1 Tuesday, 16 December 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.26 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number
7 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This afternoon we'll
10 continue the proceedings in this case. And before that, are there any
11 other matters that the parties would like to bring to the attention of
12 this Bench?
13 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
15 Your Honours. I guess this could come under the housekeeping matter
16 category. From the last witness, which was Witness 119 [sic], we heard
17 him state under oath that during the proofing session at one point the
18 Prosecutor slammed a drawer and began accusing the gentleman of various
19 things, including trying to protect Mr. Blagojevic. The Prosecutor
20 neither affirmed nor denied that that conduct occurred. If -- and I
21 believe we do need a clear record on this matter. If there is a denial,
22 obviously, then the witness was either misspeaking or was making things
23 up, which goes then to the witness's credibility. If there is an
24 affirmation, however, then I believe at the very minimum there should be
25 some kind of cautionary note to the Prosecution to cease and desist from
1 such conduct during proofing sessions. I think that if a Defence lawyer
2 had engaged in this sort of conduct, that Defence lawyer would be escorted
3 out of this building, their badge taken away, thrown off the case, even
4 before any due process. And I speak because -- I say this because in
5 another case another Defence counsel for less conduct than what 119 [sic]
6 witness stated was taken off the case and thrown out of the building
7 before even having any due process accorded to her.
8 Now, I think it is important to recognise that some witnesses when
9 they're being proofed, may come under a certain amount of pressure, which
10 may have an unfortunate and unintended, but nonetheless unfortunate result
11 of causing the witness to be less than candid under oath here. I think we
12 all get frustrated with witnesses. I know I do when I'm cross-examining
13 someone and I know the Trial Chamber has cautioned me, and rightly so, on
14 numerous occasions when I have been less than courteous to witnesses here
15 in this courtroom. I think that should also apply during proofing
16 sessions because I don't think that we want any witnesses to come here and
17 to feel under duress or to be misspeaking the facts simply because they
18 feel that while they're a witness today, tomorrow they may be a suspect
19 and facing charges down the road.
20 So at this point in time, Your Honour, I would like the Court to
21 require from the Prosecution whether, in fact, this conduct occurred as
22 119 [sic], witness 119 [sic] has indicated. Because I think we do need a
23 record. And as I indicated if there is a denial, I certainly would like
24 to point that out in the record that this is directly going against the
25 credibility of the Prosecution witness. Thank you.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, I wonder whether Mr. McCloskey would like to
2 make a response.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this is one of many allegations of
4 misconduct that's been thrown at the Prosecution by both sides in this
5 case. It's been my practice to not respond to this kind of allegation.
6 But in this particular situation, I will. The witness that testified
7 embellished quite a bit regarding that particular subject. He started
8 with it when he was inflamed by Mr. Karnavas, and he started making false
9 allegations against Dean Manning, several regarding the interview that
10 never occurred. Then he went into the allegations against me. Now, I
11 never screamed at the man. I did shut my drawer more loudly than I should
12 have, and at the same time I did tell him that he shouldn't cover for
13 Blagojevic, that he should just tell the truth. He was treated with
14 respect and courtesy for the several hours that I spoke to him, as he
15 indicated on the witness stand. There was no screaming and no abuse and
16 no attempt to have him say anything but the truth.
17 Now, I don't really have anything more to say on this subject. It
18 is not -- I think the Judges -- you know me after all these many months.
19 The record of the interviews both in court and the interviews that I was
20 involved in in the investigation are before you and before the Defence. I
21 am proud of the job I do; I am proud of the job I've done. I know it's a
22 common tactic to put the Prosecution on trial. I don't think I really
23 need to get down at that level and respond to this material every time it
24 comes up. But if the Court wishes to have any further information or any
25 other -- wants to ask me any questions, I stand here ready to do so.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that at the end of the testimony of
3 that witness, especially during the re-direct from the Prosecution,
4 Mr. McCloskey particularly asked some questions to that witness. The
5 record is there, and today Mr. McCloskey also made some explanations on
6 the situation during the proofing session. So I think the matter is quite
7 clear, and the objections from Mr. Karnavas has already been registered in
8 the transcript.
9 As for the weight that the Bench will attach to the testimony of
10 that witness is a matter we have to deal with at a later stage. But
11 anyway, I hope all the parties, no matter from the Prosecution or the
12 Defence counsel, should pay due respect to the witness.
13 It is a difficult time, I must confess, for a witness to be in the
14 International Tribunal to give testimony. There will be some
15 psychological impact to them, and this Bench would like to show great
16 sympathy to the situation the witnesses are. So I hope in the future, no
17 matter if the witness is the Prosecution's witness or the Defence's
18 witness, they should do everything according to the Rules and pay due
19 respect to the witness.
20 I believe this is a warning, not only to the Prosecution but also
21 to the Defence, because the Defence case will soon be coming at the
22 beginning of next year. Thank you.
23 So could we have the witness, please.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
2 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
3 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: WITNESS P-119
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey, your witness, please.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Examined by Mr. McCloskey:
13 Q. Now, Witness, could you take a look at this piece of paper the
14 usher has. Don't read it, but could you tell us, is that your name
15 written on that paper?
16 A. Yes, it is.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could go into private session briefly,
10 Your Honour. Just a question or two on this point.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to the private session, please
12 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 MR. McCLOSKEY:
5 Q. Now, what kind of a facility did you work from the Dekic?
6 A. We were working in a family house. That was on two floors. We
7 were staying up on the first floor with our equipment and the antennas
8 were placed outside on the roof.
9 Q. Okay. Now, can you describe what your unit and what yourself were
10 doing at the time before and after the fall of the enclave in this house.
11 A. That centre in that house was a place from where we were surveying
12 the radio communications. Mostly the communications of the police forces;
13 the Republika Srpska MUP or the public security -- the centre for security
14 of Zvornik; the special units, the wolves of the Drina; as well as the
15 frontlines of the 1st Zvornik Brigade.
16 Q. Can you roughly describe again by pointing to the map the area
17 that you were able to listen to with your equipment from this house.
18 A. The Dekici centre was able to cover the area of Kozluk, Petkovci,
19 Zvornik, all the way to Cerska, perhaps. And from Gradina, we were able
20 to monitor the combat activities in Srebrenica as well as everything that
21 was going on around Srebrenica.
22 Q. All right. Can you describe in particular detail how you and your
23 workers were able to monitor the other side? How did the -- what was the
24 actual process by which you received this information?
25 A. Since the 24th Division was not as well equipped with electronic
1 equipment as some other units, we then had to adjust to the situation and
2 to do what we could. The work procedures were as follows: One of the
3 operators would be scanning on certain equipment, specifically the ECR-100
4 equipment. When a certain frequency was found, the frequency would be
5 handed over to another place to a piece of equipment that was always on
6 and that was always covering that frequency.
7 Each conversation that took place, especially a more important
8 conversation, would be written down by the operator on a piece of paper,
9 and this would be conveyed to me. Although, most of the time I was also
10 present, so I was also able to hear everything. It was my task to pass
11 that on up to our superiors. I did that by using an induction telephone,
12 using military telephone communications. At the end of the day, when the
13 combat activities had been completed, most of those pieces of paper were
14 copied into a notebook, a logbook. And because I was there and because I
15 was -- as well as the superior command both had all the information or the
16 data available to us, some of those pieces of paper were destroyed. So it
17 is very likely that a large majority of that information did not end up in
18 those notebooks and logbooks. And that's it.
19 Q. Okay. Now, let me take you back to the point where the operator
20 is, as you've described, writing the information down on a piece of paper.
21 What is he actually listening to when he's writing?
22 A. Well, he's listening in to the conversations.
23 Q. Is he listening to the conversation live as it happens, or is he
24 listening to a recorded version that had been recorded by him or others?
25 A. He's listening in to live conversations as they are going on.
1 Q. After -- in the period after the fall of Srebrenica or just
2 before, did you have the capacity or the ability to tape conversations?
3 A. Yes, using a standard castaphone [phoen] cassette recorder, but at
4 that time we did not do that because that would be too slow and would not
5 at that particular time represent any asset for us. It would just be
7 Q. Can you describe how the operators were able to write-down the
8 information they were hearing at the same time it was coming over the
10 A. The persons whom I've listed, the operators, in other words, did
11 this work throughout the war, and they were able to write quite fast. So
12 that this posed no problem at all for them to write these things down, in
13 fact they also used a number of abbreviations. For instance, as an
14 example, if they were checking communications -- communication check, they
15 would not write-down in extensive communication check, just p/v which
16 meant communication check and similar. So there were such examples.
17 Q. Did you find the information that you were identifying and
18 recording in this manner to be reliable?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour, calls for speculation.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I object. It calls for speculation. He's asking
22 the gentleman whether he found it to be reliable. There's no recording of
23 the information, and how could the gentleman check for reliability. If
24 they want to establish, I think more foundation needs to be laid.
25 JUDGE LIU: First of all, I think the Prosecution just asked a
1 very general question concerning with a particular piece of the
2 intercepts. I believe if there is a need, the Prosecution will ask more
3 questions on that area. Secondly, this person, as we were told, is in
4 charge of this matter. And I believe that he could tell us what is his
5 evaluation and judgement of those intercepts.
6 You may proceed, Mr. McCloskey.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
8 Q. Did you find the material you were receiving and intercepting and
9 documenting, as you've described, reliable?
10 A. Yes, we found it -- I found it reliable, 100 per cent reliable,
11 because I was personally there in 99 per cent of the cases.
12 Q. And was that information -- do you know if that information was
13 used by the superiors that you have told us you provided it to?
14 A. I suppose they did, because at that time we were the only source
15 of information from the territory which was under the control of the Army
16 of the Republika Srpska.
17 Q. Were you aware of the site at Okresanica and Konjuh, of the
18 Bosnian Muslim army?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. And how was the work you were doing different from the work they
21 were doing?
22 A. Well, we did reconnaissance of communications at a tactical level,
23 which is to say that we were quite limited equipment-wise, whereas
24 Okresanica and Konjuh had, by far, more sophisticated equipment so that
25 they had operation and strategic communication lines. Namely,
1 communications which took place by phone.
