1 Thursday, 27 June 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at of 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, a preliminary matter to be raised on
11 behalf of the Prosecution.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President, everyone.
13 Could we go into private session briefly.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
15 [Private session]
11 Page 13453 redacted. Private session.
3 [Closed session]
10 [Open session]
11 MR. IVETIC: Next, Your Honour, if we can go into private
12 session. The part we were on was in private session last.
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness RM279, before we continue, I'd like to
15 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have
16 given at the beginning of your testimony. We'll now first move into
17 private session, and Mr. Ivetic will then continue his cross-examination.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 13455-13458 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Madam Registrar. If we can call up in
17 e-court your 92 ter transcript, P1614 under seal, but not broadcast the
18 same to the public. And if we could turn to page 11 of the same. And if
19 we could focus on line 2.
20 Q. Sir, I'd like to read for you a part of your answer from the
21 92 ter transcript and ask you some questions following it, so please
22 follow along.
23 "A. In order to explain that, I have to go back to 1992. The
24 unit, as such, was established -- founded from a number of enthusiasts,
25 mainly radio amateurs and officers of the Yugoslav People's Army, or,
1 rather, former JNA officers who at that time were serving as officers in
2 the BH Army. They started with modest equipment, and the unit grew to
3 its full size in mid-1995, numbering, on average, 50 to 60. There was no
4 professional-quality equipment either imported or inherited from the JNA.
5 We just adapted and souped-up devices we had in our radio clubs, adding
6 amplifiers, preamplifiers, and other components, and we managed to enable
7 these devices eventually to monitor one channel from one site."
8 Now, you've already explained to us that the modifications were
9 done by the civilians, the ham radio operators. The question I want to
10 ask you is a technical one: Is it correct that civilian-grade equipment,
11 radio equipment, works on different frequencies than does military-grade
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And am I correct in stating that civilian grade radio equipment
15 cannot -- cannot access military frequencies with the existing parts that
16 are within a civilian radio unit?
17 A. If you want a brief answer, with the existing components, no,
18 they can't, because every service gets their own frequency, and when you
19 acquire equipment, be it for the air force, for ham radio operators, or
20 professional military, it is done, but it is mechanically possible to add
21 certain assemblies to broaden the range.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, I want to continue with the rest of your
23 answer here in this 92 ter transcript to ask you about from line 12
25 "Our capacities were modest, but they were used to the full. We
1 had in our unit former JNA officers specialised in communications, and
2 the core of the unit was made up by ham radio operators with 10 to 40
3 years' experience."
4 And I want to ask you, sir, with respect to the former JNA
5 officers specialised in communications, how many such officers did you
7 A. I can't tell you the exact number, after all it was 18 years ago,
8 but before I joined that unit and before I took up my position, I know
9 for sure they had five or six high-quality officers from the former JNA.
10 I know about two of them for sure who specialised in electronic
12 Q. Thank you. And if you recall, could you tell us how many ham
13 radio operators with 10 to 40 years' prior experience did you have in
14 that unit?
15 A. You cannot hold me down to a particular number, but everybody who
16 worked there were for the most part ham radio operators or people who had
17 done that job in the former JNA, in Yugoslavia. We had one young man who
18 worked at the installation in the south for the former JNA. We had one
19 man who is now perhaps 75, and many others who had won awards and had
20 enormous experience. We had one engineer, Tomo Trojak, who was the brain
21 of the whole operation. We had another engineer of electrical
22 engineering, Miralem. I cannot tell you how many, but there was a great
23 number of the radio -- members of the radio club Banovici, from Tuzla,
24 Gradacac, and other places.
25 Q. And were there also individuals in the unit who did not have
1 neither any prior experience in communications within the JNA nor any
2 experience as amateur ham radio operators?
3 A. I don't think so.
4 Q. Now, as far as the staff were former ham radio operators, we've
5 had some evidence at this trial of the role that the Bosnian Muslim ham
6 radio operators had in relation to reporting the dire situation in 1994
7 in Gorazde which turned out to be overstated. That is, I believe, at
8 transcript page 7928 to 7932. Did any of these former ham radio
9 operators working for this unit that you have described come previously
10 from working within Gorazde enclave?
11 A. I don't think so. There was no way, no opportunity. I'm almost
12 sure nobody came from Gorazde.
13 Q. Okay. I want to ask you about a different aspect of this, and to
14 do so I'd like to have 1D1079 in e-court, and for the start, if we could
15 look at page 1 together. While we wait for that, sir, you'll see the --
16 or I'll present to you the document is dated 1995 and it's from the
17 foreign military studies officer of the US armed forces and is authored
18 by Lieutenant-Colonel John E. Sray, and it relates to the Bosnian civil
19 war, and he talks of ham radio operators in Bosnia. And if we can move
20 to page 7 of this document, we can examine together one thing that he
21 says. If we look at footnote number 4 and I'll read for you, sir, so you
22 get the translation of what is said here.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, where is the footnote?
24 MR. IVETIC: Footnote 4.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is it?
1 MR. IVETIC: Endnote 4, I apologise. It's endnote 4. It's in
2 the middle of the screen right now.
3 "Rumours persist that the Bosnian Muslim government has hired
4 some of these public relations firms to conduct media campaigns on their
5 behalf in the US and Europe. Former President Carter was berated when he
6 noted that the American public only knew one side of the story in Bosnia
7 but his statement stands as a concise and astute summary of the content
8 analysis available in the press. One of the best examples of Bosniak
9 propaganda occurred during the battle for Gorazde in April 1994. The
10 Bosnian Muslim government convinced the world that the BSA demolished the
11 town and inflicted numerous civilian casualties. (See, for example --"
12 And then he lists US media, British media, German media, and
13 French media, and then continues:
14 "The international media dutifully interviewed and subsequently
15 printed accounts of refugees which government officials made available to
16 them. Unfortunately, most of the media failed to corroborate these
17 stories. The press also broadcast reports from a Bosnian Muslim ham
18 radio operator whom they insisted had to be authentic due to the accuracy
19 of his reports pertaining to the NATO bombing during the fighting.
20 Verification of these events later proved this reporting to be highly
21 inaccurate, but the media had already moved on to further stories. Most
22 of the damage that was done in the enclave had actually occurred almost
23 two years prior to the battle when Muslims had conducted their own ethnic
24 cleansing and burned out the Serbs' houses. As for the ham radio
25 operator, no one who is hold up in a basement, as he claimed to be, can
1 accurately describe events taking place on the battle-field. Rather,
2 this person simply monitored the unsecured radio transmissions of
3 UNPROFOR personnel who were controlling the NATO air-strikes. He then
4 mixed these elements of truth with his own propaganda to deceive the
5 media. In fact, no conclusive evidence exists that the ham radio
6 operator was even based in Gorazde."
7 And now I want to ask you, sir, I need to know if the ham radio
8 operators that worked in the unit were ever involved with this type of
9 activity, that is monitoring unsecured radio traffic and adding their own
10 elements of propaganda to the same to achieve deception of the media,
11 whether about Gorazde or about any other event or location?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
13 MS. LEE: Your Honours that was a very long question, and if that
14 could be broken-down in parts, and first of all, it also mentions ham --
15 the report itself -- the document itself mention a ham radio operator,
16 and I think it is only fair to the witness if the identity at least, if
17 the witness has knowledge of -- of such person before he could make any
18 comments on what appears to be an Internet article.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, first of all, it's a document of the
21 United States Army. It's not an Internet article.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
23 MR. IVETIC: Second of all, I'm asking about his -- the persons
24 that were in the unit, whether they had engaged in similar activities.
25 The identity of the ham radio operator which was never, I believe, known
1 is irrelevant to the question. I'm asking about this type of activity,
2 this type of behaviour that is being reported, whether the operator --
3 when the ham radio enthusiasts that were part of the unit ever engaged in
4 such activities, and I think it's relevant and germane to this trial.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- Mr. Ivetic, if you take step-by-step. The
6 first question put to the witness whether anyone came from Gorazde. Now,
7 even without reading this long report, whatever the source is, whether
8 it's Internet or whether it's United States military, you could have
9 asked the witness whether he is aware of any operator at any time adding
10 anything to what he technically had listened to, and then on the base if
11 the witness says, "Yes, I have knowledge about that," then of course he
12 could tell us. If he says, "I've got no knowledge about it," then you
13 could have some follow-up questions, one or two, such as are you aware
14 that a similar thing was at least reported to have happened in Gorazde,
15 and then we do not need to read pages and pages of reports. This is the
16 way I suggest you would proceed. Please go on.
17 MR. IVETIC: So, Your Honours, my question objectionable or not?
18 I'd like to get an answer to my question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I invited you to -- I -- I suggested to you that you
20 would proceed in the way I indicated, and that would need a rephrase --
21 rephrasing the question, and if you have done so, we'll know whether
22 there's any objection to the new question. Please proceed.
23 MR. IVETIC: Can I have a ruling on the objection of my standing
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you heard what Mr. Ivetic read to you, that
1 is about operators adding information to what they listened to. Did you
2 have any similar experience ever in the team in which you worked?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I appreciate
4 Mr. Ivetic's efforts. However, first of all, I have to say that I
5 believe this text has nothing to do with me or the work I was engaged in.
6 We never --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd please answer my question and --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We never added anything. We did
9 not work that way. We were not engaged in propaganda. We were on the
10 receiving end. We could not even transmit. Nobody ever added anything
11 by way of any propaganda or anything else. I speak from experience,
12 because it was monitored at a lower level and in two facilities, so the
13 two were never aware what the other one was monitoring at the moment.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you have any further questions in
15 this field, feel free to ask the witness.
16 MR. IVETIC: I do.
17 Q. My original question: Do you know if any ham radio operators
18 that you had in your unit previously had engaged in these activities?
19 A. I don't know, but I don't think so.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, if we can go back to your Rule 92 ter
21 transcript, P1614 under seal, and not broadcast the same. And we'll be
22 looking at the bottom of page 9 of the same, leading on to perhaps page
23 10. And if we could focus on line 20 on this page. And it reads as
24 follows, sir:
25 "A. It all depended on the amount of equipment that was available
1 at a given point in time. Since our unit was providing support to
2 intelligence structures and, to that end, gathered information, it was
3 never manned 100 per cent. On average, in the northern facility the
4 tasks were performed by a platoon of approximately 15 men. They worked
5 according to the following system: They would spend seven days in the
6 facility and then seven days at home. It could change depending on the
7 frequency of traffic, or [sic] they could spend 10 or more days in the
8 facility, and this mostly happened in the summer of 1995, and then the
9 subsequent 10 days at home. The workload was enormous. One worked
10 'round the clock under very difficult conditions, with poor equipment and
11 poor training -- or, rather, poor clothing, I meant. And this was
12 especially the case in the winter. There was no heating. Old heating
13 stoves were used, if only just to keep the equipment in working order.
