1 Thursday, 22
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.37 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, ladies and
6 gentlemen; good morning to the technical booth; good morning,
7 interpreters, registry staff, counsel for the Prosecution and the Defence;
8 good morning, General Krstic.
9 Before we resume, if I remember well, our next witness is
10 Ms. Frease who should testify. We wish to tell the parties that the
11 Judges have decided to authorise the Prosecutor to call an investigator to
12 testify on the statements made in his presence by the person that you know
13 and whose name I will not mention. This decision is without any prejudice
14 to the final ruling that the Judges will render regarding the admission of
15 the statements in question.
16 The Judges expect the Prosecutor to provide all useful information
17 regarding the actual presence of that investigator and the conditions
18 under which the statements of the person concerned were taken. The Judges
19 also require that the Prosecutor provide them, before calling the
20 investigator, the written transcripts of those statements, whatever the
21 form may be, and also that the Prosecutor have available the recordings of
22 those statements, if any exist, so that the Chamber and the parties in the
23 courtroom, that is, the Defence, may hear the parties regarding that
25 So the procedure will be that the witness will be in the
1 courtroom, he will take the solemn declaration, we will hear the parties,
2 upon which we will begin with the examination-in-chief and the
3 cross-examination of that witness. That is the position of the Chamber.
4 I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should like to
6 provide an explanation in connection with a statement we made yesterday,
7 so I would request that we go into private session briefly.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us go into private
10 [Private session]
13 Page 8915 redacted – private session
13 Page 8916 redacted – private session
13 Page 8917 redacted – private session
13 Page 8918 redacted – private session
13 Page 8919 redacted – private session
13 Page 8920 redacted – private session
13 Page 8921 redacted – private session
13 Page 8922 redacted – private session
19 [Open session]
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Stefanie
22 Frease. Can you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now going to read the
25 solemn declaration given to you by the usher.
1 THE WITNESS: Do I need to raise my hand?
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Not necessary.
3 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE
4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated. Try and sit
7 as comfortably as possible. I think you're used to being in a courtroom.
8 You will now be answering questions put to you by Mr. Harmon, and then
9 questions from the Defence counsel, and finally the Judges.
10 Mr. Harmon, your witness.
11 And thank you, Witness, for coming.
12 Examined by Mr. Harmon:
13 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease. Could you state your full name and
14 spell your last name for the record.
15 A. Yes. Stefanie May Frease, F-r-e-a-s-e.
16 Q. Can you tell us your educational background?
17 A. I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Washington and a
18 master's degree from Columbia University, both in international affairs.
19 Q. Have you ever given sworn testimony in a court of law?
20 A. No, I haven't.
21 Q. Now, were you employed by the Office of the Prosecutor?
22 A. Yes, I was.
23 Q. When were you employed by the Office of the Prosecutor?
24 A. I began working for the OTP April 26th, 1995, and worked for the
25 OTP through July of 2000. I was then on a leave of absence and officially
1 terminated my work with the Tribunal in December of 2000.
2 Q. When you came to work for the Office of the Prosecutor, were you
3 assigned to work on the Srebrenica investigation?
4 A. Yes. It was roughly, I guess, three or four months after I
5 arrived that I first became involved in the investigation.
6 Q. In what capacity?
7 A. Initially I was a part of a team that conducted an assessment
8 mission to Bosnia, for about four weeks, and then I was formally assigned
9 to the team in January of 1996.
10 Q. Do you have an understanding of the B/C/S language?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. How would you rate your proficiency?
13 A. I would say that I'm highly proficient in the language.
14 Q. Reading, writing, and speaking?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, at some point in time while you were a member of the team
17 investigating the events in Srebrenica, did the Office of the Prosecutor
18 acquire a large amount of data relating to radio intercepted
20 A. Yes, it did.
21 Q. And for want of a better term, were you involved in what came to
22 be known as the Intercept Project?
23 A. Yes, I was.
24 Q. Now, could you tell the Judges what the Intercept Project was?
25 A. The Intercept Project involved collecting material, assembling the
1 material, and then beginning a process of analysis.
2 Q. Now, was the -- did the material come to the Office of the
3 Prosecutor in the English language?
4 A. No, it didn't. It was all in the B/C/S language.
5 Q. Was there a large volume of this material?
6 A. Yes, and the volume increased over time.
7 Q. Could you describe to the Trial Chamber your work in the Intercept
8 Project, starting first of all with what your role was in it.
9 A. I was -- when we received the first material in, I believe it was
10 March 1998, we received printouts, and after receiving that material I put
11 together a small group of people to begin to go through the material and
12 translate it. After that we began to enter the data into a very simple
13 database, and after that we began to work on -- after we acquired the
14 notebooks, then we began to enter the material from the notebooks also
15 into this fairly simple database at that time and looked to
16 cross-reference the material that we had received in written format with
17 the material that we received in the notebooks. Then, of course, that
18 also expanded to the tapes. So it was a constant process of
19 cross-referencing all of the material that we received from -- first from
20 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and then from the State Security Services
21 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Q. Now, did you continue to work on analysing the intercepted radio
23 communication material until you left the Office of the Prosecutor?
24 A. Yes, I did. I worked on it almost non-stop from March 1998 to
25 early July 2000. There were a few months in there where I was assigned to
1 other projects, but I always also kept abreast of what was going on in the
3 Q. Now, in the project, were you assisted by others?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Without naming the others, unless you're asked by either the Trial
6 Chamber or Defence counsel, could you just describe what functions the
7 other people had?
8 A. Sure. Initially, we worked with a small group. When we first
9 received the printed material we worked with a small group of translators
10 in the field, primarily, and then just to get a handle on what the
11 information contained so that it could be shared with the team. Then when
12 we started -- when we formed a very small group of people to work on this
13 in-house, they -- I was assisted by language, people with language skills,
14 only people who had language skills in the area, so interpreters and
15 language assistants.
16 Q. Were you also at times assisted by the investigators themselves in
17 attempting to locate persons or items that you deemed were important in
18 continuing with your project?
19 A. Absolutely.
20 Q. Now, just to give the Judges a sense of dealing with this
21 material, is it something that is requested be analysed very quickly and
22 turned around or is it slow, laborious, time-consuming process? Can I get
23 your comments and your views on that particular issue?
24 A. It was a much more laborious process than I think we had
25 anticipated, and it was more laborious and took, really, quite a lot of
1 time because of the various sources of the information, those being the
2 printed material that we were first provided, then cross-referencing the
3 printed material with the notebooks, and then working eventually with the
4 tapes, so -- and simultaneously working on translations and also on
5 developing a database which would allow us to conduct searches speedily so
6 that we could make connections between conversations.
7 I should mention that that was also another very big part of this
8 project and something that required a lot of time and a lot of knowledge
9 of the material, because we quickly started -- could begin -- we quickly
10 started to see connections between various conversations, that we were --
11 that we weren't just dealing with one conversation, that we were getting
12 two or three -- two or three conversations that were the same but that had
13 been recorded by different operators.
14 Q. Now, was one of your objectives in conducting the intercept
15 project an attempt to determine whether this material was reliable and
16 whether it was genuine?
17 A. Yes, it was.
18 Q. In pursuing that objective, did you, among other things, attempt
19 to locate, identify, and interview the intercept operators who allegedly
20 had intercepted these communications?
21 A. Yes, that came about a year into the project.
22 Q. After some initial analysis, I take it, had been done?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Now, was there an attempt by you and the other people involved in
25 the project to attempt to corroborate the contents of these intercepted
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in conducting your analysis and in attempting to determine
4 whether these were genuine and reliable, could you tell the Judges what
5 factors you considered in assessing the reliability of the material that
6 you had received and were analysing?
7 A. Uh-huh. First we looked for internal consistency among the
8 documents that we had been -- what we had received from the army and the
9 police. And what I mean by "internal consistency" is that the printouts
10 that we received matched verbatim with the notebooks that we received. So
11 that was -- that was one part. That was sort of the preliminary part of
12 testing the internal consistency. But also having a knowledge of the case
13 more broadly, it was possible to know and to ascertain that what was
14 contained within the intercepts was consistent with what we knew about the
16 Q. Did you, for example, attempt to analyse materials that had come,
17 that had been intercepted, from two different locations, Konjuh and
18 Okresanica, to determine if at or about the same time a similar
19 conversation had been intercepted?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was that factor what led you believe that these were reliable?
22 A. Yes. It certainly contributed greatly to the reliability when we
23 learned that there were these two different sites and when we started to
24 find examples of the same conversation. It wasn't immediately clear to us
25 why we were finding similar conversations or really the same conversation
1 with slight variations, and then understanding that there were two
2 different sites and different units working, that contributed greatly to
3 the sense that these were genuine.
4 Q. Did you also receive radio intercepted communication data from
5 different sources, the army and the SDB?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you make a comparison of those two bodies of information? In
8 other words, did you compare the intercepts of the SDB against the
9 intercepts of the army in order to attempt to determine whether similar
10 conversations were captured at the same time?
11 A. Yes. Yes. We also did that kind of comparison. We -- really,
12 what we used as the bases were the individual conversations. From those
13 individual conversations, then we would cross-reference them with all of
14 the other material. So all of the material that came from the Konjuh
15 site, all of the material that came from the Okresanica site and all of
16 the material that came from the police and created a database that allowed
17 us to cross-reference all of these sources.
18 Q. So that was a factor, I take it, when you found -- was that a
19 factor -- strike that.
20 Were your findings in relation to the consistencies between the
21 two separate sources of intercept material a factor that led you to
22 believe these were reliable?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, as a part of the exercise to determine whether or not these
25 intercepts were reliable, did you then have interviewed the various
1 intercept operators who had been identified?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you personally interview some of those operators?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And based on what they had informed you about, did that contribute
6 at all to your analysis of whether these materials were genuine and
8 A. Yes, it did. It did very much, because we had an opportunity to
9 ask them about the process and to understand the process that they used in
10 intercepting the material.
11 Q. Now, as an additional measure of testing, I should say, these
12 materials, did you at some point in time take a selection, small selection
13 of these documents and attempt to verify the documents through third-party
14 information, independent-party information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you explain to the Judges what that project entailed?
17 A. Yes. While we were in the process of analysing the intercepts,
18 when we came across information that appeared to be -- that appear as if
19 we could corroborate it independently, we put that information aside. We
20 would make a separate photocopy and put it in a folder. Some of it was --
21 and then having worked on this material for quite a period of time, one
22 does become quite familiar with it, and then when you see new information,
23 other documents or aerial images or whatever, it was possible to go back
24 to that folder and to try to link things up independently from third
1 Q. And when you say "third sources," what sources are you talking
3 A. I'm talking about documents, for example, that were seized from
4 the VRS, documents that were received from the RS Ministry of Defence,
5 documents -- notes that were taken by third parties, by UNPROFOR officers,
6 aerial imagery, phone numbers.
