1 Friday, 23 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Before we begin today, coming back to the issue you
7 raised, Mr. Tieger, as to the complete witness list for the Prosecution,
8 the Chamber finds it to be helpful to have a complete list of 65 ter list
9 on the part of the Prosecution. Given that since it was filed in 2009,
10 there were several revisions or amendment, but we didn't have one. But
11 the new list, complete list, should not be accompanied with summaries. I
12 don't think that would be very burdensome on your part.
13 And my -- and on a separate issue, whether you had the
14 opportunity to look into the list of funding countries for the ICMP.
15 MR. TIEGER: My mistake, Mr. President. I wasn't able to reach
16 Mr. Vanderpuye. I'll do that this morning.
17 JUDGE KWON: Could you come back to me after the break?
18 MR. TIEGER: Absolutely.
19 JUDGE KWON: My apologies for your inconvenience, Ms. Frease. If
20 you could take the solemn declaration, please.
21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
22 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
25 Good morning, Mr. Nicholls.
1 MR. NICHOLLS: Good morning. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Examination by Mr. Nicholls:
3 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease.
4 A. Good morning.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have 65 ter 90321, please.
6 Q. Now, Ms. Frease, what I'm going to bring up on the screen in a
7 minute is a witness statement recently signed by you when I arrived here
8 in The Hague. You should see it in a minute.
9 Do you remember going through this statement and signing it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I just have a couple questions about it. Could you please
12 confirm for the Trial Chamber that you went through the statement and
13 read it carefully before signing, and that it's accurate?
14 A. Yes, I did; and yes, it is.
15 Q. And would your answers on the same topics, if you were asked
16 again today, be the same as they are in the statement, not necessarily
17 word for word, but the information you would give would be the same?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: May I tender that, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be next Prosecution Exhibit.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE KWON: It should be put under seal, Mr. Nicholls?
23 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, I was just going to say, Your Honours, we
24 have a public version and a redacted version. And the only reason for it
25 being under seal is it refers to two sites which are not normally
1 mentioned in paragraph 19. And so we have redacted those from the public
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Why don't we give two numbers for both
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, confidential version of statements
6 shall assigned Exhibit P4647, under seal.
7 And public version shall assigned Exhibit P4648.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 I would now tender the associated exhibits, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Mr. Robinson?
12 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: And I could just say, Your Honours, in relation to
14 the various intercepts that are in 65 ter 02622, I will talk about some
15 of those intercepts today, not all of them, and show some additional
16 intercepts, and my proposal which I discussed with Mr. Robinson just a
17 moment ago would not be to formally tenderer those all at this time but
18 do it globally later with some others in a motion we're preparing. Or
19 if you're -- the Trial Chamber wishes, of course, we could assign the
20 exhibit numbers now.
21 JUDGE KWON: Given that it was dealt with in her statement and
22 there's no opposition, the Chamber doesn't see any problem admitting it.
23 But with respect 3402, is there an English translation?
24 MR. NICHOLLS: I believe there --
25 JUDGE KWON: Should we upload it?
1 MR. NICHOLLS: -- is, Your Honours. If I can just check.
2 Yes, there is, Your Honours. The English translation of 3402 is
3 just for the cover sheet, not for the table with all of the numbers. We
4 could provide that, but it's -- at the moment, what we have is the --
5 JUDGE KWON: I don't think it has been uploaded in e-court.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: I apologise then, Your Honours.
7 We will upload that, then, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE KWON: And with respect to 23548, when I read the
9 transcript -- the -- Ms. Frease's statement, I was not sure whether that
10 is the document that was discussed in her statement.
11 MR. NICHOLLS: It is, Your Honours. It is a bit strange-looking,
12 when read with the statement. But we could bring that up right now and
13 show it to Ms. Frease and she can explain it.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Why don't you do that.
15 And, finally, with respect to 23657, would you not object to the
16 addition to the 65 ter list, Mr. Robinson.
17 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE KWON: All right. After giving a brief summary of her
19 evidence, why don't you deal with those exhibits.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 And just before we move on, I should say in reference to 02622
22 which is the authentication binder, we prepared an index which
23 cross-references have not yet been distributed. It has been uploaded now
24 as the last three pages. I gave copies to my friends and I have hard
25 copy for the Chamber, if the Chamber would like, and it shows the 65 ter
1 numbers and e-court pages for each of the documents in the -- in that
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That would be very helpful.
4 So all -- so why don't we deal with the associated exhibits after
5 her evidence in-chief is over.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: Please proceed.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: I'll now go through a quick witness summary of
9 Ms. Frease's evidence.
10 Ms. Frease joined the OTP Srebrenica investigative team in
11 January 1996. From March 1998 to July 2000, she was involved in the
12 translation, authentication, and analysis of radio intercepts attained by
13 the Office of the Prosecutor. Ms. Frease, in her statement, explained
14 the history of the investigation and the methods used to verify the
15 intercepts' reliability and authenticity. These included comparing and
16 matching different versions of the intercept, handwritten, printouts,
17 electronic, and audio recordings, analysing independent documentation,
18 for example, VRS documents, to see whether or not they corroborated
19 certain specific intercepts, and interviewing intercept operators.
20 The results of these -- time and this work and analysis by
21 Ms. Frease satisfied her that the intercepts were genuine and reliable.
22 And during her time working on this Intercept Project, as it was called,
23 Ms. Frease never found any indication that the intercepts had been
25 That concludes of summary.
1 Q. Ms. Frease, let me now ask you just a couple questions about this
2 intercept project.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. The first thing I want to do is just expand a little bit on the
5 statement - excuse me - in paragraph 21 of the statement, it states --
6 you stated:
7 "In assessing the reliability of the material we had received, we
8 first looked for internal consistency among the documents. What I mean
9 by 'internal consistency,' is that the printouts matched with the
10 notebooks that we received."
11 And my question is simply: Based on that exercise, what was your
12 assessment overall, of the internal consistency, as you called it,
13 between the printouts and the notebooks?
14 A. They were very -- they were very consistent. We started with the
15 printouts, looking at those, and then went to the original source
16 documents, the notebooks, the handwritten notebooks, and saw that they --
17 they matched; in most cases, identical. Occasionally they were slight
18 time differences that were indicated on the printed material. And that
19 had to do with when the typist typed up the documents, which was
20 sometimes just a couple of minutes after the conversation had been
22 Q. [Microphone not activated] Thank you. One more question on the
23 statement. Thank you. One more question on the statement.
24 In the next paragraph, 22, we see:
25 "We also received radio intercepted communication data from
1 different sources, namely the military and SDB. We compared the
2 intercepts of the SDB against the intercepts of the army in order to
3 determine whether the same or related conversations were captured at the
4 same time. Our findings in relation to the consistencies between two
5 separate sources of intercept materials were a factor which led us to
6 believe they were reliable."
7 And my question is: If you could just expand on that. What were
8 the findings, if you could describe them, of your comparison between the
9 ABiH intercepts and the state security, SDB, intercepts?
10 A. So, by now, I'm sure the Chamber knows that there were four
11 different units working at two different sites, and three of the units
12 were military units and one was a police unit. And what we found -- so
13 each of them was doing their work independently. What we found when
14 various units recorded the same conversation was that there was internal
15 consistency among the transcriptions of those conversations, so we did
16 not find that there were any substantial differences between the
17 substance of the conversations that the police took down and that the
18 military took down.
19 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 24, you describe comparing intercepts to
20 third-party information, such as VRS documents. And I want to look at
21 that process now.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have 65 ter 02622, please.
23 Q. And that is something we've referred to as the intercept
24 authentication binder. And, if I'm correct, that was prepared long ago
25 for testimony in the Krstic case; is that right?
1 A. That's correct. And then parts of it were also used in
2 subsequent trials.
3 Q. Thank you. All right. There we have the cover page. And you
4 explained in your statement the way this binder works, so I won't go
5 through that now. What I'd like to do is go to talk about, to illustrate
6 the contents, a couple of examples. And the first one is tab 8 which is
7 entitled in the index there, fuel order, an intercept from 16 July 1995
8 at 1358.
9 So could we go to e-court page 61, please.
10 Now, there, can you tell us this is simply at the beginning of
11 this tab a summary of what the intercept is about?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Could we go to the next page, please.
15 JUDGE KWON: Just one question, Mr. Nicholls.
16 Do these individual intercepts have its own 65 ter number?
17 MR. NICHOLLS: They do, in our 65 ter list, Your Honours. I
18 think nearly all of them --
19 JUDGE KWON: For example, how can the Defence find the B/C/S
20 version for this intercept?
21 MR. NICHOLLS: It's actually included in the binder, in the
22 next -- in the following page. Each intercept in this binder first has
23 the English version and then following the Serbian version.
24 JUDGE KWON: Handwritten version.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Handwritten, or printout.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 Yes, let's proceed.
3 MR. NICHOLLS:
4 Q. Now, we'll go through this intercept in a minute. But can you
5 just tell the Chamber briefly, if you remember, why did you select this
6 intercept as an example?
7 A. Well, there were a couple of reasons. This intercept for me
8 always stood out because it was the first one that we identified when we
9 were working on the collection in the field in 1998 where we were working
10 with the -- with the printout material, and it was the first conversation
11 where we were able to put a date and some details to activity that we
12 knew about independently that had come from an insider who had been at
13 Pilice farm at the time that executions were being conducted.
14 So that stands out to me about this intercept. But then we were
15 able to also corroborate it through seized documents from the VRS, from
16 the Zvornik Brigade, and I guess we'll look at that document in a moment,
17 but it was a fuel order that then substantiated it. So it was a good
18 example, a good illustration of how we could independently corroborate
19 the veracity of the intercepted communication.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, right at the top, we see Zlatar and then
21 duty officer and Palma and then duty officer, so a conversation between
22 two duty officers.
23 Can you tell us, if you remember, what Zlatar stands for and then
24 what Palma stands for?
25 A. Yes, Zlatar was the code-name of the Drina Corps based in
1 Vlasenica, and Palma was the code-name of the Zvornik Brigade based in
3 MR. NICHOLLS: And then, just briefly, could we have
4 65 ter 03442, and then I'll come back to this intercept.
5 THE WITNESS: There's -- excuse me, there's a typo on line 13
6 that says -- it is supposed to say "Zlatar," Z-l-a-t-a-r.
7 Q. Now this is a VRS code-name chart. And, actually, with we had
8 put in an updated version which is not the one in there, so I will try to
9 change that later.
10 But can you just tell us about what this code-name chart is and
11 how it was used by the team?
12 A. So, it was put together to -- as a guide for the team to be able
13 to understand the meaning of the intercepts. It's really, I think,
14 pretty straightforward, goes with the code-name, panorama. That was
15 comes up a lot in the intercepted communication, and that was the
16 code-name for the VRS Main Staff. A couple of the others -- I'll list
17 three of the others that came up a lot in the communication: Zlatar, the
18 Drina Corps; Palma, the Zvornik Brigade; and Badem, which was the
19 Bratunac Brigade. And then the others relate to other military units and
20 the code-names associated with them.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: May I tender that document, Your Honours, with the
23 caveat that we have a slightly more updated version which was not in
24 e-court yet, by accident.
25 JUDGE KWON: Of this 3442?
1 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: Any objection, Mr. Robinson?
3 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be admitted --
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: -- as Exhibit P4649.
8 MR. NICHOLLS:
9 Q. All right. If we could go back to the intercept we were looking
10 at now on 65 ter 02622, page 62.
11 Well, while we're waiting for it to come up on the screen, to
12 save time, I'll just read out the points I was going to point to you.
13 We'll see when this comes up that the Zlatar duty officer is
14 speaking with the Palma duty officer. And the Palma or Zvornik Brigade
15 duty officer says:
16 "500 litres of D-2 diesel fuel for Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic."
17 And then further down --
18 JUDGE KWON: Could you wait until it appears in e-court.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
22 Q. And just before we go to the fuel log you spoke about, can we see
23 here that in this series of four conversations which are broken up, that
24 the discussion is about Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic needing 500 litres of
25 D-2 fuel, otherwise his work will stop, to summarise?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if we look --
3 A. Can this be blown up on my screen a little bit?
4 Q. Yes. And if we can blow up the background portion, please.
5 And we see here that Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic is here at Palma
6 at the time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: I'd now like to go to e-court page 66, a few pages
11 Q. Now here just so we can see how your binder works, could you just
12 explain what this is, this next cover sheet, saying: corroborating
14 A. It's a summary of the fuel receipt that we seized under
15 search-warrant from the Zvornik Brigade headquarters in 1998, and the
16 receipt specifies 500 litres of D-2 fuel that was issued to
17 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic on the 16th of July, 1995.
18 Q. Thank you. Could we go to the next page, please.
19 This is the translation of the fuel log. The original is on the
20 next page if anybody needs to see it.
21 And here we see this fuel log at the top has the date
22 16 July 1995. In box 15, we see "for Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic."