14 "A similar situation prevailed in the southern facility as well.
15 This facility was even more difficult to access, especially in the
16 winter. It was also manned by a platoon which monitored radio-relay
17 communications with approximately 12 to 18 men; on average, 15. They had
18 the same work regime."
19 Now, first I'd like to ask you, you say that the stations were
20 not manned 100 per cent, but you have not stated what percentage the
21 situation depicted. Could you tell us as far as the manning of the
22 stations was concerned what portion of 100 per cent was actually staffed?
23 A. I can't be precise in mathematical terms, but there was the unit
24 establishment which changed from time to time. For the most part it was
25 between 80 and 120 people per formation on paper. If one takes that at
1 the moment we had between 80 and 90 people as per establishment, and if
2 indeed on the spot there were only between 50 and 60, then you can do the
3 maths for yourself to reach the percentage of the staffing.
4 Q. Thank you, sir. And little further down on this page, I believe
5 it's not the part that's not visible on the monitor. If we go down a few
6 more lines, you talk about that each shift was 24 hours in length, and I
7 want to ask you: How many hours during a 24-hour shift did a particular
8 operator work sitting at the receiver/scanner listening to communications
9 without a break?
10 A. At each facility they had a roster in principle. It was pinned
11 on the wall just simply to be there, but in my view, each operator worked
12 on average between 15 and 18 hours manning the device. We knew more or
13 less that right after midnight there would be little traffic, so some men
14 would go in to sleep for five or six metres. It was all within the
15 radius of 5 metres. If there is an increase in traffic, the people were
16 awakened. You need to understand that it was wartime. It was not like
17 in peacetime; otherwise, I could tell you how many people one would need
18 and what sort of equipment you would need, but that was what it was like.
19 Q. And the same question now for the operators that would be sitting
20 down and listening to prerecorded transmissions on the UHER tape device.
21 How many hours during a 24-hour shift would a particular operator be
22 sitting working on that machine listening to communications and writing
23 them down without a break?
24 A. I have to repeat there were no others. They were all the same
25 people. They all sat down together, listened together, eat and drink
1 together. They only had to make a few steps to take the notebooks to the
2 encryption unit which was next door. That's where everything took place.
3 Q. And is it correct that operators could and did work on two
4 machines at a time?
5 A. The question is a bit, well, not necessarily unclear, but
6 difficult to answer. Before that I have to tell you that a person had
7 two devices in front of him. One was RRU 1 and the other RRU 800. Each
8 work station had two, and they did not change work station unless they
9 needed to help their colleague in his own work. Every person had two
10 machines in front of them. They were the UHER devices. Everyone knew
11 who was to man each work station and who was then supposed to replace
13 Q. Did you mean to say that your unit had a RRU 800 device and a RRU
14 1 device? Is that accurate?
15 A. If you have in mind professional military equipment, we did not,
16 but these were modified amateur devices. One could monitor channels,
17 that is to say, communication between 610 and 950; whereas, the other one
18 could follow the frequencies between 230 and 270.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question. The devices, they depict
20 the frequency range covered by that device. Is that -- or is it a
21 specific piece of equipment?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are modified ham radio
23 devices, Mr. President. A Kenwood 450, an ICR 100. It's all in the
24 notebooks which work station used which device.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the reference to RRU 800 and RRU 1
1 mainly refers to what frequency is covered by that -- covered by that
2 modified equipment?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. How many channels or frequencies could each the northern and the
7 southern stations follow at any one time simultaneously?
8 A. I think I can say -- well, four workstations by 2 channels times
9 8. So 16 channels at both facilities. So at the moment when they are
10 recording, at any given time they could only record up to 16 channels.
11 As for scanning, they could cover well over a hundred.
12 Q. As for the playback of prerecorded tapes of transmissions, could
13 you tell how many tapes be listened to simultaneously for purposes of
14 writing them down into a notebook at any given time?
15 A. Well, listening to the tapes, depending on the number of people
16 who were at the facility. So between four and eight.
17 Q. If we can briefly turn to page 13 of the Rule 92 ter statement
18 and focus on lines 15 through 21, I'd have a question to ask you about
19 this. And you're quoted here as answering as follows:
20 "After we identified -- or, rather, discovered participants in
21 the traffic, we would proceed to record the communication. People could
22 not memorise and then note down what they heard, so they first had to
23 make a recording, then play it back and listen, and note it down. Such
24 information was written down into station log-books according to the
25 recipe of the former JNA or in our working notebooks, because we did not
1 have any dedicated documents for writing this down."
2 Now, this answer leaves me a bit confused, because on the one
3 hand it seems to imply that the procedures of the JNA were followed but
4 also at the same time they were not followed. Could you please clarify
5 for us whether the unit followed the prescribed procedures set forth by
6 the JNA for memorialising these communications?
7 A. I don't want to be critical of anyone, but there may be small
8 mistakes occurring in the process of interpretation. In principle, we
9 used the documents of the former JNA to create this mosaic, the jigsaw
10 puzzle, because it was easiest way to do so. Since we did not have
11 proper documentations with rubrics and columns, we used notebooks for
12 that purpose. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself all too well, but we
13 followed the procedures used by the JNA, but, however, it was translated
14 into our circumstances.
15 Q. Did you follow by what is prescribed by JNA protocol and
16 procedure for the archiving and preservation of such log-books?
17 A. In principle, we did. However, given the fact that we did not
18 have logistical support because it had not been dealt with in the best
19 possible way by our competent command, we did the following: The
20 typed-out encrypted report containing the conversation was the most
21 important document leaving the facility.
22 Q. Am I correct that certain log-books were destroyed or burned?
23 A. You're 100 per cent correct. There was a whole sea of such
24 notebooks from previous periods, from subordinate units, from the
25 division, from our unit. It all burnt down. Well, it was used also to
1 fuel fire, to roll cigarettes, et cetera. There were not only notebooks.
2 It was mentioned in all of the trials here that the notebooks became
3 widely available, especially in 1995. So we used different kinds of
4 formats. From the northern facility, you'll see that they frequently
5 have mining logs because it was -- it used to be a mining location, and
6 they could only use one side of each sheet. In any case, we used
7 anything that we could get our hands on just to note down information.
8 Q. Now, I believe that you have stated that one operator would
9 normally listen to the transmissions recorded on the tape through the
10 UHER device for purposes of writing them down in a notebook but that
11 others would be called in to listen to the tape with him if there was
12 unclarity or question about a particular part that was hard to decipher.
13 First of all, is there any notation or marking that would be
14 visible on the notebook or on the typed report which would be generated
15 from the notebooks which would denote these parts which were unclear and
16 which had to be deciphered with the help of multiple persons listening to
18 MS. LEE: If the question could be broken down. It's a very long
19 question, and I just want to know -- first of all, I think it's fair to
20 the witness if there were any notations or markings that would be visible
21 in the notebook or the typed report, and if that could be -- if then a
22 second question could be asked about the rest -- the remainder of the
23 question. It's just a very run-on question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question, although being rather long,
25 could be put in a short form to the witness and then to further elaborate
1 on details.
2 If one person had doubts as whether he could decipher what he
3 heard and was then assisted by others to decipher, would that be noted
4 down in the transcript or the document they created? Would it say I
5 sought the assistance of A and B are or would it just result of it being
6 jotted down on paper?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it was mainly as you
8 conclude. Due to the rate of speech, two people may put headsets on
9 their heads and listen together, and then they would try to reach a
10 conclusion as to what the word used was and how the conversation
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then they jot it down, and
14 that's how it would leave the facility.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it would not be noted that another person
16 had also listened to that text. There was no --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, there was no need.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Now, in relation to the recordings themselves, you have testified
21 that there was a process by which re-recording of important
22 communications on a different tape took place and then the old tapes were
23 erased or dubbed over. I want to ask you first: Did this re-recording
24 take place -- strike that. When this re-recording took place, who was it
25 that decided what material was considered important enough to be saved on
1 another tape?
2 A. I explained that several times. Whenever there was a change of
3 shift, we took full tapes to the intelligence department when -- where
4 they would be listened to again to verify or check the reports we had
5 submitted by that time. They rerecorded the tapes that they believed
6 were important in terms of the conversations they contained. We had
7 nothing to do with it. It was also done for the sole purpose because we
8 did not have enough tapes. If something was interested, it was
9 rerecorded, and the rest would then be reused. So the tapes were
10 returned to us. It was done for -- by the electronic warfare department
11 which was within our intelligence unit.
12 Q. And I want to ask you at page 22 of your --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, before we start with new questions, if
14 it would be one question, okay, but otherwise I would prefer to take the
15 break first. It's --
16 MR. IVETIC: We can take the break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- 10.30. We briefly go into closed session, then
18 we'll resume after 20 minutes' break again in closed session so as to
19 then return in open session once the witness has again entered the
21 [Closed session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed your cross-examination.
16 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn to page 22 of the 92 ter transcript
17 that is on the screen.
18 Q. I'd like to discuss with you, sir, the testimony that's recorded
19 at lines 7 through 11 of the same, and it reads as follows, and we should
20 not broadcast the same, it is quoted as saying:
21 "The reports were analysed in detail in the Analysis Department,
22 and based on their analysis, guidelines were given for work. But, of
23 course, every operator had to have an idea of how radio-relay systems in
24 the VRS worked. So the process can at once appear simple and
1 I want to ask you, when you say that the Analysis Department
2 which was a part of military intelligence issued guidelines for the work,
3 what kind of guidelines are we talking about?
4 A. So that there is no mistake, this analysis section is the
5 counter-electronic warfare section. The guidelines were given for the
6 most part for intensified reconnaissance if in a certain part of the
7 front line increased activity was expected. If they had such information
8 from other sources, they would give us instructions to pay more attention
9 to the north, the south, south-east, because our zone was from north-west
10 to south-east.
11 Q. Thank you. And if we could go to the bottom of the page, and it
12 bleeds onto the next page. Your answer reads as follows:
13 "So primary analysis was made by our unit. Because of the
14 frequency of traffic, we didn't have time for anything else. In the
15 command of the 2nd Corps, there existed an Analysis Department, and
16 opposite that department there existed a department for
17 counter-intelligence protection which had the task of analysing all the
18 information gathered through electronic reconnaissance and to fill out
19 all the gaps in the communications system as it existed on the other
21 Could you please tell us exactly what it means here to fill out
22 all the gaps?