7 Q. All right.
8 MR. HARMON: Could the witness please be provided with
9 Prosecutor's Exhibit 863, which is a binder.
10 Q. Ms. Frease, did you prepare Prosecutor's Exhibit 863?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Was this exhibit or the materials that are contained in this
13 exhibit collected during the time you were analysing these intercepts?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Okay. Now, could you take Prosecutor's Exhibit 863, which should
16 be before you, and could you describe to the Judges and to counsel the
17 contents of this binder in general terms? Give them an orientation of
18 what's in this binder.
19 A. Sure. The first page is an outline of the contents of the
20 material. You'll see that there are 12 tabs. Each tab contains two
21 summaries. The first summary contains -- the first is a summary of one or
22 more intercepted conversations, and the second summary summarises the
23 material that corroborates the intercept or intercepts that are contained
24 in that tab.
25 Q. Now, does this represent the totality of your work in this area or
1 is this only a small sample of the documents, the intercepts, that you
2 applied this process to?
3 A. That is a sample.
4 Q. All right. Could you kindly turn then to tab 1, to the first page
5 in tab 1. Is that the summary of the intercepted telephone communication
6 or communications that will be analysed against independent third-party
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let's take tab 1, and let's turn to the next page. There should
10 be a summary, I'm sorry, an intercept dated the 11th of July, 1995.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Could you explain to the Judges then this process that you went
13 through using this intercept as an example.
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. And tell the Judges, please, what these colours mean and the
16 numbers mean and the like.
17 A. Sure. Well, there are four features, I guess, of this intercept
18 and of the corroborating material, and those are the date, the time, the
19 parties who are conversing, and then 12 highlighted points in this
21 I would like to turn to the corroborating material.
22 Q. That's fine. So the date is the 11th of July at 1800 hours, and
23 this is a conversation between General Gvero and General Gobillard.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. This represents the substance of that conversation.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Would you turn then to the corroborating material.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. That's found after your summary; is that correct?
5 A. That's correct. I think it would be helpful, I mean, if it's
6 possible to look at both at the same time. I've taken the intercept out
7 of the binder to do this, but in the corroborating material, the same four
8 features are important, namely, the date, the time, the parties, and then
9 12 additional highlighted points.
10 So in both conversations, both conversations are dated the 11th of
11 July, 1995. The intercepted conversation was recorded at 1800 hours. The
12 corroborating material notes a time of 1810, and the two people conversing
13 are General Gvero and General Gobillard.
14 With regard to the corroborating material, I should say that these
15 are notes that were taken by General Gobillard's military assistant, a
16 Major Fortin. You will see his name at the bottom of the second page.
17 These were contemporaneous notes that he recorded from the UNPROFOR side
18 at the same time that this conversation was taking place.
19 So if we could just look at point 2, perhaps, and the highlighted
20 section of point 2. I might just read through point 2 and point 3 and
21 then the remaining, I guess, ten points are very similar in their
23 So looking at OTP Exhibit 350/A, which is the intercepted
24 conversation, point 2 says: "It is now clear to me that General Gobillard
25 gave the order for the shelling of the Serb positions. And that he still
1 has those planes at his disposal, and it is his decision whether they will
2 be used again."
3 Point 2 on the corroborating material of Major Fortin's notes
4 say: "General Gvero's first reaction was that it was now clear that it
5 was General Gobillard who had called for the air power, who still had the
6 aircraft at his disposal and who could still call for them."
7 Point 3 of the intercepted material, OTP Exhibit 350/A, says, and
8 this is General Gvero speaking:
9 "If you and members have been shot at, it was not by us. Rather,
10 following the familiar scenario, they were shot at by the Muslims, who are
11 very close to them and whom you are protecting. Our troops didn't open
12 fire on the UN, because the UN has never been, and I hope never will be,
13 our enemy."
14 Point 3 of Major Fortin's notes state:
15 "If UNPROFOR troops were really targeted, then it was by the BiH,
16 who fired onto them, according to their old scenario. Our army never
17 attacked UNPROFOR, the BSA had never thought of UNPROFOR to be a
18 belligerent party."
19 The remaining highlighted points reflect such similarities between
20 the two conversations.
21 Q. Let's turn now to tab 2. Can you take us through the exercise
23 A. Certainly. Here we have -- the date on these conversations is the
24 11th of July. There are five attached intercepts and they all make
25 reference to a Serbian flag being placed on a Serbian Orthodox church in
1 Srebrenica after VRS forces entered the town. The first -- the
2 conversations recorded at 1655 and 1823 were recorded by the 2 Corps of
3 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a series of three conversations
4 recorded at 1710 and shortly thereafter were intercepted by the State
5 Security Service in Tuzla.
6 So the first intercept was recorded at 1655 in the afternoon, and
7 it's a conversation between participants "X" and "Y," meaning that they
8 were unknown. The last time that "X" speaks - I believe the passage
9 should be highlighted - it says: "Pass on a message to your command that
10 there is a Serbian flag on the ruined Orthodox church in Srebrenica."
11 Then the next page, which is OTP Exhibit 349/A, was also recorded
12 on the 11th of July, at 1710 hours. It's a conversation between someone
13 named Stankovic and an unidentified man designated as "X." The second
14 time that "S," Stankovic, speaks, he says: "Listen. Just tell him there
15 is a Serbian flag on the Serbian church in Srebrenica."
16 Then on this same page, in another conversation, it states:
17 "Right after this," meaning the previous conversation, "Stankovic talked
18 to a man called Dusko." And in the first comment that "S," Stankovic,
19 makes, he says: "You probably heard, but just for your information, the
20 Serbian flag is fluttering on the Serbian church in Serbian Srebrenica."
21 Then "D," Dusko, is inaudible. And then "S" says: "But listen, it's
22 fluttering on the Serbian church in Serbian Srebrenica."
23 Then moving down on that page, it states: "Right after this,
24 Stankovic called a man named Garic. " And the second time that Stankovic
25 speaks, he says: "Listen, you've probably heard, the Serbian flag is
1 fluttering on the Serbian church in Serbian Srebrenica."
2 The next and the last intercept in this series was recorded at
3 1823. It's between participants X and Y. And the third time that Y
4 speaks, which is halfway down in the conversation, he says: "We
5 called ... the whole town. Our flag is on the church ... the whole town.
6 They are ..."
7 The corroborating material for the previous intercepts are
8 photographs that were extracted from video footage shot on both the 11th
9 of July and the 13th of July. The reason that I included the material
10 from the 13th of July is that there was a better still photograph that
11 could be taken of the flag. So the first two exhibits that were extracted
12 from OTP Exhibit 3, you'll see the Serbian church in Srebrenica on the
13 hill, and on the next page you'll see a close-up of the flag on that
15 Q. Could we turn to tab 3, and could you -- do you have something
16 else to say on this? I'm sorry. I've interrupted you.
17 A. That's okay. There's still actually two more photographs I'd just
18 like to show, and these were taken on the 13th of July by a Serbian
19 reporter, Zoran Petrovic. Again, it shows the same church on the first
20 photograph, and on the second photograph it's a close-up of the flag, in
21 which you can see the cross in the middle which would have had four
22 inverted Cs around it, the Serbian flag.
23 Q. I'd like to turn your attention, please, to tab 3.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me for interrupting you,
25 Mr. Harmon, but I think that we've already understood what you are trying
1 to do, the message you are sending to the Chamber, that is, the procedure
2 that you utilised. I think that we have already understood that, so I
3 don't think, unless the contents are important for you -- but as far as
4 the Chamber is concerned -- I don't know what the position of my
5 colleagues is, but I have understood the procedure. I don't know if it's
6 the same thing for the Defence. So do we really have to go through the
7 entire file? Because if we do, we're going to need a lot of time to do
9 MR. HARMON: No. If the Court doesn't desire it, I'm perfectly
10 happy to move on to a different subject.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that would be
12 preferable, yes. Please proceed.
13 MR. HARMON: All right.
14 Q. Now, at the conclusion of this exercise, Ms. Frease, did this
15 exercise contribute to your satisfaction that the intercepts were genuine
16 and they were reliable?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. During the whole period of time you were analysing these
19 intercepts, did you find any evidence whatsoever that these intercepts
20 were fabrications, were montages, were phonies?
21 A. No.
22 Q. In your opinion, based on your work in this area of analysing
23 these intercepts, what is your opinion as to whether or not these
24 intercepts that you analysed and that have been tendered by the Prosecutor
25 in this case are reliable?
1 A. I believe they're absolutely reliable.
2 MR. HARMON: Now, let me turn to a different topic, and if the
3 Judges could have before them - I believe they may already - two exhibits
4 that have been previously marked, Office of the Prosecutor Exhibit 364/1
5 and 2, and if I direct your attention to 364/2, which is similar in what
6 we're going to be talking about.
7 Q. Ms. Frease, in the course of your analysis of these intercepts,
8 was part of your project to attempt to date, with specificity, the
9 intercepts that you were analysing?
10 A. Yes. That was a big part of the project.
11 Q. Did you prepare the two exhibits that are now before you,
12 Prosecutor's Exhibit 364, volume 1, and 364, volume 2?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. There's an index contained in each of these exhibits.
15 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. These exhibits are dated. There's a tab with a date. And a
17 number of exhibits, for example, that fall under the 15th of July have
18 been identified, and then the 16th of July and the 17th of July,
19 et cetera.
20 A. Right.
21 Q. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, let's focus first of all on the index. Did you prepare this
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. You'll see in the second column of the index there is a date
2 attributed to each intercept that is contained in the binder.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, could we take a look at, first of all, two intercepts. Are
5 there changes that should be made in this index?
6 A. Yes, there are.
7 Q. All right. Could you just direct the Judges to those changes, and
8 then I will ask you about them.
9 A. I seem to be missing the index from the second binder.
10 Q. Perhaps -- if you'd like to use my index.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. I could give you my ...
13 MR. HARMON: And if I could have this returned.
14 Q. Now, when you refer to the changes, if you just refer to the page
15 number first. And we're talking about volume 2 here, are we not?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Okay. Could you refer to the page number and just make changes
18 that should be made.
19 A. Uh-huh. Page 6 of the index, the last entry, which is -- under
20 the tab it says 18 July/6.
21 Q. Give the Judges just a moment to find that entry. Please proceed,
22 Ms. Frease.
23 A. The date should be the 17th of July rather than the 18th.
24 Q. Now --
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, you are talking
1 about volume 2 or volume 1?
