1 Thursday, 15 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Before we begin to hear evidence of this witness, there are --
8 seem -- there seem to be several administrative matters.
9 Yes, Mr. Tieger, first.
10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning. And
11 good morning, Your Honours.
12 I wanted to raise two quick matters. The first was to respond to
13 the Court's inquiry at the end of the day regarding KDZ595 and 579. As I
14 alluded to yesterday, the Prosecution expects within a short time to
15 present to the Defence and to the Court the list of witnesses remaining
16 and the list of witnesses previously indicated as anticipated to testify
17 who will not be called. KDZ579 is one of the people in that mix.
18 Obviously it would not be particularly efficient to seek protective
19 measures for a witness who would not be called, so we -- the Court will
20 get that list, as I say, within a reasonable time, and that it should --
21 that obviate the matter, but no further steps are necessary. Should 579
22 remain on the list, we will immediately seek protective measures.
23 Secondly, Mr. President, with respect to the Defence request to
24 have the assistance of their demographic expert in the courtroom for the
25 testimony of Witnesses Brunborg and Tabeau, as the Court is aware, we
1 have no objection in principle. However, we have not received any CV,
2 so, which would seem necessary in order to really take a sound position
3 in respect of the matter. I spoke to Mr. Robinson about that. He will
4 be providing one forthwith and we will presumably affirm our
5 non-objection once we have an opportunity to review that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I'll -- yes, we'll wait till we hear
7 from you, Mr. Tieger.
8 Today we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis, with --
9 [Technical difficulty]
10 JUDGE KWON: Two minutes.
11 [Technical difficulty]
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We had some technical difficulties which
13 seems to be resolved by now.
14 I was telling the parties that we are sitting today pursuant to
15 Rule 15 bis, with Judge Flavia Lattanzi sitting in other case. And
16 there's one issue as to which the Chamber is going to issue an oral
17 ruling by Judge Morrison.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: The Chamber will now issue an oral decision on
19 the accused's 69th motion for finding of disclosure violation and for
20 sanctions, February the -- of 2012, filed on the 29th of February, 2012,
21 alleging a violation by the Prosecution of Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules of
22 Procedure and Evidence for the delayed disclosure of a two-page statement
23 of 92 bis Witness KDZ186.
24 The Prosecution filed its response to the motion on the
25 14th of March, 2012. The Chamber, having reviewed the statement and
1 considering the Prosecution's acknowledgment that it should have been
2 disclosed by the 7th of May, 2009, deadline for disclosure of such
3 material, finds that the Prosecution violated its disclosure obligations
4 pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii) by only disclosing the statement on the
5 21st of February, 2012.
6 While the Prosecution violated its disclosure obligation, the
7 Chamber finds that the accused suffered no prejudice as a result of the
8 late disclosure of this single two-page statement of KDZ186. In reaching
9 that conclusion, the Chamber reviewed the statement and found that it was
10 not of such significance that its late disclosure resulted in any
11 prejudice to the accused. In that regard, the Chamber notes that the
12 accused did not allege, and failed to demonstrate, that he had been
13 prejudiced in any way by this late disclosure. In the absence of
14 demonstrated prejudice, there is no basis to grant the accused's request
15 that KDZ186's evidence be excluded.
16 For these reasons, the Chamber grants, by majority, Judge Kwon
17 dissenting, the motion in part and finds that the Prosecution violated
18 Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules with respect to the late disclosure of the
19 statement and denies the motion in all other respects.
20 Judge Kwon refers to his partially dissenting opinion in the
21 decision on the accused's 37th to 42nd disclosure violation motions with
22 partially dissenting opinion of Judge Kwon, 29th of March, 2011. While
23 Judge Kwon agrees with the majority that there has been a violation of
24 Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules, in the absence of prejudice to the accused,
25 he considers that the motion should be dismissed in its entirety.
1 The Chamber takes this opportunity to clarify that its previous
2 instruction in its decision on the accused's 32nd, 33rd, 35th, and 36th
3 disclosure violation motions filed on the 24th of February, 2011, that
4 "unless a disclosure violation motion seeks an urgent remedy, the
5 resources of all parties, including the Defence and the Chamber, would be
6 better served if the accused filed a consolidated disclosure violation
7 motion on a monthly basis." It is not an invitation to automatically
8 file a disclosure motion ever month, as in this case there is such
9 limited material and there is no allegation of prejudice and no urgent
10 remedies sought.
11 The Chamber invites the accused and his legal advisors to focus
12 their energy and resources on motions which raise significant issues and
13 to consider the utility of filing motions which make no allegation of
15 JUDGE KWON: I was waiting for the completion of French
17 My apologies, Mr. Witness, for your inconvenience.
18 If the witness take the -- I'm sorry. If the witness could take
19 the solemn declaration.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
21 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 WITNESS: KDZ245
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, sir. Please be seated and make yourself
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Costi. I'm sorry.
3 MR. COSTI: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, and
4 everyone in the courtroom.
5 Examination by Mr. Costi:
6 Q. And good morning, Mr. Witness.
7 Sir, before you start giving evidence, I just would like to
8 remind you that there are protective measures in place, so please do not
9 make any reference to your identity or other information that might
10 disclose your identity.
11 If you wish to make these kind of references, please advise the
12 Chamber and we will go into private session. Do you understand this?
13 Very well. Thank you.
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. COSTI: May I have 65 ter 90319, please. Yeah, not to be
18 Your Honour, and if I may, all the exhibits we are going to
19 discuss this morning should not be broadcast. So if I make another
20 mistake forgetting to say it, and unless otherwise said, it shouldn't be
22 Q. Without reading out loud, do you see in front of you a document,
23 and do you see the name on it? Is it -- that your name?
24 A. Yes, I see it. It is my name.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I would tender this document, under
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P4594, under seal, Your Honours.
5 MR. COSTI: Thank you.
6 May I please now have 65 ter 90317.
7 Q. Now, while the document is going to come up on your screen, I
8 first would like to ask you: Is that correct that you gave a statement
9 to the Prosecution in 1999 and then you subsequently testified in three
10 cases: in the Krstic case in 2001, in the Popovic case in 2006, and in
11 the Tolimir case in 2010; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is correct.
13 Q. And an amalgamated statement was prepared containing the relevant
14 portion of your previous testimonies and interview. And, Witness, do you
15 see that statement on the screen before you?
16 A. I see what I see, and I see my signature at the bottom of the
18 Q. Thank you. So is this the document that, as you can see from the
19 date, you signed a few days ago on the 9th of March?
20 A. Yes, I can see that.
21 Q. Thank you. And was this document read to you in your own
23 A. Yes, in full.
24 Q. Thank you. And does it actually accurately reflect your previous
25 testimonies and -- part of your previous testimonies and interviews and
1 some other information?
2 A. Yes, it does accurately reflect it.
3 Q. Thank you. Last question on this. Sir, if you were asked today
4 about the same matter, would you provide this Court the same information
5 that are contained in the statements?
6 A. I think I would provide the very same information. I don't know
7 what else I could say.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. COSTI: Mr. President, I tender this statement and also
10 24 associated exhibits. And I should indicate that contrary to what we
11 indicate in our final associated exhibit list, we do not tender two of
12 the three handwritten notebooks. In particular, we would not tender
13 65 ter 35006 and 35020.
14 JUDGE KWON: But you are tendering 35027?
15 MR. COSTI: That's correct.
16 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Mr. Robinson?
17 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, with respect to 35027, the
18 notebook, we would ask that only the intercepts contained in the notebook
19 that are referred to by the witness be admitted, as opposed to the entire
20 notebook themselves. If there's some page that is necessary to also
21 include to show the date of the intercept, we don't have any objection to
23 With respect to the intercepts themselves, we would ask the
24 Chamber to wait until it hears the cross-examination before making a
25 decision about the admissibility of those, although we may not oppose
1 them by the time the cross-examination is completed.
2 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow the second part of your submission,
3 Mr. Robinson. These intercepts are tendered as part of associated
4 exhibit, following his 92 ter statement. But why do we have to wait till
5 we hear cross-examination?
6 MR. ROBINSON: Well, if you're just admitting them for the
7 limited purpose of understanding his testimony, then, of course, you can
8 do that, but --
9 JUDGE KWON: Are you referring to the notebook?
10 MR. ROBINSON: I'm referring to the intercepts themselves.
11 JUDGE KWON: Individual intercepts.
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, uh-huh.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 MR. ROBINSON: In other words, it's true that they make -- they
15 constitute a part of his statement and you can admit them on that basis,
16 but the whole exercise here is to determine the reliability of the
17 intercepts. So if you're going to admit them for that basis, I think you
18 ought to hear the cross-examination first.
19 For example, let's say the witness included in his statement: My
20 colleagues and I -- I've seen 65 ter number 1, my colleagues and I wrote
21 this up as a joke and so it's not reliable.
22 That could be admissible as part of a -- an integral part of his
23 statement but may not -- would not be admissible as a reliable intercept.
24 So I think you ought to at least wait until you hear the
25 cross-examination before making a determination about admissibility of an
1 intercept on the basis of reliability.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 Mr. Costi, can I hear from you.
4 MR. COSTI: Sure. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 As for the notebooks, we would -- we seeked admission of the
6 notebook not -- not as much for the content of the notebook itself but we
7 do believe that having a full notebook, at least one, would assist the
8 Chamber in assessing the whole intercepting process. So we do think it
9 would be of -- of help to the Chamber in their determination of the
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Shall we shop here for a moment.
12 MR. COSTI: Sure.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, for that limited purpose I take it you
14 don't object to the admission of that notebook, handwritten notebook.
15 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 And as for the second matter, it seems to be a -- I understand my
20 friend Robinson's raised a potential reliability issue. We would submit
21 that at this stage the 89(C) standard has been met through the statement
22 of the witness who has recognised the intercept itself, who has discussed
23 in details the process through which this intercept were taken, and who
24 has described the reliability and the carefulness they applied in this
25 process. So if we look at the standard of Rule 89(C), which is a
1 prima facie standard and not a beyond reasonable doubt standard, we
2 believe the standard at this stage is met and there is no reason not to
3 admit this intercept.
4 Now, obviously, if at the end of the cross-examination, and even
5 later, in light of the totality of the evidence when assessing the weight
6 of this intercept Your Honour were to decide that they are unreliable or
7 you want -- you don't want to give any weight to it, then, of course,
8 this is part of your final assessment and determination of the evidence.
9 So in my submission this evidence should be admitted now, and, of
10 course, Your Honour will have to assess at the end of the case the weight
11 to give to it.
12 JUDGE KWON: Separate from these intercepts included in -- in
13 this associated exhibit list, was there some Srebrenica intercepts that
14 may be potentially authenticated by these witnesses? And are you going
15 to deal with them now, or what is your plan for those intercepts that
16 have been marked for identification?
17 MR. COSTI: We believe that the testimonies of this witness and
18 the next witness as well as to the process goes to the authenticity of
19 intercepts taken by the same organs to which our witness is part of.
20 We -- our plan more in general for the other intercept related to
21 Srebrenica is to file as soon as possible a comprehensive motion where we
22 will explain 89(C), why they met the 89(C) standard in terms of
23 reliability and probative value.
24 JUDGE KWON: So this witness will testify to the authenticity of
25 those intercepts.
1 So just -- I'm speaking for myself, from the top of my head, how
2 about marking for identification all the intercepts and then we deal with
3 it all together, because we need -- we may need some witnesses to give
4 some context.
5 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I may be unclear and imprecise actually.
6 This witness, we believe, will authenticate the specific
7 intercept discussed in his statement. As for the other exhibit, we
8 believe that will be -- we will submit they should be taken -- that there
9 should be judicial notice of their authenticity pursuant to Rule 94, if
10 I'm not wrong. My point was that his testimony in general about the
11 process, we will submit in our motion, to some extent supports previous
12 determination of other Chambers as to the authenticity of all the
13 intercepts taken by the ABiH in the Srebrenica area.
14 So as far as the specific authentification [sic] of this -- of
15 this witness concern, I would say that it refers specifically to the
16 intercept we're going to discuss today, and that's why I would submit
17 that they should be admitted.
