1 Monday, 26 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So, good afternoon everybody. Madam Registrar,
6 could you kindly call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here.
10 Defence teams are all present in full force. Prosecution is
11 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Thayer.
12 I just wanted to address you before the witness comes in. We have
13 been informed by the Victims and Witnesses Unit that there is a
14 possibility that the witness might feel distressed at some point in time,
15 in which case, although he has expressed his view that he should be alone
16 in the courtroom, they have in turn asked us possibly to allow them to be
17 present in case he needs assistance, if he gets distressed. So I -- we
18 have discussed that, and we will proceed first with the witness alone, but
19 if he needs assistance, of course we'll make that available.
20 We also had to deal with the tendering of documents of the last
21 witness. And we agreed to postpone that until today because of some
22 afterthought that you needed to give to the matter. Let's start with you,
23 Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Nicholls.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you. I have three exhibits, Your Honours, as
3 indicated on the sheet, which has been passed out. P02448, the pseudonym
4 sheet under seal; P02452, a photograph which should remain under seal; and
5 PIC 00070, which was the photograph marked during the testimony, and that
6 can be -- that does not need to be under seal.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any objections? We hear none. So they
8 are so admitted.
9 Nikolic Defence team.
10 MR. BOURGON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
11 Honours. In terms of documents, there are five documents I'd like to
12 tender into evidence. The first two documents are -- would be admitted
13 for impeachment purposes and that would be document 3D87. 3D87 is a
14 redacted version of the document which was previously 3D80.
15 Now, I did not have time to give a copy to my colleague of this
16 3D87, and I will do that immediately at the first break.
17 The second document is document 3D88, which is also a redacted
18 version of the document which was used during the cross-examination called
19 3D81. It is also a redacted version that I will give to my colleague at
20 the break.
21 The next document is a document which was a Prosecution document
22 of which we would like to tender only two pages. The number of the
23 document is P295, P295, and we would like to tender into evidence from
24 this document pages 109 and 110, and the pages are the same, both in
25 English and in B/C/S.
1 The fourth document, and this just to -- for the record, is the
2 vehicle work log for July of 1995, concerning Victor Tango 5288 Volkswagen
4 The fourth [sic] document is the log of troop presence for the
5 brigade command, Zvornik Brigade, that's also a Prosecution document P311,
6 and that is for the month of July 1995. The English ERN being 0084-6881.
7 And the B/C/S ERN being 0074-3953.
8 The fifth [sic] document we'd like to tender is the death
9 certificate of Ruzica Pantic. This is a document that was put on the
10 electronic court system by the Popovic team, and bears the number 1D217 or
11 1D217. It is a document dated 13 December 2006 and there are no ERN
12 numbers for this document. So these are the five documents we would like
13 to tender into evidence, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Please don't interpret me as interfering in your
15 responsibilities, but during the testimony of the previous witness, if I
16 remember well, you asked him to mark -- put separate markings on the photo
17 of the Grbavci school.
18 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: In addition some are in red, some are in blue. In
20 addition to the markings that he had put on the photograph that the
21 Prosecution has tendered.
22 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President. And this document was P1691
23 as marked by the witness on the second day of his cross-examination. And
24 that was on the 23rd of February.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: But you are tendering that as well?
1 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objections on the part of...
3 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask, Mr. Bourgon, the purpose of tendering
4 redacted versions of statements is to tender only the parts that were
5 dealt with during the course of cross-examination. Is that correct?
6 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Judge. There are two purposes. The first
7 is impeachment purposes. The first purpose being that we want to --
8 during the cross-examination, I covered with the witness the fact that
9 during the first two interviews that were conducted with him, that first
10 one being in December -- November of 2005, and the second one being in
11 April of 2006, that there was a very limited references to Drago Nikolic,
12 far less from whatever came out during his examination-in-chief. So
13 that's the first purpose. The second purpose is to highlight those
14 paragraphs in which he contradicted himself on the stand during his
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. However, would you not agree that it
17 would be more convenient for the Chamber to understand the -- understand
18 the context, if the whole witness statement would be tendered?
19 MR. BOURGON: I don't think so, Your Honour. I really believe
20 that this is limited purpose for impeachment purposes and that there is no
21 need for the complete statement to be tendered.
22 JUDGE KWON: That being the case, would it not be sufficient,
23 those parts, as cited, quoted during the course of examination, so those
24 will be appearing in the transcript already.
25 MR. BOURGON: Well, the idea is if the witness said in -- in the
1 transcript, during his cross-examination, if the witness answered a
2 question which was contrary to what he said in his statement, although
3 this might have been mentioned during cross-examination, it is important
4 to see the exact words that were used during cross-examination to be
5 compared with those that were used when he gave his statement.
6 Just to provide you with one example, and maybe -- I don't think
7 it's necessary to go into closed session, but the fact that he mentioned
8 that when he was given an order to report to the school in Orahovac, the
9 order was given by someone called Pantic, who was the chief of transport,
10 and that when he returned the vehicle, the vehicle was returned to a
11 Mr. Pantic. Now, during cross-examination, of course, the story came out
12 differently, but in the statement, he mentioned quite precisely that it
13 was Pantic who gave the order, both to go and to whom he reported the
14 vehicle back. So that is just one example where we feel it is necessary
15 for the Trial Chamber to compare exactly the words of the statement with
16 the testimony of the witness.