23 I should have said that on the top left we see: material list
24 for dispatch. And if we scroll -- well, we can see it, actually, below,
25 that the material is diesel fuel, D-2, requested, approved, 500. Signed
1 by, we see the signature, Sretan Milosevic.
2 I think it is pretty clear, but can you tell us why, how you
3 picked this to corroborate the intercept?
4 A. Because it speaks very -- it speaks to some very specific items.
5 The dates correspond, to begin with, on the 16th of July. This is coming
6 from the Zvornik Brigade, so from Palma. It's issued to
7 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic who is also mentioned in the intercept. It
8 mentions specifically D-2. It mentions 500 litres. So these are all
9 very specific items that can be matched to the radio intercept.
10 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to show you a related document that's
11 not in the binder. That's the Zvornik Brigade duty officer notebook,
12 P04585. Page 148, please.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: It should be page 148 in both the English and the
15 Okay. If we could blow it up a bit, for the English, for the
17 Q. Now we just discussed that Palma was the Zvornik Brigade and went
18 through the intercept at 1358 with the duty officer speaking. This is
19 the duty officer notebook of the Zvornik Brigade from the same day,
20 16 July. I'll read out the entry at 1400. It states:
21 "At 1400 hours, Popovic requested a bus with a full tank of 500
22 litres of D-2 diesel. Zlatar duty officer and Golic informed."
23 So very simply, this isn't in the binder, but how does this fit
24 in with the intercept?
25 A. It reinforces the intercept further. The time is indicated
1 there, so the intercept was recorded at 1358, and this entry indicates a
2 conversation taking place at 1400 hours, whereby Popovic,
3 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic, is requesting 500 litres of D-2 fuel. It
4 mentions the Zlatar duty officer and Golic. Golic was the security
5 officer at Zlatar, and his name was also mentioned in the intercepts.
6 Q. Thank you. If I could go back to the binder now. 02622. Go
7 through one more example.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: And when that comes up, I'd like to go to page 46,
10 Q. And, Ms. Frease, we'll be discussing tab 6 of the binder which is
11 an intercepted conversation dated 13 July 1995. It's actually two
12 conversations, one at 1602 and one at 1730.
13 Now, again, we'll go through the documents, but could you tell
14 the Chamber what it was that made you pick this example as one for
15 inclusion in your binder of examples of the type of work that you did to
16 corroborate the intercepts?
17 A. Well, they were conversations that discussed the fact that Muslim
18 men were being gathered at a soccer field or a soccer pitch in
19 Nova Kasaba on the 13th of July in the afternoon. So pretty specific
20 information. It provided a location and the type of -- and the type of
21 location, it being a soccer field, so it was something that we felt we
22 could corroborate with other information.
23 Q. All right. Let's go to the next page, please, and look at the
24 first intercept from 1602.
25 And could you just tell us about this intercept, which speaks
1 about an extension down in Kasaba where Malinic's unit is. 1500 gathered
2 at the stadium, et cetera.
3 A. Yes, so this conversation takes place on the 13th of July. We
4 were able to date it through the dating system that we went through in
5 the work. It mentions here Kasaba. It mentions Malinic's unit, Zoran
6 Malinic. We know Malinic's unit to have been Zoran Malinic's unit. He
7 was the head of the MP Unit for the 65th Protection Regiment that was
8 based in Nova Kasaba. It mentions that there are over 1500 - I would say
9 people - gathered at the stadium and those are the identifying features
10 of that conversation.
11 Q. If we could skip ahead two pages now to the next intercept you
12 included from the same day at 1730 hours.
13 And we see here that it begins talking about asking for ten buses
14 from Bijeljina:
15 "Well, tell them right away to come down. There's about 6.000 of
16 them now.
17 X participant says that:
18 "Of military age."
19 And Y says:
20 "Shut up. Don't repeat."
21 And then continues to talk about whether women and children are
22 still being transported.
23 And further down, just where we are now:
24 "So I am to send," something is missing, "and have them report on
25 Kasaba, have them report to the stadium."
1 Can you just tell us quickly about this intercept?
2 A. I think it has been summarised fairly well. But earlier in the
3 intercept it also mentions about 1500 to 2.000 people, roughly, having
4 been collected at three points. It mentions Kasaba again. It mentions
5 the stadium, and the stadium can mean a soccer pitch in Kasaba. It was
6 also recorded on the 13th of July, an hour and a half after the -- after
7 the other one. So those were fairly unique features.
8 Q. [Microphone not activated] okay. If we could go to page --
9 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise. If we could
11 go to page 54 now.
12 Q. And here it just tells that part of -- well, the corroborating
13 material you selected is an aerial image; is that right?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. If we turn the page and see that image, if you could tell us how
16 that correlates to the intercepts we saw.
17 A. So this was aerial imagery that the team received, and the
18 analyst who worked on this identified the blocks, or circles, I guess.
19 Well, there are blocks of individuals with circles around them indicating
20 that there are groups of prisoners there. The overhead imagery was dated
21 on 13 July at about 2.00 in the afternoon. And the soccer pitch is
22 mentioned, the football field, in Nova Kasaba.
23 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to -- staying on this particular --
24 particular topic, look at a couple of more intercepts that are not in the
1 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have 65 ter 31000, please. This is an
2 intercept also from 13 July at 1400.
3 I don't think that's the right one.
4 31000. Okay. I need the English, actually, which -- let's
5 try... okay. There we go. If we could blow up the English please.
6 JUDGE KWON: 65 ter 31000.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Is it correct? I can't find it. But we have it in
9 front of us. Let's continue.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Okay.
11 JUDGE KWON: 31000A, yes.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, A, sorry, Your Honour.
13 Q. So here we have -- this is 13 July -- if we scroll up to the top,
14 we can see at 1400.
15 At frequency 254.300. We don't know the names of the
16 participants. It says X and Y.
17 We see down at the second line:
18 "I have more than a thousand.
19 "Where are they?"
20 Looking down further:
21 "Down at the football stadium."
22 And then we see:
23 "All of them, man, all are able-bodied.
24 "I don't know whether to give these to them.
25 "To whom?
1 "To Zoka and the other one."
2 Is Zoka a nickname? You can tell us what that means.
3 A. Zoka is a nickname for Zoran, and in this context would refer to
4 Zoran Malinic, again, the head of the Military Police Battalion of the
5 65th Protection Regiment that was based in Kasaba on the 13th of July.
6 Q. Thank you. Again this is dated -- timed at 1400 on 13 July. Is
7 that the same time as the aerial we saw?
8 A. That's correct. And this one says there are more than a
9 thousand, as you had read.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I now go to 31007, please. C, I think will
11 work. If we could have the English as well, please.
12 No, that's not the right one. It should be 3100 --
13 JUDGE KWON: I think it may be A.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Yeah, try A, please. 31007A. Yes. That's it.
15 Thank you.
16 Q. Now, this intercept is from five minutes later on the same
17 frequency, 254.300 on the same day. And we see the two participants X
18 and Y saying:
19 "Where is that?
20 "Here at the football pitch.
21 "Is it visible?
22 "Fuck, it is.
23 "Brother, don't take anyone. I'll send you an urgent telegram
24 now. Don't take anyone. I'll send you a telegram now and explain it to
2 "Secure it well and you'll get it now in the telegram."
3 Can you tell us about this intercept, if you can make any
4 connection to it, same frequency, five minutes later, from the last one?
5 A. Yes. I mean, on this one, there's less obvious information until
6 we look at a subsequent document, but here we see again the football
7 pitch being mentioned. The time of day, as you mentioned, 1405, on the
8 13th of July, and then -- I mean, it mentions an urgent telegram that I
9 think we'll look at next.
10 Q. That's right. Thank you.
11 MR. NICHOLLS: If I could now have P00168.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we just see the bottom of the
13 page, please.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: P00168, please. And this is a document headed IKM
15 of the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment, Borike, at 1400 hours. It is
16 dated 13 July 1995 in handwriting on the bottom. And it is typed signed
17 from commander Lieutenant-Colonel Milomir Savcic. Do you know who
18 Milomir Savcic was in July 1995?
19 A. Yes, he was the commander of the 65th Protection Regiment.
20 Q. Let's just go through this document a bit. This is the one where
21 you explained that the last intercept we were looking at related to a
22 document you thought we would see in a minute. If we could go now to the
23 first page in the English, please.
24 This is headed: Procedure for treatment of war prisoners to the
25 commander of the Main Staff for information to the assistant commander
1 for morale, religious and legal affairs of the Main Staff and commander
2 of the Military Police Battalion of the 6th Protection Regiment. And you
3 said that was Zoran Malinic; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. How does this document relate to the intercept, in
6 your view?
7 A. Okay. So, it relates because it is coming from the commander of
8 the 65th Protection Regiment. It's going to his deputy, Zoran Malinic,
9 who is mentioned in a couple of the intercepts and who is located in
10 Kasaba. This order states that there are over a thousand members of the
11 former 28th Division of the so-called Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina captured
12 in the area of Dusanovo which is also known as Kasaba. The prisoners are
13 under the control of the Military Police Battalion of the
14 65th Protection Regiment.
15 So all of that information confirms what we -- what was recorded
16 in the radio intercepts that we saw earlier.
17 It goes on to say that the assistant commander of the security
18 and intelligence affairs of the General Staff of the VRS, who was
19 General Tolimir, proposes the following. And then it goes through a few
20 points like prohibiting access to unauthorised individuals, prohibiting
21 traffic for all UN vehicles, and then it says that the commander of the
22 Military Police Battalion shall take measures to remove war prisoners
23 from the main Milici-Zvornik road and place them indoors in the area
24 protected from sighting from the ground or the air.
25 There is a fourth point on the next page ...
1 Okay. Which isn't directly related to the radio intercepts.
2 Q. Thank you. And just looking at the intercept we saw previously,
3 31007, do you recall that in that one of -- intercept one of the
4 interlocutors was asking whether they were -- whether it is visible?
5 A. Could you say what time that -- yes, I do remember that -- that
6 it was. But I --
7 Q. That was at 1405.
8 A. Uh-huh, okay.
9 Q. Thank you. Those are the only examples I want to go through
10 because of the timing of this binder you put together. And you referred
11 to tab 1 and explained it in the statement that's been admitted.
12 But I want to ask you: Based on the type of analysis we've just
13 seen here, you explaining in the courtroom, and what you explain in your
14 statement, in the time you worked on the Intercept Project, which I
15 believe was a little bit over two years, in the end, what was your
16 assessment, based on all the work you did, on the authenticity of the
17 intercepts the OTP received?
18 A. My assessment was that the intercepts were both authentic and
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours --
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, do you tender those two additional
23 intercepts we dealt with just now, 31000A and 31007A?
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour, but just, really, whichever the
25 Court wishes. I can either tender them now or as part of a -- a larger
1 solution. We will be filing a motion with various intercepts on it and
2 we can refer to this testimony in that motion. But, really, whichever
3 the Court feels is most useful.
4 JUDGE KWON: With respect to those two item, I take it there are
5 no objections?
6 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we add them now.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Give a number for those two.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 31000A shall be assigned
11 P4670, and 65 ter 31007A shall be assigned Exhibit P4671.
12 Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: Can we correct the transcript at line 8, 20.8. My
14 assessment was that the intercepts were both authentic and reliable.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Rest assured, they will be corrected in
16 due course.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 JUDGE KWON: I come back to the associated exhibits. You said
19 you would deal with 23548 --
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Yeah, I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE KWON: -- and I would like you to also deal with 23657 as
22 well for the same reason.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: All right. Thank you, Your Honours, I forgot
24 that. You're correct. 23548, if I could have that, please. And we need
25 the English as well.
1 Q. Now, Ms. Frease, these two documents are referred in paragraph 5
2 of your amalgamated statement which reads:
3 "The first material we received, in March 1998, consisted of
4 approximately 550 pages of printouts of ABiH intercepts ..." and that
5 the documents with 65 ter numbers 23548 and 23657 record this transfer.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you tell us what -- we have now have 23548 on the screen,
8 could you tell us how this related to this first batch of 550
9 intercepts -- pages of intercepts?
10 A. This was the receipt that Jean-Rene Ruez, the team leader for the
11 Srebrenica investigation, signed when he took possession of that binder.
12 Q. Okay. And if we go to the next page, and then maybe the next
13 page. On the back of this receipt, there was included some information
14 on the charts on the structure of the Drina Corps, is that right, that
15 this was included on top of the package of printouts?
16 A. Yes. Along with it, mm-hm.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have the next document. 23657, please.
18 Q. I understand this doesn't really look like a receipt. But can
19 you tell us what this document had to do with the -- with that batch of
20 intercepts received by the OTP?
21 A. It was the cover sheet located inside the binder of 550 pages.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, that's what I would have on those
24 two documents.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. So including 2622, we will admit them
1 all and be -- the numbers would be given in due course by the Registrar.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE KWON: And I note that one of the associated exhibits,
4 i.e., 30921, was already admitted when KDZ357 was here.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
8 Good morning, everyone.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Madam Frease.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. I should like to begin with what is the freshest on our minds,
13 but I need to know, with your leave, how well you know the Serbian
14 language and how did you acquire that knowledge? Where did you study?