18 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll consult -- the Chamber will
19 consult the issue.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE KWON: In this case we'll grant the Defence request to wait
22 till the end of the cross-examination and see what we can do at the time.
23 Otherwise, all the other exhibits, associated exhibits, will be
24 admitted and be given number in due course by the Registry.
25 Yes, Mr. Costi, please continue.
1 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Now I would like to read a short summary of the witness
4 During the war, the witness served as a member of an intercept
5 unit of the ABiH. He was assigned to the so-called southern facility,
6 which he contributed to establish. The southern facility was an
7 elevation with no natural obstacles. It was a prime location for
8 listening to the VRS communication in the Srebrenica area. His task and
9 the task of his unit was to intercept the radio relay communication of
10 the VRS. The witness's testimonies describe the equipment they used, as
11 well as the process of intercepting, recording, transcribing all the
12 relevant conversations.
13 And as for the process, the witness testified that first an order
14 from the command would indicate the frequencies and direction to monitor,
15 that's because the command had a complete picture and was in a position
16 to determine the direction of the interesting information. The witness
17 would then scan the required frequencies and when you heard a sound, we
18 stopped the scanner and start recording the conversation. The
19 conversation considered relevant would then be transcribed on a working
20 notebook. The witness and his unit made sure that the transcription was
21 accurate and if something was not recognizable, they wouldn't guess.
22 They would write that it was an inaudible part. And, similarly, if the
23 speaker was not identified, they would write a number or sign instead.
24 Finally, the notebook, the working notebook we are talking about,
25 was passed over to typists and a typist who would type the conversation
1 in a computer. They would then encrypt and send information to the
2 command. The witness explained that no editing was made in the process
3 of typing the information into the computer. The witness recognised his
4 handwriting on several pages and discussed in detail three intercept
5 conversations relevant to this case. And he recalls that when he heard
6 one of these conversation, he realized that there was a hunt for men.
7 And this, Your Honour, would end my summary.
8 I have --
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Costi.
11 MR. COSTI: I have very few questions for the witness, but could
12 we please go in private session for the first question I have.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 [Private session]
11 Page 26328 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE KWON: Could the Chamber -- yes, we are now in open
19 session. But give me a minute, Mr. Costi.
20 Could we move back to private session briefly.
21 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Costi.
19 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Now, Witness, in your statement you gave us the details of the
21 process you followed in intercepting and transcribing these
22 conversations. I would like to just briefly and in simple terms describe
23 the Trial Chamber which were the steps that you took from the order you
24 received to the typed version.
25 A. Well, look, first of all, if there was something we were to
1 listen to and to transcribe, then on the other side there had to be two
2 radios in a network which made it possible to use phone lines, because
3 phone lines were used up until the 1990s. So this is now outdated. But
4 the Army of Yugoslavia and the VRS used this system. At our work posts,
5 we had something that we called a combination, which included a number of
6 devices, and this enabled us to listen to the communications over this
7 radio relay link, and we did this by using this basic device.
8 A radio relay has 24 channels, so it was possible to scan all
9 24 channels, because the operator who worked in our central station,
10 1.800, could follow any channel, so in one central you could follow
11 24 channels and the conversation between participants.
12 In the combination that we used, we had a device that could
13 memorize a certain number for all those 24 channels, and those channels
14 or frequencies could then be scanned. The device was such that you could
15 adjust its speed. So in only a few seconds, all 24 channels would be
16 activated. And then an operator monitoring communications when a signal
17 appeared, a very brief one, it was a tone, a sound of some kind, so when
18 this sound was heard, the scanning would stop immediately. Then you'd
19 have to go two or three channels back. And from that point in time, when
20 you hear that you have found something, you press a button on the
21 record -- on the tape recorder, and then the conversation is recorded on
22 the tape.
23 When the conversation is finished, the operator turns it off.
24 And then depending on how urgent the matter is, sometimes it was urgent
25 to send what had been intercepted to a command, but depending on the
1 urgency, the operator would have someone else transcribe the conversation
2 into these log-books, for example, that are in evidence here. Then the
3 operator would transcribe the conversation that had been recorded. The
4 Prosecutor has already said that when something wasn't clear to us, when
5 we didn't understanding something correctly, we didn't arbitrarily
6 interpret what it was. So we just make a note of the fact that it was
7 inaudible or that it couldn't be understood. So we accurately reflected
8 the recorded conversation. We accurately transcribed it in the notebook.
9 Sometimes, after a shift, an operator would make entries. We had
10 an operator who liked to use computers for transcription purposes. So
11 sometimes an operator would type the text from the notebook into a
12 computer. And then the text would be forwarded by a Paket communications
13 to the command or the forward command post, and so on and so forth. It
14 all depended on which matters were urgent, priority matters.
15 So that is the basic manner in which we worked.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 I have just the last question for you: Have you ever been or
18 ever been deployed to the other intercept facility, the so-called
19 northern facility?
20 A. Yes. On the 14th of November, 1995. Action had come to an end,
21 more or less, at the time, and then the whole unit moved from the
22 southern facility to the northern facility where we joined the staff of
23 the northern facility. And that's where we were when the war ended in
24 1996. We left that area in 1996. At least I did. However, some people
25 stayed on there afterwards, and I don't know when they left.
1 Q. And for what you could see when you were there, would you say
2 that the protocol, the procedure adopted for intercepting communication,
3 was, let's say, similar, if not the same, of the one you previously
4 adopted during the war at the southern facility?
5 A. Yes. The procedure followed was, one could say, identical, as we
6 were part of the same unit, as the same command structure. We had the
7 same company commander. So, in general, everything was the same.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, this would end my examination.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 Sir, in this case, your examination-in-chief, or evidence
12 in-chief, was admitted in lieu of your oral testimony in a written form.
13 Now you will be further asked by Mr. Karadzic in his
15 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
17 Good morning to everyone.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. You confirmed, did you not, that you served in the army?
22 A. Yes. Should I say when?
23 Q. No, it's not necessary. But you served in the JNA. And which
25 A. I was in the communications department, a radio telegram
2 Q. Did you inherit some sort of equipment when the war broke out?
3 Did any equipment fall into your hands, and did you have the same
4 equipment that the other side had?
5 A. Yes, we did inherit something at the southern facility, but only
6 antennae. As for everything else, well, the equipment you have in mind,
7 well, with that equipment, that military equipment, we couldn't have done
8 anything, so it wasn't necessary for us.
9 Q. What sort of equipment did you use for your work?
10 A. Well, the equipment we used was equipment produced by
11 international producers such as Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu. We had receivers,
12 Icom receivers. AOR receivers. We had these basic Kenwood units, these
13 450 devices. We had UHER recorders that were used by organisations for
14 their sessions, their work council sessions, for example, and by other
15 reporters at radio stations for the public in general. And we also had a
16 small device called a balance mixer. That was a key element for
17 receiving the signal we were interested in. And that is a device that
18 was invented a long time ago. I didn't invent it, nor we didn't invent
19 it. But some of the devices I myself created, constructed.
20 Q. Thank you. I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish.
21 But since we're speaking the same language, please wait for the
22 transcript to come to an end. Then you can speak.
23 A. Very well.
24 Q. Tell us, where was this equipment from? The equipment that
25 wasn't inherited from the JNA, where did you obtain it from and when?
1 A. Much of the equipment was obtained from the radio clubs that
2 existed at the time. So, for example, we obtained equipment from my
3 radio club. All the equipment from that club. But many devices were
4 provided through channels I'm not aware of. From various places in the
5 world. I don't really know how it was obtained. All I know is what sort
6 of equipment we had on-site and what sort of equipment we actually used.
7 Q. Thank you. So this was equipment that was more modern. It was
8 newer than the equipment you had inherited.
9 A. We only inherited antennas. We had to construct quite a few
10 antennas too, but all the other equipment was more modern than the radio
11 relay equipment that the Yugoslav army used.
12 Q. So your equipment was more modern than the equipment that the VRS
14 A. I'm only talking about radio relay equipment used for
15 communications. I'm not talking about other radio relay equipment. I
16 don't know what the other side had, and I wouldn't like to express an
17 opinion about that.
18 Q. Thank you. And tell me, were these systems compatible? The
19 systems that the two or three warring factions had, were they compatible
20 with each other?
21 A. Well, in certain cases, yes, when it came to ordinary radio
22 communications for which the usual frequencies were used.
23 In our system, in various municipalities, for example, the same
24 radio relay communication system was used. But when we talk about
25 interceptions and so on, I don't think that this was the case, because
1 our units didn't have radio relay communications that were established in
2 such ways. They had this particular system of communications which was
3 more encrypted, which was a safer system, in comparison to the system
4 that the VRS had for which these radio relay devices were used.
5 Q. Thank you. Did these various communications systems result in
6 sound distortion? Did they affect the quality of the sound? Was there
7 any interference as a result of this, of the systems used?
8 A. When the signal was heard, it was usually quite distinct. With
9 the exception of certain words. For example, we had some of these
10 devices for communications between our commands, and when the device
11 starts omitting a signal, you can usually hear it in your headphones.
12 And that signal can affect the audibility of a certain word and then we
13 make a note of the fact. But since -- if you have two radio relay
14 communication devices, if they're to communicate with each other, there
15 has to be optical visibility. In other words, the antenna of one radio
16 relay had to be matched with the signal of the other radio relay, and
17 then we capture the signal from somewhere else.
18 Sometimes we could hear only one radio relay station and not the
19 other one, and then we would draw the conclusion that one participant
20 could be heard and not the other one. But when you go through our
21 log-books, you can see whether we could hear one of the participants,
22 several of the participants, both participants, and so on and so forth.
23 Q. Thank you. Did you also intercept the conversations of the third
24 warring party?
25 A. Since we were far away, I didn't, or, rather, my unit did didn't
1 do that at our facility. As for whether anyone did anything within the
2 third warring faction, I don't know. We only intercepted conversations
3 of the Drina Corps. That's the area from Bijeljina and all the way up to
4 Cajnici [phoen]. That's the area concerned.
5 Q. Thank you. Can we establish the purpose for which this was done
6 in fact? Am I right if I say that the command issued an order for these
7 interceptions and this was in order to inform the command of the
8 intentions of the other side, of what was going on on the other side?
9 A. Well, the unit that I was a member of was established for that
10 purpose, because, Mr. Karadzic, we intercepted the conversations you had,
11 and we intercepted the conversations of your generals and high-ranking
12 officers. So we intercepted conversations at that level alone. We
13 weren't interested in lower-level conversations. Other people would
14 intercept such conversations by using different devices and a different
15 technical system. So we intercepted the conversations that your cabinet
16 had, conversations that Koljevic and Ms. Plavsic had, Mladic's,
17 Tutaric's [phoen] conversations, and so on and so forth. I won't list
18 all the generals.
19 Q. Thank you. I would kindly ask you to pause and wait for
21 So it served the sole purpose of informing your commanders.
22 There was no other purpose; correct?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. Did a court participate in the process of decision-making by way
25 of issuing orders?
1 A. Did someone provide orders to my command? I don't know. I only
2 knew what my superior requested me to do, and I organised the work around
3 that task and performed it as an officer. I'm not familiar with any
4 other matters.
5 Q. Thank you. Since I can see that many tapes were destroyed, did
6 anyone warn you that you should preserve them, as they might be used in
8 A. Well, you see, never, throughout the war, did I think I would
9 attend a court such as this one to testify. We did that for the purpose
10 of our defence, and that's how I saw my job.
11 I can tell you that until May or June 1994 all such material,
12 such as the notebooks, was destroyed, burned. We didn't even think that
13 they might be used for anything else.
14 As for the tapes, once a tape ended and shifts rotated, we handed
15 them over. It was usually the company commander who did that. Or the
16 next company commander would receive it, the full tape, and take it to
17 the command. Then we would be told to erase the tape or perhaps listen
18 to a particular conversation again. But, for the most part, they were
19 erased and then returned to us to be used again. I don't know whether
20 before erasing them they were copied onto some other tapes. That is
21 something I don't know. But I do know that there's very little material
22 that was recorded before the summer of 1994 that was preserved, although
23 it contained important matters such as the events of winter 1993. It
24 would be very interesting to have it, in particular, in a forum such as
25 this one. But we never thought that it might come in handy before a
2 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that before the notebooks were kept,
3 everything was written down on sheets of paper which were not kept, they
4 were destroyed?