23 A. Considering that we were not the only unit engaged in electronic
24 reconnaissance, this section, which is now here called anti-electronic
25 activity, that's in fact counter-electronic warfare, received reports of
1 this kind from intelligence sections of divisions, and they would put
2 together the entire jigsaw puzzle for radio and relay communications in
3 the area of the corps. That's why they put it this way. Fill in the
4 gaps if, of course, we had information to fill in these gaps.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. And if we could now turn to the very last page
6 of this document in e-court and still not broadcast the same. I'd like
7 to focus on lines 11 through 14 of that page. And it read as follows:
8 "We were not under any obligation to store these tapes and ...
9 material recorded on them. The moment the intelligence section returned
10 them, that meant they -- that they lost their importance. However, there
11 was no time to erase everything. Some things were dubbed, some things
12 remained on the tapes that were in use, and that happened in 1996 and
14 Now, in relation to this testimony, would it sometimes result
15 that conversations and recordings of old communications would blend into
16 newer and subsequent recordings?
17 A. That happened very rarely. If in the electronic warfare section
18 they failed to erase it completely, we would do the erasing in our
19 locations. During the transformation of the army in 1997, all the
20 division units came to us with their own equipment. It simply didn't
21 happen. There could be noise or interference only from the wear and tear
22 of the tapes on which we made recordings.
23 Q. And, sir, in your answer here you have identified this in
24 relation to the years 1996 and 1997. Am I correct that the same
25 procedure was also employed in the years prior, including 1995?
1 A. You're absolutely right, because as I said before, I know exactly
2 how things are properly done, but our logistics and our technical
3 capabilities simply did not allow us to do it perfectly. We did our job
4 as best we could. That was the only way to preserve things. I'll say
5 again the reports bearing numbers are the official part of our work.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I'd like to look at another case with you,
7 Popovic. If we can call up 1D1076, and page 5 of the same in e-court,
8 and not broadcast the same just to be safe.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
10 MS. LEE: As the document is getting pulled up, I just wanted to
11 make one minor transcript correction. It's on page 24, at line 19, and
12 it's -- it goes:
13 "The guidelines were given for the most part for intensified
14 reconnaissance in certain part of the front line," and here it says "in a
15 person part."
16 And this is just to clarify the record.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be obvious that there was a small
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
22 Q. If we can focus on line 13 and onwards to the bottom of the page,
23 and I'd like to first read for you, sir, and then ask you some questions.
24 "Q. We can now turn to a different topic. In response to the
25 questions put to you by John Ostojic yesterday about what you said in
1 your examination-in-chief, you said that in relation to certain persons,
2 there existed already dossiers in which you wrote some of their features,
3 their voices, and some of their personal features. Do you remember that?
4 "A. Yes.
5 "Q. And I suppose that this was done on the basis of long-term
6 work and a large number of intercepts, that that was used to compile a
7 dossier; right?
8 "A. Yes. That's correct. I came to this unit in February of
9 1995 and there already existed a certain database for certain persons."
10 I'd like to ask you, sir, do you stand by what is recorded here
11 as being your testimony from the Popovic case as being both truthful and
12 accurate such that you would so answer the same questions if posed today?
13 A. To the best of my recollection, yes. I don't know what details
14 you mean, but it's certain that we had a database for certain persons,
15 mainly with information collected through electronic reconnaissance.
16 This database covered mainly persons in the VRS involved in
17 communications and the command staff.
18 Q. Thank you. And if we could turn to the next page of this
19 document. The continuation of the discussion there talks about at line
21 "Q. There are situations in which certain assumptions of
22 operators were recorded, as you said, but that does not necessarily imply
23 that they were correct.
24 "A. Assumptions were confirmed at a higher level. They did not
25 necessarily need to be correct, but were taken at face value, so that
1 this -- so that was one of the positions taken."
2 Do you stand by this portion of your testimony as recorded as
3 being truthful and accurate such that you'd so testify today if asked the
5 A. I would say the same to these questions today. I'll repeat. Our
6 job was to collect information as it was and submit it to the superior
7 command, including our conclusions, suggestions, et cetera, which doesn't
8 mean that the necessarily -- the superior command will take it at face
9 value. It will accept it or not.
10 Q. The question I have for you, sir, is these reports and these
11 notebooks that would be your end of it going up to the superior command,
12 where would we look to find corrections, verifications, or nullifications
13 by the higher authority about the assumptions that were made at the lower
14 level, at the unit?
15 A. You should look at the intelligence department. The commander
16 never received information in the form of an intercept. It would first
17 go to the counter-electronic warfare section, which would make their
18 input, then to the analysis department of the intelligence department
19 where they included their conclusions, and in a simplified form presented
20 the information to the commander describing the situation on the ground.
21 There were no major corrections or anything. It was simply a synthesis
22 and an analysis of all the intelligence coming into one place from
23 various sources.
24 Q. I understand that, sir, and that's how I understood it. The
25 question I have for you then is so these reports that are typed and these
1 notebooks that we have from the unit are merely the assumptions by the
2 unit, and we don't have any way of knowing what the verifications of the
3 higher authority were, whether they found parts to be wrong, whether they
4 found parts to be right. We can't find that out from these reports
5 themselves. Is that accurate?
6 A. I would put it differently. These are not all assumptions.
7 Assumptions are only certain parts of the report. And I'm going to say
8 this again: This was a lengthy process over many years. In my mind
9 these are facts that can be correct or incorrect. It's up to the higher
10 level to decide what the essence is and what is not, because in addition
11 to our information, they received information from other sources.
12 Q. I understand that the assumptions may not cover the entirety of
13 the typed reports, but could you please enlighten us. How are we to
14 identify those parts that are assumptions? Are they noticed in the
15 documents in any particular way?
16 A. I don't know how they marked it at the higher level, but I know
17 from all that we did, 90 per cent was the truth, and I leave a 10
18 per cent margin for assumptions and certain errors [Realtime transcript
19 read in error "in certain areas"], et cetera.
20 Q. I'm not asking about the higher authority. I'm asking about the
21 unit. How did the unit mark --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the issue you're raising, the point
23 you're making is perfectly clear to the Chamber at this point in time. I
24 think the witness in various ways answered the question that he doesn't
25 know how any acceptance or nonacceptance by the higher level would be
1 visible in any of the reports. That's how I understood it. Therefore,
2 you're pointing at certain risks that assumptions which were part of the
3 reports may not have been visible and that therefore the Chamber should
4 pay specific attention to the risks involved in that. If that's your
5 point, then it's clear. If not, then please put focused questions to the
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I raise a problem for -- in the transcript.
8 Page 30, line 4. I read there, I quote:
9 "... I leave a 10 per cent margin for assumptions in certain
10 areas, et cetera."
11 I heard the -- a different answer from the witness. I thought
12 you were talking about a 10 per cent margin for assumptions in certain --
13 and certain errors. Is that correct or what did you say?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. Yes.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Certain errors. Certain errors.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, some errors in the work,
17 omissions of a letter, misspelling, et cetera.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
21 Q. Now I'd like to move on to some technical aspects. First of all,
22 would you agree with me that the VRS basically used pre-existing JNA
23 radio relay systems, radio relay locations?
24 A. The Army of Republika Srpska did not use them more or less. They
25 used all the assets and resources of the JNA. Only the roles were
1 changed on paper. All that had already been installed and in place in
2 the previous communications system me which had worked perfectly well for
3 the 30 years before and longer.
4 Q. And that would mean that you, your unit, knew where these
5 pre-existing relay stations and transmission stations were located. Is
6 that accurate?
7 A. Again, let's not talk about assumptions. I told you we had one
8 man in our installation in the south, and we knew about all the -- these
9 things. We did not know which radio relay asset was exactly in which
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not Zepa but Zep.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Would you agree that the radio relay communications from
15 Vlasenica to Veliki Zep to Zvornik were conducted using radio relay
16 devices RRU 800 and SMC 1306B over four radio relay routes or RR sub-D?
17 A. I would agree with what you stated here, but I'm saying again it
18 was our opinion that we reached by just monitoring radio relay
19 communications and occasionally we would check the strength of the signal
20 across the entire range.
21 Q. Would you agree with me that communications from -- by the VRS
22 from Vlasenica to Veliki Zep were performed via a RRU 800 and that the
23 distance between the two was approximately 15 kilometres?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
25 MS. LEE: Yes. I was -- I would just like it to be clarified to
1 the witness. I mean, we're talking about equipments taken from the JNA,
2 and so I would like to know the time-frame. Are we talking about in -- I
3 mean, what year are we talking about? Are we talking about in 1995 or
4 are we talking about sometime before that? And if that could be put to
5 the witness just for clarification purposes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, are you willing to adopt the suggestion?
7 MR. IVETIC: Sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Sir, these radio locations of the former JNA that you said even
11 little children knew, did they change at all during the time-period when
12 the unit was in existence?
13 A. I've told you the main hubs did not change. The only thing that
14 changed were end radio relay stations of individual brigades. These are
15 specialised installations that cost a lot of money, including atomic
16 shelters, huge stocks, et cetera. That's not something you create in one
18 Q. Thank you. And then I ask you again, sir, from the installation
19 at Vlasenica to the installation at Veliki Zep that the distance between
20 the two was 15 kilometres and that the device that was installed there
21 was a RRU 800.
22 A. According to our information, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit confused now. I think I earlier asked
24 what an RRU would be. Would that be a specific device, or would that be
25 a device which would cover a certain frequency.
1 Now, Mr. Ivetic, did you intend to ask whether the device
2 installed was fit to cover the RRU 800 range of frequency? Is that -- or
3 did you have a specific installation, a specific equipment in your mind?
4 MR. IVETIC: I'm talking about the installation at both the
5 Vlasenica pre-existing station of the JNA and the Veliki Zep pre-existing
6 installation of the JNA which both operated a RRU 800 and that the
7 physical distance between those two locations was 15 kilometres.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a few questions in one. Let's first
9 start with the -- with the distance.
10 Is it 15 kilometres between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say exactly, but if we had
12 a map, we would calculate it easily. It's around 15. As the crow flies,
13 that is.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Second, the equipment at Veliki Zep, was that of the
15 RRU 800 type?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of the pieces of equipment at
17 Veliki Zep was RRU 800. It's the size of a small cupboard, rather heavy.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. And, sir, in relation to the installation at Veliki Zep and the
21 installation at Cer, am I correct that the distance as the crow flies is
22 approximately 70.7 kilometres?