15 A. I would say that I have a good working knowledge of the language.
16 Regrettably, I would say that I never really studied it. I picked it up
17 along the way, and primarily when I worked in Bosnia during the war, and
18 then more when I worked for the OTP.
19 Q. Thank you. So you have no roots in the former Yugoslavia, do
21 A. I do have roots in the former Yugoslavia.
22 Q. Would you tell us what kind, although you don't have to, if you
24 A. I have one set of grandparents who are from the former
1 Q. Thank you. Do you know the meaning of the word "zacepiti," "to
3 THE INTERPRETER: Which is one of the meanings, interpreter's
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do we agree that it is -- it means to cork a bottle or to use
8 something to -- to plug something, to close it.
9 A. Yes, that's my familiarity with that word.
10 Q. Would you tell the Trial Chamber what the opposite concept would
11 be? How would you call the opposite action?
12 A. So "odcepiti."
13 Q. Thank you. In this transcript, it could have been P5470,
14 65 ter 31000 formally, that word remained untranslated. Do you remember
15 the passage where it says "term unknown"?
16 Shall we call it again, or do you remember?
17 A. I do remember it. And I wondered why it hadn't been translated,
18 actually. But those were not my translations; right?
19 Q. Yes, absolutely. But what I want to know is what would be the
20 result of your work. Is it just a verification of the accuracy of the
21 transcription, or it had broader implications, as in the case with fuel.
22 In other words, did you use everything that could corroborate an
24 A. I used my language skills to go over the translations quite a bit
25 with translators and language assistants. I would say that that was a
1 fairly small part of my job.
2 Q. In this question, I did not refer to language. For example, the
3 number 1500 and over 1500 is mentioned and repeated. And you mentioned
4 that the analyst had identified footage that -- or, rather, recordings
5 that corroborate the content of this analysis. This number, 1500 or over
6 1.000, is it accurate?
7 A. That was based on information that the VRS was providing to its
9 Q. Thank you. So you did not check whether that fighter -- or,
10 rather, huntsman exaggerated. Do you know what I mean by hunting tales?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Well, in our language, when you say "hunting tales," you mean
13 exaggeration of one's catch. Tall tales, in other words.
14 When you were learning our language, did you come across that
15 idiom, "hunting tales"?
16 A. I don't remember that specifically. But to your point about
17 whether the numbers were exaggerated between 1.000 and 1500, if those
18 were -- those numbers came from soldiers who were on the ground who had
19 responsibility for guarding prisoners. There were also bus loads of
20 people who were being transported out of the enclave who saw many, many,
21 many people gathered on that football stadium.
22 So those specific accounts that VRS soldiers reported in their
23 communications, I believe, would have had to have been accurate because
24 they needed to worry about security of those prisoners and also
25 transportation of those prisoners, knowing how many buses to get in order
1 to move the prisoners. So, I mean, that information came from the
2 Bosnian Serb side.
3 We also had independent corroboration from people who were being
4 transported out of the enclave.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry to interrupt. No objection. I just wanted,
7 for the record, I didn't know who Mr. Karadzic was referring to as the
8 huntsman or the person who exaggeration. Is that
9 Lieutenant-Colonel Milomir Savcic of the document we saw, or is he
10 referring to one of the interlocutors in the intercept?
11 JUDGE KWON: I think she answered the question, so let's proceed.
12 Or would you like to clarify Mr. Karadzic?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for this opportunity to
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Savcic, too, receives reports from the ground. The one who took
17 prisoners says he caught over 1.000 up to 1500. So those people who took
18 prisoners report how many there are. And my question has to do with the
19 fact that Ms. Frease says the analyst also analysed this photograph in
20 order to corroborate intercepts. I want to know whether he also analysed
21 the number that features there, or the numbers were taken as in
23 A. I'm not aware the analyst provided a number.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we then look at -- I believe
25 it's page 55 because 54 was the transcript, and the next page is the
1 photo. Number 622, the one we looked at. Thank you.
2 Could we see this pitch full screen. I meant the pitch alone.
3 If we could zoom in.
4 Could we zoom in further, please.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can we agree, Ms. Frease, that we can see individuals here, both
7 those standing in front of the group in the rectangle and since they are
8 standing, their shadows are a bit thinner, and the people sitting?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Are you trying to say that on the left we can't see they are
11 lined in two rows, and we can see every individual?
12 A. That's correct. That's what I'm saying.
13 And part of the reason that I'm saying that is that I have never
14 analysed overhead imagery so I don't know what a dot represents. But I
15 do also remember an intercept from 1009 on the morning of the 13th,
16 between Colonel Beara, Zoka and Lucic, who had been Zoka's deputy, in
17 which they took about, I think Beara, Colonel Beara, is giving an order
18 to line them up in four or five rows.
19 There's also reference to: Are there big heads there? They are
20 trying to separate possibly some of the leaders of the BiH division.
21 So I don't know. Maybe -- maybe on the left side which you're
22 look at is people who are lined up in four or five rows, also prisoners -
23 that would be, I don't know, possible - and this other group, a much
24 larger group of other prisoners.
25 Q. All right. Do you know the size of a football field, I mean the
1 European kind of football?
2 A. I cannot give you dimensions.
3 Q. If I tell you that it's 80 by 40, and the largest ones are 100
4 by 50, does that sound acceptable to you?
5 A. I don't know the dimensions.
6 Q. All right. Can we agree that this larger group of people lined
7 in five rows occupies a small portion of the field?
8 A. I can't agree with your statement that the larger group occupies
9 four or five rows.
10 Q. Well, how many rows would this larger group be lined in?
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I'm wondering if this witness is a
12 best suited witness to deal with the aerial image. I am of the
13 impression that we're wasting time. You have another opportunity to deal
14 with it. And I think we have better image for this -- for this one.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: I mean, the witness has already said she has no
16 expertise in analysing overhead imagery. So, in effect, you are asking
17 her to guess or to agree with a guess, which is not very satisfactory.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, do you have a 65 ter number for
19 page 28 of Jean-Rene Ruez's book?
20 MR. NICHOLLS: One moment, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes it's P4308, probably e-court page 38.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. While we're waiting, what I want to know is: What was the
24 approach of your team that analyses and runs checks on additional
25 information that could be corroborative? Did you also check things that
1 could be favourable to the Serbian side; in other words, to the truth?
2 A. We were very careful in the analysis that we conducted. From the
3 very beginning, we approached this material with skepticism.
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. For the Registrar, it is
5 65 ter 3199, page 38.
6 Please continue, Ms. Frease.
7 THE WITNESS: We took the approach that the material was
8 fabricated, and it was up to us to figure out whether or not it was. We
9 undertook a very meticulous analysis of every piece of information that
10 related to the intercepted material. This included, as my statement says
11 and I've testified before, analysing the printed binder, comparing that
12 to the notebooks, the handwritten notebooks where the radio intercept
13 operators transcribed the conversations. It then involved comparing
14 those conversations, finding overlapping conversations that were taken
15 from two sites and multiple units and comparing the consistency and
16 professionalism with which the ABiH allegedly did this work. It then
17 involved lengthy conversations with the intercept operators. That was
18 all to test the reliability and the authenticity of the material. In the
19 process of doing that and because I had been involved with the
20 investigation early on and the investigative team was constantly working
21 with new material, material that had been seized from the VRS and other
22 material; for example, letters that -- of notes -- sorry. Not letters,
23 but notes that had been transcribed from conversations between VRS
24 military and UNPROFOR generals. We cast the net as widely as we could to
25 corroborate various conversations through many different sources.
1 So we arrived at the truth.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you. That's precisely what I am interested in.
4 Did you check whether it was recorded accurately and accurately
5 transcribed what the speakers were saying, or did you also check whether
6 they were telling the truth?
7 A. We checked both.
8 Q. Thank you. Did your team then accept that there are over 1.000
9 people on this photograph?
10 A. I'm not an analyst of aerial imagery, but this photograph
11 represented -- corroborated information that had been transmitted in
12 about five intercepted conversations from that day, starting from 10.09
13 in the morning until 1730 in the afternoon, but two in particular from
14 2.00 p.m. and 2.05 p.m. along with a telegram from Milomir Savcic whose
15 unit was responsible for securing prisoners at Nova Kasaba on that day.
16 Q. Is it indisputable that Savcic was not on the ground? He was
17 sending instructions to people on the ground. Do we agree on that?
18 A. He was in Borike. He was close by, yes. And he was relying on
19 his people on the ground to give him information about what was
20 happening; his deputy, in particular.
21 Q. Thank you. So this photograph was taken sometime around 1400
22 hours on the 14th [as interpreted] July and the intercept, speaking about
23 over 1.000 prisoners on the football field dates back to the same time.
24 Did you check whether they were telling the truth? Not
25 necessarily you. You had your own analysts. You said, on page 14, that
1 you had an analyst who analysed the photograph to corroborate the
3 A. So, one small correction. It was on the 13th of July at 1400
5 I guess you're saying that -- that the -- that Zoran Malinic and
6 others on the ground from those five intercepts were lying on the 13th,
7 and what we know from the facts based on, again, people driving by in
8 buses who were being deported from the -- from the enclave or evacuated
9 from the enclave were that there were many, many, many people on the
10 field in Nova Kasaba.
11 I cannot say any -- I cannot give you a number. I cannot put a
12 number to the -- to how many people were photographed in this aerial
14 Q. Thank you. I believe you have agreed that you did not only check
15 whether the recording and transcription were done accurately, but you
16 also check whether they relate to an accurate, to a real event.
17 Did your team accept that there were more than 1.000 prisoners on
18 the football field?
19 JUDGE KWON: She answered the question.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I have the answer,
21 that after all the checks, all the verifications, the conclusion of the
22 team was that, indeed, there were 1.000 prisoners on the stadium. The
23 witness did not confirm this.
24 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
25 THE WITNESS: The VRS people who were on the ground at the time
1 estimated that the number of people who were on the field at that time
2 was between 1.000 and 1500 --
3 JUDGE KWON: The question was whether the OTP team had the
4 conclusion as to the number, which is shown at this picture.
5 THE WITNESS: I would say that we accepted the number.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Does this simultaneous photograph, or, rather, contemporaneous
10 photograph, support this?
11 MR. NICHOLLS: That one, I think, Your Honour, has been asked
12 over and over again, about whether the numbers on the photo go with the
13 intercept, and she's answered.
14 JUDGE KWON: That's the answer she gave.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You, or somebody else maybe, made a selection of intercepts.
18 What were your guide-lines in selecting intercepts? From what viewpoint
19 did you choose them? From the viewpoint of the OTP, or from the
20 viewpoint of justice?
21 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry, but what does that mean, selected
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Could you clarify, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 8 of today's transcript,
25 Ms. Frease said they were guided by certain considerations - let's find
1 that page -- by certain reasons and --
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, did you mean the selection in the
3 course of producing authentication binder, which is 65 ter number 2622.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think, Your Excellencies, that
5 they made a selection and that not all intercepts were presented to this
6 court. We see -- we see that out of 4.000 intercepts of my
7 conversations, the Bosnian side provided only 1.000.
8 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'll find the passage in page 8.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 17 on page 8.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, that was related specifically to the
11 binder where I asked, Why did you select this particular document as an
12 example for this particular exhibit.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's correct.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Then my question is: Did you make a selection; and, if so, what
17 kind? Or you presented all the intercepts you could get a hold of?
18 A. We analysed all of the intercepts that we got a hold of. We
19 worked from the front cover of one notebook to the back cover of every
20 notebook and processed all of the intercepts. The ones that have been
21 selected for court are ones that are relevant to a particular case.
22 Q. That's precisely what I'm asking. From what standpoint? From
23 the standpoint of the Prosecution?
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, it's certainly not for this witness
1 to explain what intercepts the Prosecutors, the attorneys, decided to put
2 on the 65 ter list in a particular case.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. But in previous answers, she said the ones
4 that have been selected for court, the ones that are relevant to a
5 particular case.
6 So the question -- I took the question to mean that whether she
7 was involved in that selection, per case.
8 THE WITNESS: I wasn't.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Did you bring to the Prosecution all the intercepts, or you made
12 a selection before submitting them to the OTP?
13 A. I was always working for the OTP, so the material came in to the
14 OTP, and we then processed it.
15 Initially, I think, when the notebooks were first identified, I
16 believe that members of the OTP - I was not among them - but they made a
17 selection of the notebooks based on certain dates. But then that -- the
18 breadth or the range of dates expanded, and as we received more material,
19 we processed it all. We were very interested in knowing that the
20 information that we had was factually correct.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, if it is convenient.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question. Just one.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You've mentioned earlier today five intercepts in those critical
25 hours. Did you show just two or three instead of all five?
