1 Wednesday, 29 November 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
7 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, ma'am. All the accused are
9 here. Mr. Meek is absent as per agreement. So is Mr. Bourgon. The rest
10 of the Defence teams are here. The Prosecution teams, Mr. McCloskey,
11 Mr. Thayer, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 All right. Any problems with interpretation or with the monitors,
13 let us know, okay?
14 I think -- I see that the witness is not in the courtroom. Are
15 there preliminaries that you would -- yes, Ms. Condon?
16 MS. CONDON: Good morning, Your Honour, thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. All right. Yes, Ms. Condon.
18 MS. CONDON: Thank you, Your Honour. Can I first of all indicate
19 to the Court that the motion that I referred to yesterday evening has in
20 fact been filed this morning and a copy was -- a courtesy copy was
21 provided to the Court yesterday. So I apologise for that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for having provided our staff the
23 courtesy copy because it helped us prepare of course and enabled us to
24 come with a decision in due course this morning.
25 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, the ballpark has changed somewhat this
1 morning in terms of the witness Rutten is concerned from the Popovic
2 perspective. And that's because at 11.30 yesterday evening, we received a
3 note of a proofing session in which the witness first of all was obviously
4 shown the photo in question that is the subject of our motion, but also,
5 and I'm just reading from the proofing note directly; what it says
6 is: "When he was asked what he meant when he testified that the man
7 looked not like a plain soldier, he responded that the man clearly
8 appeared to be in command and have authority."
9 Now, in my submission, Your Honour, this is new evidence insofar
10 as the case against Mr. Popovic is concerned. It is -- puts an entirely
11 different taint on what otherwise would be an identification which was
12 still obviously of significance to our case but combined with this
13 assessment, as to a position of power, in my submission, that places us at
14 a severe disadvantage in terms of being able to deal with this witness in
15 any proper form, either today or tomorrow, and I've already foreshadowed
16 that we certainly weren't in a position to deal with him immediately for
18 The other aspect that in my submission it raises is that this is a
19 witness that surely should be examined in full rather than a 92 ter
20 witness which the Prosecution have made the application for him to be,
21 simply because this is evidence of sufficient significance insofar as our
22 case is concerned that it really doesn't warrant either procedure, 92 bis
23 or 92 ter. And I also would indicate, and this is a matter that was
24 raised in the motion generally, in my submission, Your Honour, it's simply
25 unacceptable that the Prosecution would provide this information to us at
1 11.30 prior to this witness giving evidence. That is contrary to any
2 principle of an accused having a fair trial, and I just have to register,
3 certainly, my objection, because it is just unacceptable. And I make this
4 submission that this is simply too important for this witness to proceed
5 today. They are my submissions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Ms. Condon.
7 Who's is going to respond to that? Mr. Thayer?
8 MR. THAYER: I will, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You can stay where you are. Unless there is an
10 objection, go ahead.
11 MR. THAYER: Is this all right?
12 JUDGE KWON: I'm fine with it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
14 MR. THAYER: Good morning, Your Honours. The proofing notes
15 absolutely were sent out at that hour. That is simply by virtue of the
16 fact that again this issue arose Sunday. The witness at issue is full
17 time military duty. He arrived in The Hague last evening at 8.30. I was
18 sitting with him by 9.00. By 10.00 we were done. By 10.30 I'd finish
19 escorting him to the hotel, and by 11.00 these proofing notes were
20 disclosed in considerable detail to Defence counsel. That was just the
21 hour that it got completed. It's an unfortunate consequence of the way
22 this issue unfolded.
23 Now, with respect to the nature of the evidence, Your Honours,
24 this is perfectly consistent with the role that is, is alleged that the
25 accused Popovic has played throughout the indictment and throughout the
1 pre-trial brief, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't specifically
2 mentioned as a particular act or conduct in either document.
3 It is the Prosecution's position that this is evidence that is
4 consistent with other evidence which the accused has been placed on notice
5 about. It is evidence that the Prosecution firmly believes can be
6 adequately prepared for in time with this witness's appearance here at
7 this time. This is -- this is not surprise evidence in the nature of the
8 evidence. Obviously the notice is an issue but I believe that we've cured
9 that. The proofing notes that I had to provide last night were a natural
10 consequence of having to sit down and show this witness the photograph, as
11 my learned colleague has acknowledged, and it does not provide anything
12 substantively different from the testimony that is already in the Krstic
13 transcript. I think the implication is clear when you read the transcript
14 when he says, "not a plain soldier," he's referring to somebody that
15 appears to be in command. I asked him that specific question so it was a
16 clarified issue and I put that in the proofing notes. There are other
17 material in the proofing notes - I won't burden the Court with the
18 details - but it's nothing that is substantially different from what's in
19 the Krstic testimony, what we have alleged his role to be throughout the
20 indictment and the pre-trial brief. I would also add that to this day
21 this witness doesn't know the name of the individual he identified in the
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Thayer. Incidentally, let's do
24 some lateral thinking about all this. Assuming for the time being, we
25 obviously haven't decided it as yet, but assuming that this witness will
1 be a ter -- 92 ter witness, how long do you anticipate the additional in
2 chief to last?
3 MR. THAYER: I think about 15 to 20 minutes, Your Honour. It's a
4 limited group of questions and frankly this photographic testimony will be
5 two or three questions, max, itself.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Again, assuming that everything will go
7 according to what would be scheduled, if all objections are turned down,
8 which they aren't at the moment, Popovic Defence team, how much time do
9 you reckon you would require with this witness?
10 MS. CONDON: Your Honour, that is a difficult --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I know.
12 MS. CONDON: -- question simply because there is the issue with
13 relation to the identification which would take a significant amount. I
14 would say two hours to two and a half hours.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Two hours.
16 Beara team?
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, we join obviously the motion by our
18 colleague, and on principle I would say no cross-examination because it
19 comes at such a late hour. However, if the Court and given the last few
20 weeks with the witnesses that you've given me some latitude on, at most it
21 would be 15 minutes. But I truly believe that the Prosecution is trying
22 to bring witnesses in at the late hour and they should have their
23 evidence. They should identify which witnesses are specifically against
24 which accused, as they have done in some instances, and I object to the
25 practice and it doesn't include me or involve me specifically or my
1 client; however, I think the practice is specifically what I'm objecting
2 to, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you. Nikolic Defence team?
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Defence
5 of Mr. Nikolic will take no more than 20 minutes; however, we do endorse
6 the submission of the Popovic Defence in the light of the submission of
7 the Nikolic Defence. This conversion of the witness statements really
8 does constitute admission of new evidence. Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic?
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. As for the cross-examination of Mr. Rutten
11 who is coming, I believe that we will have at least one and a half hours
12 for him and we would also like to back up Popovic Defence in their motion.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: And further there is another issue raised
15 yesterday by Mrs. Fauveau, and I believe that she will address the Trial
16 Chamber regarding this, another issue, and it has to do with the
17 disclosure of some documentation related to Rutten, to Mr. Rutten, which
18 is in Dutch and which we still haven't received any --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It was raised yesterday.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Okay.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: That is indeed a problem.
22 Madam Fauveau, first, how much time you require for
23 cross-examination, please?
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, 30 to 45 minutes. As
25 to the problem raised yesterday, I would like to say that all the Defence
1 teams have joined my application. I would also like to react to what the
2 Prosecutor said. He said that we could cross-examine as to certain topics
3 and that the witness could be brought back for further examination as to
4 items covered by this. But we don't know what is in the statement and if
5 we start cross-examining a witness today, to continue later on, that would
6 be a waste of time and I don't think it is very useful. Thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You also have been told by Mr. Thayer that it is
8 a -- practically repetition of what is contained in the other statement
9 but in any case, I haven't been able, like you to read it at all because
10 it's in Dutch.
11 Mr. Josse or Mr. Krgovic?
12 MR. JOSSE: Approximately 30 minutes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Haynes or Mr. Sarapa?
14 MR. HAYNES: 20 to 30 minutes and we stand foursquare with
15 Ms. Condon.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So we have five hours 30 minutes estimated cross
17 examination of this witness. Plus 30 minutes or 20 minutes. So actually
18 estimated six hours.
19 Now, we have three hours 30 minutes tomorrow, and we still have
20 this witness for another hour, hour and a half, at least. So that would
21 leave us with about two hours today. We can make it. We can make it.
22 Technically, because of course we have to discuss the issue raised by
23 Ms. Condon and also the issue raised by Madam Fauveau. We'll come to that
24 back to you, we'll come back to you on that later on after the first
1 Okay. Any further preliminaries?
2 I think we can bring the witness in, please.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-131 [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter].
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, sir, and welcome back.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to continue and finish with the
9 cross-examinations. So yesterday we had finished with the Nikolic team,
10 Defence team, examination. Now it's the Borovcanin turn, Borovcanin's
11 team's turn to cross-examine you. Mr. Lazarevic is lead council. Go
12 ahead Mr. Lazarevic. We are in open session. Any time we need to be in
13 private session, please let us know.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour, and I'll have it in
15 mind all the time.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Let us not repeat some of the mistakes that we committed
20 yesterday. Please make a pause after the -- I finish my question before
21 providing your answer so that everything goes into the transcript and the
22 transcript is clear and unambiguous.
23 During these proceedings, we've had occasion to see a number of
24 notebooks and intercepts, as we call them here, and we saw certain
25 markings of these notebooks, type 21, 22, 23 or 21/1, 2, et cetera. My
1 question would be: Were you the one who ascribed numbers to those
2 notebooks or was this done in the platoons?
3 A. I cannot really specify, but I believe that we took a
4 chronological order of numbers. At the time when we handed them over to
5 the ICTY, it was a strictly confidential notebook number 1, strictly
6 confidential notebook number 2, et cetera, et cetera, and this is how we
7 marked them.
8 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us that these markings were put before
9 handing them over to the ICTY or in the -- or in 1995? Did I understand
10 you correctly?
11 A. I believe that these markings were done in the period when we were
12 supposed to hand them over to the ICTY, if we are talking about the same
13 markings, the same numbers.
14 Q. I presume that this is the case. During your testimony, you
15 mentioned the term Paket service or Paket communication service. Do you
16 remember that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Since we are laymen, we do not understand this very much, could
19 you understand -- could you explain what this is?
20 A. From the north and south facility, we did not have the same
21 technical possibilities and capabilities in both cases. From the north,
22 we had a wired connection and radio communication. With the southern
23 facility, we had only Paket radio service, which means that the reports
24 that had been collated at such facilities were coded, packaged and sent
25 through the ether to the command post.
1 Q. Paket radio communication is a computer-protected information that
2 is sent over the radio waves. Would this be in laymen's terms what you
4 A. This is nothing laymen's about it. You put it very well.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 We have a piece of information examined by this Tribunal that
7 towards the end of 1993, such a Paket radio communication was established
8 between the 28th Brigade in Srebrenica and the command of the 2nd Corps in
9 Tuzla. Well, now, for me to provide the grounds for this question, I
10 presume that you know which the 28th Brigade is. It was in Srebrenica; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It was part of the 2nd Corps, which was headquartered in Tuzla and
14 which you were part of?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you given that you were in the 2nd company --
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Perhaps we should move into private session.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that.