23 A. I would agree with you, yes. It's around -- around that.
24 Q. And would you agree with me that according to your information,
25 the communications done on that route would have been by the SMC 1306B
1 because of the distance involved, and so that is it exceeds the RRU 800's
3 A. I would agree with you. This SMC 1306B was used because that was
4 one of the main communications with Belgrade. SMC 130 is high quality,
5 it has a more directed antenna, and it's safer for maintaining
6 communication, plus it has 116 channels that can operate simultaneously.
7 Q. And am I correct that the other device at Veliki Zep was also a
8 RRU 1 radio relay device?
9 A. From what we know, yes.
10 Q. And from what you know, would you agree that from the Cer
11 installation to Crni Vrh, the air distance as the crow flies is
12 approximately 28 kilometres?
13 A. I didn't measure, but it's around that distance, Vlasenica, and
14 up there is Sabac.
15 Q. And -- and was there, as you understood it, two RRU 800 devices
16 on Crni Vrh elevation with communications going towards the Zvornik --
17 going towards Zvornik and from Zvornik by that means?
18 A. I don't know how many devices there were at Crni Vrh, but we know
19 from monitoring long-term communications that at Crni Vrh, at
20 Mount Gucevo, there was one RRU 800, and since Zvornik is in a valley
21 near the Drina River, it had a direct communication with this end radio
22 relay station. And what's more, from our information, I remember this
23 clearly, from Zvornik and up there they provided crews to their
24 personnel. It must be written somewhere.
25 Q. And would you agree with me that all the radio relay
1 communications devices that we are talking about are for duplex
2 communications, meaning a communication as a distinct transmission and
3 reception direction or telephone channel on the entire external
4 communication route, meaning that communications on one radio relay route
5 is conducted using two different radio frequencies?
6 A. I agree with you. There is a receiving and transmitting
7 frequency with the RRU 800, as well as with the RRU 1, which is a radio
8 relay device.
9 Q. Great. Now I'd like to clear up some more matters. In your Rule
10 92 ter transcript P1614 under seal, page 15, and it's lines 8 through 25
11 that are recorded there that are for me, I think, also a translation,
12 perhaps, issue, because it's not clear which devices you're identifying
13 and which comments about your abilities as to the devices are accurate.
14 So to clear it up, I'd like to talk about the technical aspects and see
15 if we can reach some agreement.
16 First of all, on the route of Vlasenica-Veliki Zep, there was a
17 radio relay device, an RRU 800, which transmitted 24 telephone channels,
18 namely two primary groups from which one group ended in Veliki Zep and
19 the second group was forwarded to Cer by way of the SMC 1306B relay and
20 further to Sazbrenica [phoen] over a JNA -- over the JNA system. Is
21 that -- does that comport with your knowledge of the communications that
22 were underway on that system?
23 A. Well, I would agree with you again. It was normal to change a
24 lower frequency to a higher frequency. That's why the devices were used,
25 and it is rather difficult to explain in technical terms, speaking from
1 memory. In any case, from Vlasenica there was an RRU 800, and then
2 further to Cer we used an SMC. That was because we were never able to
3 either locate or monitor that frequency range.
4 Q. Sir, if I can ask you to correct something. I think you had
5 testified accurately but that the transcript may have an error. It is
6 said that -- that further to Cer, we used an SMC. Was it "we" the ABiH
7 that used the SMC or was it the VRS that used the SMC, sir?
8 A. The VRS, not the army.
9 Q. And just so we are clear, the SMC 1306B that we're talking about
10 is a dual device that transmits and receives working with frequencies of
11 4.4 to 4.6 gigahertz and 4.8 to 5.0 gigahertz?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. And is it correct that the ABiH did not have the technology
14 required to intercept communications which used this device set-up?
15 A. I don't know about the ABiH, but my unit did not have that
16 possibility. We had an old device which I believe we had received from
17 Travnik. It was an SMC, but we were never successful in making it
19 Q. Now, is the SMC 1306B a system that employs so-called satellite
20 frequencies and is used when there is no optical and therefore no radio
21 visibility between two points?
22 A. I'm not aware of that characteristic. I know it's a radio relay
23 device and that one needs a clear line of vision. In other words, there
24 should be no obstacles between the two end points.
25 Q. Was there optical and therefore radio visibility between
1 Veliki Zep and Zvornik between the radio end points at those two
3 A. If you have in mind Veliki Zep and the end point radio relay
4 station in Zvornik, there was no optical vision. That's why the
5 alternative was used via Cer and Veliki Zep.
6 Q. Would you agree that the RRU 1 device or system was not utilised
7 during the period of June to August 1995 on the territory of Vlasenica to
8 Veliki Zep?
9 A. I cannot confirm or deny that. The RRU 1 radio relay device is
10 something at that can be put on one's back and carried to whatever place
11 you want, as long as you can mount an antenna and to be within the range
12 of Veliki Zep or another radio relay hub. It can also establish direct
13 communication between two radio relay devices of the same kind if there
14 is optical visibility. It's a single-channel device, so it receives and
15 transmits on one channel only.
16 Q. And in radio parlance that would be called a simplex
17 veza [phoen], or simplex device; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And just so that we're also clear, this RRU 1 device that we're
20 both talking about manufactured in Iskra factory in Ljubljana operated
21 on -- in simplex mode on a frequency of 300 to 340 hertz, and then if it
22 was used in a duplex mode it would have been on the principle of frequent
23 modulation in the range of 235 to 270 megahertz; is that correct?
24 A. I think it was produced in Slovenia, so it was of domestic
25 production. Its working frequency is the second one you mentioned
1 between 235 and 270 megahertz.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, in -- in relation to this RRU 1 device working
3 on that frequency, am I correct that the range of coverage of the same,
4 of the signal from the same, is about 30 kilometres from the centre and
5 the receiver unit?
6 A. In the textbooks I believe that is what is stated, but I have to
7 repeat yet again: Each manufacturer provides the characteristics of a
8 device where they guarantee that it will function within that range and
9 at that distance. It doesn't mean, though, that communication cannot be
10 established at bigger distances. Electromagnetic waves are not something
11 tangible. You never know how far they can go. It depends on a number of
12 factors. For example, for the RRU 800 they say that the range is up to
13 80, but it can reach as far as 120 or 130 kilometres depending on the lie
14 of land and whether there are depressions or features on the way -- in
15 the way. Perhaps I don't need to repeat everything now.
16 Q. And weather conditions would also affect it, temperature, et
17 cetera? Pardon me, sun activity, et cetera?
18 A. As I said, there's a number of factors, time of day, whether it
19 is day or night, vegetation, humidity, whether it is overcast. It all
20 has an impact.
21 Q. And now in this part of your Rule 92 ter transcript, you also
22 mention the HVT 1 device that operated between 400 and 500 megahertz but
23 it's a little unclear as to this device whether in fact your unit had the
24 ability to intercept this device or not.
25 A. I already answered saying that our unit could not follow the SMC,
1 HVT 1, and FM 200, so frequency modulation, which is also used for radio
2 relay communication.
3 Q. Thank you. I'd like to take the last two one by one. With
4 respect to the HVT 1, was this also a device manufactured in the
5 Ljubljana Iskra factory with a maximum range of 50 kilometres?
6 A. I didn't read about its specifications, but as far as I recall,
7 it is so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you are talking about factory
9 specifications. You earlier explained to us that the range in kilometres
10 given by the factory would be a guaranteed range but that it may well go
11 beyond that depending on all the circumstances you mentioned, including
12 atmospheric circumstances.
13 Where you answered the question about the maximum range, did
14 you -- where you said you did not know, would you consider such a factory
15 specification in similar terms as you explained to us before as to
16 whether it really was limited to a given range or whether it could go
17 beyond or perhaps under circumstances stay below that distance?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you, Mr. President.
19 These are the technical specifications of a device. When a factory
20 produces a device, they say you can establish communication up to
21 80 kilometres. If you place two stations within that range, they
22 guarantee that the device will work properly, which in our parlance
23 means, although it is not guaranteed by the factory, that their device
24 can reach up to 100 or 120 kilometres if there are no significant
25 features in the way such as mountains.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Maximum range means maximum guaranteed range by the
2 factory. Is that understood?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. And as for these guaranteed ranges, according to the
7 specifications of the factory, that would be for a brand new device
8 capable of powering up to 100 per cent. Is that accurate?
9 A. Again, this question is something to ponder, but a new device
10 with good characteristics and all the necessary checks should, with
11 maximum power, establish communication without any problems at the
12 specified range, which doesn't mean that it could not reach such
13 communication with less capacity.
14 Q. And if we could focus on the RRU 800 for a moment. That device
15 was new in the 1950s and 1960s, and in 1995 was already considered an
16 old-fashioned device. Is that accurate?
17 A. Well, for Europe it was old fashioned. If you take into account
18 that it worked, say, four [as interpreted] hours a day for over 40 years,
19 one could definitely not say that it is at its best any longer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask there one question. The device was new
21 in the 1950s and 1960s. Does that mean that they were not produced at
22 any later point in time, or were they still produced but were they old
23 fashioned as far as the technology was concerned?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our view and to my knowledge,
25 that device was produced at the time specified, and later they may have
1 been still produced but to a less -- lesser degree, because the system
2 had to be changed at all mountain tops of Yugoslavia if you wanted a
3 completely new system. That is why this system lived such a long time.
4 It's a costly enterprise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Thank you. And one clarification. It's entered into the
8 transcript, sir, that these devices would be working four hours a day.
9 Did you say four hours or 24 hours a day?
10 A. Twenty-four hours a day.
11 Q. Thank you, sir. Would you agree that the RRU 800 in 1995 that
12 worked out of a double exploitation period and had a maximum outgoing
13 strength that was about 70 per cent of the original value?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
15 MS. LEE: If this is a statement of fact, if that could be put to
16 the witness. I'm not -- I'm wondering how this witness could answer that
18 MR. IVETIC: Since he testified to it in other trials.
19 MS. LEE: Then can that portion be put to him or read to him?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not see why the witness couldn't answer
21 the question. The witness is asked whether he agrees that the RRU 800 in
22 1995, that -- and that's the assumption, not yet been established,
23 although almost confirmed by the witness, that worked out of a double
24 exploitation period, there Mr. Ivetic apparently referred to the 40 or 50
25 years, and he apparently has in his mind that the exploitation period was
1 approximately half of that, that as a result the maximum outgoing
2 strength was about 70 per cent of the original value.