2 Q. All right. Now, I want to show you a couple of things, and I
3 first want to show you what has been marked as, I believe, P121/B. There
4 should be a -- it's a photocopied version, but I want to give you just
5 what is not a photocopy. And it's got some red marks in it just to assist
6 you in perhaps finding some things. Now, can you tell us what this book
8 A. This is one of these logbooks that I referred to before.
9 Q. Okay. And is that for the time period in July 1995?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. And can you tell us about this book, where it was during the time
12 period that it was used by your unit and how it ended up here in
13 The Hague, as far as you know.
14 A. This book was held at the centre. After that, it was handed over
15 to me and was at the command of the division in Zivinice.
16 Q. When you say "it was at the centre," what do you mean by that?
17 A. It was actually at the interception station where it was being
19 Q. And where was that?
20 A. Dekici.
21 Q. And when it was handed over to you, where did you keep it?
22 A. I kept it in my safe at the division command in Zivinice.
23 Q. And at some point did you provide that to anyone from the Office
24 of the Prosecutor?
25 A. We were given an order to surrender any such materials to the
1 Prosecutor. So I handed over this notebook with some other items.
2 Q. Okay. Well, we might as well, since you've mentioned it, go to
3 those other items. And again I'll show you the original packet of
4 material, which should be 122 --
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
6 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. Going back to P121, there has
7 been an improper foundation laid because Mr. McCloskey has not asked him
8 when he turned these over. When he says they were at the centre, how they
9 were stored, how they were kept, whose custody they were in. There's been
10 no proof of chain of custody of this document P121, and I hope that he'll
11 prove the same for 122. We don't know when these documents were turned
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this is a subject for your
14 cross-examination, Ms. Sinatra, but now we are dealing with the 122.
15 Maybe in this piece of document, Mr. McCloskey could lay more foundations
16 for that. Thank you.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, since he had discussed this I
18 thought we would save time doing them both together, since as he's
19 mentioned they were both provided together at the same time.
20 Q. So could you look at this exhibit, this stack of papers, which is
21 122. Was that turned over to the Prosecutor, along with the notebook that
22 you've just mentioned?
23 A. Yes, it was.
24 Q. And can you tell us what this stack of papers represents?
25 A. These are reports which came in to me from the Gradina centre.
1 Q. All right. Now, what do you mean when you say "reports"?
2 A. These were collected data, all data, which were obtained at the
3 Gradina centre, which data was then submitted by way of reports.
4 Q. Okay. When you say "data," what kind of data in particular?
5 A. This was data which was collected by electronic reconnaissance.
6 Q. Is that data from the enemy?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Is that -- do you know how the information came to be
9 written on those pieces of paper? You've talked to us about pieces of
10 paper before, how were those pieces in paper in front of you different or
11 related to the pieces of paper that an operator writes down at the same
12 time he's listening to an intercept?
13 A. It was the same system as the one applied at Dekici. That was
14 that we used a piece of paper, and you can see in the exhibit there are
15 many abbreviations used, which would then be later analysed and put
16 together in the form of reports. Then afterwards, through the
17 243rd Brigade, which was located at Kladanj, this data was then submitted
18 to us.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you have described the pieces of paper, and that
20 exhibit as reports. Are there any in that binder -- excuse me, in that
21 little packet of papers, are there any of the original pieces of paper
22 that were used to dictate the actual intercept?
23 A. Yes, there are.
24 Q. Most of that material is -- are those reports or are they the
25 actual piece of paper that the intercept was written on?
1 A. Most of these are actually the original pieces of paper.
2 Q. And how do you know that?
3 A. Because the report has a certain form, has a certain stamp of the
4 brigade, the protocol, whereas from this we can conclude because it is in
5 manuscript and because of the abbreviations that are used, which I
6 referred to earlier. It is obvious this is written in a hurry.
7 Q. And can you tell us when you first became in possession of those
8 piles of paper.
9 A. Specifically this one?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. That was during a visit to the Gradina centre.
12 Q. And what time frame, if you recall?
13 A. It may have been August 1995.
14 Q. And what did you do with this stack of paper when you got it from
15 Gradina in August of 1995?
16 A. I took it to the command of the division, and I left it there with
17 the rest of the filing material of the files in the safe box.
18 Q. And when was the next time you saw the material, the piles of
19 paper I'm talking about?
20 A. It was in my strongbox all the time, until the time when I handed
21 it over to the team of investigators, together with this notebook.
22 Q. Do you remember the name of the person you handed the material
23 over with, both the notebook you've been referring to and this exhibit,
24 Exhibits 121 and 122?
25 A. I believe it was Stephania -- Stephanie, sorry.
1 Q. Was there any other material related to tactical intercepts that
2 you were able to find and turn over to the Office of the Prosecutor than
3 these two exhibits?
4 A. I -- I didn't hand anything, except these two things to the
5 Prosecution, anything else.
6 Q. Did you look for other records of tactical intercepts for that
7 time period?
8 A. I did, but the bulk of it had been handed over to the filed in the
9 archives of the 2nd Corps. And the rest of it was accidentally, as it
10 were, because I had a number of problems when I was handing over the
12 Q. What do you mean by that? What problems?
13 A. Many people told me, these are just ordinary scraps of paper, it
14 is worth nothing. It was mostly because of such reasons.
15 Q. And so what did you do with these two exhibits when those problems
17 A. Well, I returned them into the strongbox and I kept them there
18 until I handed them over to the investigators.
19 Q. Do you know if there was a notebook for Gradina like there was for
21 A. No, no. Because reports from Gradina would be submitted in
22 different form. In Dekici, I was personally in Dekici so that there was
23 no need for reports of the kind sent from Gradina to be submitted from
24 Dekici. Because we would be losing too much time, wasting too much time.
25 Q. And just to try and clarify, the pieces of paper from Dekici,
1 those that you called reports, are those reports of the intercepts or are
2 they actual handwritten notes that were taken at the time that you were
3 listening to them? I'm talking about the ones from Gradina, not Dekici.
4 A. As for Gradina, we have the original conversations which were
5 written down as they were being conducted -- or listened in to. And then
6 we have reports which would come on several occasions. It was not just a
7 single form report -- actually, it all depended on how urgent the
8 information was. So at the end of the day, such a report would be, again,
10 Q. All right. Let me ask you to just take a look in particular in
11 the book from Dekici. Were you asked by the OTP, by Ms. Stephanie, just
12 to look for any particular kind of substantive material in those
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What were you asked to look for?
16 A. I was asked to submit if there was anything associated with the
17 period of the fall of Srebrenica and after the fall of Srebrenica in 1995.
18 Q. Okay. And if you could go to the -- in the book where it's dated
19 14 July. It's page 7 of the English translation, and in your book it
20 should be our little addition, our ERN number 8952. And do you find a
21 reference in there on page 7 at the top of the page, and it says: "For
22 Maric, Miladinovic, Mitrovic, engineers to come at Nedjo's end with the
23 excavator in order to widen the road."
24 Do you see that reference? He said "vidim" and maybe he should
25 turn on his --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreter did not hear the witness.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I should know what "vidim" means by now, but I
3 don't. Thank you.
4 Q. Did you -- let me ask you again. Did you -- do you see that
5 little reference that I spoke of?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. All right. And is that one of the references you pointed out to
8 Ms. Stephanie?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
11 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I am going to have to object at
12 the moment to the witness testifying to the contents of this. He did say
13 he was the commander at Dekici, but he also said that these little pieces
14 of paper were written down by other people. Unless the Prosecutor can say
15 he did write this down and this is his handwriting and he remembers
16 receiving this conversation, I don't believe that he can properly
17 authenticate this handwriting or the contents of this notebook.
18 JUDGE LIU: I don't think we have come that far as to the contents
19 of the intercepts yet.
20 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: But we'll see how this will proceed.
22 MS. SINATRA: My understanding is what he's reading out of the
23 notebook at the moment is what he considers handwritten notes from an
24 intercept dealing with the engineering department and mentioning the name
25 Miladinovic, which if he has personal knowledge of this intercept, if that
1 is his handwriting, because I believe he is testifying to intercepted
2 conversations at the moment.
3 JUDGE LIU: I believe you have to allow the Prosecution to ask
4 some questions of who put those words down and who is the writer for that.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: We're getting there, I hope. But --
6 MS. SINATRA: Well, Your Honour, I believe Mr. McCloskey is
7 putting the horse before the cart in that he's having him testify from the
8 contents before he's laying the proper foundation.
9 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed, yes.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY:
11 Q. When you identified this for Ms. Frease, did you have any memory
12 of this actual intercept?
13 MS. SINATRA: And, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
15 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm going to object. Mr. McCloskey is
16 testifying. The witness has only referred to Ms. Stephanie through his
17 testimony now. Mr. McCloskey has added Frease. Now if the witness tells
18 us it's Stephanie Frease, we will -- would like the evidence to come from
19 the witness's mouth.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey, do it step by step.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: She's correct. I accidentally threw the last name
22 in. I don't think he knows that last name.
23 Q. When you pointed this out for Ms. Frease, did you have any
24 recollection of this particular -- Ms. Stephanie, sorry, I don't know her
25 as Ms. Stephanie, so that's my problem, Ms. Stephanie --
1 MS. SINATRA: Same objection.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to try one more time, Your Honour.
3 Q. When you identified this for Ms. Stephanie, did you recollect this
4 at all?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And can you explain that.
7 A. At the time when this conversation was being conducted, I was at
8 the centre myself. So I could hear the conversation being conducted, and
9 we commented on it, associated with this particular expression, the
10 excavating of the road, penetrating of the road. It was inconceivable for
11 us that at such a time of war somebody was going to work on the road. And
12 this is what I emphasised in my report, which I sent to the command of the
14 Q. Now, as for the handwriting in the book, do you know whose
15 handwriting that is?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And whose handwriting do you think that is?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could go into private session, thank
20 JUDGE LIU: We'll go to private session, please.
21 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 MR. McCLOSKEY:
5 Q. Do you know is any of the handwriting in that notebook from anyone
6 besides the people who were working for you during this time period?
7 A. No, I -- no.
8 Q. And how about if we go back to Exhibit 121 for a second, the
9 handwriting in those reports and those transcripts, would those be from
10 anyone -- would those be from the people who were working for you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And those are the people you've already named?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I don't have any other questions at
15 this time.
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe we could have a break now, and after the
17 break there will be the cross-examination. And we will resume at 4.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas. Your cross-examination, please.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
23 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. Before coming to testify here, you met with the Prosecution, did
1 you not?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And I believe that was on 15 December. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, I think that it was.