1 Could we perhaps see all five of them?
2 A. We showed four, and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the fifth.
3 I mean, it was at 10.09 in the morning. It was just something that I
4 remembered for having worked on them for a long time. But it relates to
5 prisoners being held on the soccer pitch on 13th of July. And, at that
6 time, at 10.09 in the morning, they estimated that there were about 400
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, just if -- that's 30980A, I believe,
9 the intercept being referred to, if Mr. Karadzic wants to look it up.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Well, you see that 400 and 1500 is a big difference. This is
13 much closer to the photograph, wouldn't you agree, Ms. Frease? It's much
14 closer to the photograph, although it's still too much.
15 A. Again, I'm not an analyst of aerial imagery. This intercept was
16 taken at the 10.09 in the morning. The photograph was taken at 2.00 in
17 the afternoon. There are two other intercepts and a military document
18 from Milomir Savcic that talk about there being a thousand to 1500
19 prisoners on the soccer pitch at 2.00 in the afternoon.
20 JUDGE KWON: Did you say aerial image was taken at what time?
21 THE WITNESS: At 2.00 in the afternoon, 1400.
22 JUDGE KWON: Not up to 2.00? It says dash or something like
23 that. Shall we zoom out.
24 THE WITNESS: Approximately 2.00 in the afternoon. That squiggle
25 is approximate; yes, that's true.
1 JUDGE KWON: We'll take a break.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd also like to tender that
3 transcript, the one that speaks about 400, although I have reservations
4 where transcripts are concerned, generally.
5 JUDGE KWON: All right. Let's take a -- what is the number,
6 Mr. Nicholls?
7 MR. NICHOLLS: 30980A. And no objection.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. While we're waiting, why were you not supposed to mention the
11 A. It's not that I wasn't supposed to mention the fifth. We didn't
12 think it was as relevant to the particular document and to the timing of
13 the aerial image. I have no problem with 10.09 in the morning. It --
14 it's all -- it's all about the same subject.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, this will be next Defence exhibit.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 16 on page 34 --
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2204, Your Honours. Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you give the number again. D ...
20 THE REGISTRAR: D2204. Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one final question.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Line 16, page 36, you said: Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned
25 the fifth.
1 Now, don't you think that it is very relevant for the Defence
2 that you should mention this fifth one? So are you being a bit selective
4 JUDGE KWON: She answered -- she answered the question, didn't
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then we can go on
8 JUDGE KWON: I leave it to the parties and Registry whether we
9 need to admit in redacted version or put under seal, as regards the
11 We will take a break for half an hour, and we will resume at
13 --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Before we continue, Mr. Robinson, we received a
16 file, both in -- both confidential and public redacted version, from the
17 UK government for -- asking for a further extension.
18 Do you have any observation, Mr. Robinson?
19 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
20 We don't object to that but we would ask that this be the last
21 extension that they receive.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That is helpful.
23 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
24 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honour. I just wanted to say that the
1 code-name sheet, 65 ter 03442, the correct version has now been uploaded,
2 and the English translation of 65 ter 03402 has now been uploaded. Thank
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.
5 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Did you seek to obtain intercepts from the Serb side in Bosnia?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Was that decision taken by the team, or were you advised by the
11 OTP that you shouldn't do it?
12 A. I really don't remember, but I think that we just didn't think we
13 would get anything from the Serb side. I mean, I certainly was not
14 advised not to do it.
15 Q. Thank you. Do you know that the Republika Srpska government
16 received the investigators of the OTP in December 1996 and in
17 January 1997 and provided the documents they had and subsequently they
18 provided everything that they -- that was sought from them?
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't want to make an argument in front of the
21 witness about that. But based on the record -- I'm not sure that's a
22 fair question, I'll say that, based on the record in this case.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. But, Ms. Frease, what I would like to know is: Where did that
25 presumption that the Serbs would not co-operate come from; especially so
1 as at the time my political opponents were, in fact, in power?
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether she said that Serb side would
3 not co-operate.
4 But, in any event, you can -- you can answer the question,
5 Ms. Frease.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Lines 21 and 22 on page 37:
8 [In English] "... we just didn't think we would get anything from
9 the Serb side."
10 A. In the context, in 1998, February -- I think it was February of
11 1998, we conducted the search warrants in Bratunac and Zvornik. The
12 situation was still quite hostile in Republika Srpska with respect to the
13 Office of the Prosecutor and the ICTY. When we conducted investigations
14 in Republika Srpska, starting in the spring of 1996, to identify the
15 sites of executions and detention centres for prisoners, we required a
16 lot of physical protection. And, again, the situation on the ground was
17 quite hostile.
18 In -- in March of 1998, when we received the first intercepted
19 communication from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it took us some time -
20 over a year, I would say - to work through that information and to
21 determine whether it was authentic or reliable.
22 So it was just in the context of the ongoing investigation that
23 we -- to my knowledge, we did not forward a RFA, or Request for
24 Assistance, to Bosnian Serbs for radio intercepted communication that
25 they would have taken of their own communication during the fall of
2 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Just a month before you were there,
3 the investigators went to see some members of the government. Is it your
4 position that the government, too - in other words, the central
5 authorities - were as suspicious and restrictive, or wary, as the people
6 on the ground where there might have been some perpetrators who were then
7 wary for that reason?
8 A. It was not an easy situation at the time on the side of the
9 government or the side of individuals. That's my impression and memory.
10 Q. Thank you. Did you investigate the war-time events, or, rather,
11 the war crimes, or was it, in fact, the conduct of the Serb side that was
12 the subject of your investigation?
13 A. War crimes.
14 Q. Well, do you think, then, that the Serbs would fail to mention
15 something that they could about their opponents in the war?
16 A. I did not personally have much contact with ... the Serbs during
17 the war -- or, sorry, in the post-war period. So I guess it would have
18 been the Serbs' responsibility to provide that information to the OTP.
19 I, however, had been assigned to the Srebrenica investigation, so that
20 was where my focus was.
21 Q. And as part of that investigation, you focussed on the conduct of
22 the Serb side alone; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. What time-frame of Srebrenica did you investigate?
25 A. I was particularly focussed on the events immediately following
1 the fall of the Srebrenica enclave.
2 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that you concluded or observed that the
3 Muslim side, too, was reserved and that they did not hand over the
4 intercepts when expected in 1995, but, rather, only later in 1998?
5 A. That's correct that the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina handed over
6 the intercepts in 1998.
7 We -- in 1995, in July of 1995, I was a part of the initial team
8 that went out to Tuzla, and we established immediate contact with the
9 police of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Tuzla. So we did establish that
10 immediate contact in 1995.
11 Q. And you were aware, weren't you, that in those three years, there
12 was a possibility of alterations or fabrications; in other words, that
13 those intercepts could have been fabricated but let's not limit ourselves
14 to that. They could have also been altered.
15 Did you take that into account?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Thank you. Did you have any knowledge or did you assume that the
18 Muslim side would be selective and that they would try to conceal some
19 matters that would be favourable to the Serb army or the Serb side, or
20 that they would conceal something that would be at the expense of the
21 Serb side?
22 So if a selection was made, which of these two scenarios do you
23 see as more likely?
24 A. Yes, we considered that.
25 Q. Thank you. Did you receive information that was certain about
1 what had happened to the audio material, and were you provided the entire
2 collection of the audio recordings?
3 A. We always asked for all of the information in its original form,
4 not any analysis that would have been done by the ABiH or the SDB. We
5 were given, I believe, all of the notebooks during two different
6 missions, is my memory, that covered a time span that went beyond -- that
7 started before and went beyond the events of Srebrenica, and we were then
8 later also given electronic versions of that same material that, again,
9 went beyond the time-frame that we were most interested in.
10 I cannot say with certainty that we received absolutely all of
11 the information, but I don't have any reason to believe, based on the
12 fact that we were given all of the notebooks, that substantial
13 information was missing.
14 Q. During your testimony in Tolimir, on page 7820, in response to
15 the question whether you were aware that there was a possibility that
16 those intercepts were fabricated or made up or altered in some manner, in
17 the elapsed time, you said:
18 [In English] [As read] "... directly, not specifically during
19 that period of three years but that -- that are -- was a possibility in
20 general, yes."
21 [Interpretation] So how do you know that you were given
23 A. Well, I can't say for sure. I mean, you really probably should
24 ask the ABiH. I can't say for sure, but I can tell you that we received,
25 as I just said, all of the notebooks, and the notebooks were the original
1 place where the ABiH recorded, transcribed the conversations. There were
2 no pages missing from those notebooks, and the notebooks covered a period
3 that, again, went far beyond the scope or the range of the events of
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour. Just -- there was a quote to
9 Tolimir, at 78:20. Ms. Frease's testimony in Tolimir goes from page 4961
10 of the transcript through 5336, so I just alert Mr. Karadzic to that.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Were you instructed to take into account the possibility of
14 counterfeiting or minor changes or alterations?
15 So did you receive instructions or orders from your team leaders,
16 or from the Prosecution?
17 A. Yes. We -- it almost went without saying. We had to be
18 absolutely certain that we could verify the authenticity of the documents
19 and that we then could also consider them to be reliable. So, I mean,
20 our team didn't work on the basis of orders, but certainly communication
21 and agreement - absolute, fundamental agreement - that we needed to
22 answer all questions that we had about the source of the intercepts, the
23 quality of the intercepts, the procedures that were followed in taking
24 them down so that we could be absolutely certain that they were not
1 Q. Thank you. Did you find any instances of counterfeits or
2 alterations? Let's bear that in mind, too. Minor alterations that would
3 affect the actual meaning.
4 A. Okay. Counterfeits, I think I've just clarified. We -- we
5 absolutely satisfied ourselves -- I satisfied myself that these
6 intercepts are authentic, genuine, and reliable.
7 The reliability issue goes to your second issue of minor
8 alterations. We did observe in the notebooks that, at times, a word
9 would be crossed out, it would be changed. Sometimes a whole transcript
10 would be crossed out, and the intercept operator would re-transcribe it,
11 after having listened to it again. And then we ran into situations
12 where -- rather, when two or three different operators recorded the same
13 conversation, that they could have picked up the conversation slightly
14 differently so there could have been either slight differences in the way
15 that they transcribed, heard and transcribed the conversation, but I
16 would not say that we found that there were substantive differences in
17 those instances.
18 Q. Thank you. With this example where an entire transcript was
19 crossed out and then re-listened and re-transcribed, how do we know which
20 of those were accurate?
21 A. Well, the one that was crossed out would have been considered
22 less accurate. I mean, just like if I'm taking notes here now and cross
23 it out, write something more accurate.
24 Q. But what would happen if that operator did not -- had not noticed
25 that it wasn't accurate and had just left it as it was?
1 A. Well, this went to the procedures that the operators used, the
2 training that they had, the quality of the individuals who were recruited
3 to work there. So they were serious people who were doing a serious job,
4 and they tried to make the transcripts as accurate as they could.
5 Q. How do you know that?
6 A. From conversations with them and also from listening to tapes,
7 audiotapes, and comparing the audiotapes to the transcripts that they had
9 Q. Can we agree that either MUP -- or, rather, the state security or
10 the BH army were a warring party? One of the warring parties.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you observe any instances that there were lines added,
13 especially in the typewritten form, that were not present in the
14 handwritten notes?
15 A. So you're speaking now specifically of SDB transcripts?
16 Q. Well, all transcripts from all sources, both from the SDB source
17 and the BH army source.
18 Did you observe that sometimes they would put forward their
19 position by annotating, making a comment, and especially, did you ever
20 observe that there was something in the type-written form that was not
21 present in the handwritten form?
22 A. So we only -- the SDB did not have handwritten forms --
23 handwritten notebooks, so it was the military that had the notebooks and
24 then transcribed them.
25 Very, very rarely - but sometimes - there could be examples of
1 where the typist would add something, and I'm just remembering an
2 instance where -- where a typist added something in parentheses about the
3 communication, about the location of the two people communicating, that
4 was not in the original notebook. Because it was in parentheses, it was
5 clear to me, based on conversations with the intercept operators that
6 that was a comment because that was their standard way of indicating that
7 they weren't certain about something. But I cannot, off the top of my
8 head, think of situations where the intercept operators added their own
9 personal analysis or notes in the body of the content.
10 Q. Very well. But did you then observe that there were any
11 malicious or neutral comments added where the person who was transcribing
12 this was actually behaving as a member of the warring party?
13 A. The only instance that comes to mind would be in the SDB
14 transcripts where their heading on every conversation started off with:
15 The following conversation was intercepted from the aggressor's army. So
16 if that's what you mean by adding a personal view, that would be an
17 example. That's the only example that I can think of. And, of course,
18 the aggressor's army, referring to the VRS; the Bosnian Serb army.
19 Q. Thank you. Did you have occasion to observe, for instance, that
20 they would say, And then criminal so-and-so picked up the line?