19 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. We can now turn to a different topic. In response to the
14 questions put to you by John Ostojic yesterday about what you said in your
15 examination-in-chief, you said that in relation to certain persons, there
16 existed already dossiers in which you wrote some of their features, their
17 voices, and some of their personal features. Do you remember that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And I suppose that that was done on the basis of long term work
20 and a large number of intercepts, that that was used to compile a dossier,
22 A. Yes. That's correct. I came to this unit in February of 1995 and
23 there already existed a certain database for certain persons.
24 Q. The fact that many operations officers there heard the same voice
25 several times was also used as a basis for identifying the person whose
1 voice they heard, right?
2 A. No. Operations officers wrote down names and last names of
3 persons who either used a code name or directly identified themselves, and
4 you can see, if you go through the transcripts, wherever they were not
5 sure of the identity of the person, they would denote that person either
6 with an X or a Y.
7 Q. I'm interested in this: If an operator heard some voice for the
8 first time, a voice not heard before, could such an operator be able to
9 identify that person?
10 A. I personally don't think so, but he could always write that he
11 supposed that the identity was such and such.
12 Q. There are situations in which certain assumptions of operators
13 were recorded, as you said, but that does not necessarily imply that they
14 were correct?
15 A. Assumptions were confirmed at a higher level. They did not
16 necessarily need to be correct, but were taken at face value, so that was
17 one of the positions taken.
18 Q. When you said "at a higher level," what would that higher level
19 be? Could you be more specific?
20 A. I said yesterday that the data gathering is quite a broad process.
21 Intercepts are just one aspect of it. It was our duty to provide the data
22 that we possessed in that field, and then data were collected from other
23 fields as well. And all of that went to the intelligence department of
24 the command of the 2nd Corps.
25 Q. To simplify, so the higher level that you spoke of was the
1 intelligence organ of the 2nd Corps, correct?
2 A. Yes, in terms of my unit, that was the higher level.
3 Q. All right. Just a few more things to conclude: You served in the
4 JNA. You worked for many years on this type of work. Are you familiar
5 with the term "operations masking"?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You became familiar with it back when you were with the JNA,
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what that term denotes?
11 A. Simply speaking, it means that by pronouncing certain phrases and
12 using certain expressions, you are masking the situation on the ground in
13 order to mislead enemy units.
14 Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions for you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. It's Madam Fauveau now, who is defending
16 General Miletic, who will be cross-examining you. How much time do you
17 require, Madam Fauveau?
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'll try to finish by the break,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we move to private session,
23 Mr. President?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's do that.
25 [Private session]
11 PageS 4744-4745 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But what do you mean to say by if the document is
21 not shown to the witness? Because that's what I have in the transcript.
22 You mean to say if it is not broadcast, if it's shown to the witness only
23 but not outside this courtroom? All right. Okay. So we understood.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
25 Q. Sir, is it right to say that in paragraph 2, or, rather, tell us
1 first, do you recognise this document?
2 A. I think I do.
3 Q. Is this an order that you gave on the 22nd of June 1995?
4 A. Right now, I can't tell you exactly. As I told you, there were
5 many such orders. Based on what I can read here, I can conclude that this
6 is a squad or a section which was established pursuant to the order of the
7 command of the 2nd Corps and at that time they were attached and they
8 worked pursuant to the directives of the 2nd Corps command. If I remember
10 Q. Sir, isn't it an order that you gave to your unit that was
11 stationed in the south, according to which you asked them to follow --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Thayer?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, yeah.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I guess the nature of the objection is,
16 Mr. President, that if it is counsel's position that this is an order that
17 the witness gave and it's reflected in the document, perhaps the entire
18 document should be shown to the witness. Maybe there is a signature or
19 some other indication on it.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we go by your objection and I think
21 Madam Fauveau would concur with that, too. I think we need to show the
22 witness the entire document to give him the opportunity to be able to give
23 a more comprehensive answer or more reasoned answer.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I believe that we should show the
25 document on page 2.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we've seen enough. Madam Fauveau, you
2 may proceed with your question, either repeating it or whatever.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we go back to page 1,
4 paragraph 2, please?
5 Q. Sir, now that you've seen this document, can you tell us if, in
6 fact, this is an order pursuant to which an information was given to the
7 section that was in your southern area but also information -- in this
8 document, we saw that the order was given to jam enemy communications; is
9 that correct?
10 A. Actually, you're right. This is my order which was produced based
11 on the order that had arrived from the 2nd Corps. Initially I said that
12 we had some amplifiers that were not very powerful so jamming them did not
13 produce much effect, but the command of the 2nd Corps instructed us to do
14 that kind of work nevertheless.
15 Q. You're saying that this jamming did not really -- was not really
16 efficient but were they done? Did you actually carry out the jamming
18 A. We did do the jamming, but I personally do not think that they
19 produced much of an effect.
20 Q. Can you tell us if the people who were assigned to those
21 positions, to the -- who had the task to jam the communications between
22 people in the Republika Srpska, those same people, were they working in
23 the intercepting within the -- were they intercepting communications? And
24 the technique that was used to jam conversations, was that technique
25 different than the one used to intercept conversations?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You've told us on the 27th of November, page 24 of the transcript,
3 that your units were checking frequencies from 200 to 900 megahertz. Is
4 it possible to check frequencies that were above 900 megahertz?
5 A. No. By saying so, I mean that we transformed that information
6 into speech, into voice signal that can actually be listened to.
7 Q. What device were you using to convert high frequencies to audible
8 frequencies to the human ear?
9 A. I'll try to explain that. There were three steps in that
10 procedure. The first step was to procure a device whose band could be
11 expanded, band of frequencies. The second step was to manufacture a
12 converter, which was a smallish device, so that this high frequency could
13 be converted to voice signal. And this converter had a preamplifier, so
14 these three steps allowed us to listen successfully to the communications
15 up to 900 megahertz.
16 Q. What devices were you using to catch frequencies between 266 and
17 630 megahertz?
18 A. Those were mostly ham radio devices, RM 3.000, Collins, JVC.
19 These manufacturers are well known here in the western market as well, but
20 as ham radio devices, they had a very narrow band within which they could
21 communicate. That was the problem.
22 Q. While we are still talking about the equipment that your section
23 had to the south and the north, was there a difference regarding the
24 quality of the equipment? The equipment in the north was it better than
25 the equipment that you had in the south or vice versa?
1 A. I can tell you that the equipment was similar. If we took some
2 ham radio equipment from Banovici and sent it to the facility in the south
3 and then found similar equipment in another municipality, such as
4 Srebrenik or Lukavac and send it to the north.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... quality of the equipment in
6 the north and in the south?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is it exact to say that the two places had difficulty to get
10 A. Yes. However, we had additional power supply in the form of
11 generators. The ones in the facility in the south had remained from the
12 former JNA.
13 Q. You've said yesterday, on page 22 of the transcript, that your
14 UHER equipment was very good. Is it right to say that it would happen
15 that these equipment or that that equipment could actually break from time
16 to time?
17 A. That is correct. I said that during that period of time, the
18 equipment that we had was considered of high quality. Furthermore, the
19 JNA used that equipment in their wiretapping centres.
20 Q. Is it exact to say that those devices could break down from time
21 to time?
22 A. Normal procedure requires, or rather normal procedure -- it is
23 normal for the equipment which is constantly used to occasionally be out
24 of order.
25 Q. Is it exact to say that you had difficulty to obtain pieces, to
1 change, to put in those devices?
2 A. That is true, but we had people who were very enthusiastic, who
3 could produce something out of nothing.
4 Q. Is it true to say that you did not have maintenance products to
5 maintain that equipment?
6 A. During that period of time, and during war, we did not have
7 anything. We had a short supply of everything, including the spare parts
8 for UHERs.
9 Q. Is it exact to say because you didn't have maintenance products
10 and maintenance parts, that the quality was diminished, that you didn't
11 have such a good quality?
12 A. I wouldn't be able to say, because very soon thereafter, we found
13 certain sources. By that, I mean the radio station in Tuzla, where they
14 had a lot of equipment that we could use for spare parts. The quality of
15 the recording mostly depended on the reels which had been used several
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D153,
19 Q. Sir, can we say that this is a report coming from the southern
20 area, written on the 13th of July 1995?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I would like you to take a look at paragraph 2, please. In this
23 paragraph, we can see that there were some problems with a UHER which was
24 out of use at that time, is that right to say? It's in the first sentence
25 of paragraph 2 that we see this.
1 A. I will provide a very clear answer to this question. Such reports
2 were sent to me and I would forward them to the 2nd Corps command, for the
3 reason to refresh or replenish our stocks. We would repair these
4 breakdowns very quickly. But we wanted something in writing to be sent to
5 the command although we knew that we could receive little or nothing.
6 Q. And is it right to say that the last sentence of this paragraph
7 states as follows: "That this is why more and more conversations were
8 being completely incomprehensible, so wiretap became totally
9 incomprehensible or taping of the conversations became incomprehensible"?
10 A. That statement can be taken as true but as I said, to get
11 something, and we will some reserves, we had to exaggerate to be able to
12 receive at least something.
13 Q. I understand very well what you're telling us, sir, but can you
14 tell us today with certainty --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have I think two
17 objections to make with respect to I guess the question and answer, with
18 respect to the exhibit they have just been displayed. One is that I
19 believe my learned counsel referred to the last paragraph in the document,
20 and I believe translated that last sentence, maybe I'm incorrect, but she
21 referred to taping and/or listening and I'm not sure that the document
22 reflects that. And secondly, I'm not clear on whether or not the
23 translation of intercepts is being converted into wiretaps or some other
24 expression. I think there is a clear distinction between what an
25 intercept is of a radio communication and a wire tap and I'm concerned
1 that that may lead to some confusion with respect to what the transcript
2 later bears out.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Madam Fauveau? We
4 are not in a position to make an assessment. We need feedback from the
5 interpreters on this or anyone else who is, for that matter, following the
6 proceedings, maybe in B/C/S.