2 MR. HARMON: Volume 2.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] 2? 364/2, is that right, volume
5 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. HARMON:
8 Q. Ms. Frease, could you repeat exactly the page and the intercept
9 that you're referring to that needs to be corrected?
10 A. It's on page 6 of 8, the last entry. The tab is 18 July/6.
11 Q. Could you turn to the next --
12 A. And the date should be the 17th of July.
13 On the last page, 8 of 8, the third entry down, 25 July/1 is an
14 estimated date which we couldn't confirm with specificity but believe to
15 be in the range of a couple of days.
16 The next entry --
17 Q. Wait just a minute so the Judges can make whatever notations they
18 need to make.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Please proceed, Ms. Frease.
21 A. It's the next entry down. 30 July/1 should be 2 August. And the
22 next entry, which is marked 30 July/2, is also not a confirmed date but is
23 within a range of a couple of days.
24 Q. Now, Ms. Frease, are all of the other dates contained in the two
25 indexes confirmed dates?
1 A. Yes, they are.
2 Q. Now, let's talk briefly about this important part of your project,
3 which was dating these intercepts. Why was it important to date the
5 A. We needed to -- we needed to know with certainty which events took
6 place on which days.
7 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber who assisted - or not who
8 assisted you - how long it took you to fully analyse and date these
9 particular intercepts and the methodology that you used in doing so?
10 A. Uh-huh. It was something that we started from the beginning.
11 When we received the first material, the printouts, many of the printouts
12 were being translated, but at the same time we were entering them into a
13 table, and many of the printouts that we received from the army of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina did not have dates on every page. So where we had a
15 date that was firm, we would bold it so that we knew without question that
16 that took place on that date. Where we didn't have a firm date typed on a
17 page, then we would speculate as to the date in terms of where it came in
18 the sequence, but we would not bold it, and that way we knew what was a
19 firm date and what was not a firm date.
20 When we received the notebooks, we went through a similar process,
21 but the notebooks were much more helpful in dating the material. So where
22 we found a date -- and I should say that we really focused initially,
23 because of the volume of material and the few number of people who were
24 working on the project, that we prioritised it and worked on roughly a
25 ten-day period initially and then expanded that out. When we found a date
1 handwritten into a notebook, we again knew that -- considered that to be a
2 firm date and would indicate it as such, and were very diligence about
3 keeping track of the dates.
4 So the easy case was when we had a firm date in a notebook or on a
5 printout. What was more difficult to figure out was when we had a range,
6 for example, a date, a firm date of, say, the 12th of July written in a
7 notebook and no dates for a number of days and then a date of the 16th of
8 July. So we would go through the process. Since these were recorded
9 chronologically, from the morning to the evening, in most cases, where it
10 changed over from night to morning, we considered that to be the beginning
11 of a new day. And if all of those matched up in the middle, from the 12th
12 to the 16th, then we considered all of the dates in between to also be
13 firm -- confirmed dates.
14 Now, there was another way that we were able to date some of the
15 conversations in the notebooks where we found overlapping conversations,
16 where we knew that these were definitely the same conversation but had
17 been recorded two or sometimes three times by different operators. If we
18 had a confirmed date in one of the notebooks or two of the notebooks, then
19 we also considered the date to be firm on that third conversation and then
20 sometimes that would help us date the conversations as well.
21 Additionally, when we received information from the SDB in Tuzla,
22 their dating system was very strong on their printouts, and we also used
23 that to corroborate the dates that we had.
24 So dating, I would say, was an extremely important part of the
25 process and something that we paid a lot of attention to.
1 Q. Did you also rely in part on third-party information, the type of
2 which may be contained in Prosecutor's Exhibit 863 to date? I'm not
3 talking about a large percentage. I'm talking about a very small
5 A. A very, very small percentage. Really, the majority, the vast
6 majority we relied upon -- upon the internal -- we relied upon the
7 documents that we received that specifically related to this project. I
8 mean also I should say that, you know, along the way, we asked ourselves
9 whether this made sense, whether -- whether it all seemed to jibe.
10 Q. Now, then in conclusion, then the dates that have been inserted in
11 these two indexes in Prosecutor's Exhibit 364, Volume 1 and Volume 2,
12 other than the changes that you've made. What degree of certainty do you
13 have that those dates that have been entered in these two indexes are
15 A. I have absolute certainty.
16 MR. HARMON: I have no additional questions, Mr. President and
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
19 Mr. Harmon.
20 Mr. Visnjic. Perhaps we could have a break. What do you think?
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The Defence
22 would like to use several exhibits, so I could use the break to check them
23 with the Registry and prepare.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we're going to have a
25 20-minute break now. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, your witness for
4 the cross-examination. Please proceed.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
7 Q. Good morning, Ms. Frease. Ms. Frease, you have explained to the
8 Trial Chamber that the analysis of the material was a long-winded process,
9 and as far as I was able to understand, it was laborious. It went on over
10 months and even years. Am I right in saying that?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. From your testimony, I was also able to gather that it was a
13 process that was ongoing, a continuous process, and in that ongoing
14 process, some things are added onto, supplemented, as you have indeed
15 shown us. Am I right in saying that?
16 A. Yes, that's right.
17 Q. Ms. Frease, were all the conversations translated that were in
18 your notebooks?
19 A. No.
20 Q. How did you select the conversations for translation? Which
21 criteria did you apply for that selection?
22 A. We focused on the dates, on dates within a particular range.
23 Q. Ms. Frease, the conversations between the 2nd of July, for which
24 you had determined that they were from the 2nd of July until the 2nd of
25 August, in that period - and I take this as a framework - were the
1 majority translated within that time frame?
2 A. Yes. I would say that the majority were. The focus, however,
3 really began on about the 10th of July.
4 Q. The conversations that you focused on, was the time determined for
5 all of them, or at least the approximate time? And when I say "time," I
6 mean the date and actual time when these conversations had allegedly taken
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Ms. Frease, for the conversations, that is to say, for all the
10 conversations in that period of time, did you find corroboration in some
11 other material from an independent source?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Ms. Frease, I won't be going through all the notebooks. I will
14 just like to select some samples for which I would need your additional
15 explanations, and I assume that because you have worked so labouriously on
16 these conversations, that you will be able to supply me with this
17 additional information that I shall be requiring.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I should now like to ask the usher
19 to show the witness Prosecution Exhibit 364/1, OTP 364/1, and I think the
20 file, the binder, is the one that you have beside you.
21 Ms. Frease, may we focus on the date the 13th of July, and it is
22 conversation number 14.
23 I should like to ask the usher once again to place the document on
24 the ELMO, the English version of this conversation on the ELMO to
25 facilitate the Trial Chamber to follow the discussion.
1 A. The 13th of July in which --
2 Q. The 13th of July, and it is conversation number 14. It is the
3 conversation which was established that was held at 2010 hours. The
4 participants are Deronjic and Karadzic.
5 A. Okay.
6 MR. HARMON: This is an exhibit that is under seal, so if we could
7 go perhaps into private session on this line of inquiry.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Is the whole volume under seal?
9 MR. HARMON: No, but this particular insert is under seal.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us move into private
11 session, then, please.
12 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, please proceed.
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Ms. Frease, perhaps I shall have to ask my questions more
9 precisely. For all the conversations of the critical period, were the
10 dates confirmed, and possibly the fact that the conversation actually took
12 A. For all of the conversations in the two binders, in OTP Exhibit
13 364/1 and 2, all of the dates of the conversations are confirmed, with the
14 exception of the four that I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
15 Q. Was the content confirmed as well for those conversations, as you
16 explained to the Trial Chamber with Exhibit 863? That is to say, were all
17 the documents, 364/1 and 2, were they confirmed by the accompanying
18 documents and material, as in the case of Exhibit 863, which you
20 A. No, they weren't.
21 Q. I assume that that is even less the case with the other
22 conversations, which you were not focusing on by your investigation team
23 and which are in the other notebooks which have been tendered as evidence
24 by the Prosecution. Am I right in assuming that?
25 A. I believe, as I stated at the beginning, we -- I did choose to
1 focus on this one particular week in order to provide corroborating
2 evidence. There were other examples from later periods of time or -- I
3 can definitely say from later periods of time that could have also been
4 independently corroborated.
5 Q. Ms. Frease, I should like to take advantage of your presence here
6 in the courtroom to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 364/2, Volume 2.
7 It is the last conversation that I'm interested in in this particular
9 A. From the 2nd of August.
10 Q. Yes, that's right, the 2nd of August.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask Mr. Harmon or his
12 assistance. Is this document under seal?
13 MR. HARMON: Both are under seal.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, unfortunately, I have
15 to request that we go into private session briefly again, please.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You don't ask for it very often,
17 so let us move into private session for a few moments.
18 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in open session, so
9 please proceed.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Ms. Frease, do we not have in front of us a copy, an example of a
12 conversation in which some facts have been confirmed and others have not
13 been confirmed? Am I right in saying that?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Ms. Frease, I should now like to ask you to look at the next
16 series of exhibits and to assist the Defence in determining a date, that
17 is to say, to explain to us the methods you used for date determination
18 for the individual conversations.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the Prosecutor, that is to say
20 to the usher to show the witness Prosecution Exhibit 290. The usher,
21 please, not the Prosecutor. The usher. I apologise.
22 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, this exhibit is also under seal.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore, we shall go into
24 private session to examine this document, this exhibit.
25 [Private session]
13 Page 8951 redacted – private session
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let's move into open
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Ms. Frease, do we have an example of a conversation with the right
3 date above that conversation, when the conversation took place?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that was an element on the basis of which you were able to
6 determine this, the days when the conversation took place and all the
7 other conversations, am I right?
8 A. Yes. That should be the case.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should like to use
10 Exhibit 289 now, please, and I assume that that exhibit is under seal as
11 well, so we'll have a bit of difficulty in the time to come.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter corrects herself. On line 36,
13 it does not say he's "shaving," but he's "hiding." The word was "hiding,"
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There is one point that I
16 haven't understood. The intercept that you read out, was it under seal or
17 not? I don't think it was, because it was the first time that it was
18 presented to the Chamber.
19 Mr. Harmon.
20 MR. HARMON: The notebook from which -- that contains the
21 intercept is under seal.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: The notebook. Okay. [Interpretation] Okay.
23 Let us move into private session for the next intercept.
24 [Private session]
13 Page 8954 redacted – private session
11 [Open session]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in open session now. You
13 may continue, Mr. Visnjic.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Ms. Frease, what was the last exhibit I was referring to? 289?
16 Ms. Frease, I'm referring to two telephone conversations on page
17 00801429. That is the beginning. And then they go on to page 00801432.
18 I apologise for the interpreters. I think they didn't receive the
19 beginning of this conversation, so will they be patient with me, please.