21 A. I don't remember that specifically. It's -- it's possible that
22 it could have ended up in a header, but I cannot remember any examples
23 where such a comment would have ended up in the text of the actual
24 intercepted conversation.
25 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that it was possible to establish
1 whether an intercept was accurate. Were you provided all of the audio
2 recordings of intercepts that you analysed in order to be able to check
3 them, check their authenticity?
4 A. No, we were not provided all of the audio recordings.
5 And just in the context of the situation at the time, of course,
6 the war was still going on. Supplies were very short. And they taped
7 over conversations continuously. They re-used the reel-to-reel tapes.
8 They didn't have enough tapes to archive all of them, all of the
10 Q. Thank you. In the course of your work, did you ever -- were you
11 ever involved in the same type of work as was the case in -- on this
12 Intercept Project?
13 A. Can you clarify your question just a little, please.
14 Q. Was this the first Intercept Project that you ever had to deal
15 with in your entire career.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. In the Popovic case, on page 7824, you stated that it
18 took you a year to gain a better understanding of the process of
19 interception and that you arrived at that point based on interviews with
20 the operators in 1999; correct?
21 A. Yes, that sounds right.
22 JUDGE KWON: Is the page number correct again?
23 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes. I assume -- I haven't looked it up, but
24 probably earlier Mr. Karadzic was referring to the Popovic case rather
25 than Tolimir. This is correct for the Popovic case, 7824.
1 JUDGE KWON: But in the footnote the transcript pages refer to
3 But let's move on. Footnotes in 92 ter amalgamated statements.
4 I haven't checked it.
5 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: That's because it was a very long testimony that
7 took place on different dates.
8 JUDGE KWON: Uh-huh.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Because Ms. Frease could come on a testify about a
10 particular topic and then come back later. That's, Your Honour, why.
11 JUDGE KWON: Probably my memory failed already.
12 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So, in a way, you were a beginning in this area -- a beginner in
15 this area.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. What happened with the period of time during that
18 year during which you had lesser understanding of the process; that is to
19 say, prior to your gaining better insight?
20 A. I worked on the material with others in the team and just worked
21 through it methodically, notebook by notebook, page by page, matched up
22 various conversations that came. We learned then from different sites,
23 from different units and, in this way, established a very solid knowledge
24 and understanding of the material and the processes that were used to
25 collect it.
1 Q. Thank you. Did you then go back to the part of the work you had
2 done during the initial year or did you leave it the way it had been
3 done, although had you less understanding at the time?
4 A. Well, the work evolved, so even our methodology evolved. But we
5 constantly incorporated the work that we started off with initially into
6 later work products.
7 So what I mean by that is that when we started to analyse the
8 material, we simply did it on a Excel table, recording the date, the
9 people who were speaking, the people whose names were mentioned in the
10 recordings, locations that were mentioned, and then a small summary. And
11 then we developed a database that we put all of that information into.
12 And in that database, we had fields where we could enter information
13 about the source of that conversation, the format that that conversation
14 came in. So we had one field for a printout, what page it came from, we
15 had another field then added for the notebooks, what notebook number it
16 came from, and the ERN number associated with that particular
17 conversation, the page of that conversation, and that was how the process
18 evolved. So it wasn't that we disregarded everything that we did from
19 the beginning. It was incorporated into our work as we progressed
20 through it.
21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us if there's any importance -- or how
22 did it come about that there were changes to single letters, especially
23 in terms of capital letters, in the typed transcripts?
24 A. Are you referring to reports that were typed in all capital
25 letters as opposed to those that were typed in a standard sentence
1 structure with a capital letter at the beginning, followed by lower case
3 Q. Yes. When a text is in capital letters, or sometimes there were
4 texts in the lower case with capital letters at the beginning of words,
5 and then there were cases of mixing both.
6 What I'm trying to get at is whether any significance should be
7 attached to it. Does it have any importance?
8 A. Yes. The -- this is a slightly complicated answer. I will just
9 take it bit by bit.
10 The original binder with 550 pages in it contained both
11 conversations that were typed in all caps and others that were typed in
12 standard sentence structure format. We learned later that those that
13 were typed in all caps were conversations take down by the SDB, the
14 police; whereas, the conversations that were typed in standard sentence
15 format were ones that were recorded and typed by the military.
16 When we got to know the process better, we learned that at the
17 northern site where there were both military and police units working
18 that they shared information and forwarded the information to their
19 respective commands. So some of the MUP reports -- the teletype machine,
20 as I understand it, the teletype machine that the MUP had always
21 converted their material to all caps.
22 Does that answer your question?
23 Q. If it is the only explanation, then yes. But is there another?
24 A. No. Not that I'm aware of.
25 Q. Thank you. I am slightly confused by your statement that the DB
1 did not have handwritten notes. Did you say that?
2 A. Yes, I did say that.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look then at P4618.
4 It should not be broadcast as the witness in question was
5 protected, since the witness's handwriting may be recognised.
6 For the other half of the screen, could we have 31036B. Yes,
7 perhaps this is it.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. This is probably a direct translation of what we have. Since you
10 know our language, can you see that it's a handwritten note and an
11 English translation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Instead of the English on the
15 right-hand side, could we have 31036B.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Please have a look. It's just following the ERN number ending in
19 Can you see that there's a typed remark in brackets that is
20 missing from the handwritten original?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So does it change the meaning of this intercept?
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I just ask Mr. Karadzic to clarify. Sorry
25 to go back.
1 Page 50, line 5:
2 "Q. I'm slightly confused by your statement that the DB did not
3 have handwritten notes. Did you say that?
4 "A. Yes, I did ..."
5 And then he brings up this document. Is Dr. Karadzic asserting
6 that this intercept was taken by a DB operative, because that's what the
7 question implies?
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think so. As soon as I have the
10 KDZ number, I will be able to tell you the witness.
11 THE WITNESS: I can tell you that it was a military unit on the
12 southern site that took this intercept. It wasn't the SDB.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: And it does correspond to the examples that I was
15 giving about how the typed version that the military provided was in
16 standard sentence structure, not all caps.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honours, I think should not be
19 JUDGE KWON: I think that's understood.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Okay. I apologise.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've already said that.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. This is the handwriting of Witness KDZ126. I believe he was at
24 the northern location.
25 A. I don't have any notes in front of me and I'm going purely off of
1 memory. If I had notes to look at, I could definitely confirm it, but I
2 believe this was from the southern site. I -- I know the names of the
3 two people who were on this intercept, who took it down, and then who --
4 who typed it.
5 Q. Thank you. Until we found our way in our papers, I wanted to ask
6 you this: Is it true that you said that everything that was handed over
7 was preserved without judging relevance because it could be dealt with
9 A. So ... what I understand your question to be is whether
10 everything that we received, we preserved without judging its relevance.
11 If that's what you mean, that's correct.
12 Q. Thank you. So nothing was eliminated, not even the things at the
13 time that seemed unimportant to you. Everything was preserved; correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Thank you. Did you notice any intercepts which confirm my
16 participation in the critical events you followed?
17 A. Yes. My memory is that there were only a few.
18 Q. Are they at our disposal? Did you hand them over; and did you
19 see them in the material offered by the Prosecution?
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't think the witness can really speak to the
22 disclosure in this case.
23 JUDGE KWON: She can answer the question.
24 THE WITNESS: I can't speak to the disclosure in this case.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you come across any intercepts of my conversation that would
3 be favourable or unfavorable, for me; that is to say, that would be of
4 use for the Defence?
5 A. I can't remember any.
6 Q. Thank you. In any case, your team did not keep any intercepts
7 which may have been either in my favour or against me; is that correct?
8 A. We kept all of the intercepts.
9 Q. Thank you. Could you rely on your knowledge of Serbian, or
10 Croatian, or our language that is used there, whatever we call it, to
11 deal with turns of phrase, metaphors, and figures of speech? Was it all
12 clear to you?
13 A. A lot of it was clear, but where it wasn't, I asked interpreters
14 or language assistants.
15 Q. The interpreters or language assistants were Serbs? Muslims?
16 A. Could have been either.
17 Q. And were they?
18 A. So the majority were Bosnians or Bosnian Muslim, but it depended.
19 Because if they went to the translation unit, then often they were Serbs.
20 Q. Did you have a problem, for example, with the term "screening,"
22 A. I think it was just translated into English as "triage."
23 Q. Thank you. So can you tell us what it meant, what connotations
24 it received in the English language?
25 A. I know that it comes up in a conversation, I think at 11.11, in
1 discussing prisoners and that triage should be conducted on them, but
2 I've never put my own thoughts or opinions into what that meant. It
3 was -- it was, to my memory, only used once in a conversation and was
4 then later also confirmed through some -- through a document, I believe.
5 Q. Thank you. The term "packet" is something you have ascribed a
6 specific meaning to. How did you arrive at that meaning?
7 A. Yes. Be -- given the context in which that word was used, which
8 was, I believe, Ljuba Beara, the head of security for the VRS Main Staff,
9 saying that he had 6.000 packets that still needed to be delivered. I
10 believe that conversation happened on the 15th of July, and in the
11 context of the events that had occurred and had been occurring, it -- the
12 conclusion was that it referred to people, and I agreed with that
13 conclusion. It was an interpretation.
14 Q. Are there other possible interpretations?
15 A. I mean, Ljubisa Beara was involved with the prisoners during this
16 entire period. It wasn't, you know, Federal Express or package delivery.
17 JUDGE KWON: Since Mr. Karadzic seems to be moving away from the
18 transcript we have in front of us now, I'm putting the question.
19 Did you get any explanation why this passage in the parentheses
20 in the typed version appears, which we can not see in the handwritten
22 You understand what I mean?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: The intermediary and Karadzic are sitting in the
25 same room, in the parenthesis.
1 THE WITNESS: So, no, I don't remember getting a specific
2 explanation on that, but in reading -- reading the transcript, there's
3 certain point in the -- in the transcript where it says ... so there's a
4 parentheses in the transcript and it comes down -- I don't know if you
5 want to look at the English version of it as well. It's the second time
6 that D speaks and it says in parentheses, on the handwritten version,
7 that he can be heard in the background.
8 So --
9 JUDGE KWON: I think it's X. Heard in the background.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. X, that's correct.
11 So I -- I think what happened is that when the person was typing
12 this up, he read that and then at the top of the transcript in
13 parentheses put that the intermediary and Karadzic were sitting in the
14 same room. Again, because it is in parentheses, it means it's not
15 something solid, but that would be my best assessment of what happened.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We no longer need this
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Perhaps it would be useful if you explained to us why in your
22 testimony you use the term "material difference," as opposed to
23 alterations, changes, inaccuracies. Could another legal term be used for
24 material difference, and what would be the appropriate term to use
1 A. I really try not to use legal terms in my testimony.
2 So I would just say not a substantial difference. I may have
3 used material difference before, but it would just mean something that
4 substantively changed the meaning of the content.
5 Q. Are you saying that -- for example, the previous document, which
6 implies that I was in the same room with the intermediary who could hear
7 Deronjic, which, in other words, would mean that I could hear him too, is
8 something that did not change the meaning, the remark itself?
9 A. It didn't change the substance of the conversation. It made the
10 context a little confusing. But the intermediary was probably holding
11 two phones and passing messages.
12 Q. However, that sentence stating that I'm sitting next to him
13 completely changes the picture; correct?
14 A. Well, again, it's in parentheses. So the operators were told
15 always to put things in parentheses if they weren't sure about something.
16 So another example would be where someone was very familiar with one
17 particular person's voice but that particular person's name had not been
18 mentioned in the conversation. So they would put X, but then, in
19 parentheses, they would probably put that person's name to provide some
21 So we wouldn't take the material in parentheses to be absolutely
23 Q. Thank you. In your testimony in Popovic, page 7882, you
24 explained this term "material difference," saying you used that term to
25 denote differences conducive to a change of meaning; correct?
1 A. That's possible. Yeah.
2 Q. Well, in court, there would be a more appropriate term for that,
3 wouldn't there? [In English] Tampered, or fabricated, or altered, or
4 what would you prefer?
5 A. No, I wouldn't agree with those terms. Certainly not tampered or
6 fabricated. Depends -- the context that we're talking about are
7 substantial differences in the meaning of something, and that doesn't
8 necessarily mean that something was fabricated or tampered with. There
9 could be lot of other explanations for it, like the one I just gave.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll come to that. If the operator
11 doesn't hear properly and such, but could we agree that such a document
12 is unusable or of limited use in court if the meaning has been changed?
13 A. I think it's most useful to talk about specific examples.
14 Q. We don't have time, Ms. Frease. I would like to know your
15 position. You, yourself, spoke of material difference, things that
16 changed the meaning, and you work for the court; more precisely for the
17 Office of the Prosecutor.
18 What is your position?
19 A. Well, I think it's -- from the standpoint of an operator who was
20 listening to these conversations day in and day out, if that person did
21 not hear a particular part of a conversation, the honest thing and what
22 they did was that they didn't put anything. They put three dots or
23 "inaudible" or something like that.