3 Ms. Lee, I do agree with you that Mr. Ivetic includes in his
4 question a series of assumptions, but at the same time, having listened
5 to the evidence of this witness, there is at least some basis for such
7 Now, I have rephrased the question for you, Witness. Could you
8 tell us on the basis of all the assumptions included in this question
9 whether you would agree that the strength of the original value had been
10 reduced to 70 per cent -- about 70 per cent?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: There may be -- may be an interpretation problem
12 here. As I read the question as formulated by Mr. Ivetic, it doesn't
13 seem complete because of the conjunction "and," and this thing is
14 supposed to have -- be an RRU 800 in 1995 and worked out of double
15 exploitation and had maximum outgoing strength of 70 per cent value, so
16 what is the question after that? These are all -- these are all
17 assumptions. The question has not been put yet.
18 JUDGE ORIE: These are all assumptions.
19 Mr. Ivetic, the way in which I rephrased the question, did that
20 reflect what you had on your mind --
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- but what you did not say.
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it more eloquently stated the point.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, more precisely I would say. Eloquence is not
25 my strongest.
1 Witness, have you followed the way in which I rephrased the
2 question, and would you agree then that after 40 to 50 years that it
3 would be 70 per cent which remains as, if I could say so, the power or
4 the strength? I think strength was the word used.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I recall the
6 question being put in the Popovic case when Defence claimed that the
7 devices were so old that they were only at half strength, and I said that
8 in our view if the devices were used for 40 years that their strength was
9 down to between 70 -- was down by 70 to 80 per cent, meaning that only 30
10 to 40 per cent were left, which is impossible. That was the question put
11 in that case.
12 I still believe that two persons, one aged 20 and another aged
13 60, could not produce the same results.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's a mysterious answer for me. Do you mean that
15 if something is older that does not necessarily mean that the capacity,
16 even if it's worn out quite a bit, that the capacity does not have
17 necessarily to have been substantially reduced?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in any case or every case, but
19 in most cases we have to agree. I'm not the same person I was 30 years
20 ago. Defence claimed that all of the devices we monitored worked in the
21 middle of the war with a reduced strength, which is absurd.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask you is it the kind of discussion
23 if whether you drive an old car whether it loses maximum velocity,
24 maximum speed. It may do a bit, a car which was produced for driving 150
25 kilometres might end up after 20 years in driving 140 kilometres or 130,
1 but not necessarily much further down. Is that the kind of thought that
2 is behind your mysterious answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. Wear and tear.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Yes. I'd like to ask the mysterious answer be clarified. Sir,
8 you said at temporary transcript page 43, lines 11 through 12:
9 "And I said that in our view if the devices were used for 40
10 years, that their strength was down to between 70 -- was down by 70 to 80
11 per cent."
12 Could you please explain that answer in terms of -- first of all,
13 when you say "in our view," are you referring to the unit of the ABiH
14 that you participated in?
15 A. Yes. The officers and the people we discussed here, they were
16 probably people who were more familiar with the devices themselves. If
17 something has been working for 40 years nonstop, of course it's a degree
18 of exploitation, its strength is different, and no one can claim
19 otherwise. From the Popovic context, when we discussed about it, I
20 remember they said that all of the devices worked at only half strength
21 which is absurd. This is what I meant. If --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly repeat the end of his
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part of your
25 answer. You said this is what I meant, and then you started another
1 sentence. Could you repeat that.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that from the context
3 concerning the people we talked about -- talked with when discussing the
4 manuals, it was concluded that a device working for 40 years has a
5 difference in power and strength and that its strength is no longer the
6 same. The other side claimed that all of those devices in 1995 worked at
7 half strength. So if it used its exploitation strength in the height of
8 the war when you depend on your communications, if they indeed worked at
9 only half strength, then it would have struck me as illogical from a
10 military standpoint. It would mean that they worked at one-third of
11 their strength, and which would mean that we couldn't even monitor such
12 devices because they could only transmit at very low strength.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that what you're saying is
14 that if the strength was so drastically reduced, it could not serve its
15 purpose as communication channels any further because it couldn't bridge
16 the distances?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm only repeating the claims made
18 by the Defence when we discussed this issue. They claimed that these
19 already old devices, 40-year-old devices, were working at only half
20 strength, meaning with a loss of 50 per cent of their original capacity.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Making them unfit to perform what they were supposed
22 to perform. Is that what I understand would be the result of such a
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. Precisely,
25 Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. Before we
2 take a -- yes. Judge Moloto has one question.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one question. Now, because I didn't -- your
4 answers were not very clear to me, and apparently they were described as
5 mysterious, I just want to ask you: You say the opposite side in the
6 Popovic case claimed that [indiscernible] equipment worked at 50 per cent
7 strength. In your view, at what strength did they work?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our opinion, it was working with
9 a 70, 80 of -- per cent of its original capacity, as new.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we first move into closed session, and resume
12 after the break in closed session so as to allow the witness to leave and
13 enter the courtroom.
14 [Closed session]
11 Page 13499-13501 redacted. Closed session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, sir, so that we can explain to persons who may not have
10 experience with military-grade or professional-grade radio equipment, am
11 I correct that for such equipment there is more than merely a power
12 on-off switch, but there is also a power modulation knob that allows you
13 to adjust the power setting for that particular radio transmitter?
14 A. If you mean professional military equipment, yes.
15 Q. And in respect specifically to the RRU 800 professional military
16 equipment, that device has or had a power variable knob allowing the
17 operator to decrease the power output to that machine to something less
18 than 100 per cent of its capacity; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that in the JNA radio operators
21 were trained and, in fact, it was part of an obligatory
22 counter-electronic protection method of the JNA that when operating a RRU
23 800 over ranges shorter than its guaranteed maximum, the power settings
24 would be reduced so as to limit the opportunity for opposing forces to
25 intercept those communications?
1 A. In principle, yes.
2 Q. And would you also agree with me that in terms of covering the
3 shorter relay radio sections such as Vlasenica installation to Veliki Zep
4 of approximately 15 kilometres, Zvornik installation to Crni Vrh
5 installation approximately 10.5 kilometres, and Cer location to Crni Vrh
6 installation of 28.2 kilometres, RRU 800 devices would only need to
7 operate at approximately 50 per cent of their maximum power to accomplish
8 covering those short distances?
9 A. I would agree with you in one part but not in another. I don't
10 know with what strength they were working. All I know is that we were
11 listening to them. Whether they used 50, 70, or 100 per cent of their
12 capacity, I don't know, but we listened to them, and all that we heard is
14 Q. Do you agree with me about the technical capabilities and the
15 method trained by the JNA for the use of the device that to cover those
16 shorter ranges the operator would reduce the power output and that would
17 be sufficient to cover those shorter ranges?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the witness has answered this question
19 by, in principle, yes, and then he explains that he didn't know what was
20 done and that, of course, that keeps you apart. The witness thinking in
21 terms of what he knows rather than in theory, and he explained that what
22 was the case he doesn't know, he only knows that that was listened. But
23 I think he already agreed that this was part of the training, that this
24 was the principle, the theory. So therefore -- and I see the witness is
25 nodding yes, so apparently he agrees with that.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: He confirms it by saying, "Yes, yes." So the
3 witness has answered at that question.
4 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
5 Q. You -- we sort of went off track to talk to the specifics of the
6 RRU 800. We left off also talking about one more advice -- device which
7 you had identified which was the FM 200, which your unit could not
8 intercept, and just to make sure we're talking about the same device and
9 understand each other, is the FM 200 the device that was obtained by the
10 JNA in 1975 to begin replacing the RRU 800 produced by the west German
11 firm of Siemens and Telefunken? Let's start with that as the first
13 A. I cannot give you a precise answer. I can only suppose. You
14 should ask someone from the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia. I
15 know that a replacement should have been done. Whether it was at that
16 stage FM 200 or some other device, it's a frequency modulated signal,
17 whereas the RRU was analogue. That's why we were able to listen to it.
18 RRU had a modulated signal, and we didn't have the equipment to monitor
20 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, interpreter's correction: FM had a
21 modulated signal and that's why we didn't have the equipment to monitor
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. Thank you, sir. And the FM 200 also required optical and radio
25 visibility and had a factory -- factory guaranteed range of 50
2 A. I really wouldn't like to go into detailed technical
3 specifications. You can find that on the internet. But all radio relay
4 devices require optical visibility.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, if we could briefly go into private session I
6 have some questions that relate specifically to the locations of the
8 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
9 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 As a general guidance to the parties, if we're talking about
12 distances, take a map and a cup of tea and a cup of coffee and establish
13 what the distances are. Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Now I wish to focus on the equipment or actually -- pardon me,
16 the antenna that were at the various listening posts that were used by
17 the ABiH both the northern and the southern positions, and I'd like to do
18 the southern position first. Am I correct that this location had four
19 monitoring posts that used the following devices: First, two ICR 100
20 attached to a logoperiodic antenna; one ICR 100 attached to a parabolic
21 antenna; and one AR 3000A attached to a parabolic antenna?
22 A. Approximately. That was approximately what was needed to cover
23 the equipment we had. I cannot remember every specific unit now.
24 MR. IVETIC: Well, if we could be perhaps fair to the witness,
25 I'd like to not broadcast but call up in e-court 1D1081.
1 Q. And, sir, as I ask you these questions, I can -- I can refer you
2 to this document that is dated the 15th of February, 1995, and I believe
3 that you are familiar with the document.
4 MR. IVETIC: And we -- I think we only have this one in B/C/S so
5 perhaps -- oh, we do have the translation. I apologise. But we may need
6 to go to the last page to allow the witness to identify why he might
7 recognise this --
8 Q. Well, actually, do you recognise this document, sir? The sender
9 and the recipients are the same.
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 Q. And if we go back to the first page. Here it is recorded, sir,
12 that the unit in question had -- that both parabolic antenna had an SO 42
13 converter attached to them, and I want to ask you in respect to the SO 42
14 converter, is it correct that such a converter is not generally needed
15 nor used for frequencies ranges below 1 gigahertz?
16 A. I would not agree with you. These converters that we had were
17 mainly handmade, and they were used -- it's a bit technically difficult
18 to explain. Our equipment was not professional. First of all, we had to
19 raise frequency to 16.000 megahertz, I believe, to use as a 0 baseline.
20 So it's not the same baseline for our devices and military devices. We
21 had to raise the signal. These are all makeshift converters.
22 Q. So when this document says that the SO 42 converters were
23 attached, it is not, in fact, what is in the industry generally
24 acknowledged as an SO 42 converter. Is that your testimony?