7 Madam Fauveau?
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I'm understanding you but we don't have an
10 interpretation in English now. And for the benefit of anyone who doesn't
11 understand French, if you don't mind repeating, please.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. I was not referring to the
13 last paragraph but to paragraph 2. But for the sake of clarity and to
14 make it easier, it's a short paragraph. The easiest thing might to be
15 read it out in B/C/S for it to be interpreted by the certified translators
16 and interpreters. They are the most competent.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: But in the transcript indeed we have in line 7 on
18 page 23, your question as being, is it right to say that the last sentence
19 of this paragraph, but you're referring to paragraph 2, okay.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Exactly, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to -- did you have that in mind,
22 Mr. Vanderpuye or not.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I do stand corrected. The substance of if,
24 however -- the substance of the objection remains the same, which is I
25 believe that --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Wiretapping or intercept?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So the only thing, other thing, we need
4 to clear up, unless you intend to clear it up with your next question,
5 Madam Fauveau, is this question of whether we are having the correct
6 translation of the words you are using in French into English. I wasn't
7 following you in French when you asked the question. So I'm not in a
8 position to know whether we have got the right interpretation or not, the
9 correct interpretation or not.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think the best
11 thing would be to read the text again, as it stands in Serbo-Croat, and it
12 might be necessary to read the entire paragraph for the text to be
13 understandable. It won't take too much time.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed, agreed. Go ahead.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 "What is being done to have more regular supplies for small spare
17 parts for UHERs? One UHER has a dysfunctional drive disk so it's
18 completely out of repair and out of use. What we need is regular supplies
19 of spare heads, new tapes and rubber bands, and we cannot even obtain
20 alcohol for the cleaning of magnetic heads. And this is the sure reason
21 that more and more we have recordings of conversations which, when played
22 back, are hardly or completely unintelligible."
23 Q. Sir, I've just read out a passage. Did it indeed have to do with
24 the recording of conversations?
25 A. Yes.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know whether
2 this is clear enough now or whether the Prosecutor would seek other
3 elements on this point.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll accept the translation as was, as I heard
6 it, any way, and I have no other objection.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
8 Madam Fauveau, you may proceed.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Sir, if I understood you properly, you sometimes overstated the
11 problems you encountered but isn't it fair to say that it would happen
12 that you would send the reels with the recordings to the -- your higher
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. They, therefore, could ascertain the quality of the recording,
16 couldn't they?
17 A. In essence, yes, but we did not send tapes from which we could not
18 play back voice information. We whinged, we sought, but we did have
19 something up our sleeve in reserve as any diligent service, but we wanted
20 the command to provide more to us.
21 Q. Do you know when the platoon for electronic surveillance was
22 established in the northern facility?
23 A. As I already said, this was before my arrival to the service. I
24 cannot remember precisely, but I think they were there in 1992.
25 Q. Yesterday, you testified that the unit in the northern facility
1 covered the area between Doboj and Zvornik, and you said that it was the
2 Posavina area. Is it fair to say that this very same area was also
3 covered by a unit of the 21st Division that were located in the same
5 A. It is correct when you're talking about the points of the compass
6 but the interpretation is not correct. The northern facility covered the
7 area from Doboj to Zvornik, and the unit from the 21st Division covered
8 the area of Posavina, which overlapped 20, 30 per cent, with the 21st's
9 area of responsibility in terms of deployment of its units and brigades.
10 We had a platoon of communications and monitoring for the 25th Division
11 and of course there is some overlap in surveillance because we are talking
12 about air waves and communication can come from any direction. But the
13 main area of responsibility for the northern facility was to cover area
14 left of Doboj and right of Zvornik a supplementary task was to help the
15 southern facility and vice versa in case there were some major operations
16 in their areas of responsibility.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... area you have just defined
18 between Doboj and Zvornik, was it exactly the same as the one covered by
19 the units of the 21st Division that were located in the same place?
20 A. I don't know which area was established through an order and given
21 to the 21st division but in terms of military hierarchy, you know and you
22 must know, that a division is subordinated to a corps.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, the objection to the question is
25 simply that I believe it had already been answered in the prior -- with
1 respect to the prior question and it's repetitive and I would just object
2 on that basis. Obviously, it's already been answered but I think twice is
3 probably enough.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: It is different. It is different. Because the
5 emphasis now is on the strict difference that there is between Doboj and
6 Zvornik. So the area covered earlier was more concentrated on the units
7 of the 21st Division, as I see it.
8 Anyway, let's proceed.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
10 Q. With regard to the northern facility as such, your unit, your
11 platoon, and the unit of the 21st Division, would they exchange, swap,
13 A. It is a normal process to exchange information and data. Our task
14 and their task was, if there were no activities in said area, or no
15 activities in the area of responsibility of the 21st Division, they would
16 turn their antenna and monitor communications in the south. You must know
17 that apart from the platoon within each division, we had squads at brigade
18 levels and at any rate they could detect activities but such squads did
19 not have such a level of equipment that they could monitor in the way that
20 a -- division level and corps level units could.
21 Q. I am going to put it to you directly. The members of your unit in
22 the northern facility, did they know of intercepts done by units of the
23 21st Division?
24 A. Members of our unit did not know about these intercepts, for the
25 reason that intercepts from the 21st Division were sent to the command of
1 the 21st Division, and after processing these, their commander sent the
2 same information to the corps.
3 Q. Did the members of your platoon know of intercepts by the DB unit
4 that were positioned in the same northern facility?
5 A. In principle, no, but I cannot exclude mutual conversation which
6 was aimed at support and help. State Security Service was mostly
7 interested in the intercepts of conversations of civilian or political
8 structures, but they, to justify their existence, most probably monitored
9 military communications as well.
10 Q. Did it happen that you received from your platoon in the northern
11 facility reports regarding intercepts done by the DB?
12 A. I cannot exclude this possibility but it would be a very rare
14 Q. How could you receive intercepts done by DB?
15 A. I did not understand your question.
16 Q. How is it possible that you would receive conversations that were
17 intercepted by the DB unit? On which channels did you get this
19 A. They would come to us in the following manner. They would provide
20 their report to our unit, and we would package it and forward it to the
22 Q. So there was, indeed, an exchange of information inasmuch as the
23 DB would send to your northern facility the intercepts they had done?
24 A. I've already stated "very seldom," for the very simple reason.
25 One person cannot produce a volume of work greater than six or seven
1 people could, and very rarely did they come up with something that we had
2 not already obtained.
3 Q. You said on the 27th of November, page 44, that a signals platoon
4 was in the northern facility and that the said unit used specific
5 equipment or a room in which the head of the platoon and the person
6 working there were allowed to enter. Is it right to say that the DB
7 personnel were allowed to enter that room?
8 A. I don't know, but I can freely tell you that DB members could not
9 enter the premises of my KZ or cryptographer service or my units.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we move to private session
11 because I'm about to mention a name.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to private session nor a short while,
14 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
6 Q. On the 27th of November you stated that the commander of the
7 platoon was the first filter in data analysis. Could you tell us what
8 that amounted to, this first filtering level on information or data?
9 A. I will try to make it understandable. Commander sits with a
10 number of people together in one room and everybody is working. If all
11 routes are occupied, he would determine the priorities. And that would be
12 the first filter: What is to be monitored and what is not to be
13 monitored, exclusively for the reason of limited technical capabilities of
14 the equipment at our disposal.
15 Q. And the commander of the platoon had he been trained in data
17 A. Of course he would be informed because everybody sitting in a
18 single room and talking now I can hear this and I can hear the other
19 person. They would perform analysis to transcribe faithfully or as
20 faithfully as possible the conversations intercepted.
21 Q. There may have been a problem in the interpretation. I'm going to
22 repeat: The commander of that platoon, had he been trained in analysing
24 A. I believe he was in the -- within his purview.
25 Q. On the 27th of November, page 40 of the transcript, you said that
1 you were mainly interested in the contents of conversation, that you did
2 not insist so much on the people speaking. Would you allow for the
3 possibility that there were some mistakes in identifying the speakers?
4 A. Our task, and I will reiterate, is correctly to interpret what was
5 said and as -- and for the conversation to be transcribed on paper or
6 in -- to be keyed into computer, as was. We do not -- we were not
7 interested in their names. We drew conclusions on the basis of the forms
8 filled in, on the basis of introductions of participants in conversations,
9 or some other indications. No person would be ascribed a name if they had
10 not introduced themselves or if there were no indications as to the
11 identity of the person. We would put X, Y, even in cases where there were
12 many indications among our men that this could be a certain person.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... intercepts were not of the
14 same relevance.
15 A. That's only normal.
16 Q. You would receive reports from the northern and southern
17 facilities. Did they distinguish between relevant and not so relevant
19 A. No. Their task, as I said, was to forward the reports as they
20 were to the superior command, but if there were some reports that were
21 urgent in terms of shelling, in terms of bombing, then this delay could
22 not happen and they had a duty to notify immediately.
23 Q. The urgent reports regarding bombing or shelling, did they bear a
24 special mention, such as priority or urgent?
25 A. If I can remember, there were markings urgent and priority, I
2 Q. And the marking was the same or there was no distinction between
3 urgent and priority? Was one more urgent than the other?
4 A. In essence, both such types of reports had the same or similar
5 weight. The only difference was the time of response. As I already said,
6 urgent, if they were planning to shell Tuzla from Ozren so that alarms can
7 be sent, and priority meant that that information should be heeded but
8 there would be more of a lag -- time lag between the sending and
10 Q. You forwarded or you handed over various material, reels and copy
11 books, between 1998 and 2000. Do you know when the ABiH received a first
12 request from the OTP for the handover of such documents?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just see in the
15 translation a reference to copy books, and I just want --.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Apologies by the interpreter, we meant
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you for that clarification.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Go ahead.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
21 Q. Sir, do you know when the ABiH received a first request by the OTP
22 regarding this material?
23 A. I will respond very briefly. You should ask that somebody from
24 the federal Ministry of Defence or from the joint command. I only know
25 when I received my superior officer's orders and this is when I started
1 doing that job.
2 Q. You forwarded or handed over certain reels among this material.
3 Where were they kept before they were handed over to the OTP?
4 A. These tapes were safeguarded within the unit.
5 Q. When you say "unit," could you be more specific? Where was this
6 unit located?
7 A. As far as I can recall, it was done in the northern facility.
8 Q. Sir, in the Krstic case --
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it was in closed
10 session so I'd like to read out a paragraph from that transcript. Can we
11 move to private session?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Let's move into private session, please.
13 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And we'll have a 30-minute break starting from now.
20 Thank you.
21 One moment. I seek the cooperation of the Defence teams. We have
22 a new motion from the Prosecution regarding protective measures for the
23 December witnesses. We are dealing with witnesses number 69, 134, 136 and
24 65, for whom a pseudonym, visual and image -- and vocal, and voice
25 distortion are sought, and 157, 77, and 81 for whom pseudonym and image
1 distortion are sought. The most important thing is that witness 69 in
2 particular, although scheduled to start on the 1st of December won't be
3 able to start on the 1st of December but he will certainly -- he will
4 certainly start mid-next week.
5 So if you could let us have your position, joint position, or
6 whatever, latest Monday morning or Friday, this Friday or latest Monday
7 morning, we would appreciate that. Thank you.
8 JUDGE KWON: We are not sitting on Friday.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No we are not sitting on Friday but they can inform
10 our Senior Legal Officer and we'll receive the communication.
11 Thank you.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
16 Q. Sir, just before the break we were talking about archiving. Is it
17 right to say that all official documents were archived in Sarajevo as of
19 A. As far as I know, I'm not authorised to release such information,
20 but all of this went to Sarajevo.