5 A. Yes. At least in my unit. I don't know about the other
6 locations. But when there was a certain amount of such material, we
7 simply burned it.
8 Q. Thank you. I noticed that tapes were hardly ever numbered and
9 filed in a particular way.
10 A. I think they weren't, actually. If there are numbers on the
11 tapes, these are probably numbers that different companies assigned to
12 these tapes, because these tapes were used for workers' council sessions
13 or something like that. But I didn't really notice anything like that.
14 I didn't really pay any attention to it either because that wasn't my
16 Q. Thank you. However, a tape was not marked in a way so as to make
17 it clear where it was in the notebook. So it wasn't really matched to
18 the notebook markings.
19 A. No. Because, for example, a notebook might be filled up before a
20 tape. And then it could happen that a tape could still remain in the
21 facility even when the notebook would be full and sent off elsewhere.
22 In principle, the tape and notebook were only used by us as work
23 material to create a file or a report in our computer to say what it was
24 that was recorded. So then in the computer there would be the date, the
25 number of the document, and so on, and which area was being listened to,
1 and so on. And very often you cannot find that in notebooks. Because
2 these notebooks were really like the papers that we destroyed until 1994.
3 This was just working material for us. We did not see any linkage. We
4 did not really link [Realtime transcript read in error "like"] these
5 things up.
6 Q. Thank you. Had you known that it would be used somewhere before
7 a court of law, what was supposed to have been done in order to make
8 things better? What are the things that you did not do because you did
9 not have a court of law in mind?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last sentence: [In English]
11 "... did not really like ..." Instead: "... did not really link ..."
12 [Interpretation] This is mistyped in the last line. The witness
13 said: "We did not really link these things up," and the transcript says
14 "We did not really like these things up."
15 Is that right, Witness?
16 A. Are you referring to my last answer?
17 Q. You said that "I did not link things up." You didn't talk about
18 me liking something. The tape and the notebook.
19 A. Well, we didn't link these things up because this was simply
20 working material for us.
21 Q. Thank you. Now that you know that you are in this situation,
22 tell us: What were the things that should have been done in order to
23 have made things better, or different?
24 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just wonder: The witness
25 is not a lawyer, so I'm not sure he can answer this sort of questions.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Costi.
2 Mr. Karadzic, he answered the question. He -- he didn't think
3 about that.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellencies, if he's
5 thinking now, it would be useful if we would know. Perhaps we could link
6 things up now.
7 JUDGE KWON: It's for you to make submission later.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Did it sometimes happen that a conversation would not be recorded
11 but, rather, taken down live, written up as it was taking place?
12 A. I claim with full responsibility: Never.
13 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that, as far as these intercepts are
14 concerned, if something was omitted, it would usually be the very
15 beginning of the communication taking place; is that right?
16 A. If you understood what I said in the beginning, what I said at
17 the beginning of my testimony, I said that permanently 24 channels were
18 listened to and then what can happen is the following: For example, the
19 scanner gets to this particular channel and then a speaker is silent for
20 some reason and then the other channels have to go through and then
21 sometimes the conversations did not really start from the beginning. And
22 then we have to go two or three channels back if there was this silence,
23 so there's always this possibility of part of a conversation not being
24 recorded. But usually it's two operators who are establishing the link,
25 so it didn't really affect things much.
1 Usually in the beginning there would be an exchange of greetings
2 and things like that. So then later on, from the moment when the
3 conversation was recorded, it would be written down in the notebook. We
4 did not write anything before that. For example, if we knew which radio
5 devices these were and then we'd say "Badem" and another code-name --
6 well. Just so that one would know which radio relay communication it
8 Q. Now, did this create problems for you, in terms of
9 identification? Because, at the very beginning of the conversation,
10 usually the participants in the conversation identify each other and
11 greet each other by using each other's names.
12 Did you have to make a special effort to identify them if you do
13 not hear their names?
14 A. Just a moment.
15 If we would not hear their names, we never tried to write down
16 some name or invent some name unless we were 100 per cent sure. We knew
17 the voices of quite a few officers. For example, when I talked to my
18 friends or if a friend calls me, I don't really have to think who it is.
19 I recognise their voices. So then we used to recognise a lot of these
20 voices, and then we'd write down "Krstic," "Popovic," whoever, I mean,
21 the persons whose voices we would recognised, and then if not, usually
22 we'd mark the interlocutors by numbers - 1, 2, 3 - depending on how many
23 interlocutors were involved. So if we were not 100 per cent sure that we
24 knew who it was, then we would not guess in any way that this was this
25 person or that person or whoever.
1 Q. Thank you. What about the issuers of your transcripts. Did the
2 identity of the participants really matter to them?
3 A. Well, it mattered to us, too. It was interesting to know who it
4 was that was talking. And certainly it was of interest to my superiors
5 too. Often when I'd finish my shift I would go to my command, to my
6 superiors, and then I'd see on the wall some of these work maps,
7 operation maps, where they would mark code-names - Milici, Vlasenica,
8 Zvornik. Each unit had its own code-name. And then I saw that from
9 these transcripts of ours, next to every one of these code-names they
10 would write up the names of the officers, roughly, and whatever else was
11 heard in the conversations.
12 So the command new roughly which team of officers belonged to a
13 particular unit, worked in a particular unit. That's what I saw. But I
14 really had nothing to do with that because we did not specifically deal
15 with that particular job.
16 Q. Just so you know, I'm waiting for the interpretation.
17 You mentioned that you underwent training. This was probably in
18 the JNA. What did it include, this training?
19 A. In the JNA, from May -- March 1967 until 1968, I was in a radio
20 telegraph unit where we learned the Morse code, because the then-army
21 used that system a lot. Radio telegraphy, in addition to teleprinters
22 and so on and so forth.
23 I, since I was a top-notch operator even before the war and I had
24 taken all these exams, not a single one of our trainers was better than I
25 was, so I assisted them. Once we underwent certain training, once people
1 learned certain things, then communications would be established. That
2 kind of practice was carried out, how to use this system. Even before I
3 came to do my military service in the army I had had tens of thousands of
4 communications throughout the world.
5 Q. We can discuss that in public, can we not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I don't know whether this needs to be redacted. Although I
8 personally think that it's not really necessary, because there are a lot
9 of ham radio operators.
10 A. A lot.
11 Q. Did this training involve some kind of voice recognition
12 training, some kind of music training, if I can call it that?
13 A. When I was in the JNA, there was also a unit that dealt with
14 radiophony. Now, whether they had something along those lines, I don't
15 know. Because the Morse code is a completely different type of
16 communication where there are no voices. There is this monotonous tone
17 that is heard as a signal, like when you're pressing that button.
18 There's really nothing to -- I mean, it's important to understand the
19 code, the combination of those two signs, and then you would know what
20 each letter was. And that is how text could be encoded and decoded and
21 then written up in hand, so -- I don't know. I didn't undergo any such
23 Q. Thank you. So there is no metacommunication. There is no irony.
24 There are no jokes. Everything is literal in Morse code; right?
25 A. You're right. Exactly. Tit, ta, that's the way it is. Dot,
1 hyphen. Everything is monotonous. There are no oscillations in tone.
2 Q. Tell me: Weather conditions and the electromagnetic situation,
3 did they affect the quality of the sound that was recorded and heard?
4 A. Only if there was a lot of thunder. Then that could be heard in
5 the headphones. Nothing else affected it.
6 Q. Thank you. And is it correct that - actually, you spoke about
7 this - that you were never ordered to identify the interlocutors
9 A. I don't recall any order that arrived. I mean, whatever we
10 heard, we wrote down. If we knew who the interlocutor was, then we'd
11 write down who it was. And if we did not know, then we'd give numbers.
12 Interlocutor 1, Interlocutor 2, 3, 4, and so on. And then in that way we
13 would state who it was that was actually talking. We thought that that
14 was the only right thing to do. I don't remember that anyone ever asked
15 us to do anything else.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, did you notice that there was a lot of
17 metacommunication involved, something that cannot be read but it can be
18 felt if you're just listening? Irony, self-irony, jokes, exaggerations.
19 Did you notice that speech is full of that, as opposed to the written
21 A. There were situations when sometimes the interlocutors would
22 curse, swear, make jokes. We did not take that into account. Our
23 notebooks reflected everything that was said in the original. I don't
24 think that we stated if they laughed or things like that. Or at least I
25 didn't do anything like that.
1 So it was just normal. I mean, when people talk, that kind of
2 thing happens as well. It depends on how close they are.
3 Q. Thank you. So there are Serbs and Croats and Muslims there. And
4 they're rather similar, if not the same. Do we agree that quite a few
5 proverbs are used, figures of speech, allusions, and so on, when we
6 speak? Were you in a position to observe that, and did you notify the
7 users of your transcripts of that as part of this metacommunication, as
8 part of this figurative speech?
9 A. As I've already said, we wrote down in our notebooks only what it
10 was that we heard. We never went into giving any kind of comment with
11 regard to anyone's conversation or any conversation. There were civilian
12 conversations as well, because many officers talked to their wives,
13 families, friends, and so on. We sent those conversations on as well,
14 but they probably ended up only in the notebook and the command.
15 So it was only what we heard. We never went into any kind of
16 comments of our own regarding anything, except for what had been recorded
17 and conveyed.
18 Q. Thank you. Am I to understand, then, that the user of your
19 transcript, the commander, could only read what was written down, without
20 any additional instructions, notes, or remarks that this or that was a
21 joke or an exaggeration, allusion, or a turn of phrase?
22 A. As regards my facility, I don't think we ever did that. We only
23 forwarded what had been recorded. No comments were made. Never. That
24 was not our job, and no one asked us to do it.
25 Q. Thank you. Were the commanders receiving only transcripts,
1 without listening to the conversations you recorded and transcribed?
2 A. When once we have recorded a conversation, we transcribed it into
3 a notebook, and that text from the notebook was typed into the computer
4 in its totality. And then through the digital repeater communication
5 links the operator forwarded such messages, and no other people were
6 involved, save for the operators themselves.
7 On the sending end, it was encrypted and decrypted at the other
8 end and then sent to the person who was supposed to receive it.
9 The tapes themselves were retained to some extent and then people
10 could check things. I don't know whether it was done or not. And once
11 by the time the tape has arrived, the information contained on it was
12 already too old and not up to date.
13 Q. Yes, I was interested in how they would interpret this sentence.
14 Were there any omissions or mistakes that were made, and were you
15 ever requested to correct them by your command? When I say "omissions or
16 mistakes," I have in mind the handling of all that material, as well as
17 in the way you kept the notes.
18 A. I have to repeat yet again. Once a text had been transcribed and
19 noted down in the notebook, it was typed into the computer in the very
20 same form, and sent. Which meant our job was done. We never received
21 any information where it was requested that we checked or corrected
22 something. Our superiors knew how we worked. If we had not done our job
23 properly before sending it -- well, sometimes if there was an important
24 conversation and we couldn't hear or make something out, everyone who was
25 in that shift came and listened to that particular conversation. Only
1 when everyone agreed that it was inaudible, we made that note, and there
2 was no need to carry out any further checks or corrections.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the break, could we see
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Witness, my previous question was aimed more at the pattern,
7 standard procedure of note-taking that was in place.
8 Could you have a look at this document for that purpose.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I believe it may be broadcast.
11 That's not quite the thing.
12 JUDGE KWON: 1D5207.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, this is it.
14 Could we have it in Serbian as well.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Are you familiar with this captain who signed the document?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in.
18 A. I can read it.
19 JUDGE KWON: We now zoom -- I'm sorry. We'll not broadcast this
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Can we agree that it says something about the forwarding of the
23 report to the PEB?
24 A. I can't find it right away, but I know what PEB stands for. That
25 was the name of our unit, counter-electronic warfare.