5 Q. And before meeting the Prosecutor on that day, you had met with
6 the Office of the Prosecution on three prior occasions. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The first time was I believe in 1999. Correct?
9 A. Yes, I think so. I can't remember exactly, but I think that that
10 was it. Yes.
11 Q. May 17th, 1999. At that time, where did you meet?
12 A. At the Konjuh facility, I think.
13 Q. So they came to you?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Now, during that meeting, that interview was not tape recorded,
16 was it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. And of course you have been able -- you were provided with
19 a copy of the, well, I guess, summary of the interview, and it's
20 approximately a page and a half. Correct?
21 A. The question is not clear to me. Received when?
22 Q. Well, I have in my possession a page and a half of that interview
23 that is dated May 17th, 1999. Were you provided with a copy of that
24 summary of the interview?
25 A. Not at that occasion, but I did have the opportunity to see it.
1 Q. How long did you speak with the gentleman from the Office of the
2 Prosecution that generated only this page and a half of a summary?
3 A. I think this was a very long time ago, and I cannot remember.
4 Q. Well, was it more than an hour or less than an hour?
5 A. Perhaps about an hour.
6 Q. All right. And during that time, did you provide them with any
8 A. Yes. I think it was on that occasion.
9 Q. And on that occasion when you met with them, you were still in the
10 army. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you met with them for a second time on 18 October 2002.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And from that, I again have what would appear to be approximately
16 a one-page summary of the interview. Were you able to see that?
17 A. Yes, but not again on that same occasion.
18 Q. Okay. Now, where was that interview conducted?
19 A. Well, we had a few of those conversations. I think one of them
20 was at the corps command, but I cannot recall the exact date when it took
22 Q. When you say "a few," you mean there are other occasions that I
23 haven't mentioned?
24 A. I think that there were some later.
25 Q. Okay. Now, when you met with them for the second time on
1 18 October 2002, you were no longer in the army. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: And maybe we can go into private session for this
4 one question, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to private session, please.
6 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. Now, during this interview, did you provide them -- did you
20 provide the gentleman from the Prosecution with any documents?
21 A. No. We just discussed those documents. I had promised that I
22 would try to find a part of the documents or just to check whether any of
23 them remained in the possession of anybody, just by chance. But I didn't
24 actually find anything else.
25 Q. Okay. All right. Just to make sure that I'm clear, from 1999,
1 from May 17, 1999, to 18 October 2002, were there any meetings that we
2 don't have information about?
3 A. No.
4 Q. All right. So if you did not hand over any notebooks or any
5 documents on 18 October 2002, can we conclude the documents were handed
6 over during your first meeting back in May 17, 1999?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And then again -- now, the second meeting, was that tape
10 A. As far as I know, no, it wasn't.
11 Q. And how long did that take, the interviewing?
12 A. Again, I cannot remember. I don't know exactly.
13 Q. Well, was it a long session or a short session? And maybe you can
14 use the last meeting that you had here in The Hague as a reference for the
15 length of time.
16 A. It didn't take that long. Maybe -- once again, I think that it
17 took about an hour at the most, as far as I can recall. But as I said
18 before, it was a long time ago.
19 Q. All right. And then you met again on 29 October 2003. Is that
21 A. I cannot remember exactly the date.
22 Q. Well, we're talking about approximately two months ago, less than
23 two months ago.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And in fact, this time it would appear, because it's
1 reflected in the report, that you met in the Sarajevo field office of the
2 Office of the Prosecution. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Now, how long was that meeting?
5 A. Perhaps about two hours, maybe a little longer.
6 Q. Okay. And was that meeting tape recorded?
7 A. I don't know that either. I didn't record it.
8 Q. Right. Okay. Was that the first time that you had been to that
9 field office in Sarajevo?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, during that meeting, did you provide any further
12 documents or any notebooks to the Office of the Prosecution?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Now, sir, as I understand your testimony, some -- the
15 documents that you did provide to the Prosecution were not part of the
17 A. No. They were kept as an archive, but they were actually never
18 placed in the central archives of the corps command. So the majority of
19 the documents that were stored we did not manage to find.
20 Q. All right. Well, let's stick with -- let's focus a little bit on
21 the archiving or the keeping of these particular documents. According to
22 your testimony, you made an effort to have them archived. Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. These are documents that you believe are 100 per cent reliable.
1 A. Yes, I believe that.
2 Q. And the people that you were trying to convince that these
3 documents should be archived and kept for posterity, these were the people
4 for whom you had worked for. Correct?
5 A. These were people from the command of the division who were
6 working on the archiving of the material.
7 Q. And these people were part of the Bosnian Muslim army. Correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So they of all people would have an interest in making sure that
10 reliable documents, especially documents which may have a historical
11 importance, they were the ones that thought these documents were unworthy
12 of being kept. Correct?
13 A. Those people didn't even look at the contents of those documents.
14 Q. Yet these were the same people, the same people, that were in
15 charge of collecting documents, not just for historical purposes but also
16 for the purpose of providing those documents to the Office of the
17 Prosecution, as they have done so since approximately 1995, 1996.
19 A. Yes. They are those people, but again, I am repeating, they did
20 not even look at them. They just looked at the protocol stamp and the --
21 they looked at the documents which did not have such a stamp by the filing
22 or the protocol service.
23 Q. All right. Now, you say "they." Who are they? Is it more than
24 one person? Or was it just some clerk who was just dismissive of
25 accepting these documents?
1 A. They were members of the unit who were working. I think there
2 were two of them who were working on the maintenance or upkeep of that
4 Q. And according to you, to your testimony, in your words, they said
5 that they were "worth nothing." Correct?
6 A. Again, I say they didn't even look at the contents of the
7 documents. They would just look to see if the document had a stamp or it
8 didn't have one, and that was what they used as a criteria of the value of
9 the documents.
10 Q. My question was that as you put it in direct examination, in your
11 own words, they told you that these documents were "worth nothing."
13 A. Yes, something to that effect.
14 Q. That they were just ordinary scraps of paper?
15 A. Yes, something like that.
16 Q. Now, the process that was used in the field in Dekici, as I
17 understand your testimony, was not a process by which conversations were
18 recorded on tape before transcribed on to paper. Correct?
19 A. Nothing was taped in Dekici.
20 Q. And it wasn't taped because there were no -- there was no such
21 equipment available. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How many operators were working at any particular time?
24 A. At that time in Dekici, everybody was working. During the course
25 of the day while the combat activities were going on, everybody was
1 working. In the evening when the combat operations ceased, the people
2 rested. And you can see in the logbooks that there were no shifts at that
3 time. Everybody was working all the time.
4 Q. Well, let me rephrase my question a little bit. How many
5 operators were there? In other words, how many were listening and writing
6 down conversations at any particular moment?
7 A. Four, and I was the fifth person there. So there were about three
8 or four of them. It depends. Sometimes one of them was absent.
9 Q. Okay. So you had three or four devices working at the same time?
10 A. There were perhaps more devices.
11 Q. All right. And so if there were more devices and as I understand
12 there was a fairly large crew, then at any -- there were times when all
13 devices were being used at the same time?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, were the operators, did they have headsets, like we are
16 wearing today, listening into the conversations? Or could the
17 conversations be heard by everyone in the room at the same time?
18 A. They had headsets which they would switch on occasionally, if
19 perhaps several conversations took place at the same time. If several
20 networks were not active at the same time, however, then the conversation
21 could be audible to everyone in the room.
22 Q. All right. Okay. Thank you. And you were the commander,
23 correct, the komandir of this particular unit. Correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if I understand correctly, there were times when you were just
1 monitoring the situation, making sure that everybody was doing their work?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, if an operator is wearing headsets and if there is more than
4 one operator at the time wearing headsets and you are there monitoring the
5 situation of your staff, it's not possible, is it, for you to listen in on
6 every conversation and to make sure that at that -- the conversation that
7 is being listened to is being written out verbatim by each and every
8 operator. Correct?
9 A. Yes, it's correct. If everybody's wearing headsets and if all the
10 networks are working at the same time. But in the notes from the Dekici
11 area, you can see that things were not written down verbatim. I am
12 repeating once again, when one network was active at a given time, then
13 all the operators and myself, if I was there, would be able to hear it.
14 Q. Was there a time when there was more than one being active, or as
15 soon as you locked into a conversation, all the other operators would
17 A. No. They wouldn't stop, because if a conversation appeared on
18 another network and the operator who was sitting at that post would then
19 switch to his headset and continue to monitor the situation so that he
20 would not be disturbing the person -- the other person who was taking down
21 a conversation.
22 Q. All right. Now, if you're not able to listen to these
23 conversations because there's more than one going on, you cannot say here
24 today, as you have done so on direct examination, that you found them to
25 be - the recording of those conversations - you found them to be, in your
1 own words, 100 per cent reliable. Correct?
2 A. I did say that, because I spent a lot of time with those people
3 during the war and I know how experienced they are in their work. And I
4 also said that because the majority of those conversations were not taken
5 down verbatim, that somebody said this or that. But a conversation that
6 was heard was conveyed in a summary fashion, and the people who actually
7 did that had a lot of experience in this kind of work.
8 Q. But if there were times where the operator was unclear of what had
9 been said in the conversation that he was monitoring, there were no
10 capability, were there, for the operator at some other point to rewind the
11 tape and to replay the conversation to make sure that there would be a
12 100 per cent accurate record. Correct?
13 A. We were not able to do that, because we didn't have the technical
14 means to do it.
15 Q. And what if I were to tell you that other operators, intercept
16 operators, have come here and testified and have indicated that at times
17 they would need to replay, rewind and replay, the tape recorded
18 conversation many, many times in order to make sure that they understood
19 what, in fact, was being said. So my question is: How is it that they,
20 who seem to be equally as qualified as your men, needed to do that, while
21 your men did not require to have a tape-recording in order to make sure
22 that what was being written out was true, accurate, and complete?
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's a misstatement of the evidence
24 as it's come in. The witness clearly said this -- many times this was a
25 summary and not a complete verbatim transcript, which is what we know the
1 other people strove for. With that kind of misstatement of the evidence,
2 that becomes argumentative.