24 So if the operator didn't hear properly, I can't agree with the
25 statement that such a document is unusable. It simply means that they
1 weren't able to capture the entire conversation for technical reasons,
2 but it doesn't invalidate the parts of the conversation that they were
3 able to capture.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Nicholls on his feet, but
5 I would like to continue.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry to interrupt. Page 57, line 19:
8 "You, yourself, spoke of material differences, things that change
9 the meaning."
10 In the cite at page 7882 of Popovic we had earlier, on
11 cross-examination, Ms. Frease was asked to define what she meant by the
12 term "material differences."
13 The question as phrased as -- if Mr. Karadzic is asserting the
14 witness, Ms. Frease, said she had found material differences that changed
15 the meaning, I want a cite, please, because that's the way question is
16 phrased, "You, yourself, spoke of material differences ..."
17 JUDGE KWON: And whether it is useable or unusable for the -- for
18 the Court, and what probative value to be assessed, it's... yeah. With
19 the Court and what probative value to be assessed by the Court. It is
20 for the Chamber. It's nothing -- it's nothing to do with the witness.
21 So this whole exercise is -- is a bit pointless, Mr. Karadzic.
22 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, Ms. Frease, I began with the question why you used the
25 euphemism "material difference" instead of a legal term, any legal term,
1 because you are working for the judiciary?
2 Is it true that also in Popovic, on the next page, you were
3 unable to identify the scope of alterations that would constitute a
4 material difference?
5 Would you be able to tell us now what scale of alteration causes
6 such a difference that would -- that would disserve a legal term, whether
7 the change was deliberate or not?
8 JUDGE KWON: Let us see the page, Mr. Karadzic.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Also, just want to correct at line [sic] 59. The
10 witness is not working for the judiciary, and the witness has explained
11 why she tries not to use legal terms, because she's no lawyer.
12 JUDGE KWON: 1D5229.
13 MR. KARADZIC: 9.
14 Q. [Interpretation] While we're waiting, Ms. Frease, is the date on
15 the intercept important, in terms of accuracy? Would a wrong date
16 constitute a material difference?
17 A. Yes, it could. We paid very close attention to dates.
18 Q. And would the hour of the intercept also be important, in terms
19 of forensic use?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is probably the right document, but we are now looking for
22 the number. My number was 7882. I don't know if it's the same here in
24 Did you notice passages or words crossed out, the time, the hour
25 and minute crossed out? Did you come across cases where an earlier
1 transcript would appear later in chronology?
2 A. It would be helpful if you could try to use a specific example.
3 I can maybe try to speak to one of the issues in terms of an hour, a
4 minute being crossed out. I remember there being an issue about zeros
5 having a line through them, there being discussion about that. That was
6 how some operators wrote their numbers.
7 In terms of passages or words being crossed out, we discussed
8 that briefly, and that happened sometimes when the operators would go
9 back and listen to the conversation again. Things would become more
10 clear and so they would correct their work product.
11 Q. May I ask you to cast a glance at this page.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender it.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Was this the dialogue in the courtroom in the Popovic case; and
15 are these your words?
16 JUDGE KWON: So what passage do you -- do you refer to,
17 Mr. Karadzic? This is part of cross-examination, I take it, by
18 Mr. Ostojic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. And I would now like us to
20 focus on the passage beginning with the line 4, when Mr. Ostojic is
21 trying to establish the nature of the term "material difference." And
22 further below, Ms. Frease is saying what would and what would not
23 constitute "material difference."
24 THE WITNESS: I'm fairly consistent.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, did she say that she found material difference
1 in this sense?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is probably
3 examination-in-chief -- sorry. This is a reference to the
4 examination-in-chief. And it says she had used the term the day before,
5 the term "material difference" describing --
6 JUDGE KWON: You need to show her where she referred to "material
8 It says page 69 at the time, but could you find the correct page,
9 Mr. Nicholls?
10 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm looking, Your Honour. I'm trying to, but I
11 haven't found it yet because I can't search it electronically.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. What I'm interested in is whether, Ms. Frease, these added words,
14 terms, criminal and others, changed dates, wrong dates, inconsistencies
15 in chronology, later intercepts appearing earlier, et cetera, would all
16 that, in her view, be a material difference that changes the meaning?
17 And I don't care what she found about that and what she stated in the
18 Popovic case, but I want to hear her position here and now.
19 A. Well --
20 Q. More precisely, Ms. Frease, what is the threshold that you set
21 above which something has been so substantially changed that it changes
23 A. I guess that's part of the point. We just didn't find that. You
24 know, there could have been human errors. You know, human mistakes. Not
25 hearing a word properly. I'm not even sure you call that a mistake. But
1 you don't hearing something properly so you write down one thing, one
2 name instead of another name. But we just did not find substantial
3 mistakes or changes or anything in this material that caused us alarm,
4 that caused us to doubt it. And when you speak of dates being incorrect,
5 I -- I would take issue with that. When you speak of there being
6 inconsistency in chronology I would like you to be specific about the
7 inconsistencies in chronology. I can give you an example of how that
8 could happen. But these are all issues that can be explained and that do
9 not have anything in the -- in the work that I did, in the conversations
10 that I had with people, in all of the conversations that we had within
11 the team, in the comparisons that we made, with many other sources of
12 information, we did not find substantial differences, substantial
13 problems, in the intercepts that changed, radically changed, the meaning
14 of a particular intercept.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, could we have a
16 shorter break today because I would finish within half an hour after the
17 break. We don't have to have a long day.
18 JUDGE KWON: You -- let me understood you correctly: You need
19 about half an hour to conclude your cross-examination and you'd like to
20 conclude as early as possible.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope so, yes.
22 JUDGE KWON: Any problem on the part of the Prosecution?
23 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour. Frankly, I haven't yet decided
24 if I have any re-direct. It would be brief. But I may have a few
1 JUDGE KWON: But there would be no problem in having a half an
2 hour break.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: And I'd like to confirm with the Registrar.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll have a --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one question on this topic
8 while it's still fresh.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do we agree that if you encountered --
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, let's have a break. And, in the
12 meantime, we'll find the passage where she referred to the material
13 difference, and let's deal with it then.
14 We'll have a break for half an hour. We resume at 1.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Just very quickly at page 53, line 4, I think there's an -- or
20 there is an error in the transcript. It says "can"; the word "can." I
21 think it clearly was "can't."
22 And, second, the passage in the previous day referred to by
23 Mr. Ostojic in the Popovic testimony is from the 26th of February, 2007,
24 page 7995 where Ms. Frease is answering a question which begins on 7794.
25 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. In page 7882, Mr. Ostojic referred to
1 material difference that Ms. Frease mentioned, so the page number should
2 precede that.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry, I said it wrong. It's 7795.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Do you know the e-court page? Why don't
5 you upload it.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: And I think it should be shown to the witness.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes. 7795.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: It just may be best to show the previous page so
9 the question is intelligible.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MR. KARADZIC: Bottom, probably. Bottom of page.
12 JUDGE KWON: So for our record, I will read out ...
13 Let us read out the passage. It is Mr. Vanderpuye's question:
14 "Could I ask you just to evaluate the differences that you found.
15 Did you find that ..."
16 Next page:
17 "... the import of the conversations had changed in any way as a
18 result of those differences? In other words, was the conversation
19 materially affected, in your mind, based upon those differences? "
20 And witness's answer was:
21 "I can't think of any -- where I thought there was a material
23 That's the context she referred -- referred to material
24 difference, Mr. Karadzic.
25 Yes, and what is your question?
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. My question is: Do you believe that this note that I'm sitting
3 together with the intermediary is legally important or not? Does it
4 change my legal position or not?
5 MR. NICHOLLS: I ...
6 JUDGE KWON: That's not for her to answer, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect,
8 Your Excellencies, before that ever comes to the table of the
9 Trial Chamber, this legal team worked on it and their job is described as
10 collecting, assembling and analysing.
11 JUDGE KWON: Your question was does it change your legal position
12 or not. That's for the Chamber to assess, and you can make submission on
13 that. She gave her -- the -- the evaluation as -- [Overlapping speakers]
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Did that team notice it and notify anyone that there is a
16 difference, or did they judge that it doesn't matter? The question here
17 is: Did the team make judgements that should have been left to the
18 Trial Chamber?
19 JUDGE KWON: no. That's -- whether the team noticed -- notified
20 anyone, that is different. That's a separate question. But your
21 question was formulated in such a manner that it's impossible for the
22 witness to answer, I thought.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I want the witness to state clearly
24 did they make assessments as to what constitutes an important material
25 difference. Based on what did they make those judgements? And I'm
1 citing an example where, I believe, they should have noticed the
2 difference and notified it.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. That is the question: Did you notice the difference, and did you
5 warn the users of your services that it exists?
6 A. It's been a number of years since I've worked on this material,
7 but I believe that we would have seen the difference because we compared
8 the written conversations to the typed conversations, but the explanation
9 that we came up with was the one that I gave previously, which was that X
10 in the typewritten conversation had noted that -- now I don't have it in
11 front of me, but that both the intermediary and Karadzic were in the same
12 room -- or, not in the same room, that they could both be heard, I think
13 is what that original transcription said. And then when the person typed
14 it up, they put in parentheses that both people were in the same room.
15 So that was a hypothesis. Which, frankly, should not have been added.
16 But, again, because it was in parentheses, it was not something that we
17 considered to be -- to change the meaning of the conversation.
18 Q. Thank you. That is what I want to know. Did you decide what
19 changes meaning? Did you have, by your side, a lawyer whom you could
21 A. We had a team lawyer, definitely. We talked about this material
22 and other issues continuously.
23 Q. And did you consult him on this specific example, on this
24 specific case, whether the difference is substantial?
25 A. I do not have a specific memory of that.
1 Q. All right. Let's move to another subject.
2 We had already started to discuss this. Do you agree that pages,
3 dates, times, and chronology of intercepts should be established
4 accurately, precisely?
5 A. Those are different issues that you raise, and I'm happy to take
6 them one at a time.
7 So for the issue of dates, dates were critical. And where we
8 were uncertain of dates, we indicated that until we could confirm them.
9 Times were also important, but they were more difficult for us
10 to -- to confirm, except when we had the same conversation that was
11 recorded two or three times by different operators. And in those
12 instances, the times were self-reinforcing. I've discussed in the past
13 why the conversations would have been off by a minute, or two minutes, or
14 five minutes, and that simply had to do with the time that each operator
15 saw on his watch or the clock on the wall. So times -- those sorts of
16 time differences would not have been considered significant. In fact, to
17 the contrary. I would say they reinforced reliability of the intercepts.
18 As to the chronology and the timing of the chronology of the
19 intercepts, which I think is what you're getting at, on some of the
20 printed material, you will see that some of the intercepts are out of a
21 time chronology. That is, that you could see -- you might see one
22 conversation that starts -- or a series of conversations that start at
23 1.00 in the afternoon, carry through to 3.00, and then you might see a
24 conversation interspersed that, say, was from 2.00, and then they might
25 continue on after 3.00. So the question would be: Why was that
1 conversation from 2.00 in the middle of the other conversations? And the
2 answer to that is that it's possible that a notebook could have been
3 handed over to a typist to be typed in the interim, especially if the
4 intercept operator who took that conversation at 2.00 thought it was
5 important. So he could have just handed it over to the typist and said,
6 Hey, fit this one in. You know, It should go now. And then take -- took
7 the notebook back and then the typist continued with the notebook that he
9 So that's an explanation for why, in some of the printout
10 versions of the intercept transcripts, you see times that may not run in
11 a perfect sequence or chronology.
12 Q. Is that the only explanation? You said "possible," "a possible
14 So is that the only explanation?
15 A. It's the only one that I can think of right now.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have 65 ter 35036, please.
17 That's notebook 99. Could we pull that up in e-court, please.
18 Can we have page 1046.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, could you just look at this cover page. What date appears
21 there? It says, "As of 16 July 1995"; correct?
22 A. Yes. Well, I'm actually not sure. 16 ... I don't know if that's
23 a 7. Looks like an 8 or a 5. The interior page says the 14th of July,
25 Q. However, on the cover page, it says the 16th; correct? More
1 specifically, it says, "As of the 16th." And this is most probably July.
2 It's impossible that it could be anything else.
3 So we see that it is as of the 16th; correct?
4 A. No. I -- I can't say that that says the 16th of July. Again,
5 because, to me, that doesn't look like a 7. Likes like a backwards 7; it
6 looks like an 8; it looks like a 5. And I would just also say that the
7 dates on the covers of these notebooks were not particularly important.
8 But I can't agree that that says the 16th of July.
9 Q. What month then does it say? Let's see if we can verify this, if
10 we look at the inside pages.
11 In your report, you took this day, the 16th, as the date -- the
12 beginning date; correct?
13 A. No. I can't -- yeah, I can't agree with that without seeing more
14 of the pages and more of the context. I don't know. Perhaps you have
15 the original?