1 Q. And where it says RRPC, what does it mean?
2 A. Radio relay interception something. I'm not quite familiar with
4 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, just to make sure, I wouldn't mention the
5 name of the centre, if you were asked to -- if the witness is asked to
6 read the document, he should be careful not to mention the name.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
8 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry to --
9 JUDGE KWON: That's why I told not to broadcast.
10 MR. COSTI: Yeah.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We don't do that then.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Does it say here that it has to do with certain shortcomings and
14 deficiencies which need to be corrected for the purpose of ensuring the
15 maximum quality of radio monitoring information. And then we have the
16 order itself.
17 This is in August, late August 1995.
18 So in item 1 (a) the following is requested. The original
19 conversation is being forwarded as recorded. And then we have the
20 specific information. Then, under item 2, we have scrambling. Well,
21 what prompted the command that they should request the conversations to
22 be forwarded literally as they had been recorded?
23 A. You mentioned scrambling. We didn't engage in that. And this
24 was probably not send to us. I don't recall any such thing. This was
25 the scrambling unit. I don't know what they worked on, and perhaps they
1 were not doing their job sufficiently well and they were cautioned. You
2 yourself said it concerned scrambling, which had nothing to do with my
3 unit. It would have been counter-productive for us who were trying to
4 listen in to scramble.
5 Q. I agree that item 2 has to do with scrambling, but look at
6 item 1. There they ask that any conversations that are forwarded need to
7 be recorded literally. It only means that they had a sufficient reason
8 to make that request.
9 A. Well, looking at this, that's what we were doing all along.
10 Have a look at our reports in 1993 and 1994, as well as 1995,
11 because this is towards the end, in August 1995. This is precisely what
12 we did. Date, frequency, azimuth, participants, et cetera. This may
13 have been a circular letter which reminded all subordinate units that
14 they need to harmonise the way they submitted reports. But this is what
15 we followed throughout.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted. And, I
18 believe, after that we can go on our break.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, this will be admitted.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2199, under seal, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will have a break for half an hour and
22 resume at five past 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Did I hear well when you said that you were recording everything,
4 but once you realised a conversation was private, what did you do then?
5 A. Sometimes we recorded private conversations which did not contain
6 any information but were of personal nature, say, an officer talked to
7 his wife. We didn't think it was relevant for the command to know.
8 Perhaps a conversation or two of that nature slipped by, but we
9 usually never sent it up.
10 Q. Thank you. Who did the screening? Who made the selection of
11 relevant as opposed to irrelevant conversations?
12 A. Selection was usually made by the operator. He was aware of the
13 contents and then perhaps consulted me or the squad leader or the
14 computer operator. Sometimes such conversations were noted; sometimes
15 they were not. Basically it all depended on the conversation itself, and
16 we made a call right there and then.
17 Q. Thank you. You mentioned me as well among those you listened to.
18 Did you have such material; and did the OTP receive everything?
19 A. As regards you, Mr. Karadzic, we did have recordings of your
20 conversations. Among other things, you had particularly long
21 conversations in 1995, in the summer and fall of that year, with certain
22 representatives or sympathisers in London, Paris, Moscow, and you
23 probably remember that. You also talked to other members of the
24 Presidency, such as Koljevic, and who was it who came after you, with
25 thick eyebrows?
1 Q. Krajisnik.
2 A. Yes, Krajisnik. Thank you. You also talked to many other
3 people, starting with the General Staff and General Mladic, down to
4 lower-ranking units who used that -- which used that type of
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. Let me complete me answer. Because, in addition to asking
8 whether we listened to your conversations, you asked me -- let me try and
10 Q. Whether the OTP received all my conversations.
11 A. I don't know that. We sent conversations to the command, but I
12 don't know how it was sorted, logged, archived, et cetera, or who
13 received it in the end. That is something I'm not familiar with.
14 Q. Thank you. How did you treat my conversations with my
15 sympathisers, friends; and did you make a distinction between my
16 conversations with -- my unofficial conversations as opposed to official
17 conversations? Was there a selection made based on the collocutor?
18 A. I'm waiting for the transcript.
19 We did not carry out any selection. For the most part, all
20 conversations of yours, Krajisnik's, Plavsic's, and Koljevic's,
21 especially long conversations, well, there, they introduced themselves to
22 you, and that's how we recorded them. I know that all those transcripts
23 were in the notebooks, and the texts sent. I don't know whether they
24 were all preserved and whether they will be used in this trial. Once we
25 sent them on, our job was finished. We were no longer interested.
1 Q. Let me ask you about your personal impression. Do you agree that
2 Serbs are not particularly skilled in keeping their secrets? In other
3 words, were you able or did you have a feeling that you could receive and
4 gain any information?
5 A. Let me just wait for the transcript.
6 You see, I have worked in communications for a long time, and I
7 can say that the higher the rank or position, the less regard there is
8 for the rules. So it was more difficult to eavesdrop on the
9 lower-ranking units than it was on generals, because no one can say to a
10 general what to say or not to say. That does not exist. They were prone
11 to being less cautious the most. And I don't know who recommended it to
12 them, probably the Army of Yugoslavia, that such communication was
13 secure, but it wasn't true. There is no such thing as secure
15 In any case, they frequently said, when engaging in conversation,
16 Talk freely. No one is listening in.
17 So the most senior personnel were the least cautious.
18 Q. Did I understand well, then, that generals spoke freely and that
19 they didn't only say things that were facts, but said other personal
20 things, boasted, discussed many other things, et cetera?
21 A. I'm waiting for the transcript again.
22 I could observe, and it was particularly pronounced in the Orlovo
23 theatre in 1993 -- well, I'm really sorry that we no longer have that
24 material, but this would be particularly illustrative of your question.
25 There were many JNA officers who came there to observe an exercise of
1 sorts, and it was interesting to listen to their conversations when they
2 called their colleagues in Belgrade and the way they discussed
3 operations, what trenches they reached, and what lines they were. We
4 forwarded all such information, and you could clearly see how they
5 boasted of this and that. They bragged. And, for example, they had the
6 intention of having an offensive at 7.00 p.m. that day, and thanks to the
7 information we received, at 5.00 p.m. our forces engaged them in a
8 counter-attack. And that was the end of their operation. Their
9 objectives were clearly not met.
10 Q. Thank you. Did it also happen that they said that today, for
11 example, they had captured a hill which they were really intending to
12 take the next day. Did they brag of -- about such things?
13 A. Well, you know, a lot of time has passed, so I can't be specific.
14 But the conversations are in the notebooks. If you have time and
15 interest, you may look it up and then obtain that information.
16 I no longer can say anything specific in that regard.
17 Q. I don't need you to be specific. You mentioned the boasting
18 yourself. Did they sometimes talk of things in advance although such
19 things did not take place at the time of conversation? Did they
20 exaggerate things? Did they boast?
21 A. Well, as I have already said, yes, they would boast and
22 exaggerate, especially on the Orlovo battle-field. As to whether they
23 spoke about certain things prematurely in advance, I really don't know.
24 But, yes, they would say they'd arrived here or there. They'll do this
25 tomorrow, then that.
1 Q. Thank you. Is it true that these conversations show that some of
2 the participants were aware of the fact that their conversations were
3 being intercepted? And they would ever say, Well, let the Turks listen
4 to us.
5 So did they reveal a fact that they were aware that they were
6 being listened to?
7 A. Well, on the basis of my experience, according to the information
8 that I had, up until the Autumn of 1995 they were convinced that we
9 weren't listening to them. That's probably because they didn't know how
10 they were being listened to and what equipment was being used for that
11 purpose. But they did know that there were perhaps one or two radio
12 relay devices that had remained in our territory, these centres, and it
13 was probably on that basis that they came to the conclusion that we
14 couldn't listen in to their conversations.
15 And at the beginning of my testimony I said that what we did
16 couldn't even have been done with the original equipment, radio relay
17 equipment. You could have listened to one channel. It would not really
18 have been adequate. The sort of interceptions that we made could not
19 have been made with the original or old equipment, and we didn't really
20 need this.
21 Q. Thank you. But do we agree that with regard to telephone
22 communication hubs most of them remained on the Muslim side in Mostar,
23 Sarajevo. I don't know whether there was anything in Livno, Tuzla,
24 Zenica, Bihac.
25 As far as telephone infrastructure is concerned, were the Serbs
1 in a more disadvantageous position?
2 A. Well, look, this is a civilian phone network that was in
3 existence. It had been in existence for a number of years before the
4 war. And I don't know -- we're discussing a military network here that
5 the Drina Corps, with JNA equipment, managed to establish. They
6 established a war-time communication network. But this other network was
7 a civilian one, in Kladanj, Jovanovici, Tuzla. Well, each municipality
8 or each post office, in fact, had its own radio relay system of a similar
9 kind, because that was the latest technology at the time. And the radio
10 relay equipment was obtained from Sweden. It wasn't local equipment. So
11 I wouldn't compare those two types of networks. I wouldn't want to
12 analyse whether someone was in a better position or in a more
13 disadvantageous position. That's not really relevant.
14 Q. Thank you. In the course of the war, was it customary for the
15 sides involved to provide each other with misinformation?
16 I think the witness is waiting for the letter A.
17 A. Yes, I'm waiting. But I can start giving you my answer.
18 I personally don't know. My job wasn't to assess whether or not
19 someone was involved in deception. My job and the task of my staff was
20 as follows: What we heard, we'd have to record, transcribe, and forward.
21 Someone else in the command was perhaps involved in these other tasks. I
22 really don't know. But that wasn't our task, and we didn't perform any
23 such tasks.
24 Q. Thank you. But if on the basis of metacommunication, intonation,
25 and so on and so forth, one came to the conclusion that the enemies were
1 providing you with misinformation and saying that they were going to
2 attack such and such a place but that wasn't their intention, in such
3 cases would you inform your superiors of the fact? Would you inform them
4 of the fact that you thought misinformation was being provided?
5 A. We never got involved in such things. We never commented the
6 conversations we recorded and forwarded. That was not our task, and
7 that's not something that we did.
8 Q. Thank you. Did you have any problems? I'm now referring to the
9 beginning of July, the first half of July 1995. During that period in
10 time did you have any problems with the equipment you had, with the way
11 in which it functioned?
12 A. As far as I can remember, in relation to the period you are
13 asking me about, I don't think so. I think we performed our duties
14 adequately, correctly, and I think that on the 13th of July, when
15 Mr. Krstic issued orders about clearing the terrain and saying there were
16 to be no survivors, I was with my colleague, sitting next to him. I
17 heard that conversation live, the conversation that my colleague sitting
18 next to me had recorded. So I know that everyone was working adequately
19 at the time and we didn't have any difficulties.
20 Q. Very well. Did you have any problems with the computers, with
21 the level of confidentiality that was to be preserved for your work?
22 A. Well, as far as -- as confidentiality is concerned in relation to
23 our work, no, we never had any problems. But as far as the equipment is
24 concerned, as far as the computers are concerned, sometimes it was
25 necessary to refresh the system, because the computers at the time were
1 fairly old ones, fairly slow, so their memory capacity was not very
2 significant. But that really wasn't a problem.
3 Sometimes perhaps a file wouldn't be forwarded in time, but
4 within two or three hours or in the course of the day it would be
5 forwarded. And finally, we made a selection. We would only forward
6 urgent files immediately. But less important files would be sent at the
7 end of the report or once a certain number of reports had been
8 accumulated. It's not as if whenever we'd recorded a conversation we
9 would forward it, if it wasn't a matter of urgency.
10 Q. What exactly did Krstic say when you listened to him?
11 A. Well, what was his rank? A colonel or lieutenant-colonel?
12 Beara. It had to do with the clearing of the terrain after the
13 11th of September, after the Serbian forces had entered Srebrenica. On
14 that occasion, the two of them had a conversation, and Beara submitted a
15 report to Krstic and said that they were clearing the terrain, that
16 things were going well. And finally Krstic told him, You know that there
17 will be no survivors. He said, I know that, boss. That's what is being
19 We have the authentic recording. You can listen to it,
20 Mr. Karadzic. I didn't record that conversation, but I did hear it. So
21 now on the basis of what I can remember I'm interpreting it. So perhaps
22 I'm not a hundred per cent precise. But my colleague who recorded and
23 transcribed it made a record and it can be found.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D05204, please. It's
25 the beginning of August.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. And it says that you had problems and that a file was being sent
3 again. So if you saw that something was not going well, you would repeat
4 the action, which you wouldn't do if everything went well; isn't that
6 A. Yes. Well, look, when you send a file, then the other side, the
7 command to whom we were sending the file, if for some reason there was
8 some mistakes in the file or if it hadn't been fully forwarded, they
9 would then inform us of the fact that the file hadn't been received and
10 then we would send the file again in the same form. But if it wasn't an
11 urgent file -- well, if it was urgent, it meant it wouldn't arrive in
12 time, and that was not good for us.