3 JUDGE LIU: But from the question, although I don't like it, it
4 takes about eight lines, but I think it's a reasonable question. The
5 Defence counsel is entitled to ask this question. The problem is that
6 this question is too long.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll -- I can rephrase, Your Honour, if that's
8 necessary for the witness.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, let's see whether the witness understands your
10 question or not.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. I do understand it.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Actually, these conversations took place by phone, by radio relay
15 communication line. This is a kind of continued, uninterrupted
16 conversation. It is very hard to take down verbatim and put it down on
17 paper. And at the time they wanted us to relay to them conversation
18 recordings that were 100 per cent identical to the actual conversations
19 that had taken place. So that was a totally different type of
20 conversation to the one that we did. The first were the radio relay
21 conversations that I talked about and the other ones were telephone
23 Q. Okay. I don't see anything --
24 A. Radio communications are much easier to monitor.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, there's nothing that we can -- that you can
1 produce to us, such as a tape-recording, that would give us -- that we
2 could listen to to compare what was on the notebooks and what was actually
3 heard. Correct?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And we don't have those scraps of paper that were used to write
6 down these conversations, albeit in shorthand with abbreviations, which
7 were later written into the notebooks. Correct?
8 A. No. Not from the Dekici facility.
9 Q. Because those scraps of paper were destroyed?
10 A. They were destroyed at the time, during the time we worked there,
11 because the data was immediately accessible to me, i.e., to the superior
13 Q. Now, at the other location, in Gradina, were those conversations
14 being tape recorded before being transcribed into the notebooks?
15 A. No, they were not.
16 Q. And I take it the same procedure was used?
17 A. Yes. The same procedure and you have the notes in the papers, in
18 the material.
19 Q. But you were not there. Correct?
20 A. No, I wasn't.
21 Q. You were not the commander there of that unit?
22 A. This was just one squad of my unit.
23 Q. All right. So if I understand you correctly, they were your men
24 at that location, but you were not there. Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And in that location, I take it, was that -- were they responsible
2 for monitoring the area around the Bratunac Brigade or around Srebrenica?
3 A. They were.
4 Q. And when Srebrenica was falling and after it fell, am I correct in
5 understanding that you were not in Gradina at the time?
6 A. Yes, you are. I wasn't there. I was at Dekici.
7 Q. And while you are able to tell us with an incredible degree of
8 certainty as to the reliability of the work product coming from Dekici,
9 that is 100 per cent, because you were present and you were able to
10 observe, I take it you cannot be as reliable for Gradina. Correct?
11 A. Yes. As regards control, I cannot. I cannot say that I was
12 there, because I wasn't there. But these are also tested people,
13 experienced people, who had done such work for a long time. And if
14 certain things are compared analytically, those reports, and our reports,
15 we can see that there is a high level of coincidence, meaning that they
16 were done properly. I couldn't be at two places at the same time.
17 Q. I understand that, but I was just using your test where you said
18 that in Dekici you could be 100 per cent sure that it was reliable because
19 you were there 99 per cent of the time. That was one of the bases of your
20 certainty. And if we use that as a test for Gradina, then it would follow
21 that you could not be as certain. Correct?
22 A. Yes, not as certain as in the Dekici case.
23 Q. And I take it as in Dekici, we do not have those scraps of paper
24 for all of the intercepts or all of the conversations that were written
25 down. Correct?
1 A. No, you don't have them.
2 Q. And did they use a notebook there or was it reports?
3 A. In Dekici you mean?
4 Q. No, in Gradina. I'm sorry. In Gradina.
5 A. From Gradina reports would be submitted.
6 Q. All right. So I take it the recordkeeping method for Gradina was
7 even less stringent as it was for Dekici, because one you have notebooks,
8 the other one you just have some reports?
9 A. This all lasted until the organisation of our work. Reports had
10 to be submitted from Gradina, because I wasn't there and I had no
11 telephone communication with them. So that reports had to be submitted in
12 that form through the protected radio communication line. And while I was
13 in Dekici, I had at my disposal a telephone communication line so that
14 there was no need for any such practices. It would be only a mental waste
15 of time.
16 Q. Okay. Now, when Srebrenica was falling, were you getting reports
17 from Gradina?
18 A. Yes, I was.
19 Q. And were you sending your reports on to Sarajevo or Tuzla?
20 A. Yes, I was, to Tuzla.
21 Q. So I take it Tuzla was being kept notified as the situation was
22 progressing on the ground?
23 A. Yes, it was.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, I have no further
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 Ms. Sinatra, your cross-examination, please.
3 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. Just a moment, please.
4 Cross-examined by Ms. Sinatra:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Witness P119.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. I want to just follow up on some questions that counsel for
8 Mr. Blagojevic has just asked, especially regarding the reliability of the
9 Dekici notes that you have in your notebook. Let me ask you, first you
10 said that you scanned the frequencies with your ICR-100s. Is that
12 A. Yes, we had that particular piece of equipment and another two --
13 one or two items of equipment which could scan various frequency bands.
14 Q. And I do want to go back. You said that you went to secondary
15 school in electronics. That's the equivalent of like a high school most
16 everywhere else, isn't it?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. And you were not a ham radio operator, were you?
19 A. Not at school -- yes, when I was in the military, I was a ham
20 radio operator at that time.
21 Q. When you say "ham radio operator," did you achieve the
22 international licensing that goes along with being a licensed ham radio
24 A. Now I have. Now I have. At that particular time, I only had
25 become a member of one of the ham radio operator's clubs.
1 Q. We're talking about 1995?
2 A. It was war in 1995 so that I didn't -- I had had a lot of
3 experience at that time with radio engineering and repair and maintenance
4 of radio equipment and the operation of same.
5 Q. But you weren't licensed as a ham radio operator in 1995, were
7 A. No, I wasn't licensed as a ham radio operator.
8 Q. After you scanned the channels with your ECR-100, then you have to
9 lock into a frequency, don't you?
10 A. Yes, practically that's the way it works.
11 Q. And then you said your operators would write down some notes on a
12 piece of paper. Isn't that right?
13 A. After scanning and locking in with the frequency, you connected
14 with another piece of equipment. And then we take notes on scraps of
15 paper in the way I already described.
16 Q. And you did state that these scraps of paper and the notes were
17 often taken in shorthand. Isn't that right?
18 A. Yes, it is, and I also explained what particular form of
20 Q. Shorthand to you is just a set of abbreviations that y'all use, or
21 is it really the actual shorthand that stenographers use?
22 A. I do not know what stenographers use, but I could give you a
23 couple of examples.
24 Q. Is it an art that you study shorthand in school where you learn to
25 write shorthand, or is it something that was made up by your
1 communications division?
2 A. This is an experience from the war.
3 Q. Thank you very much. Once they're written on a piece of paper,
4 then they're -- all these little notes are passed to you. Is that right?
5 A. Yes. I could immediately hear the bulk of the information
6 immediately myself. There was no need [Realtime transcript read in error
7 "only"] for it to be passed on to me, but when I couldn't hear it
8 personally, when it was being listened in by somebody else who was wearing
9 headsets, then the radio operators could convey such information to me
10 with such scraps of paper on such paper.
11 Q. And then if you determined that the scraps of paper had some
12 information that was important, then you would get on the hard telephone
13 line and you would pass it to superiors. Is that right?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And is the induction telephone, the military telephone you're
16 talking about, that's a hard line or not?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. So what basically happens is you go through these little pieces of
19 paper, and then you hand these back to the people whose handwriting you
20 recommend. And at the end of the day part of them are recorded in a
21 logbook and part of them are not. Is that what happens?
22 A. It all depended on the time. It all depended on the time
23 available for us to note all this down in various notebooks and logbooks.
24 Q. At the end of the day, isn't it true that it would be very
25 difficult to decipher shorthand pieces of paper from conversations that
1 were happening all at one time?
2 A. These were not abbreviations that were not understandable. These
3 are normally used abbreviations in radio communications which normally use
4 secret codes or secret designations. And once used, it is not repeated
5 again. I will give you an example. What you have in the exhibit, for
6 instance you have see Lovac, Lovac 1, L-o-v-a-c. So you just write that
7 once, and if you don't manage to write that again the next time you come
8 across that you only write "L" or "L1" so whoever is deciphering or
9 reading it knows this refers to the entire word, Lovac. And the other
10 example which I gave was the checking of the communication, it is p/v. It
11 is not the whole word komandir, but just K/O, and so on and so forth --
12 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Sorry, Ms. Sinatra, to interrupt you. I have a
13 problem with the transcript and I want to know if I heard it correctly.
14 But in page 40, line 12, it says now: It was only for it to be passed,
15 something like that, on to me. And I heard the witness say -- or at least
16 the translation: "It was not necessary." May I ask which is the correct
17 thing, because afterwards we wouldn't understand this.
18 MS. SINATRA: Well, I don't have that on my screen, but I'm going
19 to assume that it had to do with the --
20 JUDGE ARGIBAY: It's already passed.
21 MS. SINATRA: Yes, it's passed for me. Your Honour, if you would
22 like to clarify this for me, I would be very happy since because I can't
23 see it. If you would like to ask the witness a question at this point I
24 have no problem.
25 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Yes, I think so.
1 Sorry to interrupt you, sir, I have a clarification to ask from
2 you. When you were describing this process on the taking the notes down
3 and then passing on your pieces of paper to you, you said that you were
4 there. So was it necessary to give you these pieces of paper?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In replying to one of these
6 questions, I remarked that these conversations were not important on paper
7 at the time when I was there. They were important for me if I wasn't
8 there or if the conversation was being listened in to by people with
9 headphones and if I was not in the room. So in such cases, I would be
10 given such conversation on paper, and then I would try to analyse the
11 content and then send it on to the command. Any other conversations which
12 I could hear myself was not needed for -- I didn't need it on paper.
13 JUDGE ARGIBAY: This was my understanding. Thank you, sir.
14 MS. SINATRA: And thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate that for
15 that clarification.
16 Q. In fact, the papers were destroyed they were so unimportant to you
17 at the time. Right?
18 A. At that time they were unimportant. Well, had I known that the
19 situation would evolve in this way, they would have probably been
21 Q. Let me ask you, you're from the Zvornik area. Right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you know that all the area around Zvornik is highly
24 mountainous. It's in a valley, isn't it?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. And from Dekici where you were monitoring, you know that all
2 communications from Zvornik had to go through a communications post that
3 they had in Karakaj above their command headquarters. Isn't that correct?
4 A. These were radio relay communications and radio relay
5 communications have no limitations. There exists certain relay repeaters
6 so that the configuration of the terrain is of no particular bearing on
7 the operation of such links. Secondly, we chose Dekici because it was a
8 location that had been tested before.
