that your revised 2002

21 Srebrenica Military Narrative contains no fewer than 74 references to

22 witness testimony?

23 A. I wouldn't agree or disagree. I've never actually gone through

24 my own report to count how many times I might have cited a particular

25 witness. My goal is to, again, use only the witness testimony for a very

Page 16576

1 limited purpose. If it took 74 references to do that, again,

2 I wouldn't -- wouldn't dispute that but, again, it's not my goal that

3 I would -- that I'm asking the Court to rely on that.

4 Q. Okay. Now, this -- these references, whether it's 74, 75, for

5 purposes of this question it doesn't matter. Am I correct that these

6 references to witness testimony, all of them in the -- in the 2002

7 narrative relate to testimony that these witnesses gave in the first

8 Srebrenica trial against General Krstic?

9 A. Yes, sir. In my initial narrative report I referenced them from

10 witness statements. For ease of handling by the Court in going back and

11 looking at these in the future environment, I used -- I based them off of

12 their identifications and their testimony as offered during the Krstic

13 trial.

14 Q. Did you undertake for purposes of this trial against

15 General Mladic, to review and check if in fact these same witnesses even

16 testified, let alone testified in the same manner as they had in Krstic,

17 upon which you relied in your reports?

18 A. No, sir. As I believe I testified last week, I've not followed

19 the events or testimony in this trial at all.

20 Q. Okay. Now, I think we can agree, then, that since your 2002

21 report, using these witness testimonies, was authored, there have been at

22 least, I think, five trials on Srebrenica before this Tribunal that you

23 have, I believe, also appeared as a witness in, several before the state

24 court in Sarajevo, if I could take you back to your time period when you

25 were doing this type of work for US army intelligence, would such a

Page 16577

1 report pass muster and be considered reliable if it had remained dated

2 and referred to witness testimony that predated 2002 and ignored or did

3 not deal with, I should say, any of the subsequent testimony of these or

4 other witnesses that had come to light in the subsequent proceedings?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that's a long, convoluted, many

7 questions involved in one, and I doubt Mr. Butler would have written

8 anything like that to the United States Army with witness testimony in

9 it, so if he could break it down ...

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, did you want to ask as a matter of fact

11 whether the lapse of time and the new developments since then, whether

12 that would have created a risk of the report being outdated?

13 MR. IVETIC: I think he's answered that question. What I really

14 want to ask is what would be the standard operating procedure in the US

15 army for a report that would be so dated where there was indications that

16 there were subsequent interviews or subsequent testimony by the same

17 people. Would the standard procedure be to rely upon that report or to

18 ask for an updated report?

19 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a relevant question? What the US army would

20 do with that? Perhaps it's argumentative in the sense that you are

21 telling this Court that you shouldn't use it. Is that what you want to

22 convey as a message? Then we have understood it.

23 MR. IVETIC: Well, whether I want to convey it as a message,

24 Your Honours, this witness has testified that based upon his experience

25 and training as an operative --

Page 16578

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. Put a question as you wish and

2 I think the matter is clear that you want certainly to draw our and the

3 witness's attention to the fact that it was not updated since then.

4 MR. IVETIC:

5 Q. If I may ask one follow-up question, then, whose decision was it

6 not to update the report? Was it yours or was it by Prosecution counsel?

7 A. I've never been asked by Prosecution counsel to update the

8 narrative report, primarily because the Prosecution is well aware that

9 under my current job responsibilities, there is no way that I could

10 dedicate the time and the resources necessary to update it in the manner

11 that -- that I would with want to and be satisfied that it was updated.

12 I just do not have that time ability to do that anymore.

13 Q. I understand that but do you suppose another military analyst,

14 another military expert, could pick up your work and run with it, as it

15 were, to update it, check with new material and create a second report,

16 either saying there are drastic differences or there aren't drastic

17 differences? Would you expect that that could be done?

18 A. Sir, a broader sense, I've been waiting now for 15 years for

19 somebody to pick up all of the collective historical work related to this

20 and run with it. Sadly, that has not been the case.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask Mr. Lukic, if another military

22 analyst does that whose report would it then be?

23 MR. IVETIC: If you're asking me, Your Honours, instead of

24 Mr. Lukic, it would be then the second military analyst obviously who

25 I would expect generate a second report and then we would have the

Page 16579

1 original report, the report of the second analyst, and then we would have

2 a fuller picture of how much reliance we could place upon the material.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would no longer be his report. And my

4 apologies to you, Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honours, it would no longer be

6 his report. If I may just briefly consult, Your Honours?