20 So the first conversation, at frequency 255.950, at 1300 hours,
21 the participant, Uran 2 - X - Colonel Cerovic (Obrad)
22 [As read]
24 X: Uran. Fine ...
25 Uran: Hello.
1 Cerovic: Colonel Cerovic.
2 Uran: Hey, Uran 2. How are you, boss?
3 Cerovic: Hello.
4 Uran: How are you?
5 Cerovic: I'm fine, my friend. How are you?
6 Uran: It's working all right. Listen.
7 Cerovic: Hello.
8 Uran: Listen.
9 Cerovic: Wait for me to switch over to another. I can't
10 hear you at all on this one.
11 Uran: Go ahead. Switch over.
12 Cerovic: Tell me.
13 Uran: Krstic has personally ordered and 01 has ordered
14 the same.
15 Cerovic: Yes.
16 Uran: This convoy that is going over there for Kladanj.
17 Cerovic: Yes.
18 Uran: (Disturbance)
19 Cerovic: Fine.
20 Uran: (Disturbance) That no one has the right to do
21 anything. (Disturbances)
22 Cerovic: Fine.
23 Uran: Go on. Literally that we behave in a civilised
24 manner and that all men behave in that way so that we shouldn't have a
25 repetition of the problems we had before.
1 Cerovic: Okay.
2 Uran: Please, call up those public security stations and
3 call up the unit commanders who are over there. Call all those who are
4 responsible to make sure that everything is done properly and
6 Cerovic: Okay.
7 Uran: There you are, boss.
8 Cerovic: When are they starting off, Obrad?
9 Uran: I don't know. I am not able to tell you when.
10 I'll tell you, but take steps immediately.
11 Cerovic: Okay.
12 Uran: Take steps immediately. Call them up, and you
13 must know exactly the persons to whom you have conveyed the message, the
14 most responsible ones, and check through the operations officer on duty
15 that it is being implemented.
16 Cerovic: Okay.
17 Uran: There you are, my boss.
18 Cerovic: Bye.
19 Uran: Bye. Good luck.
20 Ms. Frease, this conversation was carried out at 1300 hours. Can
21 you tell us the date? Can you give a date for that conversation?
22 A. If this isn't a part of the material that the Prosecution has
23 presented, I don't have that material with me, but if I could -- if I
24 could get some other material, I could likely provide you with a date.
25 Q. You mean your working material; is that what you're referring to?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. May I ask you another question, and then we can get an answer from
3 the Office of the Prosecutor. That is, after your testimony, you could
4 provide us with the answer as to when you assume this conversation was
5 conducted, the exact time of it.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. May I ask you now to look at the next conversation, frequency
8 259.675, at 1319, participants Colonel Cerovic and Djuric.
9 A. I'm sorry. What -- uh-huh. Okay. Uh-huh. Okay.
10 Q. The next conversation that follows on to this one.
11 [As read]
12 Cerovic: Milovan.
13 Djuric: Djuric.
14 Cerovic: Who is it?
15 Djuric: Djuric.
16 Cerovic: Ilija.
17 Djuric: Me.
18 Cerovic: So there in your area of responsibility --
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, I see that the
20 Court reporter in English has difficulty in following you. Otherwise your
21 intercept will not enter in the transcript, which I think is what you
22 want, so please slow down.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
24 Cerovic: So there and in your area of responsibility.
25 Djuric: Yes.
1 Cerovic: Everything has to pass without being stopped,
2 without searching, and at the cost of executing some who might try to
3 jeopardise the convoy.
4 Djuric: Okay.
5 Cerovic: And now call Markovic to the SUP and convey to
6 him that that is the order of the President of the Republic, that they
7 should, together with us, in their area of responsibility up there, up to
8 where they border with the people from Sokolac, and that they should hand
9 over to the people of Sokolac all that safely.
10 Djuric: Fine.
11 Cerovic: Have you understood?
12 Djuric: (Can't be heard).
13 Cerovic: You will let me know whether Markovic has
14 received the message. Report that to the duty officer.
15 Djuric: Fine. I think that he is in the field, he has
16 other assignments, but I will convey it to him in that way and let you
18 Cerovic: Fine.
19 Djuric: Okay.
20 Cerovic: Bye.
21 Ms. Frease, on the basis of the notebook, could you perhaps --
22 A. Try to date it?
23 Q. Yes, try to date it, or rather a date after which that
24 conversation must have taken place.
25 A. Yes. What was the page number that we were on initially?
1 Q. The last numbers are 1429. Can I assist you? On page 1416.
2 A. Right. This conversation would have taken place on the 25th of
3 July, 1995.
4 Q. Not after that date?
5 A. No, not after the date, because on page 00801438, there's the date
6 of 26 July 1995.
7 Q. In any event, if we go back to the time frame of the events in
8 question, this conversation took place after the events that occurred in
9 connection with the 28th Division and after the mass executions which the
10 Prosecution alleges occurred between the 12th and the 18th. Am I right?
11 A. That's correct. I could add something about the context of this
12 conversation. I do remember it.
13 Q. Yes. Please do.
14 A. There are -- I recall looking at other conversations of a similar
15 nature. Also in this period of time, which was the time when the Zepa
16 enclave was falling, and there were similar -- I recall similar
17 conversations in which an officer of the VRS Main Staff also issued a
18 similar order that the buses, the convoy of people that were being
19 deported from the Zepa enclave were to be treated well.
20 Q. Thank you, Ms. Frease. You have saved the Defence some time for
21 future presentation of evidence.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence will
23 suggest to the witness that she examine Prosecution Exhibit 293 now. It
24 is -- Mr. President, it is a conversation on page of this Exhibit 00801935
25 [Realtime transcript read in error "Exhibit 008018935]. I see in the
1 transcript there's a mistake. 00801935. Ms. Frease, may I continue?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. This conversation was conducted on frequency 823.150 at 1955
4 hours. The participants are General Zivanovic and Colonel Ecimovic.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a
6 conversation, the reading of which would take some 15 minutes, so for the
7 transcript, I should like to read an excerpt and then later on the Defence
8 will prepare a transcript and a translation of the whole conversation.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: It's difficult to consider the redirect examination
11 without the benefit of an English-language translation. I find myself at
12 a disadvantage under these circumstances. I can't read what's in this
13 transcript, and if a portion of this is going to be selected, I can't
14 review it to put the proper context of it, and so I am going to request
15 that prior to either the examination of this witness being concluded that
16 we be provided with a translation of this or the court permit me an
17 opportunity to recall Ms. Frease to examine her after I've seen the full
18 English-language translation of the intercept. And that applies, frankly,
19 to all of these intercepts that have not been translated.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic. Do you agree?
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I agree, and I have a
22 short answer for Mr. Harmon. These are Prosecution exhibits, and the
23 Defence rightfully assumed that they had been translated into both working
24 languages. We received these documents from the Prosecution, and I
25 understand from Ms. Frease that some of these conversations were not
1 translated. And I agree with Mr. Harmon's suggestion that either he call
2 Ms. Frease later on to re-examine her, or I don't know what the other
3 suggestion was, that those exhibits be translated and provided to the
4 Prosecution in English.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We will consider the
6 possibility of recalling the witness in the afternoon, and I think that
7 Mr. Harmon will have a chance to review the transcript in which there is
8 already an English translation.
9 So if Mr. Harmon finds it's necessary to review all the
10 transcripts to re-examine the witness, we will do that in the afternoon.
11 So you may continue, Mr. Visnjic, please.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should save
13 Mr. Harmon some time. So I won't read the whole transcript to the
14 witness. Just as information to the Trial Chamber, let me tell you that
15 it is a conversation in which General Zivanovic and Colonel Ecimovic
16 discuss the provision of certain foodstuffs, agricultural produce for the
17 Drina Corps, and what I wanted to ask Ms. Frease, because the Defence
18 considers this exhibit to be important, because General Zivanovic said
19 that he prepared those goods for the whole corps. So my question is:
20 Could Ms. Frease date this conversation?
21 A. Again, I would have to refer to the entire body of the -- of my
22 work, which I don't have here in front of me. I'd be happy to
23 double-check it. I mean it's clear that on this page that date is
24 indicated, I believe, but I would like to seen the original notebook as
25 10/8/1995, so the 10th of August, 1995.
1 What makes me a little -- what makes me uncertain is that three --
2 let's see. About three pages prior to that, on page 00801928, there is a
3 date of 19/9/1995, and on the subsequent -- on -- about three pages from
4 that, there is another date on page 00801941, which indicates the 27th of
5 October, 1995.
6 So I would -- I mean clearly this falls out of a sequence. The
7 other -- I believe I saw another date. Yes, I see another date further
8 down in the notebook, on page 00801948, indicating the 31st of October,
9 1995. My --
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Ms. Frease, may I try and assist you?
12 A. You may.
13 Q. On page 1928, there is indeed the date 19th of September, as you
14 said. On page 1934 that follows that page, there is the date the 10th of
15 August, which is absolutely illogical --
16 A. Right.
17 Q. -- as the notebook is filled in in order. Immediately after that
18 on that same page, if you look at the same conversation, you will find the
19 date the 11th or the 14th of October, 1995. That is the first following
20 conversation. The same page, 1934, a few lines later on, you have another
21 date indicated.
22 A. Oh, yes. Okay. Uh-huh. Yes. I expect that what happened was
23 that the 10 and the 8 for the months were transposed, that in fact the
24 first date that appears on page 00801934 should be the 8th of October,
25 1995. That would make sense with the sequence that we're dealing with.
1 Q. In any event, there is a probability that this conversation took
2 place in October. Am I right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher to show the
6 witness Prosecution Exhibit 843 next, please.
7 Q. Ms. Frease, in your examination-in-chief, you told us that in
8 the -- you worked in the OTP until July 2000.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. I think that the evidence was obtained by the OTP a little later.
11 Is that right?
12 A. Yes. That's my understanding.
13 Q. I should now like to ask you to apply the same method you applied
14 when you collected the corroborating material for one particular
15 conversation, and that conversation is on page 01077815.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. The conversation took place on channel -- I think it says number
18 2, at 1051.
19 A. To me it looks like channel 5, but ...
20 Q. Possibly, yes. I have a poor copy. The conversation was between
21 X and Y, and they are Bogicevic and General Zivanovic.
22 [As read]
23 X: Hello.
24 Y: Hello.
25 X: Is Zivanovic there?
1 Y: Yes, he is. Who wants him?
2 X: Ah, Bogicevic from Belgrade.
3 Y: Just a moment, please.
4 X: Good day ... Just a moment, General, sir. Bogicevic
5 is calling for you. Yes.