9 Q. Now, maybe I misunderstood, but I understood that radio waves
10 travel in a line of sight format, in a straight line. And in order for
11 radio communications to get to Zvornik, they had to either have a relay
12 station that was close by or they had to be sent to another relay station,
13 which was about 50 kilometres away from Zvornik. Isn't that true?
14 A. A radio relay connection to which you listen to before is
15 directed, and for that kind of connection, the centres and the elevations
16 are very important, while the radio connections disperse equally in all
17 directions. So this doesn't play a major part, but the configuration of
18 the terrain plays a much greater role in the second case. I can clarify
19 it even more for you if necessary.
20 Q. You agree with me, then, that the configuration of the countryside
21 does affect, one way or the other, the reception of radio
23 A. Yes, it does, because if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have to be
24 in Dekici, we could also be in Zivinice.
25 Q. And from Dekici when you're receiving radio communications from
1 the relay station that's about 50 kilometres away, you can't tell where
2 that communication originated, can you?
3 A. In radio communications, when there are -- in many conversations,
4 locations are also mentioned, and you have them in your exhibits as well.
5 And if one participant mentions it and says, I am -- I'm just giving an
6 example, I'm at Crni Vrh, we know where this Crni Vrh is. So the
7 participants were the ones who would reveal their locations to us. But in
8 radio communications, it's very difficult to know the location of the
10 Q. Thank you very much. In fact, in radio communications, if you
11 were just picking up a relay from the relay station, you couldn't tell
12 whether it was from Vlasenica or Zvornik or Bratunac, could you?
13 A. We knew by the frequencies. We knew by that who the participants
14 were, but you have mentioned the frequency 164.50 megahertz, this
15 frequency is mentioned there -- 050, that frequency belongs to the Zvornik
16 police. We knew that. The public security centre of Zvornik.
17 Q. And you did say one of the main targets of your communications was
18 the MUP in Zvornik. Right?
19 A. Yes, one of the targets.
20 Q. And the other target that you were set to monitor was the
21 Drina Wolves. Right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the other target you were set to monitor was the frontline of
24 the Zvornik Brigade, which would have been at Snagovo. Is that correct?
25 A. Generally, yes, we were monitoring the radio communications of the
1 Zvornik Brigade, the frontline as well as the units.
2 Q. When you say "the units," you could not target into the radio
3 receptions of Standard headquarters, could you, because it had to go
4 through a relay centre?
5 A. We were able to hear that. I am again talking about the radio
6 relay connections. We were able to hear them, because if one of the
7 participants who was perhaps close to us, they also were not able to hear
8 the Standard command. There was something that is called a communications
9 centre of that brigade, which would be located at a dominant elevation.
10 And all of those who could not hear themselves amongst each other would be
11 linked through that centre. He would -- they would pick it up and then
12 convey it further.
13 Q. Okay. I'm going to skip over some of my notes to go to that.
14 That communications centre up above the Zvornik Brigade headquarters in
15 Karakaj, it had a secret code name, didn't it?
16 A. Do you mean their radio centre?
17 Q. Their radio centre was known as Lovac, wasn't it, because you
18 mentioned that name earlier?
19 A. No. Lovac, Lovac appeared during the combat activities around
20 Srebrenica, but Premijer was actually quite active and that also had the
21 role of a centre.
22 Q. Let me ask you. You know Lovac 1, that's a secret code name for
23 Dragan Obrenovic, wasn't it?
24 A. I know that and I think that's what it says in the documents as
25 well, he was some sort of chief of staff of something.
1 Q. And the conversation you're talking about is between Lovac 1 and
2 Lovac, isn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And Lovac 1 is asking Lovac to contact someone up at Snagovo to
5 release a couple of engineers that you've mentioned. Isn't that correct?
6 A. Yes. I think that is correct, but I cannot remember it now
7 exactly. But I think it is something to that effect, yes.
8 Q. And Lovac 1 at that time was not at the brigade headquarters, was
10 A. No, he wasn't, probably not.
11 Q. And Lovac was someone named Brano Mikic, wasn't it?
12 A. I don't know that. I cannot say that for sure.
13 Q. But Lovac was not at Standard or the Zvornik Brigade headquarters
14 either, was he?
15 A. I cannot say exactly, and I'm saying again in radio communications
16 it's very hard to know the exact locations of the participants. And what
17 is known is most often known if somebody reveals it in the course of their
18 conversation, as opposed to radio relay communications where you know the
19 end speakers for sure.
20 Q. And Lovac is the one who called Milan Maric, the commander up at
21 Snagovo, didn't he?
22 A. I cannot remember, perhaps if you can show it to me.
23 Q. Well, is Lovac the one who called up to Snagovo and asked for the
24 release of the two engineers?
25 A. Perhaps I can look at that conversation to see what it's about.
1 MS. SINATRA: Well, Your Honour, I'm sorry, I don't have P121. I
2 have --
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I believe that the Prosecution would like to
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. He has -- we can provide him with the book.
6 It's probably the easiest to look at, and if he can go to 14 July, where I
7 think I -- he had pointed us out earlier, he should be able to find
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 MS. SINATRA: I don't know if I might be provided an English copy
11 of this conversation.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, we've -- that's been done, but I -- you can
13 have mine if we -- actually, we should have another -- let me just give
14 you mine because I've marked it.
15 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.
16 Your Honours, would you please thank Mr. McCloskey.
17 Q. I believe that what P121 says is a conversation between Lovac 1,
18 who we know is Obrenovic, and Lovac. And it says: "Are you in
19 communication with Maric?"
20 Now, you know that Milan Maric was the commander up at Snagovo.
22 A. I am not aware of that fact, no.
23 Q. Well, your conversation is between Lovac 1 and Lovac, and it
24 appears that Obrenovic is asking for Maric, Miladinovic, and Mitrovic, to
25 come to Nedjo's end with two excavators in order to widen the road. Is
1 that correct?
2 A. We cannot establish that either, because as you can see Lovac and
3 Lovac 1: "Are you in communication with Maric?"
4 And then after that they went to a different frequency. I don't
5 know whether that was translated. To -- that's channel 274, Sava 20.
6 Q. So you don't know if this was all one conversation or if they were
7 doing what we call frequency hopping at the moment. Is that correct?
8 A. It's the same conversation, but it was carried out on two
9 frequencies. It began on one and completed -- finished on another.
10 Q. But are you saying that you followed this conversation from one
11 frequency to the next?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then if that's true, it looks like Dragan Obrenovic is asking for
14 Maric, Miladinovic, and Mitrovic, to come to Nedjo's end. Is that
16 A. I cannot say who, but this is a conversation between Lovac and
17 Lovac 1, between Obrenovic and Lovac.
18 Q. And you know all the other secret codes, but you don't know who
19 Lovac is. Right?
20 A. Well, we don't know all the other ones either, because at the time
21 and in that work generally, data and locations are more important to us,
22 where the participant is located. His name is not important to us, only
23 the location and the information.
24 Q. Thank you very much. And that's true of all of your
25 communications, isn't it? When you intercept these communications, isn't
1 that true?
2 A. During the combat activities around Srebrenica, yes.
3 Q. And I just want to go back to July 14th, just to remind the
4 Trial Chamber, that was the day of heaviest radio traffic, wasn't it?
5 A. Yes, that is true.
6 Q. Because the Muslims from Srebrenica and the 28th Division, the
7 Muslim column, were fleeing from the Srebrenica area toward the Zvornik
8 area. Isn't that correct?
9 A. Towards the liberated or the free territory of Zvornik.
10 Q. They were headed right towards Zvornik, and Zvornik was in
11 jeopardy of falling to the Muslim column at that point, wasn't it?
12 A. I don't think that they were going towards Zvornik. They were
13 going through the woods, and I believe that many of them didn't even know
14 where they were going, because the town had already been taken. So they
15 were mostly moving through the woods. We also had cases of people coming
16 out after 20 or 30 days, out of the woods.
17 Q. I want to go back to some general questions about your expertise,
18 since you were commander of this tactical intercept unit. The difference
19 between a regular communications system and a tactical intercept company
20 or squad is that you're actually on the front possibly in danger of being
21 attacked at that moment also, weren't you?
22 A. Yes, in principle that is so. Near the frontlines, near the lines
23 where the combat activity is taking place.
24 Q. And I want to ask you if you're familiar with your expertise with
25 something called Operativno Maskiranje. Are you familiar with that?
1 A. Yes, I think I know what it is.
2 Q. And it's another word for operational masking or misinformation or
3 decoying or planting fake conversations or providing the enemy with false
4 data, isn't it?
5 A. This was perhaps tried in this conversation relating to the
6 widening of the road. That is why that conversation was suspicious to me.
7 Q. Well, also part of masking is using false names, isn't it?
8 A. Yes. Yes, but I think that none of my men would use my name as a
9 false piece of information for the purpose of masking.
10 Q. Yes, but you were in the anti-electronic warfare unit. Other
11 people and other code names were changed interchangeably, weren't they,
12 during war times and combat times?
13 A. Yes. Some of them were changed and some remained the same
14 throughout the whole war. Are you thinking about the secret names, the
15 code names?
16 Q. Yes. I'm talking about the code names, and that channel switching
17 that you referred to in P121, it was a common part of masking, wasn't it?
18 A. Yes, if you don't know which channel it is.
19 Q. Now, you did testify earlier that there were more documents from
20 your facility having to do with July 14th, 15th, and 16th, 1995, didn't
22 A. There were a lot of notes from this facility. I even remember
23 some of them, but unfortunately they're not here with me.
24 Q. And a lot of the documents you sent in to what we would call a
25 black hole. You sent them off to the archive of the 2nd Corps, and you've
1 never seen them again. Right?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. SINATRA: Excuse me, Your Honours, I'm just trying to wrap
4 this up.
5 Q. Now, you were originally in the 24th Division, but you became a
6 part of the 28th Division. That was the division fleeing from Srebrenica.
7 Is that correct?
8 A. I was a member of the 24th Division. On arrival of a part of the
9 people from the 28th Division, which -- then a new division was formed.
10 It was the new 28th Division. So I was a member of that division later.
11 Q. Was that in July of 1995, though. Right?
12 A. No. This didn't happen in July. It happened a little bit later.
13 I cannot remember the date, but ...
14 Q. Going back to P121 also, I just want to make sure that what your
15 communications represents is Lovac 1 calling Lovac. Is that correct?