16 JUDGE KWON: Did you hear who wrote the date on the cover page,
17 Ms. Frease?
18 THE WITNESS: No.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. But, you see, in Popovic, on page 8138, you took this notebook to
21 refer to the period from the 16th through the 19th of July; correct?
22 I intended to complete my examination earlier, but if we need to,
23 we can pull up that page. That's in Popovic, 8138.
24 JUDGE KWON: Before doing that, why don't show the witness,
25 page 27 of this -- that's the first date I found a date on this notebook,
1 whether it can be of assistance to you.
2 Yes. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So it is indisputably that what the date that we see before us is
5 the 19th of July; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you testify in Popovic that this notebook
8 includes intercepts between the 16th and 19th of July?
9 A. I don't remember. If it's important, we could look at that
10 specific testimony.
11 Q. Can we agree, while we're waiting for the page to be shown, that
12 for the events around Srebrenica, every minute counted, let alone days?
13 A. Again, with the minutes, it's -- they varied a little bit
14 depending on people's watches and -- or clocks or where they were taking
15 the time from. But the dates were certainly very important. Critical.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, can you confirm that it is from that
17 Popovic transcript? [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 15229, that's 65 ter 15229,
19 page 18138.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Did you note this discrepancy in your report; namely, that the
22 cover page says the 16th, whereas, the inner page, the interior page
23 begins with the 14th?
24 A. If you just give me a minute --
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, take your time to read this transcript.
1 THE WITNESS: -- to read. Yeah.
2 Can you scroll down?
3 And keep scrolling.
4 Is there another page we can look at?
5 And keep going.
6 THE ACCUSED: You may need next one, I suppose.
7 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
8 JUDGE KWON: It goes on.
9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 Okay. So some of the ways when we were first working with the
11 notebooks that we dated conversations was by counting backwards or
12 forwards and trying to determine which conversations would have taken
13 place on particular days. There often were not dates within notebooks
14 consistently. So it looks like, in this one, the date of the 19th
15 appears on page 27, and then we counted backwards to the beginning of the
16 notebook. And those days would have -- the times within those days would
17 have run chronologically so that you could tell when the next day began.
18 We would have considered the date of the 19th to have been a firm
19 date. If there was another date, say, later in the notebook, of the
20 21st, and the in-between times ran sequentially from morning to night, or
21 afternoon to night and into the next day, then we would have considered
22 the 20th to have also been a firm date. With this one, it would be
23 helpful if I could see it, actually physically, but I'm not sure that we
24 would have considered those other dates, even if we counted backwards to
25 the 16th, to have been firm dates, based on the cover of the notebook.
1 We would have relied upon other information to confirm when those
2 conversations took place.
3 So our very simple system of determining what an approximate date
4 was and what a firm date was, was whether or not the date was bolded. So
5 it gave us an orientation, it gave us a sort of idea of when we thought
6 it happened, but we didn't consider it firm until we had other ways of
7 corroborating those dates.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. Please note lines 11 and 12. In 12 you say -- on
10 line 12, you say, "It could still be the 17th."
11 Because, here, on line 11, we see that there was a conversation
12 at 1318 which was noted down following the conversation of 1425. So it
13 says it could still be. But could it also be the 18th?
14 A. Possible but not probable. And, in that case, we would have
15 looked for other confirmation before attributing a particular date to the
17 Q. Thank you. Now we can go back to the document we saw a little
18 earlier, 35036 on the 65 ter list.
19 Now, did you note that under the 19th of July, in the 19th of
20 July area, there was a date that was crossed out in red ink; do you
21 recall that?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's page 1484.
23 Those were the final ERN digits. I assume that is what that is,
24 the 1484 reference. Could we have that, please.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Do you recall that in the original copy, that date was crossed
2 out in red pen?
3 We cannot see that here, but you talked about that in Popovic, on
4 page 8149.
5 A. I'd have to see that. Could --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page? Maybe
7 it's there.
8 Please scroll on so we can look at the dates. Very well. We
9 will look for it ourselves.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. But, for now, would you please tell us can you recall that you
12 saw a date crossed out in red ink or with a red pen, and you talked about
13 this, you testified in Popovic to that effect, on page 8149, and you said
14 there that did you not investigate as to the significance of that?
15 A. I don't remember that right now.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we then see 15229, page 8149,
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes Mr. Nicholls.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Just for the record, it's not exactly what it says
20 on page 8149.
21 JUDGE KWON: So we'll see what he means.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Yeah, I think I'm going to request that the
23 witness be allowed -- she's asked a couple of times to see it when it's
24 put to her.
25 JUDGE KWON: I will make sure.
1 What's the page number, Mr. Karadzic? 81 ...
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 49.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, 49.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Here, on line 2, mention is made of that -- of this page. And
6 then -- well, please take a look for yourself. Read on from line 6 and
8 THE WITNESS: And scroll down.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. The copy that we have before us does not show the red line, but
11 the copy that was used in these proceedings did have this red line that
12 was across the date of the 19th of July.
13 So what are we to do now? How did this red line disappear,
14 crossing out this date that was there in the Popovic case?
15 JUDGE KWON: Can I see the previous page of this transcript.
16 Mr. Nicholls, do you have that original book available
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honours, when this came up, I -- I asked for
19 it to be brought down and I understand it is on its way. So we could
20 take either a short break and it might actually make things quicker or we
21 can continue.
22 But it is -- my understanding is it's on its way now being
23 checked out of the evidence unit.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. You were about do say something, Ms. Frease.
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah, without seeing the book, I can't really
2 JUDGE KWON: The ERN page number is consistent with the
3 transcript. That's the page we saw, 19th of the July.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Mm-hm.
5 JUDGE KWON: Probably it does not appear in the photocopy.
6 THE WITNESS: Right.
7 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to have a break, Mr. Karadzic, or can
8 you continue?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd rather move to another topic so
10 we don't waste any time and then I'll revisit this later.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. But let me ask Ms. Frease: Is it correct that lines 16 through
13 18 you actually confirmed that you had seen this date of the 19th of
14 July crossed out in red ink?
15 A. That's what the transcript says, yeah.
16 Q. But you did confirm that you had seen it. You wouldn't have said
17 yes, had you not seen it; right?
18 A. That's certainly true.
19 Q. Thank you. Now let's leave this topic, and let me ask you this:
20 Is it correct that the tapes that were preserved were given to
21 Jack Hunter who took them to Washington to have copies made and then
22 returned the originals on the 4th of April, 2001?
23 A. It is true that Jack Hunter took the tapes to Washington to
24 analyse them and have copies made. I don't remember that the originals
25 were returned on the date that you mentioned. So -- but there should be
1 a document that -- that indicates when the originals were returned.
2 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that in an ATF lab in Washington, D.C.,
3 these copies were improved, as it were, in order to -- to be able to hear
4 them better?
5 A. The audio on them -- my understanding is, yes, is that the audio
6 was enhanced so that they could be better heard.
7 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber who Jack Hunter is and which
8 institution was involved in this?
9 A. Jack Hunter was an expert in radio communications and analysis.
10 He visited the two sites, took photographs of the antennas, the
11 equipment, et cetera, to determine whether it was possible technically to
12 pick up the communication that the ABiH alleged they collected from those
13 locations, and then he also had expertise in being able to analyse tapes
14 and evaluate them. He worked for the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and
15 Fire-Arms in Washington.
16 Q. I see. And is that part of some state agency in the US?
17 A. You know, I don't know which department it falls under. But,
18 yes, it's a federal government agency, or department.
19 Q. Is that department linked with the FBI in any way?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Were you trained at the FBI?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Who engaged Mr. Hunter and that agency?
24 A. I think he was identified through Peter McCloskey, who had
25 formerly worked for the Department of Justice. Peter McCloskey, of
1 course, being a Senior Trial Attorney, here at the ICTY.
2 Q. Thank you. Was Jack Hunter engaged officially; and do we have
3 any document to that effect?
4 A. He was engaged officially. I don't know whether there's a
5 document. There must be a document to that effect, but I'm not aware of
7 Q. Thank you. Did you undergo any training? Were you trained by
8 Mr. Hunter?
9 A. No. No.
10 Q. Do you know who paid for the engagement of Mr. Hunter?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 While we are waiting, could we see 1D5477, please.
14 Fortunately, you can speak Serbian so we can move on even if
15 there is no translation. You can assist us.
16 Let's leave it on the screen.
17 Can you see on the top where it says the Army of Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina, and then it says Okresanica?
19 Is that the northern site that you mentioned?
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll do that.
21 Shall we go into private session briefly?
22 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, just to say that we've got the
20 original notebook.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Do you agree that you are familiar with this location? And do
25 you agree that this intercept of the 8th of December is of the 8th of
1 December, 1994?
2 A. I'm familiar with the location. And the date, in fact, says the
3 8th of December, 1994.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the bottom of the page.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Can you tell us whether the time is, indeed, 2039, and we see the
8 date is same. And now can you tell us what it says in line 7, where a
9 person X speaks. And just above that, we seem to see someone saying:
10 "There's definitely no one there."
11 "There's definitely no one there."
12 And then person X says:
13 "Can you try with them, with the package?
14 "Y: To try what?
15 "X: To use the paket to call them.
16 "Y: To come up there to where they are.
17 "X: Me?
18 "Y: Yes, I can."
19 So do we have the word paket or parcel, or whatever you want to
20 call it, appearing here?
21 A. Yes, that word appears here.
22 Q. Thank you. Does it pertain to a person or some type of
24 A. I'd just like a minute to read the conversation again, please.
25 It sounds like it refers to communication. I don't know what it
1 would mean in this context though, what kind of communication.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark it for identification.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Marked for identification as D2205, Your Honours.
6 Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D5478, not to be
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Is it the same institution that submitted this report for the
11 9th of October, 1994?
12 And then in line 6 or 7 from the bottom, O, or C say:
13 "You hear that, Kompas, there's part of the paket waiting.
14 "Did they set off from up there?"
15 The other person says:
16 "No worry, Kompas. I'll convey everything. Stay there."
17 Then the person says:
18 "Very well."
19 Then O says:
20 "Kompas, hear this. That paket did not set out. It's going
22 What do you think this pertains to?
23 Having in mind that it says "part of the paket," so probably it
24 doesn't concern a person.
25 A. How -- could the interpreters translate that sentence again.
1 Should I say it in B/C/S?
2 JUDGE KWON: If could you read it that can be translated.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay. So [Interpretation]: "There is a part of
4 the paket waiting."
5 An integral part.
6 [In English] Right, yeah. I don't know. I mean, in -- in --
7 everything is context, right? So there's -- there's some essential part
8 of the paket that's ... has it, and has it -- has it left from above?
9 I can't say from here from the context. Also, from the date and
10 what was happening during that time, I don't know what this would refer
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. And if you had to choose between the meaning of person or
14 prisoner and a piece of equipment for communication, what would be your
16 A. I wouldn't choose because I don't know the context. You know, I
17 don't -- I don't know what was happening in August of 1994 where this was
18 taken from. I don't know who Kompas. I don't know -- I don't know what
19 base or what location that is. So I wouldn't like to make a sort of
20 off-the-cuff analysis of this.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. But, Mr. Karadzic, I'm trying to understand
24 your line of question here. So it is your case, isn't it, that the paket
25 or parcel, whatever it may be, is used not to mean person in this
1 context. The word used by Mr. Beara shouldn't mean the person either.
2 Is that what you are aiming at?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I'll trying to say
4 that the intercepts, that kind of communication, is replete with the word
5 paket. And here we can clearly see that it does not pertain to people.
6 I have another two documents that I will seek to tender. It seems that
7 this word is being repeated on the air, paket, or parcel.
8 JUDGE KWON: This will be marked for identification as
9 Exhibit D2206.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have 1D5479. Thank you.
11 It shouldn't be broadcast.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: Just, Your Honour, to note, my information -- this
14 is the, I believe the third intercept that wasn't notified, that's not
15 in -- without a translation. So it's much harder for us to deal with
16 these non-notified ones, when there's not -- when there's no translation.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. But at least we can understand the point
18 of the question, so we can continue on that basis.
19 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Do you agree that the four top lines have B and C, and then it
23 says: Ask them when this package is going tomorrow to Galaksiji;
24 correct? And this is the 31st of March, 1994.
25 A. Yes, it says ...
1 Q. To Galaksiji, in parenthesis, (Pale).
2 I didn't even realise I was in the Galaksiji.
3 A. When "that" package, I would say, instead of "this" package. It
4 is a small translation issue. But when that package is going to
5 Galaksiji tomorrow. Ask them when that packet is going to Galaksiji
7 Q. I agree with your interpretation.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
9 JUDGE KWON: Again, we'll marked for identification as
10 Exhibit D2207.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have 1D5480
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The sixth line from the bottom -- or perhaps somewhere towards
15 the middle.
16 It says that: Gor Prijedor is in the field than he should start
17 with his package up there as quickly as possible.