6 Zivanovic: Yes.
7 Bogicevic: Hello, Zile [phoen].
8 Zivanovic: Hi, Bogi.
9 Bogicevic: Good luck.
10 Zivanovic: Thank you.
11 Bogicevic: I brought the truck ... 5 tonnes of goods you
12 have here in Ljubovija.
13 Zivanovic: Yes. That's just the same as if you were in
15 Bogicevic: Well, what can we do now? That's what Triso
16 told me.
17 Zivanovic: What?
18 Bogicevic: Triso told me to do that.
19 Zivanovic: Triso doesn't understand anything about
21 Bogicevic: Yes.
22 Zivanovic: If he told you, then inform him and give it
23 to him.
24 Bogicevic: We're going to take some over there up to
1 Zivanovic: Where?
2 Bogicevic: Over there where you are.
3 Zivanovic: I'm in Belgrade now.
4 Bogicevic: Uh-huh.
5 Zivanovic: I liberated Srebrenica, and I have now been
6 assigned a new duty.
7 Bogicevic: Yes, yes. Okay.
8 Zivanovic: How are you?
9 Bogicevic: All right. Bogicevic, that is. Excellent.
10 I'll come up there.
11 Zivanovic: ... I'm not going anywhere.
12 Bogicevic: I'll come up there now with some watermelons
13 to help you cool down.
14 Zivanovic: Okay.
15 Bogicevic: Uh-huh.
16 Zivanovic: How are my Serbian people doing?
17 Bogicevic: All right. (Krile?) mine.
18 Zivanovic: Everything's all right ... Say hello to the
20 Bogicevic: I will ... We'll be hearing each other.
21 Zivanovic: Okay.
22 Bogicevic: Bye.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, I did not interrupt
24 you, but I think that you have already read this transcript for the
25 LiveNote and I have remembered the date. I know the date. I'm not going
1 to say the date because I don't want to influence the witness, but that
2 was a repetition of the reading of that particular portion; is that
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that is correct, but
5 I now have two questions to ask the witness. One is with respect to the
6 date. The second is with respect to the contents, so I had to read it out
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Ms. Frease, did you tell us the date, determine the date, although
11 a witness has already done that. A Prosecution witness has already done
12 that, but could you now determine the date of that conversation for us,
13 please, again?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I think it is page 10 -- no, 0107798. I think it says the 14th of
16 July, 1995 on that particular page. Perhaps we can begin ...
17 A. The number I thought you referred to was 01077794; is that
19 Q. No. 01077798.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Let me help you. I'm going to read the last three digits of the
22 page. 807. And on that page we have the conversation which took place at
23 2038 between General Zivanovic and Major Jokic, and in what we received
24 from the Prosecution, it was taken on the 14th of July, in the evening,
25 at, as I say, 2038 hours.
1 A. Okay. Right. And then there's another date, the date of the --
2 Q. Then we have another date, yes. And on page 811, and I'm quoting
3 the last digits, we have the 15th of July, 1995. Am I correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Following on from that logic, when was this -- when did this
6 conversation take place?
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the usher to
8 prepare Prosecution Exhibit OTP 469 next, please, if he would.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, we have the logics
10 of it but not the answer. We haven't heard an answer yet.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. We're waiting, Your Honour.
12 I'm waiting for the answer too, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
14 A. Okay. If you can wait just a minute until I finish. Thank you.
16 Okay. I found a date of the 18th of July on page 01077846 and
17 have counted one, two days back. So 17, 16, this one dated on the 15th.
18 So -- I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for the original number of
19 the conversation we were looking at again. But it -- uh-huh. Yes. It
20 would have been on the 15th of July.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Ms. Frease, in this conversation, if you still have it in front of
23 you, I'm going to quote a sentence. I'm going to quote one sentence from
24 that conversation.
25 A. Please, if I could just turn back to it. Could you give me the
1 number again?
2 Q. 815.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. In the second half of the conversation, at one point
5 General Zivanovic says the following: "I have liberated Srebrenica, and I
6 have now been given a new assignment."
7 Ms. Frease, you have in front of you a document, a Prosecution
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: 469.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] 469. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you
11 very much.
12 Q. Number 469. Could you turn to page 2 of the document. The first
13 page is the accompanying letter for the documentation which the Government
14 of Republika Srpska sent to the Tribunal, and page 2 is the decree of the
15 president of the Republika Srpska of the 15th of July, 1995, by which
16 Zivanovic is placed at their disposal, Milenko Zivanovic.
17 Ms. Frease, my question is: Does this document confirm the
18 sentence "I have now been given a new assignment," and is it the same
19 document you yourself used in preparing the documents for the OTP?
20 A. To my -- the system that I used was to take in all of the relevant
21 material that I could collect and to look at that, all of that material,
22 for specific intercepts and to see whether there were any internal
23 discrepancies among the documents that -- among the corroborating material
24 that I would use, with internal inconsistencies based on a whole set of
25 documents -- I mean, I guess a little bit of difficulty that I'm having is
1 that I'm aware of some other information that might not support this
3 Q. Ms. Frease, let us put the question another way. Is there any
4 consistency between this particular conversation and the document? You
5 can give us a yes or no answer.
6 A. I would like to read the intercept again.
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Harmon.
9 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I have the original. Perhaps the
10 original would assist the witness. I'm not sure how clear a copy she has.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Maybe that would be clearer.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. While you're looking for it, Ms. Frease, may I --
14 A. It's not the same notebook.
15 Q. May I put the question to you in another way? Does this document
16 correspond to -- fit into the contents of the conversation? Does it fit
17 into the contents and substance of the conversation?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President, the
20 Defence has no further questions for this witness.
21 Thank you, Ms. Frease.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. I think this
23 is a good time to take a break. I think that Mr. Harmon will also have an
24 opportunity to look at the transcript during the lunch break, and then we
25 can come back for any additional questions. I think we all need a break
1 at this point, so let us take a 50-minute lunch break. We'll adjourn for
3 Is that a sufficient time for you, Mr. Harmon?
4 MR. HARMON: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, how about you?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, yes, but I would just
7 like to take advantage of this opportunity to clarify one point.
8 Ms. Frease, is she here as a witness or as an expert? Bearing in mind
9 what she is doing in the Office of the Prosecution, do we treat her as a
10 witness or in the same way that we treated expert witnesses? That is my
11 question to Mr. Harmon.
12 MR. HARMON: I can go right to the point. I will not have any
13 contact with Ms. Frease between now and the time she resumes the stand.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So you have
15 understood the sense of that question. We adjourn for 50 minutes.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet.
19 I suppose that you are going to communicate to us the result of the
20 homework that you've been doing. [In English] Not that you've been doing,
21 but the witness has done.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I know that I said
23 that I completed, but I would like to beg the Court's indulgence. I have
24 just a brief area. So would the Trial Chamber allow me to ask a few more
25 questions, and I promise they won't be more than three or four minutes. I
1 omitted to bring up this topic, bogged up as we were by all the documents
2 and material. I have asked Mr. Harmon, so perhaps he can give you his
3 view on that.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, we see that the
5 lunch hour is always very productive and fertile.
6 Mr. Harmon, do you have any objections?
7 MR. HARMON: I was going to ask you, "What lunch hour?" Your
8 Honour, but I have no objections.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We know that you have a very
10 difficult and complicated lunch hour.
11 But Mr. Visnjic, please proceed.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I shall
13 do my best not to abuse the trust you have placed in me.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic: [Continued]
15 Q. Ms. Frease, when did you learn for the first time of the alleged
16 statement of General Krstic, which is mentioned here under the "Kill them
17 all" statement?
18 A. Could you restate your question?
19 Q. Ms. Frease, the Prosecution has offered the Court a tape and
20 notebooks, with a conversation which allegedly took place between General
21 Krstic -- with General Krstic, and which internally -- or which we have
22 become accustomed to calling, between the Defence and the Prosecution, the
23 "Kill them all" conversation or statement. I think you are aware of the
24 conversation I'm referring to. Now, when did you learn of that
25 conversation first? Can you remember?
1 A. I believe that it was in the spring of 1999. I can't tell you the
2 exact month, but probably April, May, something like that.
3 Q. What was your reaction when you heard about that conversation for
4 the first time, that is to say, when you analysed the conversation?
5 A. Well, the first reaction was one of some surprise because it was
6 new to us. We first heard it on tape and had not come across it in any of
7 the written material.
8 Q. When you came across it in the written material. And when was
10 A. That was shortly thereafter. Because we hadn't heard it in the
11 material before, I thought that it must not have taken place in July,
12 since most of the material that we had covered -- since the material that
13 we covered focused on July. So I went through notebooks, I identified
14 notebooks that contained transcribed conversations from August, and I
15 began to look through them, and that was how I found the written notebook,
16 and it was shortly after hearing the tape.
17 Q. Did you consider that to be significant evidence, one of the most
18 important for the Prosecution case?
19 A. I didn't.
20 Q. Why?
21 A. Because there were a lot of conversations that were important.
22 Q. What efforts did you make to identify the voice of General Krstic
23 on that tape, and were you at all able to -- were you at all involved in
24 those activities?
25 A. Not in any sort of formal way.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
2 MR. HARMON: I object to that question. We've presented to the
3 Chamber an expert witness that represents our efforts to identify the
4 voice - the Court has heard that witness, Dr. French - and they've heard
5 another witness, whose name I will not reveal, also in respect of that
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will withdraw my
9 question and rephrase it. Mr. President, I'll withdraw the question and
10 go on to my next question, actually.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. Excuse me, please,
12 Mr. Visnjic. I myself have a question.
13 Did you hear several diskettes or reels?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How many times, more or less,
16 did you hear the voice of -- no. Let me rephrase that.
17 Did you identify the voice of General Krstic?
18 A. Can you be more specific?
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did you recognise a voice which
20 was could supposedly have been that of General Krstic?
21 A. I could not recognise General Krstic's voice independent without
22 there having been reference made within a particular transcript or --
23 right, within a tape recording or a transcript of who the conversants
24 were. A main part of my job did not involve listening to the
25 conversations. That work was primarily carried out by the language
1 assistants, interpreters, translators.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well.
3 Mr. Visnjic, you may proceed.
4 Thank you very much, Witness.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Ms. Frease, perhaps I should have put my question a different
7 way. What efforts did the Prosecution take in the sense of confirming
8 identification? But Mr. Harmon has already answered that question, and I
9 just wish to clarify what I meant in asking that question.
10 Now, my following question is: Did you ask the people who
11 conducted the intercepts about this particular conversation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was that the interview with Witness Z of the 21st of November,
14 1999, or sometime in that period?
15 A. I believe I know who you're referring to. It would make me more
16 comfortable to see the name of Witness Z, but I did conduct a conversation
17 with one witness regarding that conversation.