21 Q. And what about the books and all the notebooks that remained in
22 the northern part, the northern facility? All those documents remained
23 there; is that right? Those are the official documents?
24 A. [No interpretation].
25 Q. When you gave the OTP those documents, did you inform the OTP
1 that those are not official documents?
2 A. Nobody ever put such a question to me.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that the
4 previous answer was not recorded in the transcript.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: You are right. And the question was,"And what about
6 the books and all the notebooks that remained in the northern part, all
7 these documents remained there; is that right? Those are the official
9 What did you -- what was your answer to that question? I'm asking
10 you again because it didn't show up in the translation, in the transcript.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Notebooks and tapes, let me repeat
12 once again, were accidentally maintained. The official document is the
13 written report, and the official documents are actually tapes that were
14 contained in the intelligence department. When the representatives of the
15 ICTY expressed interest, at that time we were not considering in terms
16 what is official, what is not official. We simply looked for original
17 sources and I think that I was clear enough in explaining this.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. I think it's clear enough. He's
19 making a clear distinction between what is official and what is not
20 official documents.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
22 document P2312, 2312?
23 Q. You've told us yesterday, sir, that the reports that were coming
24 from the northern facility to the southern facility, that those reports
25 were sent to your unit. Can you explain to us why is it that on this
1 report we see that the person who was to receive the document was the 2nd
2 Corps intelligence organ?
3 A. I've already explained that the reports arrived in parallel to the
4 unit and to the intelligence section of the 2nd Corps where there also
5 existed an encryption department. They would only change the heading, so
6 that above the line where it says, "intelligence section of the 2nd
7 Corps," they would put a different text, PEB Company, and they would send
8 it forward because, to people receiving it, it was important to know where
9 such reports originated.
10 Q. To be clear, all the reports from the northern facility and the
11 southern facility were sent automatically to the intelligence section of
12 the 2nd Corps and to your unit; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the report that we have before us is the report that was sent
15 to the 2nd Corps?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You've told us yesterday that the initials that we see here under
18 the text designate a person, the person who would usually send the report
19 as well as the person who transcribed the conversation. Did every report
20 contain an initial like this?
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness mentioned
2 the name of the northern facility. It is not written down in the
3 transcript but he did say it.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we need to redact also only the audio
6 part, and that should be enough.
7 Thank you. Careful; we are in open session.
8 Yes, Madam Fauveau, thank you for pointing that out.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Sir, when a report contained many different conversations, these
11 initials were supposed to be put on top of each conversation or only at
12 the end of the report?
13 A. The first initials, as you can see here, al ways the same. That
14 person stayed there for 10 days in a shift. If there were more reports
15 and if these reports were produced by the same person, that it was
16 sufficient for that person to put his initials at the bottom of each
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 2 of
19 this exhibit, please? Page 10, please, excuse me. Maybe there was a
20 mistake in interpretation. I was mentioning page 10. Could the witness
21 be shown the end of the page, so the bottom part of the page?
22 Q. Sir , is it right to say that no initials appear on this page?
23 A. I can't see it.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the next
25 page, please? Could the document be, yes, raised a little bit between the
1 two conversations? That's right. This place.
2 Q. Sir, here we do not see any initials. We do not see an initial at
3 the end one conversation, for instance.
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we turn to the next page,
7 Q. And at the end of this conversation, we also do not see an
8 initial; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we please take the following
11 page? Could we please scroll the document down?
12 Q. On this page there are no initials as well; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like the witness to be shown
15 the next page.
16 Q. Sir, it is the end of the report and we still do not see an
17 initial. When you would receive such a report without an initial, was
18 this a regular occurrence?
19 A. Yes. This was a typical situation. As I said earlier, putting
20 initials down was not a legal requirement. We asked for that in order to
21 recognise the work of certain servicemen, so there were very few people
22 who put down their initials and those are the people who worked 24 hours
23 in ten-day shifts and it was very easy to establish based on that who
24 produced what report because we had adequate notations in the notebooks.
25 So we could trace the work of a certain person; however, putting down the
1 initials was not a legal requirement.
2 Q. I would like to take page 3 of this document. I would like this
3 page to be shown to the witness.
4 Sir, is this a conversation that was intercepted by the DB?
5 A. I think so.
6 Q. And this conversation was sent from your section, from the
7 northern facility; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you know how members of your section got in possession of this
10 document or more generally speaking this DB document? How did they get
11 this document?
12 A. Yes. As I have said, the state security, the DB, was tasked with
13 monitoring civilian communications. This one here is a typical military
14 communication and they simply gave this communication on a diskette. Our
15 person repackaged it and sent it to Sarajevo. You can see that in the
16 right corner it says, "Very urgent."
17 Q. Sir, you've told us yesterday that generally speaking, as an
18 average, there were 25 to 30 conversations during a day, between 20 and 30
19 reports were drafted in the course of one working day; is that right?
20 A. I have said that it all depended on the traffic, density of
21 traffic on that day. There were days when we had one, two or three
22 reports, and that did not depend on us.
23 Q. And on the 14th of July 1995, according to you, was this a day
24 with a lot more conversations or not?
25 A. From my point of view, I can tell you that there were more
1 conversations than typical, than usual.
2 Q. And is it normal that under these conditions 16 reports would have
3 been sent?
4 A. The number is completely irrelevant. It can contain more
5 conversations that were recording on more channels or it can contain one
6 single conversation recorded on one channel. And that could be the entire
7 report. It depended on the speed of typing of the operator doing this.
8 Whenever there was a need to send a report, he would produce a short
9 version or, if he had sufficient time, he would produce a longer version.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... say that problems regarding
11 dates would occur on these reports?
12 A. In such a situation where people worked around the clock, 24 hours
13 a day, such mistakes were possible.
14 Q. Do you recall that an order was given in the month of August 1995,
15 pursuant to which the date was to be automatically written down above each
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer. Wait one moment.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. It just appeared to me
20 that part of the previous question was missing. I didn't hear it in the
21 translation and I don't see it on the transcript. I don't know if maybe
22 counsel could either repeat the question or --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Either counsel or myself. I don't see the reason
24 why counsel is speaking French. I don't imagine that the witness is
25 following in French. And still there is some overlapping. Still there is
1 some overlapping. I've noticed it and even Judge Prost raised it with me
2 earlier on. There is some overlapping so I don't know what the cause of
3 it. Perhaps we can go back, if you could repeat your question, kindly
4 repeat your question, please, Madam Fauveau, and then the witness will try
5 to answer it again.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, the counsel needs to wait for
7 the English interpretation to conclude before asking the question.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It was entirely my fault the missing
9 portion of my question was, is it right to stay that problems regarding
10 dates would occur in these reports.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And what was your answer?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that in such an environment,
13 it was normal for mistakes to occur. Whenever you have a team playing,
14 you will always expect them to play even better. That's the essence of
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 Incidentally, Ms. Fauveau, I don't know in you're following the
18 transcript in English or not but the interpreters have pointed out that it
19 would be preferable and much easier for them if you waited until the
20 English translation is finished before you proceed with your questions in
21 French. And that's according to them the reason why we have had some
22 problems. All right? I'm sure you can do that because the transcript
23 is -- will be scrolling in front of your eyes, so ...
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I really have to follow the
2 transcript because I have to see also what is going on with French because
3 I'll enter into collision with the French language as well. So I really
4 have to follow the transcript.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation].
7 Q. Sir, do you recall an order from the 20th of August 1995, in which
8 an order was given that a date should be written on top of each
10 A. Right now I do not remember that order. There were many orders.
11 However, such orders, in such a form, typically came from the intelligence
12 department. As I have said to you the purpose was to improve the work.
13 That was the only goal.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown Exhibit
15 5D117, please? Would it be possible to show the witness the bottom of the
16 page, please?
17 Q. Sir, do we see your name at the bottom of this document?
18 A. Yes.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And could the witness be shown what
20 is written on top of the page?
21 Mr. President, could we go into a closed session for just a few
22 moments while I discuss this document with the witness?
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 4774-4779 redacted. Private session
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D131,
22 the cover page more specifically? This is notebook 00778815. I don't
23 know whether the Prosecutor has the notebook. It might be good to put it
24 on the ELMO.
25 Q. Sir, whilst this is being done, whilst you're receiving the
1 original, could you tell us whether this notebook that you can see on the
2 screen is like the notebooks you would use in your unit?
3 A. I personally think that this is one of the notebooks used by the
4 members of my unit.
5 Q. Sir, you stated that you would receive the notebooks from various
6 sources. Isn't it fair to say that part of them would come from the
7 humanitarian aid destined to the children?
8 A. I have no idea about that, really.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No further questions, Mr. President.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
12 Mr. Josse or Mr. Krgovic? I don't know who is --
13 MR. JOSSE: We are not asking any questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And the Borovcanin -- Pandurevic Defence team have
15 already finished their cross-examination. Is there re-examination, Mr.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there is not any re-examination.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So witness, we don't have any further
19 questions for you, which means that your testimony comes to an end here.
20 Our usher will escort you out of the courtroom and our, the rest of our
21 staff will assist to you facilitate your return back home. On behalf of
22 the Trial Chamber, I wish to thank you for having come over and also
23 extend our best wishes nor a safe journey back home.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We can now proceed with the tendering of
1 documents. Mr. Vanderpuye goes first. Prosecution.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 We would like to tender first the transcript of his prior
4 testimony, which is P02309. The pseudonym sheet P02310.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Both of which will be under seal.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, please. Also we would like to tender --
7 just bear with me for one moment. I'm trying to get a document that I
8 need myself. Also like to tender P01067. It's a copy of the record of
9 transfer of archival material from the 2nd Corps to the --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Stop for a moment because we'll try to
11 economise on time as much as we can. I suppose this list that is been
12 plead available to all the Defence teams.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yeah.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you confirm that, that you have had this list
15 made available? You have therefore the list of all the documents that the
16 Prosecution seeks to tender. Are there any objections from any of you,
17 any of the Defence teams, with regard to any of these documents?
18 Yes, Ms. Nikolic?
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. If this is the
20 document submitted to us on the 28th of November, given that there were
21 two documents in circulation.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. This is -- it's not dated and I don't
23 have the date on it. Yes, it is dated in the bottom, 28th of November.
24 It ends with PIC 00050.
25 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it there are no objections so all these
2 documents are so admitted and they will be attributed the P number or the
3 exhibit number that we have there indicated on this sheet, which I'm
4 handing to the registrar.