18 And then a few lines below: He should be there with his package
19 as soon as possible.
20 And here we also see the first level of combat readiness.
21 Would you say that in this conversation, the package is a combat
22 asset, as it seems to be associated with the first level of combat
24 A. If I could just go back to the previous conversation when it says
25 when that package will leave tomorrow more Pale. That could be a
1 reference to a prisoner easily. So, again, context is so important in
2 analysing intercepts. You have to have the whole framework around --
3 around the material that you're looking at.
4 So now we will move onto this one at 8.00 in the morning. What's
5 the date?
6 Q. The 31st of March. Sorry. That was the previous one. This date
7 is the 14th of November.
8 A. 14th of October; right?
9 Q. October. Sorry. In the middle, where it says "Prijedor," and
10 then: He should set out with his package up there immediately.
11 And then the thing that is underlined somewhat further below is:
12 He should be there with his package as soon as possible.
13 And then the next underlined sentence is: The first level of
14 combat readiness, or BG.
15 A. Okay. If I could just take a minute to read through it.
16 Yeah, okay. So someone named Nedjelko part way through in the
17 conversation is speaking and says -- I think you might have already read
18 this or close to it, but I'll re-read it in B/C/S, yeah?
19 So [Interpretation] he says that out there in the field Gor
20 Prijedor, he should start immediately with his own package up there.
21 [In English] So and I would think that Gor Prijedor, would that
22 be above Prijedor? That's a question ...
23 Q. [In English] Would it be up north?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: G-o-r is not a word and we
25 cannot offer an interpretation of that.
1 THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 Well, context, again. I mean, he is supposed to go somewhere
3 around Prijedor, in the field -- or, that he is there in the field. I
4 would -- maybe it means above Prijedor. And that he should leave right
5 away with his packet and leave right away and go up somewhere.
6 Again, I mean, it's just so hard. Maybe -- maybe -- maybe this
7 refers to something material, something of a sensitive nature, that's
8 material and not people. It's possible. Without context, it's -- it's
9 difficult. It's very difficult.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you agree that N says: The first level of BG, combat
13 And that it follows the sentence: That he should be there with
14 his own package as soon as possible.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Again, we'll mark it for identification as
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last one is 1D5475.
21 Zoom in, please. It shouldn't be broadcast. It is the same base
22 that intercepted it. In line 2 it says: "Blagoje and Y (voice
23 modulation as in the voice of Danilo Stojkovic, the actor)."
24 Then Blagoje swears in line 5 and, then, he says:
25 "I won't praise him from this distance."
1 And then Y says:
2 "Did the package from this morning leave as it was supposed to.
3 And then Blagoje says:
4 "Fuck it, it left me, so I told them to go back this way and to
5 take something from there."
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat his question.
7 JUDGE KWON: Interpreters didn't hear your question,
8 Mr. Karadzic. Could you repeat.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Is it clear that this is not about people? It's about something
11 being carried.
12 A. Yes. I think it -- I think it sounds like that.
13 I would -- I would also just draw a couple of other distinctions
14 to the material that we've been looking at, which is that it covers
15 locations and individuals other than those that we had worked on, and the
16 units that were -- this is a supposition, actually. But I -- and it
17 doesn't -- actually it doesn't really matter. But that the units that
19 northern site were different. So there were different units that were
20 picking up information from these other areas and that these were
21 individuals who were working for other units.
22 If I was going to analyse all of this material, I would look at
23 that and see if -- if there seemed to be a particular pattern.
24 Q. Thank you. But if you knew where this Commander Gengo, who is
25 mentioned here below, you would know that that is the same area.
1 Can we agree that it's the 11th May, 1995?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show this part, the header.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
7 JUDGE KWON: It will be marked as -- for identification as D2209.
8 In the meantime, Mr. Karadzic, you used all of your time, three
9 hours. Do you have more? And I --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's just finish with this
11 notebook and the date, 19 July. I have just one more question and I'll
12 be done.
13 JUDGE KWON: Shall we put that notebook on the ELMO, that page?
14 THE WITNESS: May I look at it first?
15 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe the ERN is 1484, if this
17 has ERN numbers at all. But the date is 19 July. Maybe that way we can
18 find it.
19 JUDGE KWON: So if you have found the page, could you put it on
20 the ELMO so that we can take a look as well.
21 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Do you want me to hold it?
22 JUDGE KWON: So did the red line refer to that long line?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. So a new day beginning, the 19th.
24 And a couple of ...
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, continue, Ms. Frease.
1 THE WITNESS: A couple of pages later on this same day there is
2 more red ink here. And here. And here. So it was an intercept operator
3 who wanted to establish when the 19th began, and so he just took his pen
4 and lined there and marked the date of the 19th.
5 JUDGE KWON: And that line was visible in photocopy as well.
6 THE WITNESS: Apparently it wasn't. Because I didn't see it on
7 the screen. So ...
8 JUDGE KWON: I think I saw it.
9 THE WITNESS: Oh. Really?
10 JUDGE KWON: Sorry. Shall we upload the notebook? 1D -- no.
12 THE WITNESS: And I would also say that I can now, when I see the
13 original, I can see that this is a 7. 16.7. It's not -- to me it's not
14 clear on the original -- or, on it's photocopy as it is here.
15 JUDGE KWON: It is clearly visible in the e-court as well, in the
16 photocopy, that line.
17 THE WITNESS: The red line.
18 JUDGE KWON: The read line, yes.
19 THE WITNESS: Oh, so it is. I don't know what I was looking at
20 before, but I ...
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry to interrupt, Your Honours it's just the
22 question back at page 75, line 17, said: Is it correct you confirmed
23 that the date the 19th of July had been crossed out in red ink?
24 And this is a line we're looking at the book. He said it's a
25 start of a date, so to me, it's just slightly different.
1 JUDGE KWON: But I don't remember how the Popovic transcript
3 But, Mr. Karadzic, having seen this original, do you like to ask
4 any further questions for the witness?
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The question would only be why it's in a different colour and why
7 she accepted in the Popovic case that it was crossed out in red. Because
8 she claimed it was crossed out in red.
9 A. My explanation for why it's in red is that a few pages - one,
10 two - five pages later, there -- intercept operator is writing in red ink
11 on the next three pages in total in red. So I don't -- I don't know why
12 I would have agreed that the date was crossed out. It -- it's not
13 crossed out. It's -- there's a line, and the date is put below that line
14 to indicate a new day is beginning.
15 So I don't know whether I was not able -- I don't know.
16 Q. When is it indicated that it's the beginning of a new day? When
17 is this indication in red made? Because both below the line and above
18 the line, it's the same writing, in the same pen. And then the next
19 day's entry is in a different pen, the same pen used three or four days
21 Did you ask for an explanation of this? Who made the -- who put
22 in the date? Because the person who wrote in blue is not the same as the
23 one who wrote in red.
24 A. May I have the transcript now back up on --
25 JUDGE KWON: Oh, Popovic transcript.
1 THE WITNESS: No, the current one so I can see what the questions
3 Okay. So when -- your question, "When is it indicated that it's
4 the beginning of a new day?" It's indicated by the fact that there's a
5 line drawn across and the date written down as the 19th of July, 1995.
6 The conversation, the previous conversation was recorded at 2341. The
7 conversation following the date of the 19th of July was recorded at 6.25
8 in the morning. So it was -- the previous conversation was the end of
9 one day and it's next conversation was the beginning of a new day.
10 And then -- I disagree that it's the same handwriting above and
11 below the line. Those are two different operators that are writing.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Sorry, I said the same pen, blue pen which we can't see on the
14 copy. It's the same colour. And then, at some point later, the same pen
15 that was used four or five pages later, was used to put in this date. Do
16 you agree that it was not written in the same go. It was inserted at
17 some later point in the same colour as used by the -- by the writer four,
18 five pages later.
19 You can see that better on the original.
20 A. I can't say that it was the same blue pen that was written --
21 that an operator used at 2341 and at 0625 in the morning.
22 But, yes, a red pen was used five or six pages later, because it
23 looks like his black pen had run out of ink so he picked up a red pen and
24 continued the conversation in red ink and then went back and said because
25 that conversation, the first conversation, that is written in red ink
1 starts at 10.32 in the morning on the same day. So then that person
2 would have just gone back and drawn a line and put the day's date in,
3 realising that the date had not been recorded for that day.
4 And then various other operators also used that red pen in a few
5 subsequent conversations.
6 JUDGE KWON: Now, it's time for you to conclude, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. My last question, Ms. Frease.
10 Have you ever put the paper to expertise to determine the age of
11 the paper, along with a graphology expertise, analysis of the log-book;
12 in other words, did any independent institution outside the Office of the
13 Prosecutor analyse all these elements?
14 A. To my knowledge, they didn't.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies, for
17 your patience and understanding.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you, Ms. Frease, for your testimony.
20 JUDGE KWON: Probably to understand the context of this part of
21 what witness -- probably we need to admit the relevant page of that
22 notebook; in particular, in colour.
23 That can be done, Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour. And it's -- it's not a huge
25 document. I'd suggest we colour scan the whole -- the whole notebook and
1 put it in for the purposes of understanding the testimony.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. In that context, shall we give the number for
3 the notebook? As a Defence exhibit. It's not in evidence yet, the
5 MR. NICHOLLS: I believe not. Well, I may be wrong. There was
6 one notebook that we put in as a demonstrative, but I don't recall
7 whether it was this one, off the top of my head.
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll give a number for that. But we don't
10 need the translation we just admit it to see the colour, or -- yes,
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be assigned Exhibit D2210.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, do you have re-examination?
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Very briefly, Your Honour. Do it now or after a
17 JUDGE KWON: No. It's -- I think we had -- given that we had
18 only half an hour break it now that we should adjourn for the day. But
19 if it is not that lengthy then we, with the indulgence of the
20 interpreters yet again, can continue for some time.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: I will ask one question or maybe two.
22 JUDGE KWON: Let us do that.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: I'll make it shorter. P00140, please. This is an
24 intercept from 14 July 1995 at 2102 hours.
25 That's right. If I could have the English, please. I believe
1 we're looking at version A for the record.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Nicholls:
3 Q. Ms. Frease, are you familiar with this intercept --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please also see the
5 manuscript on the left-hand side.
6 JUDGE KWON: It's on its way, I take it.
7 Yes, let us continue.
8 MR. NICHOLLS:
9 Q. I was asking if you're familiar with this intercept?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. We talk about it before. Palma is which headquarters?
12 A. Zvornik Brigade.
13 Q. Okay. Do you know who Major Jokic is?
14 A. Dragan Jokic ... I can't come up with his title right now.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. He was a duty officer at some point. Oh, well, there he says
17 duty officer.
18 Q. All right. Thank you. And Badem, do you remember who -- which
19 headquarters Badem is?
20 A. Yes, that's Bratunac Brigade.
21 Q. First line, it says:
22 "Hello, Badem, let me talk to Beara."
23 Do you know Colonel Beara is?
24 A. Yes, he was the head of security for the Main Staff of the VRS.
25 Q. Thank you. And if we look down on the English, keeping in mind
1 this is the 14th of July. If we look down further, we say under -- we
2 say -- we see Jokic saying:
3 "Yes, hey, we have huge problems over here."
4 I'm moving quickly. This is before Beara has come on the line.
5 And then Jokic says:
6 "There were big problems, well, with the people. I mean, with
7 the parcel."
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Are you aware of what the situation was in Zvornik regarding
10 prisoners of war on the 14th July in the evening?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What was it?
13 A. It was that thousands were being held in various places and being
15 Q. In this context, having the research we've talked about and
16 Mr. Karadzic showed you a tonne of documents with paket or parcel, what
17 would you take parcel to mean here?
18 A. Prisoners.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: No further questions.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls. Unless my colleagues have
22 questions for, that concludes your evidence, Ms. Frease.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: On behalf of the Tribunal I would to thank you for
25 coming to The Hague to give it again.
1 Please have a safe journey back home.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought to ask -- the witness
4 mentioned 6.000 packages. I never found that anywhere. And perhaps
5 Mr. Nicholls could be of assistance.
6 JUDGE KWON: That's a separate intercept, I take it.
7 Now you are free to go, but it is time to adjourn for the day so
8 we rise all together.
9 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I've been asked to address two quick
11 housekeeping matters. The first is with respect to the ICMP funding doc,
12 no problem. The second is with respect to the Defence request for the
13 presence of Mr. Paselic as a demographic expert. We were awaiting the
14 CV. Again, no objection.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That will be given a number. And one
16 further thing. On 9th of March, Prosecution informed us that it has
17 uploaded into e-court a public redacted version of Exhibit P276 under the
18 65 ter 14691A as ordered by the Chamber in the decision of
19 2nd of March, 2012.
20 And so the Chamber is now satisfied that its order has been
21 complied with and requests the Registry to assign an exhibit number to
22 that document.
23 Then, with that, we'll adjourn for the week.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.36 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of March,
2 2012, at 9.00 a.m.