18 Q. Can you remember whether it was in the autumn of 1999?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you happen to know why this conversation was not used in the
21 main part of the Prosecution presentation of evidence?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. Why was this conversation not included into the evidence that you
24 prepared, and that is Exhibit 364 that you prepared for the main part of
25 the presentation of the Prosecution's evidence?
1 A. I was asked to prepare those binders, which is what I did. It was
2 a process that we went through. The final decision about all of the
3 documents that were included was not my own.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
5 questions. Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well, Mr. Visnjic.
7 Mr. Harmon, we are now going to see how productive exactly your
8 lunch break was. Any additional questions?
9 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you. I do have some.
10 Re-examined by Mr. Harmon:
11 Q. Let me turn first of all, Ms. Frease --
12 MR. HARMON: The witness should be provided with Prosecution
13 Exhibits 364/1 and 364/2.
14 Q. Do you have those in front of you, Ms. Frease?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You were asked about a conversation that is found in Volume 1 at
17 July 13th, tab 14. Would you turn to that tab, please.
18 This is a conversation that is intercepted at 2010 hours on
19 channel 5B, bottom code-name. It starts at the top with that.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you have that conversation in front of you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The question my that colleague Mr. Visnjic asked you was was this
24 conversation confirmed or corroborated, and what I would like to do,
25 please, is I'd like to go through this conversation in light of the
1 knowledge of your events of what occurred in Srebrenica and ask you to,
2 first of all, direct your attention to the first reference to the
3 gentleman named Deronjic. Who do you believe that to be?
4 A. I believe that to be a gentleman by the name of Miroslav Deronjic,
5 from Bratunac, who at the time had been appointed as the civilian
6 commissioner to Srebrenica.
7 Q. And indeed, this conversation deals with civilians, in part, does
8 it not; or Muslims, in part, does it not?
9 A. Yes, that would be my interpretation.
10 Q. And, independently, are you aware that Miroslav Deronjic was in
11 fact in Bratunac on the 13th of July?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. Are you aware of that based on film that you have seen of
14 negotiations -- I'll take that back. Strike that.
15 How are you aware that Mr. Deronjic was in Bratunac on the 13th?
16 A. Through film footage.
17 Q. Is it also -- actually, let me then ask you to go to the next area
18 where it says: [As read] "Deronjic: The president is asking how many
19 thousands," and the next reference is: "About 2.000 for the time being."
20 On the 13th of July, are you aware that there were Muslim
21 prisoners being detained in Bratunac?
22 A. Yes, I am.
23 Q. And is the figure, the reference that's made in this intercept
24 that there were at least "2.000 for the time being" consistent with your
25 knowledge of the events on the 13th of July?
1 A. I can't put a number to the number of people who were detained,
2 but I am aware that many Muslims were detained in Bratunac on that day.
3 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you -- then go down to the bottom, two
4 sets, where it says: "Deronjic: The president says all the goods must be
5 placed inside the warehouses before 12.00 tomorrow."
6 The next line:
7 "Deronjic: Right.
8 Deronjic: Not in the warehouses but somewhere else."
9 Are you aware that on the 13th of July, Muslim prisoners who were
10 being detained in Bratunac were moved from Bratunac to locations
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. And where were those individuals moved in?
14 A. They were primarily moved to schools.
15 Q. What location? Outside of Bratunac?
16 A. Outside of Bratunac, yes. In the Zvornik municipality in general,
17 and also, I guess, Pilica is -- well, that was later.
18 Q. Therefore, in looking at this intercept, when my colleague asked
19 you if this conversation has been corroborated, are there elements
20 contained in this conversation that have been corroborated by independent
21 investigation conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor?
22 A. The information in here is consistent with what we have found in
23 the investigation, yes.
24 Q. All right. Let me turn now to Volume 2, if I could, and refer you
25 to in the last conversation, a conversation dated the 2nd of August. Do
1 you have that conversation in front of you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, this is a conversation that has a telephone number in it;
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And you said on your direct examination that one of the ways that
7 you considered attempting to verify whether or not these documents were
8 genuine was by consulting a number of sources, including telephone books;
9 is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. In the Prosecutor's Exhibit 863 that has been shown to you earlier
12 and that you prepared, there is in fact one tabbed item where there's a
13 reference to a telephone book; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now, are you aware of whose telephone number is mentioned in this
16 particular intercept?
17 A. It appears to be General Krstic's telephone number.
18 Q. Are you aware that General Krstic, on the 1st of November, 2000,
19 when asked by my colleague, Mr. McCloskey, about whose telephone number
20 that was, confirmed indeed that that was his telephone number?
21 A. I wasn't aware of that.
22 MR. HARMON: And that, for Your Honours' reference, is found at
23 pages 6814 and 6815 of the Prosecutor's - I'm sorry - of the English
24 language version of the transcript.
25 Q. Now, let's examine this just a little bit further. You're
1 unfamiliar, according to your testimony, with somebody, an officer, by the
2 name of Delgadasi; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But General Krstic in his cross-examination has confirmed the
5 telephone number that is contained in this particular intercept, this
6 being his own.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. Is that a factor that -- how do you weigh that factor?
9 A. I would consider that -- I would consider it very strong
10 corroborating material for this intercept.
11 Q. Now, let's turn to another item that was referred to by my
12 colleague, and it is found in OTP Exhibit 289.
13 A. I don't have that exhibit.
14 MR. HARMON: Could that exhibit, please, be furnished to the
16 Q. Now, the conversation I'm directing your attention to is found at
17 the page that has the ERN number with the last four digits 1429.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. Okay. Now, this is a conversation -- actually, I'll withdraw that
20 question. Can you date this conversation? Are you able to date this
21 conversation by looking at any other notes that you may have?
22 A. The material that I wanted to obtain during lunchtime is
23 voluminous and hasn't been printed out, so I'll just try to look at the
24 notebook and see if I can find a date.
25 Q. Well, if you go to 1416 --
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And if you go to 1438 --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -- you will see two dates.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And just, then, if you don't have your other materials based on at
7 least your preliminary analysis of comparing the dates and the location of
8 the conversation in respect of those dates, are you able to give us at
9 least a tentative answer as to when this conversation occurred?
10 A. Yes. On the 25th of July, 1995.
11 Q. Now, were events occurring in Zepa on the 25th of July, 1995?
12 A. Yes, they were.
13 Q. Were civilians who were in Zepa being evacuated by bus?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I can't read the language, but I have obtained a copy of the
16 LiveNote, and I'd like to read you a portion of what has been interpreted
17 in the LiveNote.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, perhaps for the
19 benefit of the Defence, you could give us the page number, and for our
20 benefit as well, of course.
21 MR. HARMON: Let me -- unfortunately, I can't read this, but I
22 have the translation. I can direct my colleagues, perhaps, to the
23 sentence and they can find it in the -- I think it will be
24 actually -- actually, I believe it will be on page with the last four
25 digits 1430.
1 Q. There's a reference to -- it's been translated as follows. One of
2 the correspondents says, [As read] "Literally, that we behave in a
3 civilised manner and that all men behave in that way so that we
4 don't -- that we shouldn't have a repetition of the problems we had
6 Now, by the 25th of July, 1995, had it, as far as you're aware,
7 come to the attention of the media and the world's attention that there
8 had been, allegedly, large-scale killings of Muslim prisoners and Muslim
9 civilians in Srebrenica?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And to your knowledge, by the 25th of July, was that -- were the
12 people in the VRS aware that the world was now focusing on the events
13 related to the takeover of the enclaves?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, then the sentence that I've just read to you, that "We should
16 behave in a civilised manner so we don't have a repetition of the problems
17 we had before," in light of the events, the date, are you able to give us
18 any view at all as to what this may refer to?
19 A. Yes. Am I also able to draw upon other material that I remember
20 reading in the intercepts?
21 Q. Please.
22 A. As I mentioned earlier, I recall a conversation in which a VRS
23 Main Staff officer, I believe, mentioned it was -- it was a similar
24 conversation, but at a higher level, and there was an order given to the
25 effect -- the line was, "Not a single hair must be missing from their
1 heads," something to that effect, that the impression from that
2 conversation, this conversation, and others, was that there
3 was -- actually, that also the officers were to be dressed well along the
4 road, the VRS officers were to be dressed well, they were to behave well,
5 because there was going to be press, as I recall, but certainly
6 international monitors observing.
7 Q. Do you remember any intercepts at all dealing with -- about CNN
8 paying attention to these events, if you recall?
9 A. I don't. I don't recall that.
10 MR. HARMON: All right. I have no additional questions, Your
11 Honours. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
13 Mr. Harmon.
14 Judge Fouad Riad, do you have any questions?
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Frease, good afternoon.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Can you hear me?
19 A. Yes, I can.
20 JUDGE RIAD: I have just a general question to start with
21 concerning what you call the labourious process to deal with the
22 material. Now, when you have to question or to verify that the document,
23 a tape, has to meet with certain requirements of reliability, and these
24 requirements are not fulfilled, do you discard it completely or do you
25 still keep it in case of doubt?
1 A. Are you referring specifically to -- are you --
2 JUDGE RIAD: All right. Suppose, for instance, you have a tape
3 where the voice is not clear or where the names are not mentioned, and you
4 gave us several tests. You said you have to -- the intercepts should be
5 consistent with what you knew about the case and with other -- with
6 information coming from other sites, and there should be no
7 internal -- there should be not be -- there should be no internal
8 inconsistencies and so on. In case of -- if there is an internal
9 inconsistency or difficulty to, let us say, to compare and so on, do you
10 still maintain the document or the tape?
11 A. Absolutely. Absolutely. We listened to everything, we analysed
12 everything, we read everything. And, you know, especially at the
13 beginning, but even throughout the process, there were times that we
14 didn't understand what we were hearing or what we were reading, that there
15 was just something that was new to us that would come up. Everything was
16 processed -- the material was processed in the same systematic pattern.
17 We didn't make any judgements about the content of the material; we just
18 processed it all. And then, of course, as the investigation continued and
19 as we learned more, sometimes what might have seemed to be irrelevant at
20 one moment made sense in the light of other things.
21 JUDGE RIAD: There, in fact, the final decision of all the
22 documents - I'm quoting you - the final decision of all the documents that
23 were included was not your own, but were you still seriously involved in
24 assessing, in the assessment of the documents?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE RIAD: And you could -- you could eliminate what was not up
2 to the standard after awhile?
3 A. It wasn't necessarily what wasn't up to the standard. It was -- I
4 mean we included -- as I said, we included everything. So I'm not quite
5 clear what ...
6 JUDGE RIAD: Why did you mention that you have got several factors
7 in assessing the reliability? If these factors are not met with, what do
8 you do?