13 Q. It says at the top: As a reason -- for this reason we are
14 sending to you the file in question.
15 And then it gives a number.
16 In what sense was the file referred to in question or
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a translation. I hope the
19 participants have it.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm waiting for the
21 interpretation to be completed.
22 The file was problematic because in the command we were informed
23 through Paket communications that they hadn't received the complete file.
24 That is why the file was problematic. It hadn't been received, and that
25 is why we sent it again. So it wasn't problematic in any other sense.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So this is a document from the
4 Prosecution but without this -- this note concerning the problematic
5 nature -- without this complaint. And the remainder was admitted as a
6 separate document.
7 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The remainder of the document,
9 without the introduction, was admitted. It was tendered by the
10 Prosecution, and I'm now tendering this with this additional complaint
11 that refers to difficulties encountered when transmitting the file.
12 JUDGE KWON: What is the number of the document that has been
13 tendered by the Prosecution?
14 Or, Mr. Costi, could you help us in that regard?
15 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I believe he's referring to
16 65 ter number 3 -- I'm sorry. 20807. Should be this.
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second then.
18 Could we upload it. 20807.
19 MR. COSTI: Because this is the only document we tendered because
20 it's discussed in amalgamated statement.
21 JUDGE KWON: I don't think -- probably it may be one of the
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page. In
24 that case, I would tender this as a document of ours.
25 Can we see the next page. 1D05204.
1 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, no, this is another document. We need --
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, we'll mark the previous document for
4 identification because we didn't see the English translation.
5 In the meantime, you may proceed. We'll give the number for
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I see the name of -- of a place, and then we
9 need to put it under seal.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI D2200,
11 provisionally under seal.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Mr. President, and I'm not sure this is
14 helpful. I couldn't -- I just got into this belatedly. I didn't know if
15 you were looking for the exhibit number of the intercept that was
16 tendered earlier.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Karadzic said this is -- part of this
18 document was admitted as Prosecution exhibit.
19 MR. TIEGER: Right, and I didn't know if you were looking for
20 that particular exhibit number.
21 JUDGE KWON: No.
22 MR. TIEGER: Okay.
23 JUDGE KWON: But in this -- I -- I saw that -- saw the place of a
24 name [sic] in the previous document. That's why I suggested to put --
25 put it under seal.
1 What was the number for this?
2 THE REGISTRAR: MFI, D2200, under seal, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
5 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Karadzic, purely for planning purpose,
6 could I ask how much time more you would need to conclude your
7 cross-examination of this witness.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that I will be to complete
12 my cross-examination within two hours. I won't even need the two hours
13 you allocated to me.
14 JUDGE KWON: Well, how -- from now on, how much long -- how much
15 would you need?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should perhaps complete my
17 cross-examination by noon.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let us give it a try. Thank you.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. It's no longer on the screen, this document I was interested in.
21 But does it say, does it not, that he's looking for Muslims for an
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at the next
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you see this here? K says -- it's the eighth line from the
3 It says: "Make a list of all the Muslims who are fit for
4 military service so that we can transfer them and use them for an
6 And what you recorded is what you wrote down; isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes. I recorded that and I wrote that down.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D05208.
10 Again, could it please not be broadcast.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you remember this, this remark concerning work with the SPKZ?
13 Can you tell us what that is, SPKZ?
14 A. SP I know; it's a type of software. It's a computer programme.
15 And KZ is "encrypted." So it meant that it coded and decoded
16 communication by way of digipeater.
17 Q. So what does it say here? In the second paragraph it says: It
18 caught our interest and today we went a bit further. Namely, we reset
19 the computer system date to the 9th of June and carried out the normal
20 procedure for generating call-signs, and so on and so forth. And it said
21 that today's date, the 8th of July, 1995, corresponds to the
22 9th of June in terms of call-signs and the chat mode used.
23 And then the conclusion further down is that:
24 "We believe that what we have found seriously jeopardizes the
25 secrecy of work on PR and therefore we believe that responsible officials
1 in the 2nd Corps ... should be made aware of this immediately."
2 So that was a problem, wasn't it?
3 A. Yes. One of the problems that was not isolated. There were
4 problems, as you can see here, but, after all, the operator down there
5 who was better versed in this kind of communication than I was did his
6 job and came to a conclusion. This just shows that my people were quite
7 knowledgeable as far as these technical things were concerned, and now I
8 really cannot recall how this problem was resolved, whether somebody
9 brought in a better system, cassette, or whether the system was
10 re-booted. I don't know. Within four or five hours a new computer could
11 have arrived, or some other equipment. I mean, I do not know
12 specifically now. I cannot say. But it did not really affect our work.
13 We could have sent it with the date that the computer had
14 recorded, but we knew what kind of a mistake it was and that it referred
15 to another time. I don't think it is something that affected the
16 regularity of our normal work.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
19 I wonder whether "primjedba" is translated properly by using the
20 word "remark." I think that primjedba can also be translated as
22 Can this be admitted.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2201, under seal, Your Honours.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [No interpretation]
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The Prosecution will undertake the
2 exercise of redacting certain names of places and produce public
4 MR. COSTI: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: Will do -- the Defence do the same?
6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Yes, please continue.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 20807. Could I have that,
10 please. Again, could it please not be broadcast.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. That was the 8th of July, and now we are showing the document
13 dated the 13th of July, and you'll probably remember that.
14 I see. This has already been admitted under a P number.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch the number.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you remember that on that day, on the 13th of July, it says
18 that there was a computer problem. It says that the computer drive is
19 barely alive, kept alive. Yesterday we had to refresh it several times
20 with the NDD programme.
21 So on the 12th and 13th you had computer problems; right?
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the witness
24 at all if he's not speaking into the microphone.
25 JUDGE KWON: Sir, could you speak into the microphone.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is evident from the report that
2 that's the way it was; right?
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
6 JUDGE KWON: I think that has been admitted as part associated
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, yes.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you remember that you were asked, in another trial against a
12 Muslim general, audio recordings were requested from a group of you?
13 Do you remember that?
14 A. Maybe my command was asked about this, but I have no idea. No
15 one asked me for anything, nor could anybody have received anything from
17 Q. Did someone from the Bosnian Ministry of Defence, for the
18 purposes of this court, for the defence of a Muslim general, did they ask
19 for recordings?
20 A. After I was demobilised in 1996, in April, immediately in the
21 beginning of April, apart from this Tribunal, no one ever asked me for
22 anything in any form.
23 Q. Thank you. And what about this Tribunal, or for the purposes of
24 this Tribunal, or upon orders of this Court. Did the Ministry of Defence
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina ask you for specific recordings that had to do with
1 General Rasim Delic?
2 A. Mr. Karadzic, as you put this question to me, it looks as if I'm
3 supposed to have some kind of private collection of these recordings, and
4 I don't have any such thing. And there was no need for me to have that
5 kind of thing. So he could not have asked me for that kind of thing. I
6 mean, but he could have asked me, but he couldn't have received anything
7 because I don't have any such thing. Once we completed the recording and
8 the transcription and once the notebook and tape were sent to the
9 command, I'd never see that again, except when I came here and when
10 documents were shown to me, then I saw them. But as for the rest, I had
11 no contact whatsoever with any of that.
12 Q. Did the ministry contact you, though, in relation to that? Did
13 anybody talk to you about that?
14 A. From our state, from our side, whatever you say, no one was
15 really expressing any interest in our work. I mean, it was only the
16 Tribunal. No one ever -- well, I mean, at least I'm talking about
17 myself. I'm not speaking about others.
18 Q. Thank you. I agree, unfortunately.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D05213. Can we have a look at
20 that, please. Could it please not be broadcast.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Look at this. Ministry of Defence. It's the Ministry of Defence
23 that is writing to this OTP, and they are referring to a letter in which
24 they are being asked for co-operation, assistance in providing
25 information, and there's a specific reference. And then it says that
1 that was handed over, and that, obviously, they are repeating here as
2 well that they did not contact you to ask whether there was anything
3 else; right?
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not hear the
7 JUDGE KWON: Sir, the interpreters were not able to hear you
9 But, Mr. Costi, is there any reason not for broadcasting this
11 MR. COSTI: Well, Your Honour, I'm not quite sure about it. I --
12 I don't think so. But --
13 JUDGE KWON: Very well --
14 MR. COSTI: -- let me get back on this.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Very well. We'll not broadcast this.
16 MR. COSTI: Yeah.
17 JUDGE KWON: Let's proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I hear of
19 this and see this. Perhaps these organs did contact someone. I mean, I
20 see my own name and I see other names, other people. But I really have
21 no idea about any of this. No one had ever contacted me. Perhaps
22 someone provided something to someone else but then they did not consider
23 it necessary. I mean, after all, we had never recorded any conversation
24 here. I mean, the one that you're referring to here, about the general,
25 about this General Delic. Well ...
1 MR. COSTI: [Microphone not activated] [Previous translation
2 continues] ... I'm sorry, Mr. President, I might state the obvious,
3 but --
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you say it's obvious. Thank you.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Are you saying that on the 22nd of July, 1995, the document that
7 is under this number, the third bullet point here, where there is a
8 reference to the names of the operators who intercepted the
9 conversations, you claim that there was no intercepted conversation then?
10 MR. COSTI: Sorry. I'm not sure if this is what the witness
11 actually said. I think he commented that he has no idea about the
12 document. He didn't ...
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let me put it this way
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do we agree that it was established here, document number such
18 and such, pertains to an intercepted conversation of General Delic's, and
19 what is being asked for is that persons who intercepted that conversation
20 should help in obtaining this, and the person's names are referred to
22 So are you trying to say that there was no intercepted
24 MR. COSTI: Sorry. Sorry, again. I don't think he's trying to
25 say that there wasn't a conversation. I think he said he has no idea
1 about the document itself. I'm sorry to interrupt again, but it's quite
3 JUDGE KWON: But he can answer that question as well.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, see? I mean, I'm assuming
6 what it was that had happened. Number 1, that's my name and surname, and
7 it's stated that I'm a platoon commander. And since I've spent most of
8 my time in the first department -- I mean, rather, this is the first
9 department, and I was in the second department. And these are two
10 persons who had completely different jobs, and it's possible that during
11 their shift when I was not present they recorded that conversation. So
12 then they should be asked about this.
13 I'm just referred to here as the person in charge of that
14 platoon. I mean, I am not familiar with this, and that's why I'm saying
15 that I don't know about it. And, finally, well, yes, obviously this is a
16 document -- well, yeah, it's clear. I mean, I personally don't know
17 about this. But it's possible that these two men -- well, because the
18 other one was the commander of this first group, and the other one was
19 the other person who might have recorded that consideration.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. I'm interested in the following, and, of
22 course, you cannot give an answer to this question, but why did the
23 ministry not contact you? And why did they not ask for your assistance
24 in this regard? So they didn't; right?
25 A. They didn't.
1 MR. COSTI: Well, he has already answered, but clearly this is
2 call for speculation from the witness, and I object.
3 JUDGE KWON: Let us proceed.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
5 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, I'm -- I mean, it was discussed by the
6 witness. I'm not sure he provided basis for admission of this document.
7 And I know other witnesses will come discussing the chain of custodies of
8 all these intercepts, and might be the proper course of action, I think,
9 going through those witnesses.
10 JUDGE KWON: You do not challenge the authenticity of this
11 document, do you?
12 MR. COSTI: I do not.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE KWON: As indicated by Mr. Costi, we'll not admit this
15 document through this witness. This witness didn't testify anything
16 about this document.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe I should have objected before
18 your decision. The witness testified that he had not been contacted.