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, low volume.

8 MR. IVETIC: I will, Your Honours.

9 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, to take a bit of advantage because

11 I know Mr. Stojanovic is on this issue, we were talking about having

12 Marija Karall, perhaps if you would approve, start tomorrow morning

13 because as you know from Mr. Groome she is leaving and we have spoken to

14 Mr. Stojanovic and that appears to be okay, as far as we know with him.

15 JUDGE ORIE: So not Friday but tomorrow?

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, please.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I do understand that there is no

18 objection to that.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

20 I discussed it with my colleague, Mr. Ivetic, and we decided that we

21 could indeed start with that witness tomorrow morning, in the hope that

22 Mr. Butler doesn't have anything against it, of course.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue this matter, Mr. Butler, there is

24 a request by the Prosecution to hear another witness starting tomorrow

25 morning first, which may delay the conclusion of your testimony. Would

Page 16580

1 that bother you or would you say --

2 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I'm here at the convenience of the Court

3 on these matters.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, as you know it's one hour time

5 estimate so Mr. Butler knows that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: One hour is 3600 seconds, as you know. Therefore,

7 the Chamber has no objection that the continuation of the

8 cross-examination of Mr. Butler will start after the testimony of the

9 next witness to be called then tomorrow morning.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Sir, I forget what day it was but during the direct examination,

13 you were shown a map that was said to be signed by General Mladic

14 pertaining to the Krivaja operation, do you recall that?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. Would you also confirm for me, sir, that the signature on that

17 map, according to the results of your investigation, was placed on there

18 at the earliest on the 13th of July, after the operation had already been

19 completed?

20 A. There are two signatures on that map which purport to be

21 General Mladic's. I would suggest and my point of view is that the one

22 that is in the middle of the map, which talks about Srebrenica being

23 Serbian before, would fall into the category you suggested. He could

24 have signed it on either the evening of the 12th or on the 13th. The

25 signature that I am talking about is the one on the upper left-hand

Page 16581

1 corner of the map which was part of the map when it was the graphic

2 representation of the Srebrenica operations plan that the Drina Corps was

3 briefing to the Main Staff. That particular signature, under the command

4 and staff processes that the VRS followed, it would have been normal for

5 the commander, General Mladic, to sign that prior to the initiation of

6 the operation. He would not have signed that particular block on the

7 upper left-hand corner on the 13th of July.

8 Q. Okay.

9 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

10 MR. IVETIC:

11 Q. Is your answer based upon you understanding of what the practice

12 would have been, or is it an affirmation that the investigation facts of

13 your investigation have borne that to have been the case in reality?

14 A. It is my understanding, based on the practice of the VRS. I'm

15 not aware -- I'm not -- again, I wasn't at that particular meeting and

16 I'm not aware. You know, there may have been witness testimony that

17 discusses that but I'm not aware of it.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 MR. IVETIC:

20 Q. Thank you. If we could just briefly get back to the Srebrenica

21 trial narrative which is where we began this line of questions --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak aloud, to

23 whisper is okay, otherwise you consult after the --

24 MR. IVETIC:

25 Q. If I may, sir, in the Srebrenica trial narrative, and first of

Page 16582

1 all, I'd like to focus on Kravica and the incidents there. In your

2 discussion of the incidents at Kravica, I have never seen in any of the

3 narratives or in the testimonies that you've given, any acknowledgement

4 or reference of any fire-fight at that location between guards and

5 detainees who had taken over a weapon and in which one policeman was

6 killed and one wounded and perhaps another passerby wounded. Did you

7 have knowledge of such an incident having taken place at the Kravica

8 location?

9 A. When I wrote my narratives, the documents that we had were the

10 documents that we had. I have become aware, though, in the intervening

11 years, that that is an issue that had come up and that various parties on

12 the VRS and the Republika Srpska police side had raised the prospect that

13 the people who were killed in Kravica were a direct result of an attempt

14 by individual Muslim prisoners to potentially escape. I believe I've

15 addressed that issue and why I don't believe that that overall is the

16 case in the Karadzic trial. He asked me that specific question and

17 I gave a rather lengthy answer as to why I did not believe that that was

18 the case, primarily based on the outcomes of all of the individuals who

19 were at the Kravica warehouse.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, talking about long answers, I'm looking at the

21 clock, quarter past 2. It's a matter to be explored perhaps in further

22 detail tomorrow.

23 MR. IVETIC: After the intervening witness.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, especially since the witness threatened us with

25 long answers.