25 A. Roughly speaking, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you put the question to the witness.
2 Could you explain to this Chamber exactly what it is that you asked? So
3 the witness apparently understood it, but for the Chamber, you are
4 referring to a certain -- you said the SO 42 converters were attached but
5 they were not, in fact, what in the industry generally acknowledge as an
6 SO 42 converter. Could you tell us what is in the industry is generally
7 acknowledged as an SO 42 converter and what does that mean?
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, an SO 42 converter is an addition or
9 an add-on to an existing antenna array that allows you to convert signals
10 that are in excess of 1 gigahertz so that you can listen to them on
11 devices that do not go in that range.
12 Now, the Defence position, Your Honours, is that since all the
13 devices that we've talked about that were used by the JNA, that were used
14 by the VRS, are all under 1 gigahertz, that the addition of this
15 converter was not anything that would assist these antenna to intercept
16 these devices and these signals.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore we should ask the witness first
18 of all whether he agrees with you that what is generally acknowledged as
19 an SO 42 converter is that that applies only or exclusively to add-ons
20 which allow to convert signals that are in excess of 1 gigahertz. So you
21 can listen them on devices that do not go to that range. Is that your
22 understanding of what an SO 42 converter is as explained by Mr. Ivetic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's a bit
24 complicated to explain these technical things. This converter was not
25 exactly outside by the antenna. These converters were behind the device
1 and the preamplifiers. The preamplifiers were used to increase the
2 signal, and the converters were used to adapt to the frequency. They
3 were not -- because our devices were not calibrated the same as military
4 equipment. I don't know how else to explain it, although I know the
6 JUDGE ORIE: I appreciate your explanation, but my question was
7 the way -- because this Chamber, of course, is not familiar with SO 42
8 converters as they are produced in the normal industry, whether you
9 agreed with Mr. Ivetic that you were talking about the same as he was
10 talking about, and that's the reason why I asked him to explain what he
11 understood to be an industrial, not your ones but the industrial SO 42
12 converters, being add-ons which are used if the frequency is above 1
13 megahertz I think it was -- gigahertz, and to reduce that. Is that
14 usually the -- what you understand industrially as an SO 42 converter?
15 Again, not your ones, but as produced normally. Is that an accurate
16 description of what an SO 42 converter is, the description given by
17 Mr. Ivetic?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think he found this information
19 from legitimate sources, some authorities, so to that extent I would
20 agree, but in this case the function the converter is different.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But that is the general understanding of what an
22 SO 42 converter is, the way in which Mr. Ivetic explain that. Again, not
23 yours, but in general.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 Mr. Ivetic, for the Chamber to understand the technicalities, and
2 we try hard, it's good to -- to use such terms that are understandable
3 and not only code-names. What an industrial SO 42 converter is may be a
4 shared secret between you and the witness, but if you want the Chamber to
5 pay attention to it, just try to translate it in ordinary terms.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try. And of course,
7 I'm trying to be as precise as possible so that the witness has the
8 ability to answer and then provide the clarification.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. Sir, now, the AR 3000A which is attached to the parabolic antenna
12 at this location, first of all we're talking about one of the receivers,
13 one of the radios that operators would be listening on; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And am I correct that it is used for canvassing the UVF range 70
16 centimetre bandwidth?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And does this radio listening device also have a modem attached
19 that would allow it to cover teleprinter traffic if such traffic were
20 being transmitted?
21 A. I think that this technical option exists, and it says here we
22 had one device, M 8000, a device that was able to capture teleprinter
23 traffic, but only if the operators make a mistake and send an open
24 telegram. If they were transmitting encrypted telegrams, we would not be
25 able to capture it.
1 Q. Thank you. That's -- that's correct. And now what I want to ask
2 you is in terms of a factual question, did either of your stations in the
3 course of 1995, July 1995, actually intercept any unencoded teleprinter
4 traffic transmitted by the VRS?
5 A. I really cannot remember whether it was intercepted in this
6 period, but I know we had a few cases when we intercepted open text
7 telegrams. They should have been encoded, but they were transmitted in
8 open text by mistake, and I believe in one case it was a report from one
9 of the Doboj brigades, and in another case -- and I'm not saying it's the
10 same period from the radio station at Kozara when they were sending a
11 report to Belgrade. That's what I know.
12 Q. And on those occasions, and again I'm not going to hold you that
13 these were the only two, but on those occasions when it was a telex that
14 was intercepted, would the report that was generated identify this
15 differently as being a telex rather than an audio conversation that was
16 being intercepted?
17 A. I don't know if you're going to understand me, but this was
18 written information. It was not talk. It was written, encoded at
19 teleprinter, and transmitted through the communication system.
20 Q. Yes, I do understand you and that's exactly what I was asking.
21 Thank you, sir.
22 MR. IVETIC: Now, if we can call up in e-court, and this can be
23 broadcast, 65 ter number 05293.
24 Q. Sir, this will be a photograph from one of the locations, and I'd
25 like to ask if you could identify which specific parabolic antenna we're
1 looking at. I believe, but I could be wrong, that this would be the one
2 that was attached to the AR 3000A, that is to say, that was at the
3 southern location, but I defer to you.
4 A. You're right. You see the pine trees around. It is a handmade
5 parabolic device as far as I can see, and it is the one on the southern
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender this as the next
8 available exhibit, an open exhibit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05293 receives number D308, Your
12 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. IVETIC: If we could now have document number 05294 up in
14 e-court. And again, it can be broadcast.
15 Q. Sir, we're going to see another picture which I also believe to
16 be from the southern location, and I believe is this -- and focusing on
17 the one that is the green pipe with the flat back to it and cables coming
18 out of the back, can you tell us what type of antenna this was and if it
19 indeed it is one of the ones at the southern location?
20 A. I can only suppose that this is in the northern -- in the
21 southern location. It is a makeshift helicoidal antenna. The base is a
22 piece of tin with a tube, 100 millimetres, and copper wiring. So this is
23 a handmade antenna.
24 MR. IVETIC: And if perhaps -- perhaps to short-circuit and make
25 it easier, if we could have 05295 brought up alongside this photograph,
1 then I would have some questions about these.
2 Q. And, sir, I believe now what would be shown is a different view,
3 that is to say a view of the -- of the other antenna that's on the left.
4 MR. IVETIC: Do we have 05295? Yeah. There we go. Nope. Well,
5 that's -- yeah, that's fine. That's fine.
6 Q. Is -- if we could just -- are both of these antennas, sir,
7 helicoidal type antennas that were used by the unit in question?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And are both of these makeshift or homemade?
10 A. They should be. I can't see. For a while we put the wiring
11 inside -- outside, and later on they were placed elsewhere for ease of
12 manufacture, but I think both are homemade.
13 Q. And from the -- from the documentation we just looked at from
14 February of 1995, only two devices were hooked up to logoperiodic or
15 helicoidal antenna, and only one of those had a recorder attached to it.
16 Is that accurate, sir?
17 A. It depended on the number of functioning reel-to-reel devices. I
18 can't say precisely. At the work station, there should have been two,
19 but I don't know whether both were operational at the time.
20 Q. Let me clarify it. In the southern location, am I correct that
21 at one point in time one of discs on the reel-to-reel UHER 4000 device
22 malfunctioned leading that device to become inoperable?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Lee.
24 MS. LEE: Yes. If this is a fact that he's putting to a witness,
25 I think the source of that information or document should be shown to the
1 witness in fairness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, not necessarily always. But first of all,
3 it's a composite question. Could you split it up, Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I could try.
5 Q. Sir, first of all, am I correct that the UHER 4000 is the
6 reel-to-reel recording device that was used at both facilities or one of
7 the types of recording devices that was used at both facilities?
8 A. The UHER were the reel-to-reel recorders that we used the most,
9 in particular the UHER 4000.
10 Q. Do you recall, sir, that the southern location at some point in
11 time had one of the discs damaged on one of the UHER 4000s such that it
12 could no longer be used?
13 A. I can only say that while I was there at both facilities
14 malfunctions were frequent. It is normal and it didn't include only one
15 recorder. There was one mechanic going round fixing things nonstop. I
16 don't know whether it was, as you put it, at that particular moment.
17 Q. And so when --
18 JUDGE ORIE: In the question the reference to the disc, I think
19 it was, Mr. Ivetic, could you -- one of the discs damaged. We have discs
20 in two entirely different connotations here. The one is the parabolic
21 discs, the other one is the discs within electronic devices. It's
22 unclear to me what you refer to, what disc would have been damaged.
23 MR. IVETIC: I'm not talking about the antenna. I'm talking
24 about the recorder device, the UHER 4000 that would have been the
25 reel-to-reel magnetic recording device that would record on magnetic tape
1 and that disc being one of the spindles that would spin the reel-to-reel
2 tapes was damaged rendering that device no longer functioning.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So it's mechanical.
4 MR. IVETIC: Mechanical.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: And just to be fair to the witness.
7 Q. You followed what I said. Is that how you understood my question
8 to be?
9 A. Yes, I understand it that way.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber also has to understand not only the
11 questions but also the answers. Please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some sort of rollers. That's what
13 I would call them.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A disc maybe, but let's say apparently the
15 system that makes it run. That's -- please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
17 Q. Now, you say that these are -- or you believe that both are
18 makeshift or homemade devices. Can you confirm for me, sir, that in fact
19 the homemade helicoidal antenna that were used at the facility were
20 fabricated out of refuse traffic signs and a refuse sewage pipe?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge, Witness, about the
22 materials from which it was produced?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll be brief. Since we did not
24 have the necessary material at the base that the tube is mounted on,
25 well, that usually came from traffic signs along the road. We would cut
1 them down to the right size and mount a plastic sewage pipe 10
2 centimetres in diameter. Depending on the resonance we wanted to achieve
3 to be equivalent to the frequency we wanted to monitor, we had to match
4 our antenna and the antenna of the VRS, and it depended on whether we
5 wanted 750 megahertz, 850, or 650. We also used coils around the tube
6 made of copper. So we would make a calculation of the number of coils
7 necessary in order to pre-amplify the antenna which could pick up quality
8 communication by the VRS.
9 On this photograph you see a plain TV antenna that would be used
10 very well to monitor RRU 1 frequencies on the left-hand side picture.
11 Anyone can try that for themselves, and that is so. There's a number of
12 TV channels that are transmitted at the same frequency.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Ivetic was mainly focusing on the
14 traffic signs and the sewage pipe. Next question, please, Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: If I could tender this -- these -- what's on the
16 screen. Is it possible to tender this as one exhibit now, these two
17 pictures perhaps?