9 A. I'm still not sure that I understand your question.
10 JUDGE RIAD: You have to verify the reliability or not?
11 A. Well, as an entire -- as an entire set, for example, first we used
12 the printouts. Those were the documents that we were given first by the
13 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There were some 500 and -- almost 600 pages.
14 On each page there would have been mostly more than one -- more than one
15 conversation, sometimes several conversations. So we went through that
16 entire process of entering those within a specific date range. Actually,
17 all of those were entered because they were within July of 1995. Then we
18 went back to the notebooks and we started processing the notebooks. From
19 the notebooks then, we tried to match the notebooks up to the
20 conversations that we had already entered into our database and got
21 matches. And so every time we had a verbatim match of a document, a
22 printed document of what the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina said was -- what
23 they told us had been transcribed, when we found it with the notebook,
24 then we would match those up.
25 Additionally, when we received the material from the state
1 security service in Tuzla, we went through the same process of matching up
2 conversations again. Then when -- so there could conceivably be, say, a
3 couple of matches internally between printouts and notebooks and possibly,
4 but in few cases, tapes.
5 Then as we continued the process of analysis, we came across
6 conversations that were clearly the same conversation. In some cases, we
7 could verify that because it was the same date, but the times were very
8 similar. Not to the minute, but usually within five minutes. So then we
9 took those conversations and by running through the database again, we
10 would then link those conversations with the newly found conversations,
11 always working to match all of the information back together.
12 There was some material that we weren't able to -- that we didn't
13 find -- that we didn't have both printouts and notebooks for, but that
14 was, you know, always indicated as such in our records. And the dates,
15 also I mentioned that on the dates we were very -- I think very diligent
16 in ensuring that the dates were firm. Where we could confirm the dates,
17 we always noted that; and where we could not confirm the dates, we always
18 noted that as well. Then over time and continuing through this process,
19 we were, in many cases, able to confirm dates through the other documents,
20 either through receiving the notebooks or receiving material from the
22 JUDGE RIAD: I understood that was your process. Now you have to
23 wait, of course, until you identify it.
24 You categorise, let's say, the reliability of your documents after
25 that? You say this is the first class reliable. The other one is -- in
1 case of doubt, you continue on searching and so on, and if you do not find
2 any consistency, you just rule it out?
3 A. No, we --
4 JUDGE RIAD: -- after awhile?
5 A. No. The database contains all of the information. There was
6 never anything that was eliminated.
7 JUDGE RIAD: Yes. Now, would you take anything on its face
8 value? For instance, in a tape, an intercept, they say, for instance, "I
9 am Mr. So-and-so talking to you. " Would you take that for granted or you
10 tried to verify if it corresponds to the truth?
11 A. This is where speaking with the intercept operators was very
12 helpful. Excuse me. They -- we had questions about that, but we noticed
13 that in looking at the material, if a person's name was mentioned in the
14 conversation, if one person addressed another person by their name or by
15 their rank or in some way, then -- this depended a little bit on the
16 operators, but generally what they would do is in the heading where you
17 have the participants they might say "X" but put the person's name in
19 I'm hesitating a little bit, because in other cases I believe, and
20 now it's been many months, almost a year since I've been doing this, but I
21 believe they might have written the name. If they got the name from the
22 conversation as a person directing a comment to someone else by their
23 name, then they would have written that name up in the header of that
24 conversation, and this is what we noticed. This is what I noticed from
25 the work that we conducted as well. If there was ever any doubt as to who
1 was speaking, there was absolute consistency in putting X and Y.
2 The other time that people -- that an operator might put a name in
3 parentheses is if he recognised the name. Because the operators listened
4 and got to know people's voices, they would never indicate that as a firm
5 identification, but they might indicate that the speaker could be a
6 particular person through voice recognition, and that would be designated
7 in parentheses.
8 JUDGE RIAD: May I just ask a peripheral question. Before coming
9 to the OTP, were you involved in the same kind of work?
10 A. No, I wasn't.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Because you have a Master's Degree from the School of
12 International Affairs.
13 A. That's right.
14 JUDGE RIAD: That's a school where I was a professor. We did not
15 used to teach this kind of thing.
16 A. No, in fact.
17 JUDGE RIAD: So what experience did you have before that?
18 A. Well, I didn't have any experience in dealing with intercepted
19 communications, certainly. My background is in international affairs, and
20 I worked in the field in the former Yugoslavia for a couple of years
21 during the war.
22 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
24 Riad, and especially for your testimony too.
25 Madam Judge Wald.
1 JUDGE WALD: Ms. Frease, just a couple of questions. One I think
2 you may have answered, but I just have to get it in the right context.
3 In the beginning, you said you translated the majority of
4 intercepts, mostly in terms of the time frame that you were especially
5 interested in, that week or two weeks in July. Why -- is it true that
6 there were some in those weeks that you didn't translate, and if so, why
8 A. We translated -- when we first received the material in March of
9 1998 - that's the printout material - we translated everything, all of the
10 pages, every conversation.
11 JUDGE WALD: Now, when you were translating all the conversations,
12 and you said you put them all into the database, but then you also told us
13 that you kept sort of corroborating files like the one that you showed us,
14 for some or all, or how did you pick the ones that you kept corroborating
15 files? Just that you happened to come upon corroboration?
16 A. No. It was mostly based on the content of the conversation,
17 whether it appeared as if a particular piece of information within that
18 conversation seemed as if it was something that we might be able to
19 corroborate, like phone numbers or --
20 JUDGE WALD: Right. When you came upon particular conversations,
21 some might immediately, I assume, stand out in your own mind or anyone
22 else's as being important. In fact, you said that one reason that you
23 didn't consider the "Kill them all," one to be as important as others, I
24 think is what you said, but when you found those ones you did think were
25 important, did you have any system for immediately bringing them to the
1 attention of the people on the investigative task force or did you -- at
2 what point did those corroborating notebooks or your own feeling that
3 something was important get put into the process?
4 A. There wasn't a system per se, but we spoke every day.
5 JUDGE WALD: So in other words, if you came upon something that
6 you thought was really hot stuff, then you would communicate with somebody
7 in the task force.
8 A. That's correct.
9 JUDGE WALD: So you ended up having files for some --
10 corroborating files for some but not for others; is that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 JUDGE WALD: Did you have a corroborating file for the "Kill them
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE WALD: So you didn't think that was even important enough or
16 you didn't come across any corroboration?
17 A. That's right.
18 JUDGE WALD: One or both of the answers I proffered.
19 A. Right. That conversation didn't seem to contain anything that we
20 could corroborate independently.
21 JUDGE WALD: There were a lot of specifics in it. It was past the
22 two weeks that you said you concentrated on, but there were a lot of
23 specific things in there.
24 You said that you found it not as important as other conversations
25 that you came across in the intercepts. Can you, offhand, remember any
1 one you can cite to us that's already in evidence that you would have said
2 was more important?
3 A. I think and I hope I said that I didn't consider it to be more --
4 necessarily more important than other conversations.
5 JUDGE WALD: You just said, I think -- I don't have your quote,
6 but the impression left with me is you didn't think it was a top-level,
7 important conversation. You used the phrase: "There were others that
8 were more important."
9 A. Okay.
10 JUDGE WALD: I think.
11 A. Okay. I mean for me it fit within a sort of bundle of
12 conversations that were important. I can -- I can remember a few of
14 JUDGE WALD: Well, even one or two, just so I get --
15 A. Sure. The 16th of July conversation in which at 1358 in the
16 afternoon, I think it was, in which 500 litres of D2 fuel were being
17 ordered to Pilica village, Lieutenant Colonel Popovic. There were the
18 conversations between -- on the 15th of July between Colonel Beara and
19 General Krstic which I considered to be important. There were a couple of
20 conversations later. There was one conversation later in the day, I think
21 at 2116 on the 16th, in which Lieutenant Colonel Popovic tries to report
22 back to General Krstic, who is unavailable, and therefore leaves him a
23 message that the work has been done or that the job is finished, I think
24 were the words.
25 JUDGE WALD: So is this a correct impression I'm getting, that is,
1 you were looking through -- you were interested in kind of down-to-earth,
2 possibly, factual proof of events that went on on particular days so that
3 when you hit an excerpt which said "Kill them all," even though some might
4 say that that had import in terms of attitude, intent, that sort of thing,
5 you didn't think that was as important?
6 A. You know, one thing that I thought was that it could have just
7 been military talk, people in the field. I mean I'm not in the military.
8 I've then been in the military.
9 JUDGE WALD: But you must have heard a lot of military intercepts
10 in your work.
11 Okay. So in other words, just to get rid of that particular --
12 you didn't do any prioritising of that in terms of you didn't report that
13 immediately to one of your investigative teammates and say, "Hey, we've
14 got kind of an important one here. You should listen and take care of
16 A. No. I mean we reported it right away.
17 JUDGE WALD: Well, I mean you put it in the database, I know, but
18 you didn't single it out for any kind of special attention or you did?
19 A. Well, yes. We talked about it because it wasn't -- I mean, what
20 was unusual about it was, you know, the specific content of that
21 conversation. So, yes, we talked about it right away.
22 JUDGE WALD: Okay. On a more general topic, you told us that your
23 corroboration file or you would try to put together in a file sometimes
24 things that corroborated stuff that was in the intercept itself and then
25 sometimes you would evaluate the intercept in terms of "Whether it was
1 consistent with what we knew about the case."
2 Now, did you -- my first question is: In your experience, did you
3 or the people that were working for you ever come across intercepts which
4 were not consistent with what you knew about the case, and if so, what
5 would you do about them? Would you make a note? Would you tell your
6 investigative fellow teams, "Hey, maybe you ought to be careful about this
7 one because it doesn't seem to gel with some other stuff that we've got"?
8 A. I never felt that there were any inconsistencies within the
9 material. There were certainly things that we didn't understand within
10 the material, and --
11 JUDGE WALD: But in all these intercepts, you never found any one
12 that you thought: Gee, this is odd. It just doesn't seem to gel with
13 what we know about what else is going on?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Were you -- when I asked you before, you know,
16 you were on the alert, obviously, for communications which would provide
17 evidence of what the team was investigating. What about if you came
18 across something, and did you ever come across something, that went the
19 other way, I mean, that seemed to be, if anything, exculpatory?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE WALD: Yes what?
22 A. Yes. Yes. Well, I mean, there were some things -- for example,
23 there was earlier mention of where -- of General Zivanovic's whereabouts.