5 That is all?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. The only thing I wanted to add is perhaps
7 for the Court to consider admitting P01075 under seal and also P01071
8 under seal to the extent that they bear identifying information concerning
9 the witness.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Which ones again, please?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: P01071 and P01075.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think that is necessary because he was
13 actually asked whether he recognises his own signature or whether he
14 prepared those documents. So those two documents, I suppose, there is no
15 objection on any of the Defence -- on the part of any of the Defence
16 teams. I hear none. So those two documents will be kept under seal. All
18 So I take it that the Popovic Defence team would like to tender
19 some documents.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We've submitted
21 our list of documents put forward to be tendered into evidence.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: And I take it that the Prosecution has a copy of
23 this list. They don't seem to have a copy of the list.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry. In response to your question, I don't
25 believe we have a copy.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So now that you have more or less gathered
2 what the practice will be, if in future you could make sure that the list
3 is distributed both to your colleagues, and I'm addressing you because it
4 happens to be you. I'm addressing everyone. Both your I have it will
5 leagues and the Prosecution so we facilitate the process.
6 I'll go through it very quickly. The there are six documents.
7 They are 1DP1068, 1DP1069, 1DP1071, 1DP1072, 1DP1075, 1DIC00049, as
8 described in the piece of paper which I am handing signed by me to the
9 registrar. Yes, but it is IDP1071. That would be the same one. This
10 would be the same one and they would need to be under seal as well. All
12 [Trial Chamber confers].
13 JUDGE AGIUS: These documents will be so admitted; however, in
14 relation to 1DP1071 and 1DP1075, these will be kept under seal.
15 I would also like someone to check whether in relation to the
16 other documents, barring the last two, in other words, barring IDIC 00049
17 and the other one, which we haven't given a number as yet, archive
18 notebook in part, just pages 0204 to 0384 and 0204 to 0722 to what is
19 document bearing ERN number 02040772 to 02041112.
20 The others, registrar, needs to check whether in any part of the
21 witness's testimony there are references made to these documents which
22 could expose his identity. I don't think there are but there may be.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes. It is only two pages.
25 So in relation to item 6, the two pages from the archived
1 notebook, it's only those two pages of course that are being admitted as a
2 1D -- Defence 1D exhibit and they will be given a number in due course.
3 Any objection? I hear -- makes me feel like conducting an auction.
4 No objection? No objection?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, not at this time.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So they will be so admitted.
7 All right.
8 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask the number 2, 3, 4 items are same documents
9 as Prosecution documents, aren't they?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, they are. We have an
11 instruction to submit such documents in this way, even if they are
12 included in the Prosecution's list of documents and to mark them in that
13 manner, and this is what we've done. Of course, I will double check with
14 my team but I think that we have abided by your instructions. Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.
16 I think -- thank you very much. I think that before proceeding
17 with the the next witness, you are all anxiously expecting our decision,
18 Madam Fauveau. You have also some documents to tender?
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, very much so. We have the
20 list. You have the list, I believe.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And I can paraphrase it, summarise it, it's
22 5D152, 5D142 and 5D153, these being first list of members of the unit,
23 second order dated 22nd June, and third document dated 13th July 1995
24 respectively. I'm handing a sleet to the registrar with my signature
25 which indicates the ERN number of these documents. I thank you.
1 Any objections? I hear none. So they are so admitted. Madam
2 Fauveau. Can we proceed? No other documents to be tendered? Let's
3 proceed now.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Kwon is rightly pointing out to me that it is
6 preferable that the last document will be for the time being marked for
7 identification pending translation thereof. As soon as translation is
8 provided and goes in the record, then obviously the document is formally
9 admitted. All right. Thank you Judge Kwon. That had escaped me.
10 Let's come to our next business on our agenda. That's the next
11 witness. Please comfort me when I say that this witness does not have any
12 protective measures and that you're not seeking any protective measures
13 for him.
14 MR. THAYER: That is correct, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. What is his current rank in the army,
16 the Dutch army.
17 MR. THAYER: He is a Major in the Dutch army, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
19 So this will -- what we are going to do now is we are going to
20 hand essentially two decisions, both related to the Prosecution motion
21 that I'm soon going to mention. The decisions -- both decisions are going
22 to be oral. If needs be, we can then have them incorporated in a single
23 or two written decisions but I don't think there will be a need for that.
24 The Trial Chamber is seized of the confidential Prosecution motion
25 to convert 92 bis witness Major Rutten to Rule 92 ter witness. This
1 motion was filed on the 28th of November. That's yesterday. And
2 basically what it amounts to is Prosecution seeking the admission of
3 Major Rutten, who was Witness number 23, Major Rutten's evidence tendered
4 pursuant to Rule 92 ter instead of the previous Rule 92 bis.
5 Now, the Popovic Defence team made oral submissions yesterday,
6 which were followed by a proper formal response filed -- and motion
7 actually filed earlier on today, opposing the Prosecution motion.
8 We have noted that in their response, and in their submissions,
9 the Popovic Defence asserts, in trying to sustain their request that I
10 will come to very soon, the Popovic team asserts that or submits that up
11 until this time, there never has been any allegation made by the
12 Prosecution that the accused Popovic was in the vicinity of the area of
13 the "White House" on 13th July 1995, and that, I'm quoting, "In these
14 circumstances it is unacceptable that three days prior to this witness
15 giving evidence, the Defence is informed of the Prosecution's intention to
16 rely upon this allegation."
17 We have also noted that in their response, the Popovic team
18 requests the Trial Chamber, first, to deny the motion and order that
19 Witness number 23, that's Major Rutten, appear pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
20 Second, to redact references in the transcript of that witness's prior
21 testimony which affects the acts and conducts of the accused Popovic, and,
22 third, to exclude the admission of document 65 ter number 1936, which we
23 understand to be a photograph, and, last, in the alternative, in a
24 subsidiary mode, to grant leave for further time to prepare -- further
25 time to the Popovic Defence to prepare for their cross-examination of
1 Major Rutten.
2 During this morning's first session, Ms. Condon for the Popovic
3 Defence team further raised another submission in support of her request,
4 namely that they had received information that in the course of the
5 proofing session of Major Rutten, he is reported to have told the officer
6 of the Prosecutor interviewing him that it appeared to him that the person
7 he identified, although not by name, in the photograph document 65 ter
8 number 1936, was a person -- appeared to be a person in command and not a
9 plain soldier.
10 In our deliberations, we have considered the following.
11 We first considered that on the 12th of September of this year, we
12 handed down our so-called Rule 92 bis decision, in which the transcript of
13 Witness number 23, that's Major Rutten, was admitted pursuant to Rule 92
14 bis(D), without the requirement of a witness to appear for
15 cross-examination. That was our first decision.
16 Subsequently, in reconsidering our decision, upon a request by one
17 or more of the Defence teams, on the 19th of October 2006, we modified our
18 previous decision, requiring Major Rutten to appear for cross-examination,
19 and of course confirming the introduction of his previous testimony
20 pursuant to Rule 92 bis(D).
21 We have also taken into account during our deliberations that the
22 photograph now in issue, namely document 65 ter number 1936, indeed was
23 not admitted in our 92 bis decision, as it was not strictly speaking an
24 exhibit that was admitted in the earlier trial as a result of witness
25 number 23, that's Major Rutten's testimony, but was only referenced by the
1 witness during that testimony. We followed up eventually in one of our
2 decisions with a request to the Prosecution to also make available all
3 these documents which included this particular document. That was made
4 available not only to us but also to all the Defence teams.
5 We have also considered that approximately 34 lines of the
6 transcript of this witness's previous testimony described the actions of
7 an individual appearing in this photo, which the Prosecution alleges to be
8 accused Popovic.
9 Now that the Prosecution proposes to admit that photo or to tender
10 that photo in evidence, the relative written evidence in the transcript of
11 the accused's prior testimony implicates directly the acts and conduct of
12 the Accused Popovic as alleged by the Prosecution, with the consequent
13 result that such testimony would no longer be appropriate for admission
14 pursuant to Rule 92 bis because it goes to the acts and conducts of the
16 We have also considered that the Popovic Defence has had at its
17 disposal this photograph, which they could relate to the witness's
18 previous testimony upon reading the transcript of his prior testimony.
19 Having considered further that the alleged role, and this answers the
20 submission made by Ms. Condon earlier on this morning, we have considered
21 further that the alleged role of the Accused Popovic during the alleged
22 events in Potocari at the relevant time are clearly spelled out in the
23 indictment and such an indication is by no means affected by the proposed
24 testimony that the Prosecution seeks to adduce and that we considered
25 would be absolutely nothing new as Ms. Condon seeks to make us believe.
1 The Trial Chamber therefore, in considering the -- both the
2 written and the oral submissions of the parties, we are persuaded that
3 granting the Prosecution's motion will not prejudice the accused so long
4 as the Popovic Defence team is accorded sufficient time to prepare its
5 cross-examination of Major Rutten, and where sufficient cause is shown or
6 will be shown in subsequent written or oral submissions, the same Defence
7 team will be permitted to recall other witnesses for cross-examination.
8 So our decision in relation to the motion and response by the
9 Popovic Defence team is as follows: We hereby grant the motion of the
10 Prosecution mentioned earlier on and order that the written evidence of
11 Major Rutten, Witness number 23, is admitted pursuant to Rule 92 ter,
12 provided that the provisions of Rule 92 ter, paragraph A, are duly adhered
13 to and observed, and secondly, we hereby decide that on good cause being
14 shown, the Popovic team - by the "Popovic team," Witness number 23, that's
15 Major Rutten - will be required to be -- to appear for further
16 cross-examination by that team at a later date to be decided by the Trial
18 I am now moving to the matter raised by Madam Fauveau, which has
19 to my understanding been endorsed by all the other Defence teams. So I
20 will be referring to it as your motion or your request, but the
21 understanding is that it applies across the board to all the other Defence
22 teams. We are referring to the same Prosecution motion. I don't need to
23 repeat the substance of that motion.
24 Earlier on this morning, Madam Fauveau submitted that one of the
25 documents that the Prosecution has disclosed to the Defence teams in
1 relation to the proposed testimony of this witness, Major Rutten, consists
2 in a previous statement which he brought here with him to The Hague, a
3 statement that purportedly he gave to the Dutch authorities and which is
4 in the Dutch language, which is not a language with which the Miletic
5 Defence team, and for that matter the other Defence teams, are familiar
6 with. So it was suggested that in the absence of a timely translation of
7 this statement, prior statement, of the witness, in a language which the
8 various Defence teams can -- will be able to follow, they will not be in
9 the position to conduct a full and well-informed cross-examination of this
10 witness. As a consequence, Madam Fauveau, as endorsed by the other
11 Defence teams, sought two things: Either the complete adjournment of this
12 witness -- postponement of this witness's testimony to a later date when
13 this is made available, preferably also with this witness coming forward
14 to testify in full, without having resort to Rule 92 ter or Rule 92 bis,
15 and also, in case such a request is not entertained by the Trial Chamber,
16 to have the cross-examination delayed until this translation of this
17 document has been made available.
18 We do not consider that the fact this document has not yet been
19 translated -- incidentally we are informed that it will probably be
20 translated as early as this coming Friday, if not also tomorrow -- we do
21 not consider the fact that this document has not been translated as an
22 absolutely sufficient reason for the testimony of Major Rutten to not
23 start and proceed as scheduled today.