16 A. In the first part of the conversation, yes, it is. I'm not sure
17 in the rest of the message who it is, because usually when they would
18 switch to a new frequency in -- as in this specific case, secret or code
19 names are not mentioned anymore. They just continue with the conversation
20 or they would just say: Are you there? The answer would be yes and so
22 Q. But you're pretty sure that the second part of this conversation
23 was a continuation of the one you've notated as Lovac 1 to Lovac. Right?
24 A. Quite sure, since we knew the frequency that they switched to. So
25 we would just move from one piece of equipment to another.
1 Q. When an operator makes a note in the book that it was
2 premodulated, does that mean that the voice of the person speaking was
3 altered or changed in some way?
4 A. Premodulation can occur for technical reasons.
5 Q. But it means the voice is not one that you would normally hear, it
6 sounds different, doesn't it?
7 A. A little bit different.
8 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, if we might take a break, I can wrap
9 this up in 10, 15 minutes when we come back, if you would let me just have
10 one moment with my client.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, and we'll resume at quarter to 6.00.
12 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.
13 --- Recess taken at 5.17 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra, please continue.
16 MS. SINATRA: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to ask right
17 now if the Prosecution has no objection, but we only have one piece of
18 live evidence that is an -- a recording of conversations, intercepted
19 conversations. That came from the Krstic trial. And I have a CD of it.
20 I have asked the audio both to be prepared, and I just wanted to play a
21 few moments of it and question the witness as to whether these are
22 normal -- normally -- normal operations for the reception of
23 interceptions. This is what it sounds like. Because we have no other
24 record and the Prosecutor, Mr. McCloskey, said he has no objections.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, it depends on whether this piece of the record
1 is relevant to this witness or not.
2 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, it is not relevant as far as content
3 goes, but it is relevant as far as whether this is what it sounds like
4 when you're intercepting conversations. And I think it's very important
5 for the Trial Chamber to understand what it sounds like when they hear all
6 these conversations going on at one time and they're trying to pick and
7 choose and transcribe and, of course, this facility did not record. But
8 this is the only one we have that is similar to it and this is the last
9 intercept witness. I ask the Court's indulgence for one and a half
10 minutes of an example of what it sounds like. It's been marked as D61/3.
11 They're ready to prompt it up if we might just listen to it for one and a
12 half minutes.
13 JUDGE LIU: So there's no objections from the Prosecution?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. This -- for one and a half
15 minutes, it's a tape that is not from his unit, but it's maybe roughly
16 similar to the kind of thing. And he will be able to probably tell us a
17 bit about it. I know you're now practically experts in this field. No --
18 I think you know what this means, so it's not going to be -- shouldn't be
19 prejudicial in any way for either side.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, let's hear it.
21 MS. SINATRA: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 [Exhibit D61/3 played]
24 MS. SINATRA: Thank you. I think we've just heard an example.
25 Q. Sir, I'm not going to ask you any questions from the content of
1 these conversations, but you have five of these going at one time in
2 your -- at Dekici, don't you?
3 A. This is not at all that kind of conversation. And I repeat,
4 although I have already said, this is a conversation conducted by radio
5 relay communication. It is the same as if it were conducted between two
6 telephone parties, whereas the conversations that we monitored were
7 conducted perhaps like the security arrangements that you have here, I
8 mean the stations and the devices of the security here. As I have said
9 before, this kind of conversation is impossible to take down verbatim.
10 That is why at Konjuh, it was possible at Konjuh and Okresanica where they
11 had the necessary equipment for taping and recording and putting it into
12 their computers. Whereas, the conversations that we had were of a
13 different nature. This was a continued conversation which never ceases.
14 In our conversations, the ones that we were taping, that we were taking
15 down, rather, we had on occasion a lapse of half a minute from one side to
16 another, so that one had ample time to put it down. It depended on the
17 hearing capacity of the actual participant. So it was transmitted and
18 retransmitted and could be confirmed during this lapse of time. That's
20 Q. Well, as a technical -- tactical intercept operator, actually the
21 tactical radio intercepts were less clear than these were, weren't they?
22 A. They could be less clear, just as they were -- if they were not
23 clear to us, they were not clear to the other participant, so that often
24 repetitions were demanded. I think this happened more in the case of
25 Gradina, that they had such repetitions of the one and the same thing for
1 several times, because that meant the participant could not hear properly
2 and was asking for a repetition in order to relay it to someone who was on
3 an elevation. But technically speaking, it could happen that
4 conversations were unintelligible. Of course, if there were only two
5 participants, it could remain unintelligible and unclear, but we could
6 manage, if there were more than two, that is, and if we could manage to
7 have it cleared up. And in radio communications, we have unidirectional
8 communication in contrast to this particular link. You can never have two
9 parties speaking simultaneously.
10 Q. I'm sorry. You had several conversations going at one time from
11 your different receivers, didn't you?
12 A. We were monitoring a number of frequencies at the same time, so
13 there were a number of conversations being monitored at the same time.
14 And each, as I have already said, each of the operators had their own
15 headgear on and were each taking down their own conversation that they
16 were following. But it was hardly likely that they could miss anything,
17 because this is the kind of communication, the kind of traffic that we
18 had. You can see in the evidence we also mentioned some telegrams, some
19 cables, some numbers, which are being read like in a telephone
20 conversation, but still they managed to write them down.
21 Q. Well, also I would like to remind you and for you to remind the
22 Trial Chamber, this tape was the first week in August. On July 14th, the
23 radio traffic was much heavier than it was the first week in August,
24 wasn't it?
25 A. As far as radio communications were concerned, yes. In a single
1 radio network -- in a single radio network, only one participant can talk.
2 So on one frequency at that moment you can only hear one participant. If
3 another one should happen to appear, it is unintelligible to us as well as
4 to the party to whom that particular message is being addressed. That
5 means that as far as that was concerned, it did not really pose a great
7 Q. Well, you do admit that there was much heavier radio traffic,
8 though, on the 14th of July than there was the first week in August.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you are aware that Dragan Obrenovic had another secret code
12 name, Avala, on the 14th of July, aren't you?
13 A. I cannot claim that with certainty.
14 Q. But you have heard that, isn't you, and that's another masking
16 A. I don't know until I checked the evidence. It could have been a
17 different frequency, a different radio network, because I had a certain
18 designation in one radio network. I had a different one in another radio
19 network and for those who knew me I had a yet third designation.
20 Q. You're talking about your own secret code names?
21 A. Generally speaking, generally speaking, any of the participants
22 could operate on three radio networks and have a different name in each of
23 the three.
24 Q. Let me ask you about the notebooks that you have before you. You
25 did go to the 2nd Corps archive department and you did tell them that you
1 thought that was important material, and they rejected accepting it as
2 part of the archive material. Right?
3 A. Not the archives of the 2nd Corps, but of the 28th Division.
4 Q. Okay. And that's the division you became a part of after the 24th
5 merged into the 28th. Right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the 28th Division is part of the 2nd Corps, isn't it?
8 A. It wasn't at the time.
9 Q. But it was when you tried to turn over the documents, wasn't it?
10 A. It was a time when the 28th Division was about to be comprised
11 within the 2nd Corps, but it was under the command of the Army of the
12 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time.
13 Q. The archivists may have not accepted these notebooks because they
14 considered them unreliable. Right?
15 A. I've already explained, they cared much more about the stamp.
16 They cared much more about the stamp and not the content of the material.
17 Q. So there could have been a lot of other documents that were
18 offered to the 28th Division or the 2nd Corps that may have been relevant
19 to this case that were rejected as archived material. Right?
20 A. The documents that were not admitted remained with me. I did not
21 destroy anything. I kept them, and I submitted them all.
22 Q. And these documents that you turned over in 1999, you were still a
23 member of the Bosnian army at that time, weren't you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you kept them in your personal locker at Dekici. Is that
2 A. Not in Dekici. In the division, because I was staying at the
3 command of the division after the combat operations ended in Dekici. That
4 is to say at the time of the fall of Srebrenica and several days after
6 Q. So you took these documents with you in your personal locker
7 wherever you went then. Right?
8 A. No. No. The documents were in the centre until the last day,
9 until it was completed. When it was completed, it was then handed over to
10 me and then it was in my custody and I kept it. It was also -- my work
11 post was also there, so that I didn't go anywhere from there.
12 Q. But you had taken these documents out and showed them to other
13 people and taken them out of your locker before they were turned over to
14 the OTP, didn't you?
15 A. Just during the attempt to get them accepted into the archive. I
16 tried to have them placed in the archive, and when that did not succeed, I
17 returned them to the safe.
18 Q. Now, I want to ask you. You are familiar with an incident that
19 happened on July 17th, 1995, in which five young Muslim boys were released
20 on the front and the engineering department from Zvornik had to come
21 demine the area. You're familiar with that, aren't you?
22 A. No. I'm afraid I didn't understand. Will you please repeat.
23 Q. On the 17th of July, 1995, five young Muslim boys were found on
24 the VRS side, and the engineering department was sent to the front to
25 demine the area and they sent them back to you. And I believe that your
1 army or your communications centre sent a thank you note to the
2 engineering department or the Zvornik Brigade -- a thank you message.
3 A. I'm not aware of this.
4 MS. SINATRA: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
6 Any redirect, Mr. McCloskey?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Well, at this stage are there any documents to tender?
10 Mr. McCloskey?
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, and I was able to find a
12 receipt in B/C/S to indicate when the OTP received that information. I
13 shared it with counsel at the break, and I can tell you it was June 18th,
14 1999. And I would offer the photocopies of the materials of P121 and 122
15 into evidence along with the pseudonym sheet, P676.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 Any objections? Mr. Karnavas?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
20 Ms. Sinatra?
21 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. We object to the introduction of
22 the tactical intercept notebook as unreliable. These little pieces of
23 paper were marked down sometime during the middle of heavy traffic, combat
24 radio wave time. And then they were written down much later. Some of the
25 intercepts were not even written down, they were just sent directly to his
1 superiors. I don't believe that his testimony today has proven the
2 authenticity or reliability of P121, which is the notebook. These -- he
3 already testified that they could not take down exactly what was being
4 said on the intercepts, that it was impossible, and some of the intercepts
5 were not recorded. So I don't believe that there is any consistency in
6 the reliability of what's written in the intercept notebook, so much so
7 that the Bosnian army wouldn't accept them as evidence in their archives.