24 JUDGE WALD: Yes.
25 A. And that was something that, you know, was sort of -- that we
1 weren't -- we didn't quite know how to place for, you know, for some
2 time. And --
3 JUDGE WALD: Would you discuss that? If you came across something
4 and you thought: Gee, you know, this --
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE WALD: You would go to your mates --
7 A. Absolutely.
8 JUDGE WALD: -- your mates, and you'd say, "Well, gee, you better
9 be aware that there's this around --"
10 A. Absolutely. Absolutely.
11 JUDGE WALD: So did -- my last question: Did you at some
12 point -- you were keeping -- you were putting everything in the database,
13 you were occasionally talking to your -- well, maybe more than
14 occasionally talking to your investigative mates about things that
15 particularly aroused your attention, good or bad, as they came through the
16 process. Now, at the end of the process, when decisions were being made,
17 I guess, about what evidence might be culled for the proceeding, did they
18 ever come back to you? I mean, what did you do with your corroborative
19 files as they moved along? Say you had an intercept on day one, you put
20 it into the file -- into the database; as time went on, you found
21 collaborating evidence coming in, you kept a file on that, evidence coming
22 in. At some point did you input that cumulating knowledge back into the
23 investigative team so they could help evaluate the intercept, in light of
24 what you knew about it? They might know about it, but they might not know
25 all the same things you knew about it?
1 A. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question.
2 JUDGE WALD: It's a very complicated question. You put the
3 material in the database as you translated it, you kept an ongoing
4 corroborative file so that if new information came which might have
5 corroborated that, it went into your corroborative file; right?
6 A. No. Actually, it was that we would keep -- the file consisted of
7 material within the intercepts that looked as if it might be possible to
8 corroborate, and not the reverse, if I've understood you well.
9 JUDGE WALD: Okay. But even if, even if -- yes. Even if that's
10 true, you would -- sometimes your file would develop as you went along. I
11 mean, you would file some new -- find some new intercepts that
12 corroborated the old ones or the telephone.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 JUDGE WALD: So did you ever, at the end of the process, after you
15 had the corroboration files, go back to the team and give them the benefit
16 of that corroboration so that they could put it into their evaluation of
17 the intercepts?
18 A. No.
19 JUDGE WALD: You just kept them, the corroboration file, on the
20 shelf, or what?
21 A. Well, you see -- right.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please pause before giving an
23 answer to give the interpreter's a chance.
24 JUDGE WALD: It's such a privilege for me to speak to somebody in
25 my own language. Go ahead.
1 A. This file was a little hanging file, and when we would find
2 something, we would make a photocopy of it and just stick it in there.
3 Doing -- you know, doing the third-party corroboration was not -- it was a
4 part of the whole project, but relatively speaking, it was a very small
5 part of the whole --
6 JUDGE WALD: Let me just sum up in the final question. Did they,
7 the other members of the investigative team - the investigators, the
8 lawyers, whoever else who were going to finally put together the case, did
9 they ever come back to you on the intercepts and say, "Well, we're
10 planning to use certain intercepts. We want to ask you about certain
11 ones" or once you'd gotten them into the database it was all done with,
12 from your point of view?
13 A. Well, I guess I helped to identify those that were most pertinent
14 to the case.
15 JUDGE WALD: Okay. All right. Thank you.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
17 Wald. You're really privileged, because you can speak your own language.
18 I never have that chance.
19 Ms. Frease, I too have a few questions for you. So at the
20 beginning there was your project of intercepts, with certainly objectives
21 in mind - organise the material, translate it, file it - and you had a
22 series of resources to do it. You mentioned translators in the field. I
23 must admit that I don't quite understand who those people were and what
24 they did for your project. "Field translators," could you explain the
25 concept, the notion, who they were?
1 A. Sure. We used them at the very beginning of the project, again in
2 spring 1998, when we received the first printed material and were very
3 eager -- the team was very eager to know what that material contained. So
4 for the sake of expediency, I put together a small group of translators
5 for -- twice - it might have been three times, but two or three times - a
6 small group of translators who sat down in a room, and I was with them,
7 and just started working through, from page 1 through page 564, I think.
8 And so that material was translated in that way and provided the
9 investigative team with an ability to begin to look at that material.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Another question.
11 You mentioned, in connection with certain problems that you felt, you said
12 two or three conversations which were not the same but which were recorded
13 by different operators. Could you please explain a little the type of
14 situation you are referring to?
15 A. Certainly. There were -- the 15th of July there was a
16 conversation between General Krstic and Colonel Beara, and that
17 conversation was recorded, I believe, by three different operators. Each
18 conversation varied slightly, but there were enough elements in those
19 conversations to allow us to say with certainty that it was the same
20 conversation but recorded by different operators and from at least two
21 locations, from two locations.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And how did that situation fit
23 into your objective of corroborating the conversations or to make sure
24 that they were consistent?
25 A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You said that there were three
2 recordings of the same conversation but that there were slight differences
3 between them; they were not exactly identical. The fact that they were
4 not exactly the same, did that cause problems for you to be able to assess
5 them regarding the validity of the conversation itself, the message it
6 contained, the content?
7 A. One conversation might provide more information, an additional
8 name that another operator wasn't able to hear that someone else could
9 hear. You know, what we were most interested in was just ensuring that we
10 had matched everything up together.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So could it be said that at the
12 end, the fact that they were not absolutely identical could prove to be a
13 test of the content because one provided something that the other did
14 not? Am I understanding you correctly, Ms. Frease? Very well. There's
15 another question. You spoke about the State Security Service in Tuzla.
16 You spoke about the SSB [as interpreted] in Tuzla. You also spoke about
17 the SDB in Tuzla. I don't know what that is. It is on page 31, line 10
18 of the LiveNote. What are they? SDB, what is the SDB in Tuzla?
19 A. It's the State Security Service in Tuzla.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The same thing?
21 A. It is. CSB generally refers to a larger area that might contain
22 several SDBs, but yes, it's the same.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So this is one situation where
24 three things apply to the same thing, tell us the same thing.
25 A. Right.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have another question for
2 you. Not all the intercepts were translated. You focused basically on a
3 time frame beginning the 10th of July. So the beginning was the 10th of
4 July, and up to when?
5 A. We did it in phases, because we weren't sure how long the process
6 was going to take, and so that was a place where we did prioritise them.
7 So approximately from the 10th of July to the 20th of July, but it might
8 have even been the 10th to the 18th. I don't exactly remember. After we
9 processed all of that material, then we expanded the whole process to
10 include all of July, from the beginning of July through -- through the
11 beginning of August, especially after, you know, after we discovered the
12 conversation from the 2nd of August.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If we try to establish a
14 relationship between those dates and the indictment, how would you see
15 it? If we compare the dates that you focused on and the indictment, what
16 link could you establish, if there is any?
17 A. Could you tell me what you're referring to in the indictment? I
18 don't --
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The indictment, as you know,
20 mentions dates. There is a time, a time period when the facts occurred.
21 So my question is whether the dates that you focused on have anything to
22 do with the dates referred to in the indictment, the dates when the crimes
23 were allegedly committed.
24 A. Yes. We focused on -- as I said, July, but then for the situation
25 of the reburials we looked at notebooks from that period of time to see
1 whether there was anything obvious from that time period. But I don't
2 recall -- we didn't -- you know, the analysts -- the language people who
3 looked at those periods didn't find anything that appeared to be related.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Another question,
5 and that will be the last. You had this lengthy experience with the
6 processing of intercepts. You worked on the establishment of co-relations
7 among documents and their corroboration, and if I were to ask you to
8 fabricate a message like this one, "Kill them all," what would you do?
9 How would you go about it, make a montage of such an intercept? I'm
10 asking you to do that, and then I'm asking you how you would go about it.
11 A. That's a -- well, I'd have to start back at the beginning with the
12 typed records and with the notebooks, and I guess, you know -- I mean, you
13 would have to fill an entire notebook with fabricated material. In terms
14 of making a recording, I don't have any of that kind of background, so I
15 really -- I -- I don't know how I would do it. I don't know how it would
16 be done. Cutting and pasting, I guess, things together, but I -- it's not
17 really the area that I -- it's not my area of expertise.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So in any event, you would have
19 to de-codify a message. If you were to have to work in the opposite
20 direction, how many persons or what kind of expertise would you need to do
21 it? Or you don't even want to think about it? It wouldn't interest you?
22 A. Well, I don't -- I don't feel qualified to know how to do that,
23 since I wasn't someone who was actually participating in the
24 transcription, in the listening, in the recording, and all that.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But there is a
1 possibility of you going back to your school and teaching these things.
2 That is why Judge Riad has a question for you now.
3 JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Frease, it is just an answer which you gave to
4 the president which I would like to understand more and have the benefit
5 of your experience. You mentioned, in particular, three conversations
6 between General Krstic and Beara, and each conversation varied slightly
7 from the other. Would that be considered as a sign of inconsistency or of
8 authenticity? How would you take it?
9 A. As internal consistency.
10 JUDGE RIAD: Internal consistency?
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 JUDGE RIAD: Now then, in that case they should be the same as the
13 same day, same hour?
14 A. Very close.
15 JUDGE RIAD: What should you check typically because you said they
16 are varied, they are different?
17 A. Right, but usually off within a minute or two, a couple of
19 JUDGE RIAD: The variation would be what, in words, in -- or just
20 in the time, as you said?
21 A. It would be in the time but it would also be in the substance of
22 the text, because depending on where the operators were recording, where
23 they were listening from, sometimes one signal came in stronger than
24 another signal. And so some people would hear one part of a conversation
25 better than they would hear another conversation. And by putting these
1 things together, you know, we could come up with a good idea of what the
2 whole conversation was about.
3 JUDGE RIAD: So that's what you call the internal consistency?
4 A. Right. I mean, knowing that -- having people, the same people
5 identified, having the same subject matter discussed, on the same day, at
6 the same time. But we were always extremely sure before we made these
7 kinds of -- before we would confirm that it was the same conversation, we
8 had to be absolutely sure that it was the same conversation, and never
9 made a match that we were unsure about. If we were unsure about it, we
10 didn't match it.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
12 A. You're welcome.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Frease, you have just
14 completed your testimony here. Thank you very much for your contribution,
15 which has assisted us a great deal, both us, the Defence, and the
16 Prosecution, and we wish you a safe journey home and success in your
17 work. Thank you very much.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, I think you have
21 some documents that you wish to tender.
22 MR. HARMON: That's correct, Mr. President. We would move for
23 admission Prosecutor's Exhibit 863.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And the Defence. Mr. Visnjic,
25 what is your comment?
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no objection.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So Exhibit -- Prosecutor Exhibit
3 863 is admitted into evidence.
4 Mr. Harmon, what next?
5 MR. HARMON: My next witness is Mr. Kruszewski, and for that,
6 Mr. President, I would ask for a closed session. I will explain in this
7 private session the reason why I'm making that request.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us move into private session
10 for a few moments.
11 [Private session]
13 Pages 9004-9024 redacted – private session
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.12 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of
25 March, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.