19 And we have this problem with Bosnia-Herzegovina that is not
20 co-operating, and avoiding giving any documents.
21 JUDGE KWON: You'll have another opportunity to tender this
22 document through another channel, other witnesses who can testify --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... to this, or
25 through a bar table motion.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MFI D2024, could we now have that. D2024, MFI.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Witness --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Actually, can this please not be
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. -- do you recognise the document; and is this your handwriting?
9 A. Mr. Karadzic --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters can no longer hear the
12 JUDGE KWON: Could you speak to the microphone, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
14 Mr. Karadzic, this is not my handwriting. And this is not a
15 document that I'm familiar with.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. Can you see the designations? Is it from your
18 location? What is this 7-8 -- well, the figure there.
19 A. 785 is the frequency of the radio relay station. 785 megahertz.
20 1305 is the hour. Based on the text alone, I can't say where it's from.
21 You need to show me the file in the computer and then we can see based on
23 So notebooks were working material frequently without the date,
24 only frequency and time. That is to say, the things relevant for the
25 typing up in the computer. This was quite regular in notebooks.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at 65 ter 35027,
3 page 84. I believe it was presented by the Prosecution, but I'd like us
4 to see page 85 in particular.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go down the page.
7 Page 85 -- 84 in e-court and in the document.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Have a look. Is this the usual way how it was transcribed,
10 especially where it says "Karadzic," here, give me the command post at
12 A. I can see it, yes. It seems that you are speaking. Karadzic is
13 here. Give me the command post at Kusic's.
14 So you introduced yourself to Kusic. Well, now it's gone. Put
15 General Mladic on the phone. And then the answer is: General Mladic is
17 Then you seem to say: Very well. Tell Mladic that I approved
18 UNHCR participation in Karakaj in the evacuation of population.
19 So you wanted them to tell Mladic you had approved their
20 participation in the evacuation of civilians in Karakaj.
21 Q. Was this the usual way it was noted down, and was it noted down
22 literally? Or is it an interpretation? Is it direct speech or simply an
24 MR. COSTI: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I'm
25 not sure the witness has taken or written down this note, so I'm not
1 quite sure he's in a position to answer. But we can see. Just to say
2 that it's not -- he hasn't recognised his handwriting here, but ...
3 JUDGE KWON: He was a commander of a platoon and then he can
4 answer as far as he knows.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that this is not my
6 handwriting. Mr. Karadzic did not even ask me whether this transcript
7 was mine. She [as interpreted] wanted me to read it, and I did.
8 It contains sufficient information that the operator who recorded
9 it could sit behind a computer and type it, because in the computer there
10 is the reference to the unit and other data, such as the date. In
11 notebooks, for the most part, you will find conversations recorded in
12 this fashion without a date. It was working material.
13 You asked me in my testimony if we would do it differently. If
14 we were to do it again, we would try to put all information in, including
15 first and last names, but this is how we worked at the time, and it was
16 enough. What is important is what was noted down. I guarantee, although
17 I didn't write it, I can pretty much guarantee that this is how you put
18 things, this is what you said, and the operator noted it down as such.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. If I told you that this is page 84 of a larger collection, do you
21 believe that one of the previous pages could contain a date? We see the
22 time here, but could the date be on one of the previous pages?
23 A. Well, you see, if you leafed through the notebooks, every two or
24 three days you could come across a date inserted by an operator, although
25 it was not necessary. And then, based on the time of conversation, one
1 can go back to it. And if there was a need to list it according to date,
2 it was always easy to do, if anyone needed it. To us, it was not
3 important. Once the file was open in the computer, it received its date,
4 et cetera. And as for this, it was working material, much as the papers
5 we burned. But, in the end, I'm glad we didn't burn the notebook; at
6 least not all of them.
7 Q. So we go back to the issue of: If you had known it would be used
8 by the Tribunal, you would have done it differently; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I have no
12 further questions of the witness. I seek to tender this page separately
13 as a D exhibit.
14 JUDGE KWON: Since we admitted that entire notebook for limited
15 purpose, i.e., just for purpose of reference, in order to admit this I
16 think we need English translation.
17 I take it that Prosecution has it, this page.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: I've been looking for it, Your Honour, trying to
19 find it. I believe we do have a translation of this. I'm sorry I don't
20 have it at my fingertips yet.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. There's a point of admitting this page 84
22 separately. We give the number for -- D number for this.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2202, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE KWON: Since the authenticity has been resolved, there's no
25 need to mark it for identification, Mr. Robinson. This page.
1 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
2 JUDGE KWON: And just for record: I see the date on page 79,
3 Mr. Karadzic, on this notebook.
4 Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.
5 Do you have any re-examination, Mr. Costi?
6 MR. COSTI: No, I believe I don't. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I'm afraid it is
8 page 84, rather than 79.
9 JUDGE KWON: [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or maybe it's 79 in the document
11 and 84 in e-court.
12 JUDGE KWON: No. You tendered 84 and you asked the date, whether
13 it appears in previous pages. And I looked through and then I saw a date
14 on page 79 which is not that important.
15 Could the Registrar approach the Bench.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE KWON: That concludes your evidence, Mr. Witness. And on
18 behalf of this Trial Chamber and the Tribunal as a whole, I would like to
19 thank you for your coming to The Hague again to give it. Now you are
20 free to go. But we'll adjourn all together. Just a second.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Before we adjourn, if we could perhaps just go
24 back to the associated exhibits.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll discuss it.
1 MR. ROBINSON: You mean to discuss it now, or when we resume?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Why don't we discuss it in order to save
3 time --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency --
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had another three intercepts. It
7 is not the witness's handwriting, but he would be in a position to
8 confirm their authenticity. And for the time being, they are marked for
9 identification; whereas, I wanted to tender them without that
10 designation. Much the same way as the previous one. I can provide a
11 hard copy to the witness and then he can tell us whether these were
12 customary transcriptions.
13 It is MFI D2023, 2024, and -- oh, we did this one. So two
14 documents only.
15 JUDGE KWON: Can we not deal with them when we deal with the
16 Prosecution motion when they will, no doubt, tender -- file a motion to
17 admit the MFI'd intercepts? I think that can be resolved at the same
19 MR. ROBINSON: Very well.
20 JUDGE KWON: Otherwise the Prosecution would be planning -- would
21 be minded to -- to tender -- put all the MFI'd documents to the witness,
23 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think they're doing that actually, but --
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. ROBINSON: -- in any event, it doesn't really matter. So
1 whatever you prefer.
2 But, for example --
3 JUDGE KWON: I'll hear from the Prosecution on that matter,
4 whether they have any specific observation.
5 MR. COSTI: We would agree with you, Mr. President. That, I
6 think, is a matter that can be dealt via motion, and when we file our
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I'll hear from you, Mr. Robinson.
9 Please bear with us for the moment, Mr. Witness.
10 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. It will be very quick.
11 I think that our position, now that you've heard the
12 cross-examination, is that since there's only a requirement of
13 prima facie reliability, that we don't object to the three intercepts,
14 and ask you to take those concerns raised by Dr. Karadzic into account
15 when giving appropriate wait to the documents.
16 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to add anything, Mr. Costi?
17 MR. COSTI: It would be exactly the same submission.
18 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber notes that the authenticity was not very
19 much challenged by the -- by the Defence during the -- during his --
20 during its cross-examination. So the Chamber is of the opinion that the
21 authenticity of those three intercept or intercepts has been established.
22 However, given that authenticity is just only one of the requirements for
23 the admission of documents, we'll mark them for identification in the
24 meantime. They will be admitted when dealt with by witnesses or through
25 a proper bar table motion later on.
1 By the way, but, Mr. Costi, shall we admit -- give the one number
2 per set of documents per intercepts? I mean A, B -- I refer to A, B, C.
4 MR. COSTI: I would suggest that probably giving just one number
5 would be helpful as far as it includes both versions. As you can see,
6 there is sometimes A, C, A, B, and we're sorry. It might be quite
7 confusing here and there. But, as a matter of fact, it is always the
8 same, two documents.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll give one number per set of
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE KWON: In order to do that, probably the Prosecution needs
13 to upload them all together again.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, obviously we will do that, if this is
16 your decision --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 MR. COSTI: -- but -- okay.
19 JUDGE KWON: Let's do that.
20 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. One point with respect
21 to -- just so we can understand how to prepare our work for the next
22 witnesses. You know, we don't have the opportunity to have the witness
23 look at the intercepts that we want to tender and have them say that
24 they're authenticate in the same way that the Prosecution does. In fact,
25 for each of these witnesses we've requested that they meet with our
1 Defence team, and all of them have declined. So we want to be in a
2 position to offer those exhibits that we find useful, and I'm wondering
3 whether you would agree or the Prosecution would agree that it's not
4 necessary for us to show those documents to the witness, and that all of
5 the documents that fall within the same general category as those
6 tendered by the Prosecution may be admitted for the Defence under the
7 same circumstances without the necessity of the witness commenting on the
8 individual intercept.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: The whole point of showing those documents to the
11 witness is to establish the authenticity, isn't it? But I don't think
12 Prosecution will challenge the authenticity of such intercepts.
13 Am I correct in so understanding, Mr. Tieger or Mr. Nicholls?
14 Whoever can answer that question. If those intercepts are from the same
15 category of notebooks.
16 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, of course that's right, Mr. President.
17 I would simply note that we went through this elaborate exercise
18 at the behest of the Defence. Now that it has been a successful
19 exercise, the Defence wants to revert to the position that we urged
20 earlier. But, as the Court notes, the -- we have -- we have and will
21 continue to establish the authenticity of these intercepts as a body, so,
22 of course, we don't intend to object to the authenticity of a portion of
23 those that the Defence thinks are relevant.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 With respect to next witness, I was informally told through VWS
1 that he has been here for a prolonged period of time. And if -- it would
2 be better if we could finish him today. So I was told that if we could
3 take a bit shorter break, i.e., 45 minutes, we can give it a try.
4 So we'll take a break now and then resume at five past 1.00.
5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.19 p.m.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
8 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, sir.
9 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE KWON: Could you take the solemn declaration, please.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
12 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: KDZ126
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated and make yourself
17 Before you begin, Mr. Costi ...
18 Mr. Robinson, can I revisit the Defence exhibit, 2202, which was
19 page 84 of that intercept notebook. We admitted it but, on the same
20 vein, the witness didn't comment on the substance at all. So we should
21 have marked it for identification, to be consistent with the Prosecution
23 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll do that.
25 Yes, Mr. Costi.
1 MR. COSTI: Good afternoon, Mr. President, and everyone in the
3 Examination by Mr. Costi:
4 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
5 Can you hear a clear translation of what I'm saying?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Sir, before I start, I just want to remind you that
8 there are protective measures in place. So every time, avoid to make any
9 mention of your name or other informations that might disclose your
10 identity. And if you need to make reference to anything that might
11 disclose your identity, please let the Chamber know, and we would go into
12 private session.
13 A. Very well.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. COSTI: Can I have, please, 65 ter number 90318.
16 Q. Now, without reading out loud -- and do you have -- do you see a
17 document in front of you on the screen?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... without reading out loud,
20 could you please confirm that the one you see on the document is, in
21 fact, your name.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... thanks.
24 MR. COSTI: So, Your Honour, I would tender this under seal.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be admitted.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4615, under seal, Your Honours.
2 MR. COSTI: Thank you. May I now have 65 ter 90316.
3 Q. Sir, is it correct that you gave a statement to the Prosecution
4 in 1999. Then you testified in one case, in the Popovic case, in 2006?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, an amalgamated statement was prepared containing
7 the relevant part of your previous testimony and your previous interview,
8 plus some additional information, and is that amalgamated statement the
9 one that you should be able to see on the screen before you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is it -- sorry. Is it the
12 statement that you signed on the 8th of March after it was read to you in
13 your own language?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you confirm that it actually -- actually -- accurately
16 reflects your previous testimony, interviews, and additional information?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And, finally, sir, if you were asked today about the same
19 matters, would you provide the Chamber with the same information?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. COSTI: Mr. President, I tender the document, and I would
23 tender together with the document 18 associated exhibits. I should point
24 out that - once again I'm sorry, we were probably imprecise - we would
25 not tender the three full notebooks with 65 ter number 35030, 35032, and
2 JUDGE KWON: So, i.e., are you not tendering any handwritten
4 MR. COSTI: Correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: And all the others are intercepts.
6 MR. COSTI: They're all intercepts.
7 And if I may, I -- I understand that there shouldn't be objection
8 from the Defence, since they sort of -- we discussed the issue of the
9 authenticity. I would suggest that these intercepts should go -- should
10 be accepted into evidence and not simply marked for identification.