18 JUDGE ORIE: It may have been -- it may have to be uploaded
19 together. So it should then be re-uploaded, the two pictures together
20 under one number.
21 MR. IVETIC: Or it might be just easier then to do the two as
22 separate exhibits.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the first number would be?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05294 receives number D309, and document
25 25295 receives number D310, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: D309 and D310 are admitted into evidence.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. And --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should have been clearer. It's D309 and
5 D310 are admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
8 Q. Sir, in answering the Judge's question you indicated that these
9 devices would be cut down and fabricated according to the specific
10 resonance, that is to say the specific frequency that you were trying to
11 intercept. Can we take from that, sir, then, that these antenna would
12 not be capable or suitable for intercepting frequencies above or below
13 that specific frequency that it was manufactured to collect?
14 A. According to our calculations, yes. They were made to cover the
15 entire range we monitored more or less.
16 Q. One more from this set, I think. Number 5296. I think this is
17 the one I was looking for earlier.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first seek to clarify the previous answer,
19 because there seems to be a bit of a -- you said according to your
20 calculations yes. Now, the question had been whether these antenna would
21 be capable or suitable for intercepting frequencies above or below --
22 below that specific frequency. Do I understand that you designed it for
23 a certain range of frequencies and that therefore it could not intercept
24 anything outside that range? Is that --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you understood it
1 excellently. They could pick up certain signals below or higher than the
2 frequency but not in quality terms. They were only foreseen to capture
3 the signal within the range we wanted to listen in on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I sought this clarification because you
5 were talking about a specific frequency, whereas the witness was talking
6 about the frequency range. That is what caused me to seek this
7 clarification. Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
9 Q. If you recall, sir, what specific frequency range were these
10 makeshift antenna calibrated to receive?
11 A. I can't be precise, but they were made to monitor the range of
12 frequencies used for the communication we monitored.
13 Q. If we could call up and we can broadcast number 5296. As I was
14 saying, I think this is the picture that I wanted earlier that shows a
15 better close-up of the one antenna which I think would -- you'll confirm
16 is precisely the type that you were talking about with the traffic sign
17 attached to a plastic sewage pipe.
18 Sir, does this -- can you confirm that this was one of the
19 makeshift antennas that you were referring to previously that was made
20 from traffic signs that would have been cut down to a particular size?
21 A. It is one of the antennae.
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if we could tender this as the next
23 exhibit, public exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05296 receives number D311, Your
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 Mr. Ivetic, perhaps you could explain sooner or later why this
4 one gives information more than the ones we had already.
5 MR. IVETIC: The stop sign [Overlapping speakers] on the back.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, the stop sign. Yes, yes. Yes, I think the
7 witness confirmed that already.
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore to see it perhaps the next one for the
10 one-way traffic sign --
11 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
13 MR. IVETIC: This is just a close-up of the one that was visible
14 in the first image that we looked at on the left-hand side. Partly
15 visible. And I wanted to -- that's where I originally was going and the
16 other picture kind of fell in the middle.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed and keep in mind what we need to
18 understand the testimony and what doesn't add that much to what we know
20 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
21 Q. Sir, I'd like to look at a document, and this one we should not
22 broadcast, 1D1082. And I think this one -- I think this one we only have
23 a B/C/S. So if we can have it zoomed so the witness can view it
24 normally. I believe you'll recognise this document as being from the
25 24th of February, 1995, in relation to the other northern station of the
1 unit. Is that correct, sir?
2 A. It is a document from that unit, but I think as far as I can see,
3 it comes from a facility in the north. This document and the previous
4 one were the result of certain measures we undertook. They had to send a
5 report like this every evening as to the situation with their equipment.
6 Q. And according to this report, of the three monitoring positions,
7 they all used the same amplifier; is that correct?
8 A. They were all handmade amplifiers.
9 Q. But if they're all using the same amplifier, then the settings
10 can only be manipulated once to either amplify or reduce the modulation.
11 Is that correct, sir?
12 A. An amplifier may look the same from the outside, but there's a
13 two-way, three-way, four-way amplifier, which means the multiplication of
14 strength. The amplifier has no function in terms of modulation. It only
15 amplifies the signal.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. And we see here that the antennae in question --
17 pardon me, the devices in question had 150 and -- 150/18 megahertz
18 converters located on them, and could you explain for us what was the
19 purpose of these converters given the frequencies you were looking at
20 were in the range of 235 to 270 megahertz and 620 to 960 megahertz?
21 A. I tried to explain a moment ago. It says converter, and that's
22 its function. They raised the signal to 18 megahertz and then it would
23 be converted to hearing frequencies, meaning down to 150. That's why we
24 used the converters since we did not have professional military
1 Q. Thank you. And from this document we see that -- that two of the
2 devices use the same UHER 2000 recorder. Am I correct they both use the
3 same one recorder?
4 A. If it's what's in the document, then it is so. It was in
5 February 1995. Malfunctions occurred more frequently during the winter
6 because of great cold and the balancing of voltage and because of such
7 changes malfunctions occurred regularly, as I've explained.
8 Q. Are you familiar from your days in the JNA --
9 MR. IVETIC: We can get rid of this document. I don't need it
10 any more.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask one question?
12 MR. IVETIC: Sure, go ahead.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you said the converter raised a signal to
14 18 megahertz and then it would use -- then it would be converted to
15 hearing frequencies, meaning down to 150. What exactly does this 150
16 stand for in terms of hearing frequencies? One hundred and fifty is, I
17 take it, within the range of what you can hear.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kilohertz. Kilohertz.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you say that is within the range what a
20 human being can hear.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. Sir, in your days with the JNA are you familiar with the
25 technique taught and utilised and referred to as operational masking?
1 A. That method is used to everyone, even to those who are not
2 signalsmen. Signalsmen, however, have to be trained, at least to some
3 extent in that regard.
4 Q. And in relation to this method or technique that was used by
5 everyone, including signalsmen, am I correct that for radio
6 communications it meant that persons would oftentimes send false
7 information with the aim of causing misinformation upon the enemy forces
8 or perhaps fear among the enemy forces that would be intercepting those
10 A. It is all possible.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, I want to cover a few more areas with you,
12 and first of all I want to put it to you that some people say that your
13 two stations operating the equipment that we have gone through could not
14 have intercepted all of the intercepts that you claim to have intercepted
15 but, rather, that they were given to you by some other entity, whether an
16 intelligence service of foreign countries, NATO, UNPROFOR, or somebody
17 else. Can you tell us, is there any truth to that?
18 A. People would say all sorts of things. They said we couldn't, and
19 it was proven we could. In order to prove something, one needs to carry
20 out an experiment. Back in 1998 when people came, I offered to conduct
21 an experiment so that they could hear it for themselves. No one from
22 anywhere -- no one ever gave us any kind of papers or documents ever. If
23 you look at the documents, you can see for a while that there was only
24 one channel that was followed from one device and it happened from time
25 to time, but it is not difficult to ascertain or verify.
1 Q. Now, in relation to your unit, did -- did the unit or the
2 revamped unit that became a different designation after 1995, did either
3 of those have contacts with any NATO countries' intelligence organs
4 during the time time-period 1995 until the notebooks were turned over to
5 the Prosecutor of the Tribunal in 1998/2000?
6 A. I responsibly claim that the unit, while I was in command, had no
7 contact with any troops or UNPROFOR forces except that on occasion
8 UNPROFOR forces came to check the armaments at the facilities in
9 intervals of between three and five months. It depended.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. We're close
12 to the point where we should take a break.
13 MR. IVETIC: We should then, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then before we do so, I have one final
15 question for you. You earlier explained to me that 150 stood for 150
16 kilohertz, which was within the range of the human ear. Now, thinking
17 back to my own secondary school time, but I don't know whether my
18 recollection is right, I seem to remember that I learned that the range
19 of the human ear is between 20 hertz and 20.000 hertz, that is, 20
20 kilohertz, which makes it difficult for me to understand, if I'm not
21 mistaken, how 150 kilohertz would be within the range of the human ear.
22 You remember there was the conversion. It was 150-18 megahertz.
23 And you said the 150 stood for kilohertz within the human ear range.
24 Perhaps you could think about it during the break.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no need. It's not
1 specified exactly in the document, but I also recall that the human ear
2 ranges between certain figures in terms of kilohertz, although not every
3 ear has the same frequency. Some people react to one kilohertz, others
4 at 1.5. So that's the best range. I can't recall this precisely. Maybe
5 this was decomposing the channels. I don't know what the issue on hand
6 is, Mr. President. I may have been a bit hasty in my answer.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We turn into closed session, and then
8 the witness can leave the courtroom, and we stay in closed session as
9 well in order to allow him to re-enter the courtroom.
10 [Closed session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. Sir, I would like to now talk with you about some of the
25 transmittal frequencies. Am I correct that both in the handwritten
1 log-book entries and in the typed-up reports that would have been
2 generated later, for each intercept the frequency that was being listened
3 in on should have been recorded if the operatives were following standard
4 operating procedure?
5 A. Yes, you're right.
6 Q. And now bear with me if this seems too simple, but I want to make
7 it clear for everyone: The frequency that a transmission is sent out
8 from by the sender on the VRS side should correlate exactly to the same
9 frequency that the receiver is listening in on and thus receives the
10 message whether it's a VRS intended receiver or an army of BiH intercept
12 A. The frequency of transmission by the VRS is fixed, and that is
13 the carrying signal, the vehicle signal. I suppose I understand what you
14 want to ask me. Are there any discrepancy between the frequency as
15 written down in the in the Army of Republika Srpska relative to the
16 frequency on which we were listening. Is that what you mean?
17 Q. I would ask it this way: If one had the VRS tables or
18 information about the frequencies that were being used at the various
19 relay stations during the same time period, they should match up
20 identically to those that your unit in the army of BiH listened in and on
21 and recorded in our various reports and notebooks; isn't that correct?
22 A. Generally, yes.
23 Q. And can you confirm for me that the two posts of the -- the two
24 posts, the northern and the southern position that we've been talking
25 about, that they very rarely were able to intercept any communication
1 purporting to have General Mladic as a direct participant? Is that
3 A. From where I'm sitting, I can't say either yes or no, but from
4 what I remember, and please don't take it as a cut and dry fact, from
5 what I've read and what I think, General Mladic was on the line less
6 frequently than the other commanding officers.
7 Q. Do you know if in relation to the events in Srebrenica July 1995,
8 did your service intercept any intercepts dealing with General Mladic
10 A. I really don't know. It would be much easier if I had all these
11 reports before me to read through or leaf through. I could give you a
12 better answer.