8 P122, we have the same arguments on that. We have no problems
9 with P16.1 or P676.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I think the document P676 with
11 the witness's pseudonym was admitted under seal. As for the other two
12 documents, P121 and 122, this Trial Chamber has to go over the transcript
13 of testimony of this witness to see whether we should admit it or not. We
14 will render our decision maybe together with other the intercepts.
15 Could I confirm that this is the last intercept witness on your
16 side, Mr. McCloskey?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes it is, Mr. President -- well, we hope it is.
18 And I don't know if you want me to make any argument responding to
19 Ms. Sinatra. There is some brief things which you --
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you like, you could.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I'll just say briefly, because I'm sure the
22 Court is aware of this, and if we could go into private session just
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to private session, please.
25 [Private session]
12 Pages 5997 – redacted – private session.
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to
5 The Hague to give your testimony. When the usher pulls down the blinds,
6 she will show you out of the room. We all wish you a pleasant journey
7 back home. Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President, we do have another
12 witness or we could put him on tomorrow. In discussions with
13 Mr. Karnavas, this witness shouldn't take too long, so we're at -- the
14 person's outside. Mr. Waespi will handle him, and as you know the
15 Prosecution will not be taking very long on direct. So we're fine either
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we should proceed with this witness.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: And I have just a housekeeping matter, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: It was brought to my attention that earlier when I
21 was referring to the previous witness, not the one we just heard, as 119,
22 actually he was 119 and I should have been referring to P135. That's what
23 I'm told by the Registrar.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much indeed.
25 MR. WAESPI: The next witness, Mr. President, is a witness without
1 protective measures and he's a witness who has been ruled by Your Honours
2 to be called for cross-examination. We have filed an application for 92
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE LIU: Good evening, Witness.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good evening.
7 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: RADENKO ZARIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
13 Yes, Mr. Waespi.
14 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. I only have a few
15 questions to this witness.
16 Examined by Mr. Waespi:
17 Q. Good evening, Mr. Zaric.
18 A. Good evening.
19 Q. Could you please state for the record your full name.
20 A. My name is Radenko Zaric.
21 Q. And when were you born?
22 A. On the 10th of April, 1965.
23 Q. And where are you currently living?
24 A. In Bratunac.
25 Q. Do you remember that we met yesterday and I advised you of certain
1 rights you had, for instance, to remain silent so you need not to talk to
2 us and to have a lawyer present. Do you recall that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you waived these rights and said that it was fine that we
5 talked about your evidence. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you also told us that you would be willing today to come to
8 the courtroom and answer questions by the parties and the Judges. Can you
9 confirm that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So you are ready to proceed today without a lawyer?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, do you recall being interviewed by investigators from the
14 Office of the Prosecutor in Banja Luka on the 30th of October of 2002?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And yesterday in my office have you seen and, indeed, could you
17 read a copy of the transcript of that interview?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. And was that in a language you understood?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And were you given the opportunity to change anything you wanted
22 if it wasn't correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you eventually sign a declaration, a witness statement, in
25 the presence of a court official to say that, and I quote, "the transcript
1 was done to the best of your knowledge and recollection." Is that what
2 you signed yesterday?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 MR. WAESPI: If we could play one of the proposed exhibits, and
6 this is a brief clip which is part, Your Honours, of the Sarajevo -- of
7 the Srebrenica trial video which has been introduced via Jean Rene Ruez.
8 And that would be a videoclip named P93, P93. And if it could be played.
9 Q. And please, Mr. Zaric, watch it, and I will ask a few questions
10 after that.
11 [Videotape played]
12 MR. WAESPI:
13 Q. Now, witness, looking at this videoclip we are seeing right now,
14 do you recognise anybody on this clip?
15 A. I recognise myself.
16 Q. And just a few seconds before, do you recognise some -- did you
17 recognise somebody else? And perhaps if we are able to go back a few
18 seconds and start again.
19 [Videotape played]
20 MR. WAESPI:
21 Q. Now do you recognise somebody else on this video still?
22 A. There were other members of the Army of Republika Srpska who were
23 standing there on guard.
24 Q. And do you remember which brigade they were from?
25 A. The people who were there were members of the Bratunac Brigade,
1 the people that are seen in the footage.
2 Q. Now, you just told us that you recognised yourself on the video
3 still, the previous one. Now looking at this video still, do you
4 recognise the person who is left from you, and I believe you are the
5 person holding a Kalashnikov in your arm. Do you recognise the person to
6 the left of you?
7 A. Are you thinking of the woman or the person in uniform? Because
8 there is a woman standing to my left here with children.
9 Q. Yes -- no, I mean the person in uniform.
10 A. He was also a member of the military police, just like me.
11 Q. And do you recall his name?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you tell -- we can go into private session if you don't
14 want the name to be made public. It's up to you.
15 A. I would prefer it not to be released to the public.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to private session, please.
17 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I have no further questions to this
2 witness, and we are submitting the transcript of his witness statement
3 under Rule 92 bis.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
5 Any cross-examination? Mr. Karnavas?
6 MR. KARNAVAS: I do have some cross, Your Honour.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
8 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. Now, yesterday when you met with the Prosecution, for how long did
11 you meet with them?
12 A. I can't say exactly. I came here perhaps at about 2.00, and I
13 left at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. I can't remember exactly.
14 Q. Okay. And did you speak with the Prosecution before, during, or
15 after you had a chance to review your statement, the one that you had
16 given back on 30th October, 2002?
17 A. No. I didn't talk with them before, not before yesterday. I
18 spoke with them last year when I provided the statement and then again
19 yesterday. And that's it.
20 Q. But yesterday when you spoke to them, I take it you first had an
21 opportunity to read your statement, a copy of your statement from 2002.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And how much time did you spend reading your statement?
25 A. I can't tell you exactly how much time I spent reading it. Just
1 as I said before, I came into the building at 2.00 and I left at about
2 4.00, 4.30. So I can't tell you exactly. I don't remember how much time
3 I spent. I'm not wearing a watch, so ...
4 Q. Okay. And then after that is when you said that everything that
5 you said in the statement was true?
6 A. As far as I recall and based on what I read back, that's what's
7 written there.
8 Q. Okay. Well, I guess I want to be very clear. Are you saying that
9 this statement --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Are you saying that this statement reflects what you said, or are
12 you saying that everything that is in this statement is truthful as far as
13 you understand the truth to be?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Well, which of the two? There were two choices. Choice number
16 one is: This is what you said when you met with them back on 30th
17 October, 2002. I take it the answer to that question is yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. My second question is: And that everything that you told them
20 then that you had a chance to read and reflect, you also believe that to
21 be true as well?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. And then -- let me ask you, when you read the
24 statement, you didn't find anything that seemed rather peculiar to you?
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand whether the
1 witness said yes or no.
2 MR. KARNAVAS:
3 Q. Was your answer no? For the interpreters, they didn't catch it.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you may need to speak just -- speak up just a little bit so
6 they can hear you.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Now, as I understand it from your statement, you were
9 mobilised in 1992. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that was in September, September 1992?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Two years later in September 1994, you joined the military police
14 of the Bratunac Brigade?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And while you were a member of the military police of the
17 Bratunac Brigade, you were receiving orders from Dragisa Jovanovic.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And Mirko Jankovic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And as I understand it, it was your belief and understanding when
23 you were questioned by the Prosecution that those two individuals were
24 receiving their orders from Momir Nikolic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you were asked, you were asked, who was your komandir, your
2 commanding officer, at the time when Srebrenica fell?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And at that point in your statement, the one that you read
5 yesterday, you said that you thought that it was Dragisa Jovanovic.
7 A. As far as I recall, I asked the investigators then what they
8 meant. Did they mean the military police or the entire Bratunac Brigade?
9 And then they said that the question referred to the military police. And
10 then I responded that my superiors were Dragisa Jovanovic, Mirko Jankovic,
11 and that I didn't know who was -- were their superiors.
12 Q. Okay. Correct. And then you stated -- but at one point you
13 stated, and it's on page 5, lines 1 and 2, of the English version. And we
14 can locate --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. We can locate -- in your version it's, I believe, page 4, line 23,
17 you state: "I think that Dragisa Jovanovic was the commander of the
18 military police platoon and Mirko Jankovic was his deputy."
19 Do you recall stating that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. My question to you today is: Do you still believe that that is a
22 correct statement, that back in July 1995 during the fall of Srebrenica,
23 Dragisa Jovanovic was the commander of the military police of the
24 Bratunac Brigade?
25 A. Judging by his attitude when he came to the military police and
1 when he spent time with us, he would be the one to issue orders to
2 Jankovic always and to us who were subordinated to them. But I cannot
3 actually say if I know whether they were in charge or not, because I
4 wasn't really interested in the command structure. And let me also say
5 that I knew only after the fall of Srebrenica that perhaps Mr. Blagojevic
6 had been appointed the commander of the Bratunac Brigade. Up until then,
7 I didn't even know that he was supposed to be or thought to be the
8 commander of the Bratunac Brigade.
9 Q. All right. Let's discuss that a little bit. If you started with
10 the military police back in September 1994 and Srebrenica fell in July
11 1995, how many months would you have been in the military police?
12 A. Ten months.
13 Q. Okay. Now, for ten month -- during that ten-month period I take
14 it you had enough time to learn who your commanding officer was. Correct?
15 A. Sir, let me tell you another thing. While I was on another
16 position as a member of the Army of Republika Srpska, Mr. Blagojevic
17 perhaps knows that also. I think he's perhaps the 12th or the 13th
18 commander who came to this Bratunac Brigade. And you know that best
19 because you have all the documents. You had them in front of you and you
20 know who commanded and where and how.
21 Q. I agree with you that the Bratunac Brigade was changing commanders
22 with a great deal of regularity, but my question was with respect to your
23 commanding officer, your komandir, with respect to the military police.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, is it your understanding here today that back in July 1995
1 the komandir, the commanding officer, of the Bratunac military police was
2 Dragisa Jovanovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I take it, since we have that answer from you, that is why you
5 didn't think it was necessary to make any changes with respect to that
6 aspect of your statement yesterday when you spoke with the Prosecution.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And I take it that you still firmly believe as you sit here today
10 that Mirko Jankovic in July 1995 was the deputy commander of the
11 Bratunac Brigade military police?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What if I were to tell you that it was actually Mirko Jankovic who
14 was the commander? Would you believe me?