11 JUDGE KWON: I beg your pardon?
12 MR. COSTI: Instead of marking them for identification, I would
13 tender them. And we submit they should be admitted.
14 MR. ROBINSON: Actually, maybe we're not communicating correctly,
15 because I thought that you had kept them in the MFI status due to the
16 relevance issue, so --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 MR. ROBINSON: -- for that reason I would say that they -- unless
19 the Prosecution wants to persuade you to admit them on the basis of
20 relevance that you could see from the intercepts themselves, these small
21 number of intercepts, but otherwise, if you are going to follow that
22 practice, we should keep them under MFI for now, pending a written
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Costi, as you know, the authenticity is not all
25 the requirements for a document to be admitted. We maybe establish
1 authenticity through this witness of certain intercepts, but -- and then
2 later on you can produce witnesses who can testify about the document's
3 content or, if necessary, can use a bar table motion, to give some
4 context or -- and explain some probative value of intercepts.
5 Yes, Mr. Tieger. I noted your rising.
6 MR. TIEGER: Actually, in fairness to Mr. Costi, I had the
7 discussion with Mr. Robinson. It was predicated in part upon the view
8 that the relevance was sufficiently identified in the witness's
9 statement. Nevertheless, I don't want to -- I don't think there's a need
10 to linger further in the discussion. We can proceed in -- in the fashion
11 we have before. I don't want to make a bigger issue out of that. But I
12 did want to explain why that conversation took place.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll leave it at that time.
14 Yes, Mr. Costi.
15 MR. COSTI: Very well. Thank you, Mr. President.
16 I would now like -- sorry.
17 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we give the number for the statement
18 itself, and the others will be given the number in due course.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, 65 ter number 90316 will be
20 Exhibit P4616, under seal.
21 MR. COSTI: Mr. President, I would like to now read a short
22 summary of the witness testimony.
23 During the war, the witness served as a member of an intercept
24 unit of the ABiH. He was assigned to the northern facility as a
25 commander of a squad of intercept operators. The witness in his
1 testimony described the equipment they used and the standard procedure
2 they applied in their job. He explained that they would scan, monitor,
3 the frequencies and directions provided by the command, with an order.
4 And once they picked up a sign or a sound, they would stop the scanning
5 and start to record. Conversation considered interesting would be
6 transcribed in a working notebook. From there, the conversation was then
7 typed into a computer and sent to the command.
8 When transcribing the conversation in the notebook, the witness
9 and his squad listened to the tape in small sections in order to be
10 accurate. If part of the conversation was inaudible, was unclear, they
11 would put dots or leave a blank section. And if they were not hundred
12 percent sure of one word, they would write the same word and a question
13 mark. Similarly, if they did not know the name of the speaker, they
14 would use a dash, indicate the speaker as X, Y, or a number. No change
15 was made once the intercept was transcribed in the working notebook.
16 The witness explain that it was in their interest to be accurate
17 and precise, since the conversation was intercepted because they were
18 important for them at that time. The witness further identifies his
19 handwriting on several pages and discussed several intercepts.
20 This, Your Honours, ends my -- my brief summary. And we do not
21 have any question for this witness.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 Sir, whenever you feel necessary -- feel it's necessary to take a
24 break, please don't hesitate to let us know.
25 And your evidence in-chief was admitted in writing in lieu of
1 your oral testimony, and, as you noticed, now you will be further asked
2 by the Defence, Mr. Karadzic, in his cross-examination.
3 Do you understand that, sir?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do understand that. But could I
5 ask you to make a correction here. I don't know whether it's an error
6 that slipped in when the statement was typed out, but there is a mistake
7 in the statement.
8 In one part it says a platoon commander, but it was the commander
9 of a detachment, not of a platoon.
10 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 MR. COSTI: I may have -- I may have said erroneously "platoon."
14 If I said it, I meant "squad commander." This is what is said, I
15 believe, in the statement. But I'm going to check in the statement
16 whether there is also a mistake in there.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you.
18 Mr. Witness, what Mr. Prosecutor has read out does not form of
19 evidence. What is evidence is what you stated in your statement. So
20 rest assured. Thank you for your clarification.
21 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Witness, sir.
24 A. Good day.
25 Q. Is it true that you completed your electromechanical school --
1 what was it called?
2 A. It was called a school for electromechanics.
3 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry to -- to interrupt, but I suppose these are
4 information that should remain -- should be said in private session.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let us continue.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Please, could you tell us, sir, is it correct that as you
9 yourself said you were mobilised by the secretariat for information and
10 propaganda in the municipality?
11 A. Yes. The secretariat -- that secretariat mobilised me there to
12 my first position in that municipality.
13 Q. Thank you. So that is a civilian authority body; isn't that
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. We should both make pauses between question and answer, if
17 possible, to facilitate the work of the interpreters.
18 Could they have mobilised you prior to the declaration of a state
19 of war? Was that legal?
20 A. Well, I don't know anything about the laws. I was mobilised, as
21 far as I can remember, on the 24th of May.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak up or to
23 approach the microphone.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether this was in
25 accordance with the laws or not. I really don't know.
1 JUDGE KWON: Could you come closer to the microphone so that you
2 can speak into the microphone.
3 Yes, please continue.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whether it was legal or not, in
5 accordance with the laws or not, I don't know. But I do know that I
6 received an appeal. I reported to the duties that I had been asked to
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. And what did you do prior to that?
10 A. I worked in my company prior to that.
11 Q. Thank you. That's quite sufficient.
12 Do you remember that a state of war was declared on the
13 20th of June, and you were mobilised before that date, on the
14 14th of June? You were transferred to military department. Isn't that
16 A. On the 14th of June, but that was in the year 1993.
17 Q. I see. Thank you for that clarification.
18 Do you remember that war was declared on the 20th of June, 1992?
19 A. Well, I don't know the exact date, but I assume that it was
20 around that date.
21 Q. Thank you. What was the task that this municipal secretariat had
22 to perform in your municipality? We won't mention the name of the
23 municipality. I'm not sure that such things existed in all
24 municipalities. When was this secretariat established and what was its
1 A. I can't say anything about the tasks of the secretariat for
2 information and propaganda. All I can tell you about concerns the duties
3 that I had to perform within that secretariat.
4 My job consisted of the following: I had to help the way the
5 television network functioned in my municipality.
6 Q. Thank you. At that time, up until June 1993, you weren't
7 involved in the work that you were subsequently involved in with these
8 interception devices; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Throughout that period of time, you lived in your municipality;
11 isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we briefly move into private
14 session in case -- the name of the municipality should not be revealed in
15 open session.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, we are in open session.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, is it true that your town is in the depth of the
20 territory? It's not, in fact, on the actual front line.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Did you know that at the beginning of the war about a thousand,
23 around 900-odd, Serbs were kept at the stadium and they were maltreated
25 A. That's not true.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you know, did you observe, that the centre we
2 mentioned in private session was turned into a prison, and a certain
3 number of Serbs were held in detention there?
4 A. I know that part of that centre was turned into a prison. And
5 it's not just that a certain number of Serbs were detained there, but
6 some members of the Territorial Defence were also detained there for
7 various errors they had committed or various misdemeanours.
8 Q. Thank you. How many Serbs were there in your municipality,
9 let's, say, in 1993? And how many Serbs are there in your municipality
11 A. Well, I can't really provide you with such information. I can't
12 really tell you how many of them there were in 1993. There were some
13 there at the time, and there are some there today, but I don't want to
14 provide any figures off the top of my head.
15 In any event, there are fewer of them there now than there were
16 in 1990 and 1991.
17 Q. Thank you. So can we agree that there are far fewer of them now?
18 The census shall be carried out very soon.
19 A. The census will show what the situation is.
20 Q. According to what you know, where were the Serbs in your
21 municipality? Where did they live, where did they go?
22 A. I don't know where they went. Many Muslims went. Many Croats
23 left as well, to various parts of the world. In my municipality, there
24 are many Muslims of -- who are now in America, in the Netherlands, who
25 are in countries all over the world. I also have Serb friends who are
1 all over the world, and I still have contact with them to this very day.
2 Q. Thank you. So did a lot of Muslims really leave your
3 municipality as well?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you tell us why. It's not Serbian territory, it wasn't at
6 the concentration line, so in that case why did the Muslims leave and go
7 to other places throughout the world?
8 A. Well, why? I can just provide you with one example. At the
9 beginning of the war, many people sent their families, their women and
10 children, wherever possible. And later, when they established contact,
11 the others left too. In other words, the families would be reunited.
12 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask you whether there's any specific reasons
13 for you not to start with issues relating to intercepts? Otherwise,
14 given the limited time, I would like you focus on those more critical
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I will
17 keep my promise to complete my cross-examination today. But we seldom
18 have the opportunity to listen to a decent man from a Muslim background
19 who will testify to what he experienced and saw, and this is certainly
20 something that will be of assistance to the Chamber.
21 Very well. We will now move on to other issues.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Just one other question. The number of the Serbs diminished.
24 What about the number of Muslims? Did it increase or diminish, and where
25 did they go?
1 A. Well, as I have said, I can't provide you with any concrete
2 information, but I can express what my opinion is. It's a town that I
3 live in, after all. I think the number of the Muslims increased. The
4 number of Muslims from Srebrenica, Bratunac, and other places increased.
5 Q. Thank you. When did they start arriving in (redacted) Was it
6 immediately prior to the war -- immediately prior to the war? Did some
7 people leave and some arrive?
8 A. Not immediately prior to the war. It was around 1995.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak up a
10 little bit. The interpreter is having trouble hearing him.
11 JUDGE KWON: Either you could come closer to the microphone or
12 speak up a bit louder. The interpreters seem to have difficulty in
13 following you.
14 Thank you, sir.
15 Thank you --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 JUDGE KWON: -- Mr. Karadzic. Please continue.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Costi do we need a redaction at line 11 or
20 line 10?
21 MR. COSTI: Where the name of municipality was cited. And, yeah,
22 I was about to stand up and mention it.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Now I'd like to ask you something about the reasons for which you
2 are here, the main reason for your presence here.
3 In your statement, on page 2, paragraph 6, you said that you
4 intercepted communications at the level of the VRS Corps and you
5 deciphered or decrypted these communications; is that correct?
6 A. That's not what I said. We did intercept conversations. We
7 recorded them on a tape and then we transcribed them in a log-book. But
8 there was a different service that was involved in decryption. It was in
9 the room next to our room. They were very close to us.
10 Q. Very well. Thank you. When I said that, I had your service,
11 your department in mind, not yourself personally. So you could decrypt
12 encrypted communications at the level of VRS Corps; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. In fact, is there something that I could correct here?
14 When I record a conversation and transcribe it in a notebook, I
15 then handed the conversation over. It would be typed out. And that is
16 where my work finished. I don't know what would subsequently be done.
17 Q. Thank you. In the summary, you said that you received orders.
18 Does this mean that you worked in accordance with the orders from the
19 army and for the benefit of the army?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. As part of the ordering process and issuing of tasks,
22 did any court or judicial organ take part in it, such as an investigating
23 judge or someone else?
24 A. I received orders from my platoon commander. I don't know who he
25 received his orders from. I suppose from his company commander or
1 someone higher up.
2 In any case, I received my orders from him or, in his absence,
3 from the company commander.
4 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the channels and levels and
5 participants were determined -- well, what was it that your superior
6 command determined? What was it that they ordered and that you could not
8 A. Orders I received always included antenna position, frequency -
9 and this goes for the RRU-800 device. So we received an order containing
10 the direction, such as south-east, and frequency. Then we would turn our
11 antennae and scan the channels which were pre-set in the device. If
12 there was any communication, we recorded it.