13 Q. Well, let's -- let's talk about the notebooks. And to make sure
14 we're talking about the same notebooks, I'd like to call up number 4725
15 in e-court.
16 JUDGE ORIE: While waiting for that, could I ask one question,
17 Witness. You said that the person listening should listen to the same
18 frequency as the one sending. That's what you confirmed. Now, how
19 precise is that if someone is sending at, well, let's say at 96
20 megahertz, if I would tune in on 95.9 would I still hear some? Is it a
21 range or is it a clearcut figure?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the former. It's a range.
23 Like you are scanning for a station, you start hearing it with a little
24 bit of noise and interference until you adjust it to the exact right
25 frequency. It's like a motorway with many lanes. On some of them there
1 is traffic, on others there isn't. That's it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So the quality is best if the hear -- the person
3 intercepting or hearing and the person sending are exactly on the same
4 frequency, but outside that you could still catch whatever is said or
5 played within certain limits.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. And in terms of the bleed-over of the signal onto neighbouring
11 frequencies either above or below the transmittal frequency where there
12 would be some transmission with some static background noise or other
13 imperfections, can that be determined, that potential range that you're
14 talking about? Are we talking about several megahertz, several hundred
15 megahertz, 50 megahertz, a difference there can be? If you know. If you
16 can answer; if not, we can move on.
17 A. It's one thing to listen to a radio channel and quite another
18 thing to listen to a radio relay channel. For example, the radio relay
19 device RRU 1 has only one working channel, and it's enough to adjust the
20 frequency where it's clearest and then we can listen very well. The
21 radio relay device RRU 800 is of a different type. In the documents you
22 write the carrying channel. It has a certain range with a certain number
23 of channels below and other channels which have a jump of 100, 150
24 kilohertz. For instance, in some places you will see written on the map
25 785.000 kilohertz, and the working channel is 784.650. It's like a
1 motorway with eight lanes. In some lanes there are cars; in others there
2 aren't any. And the same in both directions. And we set up our devices
3 to jump the difference up and down by that width, depending on whether
4 they work with 12, 8, or 24 channels. So they -- they go across this
5 range and stop at the channel where they find traffic.
6 Q. Thank you. Now we have the picture in front of us, and we see
7 here I believe several of the intercept notebooks that would have been
8 generated by the units in question, and we see that on all of them they
9 appear to be notebooks of the type that children would have used in
10 school during the relevant time period, and there are some -- some
11 sequential numbers written upon these in black marker, and in respect to
12 these numbers that are written upon these notebooks in black marker, the
13 sequential numbers that we see here, 97, 98, 99, et cetera, am I correct
14 that as far as these black marker numbers are given -- are concerned,
15 these were not originally put on the books in 1995, but, rather, were
16 generated and placed on the book by members of the unit together with
17 members of the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal in 1998 when
18 these books were being handed over to the Tribunal. Am I right about
20 A. Yes. With all due respect, these large numbers are my handwork.
21 MR. IVETIC: If we could tender this document as the next
22 available public exhibit number.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04725 receives number D312, Your
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. And in this case, sir, for the sake of --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask for one clarification. You said the
5 large numbers, I take it the handwritten numbers, is your handwork. When
6 did you put those numbers on those notebooks?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We placed these numbers when we
8 were handing over these notebooks to the OTP. I believe in 1998.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 Q. And the sequence of numbers -- strike that. If a notebook were
13 to have disappeared or a new notebook were added to the collection at any
14 point in time from 1995 to 1998, we would not be able to know that
15 relying upon the sequential numbers written in black marker on the
16 covers. Is that accurate?
17 A. I've already said these numbers were written in 1998 when they
18 took them -- when we took them out of the safe book -- safe box to record
19 this documentation.
20 Q. And the question I have is what about the notebooks that were
21 only given to the Tribunal in 1999 and 2000? Were those numbers written
22 in 1998 or in 1999 and 2000?
23 A. I believe we always wrote it at that moment, because these are
24 simply ordinal numbers of the documents that were handed over. The
25 numbers were written at the moment when they were handed over.
1 MR. IVETIC: And if we can have number 4726 up in e-court, and
2 that -- to be on the safe side, perhaps we shouldn't broadcast that. I'm
3 not sure if there's any information about the entity or the location on
4 the cover page, so we should probably not broadcast.
5 Q. And, sir, now we have a close-up of books number 232 and 231 from
6 the set. 232 on the left I think we saw yesterday with the bumblebee on
7 the cover, and the other with the -- some sort of creature in overalls.
8 The writing that is written at the top of the one on the left and on the
9 top right on the one on the right, when would that have been input into
10 the notebooks?
11 A. These notes in the top corner, apart from the white one, were
12 written at the time when the notebook started to be used. So at the top
13 we see the type of device, the type of communication, the date. On the
14 left handbook we see when the note was started and when it was concluded.
15 So this was written in 1995 at the work station in one of the locations.
16 The same goes for the other one on the right. We see when it was
17 opened, 26 June, finished on 11 -- I can't see the rest. So that was
18 written in 1995.
19 Q. And would it have been standard procedure to mark as we see on
20 the left one it identifies the ICR 100 receiver with the TS 450. I
21 believe that would have been the -- either the converter or recording
22 device. I don't have the notes in front of me. And the RRU 800. Would
23 that have been standard procedure to mark what particular device was the
24 source for the particular notebook?
25 A. That should be the usual procedure. We always insisted on that.
1 However, people are human. They make mistakes. Somebody forgets to
2 write it down. But it's easy by looking at the frequency and the other
3 information we would know easily during the monitoring who wrote what.
4 Q. Well, if we look at the one on the right-hand side with the
5 dinosaur riding a bicycle, it only seems to list the number 3 and then a
6 RRU-8. Does that provide enough information for you to identify from
7 which particular monitoring post at either of the two locations this
8 particular notebook would have originated from?
9 A. Well, for us at that moment it was enough, because inside we had
10 entries specifying the signal, the operator, et cetera.
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender this as the next
12 exhibit, and I believe it could be a public exhibit number. I've looked
13 now at the two covers, and I don't believe there's any information that
14 identifies the source.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04726 receives number D313, Your
18 JUDGE ORIE: D313 is admitted into.
19 MR. IVETIC: One last picture of the notebooks I'd like to go
20 through is number 25534, and this is under seal, so please don't
21 broadcast the same.
22 Q. And, sir, I believe this is the notebook numbered 84 and appears
23 to have a bear or a raccoon, I can't tell, on the cover, and has here a
24 stamp from the manufacturer, that is to say, pre-existing on the cover of
25 this book of I GEN 2001. And this is something that you were asked about
1 during the Tolimir trial with the suggestion that this book dated from
2 2001, and you stated that you don't have any explanation or information
3 for this. Is that still -- is that right, first of all?
4 A. Well, somebody insisted that these were produced in 1991. We
5 filled them in in 1995 and handed them over in 1998, and this message
6 typed inside the notebook they said had nothing to do with the date of
7 when the notebook was generated.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask the witness. You said somebody
9 insisted that these were produced in and what year did you then mention?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They said the notebooks were
11 produced at a time based on this date here, in 2001. That's what they
12 insisted on in -- in a prior case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
14 Ms. Lee, this may deal with the matter you wanted to raise.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
17 Q. Now, sir, now I'd like to move ahead, and I hope we can get this
18 in in the time that we have left, but I have to ask you: Have you ever
19 accepted payment from the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal to
20 assist them to challenge and rebut Defence theories on the very same
21 technologies and intercepts that you have testified about this week?
22 A. I did receive something to cover regular expenses. Somebody, I
23 can't remember the name, made an analysis where he presented his theory
24 about the feasibility or unfeasibility of monitoring communications.
25 They called me up. I did not feel for a moment as any kind of assistant
1 or advisor. I was just asked to sit down with my colleagues, study it,
2 and provide our opinion. We did not get anything special. Just our
3 expenses were paid. It was not more than 1500 Deutschmark. Just my
4 expenses while I was here.
5 MR. IVETIC: If we could tender the document that is on the
6 screen now before moving onto the next document. I'd forgotten to do
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number for the present document
9 will be.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 25534 --
11 MR. IVETIC: Under seal.
12 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
13 Ms. Lee.
14 MS. LEE: Well, I have an objection with this document in the
15 manner in which it was portrayed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, how it was portrayed. Do you have any
17 objection against admission? The way in which --
18 MS. LEE: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- it is portrayed is --
20 MS. LEE: No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- how Mr. Ivetic presents it and the description
22 will be given by Madam Registrar in neutral terms.
23 MS. LEE: The --
24 JUDGE ORIE: And if there's any dispute about how it should be
25 portrayed, we can deal with that. The matter now is objections against
1 admission, yes or no.
2 MS. LEE: Well --
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to consult with Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. IVETIC: If I can assist, it's a document on their list, I
5 believe, and the description is one that they provided, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If it's inaccurate, it will being corrected anyhow.
7 MS. LEE: This is not on our exhibit list.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently it is.
9 MS. LEE: Apparently it is. I apologise.
10 MR. IVETIC: And it should be under seal. I apologise, I've
11 forgotten that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No objections --
13 MS. LEE: No objections. [Overlapping speakers].
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- I then take it, after these consultations.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 25534 receives number D314, Your
17 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted under seal.
18 Mr. Ivetic, we are at the point where we have to adjourn.
19 MR. IVETIC: Okay. We could take up then in the morning, I --
20 the question would take probably two minutes, three minutes, this
21 particular question with this document.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And would that be then your last question?
23 MR. IVETIC: No, it would not. I have one other area. Yeah.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear that question tomorrow.
25 May I take it that you'll finish in the first session tomorrow?
1 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely. It won't even take the full first
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you already tell us, Ms. Lee, how much time
6 you would need for in re-examination including all the megahertz and
8 MS. LEE: At this moment, I would like to say around 45 minutes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Around 45 minutes.
10 We'll adjourn for the day. Witness, I'd like to instruct you
11 that you should not speak or communicate in whatever way - being an
12 expert in communications, you certainly will understand what I mean - in
13 no way to communicate with whomever about your testimony, whether already
14 given or whether still to be given, and we'd like to see you back
15 tomorrow morning at 9.30, and we'll conclude your testimony tomorrow
17 We already formally adjourn in open session, and I inform
18 everyone that we'll resume tomorrow, Friday the 20th of June, in this
19 same Courtroom I at 9.30 in the morning, and we -- before really
20 adjourning we go into closed session so as to allow the witness to leave
21 the courtroom. We turn into closed session.
22 [Closed session]
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 28th day
3 of June, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.