15 A. Perhaps I would believe you, because you had the documents in
16 front of you. And -- which showed that he was the commander of the
17 military police. Because to tell you the truth, we were issued orders by
18 Jovanovic and Jankovic most often. But what they were and what their
19 posts were, I don't know. But they were the ones who mostly issued our
21 Q. All right. Now, from reading your statement, which should be
22 fresh in your mind from yesterday, you would have noticed that when you
23 spoke to the investigators of the Office of the Prosecution on 30th
24 October, 30 October, 2002, you told them that Dragisa Jovanovic was in
25 Potocari on the 12th. Correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And in fact you state that, you -- when you gave that statement,
3 you were quite firm in your belief that Dragisa Jovanovic was there.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you were quite firm because you recollected an occasion where
7 you had a personal contact with him. Correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Where you required -- where you needed or requested some time off
10 in order to attend a celebration, a family celebration. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And so, when they questioned you about Mr. Dragisa Jovanovic,
13 about being in Potocari, as you sit here today, just as you sat in
14 Banja Luka in 2002, you vividly recall seeing Dragisa Jovanovic in
15 Potocari on July 12th, and perhaps the 13th, 1995?
16 A. Well, it's been eight years since then, so last year it was seven
17 years ago. It's very difficult for a person to remember everything
18 exactly. I'm not able to do that. As far as I recall when you go back a
19 little bit, I said in Banja Luka also that I talked to him, asked him that
20 he should let me go to this sending off, this celebration. And he granted
22 Q. Right. Well, what if I were to tell you that Dragisa Jovanovic
23 was not only not your commanding officer, your komandir, but was not even
24 in or around Potocari or the Bratunac area during that period of time and,
25 in fact, that he was in Trnovo?
1 A. Well, I don't know what to say about that, because I know that
2 when I came to the military police in September, Dragisa and Mirko were
3 the commander and the deputy commander. Which post he had in the
4 Bratunac Brigade is something that I don't know. It was not something
5 that I would know as a regular soldier.
6 Q. Okay. But what if I were to tell you that we have very reliable
7 information from the Prosecution that Mr. Dragisa Jovanovic was not in
8 Potocari on the 12th of July, 1995, because he was in Trnovo?
9 A. If this is the information that you got from the Prosecution, then
10 why wouldn't I believe that?
11 Q. And assuming, assuming, that that information is correct, then you
12 must be wrong?
13 A. I don't know. It's possible that I made a mistake. Many -- it
14 was many years ago. A person cannot remember everything.
15 Q. But the mistake is not that he was -- the mistake that you've made
16 is, one, placing this individual in Potocari on the 12th of July, 1995.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The mistake is that you had a conversation with this individual
20 back on the -- during that period in 1995. Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And so here we are with you positively, positively, identifying
23 someone to be in Potocari on the 12th who was not there?
24 A. I told the investigators in Banja Luka that I cannot remember
25 everything exactly. And I am telling you now, I cannot say that that
1 gentleman was wearing such-and-such a tee-shirt. To tell you the truth,
2 there are cases where they said, well, he dyed his hair like that. I
3 talked just before the events in Srebrenica. I talked with Jovanovic
4 and -- because I was mostly down there towards the border with the
5 then-Yugoslavia, now it's Serbia and Montenegro on the road. And at the
6 checkpoint, and he would come there quite a lot to visit us, and I asked
7 him perhaps a week before the events in Srebrenica, because I wanted to
8 let him know that he couldn't count on me on that day at all because I had
9 that family celebration. And he said, No problem, you can go then.
10 So I said that in Banja Luka. I cannot recall all the details,
11 but I know very well that I did ask him that and that he said if I'm not
12 here, and I most probably won't be here, but it's okay for you to go.
13 Q. Okay. Well, in a statement that Mr. Jovanovic gave to the
14 Prosecution, he indicates that he left around the 18th or 19th of June and
15 returned sometime in August. So he must have been -- if Srebrenica fell
16 on the 11th of July and if Mr. Jovanovic left Bratunac on the 18th or 19th
17 of June, we're really speaking about at least three weeks before the fall
18 of Srebrenica, the last time that you had actually seen Mr. Jovanovic.
20 A. How do you mean? Do you mean before?
21 Q. You've just indicated that you saw -- that Mr. Jovanovic would
22 come up and visit you where you were stationed?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you indicated that it was approximately a week or so before
25 the fall of Srebrenica. Correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, if Srebrenica fell on the 11th of July, that would mean that
3 you had seen him sometime during the early days of July, the 1st, the 2nd,
4 the 3rd, somewhere around there. Right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But if Mr. Jovanovic had left Bratunac on the 18th or 19th of
7 June, it would have been a physical impossibility for you to have seen him
8 in early July in Bratunac, because he could not be in two places at once,
9 Trnovo and Bratunac. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So -- in fact, you could be mistaken as to the last time you had
12 actually seen him?
13 A. I said that and I repeated that many times already, that a long
14 time has -- it's been a long time since then. So I just remember
15 everything vaguely. I cannot remember something that happened ten years
17 Q. I fully agree with you, sir. And so if we come to a point in the
18 question where the answer is: I just don't remember, perhaps that should
19 be the answer. Now, let me ask you this: When you were being questioned
20 in Banja Luka, were there occasions, were there occasions, where you did
21 not know the correct or the accurate answer and you just speculated or
22 guessed, hoping that you were giving the correct information?
23 A. Yes. On a couple of occasions when ...
24 Q. So when you were asked, for instance, in Banja Luka: When did you
25 go to Potocari? And you said that it was on the 12th, between 1500 hours
1 and 1600 hours, that's approximately 3.00 to 4.00 p.m., were you guessing
2 or were you sure that that's when they had sent you?
3 A. I've also said that I don't remember exactly what time it was, but
4 it was after 12.00 or 1.00 p.m. I also said that I cannot remember
5 exactly. It was in the afternoon, though, in that period from 3.00 to
6 4.00 p.m., from 1500 hours to 1600 hours.
7 Q. All right. And then you were asked: "Who sent you?" And do you
8 recall answering: "My commanders," in plural, and it should be komandirs
9 plural, "Jankovic and Jovanovic sent me there."
10 Do you recall stating that? I'm just asking you if you recall
11 saying it. We're going to discuss it. Do you recall saying it? If you
12 don't, that's okay, but it's on the paper here.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you recall reading it yesterday?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I take it, since you did not correct the Prosecution, your
17 vivid recollection is that your commanders, Jankovic and Jovanovic, did
18 indeed send you there?
19 A. When we got the order to go there, the officer on duty came to the
20 command, and he said that those two had said that we should go to
21 Potocari. And he told us who was to go up there and so on.
22 Q. Okay. Well, before we get to that, before we get to that, might
23 this be an occasion, sir, one of those occasions where you were just
24 trying to give some accurate or some information to the -- to the
25 Prosecution and you just guessed? You assumed that Jankovic and
1 Jovanovic, both of your komandirs, sent you there. Was this fact or was
2 this something that you assumed and presumed and wanted to give the
3 Prosecution some information, because after all you were being questioned
4 as a suspect?
5 A. I most probably assumed that, because this was conveyed to us by
6 the man who was at the guard post. So I assumed that Jovanovic and
7 Jankovic ...
8 Q. Okay. Now, in your statement you actually say -- do you recall
9 reading in your statement that you were at home on the 12th and that a
10 driver was sent to fetch you, to collect you and bring you back to the
11 brigade? Do you recall stating that to the office -- to the gentleman in
12 Banja Luka? Would you like me to give you the page?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. So -- and I'll -- let me get it to you right now. It
15 will take me a second, but you don't recall reading that yesterday? It's
16 on page 7 in the English version. Do you recall reading that yesterday in
17 your statement? It should be on page 6. Do you recall reading that
18 yesterday in your statement? On the English version it's page 7, line 13.
19 And it should be on page --
20 A. It's on page 6.
21 Q. Okay. It could be page -- if you could look at page 7, line 12,
22 that may -- it's in that vicinity, that whole area -- that whole page,
23 actually, speaks about -- do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you see it yesterday?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And I take it you read it yesterday. Right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did that strike you as somewhat odd that they would send a
5 chauffeur basically, someone to come pick you up from the house?
6 A. I remember stating this in Banja Luka.
7 Q. Was this one of the statements, sir, where perhaps you couldn't
8 quite remember what happened, because after all it was seven years, but
9 you wanted to give them some information. And so you just gave them this
11 A. They came for me.
12 Q. So are you stating that the military police came to you or are you
13 stating -- is that your statement today? You need to answer on the mike.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This is fact; is this correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you as certain about this fact as you were about who your
18 commanding officer was, Mr. Jovanovic? Are you that certain?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And I take it you're certain -- you're as certain as you
21 were that Mr. Jovanovic was in Potocari, when in fact we now know that he
23 A. Sir, had I not been in Potocari, I would not be on that footage,
24 and I cannot escape that. I was of course on that footage, and I cannot,
25 of course, claim that I wasn't there. I said a while ago I have way of
1 knowing what the military structure was in the Bratunac Brigade, nor who
2 was in command there, because I was an ordinary soldier. I had to go when
3 I was told to go. And you are fully aware of this. You have the entire
4 command structure, you have had occasion to see it in front of you. I
5 cannot say I ordered this or I did that.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I just have one last question just before we break
8 for the evening, Mr. President, with your indulgence.
9 Q. But earlier you stated that you assumed, you assumed, that it was
10 Jovanovic and Jankovic that were sending you to Potocari because someone
11 at the command post told you this. That was earlier what you said.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can we conclude, all of us here, that no one was sent to your
15 house to tell you that Jovanovic and Jankovic -- and/or Jankovic are
16 asking you to go to Potocari?
17 A. No one came to my house to tell me Jankovic or Jovanovic told you
18 that you are to go to Potocari. A man just came and told me: You have to
19 be up there at the military police. And as you have read, on the 10th or
20 11th, I was at the border crossing towards the then-Yugoslavia.
21 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to -- I have lots more questions.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: But we have to break for the evening, Your Honour.
23 I appreciate going over five minutes and I want to thank the interpreters
24 and everyone else for allowing us to do that.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 Well, Witness, I'm afraid we have to continue tomorrow afternoon,
2 so please do not talk to anybody about your testimony and do not let
3 anybody talk to you about it, because you are still under the oath. Do
4 you understand that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 So we will resume tomorrow afternoon at 2.15.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
9 at 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
10 the 17th day of December, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.