24 However, we also understand the problem that the absence of a
25 translation of this prior statement may cause to the Defence teams, and so
1 we are making a reservation that upon good cause being shown after a
2 translation of the witness's prior statement to the Dutch authorities is
3 provided to the Defence teams, Major Rutten may be required to appear
4 again for further cross-examination by the Defence teams at a later date
5 to be decided by the Trial Chamber.
6 Incidentally, I'm also informed that not only will the translation
7 be made available in time before the weekend, and we are not sitting on
8 Friday, but that we have ensured that Major Rutten will also be available
9 to continue his testimony on Monday morning.
10 So we have tried to cover as much territory as possible to protect
11 the various rights that you showed concern upon, but in the meantime we
12 are going to start and proceed with Major Rutten's testimony.
13 Thank you.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further matters you would like to raise before
16 this witness walks in? Do you prefer to have the break now? I mean it's
17 up to you. We can have the break now and continue in -- 30 minutes from
18 now, or have him come in, start and break after ten minutes from now.
19 It's whatever you prefer, Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think it would probably be smoother if
21 we just take the break now and then bring him out and then really get on
22 with it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So that's it. Thank you. We'll have a
24 30-minute break now because of the redactions we had to make.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Major Rutten and welcome to
4 this Tribunal. You're start to giving evidence or you have testified
5 before. Our Rules require that before you do so, you enter a solemn
6 declaration to the effect that in the course of your testimony you will be
7 speaking the truth. The text is going to be handed to you now by Madam
8 Usher. Please stand up, read it out aloud and that will be your solemn
9 undertaking with us.
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: JOHANNES HENDRIKUS ANTONIUS RUTTEN
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let me explain very briefly what's going
14 to happen. The testimony you gave in a previous case is going to be
15 admitted in whole pursuant to a rule we have a new rule, that's Rule 92
16 ter, so you don't have to testify the whole thing again. However,
17 Mr. Thayer, who will be leading you, will give you a summary of that
18 testimony and then you will be asked a few questions, after which I will
19 then pass you on to the various Defence teams.
20 Now, one other thing before you start giving evidence is that
21 one -- during your proofing session, you brought with you a prior
22 statement that you gave to the Dutch authorities, which is in Dutch. You
23 don't happen to have an English translation of it, by any chance, do you?
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And you don't know if an English translation of it
1 exists in the NIOD report or ...
2 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We want to make sure Mr. Thayer that we don't have
4 further complications arising out of this matter so we are giving you a
5 specific instruction, directive, to have this statement or that statement
6 translated into English. I think Madam Fauveau can live with that, too.
7 Madam Fauveau?
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I appreciate that, by no later than
10 Friday noon. In order to make life easier for you, we are giving
11 instructions to the registrar, or to the Deputy Registrar here, to copy
12 and paste this part of our decision and have it transmitted to the
13 registrar or the respective unit within the Registry that deals with
14 translation. We find it absolutely unacceptable that in the Netherlands,
15 in an institution where there are so many Dutch-speaking officers, this
16 cannot be translated by noon. So the respective unit is to provide all
17 its assistance to make sure that this is made available to the Defence
18 teams immediately after noon on Friday.
19 So this is your responsibility.
20 Okay. Thank you. Having said that, I pass you on to Mr. Thayer.
21 Go ahead, Mr. Thayer. Thank you.
22 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Major.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Before we begin, we'll both be speaking English so it is
2 especially important for each of us to leave pauses in between my
3 question, your answer and then the next question so that we leave enough
4 time for the interpreters to catch up so that it's translated into the
5 other languages, okay?
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Now, Major, before we really get going, I want to review with you
8 your military service history and I'm going to simply read to you a
9 summary of that history. And when I'm done you can tell meal if I've
10 missed anything or if there is anything to be corrected we'll do so.
11 Major, you joined the Royal Dutch Army in 1979 as a conscript and
12 served as an NCO stationed at a variety of bases until 1991.
13 Upon completing the officers' training school in 1993, you were
14 commissioned as a Second Lieutenant and served with the 41st armoured
15 infantry battalion where you trained the last company of conscripts.
16 In 1994, you began your service with the 11th air mobile brigade,
17 13th Battalion, as an anti-tank platoon commander and subsequently served
18 as deputy commanding officer of a company.
19 From January through July of 1995, you served with DutchBat 3 as a
20 fist Lieutenant during which time you were a patrol coordinator and
21 intelligence officer in Charlie Company. Since your service in Bosnia
22 you've served as brigade, battalion and corps level as chief of
23 operational personal affairs, head of personnel and organisation, and
24 deputy branch chief, personnel management.
25 Those duties have involved preparing and forming missions abroad,
1 such as various SFOR and KFOR missions and managing human resources
2 related projects such as a headquarters reorganisation and implementing a
3 new human resource application.
4 And you also hold a degree in personnel policy and human
6 Major, does that accurately capture your service history?
7 A. Yes, it's quite correct, yes.
8 Q. Now, in meeting with me, in preparation for your testimony, did
9 you have an opportunity to review your prior testimony in the Krstic case?
10 A. Yes, I had, yes.
11 Q. And you in fact read every page of that testimony; is that
13 A. Yes, I did, that's also correct, yes.
14 Q. And can you attest before the Trial Chamber that that testimony
15 which you read was a faithful and accurate transcription of the testimony
16 which you gave at the Krstic trial?
17 A. Yes, it's also correct, yes.
18 Q. Major, what I'd like to do now is read to you a summary of your
19 testimony in Krstic. It may take a little bit of time and I'm going to
20 have to go a little bit slowly for the sake of the interpreters and I'd
21 just ask to you listen carefully because I'll ask you if there were any
22 changes or corrections that we need to make in my summary?
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the other microphone for the witness
24 please be switched on?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I understand that the witness has switched it
1 on himself.
2 THE WITNESS: They are both on.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Major.
4 MR. THAYER:
5 Q. During the seven months then-Lieutenant Rutten served with
6 DutchBat 3 he saw a decreasing -- he heard from the battalion that the
7 Serbs were decreasing the movement of convoys by simply not giving them
8 permission to go into the enclave. There was not enough food for the
9 civilian population and the situation in the enclave became so bad that
10 people would go through DutchBat's garbage when it was taken to the dump
11 site looking for something edible. He identified a photograph he took
12 while on patrol of civilians surrounding a truck which was dumping
13 DutchBat garbage. Other DutchBat soldiers saw the same thing.
14 On 10 July 1995, they heard severe impacts behind the compound
15 from a rocket launcher based in Bratunac. Following the shelling they
16 found an unexploded rocket just behind the compound. The shelling became
17 heavier in the following days and stopped during the late evening. From
18 their position near OP Papa the Serbs fired more or less in a lane on the
19 Srebrenica-Potocari road and on or near DutchBat vehicles.
20 There were no real military targets in Srebrenica or Potocari and
21 his view of the purpose of the shelling was to intimidate DutchBat from
22 leaving the compound and as a terror act.
23 On Monday evening after the attack began, they heard from Bravo
24 Company that the situation in Srebrenica was growing out of hand and that
25 the refugees were on the move to Potocari.
1 He then received an order to cut a hole in the rear side of the
2 compound fence to let the refugees in, if necessary. Bravo Company
3 soldiers arrived on the evening of 10 July with the first refugees who
4 were kept at the bus Remise because he had not received an order
5 permitting them on the compound and the fence had to be closed again. The
6 only refugee brought to the compound was a heavily wounded woman taken to
7 the battalion hospital.
8 On Tuesday, 11 July, he was ordered to reopen the hole in the
9 fence. Lieutenant Koster led a group of DutchBat soldiers at the bus
10 Remise. At this time he, Lieutenant Rutten, heard that large groups of
11 refugees were heading towards Potocari and that Bravo company had to leave
12 Srebrenica because of the shelling and chaos there.
13 The first groups of refugees began arriving at the rear side
14 guided by Koster and his men at the bus Remise. Refugees arrived all day
15 until approximately 5.00 or 6.00 in the evening, at which time he was
16 ordered not to let in any more refugees because the factory hall itself
17 was completely filled.
18 He was then ordered by Major Otter at he shall to form three
19 groups of ten men to secure the area of the bus remise where the refugees
21 He then identified an area marked expression bus compound on an
22 exhibit as the area to which he has referred as the bus remise and where
23 he and his ten men remained on the night of 11 July. Lieutenants Koster
24 and Schotman each also had ten men in the area. There were many refugees
25 in that area and they placed white tape around the whole area as the only
1 means available to make it clear that it was a secure area under UN
3 They also patrolled the area and the DutchBat doctor provided
4 first aid.
5 In the morning of 12 July 1995, small arms fire was followed by
6 mortar fire and Serb soldiers set fire to house in the area near the
7 location of the refugees. The first Serb soldiers to arrive were "more or
8 less the Rambo types." He informed one of the of the Serb soldiers who
9 looked like a leader that they could not cross the tape because it was UN
10 territory and the refugees were under UN surveillance.
11 But the Serb soldier and the rest with him just laughed and
12 stepped over the tape and did as they pleased.
13 Serb soldiers also stole equipment and personal items belonging to
14 his men securing the bus compound.
15 On 12 July, he saw General Mladic and his body guards arrive
16 followed by a truck carrying bread and a fire truck with water. The
17 distribution of the bread, water and candy was filmed. Immediately after
18 the filming stopped, they also stopped handing out the bread, water, and
19 candy. They even took back some of it from the refugees. He did not see
20 the Serbs distribute anything else after that to the refugees on 12 or 13
22 Later on 12 July, as the buses were arriving, Serb soldiers
23 threatened him to give up his weapon, flak vest and radio sets. He
24 refused and told the soldiers that he needed to speak to their commander.
25 Subsequently a Serb soldier who appeared to be a commander arrived, and
1 again demanded his equipment while another Serb soldier grabbed his
2 weapon. He again refused until the soldier pointed a gun at his head and
3 demanded his radio set.
4 He gave up one of his two sets then used the other to inform his
5 superior officer that he had lost his weapon to the VRS. His men then
6 also gave up their weapons and vests at gun point. He and his men were
7 then taken to the bus compound and placed under guard of two Serb
9 He protested to a man he identified in an a photograph as Captain
10 Mane that he was being held and that they had lost their equipment but
11 Captain Mane sent him back to the rest of his group without looking at
13 When Captain Mane returned a few hours later, Captain Mane sent
14 him and his ten men, that is Lieutenant Rutten and his ten men escorted by
15 two Serb soldiers, back to the compound where they spent the night.
16 Also on 12 July, he saw a Serb soldier make a sign by running his
17 finger across his throat at a man Lieutenant Rutten knew to be a Muslim
18 soldier with a gunshot wound.
19 On the morning of 13 July he was on duty in the operations room
20 where he heard that Lieutenant Versteeg saw two buses loaded with men
21 leave the vicinity of the "White House." He ordered Versteeg to follow
22 the two buses because they were not leaving with the larger group of buses
23 ready along the road.