13 Q. Thank you. How many channels did the RRU-800 have, and what was
14 the distance it can cover, the range?
15 A. The RRU-800 had a maximum of 24 channels. As for its range, I
16 don't know that. It wasn't part of my job. I was just an operator
17 involved in the technical part of the whole operation.
18 Q. Thank you. I was waiting for the interpretation, and I would
19 kindly ask to you do the same.
20 A. No problem.
21 Q. When the scanner picked up something or when you would hear that
22 there was some activity on a particular channel, you stopped the scanning
23 process and returned to the channel in question in order to record.
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. In the meantime, was it customary or understood that you would
1 lose the very beginning of a conversation?
2 A. It all depended on when we registered a conversation on a
3 particular channel. Sometimes we could even get to the very beginning of
4 the conversation; whereas, sometimes we could get to that channel towards
5 the end of the conversation, sometimes in the middle. It all depended.
6 Q. Thank you. Were you under an obligation to identify the
7 participants and to send information to your users, to your commands,
8 about the participants?
9 A. If the participants could be identified, we did that. If not, we
10 didn't identify them. Then we would put a dash or an X or a letter,
11 depending on the number of participants.
12 Q. Thank you. How did you identify them? Did you wait until they
13 introduced themselves, or did you apply certain recognition methods?
14 A. I can only discuss my work and the work of my shift.
15 What was the method of recognition? We identified participants
16 according to the way they introduced themselves. It rarely happened,
17 although it did happen, that we would recognise people. But it happened
18 seldom. I don't know how to explain that. When you have been listening
19 to a voice for a few days and you recognise the tone modulations. Or,
20 for example, when I speak to my wife on the phone, the moment I hear her
21 voice I know it's her, if you understand my point. But this did happen
22 seldom. Usually the participants introduced themselves.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us something about the way of decoding
24 and the codes used by the VRS at corps level?
25 A. I really can't say anything about that. That was not my job.
1 Q. Thank you. Could you, and with what devices, locate the
2 participants? Could you tell where they were?
3 A. My job was not to locate the participants. Once I received an
4 order, I had to implement it. It meant turning the antenna and operate
5 the device. I had to duly work and scan and record and then transfer
6 into a notebook correctly.
7 Another service was in charge of identifying, so I really can't
8 say anything about that.
9 Q. Thank you. What is the working or frequency range of the
11 A. Well, the frequency range, I don't know it off the cuff. But
12 between 600 and 800 megahertz, I think. Once I left that position, I no
13 longer worked with such matters, so I cannot be sure.
14 Q. Thank you. And what about the RRU-1? How many channels and what
15 is the frequency range?
16 A. As far as I recall, the RRU-1 worked between 180 and
17 300 megahertz. It did not have channels. It scanned in terms of
18 frequency volume. It simply went up and down the frequency range.
19 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that besides recording there was also a
20 noting down of conversations live?
21 A. Could you please repeat the question? It's not clear.
22 Q. Did you and your soldiers write down conversations?
23 A. Do you mean without any recording?
24 Q. Instead of recording.
25 A. In my shift, that never happened. We had a procedure in place
1 that we had to abide by.
2 Q. What about the other shifts, as far as you know?
3 A. I don't want to discuss other shifts. I don't know.
4 Q. Let me ask you about the first half of July 1995.
5 Were you in the facility beginning with O?
6 A. I think I was.
7 Q. What sort of communication did you follow? Only Serbs? Or
8 Muslim as well?
9 A. At that time, we monitored only one RRU-800 direction, as well as
10 RRU-1, which was the Serb direction or channels.
11 Q. Thank you. What were the frequencies used for the communication
12 of members of the 28th Division? And did you record any of that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So any electronic insight you could have of events in and around
15 Srebrenica in the course of those few days came solely based on the
16 communication of the Serb army; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you, and in what way, learn about the decision
19 for the 28th Division not to surrender but to fight its way out to Tuzla?
20 A. I have never heard of that.
21 Q. Thank you. By listening to Serb radio traffic, could you see
22 what the intensity of fighting was and the number of losses in that
24 A. You see, a lot of time has passed. While I was up there, while I
25 listened to some conversations, I was appalled. I couldn't believe what
1 was being done. But, now, 17 years later, I really can no longer recall
2 some of the things, especially if I did not work on them directly. I
3 can't even remember many things that I worked on, which is quite a normal
4 thing after such a long time.
5 Q. Thank you. As part of your work, could you monitor my
6 communication with someone? And do you recall anything of that sort that
7 you recorded or wrote down?
8 A. I recall a conversation which involved you and an intermediary.
9 However, there were also many cases when I was not at work when your
10 conversations were intercepted. However, I was not involved in that, so
11 I can't say anything about it. You should ask the person who intercepted
12 it and recorded it.
13 Q. Thank you. Are you discussing the conversation on the
14 13th of March, at some time, between the late Miroslav Deronjic and
15 myself through an intermediary? Was that the conversation?
16 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just wonder whether
17 Mr. Karadzic got the date wrong, because I believe it wasn't the
18 13 of March. That conversation was discussed in other session in this
19 court before.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we discuss it in open session?
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. But I -- probably it's a type or misspelling,
22 misspoke of 13th of July, not March.
23 Yes, let's continue.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise. My eyes
25 fooled me. Because I know that on the 13th of March the witness
1 corrected something which has to do with the 13th of July.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Are you referring to a conversation in which Deronjic and I could
4 not communicate directly as we could not hear each other; it all went
5 through an intermediary who conveyed his messages to me and the other way
7 Is that the only conversation involving me that you recorded?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do we agree that lately you have corrected your previous
10 statement, where you said you thought I was in the same room with the
11 intermediary; whereas, in the notebook --
12 MR. COSTI: Sorry to step in.
13 I would like to see the cite for the witness saying that -- that
14 he was in the same room. I don't think this was said by the witness, as
15 far as I recall.
16 But if you could get a cite, maybe that clarify the matter.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can have a look at
19 65 ter 31036C.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In that intercept:
22 [In English] "The intermediary and Karadzic are sitting in the
23 same room."
24 [Interpretation] Could we have a look at that?
25 JUDGE KWON: Do you withdraw your objection, Mr. Costi?
1 MR. COSTI: I believe my objection was about the cite, and I'm
2 not sure whether the witness ever testified about that. He's reading an
3 intercept and ...
4 JUDGE KWON: Oh, right. So, for clarity, why don't we upload it
5 and let's show it to the witness.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that's not it. Can we
7 see the page following this one? Just one moment. A and C. In the
8 printed intercept, it says C.
9 Actually, can we have a proofing note, 1D05199.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I see it on page 4 in English. And it's
11 2010 hours. So in B/C/S ... page 4 as well.
12 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, just to make clear, my -- Mr. Karadzic
13 said, at page 81, lines --
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I understood.
15 MR. COSTI: Perfect. I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE KWON: We're -- we see here, in the parentheses,
17 "Intermediary and Karadzic are sitting in the same room."
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Have you made a correction in the proofing note two days ago?
20 A. As for the typed version, I don't want to discuss it at all. I'd
21 like to see the original, the handwriting version, the one I noted down
22 by listening to the tape. And then we can compare it with this one. I
23 didn't write this.
24 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this, given your profession: Would it
25 have made sense to be in the same room with the intermediary and let him
1 listen to the collocutor and convey my words, or would it have been more
2 logical to conclude that both I and the other participant were far aware
3 and we had no direct means of communication?
4 A. I don't want to discuss the text before me. I would like to see
5 my own transcript, and that is what I can discuss. If possible.
6 Q. I apologise. Then we're going to take a look and see whether we
7 have it here. Just a moment, please.
8 I think that it could be 65 ter 31036.
9 Does the content sound familiar?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you did record this; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 31036A. Let
14 us not have this broadcast.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Is this familiar?
17 A. This is very familiar. As you can see, up here it is not written
18 at all that you were sitting in a common room. This is what I wrote, and
19 this is the only thing that I can discuss, and I do not wish to discuss
20 other matters.
21 Now, why it is written the way it is written over there, that is
22 not my problem.
23 Q. Thank you. So it could happen that something that exists in the
24 typewritten version is not in the handwritten version; right?
25 A. Well, well, perhaps I should put it this way: that in the
1 typewritten version there are things that are not in the handwritten
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the handwritten version be
5 admitted, please.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE KWON: I think it's already admitted as part of associated
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will do as well. But I meant
10 because of the correction.
11 JUDGE KWON: You meant to tender that proofing note?
12 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry to interrupt. That's about the third
14 time. The witness has not made any correction to his statement, as keeps
15 being put to him. The witness noticed a discrepancy between the
16 handwritten version and the printout. That is not the witness making a
17 correction to his statement.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's -- that's clear, Mr. Nicholls.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then have 1D05199. I find
20 this confusing. If he hadn't corrected it, how can the proofing note ...
21 JUDGE KWON: It's not that he corrected. He indicated the
22 discrepancy. We will see.
23 We'll not broadcast this.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says:
25 [As read] Participated in the proofing and [In English] witness
1 made the following comment about intercept A and C. The printout
2 intercept 31036C indicates in the heading that the intermediary and
3 Karadzic are sitting in the same room, while the notebook version he
4 wrote ... does not have the information.
5 JUDGE KWON: That's what he said.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'd like to tender this
7 proofing note, please.
8 JUDGE KWON: Well, whether it's necessary, I'm not sure. But I
9 don't see any problem in admitting this.
10 Yes, we'll give number. And we'll put it under seal.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2203, under seal, Your Honours.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Witness, did you get the impression, or, rather, did you have
15 any insight, did you talk to your colleagues, about the level of
16 fighting, the level of losses during that week? Between Srebrenica and
17 Kalesija, Srebrenica and Tuzla?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Witness, if you were to have the same task again,
20 would you propose certain changes in the methodology involved; and if, so
21 what would you suggest should be improved?
22 A. Well, that's a relative question. If I had the same task, you
23 know what I'd change? The only thing that I would change, I'd issue an
24 order to my men to write very, very legibly and clearly. That would be
25 number one.
1 I have to tell you that everything that we recorded and
2 everything that we received, we did all of that to help the
3 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is to say, our own command. Not at any
4 point in time could I have imagined that it would have come to where it
5 is now. If I were to be doing this again, we would strictly pay
6 attention to that, because probably we would assume that this would
7 arrive here. And then I would have kept the notebooks and the tapes and
8 everything in order to make all of this easier.
9 That's the only thing I would change, from the point of view of
10 my own job and the tasks involved in my job description.
11 Q. In that case, if it were to be used by a court of law and for
12 those purposes it would have been more complete and more accurate. Is
13 that what you're trying to say?
14 A. Yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. I have no further questions.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.
19 Yes, Mr. Costi.
20 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, we don't have further questions.
21 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
22 Sir, that concludes your evidence. On behalf of my colleagues
23 and the Tribunal as a whole, I would like to thank you for your coming to
24 The Hague get again to give it. Now you are free to go.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank this Court.
1 And I am very pleased if I managed to be of any assistance to have this
2 case resolved in a positive or in a negative sense.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 Yes, Mr. Costi.
6 MR. COSTI: Just one -- we discussed about the --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Let us wait.
8 MR. COSTI: Okay.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Costi.
11 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, we submit that this particular intercept
12 we just discussed should be admitted into evidence right now. The reason
13 being that -- we are fully aware that 89(C) requires the evidence to be
14 of probative value and also relevant, but I would say there is no real
15 discussion here as whether this evidence is relevant or not. The
16 relevance is it appears quite clear and it was discussed to full extent,
17 which is Mr. Karadzic's involvement in the events of those days.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
19 MR. ROBINSON: We don't dispute the relevance of that intercept.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE KWON: Well, I was thinking about more some comprehensive
22 resolution, but given the situation, we'll admit this in ... in full.
23 65 ter 31036.
24 Shall we continue, or shall we adjourn for the week?
25 MR. TIEGER: I believe the latter, Mr. President. I think the
1 timing came as a surprise to everyone, including VWU.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll resume tomorrow -- no, next week, on
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE KWON: In the morning, at 9.00. And we'll start with
7 Bonne weekend.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.08 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day
10 of March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.