24 Versteeg followed the buss to Bratunac then radioed that the bus
25 was not going to Kladanj but turned in another direction and that he was
1 being obstructed by Serb soldiers from following the bus.
2 He instructed Versteeg to follow the bus. Versteeg was unable to
3 as the Serbs grabbed his car then hijacked it. Consequently they never
4 learned where those buses went.
5 Because of this incident with Versteeg, he decided to go to
6 the "White House" himself under the pretext of delivering a wheelbarrow
7 with packages of water and accompanied by a Sergeant Major. At the gate
8 at the entrance to the "White House" he saw a huge pile of rucksacks and
9 belongings. A few metres further were all kinds of identity cards and
10 passports on the ground.
11 The "White House" was well guarded by Serb soldiers who refused
12 them entry.
13 Also in front of the house were two Dutch corporals who had been
14 given Lieutenant stars so the Serbs would think they were of higher rank.
15 He and the Sergeant Major then entered the left rear area of the house
16 which was actually two houses under one roof. There they saw photographs
17 of men laid out in every room, which were empty. They exited that area
18 and tried to look around an orchard area behind the house but were
19 prevented at gun point by two Serb soldiers.
20 They returned to the entrance and were able to enter after
21 offering Serb soldiers some water. Once inside, he saw a Muslim man
22 hanging from the staircase by one arm so he asked a Serb soldier to lower
23 him so that his feet could touch the ground. While this was being done he
24 tried to enter a room on the right side from which he had heard voices but
25 was prevented whether a Serb soldier in a green camouflage uniform put his
1 gun in his face and eventually stuck it in his mouth. He then stepped
2 outside and saw a Serb soldier at the gate telling men arriving at the
3 house to throw down their things and, a few metres later, telling them to
4 throw their identity cards.
5 While the Sergeant Major stayed at the staircase, Lieutenant
6 Rutten went back inside and upstairs where he found two rooms filled with
7 50 men and boys from age 12 to 55. He photographed both groups of men but
8 will to stop because a Serb soldier was arriving with more men. They then
9 left the house. It was clear to him that this was no normal interrogation
10 as normal procedure with POWs would require a system of identifying the
11 prisoners whereas it was very clear to him that the men in the "White
12 House" would not need their IDs or belongings. Later that evening the
13 Serbs set fire to the belongings and IDs which were outside the house.
14 The fire burned for two days.
15 He identified a photograph he took of the smoke rising from the
16 fire. He did not see any signs of violence or torture during the times he
17 visited the "White House." After leaving the "White House," he went to
18 the area where Lieutenant van Duijn was posted with a blockade of four
19 APCs. At that location a local interpreter informed him that there were
20 rumours that men had been killed near a well near the road on the Budak
22 He, Sergeant Major van Schaik, and Koster then passed through the
23 APC blockade and followed a dirt road.
24 They saw a woman who made a sign along her throat and pointed
25 further up the road. In a very bushy area they found a small stream on
1 the left behind a house near a meadow. As soon as they saw the meadow,
2 they saw some bodies lying along the stream. He inspected the bodies,
3 which were nine men in civilian clothes lying with their faces toward the
5 Two were on their sides. All had small-calibre gun shots to their
6 backs at heart level. The men were approximately 45 to 55 years old.
7 He touched the bodies which were warm. The blood was still
8 running and there were no flies on them. They had not been shot long
9 before. He told van Schaik to pick up the identification that was on the
10 grass in front of the bodies and he took a photograph of Koster kneeling
11 between the bodies. He also photographed all nine bodies. At that point
12 there was firing at them. After the first shot, he saw a woman running
13 out of one of the houses in the area chased by a Serb soldier.
14 He told van Schaik to drop all of the identification which he had
15 picked up and that they had to leave.
16 They heard more shooting nearby and reached the dirt road. At the
17 blockade they grabbed a stretcher so it would look like they were helping
18 some refugees. He reported what he had seen to Lieutenant Colonel
19 Karremans who told him that he would pass his report on to a higher level.
20 He then remained at the blockade where he took some pictures of
21 what the Serbs were doing and observed a DutchBat Lieutenant and some
22 DutchBat soldiers actually assisting the deportation of the Muslims though
23 trying to do their best to help the refugees. Looking through the camera
24 it would not give too good an idea of what the UN was doing there. The
25 situation was that DutchBat personnel had taped an area where about 60 to
1 70 people could be placed who were then directed to the buses. Behind
2 another line were standing all of the rest of the refugees who were being
3 helped and given water by other DutchBat soldiers. Because there were
4 Serb soldiers sitting all along the road with their weapons, DutchBat was
5 more or less helping with the deportation and not an impartial party any
7 He told this to van Duijn who had a different point of view. On
8 the other side of the line at the buses, Serb soldiers were carrying out
9 the separation of the men from their families. UN soldiers were not
10 working with the refugees at the point where the men were being separated
11 from the women.
12 When he returned to Holland he turned his film over to someone
13 from the army's intelligence branch but was later informed that something
14 had happened during its development.
15 He was then ordered by his company commander to escort the last
16 bus that is were leaving. He and his driver prepared a jeep and parked it
17 next to the compound entrance while waiting for the last buses to leave.
18 As they waited, he told his driver to accompany him back to the "White
19 House" so that he could have as many witnesses as possible. By that time,
20 the pile of belongings was huge and many more IDs and passports were
21 laying on the ground. They went to the previously empty left side of the
22 house and saw two Serb soldiers on the staircase which was filled with
23 Muslim men.
24 He could see the total fear on the faces of the men and boys and,
25 though he never thought that it really existed, he could even smell death
1 there because it was total fear.
2 Serb soldiers in green camouflage uniforms were taking
3 deutschmarks from Muslims at gun point. They walked back to the front of
4 the house and saw the balcony totally filled with men and boys. They went
5 to the right side of the house but could not get in. He estimates that
6 almost 300 men were in the house and on the balcony. It was completely
7 filled up.
8 The two Dutch soldiers who were still posted in front of the house
9 also said that it was completely filled. He then spoke with a Dutch Major
10 and Warrant Officer Rave about getting the men out of the house. Rave and
11 Major Kingori then spoke to the Serbs at the "White House" and sometime
12 later buses arrived to take the men away.
13 He could not escort the buses because he had to wait to escort the
14 last buses and no one else could escort them because all of the soldiers
15 who had tried to escort the convoys had been thrown out or their jeeps
16 hijacked by the Serbs.
17 It was no use to escort the buses when they lost all their
18 materiel and were brought back to the compound half an hour or a day
20 The escort had not succeeded at all.
21 During his second visit to the "White House," he saw a man whom he
22 identified as being on the left-hand side of Exhibit 28/8.1, which is a
23 photograph depicting two males, one of whom is wearing a T-shirt and
24 facing the camera.
25 He saw this man, who did not look like a plain soldier, speaking
1 to all of the Serb soldiers who came to the "White House," including
2 soldiers in black uniforms who arrived in private cars that stopped in
3 front of the "White House." Some of these cars arrived from Srebrenica
4 and others from Potocari. Their occupants spoke to this man before
5 driving away.
6 By the time it was clear that the last buses were filled up, later
7 in the day on 13 July, the battalion had stopped escorting the convoys
8 because it was no use any more. He asked his company ops room if he could
9 make an attempt to escort the last buses and was given the okay. So he
10 quickly drove to the head of the convoy which was heading toward OP Papa.
11 After driving approximately a kilometre to a kilometre and a half in
12 Potocari, a private car containing three Serb soldiers in green camouflage
13 uniforms came up behind them.
14 Next another car containing two Serb soldiers came from the side
15 of the road and blocked the road. The soldiers were pointing weapons at
16 them. The actions of the two cars appeared well organised. At his
17 instruction, his driver then made a U-turn and returned to the compound.
18 As a result, the convoy was not escorted.
19 When he returned to the compound he was told to accompany a truck
20 and some medical personnel who were going into Srebrenica to pick up the
21 last elderly people left behind or along the road. Enroute he was stopped
22 by Serb soldiers who ordered him, his driver and a Sergeant in the back
23 seat out at gun point. The Serb soldiers told them that they would have
24 to continue on in the truck. When they reached the Bravo Company
25 compound, he saw Serb looting the compound and driving Dutch APCs filled
1 with stolen material. The Serbs had also emptied the weapons collection
2 point. Along the road they found a few elderly people whom the medical
3 personnel treated and placed in the truck.
4 From what he saw, the Serb soldiers who were in command only had
5 to say things once and everyone understood what he or what the senior
6 commander meant, so you could easily tell who was in control.
7 The Serbs knew exactly who was in charge on the Dutch side and
8 more or less always addressed the Lieutenants who were around. They asked
9 him for his rank and did not speak to the soldiers. When he was
10 threatened by Serb soldiers as he was gathering information he considered
11 the threats serious and his life could be in danger if he did his job.
12 Q. Now, Major, that concludes the summary. Are there any corrections
13 or additions as you sat there and listened to it that you'd care to make?
14 A. No, there are not, no corrections.
15 Q. I want to turn your attention in the time we have left to a
16 handful of areas that arise from your prior testimony, and the first is
17 that you testified that during your seven months with DutchBat 3, you
18 experienced a decreasing number of UNHCR convoys. Do you recall when that
19 decrease began?
20 A. The decrease began the end of February and the beginning of March
21 and it was a -- an intense decrease because we also got the news that the
22 warehouse in Srebrenica itself, where everything was assembled together,
23 all goods was getting more and more lower on stock.
24 Q. And how about the DutchBat resupply convoys? Did they experience
25 a decrease as well?
1 A. Yes. At the same time, more or less, we were also on minimise.
2 In fact the previous battalion from DutchBat 2 was also on minimise when
3 we came in but it became more and more severe also the beginning of March.
4 Q. I want to turn your attention briefly to the actual VRS attack on
5 the enclave. Did you have an opportunity to see what was being struck by
6 the shelling?
7 A. Yes. Warehouses around the compound itself, what was in our line
8 of sight and it warehouses near for instance Budak hill that was on the
9 opposite of the compound.
10 Q. And when you say compound you're referring to the Potocari
12 A. Yes, I'm referring to the Potocari compound, yes.
13 Q. Now, you also testified about the VRS firing along a lane on the
14 Potocari-Srebrenica road. And that that firing was on or near DutchBat
15 vehicles. Do you have any specific examples of such firing on or near
16 DutchBat vehicles that you can tell the Trial Chamber about?
17 A. Yes. There were more but one specific it was from the hills above
18 OP Papa, it was on a map on the JNA map the hills of Purici, they had
19 their different kinds of weapons there and they shot in a lane towards
20 Potocari, specific -- yeah, something that could even laugh about it
21 later, at least I did, is a story about a colleague, Major Boering, who
22 was in the S5 team came in driving and was shot at with his -- when he
23 came driving in with his jeep and I said to him -- and he was driving
24 quite fast. And I said to him when he came into the building, "Are you
25 always driving that fast?" And he couldn't see that as a joke but that is
1 an example what really happened when every car or every vehicle that came
2 out of Kadin [phoen] was fired at.
3 Q. Now, I want to turn your attention now and ask you a couple of
4 questions regarding the several hours during which you were being held by
5 the Serb soldiers after they had taken your weapons and some of your
6 equipment as well.
7 Now, after DutchBat withdrew on 21 July, you spent a couple of
8 days in Zagreb before returning to Holland; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. And while in Zagreb, do you recall completing an ICTY, UN peace
11 keeper interview questionnaire?
12 A. Yes, it's also correct.
13 Q. And in that questionnaire, you were asked a series of questions
14 related to whether or not you had been captured or subject to restriction
15 on your freedom of movement, do you remember those questions?
16 A. Yes, they were in the same as well.
17 Q. One of those questions was can you identify the
18 military/paramilitary/police or other personnel taking you hostage. Do
19 you recall what your answer was to that question as you sit here?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
21 What's the objection.
22 MS. CONDON: I hate to interrupt my learned friend. I would just
23 like a specific reference to the date thereof questionnaire and the page
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I that I that can be handled by Mr. Thayer.
1 MR. THAYER: Yes, Your Honour and I apologise.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a fair intervention.
3 MR. THAYER: That is an undated questionnaire. The -- it is on
4 the second page of the document but it's listed on our exhibit list as I
5 believe UN peacekeeper interview questionnaire, the ERN at the top is
6 00565014 and I believe it is also the second page of the B/C/S
8 Q. Now, Major, do you remember what your answer was to that question?
9 A. Yes. I spoke to several soldiers and tried to make at least as a
10 normal contact and they had they told me that they were from a special
11 unit from Belgrade and special police unit, they said, because I couldn't
12 identify any symbols or insignia on the uniform. It was a quite normal
13 conversation. We spoke about how they came there and asked me also
14 where -- where I was from in Holland and so on, so to me it seemed a very
15 normal conversation with a true and honest belief to it, to what they said
16 at that moment.
17 Q. You referred to the uniforms. Do you recall anything in
18 particular about the actual uniform?
19 A. Yes. There was a difference because they didn't wear any flak
20 vests, the most of them. Some of them had and this special police unit
21 had that were light blue flak jackets and they were very interested about
22 ours because we had our -- and they called it "pancir." Our flak vests
23 were more protective than the ones they had.
24 Q. How about the rest of the uniforms, do you recall anything
25 particular about the appearance of those?
1 A. They were also the camouflage uniforms, yeah.
2 Q. Now, what -- in what language were you conducting this
4 A. It was -- they were not that good on English but they spoke in
5 mostly in German with some words Serbo-Croatian in between but in German
6 they managed quite well.
7 Q. So when you use the term here special police, is that your term or
8 is that the term that the soldiers used when you were speaking with them?
9 A. No. They used the term "Specijalni," and that means such as
10 Special Forces, not the Special Forces that the word that we use in the
11 army then we mean Special Forces commandos and so on but they were special
12 police force, a force, especially with a special task that they said to
14 Q. And what if anything did they tell you about their relationship
15 with the army?
16 A. They didn't tell nothing much about that. They didn't go in
17 detail to that. At least, as I tried they weren't giving any answers to
19 Q. Now, I want to turn your attention to the nine bodies. With
20 respect to those nine bodies you discovered, you testified that you
21 observed identification documents scattered around those bodies. Can you
22 describe those documents with any detail for the Trial Chamber, please?
23 A. Yes. Well, all kinds of identity cards. We hadn't that much time
24 to review them specific but I saw them earlier used in the enclave, a kind
25 of working permit, small cards, with sometimes with pass photos on it and
1 all kinds of papers were lying around those bodies, also including some
3 Q. So specifically with respect to these documents that you saw
4 around the bodies, did any of them bear photographs?
5 A. Yes, they did, yeah.
6 Q. And from what you saw, Major, did you observe any evidence that
7 the bodies had been moved from one location to the other?
8 A. No, there were no traces of that, no.
9 Q. Any blood trails, for example, anything like that?
10 A. No, no, no, no. They were shot on spot there and were never
12 Q. I want to turn your attention to your contact with Lieutenant van
13 Duijn. You testified that you and then Lieutenant van Duijn had had a
14 difference of opinion as to the appearance and what you perceived to be
15 the consequences of his actions at the APC blockade on 13 July. Now, was
16 there anything in particular about the separation process which you saw
17 that gave rise to your response or your opposition to what you saw
18 Lieutenant van Duijn doing?
19 A. Lieutenant van Duijn was at a certain spot and I was more around,
20 and I saw more in detail what happened around the compound and I was also
21 along the line of buses so I could easier see also in the neighbourhood of
22 the "White House" what had happened over there, and to my opinion he
23 wasn't quite aware of what was really happening as a result of his actions
24 near to those four APCs. So there was a difference in opinion. And I was
25 behind those APCs making some photos and, yeah, if you look into a camera,
1 it's, yeah, you see a different picture, a narrow picture, and then, yeah,
2 looking -- it didn't look that good to me so that was the reason that I
3 picked out the discussion with Lieutenant van Duijn.
4 Q. Now, you referred to a long line of buses. Was there anything
5 going on along that line of buses which contributed to your opposition or
6 response to what Lieutenant van Duijn was doing?
7 A. In fact, he was assembling groups or helping with it and the
8 moment the groups, the line was lowered, the group started moving to the
9 buses, and it was on the front side so on the compound side that these
10 moved but at the back side of the buses where the houses were and also
11 where also that "White House," was there were all along that line Serb
12 soldiers and that it was not in the line of sight of Lieutenant van Duijn
13 so at that line, easily men and boys could pick -- pick out of the line
14 and were brought or sent to the houses directed by the Serbs.
15 Q. And when you refer to the line are you referring to the line of
17 A. Yes, I'm referring to the line of buss.
18 Q. And did you actually see men or boys being separated out by those
19 soldiers that were along that line of buses?
20 A. Yes, yes, I actually saw that, yeah.
21 Q. Now, when we met first a couple of weeks ago do you recall that I
22 showed you an aerial photograph of the Potocari base?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And at that time, did that photo have any names of any buildings
25 or landmarks marked on it already or did you identify those for me from
1 your memory at that time?
2 A. It was a photograph with no identification on it and I marked them
3 out again to clear the picture again, yeah.
4 Q. And you did that with little stickies that you placed?
5 A. Yes, the yellow stickers, yes.
6 Q. Did I also ask you to trace the route that you took to the
7 location where you discovered the nine bodies?
8 A. Yes, you did.
9 Q. And you did that without actually marking the exhibit, just
10 showing me with ...
11 A. With a pencil.
12 Q. Now, did I subsequently show you a similar aerial photograph of
13 the Potocari base which you yourself had marked during your testimony in
14 the Krstic trial?
15 A. Yes, you also did.
16 Q. And do you remember that you were asked to mark -- let me withdraw
17 that question. Do you remember what you were asked to mark during the
18 Krstic trial on that exhibit?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what was that, sir?
21 A. That was the spot of the -- where I found that nine bodies, yeah.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could you please make a
23 pause because of overlap, please.
24 MR. THAYER: Yes, I'm receiving a message from the interpreters.
25 I apologise.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please comply.
2 MR. THAYER:
3 Q. In addition to the spot, Major, did you also indicate the route on
4 that exhibit that you took to that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Group of bodies?
7 A. It's also marked out, yes.
8 Q. And when you compared the route that you had traced for me with
9 the route that you showed in Krstic, how were they in terms of their
10 similarity or lack of similarity?
11 A. To me they were exactly the same.
12 Q. At this time, if we could be shown 65 ter 1522, please? Or
13 P02179. Either way.
14 Do you have an image on your screen, sir?
15 A. Yes, I have the image, yes.
16 Q. And do you recognise that document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what is that document, sir?
19 A. That document is the place where I marked the route and the place
20 where I found the bodies and this is the situation that I found in 1995,
21 July 1995, and also marked this one out in the Krstic case. It's the
23 Q. Okay. Now, in some of your prior statements and on the sketch you
24 drew in connection with the so-called Kodak team investigation, you
25 referred to a location where you saw Muslim men being taken on the first
1 day of the transportations. Do you know or can you tell the Trial Chamber
2 what that general area or location was called on the first day of the
4 A. It were the houses what you see between the yellow line there and
5 also already the "White House," it's in the opposite of the compound?
6 Q. Now, focusing your attention to the 12th, you referred to two
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was that near an area that went by any other name?
10 A. Yes. That was the area of the car wash, the blue -- a blue
11 building, yeah; it was a former car wash.
12 Q. If you would with Madam Usher's assistance just take the stylus
13 that's next to the --
14 A. Okay. So --
15 Q. Would you just circle the area you're referring to as the car wash
16 and just write "car wash" next to that?
17 A. [Marks].
18 Q. And if you would identify the two houses that you referred to
19 where you saw Muslim men being taken on the first day of the
20 transportations, and if you would just next to that write, "First day"?
21 A. [Marks].
22 Q. Okay. Now, would you please mark the area where you were held by
23 the special police soldiers with an A?
24 A. [Marks].
25 Q. Again, keeping your attention on the 12th of July, can you just
1 mark with small letter Rs the areas where the refugees were located on the
3 A. [Marks].
4 Q. And how about in relation to the -- let me ask you first question.
5 On this photograph, can you identify the area where those four APCs that
6 you referred to are located and if you could just write APCs next to that?
7 A. [Marks].
8 Q. And on the 12th, can you mark again with some small Rs where the
9 refugees were who were waiting to pass through that blockade as we have
10 referred to it were located?
11 A. This is the line of of the refugees here?
12 Q. On the 12th, how far back did that line extend?
13 A. It was almost along the road. It's here, it's almost -- this
14 whole area was packed until the APCs -- the line behind the APC.
15 Q. For the record describing a rectangular area emanating from a
16 circle in the centre of an image at the top of which is a letter R.
17 MR. THAYER: I see that we are right up against the break,
18 Your Honour. I think we'll have to initial this and save it and then work
19 with it a little bit more tomorrow?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. You need to put your signature top right-hand
21 corner, please. You can write it with the stylus.
22 THE WITNESS: [Marks].
23 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I have just a few more questions. I
24 should be able to finish in five to ten minutes tomorrow.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't overstay because we will be keeping the
1 other Trial Chamber starting on time.
2 Major, we won't finish tomorrow and Friday we are not sitting, so
3 that means we will continue and finish with you on Monday.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much for everything and.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, it is important that between now
8 and tomorrow and then after tomorrow until Monday, you do not communicate
9 or let anyone communicate with you in relation to the matters that you are
10 testifying upon.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay, sir.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. We stand adjourned until tomorrow
13 morning at 9.00. That's it. Thank you.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of
16 November, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.