17 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Bourgon, one difficulty that I have there is
18 that one of your points, as you just mentioned, was that there was limited
19 reference to the activities or conduct of your client. In order to assess
20 that, for my purposes, I would need to see the full statements. I take
21 your point that not all of the evidence is being adduced, but your point
22 was there is only limited reference in these two statements and for those
23 purposes, for me, it would be better to have the entire statements in
24 evidence in order to assess your point on that particular issue. That's
25 just a difficulty that I would have.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I couldn't agree more.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It is on. Especially since this would be in
4 conformity along the lines of previous indications or decisions that we
5 took on similar -- on similar issues. I mean, when it came to extracts of
6 statements to the Prosecution, we had given you the indication that
7 providing us only with that limited extract and not the context, the whole
8 context in which it was made, could be disruptive and not informative
9 enough for the purposes of our deliberations.
10 What I suggest is that we can decide on the rest and give you a
11 little bit more time to think it over and perhaps also discuss it with
12 the -- with Mr. Nicholls and then we will decide on that particular
13 document later on in the day today.
14 MR. BOURGON: If I may respond to your concerns, Mr. President,
15 and Judge. For us it is very important that those parts do not appear,
16 and the reason is just that we want to show exactly, that out of the full
17 statement, there is one or two lines, and these lines are maintained. So
18 that's why I need to show with the Prosecution, or with my colleague, to
19 show that only one line talks about Drago Nikolic in that statement and
20 that shows even more in our point of view, the fact that out of those two
21 interviews there were very limited references to Drago Nikolic. And that
22 is very important for our purposes. Should the Trial Chamber decide
23 otherwise, then we will simply not file the statement at all, because we
24 believe that there are -- there is prejudicial information either to our
25 client or other clients that was not raised during cross-examination that
1 should not find itself before the Trial Chamber, even for impeachment
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls, do you wish to comment on all that?
4 MR. NICHOLLS: Briefly, Your Honours. First, I don't have
5 objections to 3, 4, 5, those exhibits. My concerns are the same as what
6 I've heard from the Trial Chamber. I think the statements, at least --
7 especially the first statement at least needs to come in in full for the
8 context. The Trial Chamber is not a lay jury. It's clear what purpose
9 the statements are coming in for. There's a lot of cross-examination on
10 these statements and I think the proper, normal or orthodox approach is
11 either counsel relies on the record or the statement goes in as a whole.
12 Part of the reason that I was willing to forego any redirect was
13 that counsel said he was putting the witness statements in, which give the
14 context. For instance, in paragraph 2 of the statement, the witness
15 referred to the assistant of his boss, and how he knew him as his own
16 name. So I think if these are coming in for impeachment, then the Chamber
17 does need the whole context and the Trial Chamber can read and see which
18 lines mention Drago Nikolic and which lines do not without redactions.
19 Lastly, I've never seen these redactions. I don't know what's
20 being offered. So I can't agree at this point.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we will need to defer our decision on that
22 particular document until later. So we have heard your submissions.
23 MR. BOURGON: Well, Mr. President, I would like to respond to the
24 observations of my colleague, if you allow me to.
25 First, we should not mix where I, the Defence, decides to file
1 into evidence or to seek whether to admit it into evidence a prior
2 inconsistent statement with the fact that my colleague decided yes or no
3 to conduct re-examination. The two are unrelated.
4 The second point is I will of course grant to him, and I said it
5 right at the beginning, that he hasn't seen those redactions yet so he has
6 to see them. The third issue, Mr. President, I believe that if the Trial
7 Chamber -- we feel that it is the normal practice just to have those parts
8 of the statement and not to have the full statement in evidence for
9 impeachment purposes. Just to have the parts where anything that was
10 covered during the cross-examination of the witness is still there on that
11 witness statement. And we feel that this is the way, the best way for the
12 Trial Chamber to be able to see what the witness said, compared to what he
13 said on the same topics and only on the same topics in his prior
14 inconsistent statement. Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. We will come to that in due course
16 during today's sitting.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, you will have an opportunity to see
19 the redacted version, and we will -- we will hear what you will have to
20 say later, Mr. Nicholls.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: I can just say, unless the redactions are
22 incredibly minimal, I see no prejudice whatsoever in this Trial Chamber
23 having the full context of the prior statement and using that to compare
24 to the testimony in court.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you, Mr. Nicholls. The Popovic team,
1 Defence team wishes to tender some documents as well. Mr. Zivanovic.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to refer back
3 to - thank you, Your Honours - to the proposal to tender as an exhibit the
4 exhibit referred to by the Defence of the accused Nikolic; it is a part of
5 the document 3D81. I would like to point out that I believe that
6 tendering the entire document, first, I am opposed to that. Secondly,
7 that could be harmful for the others in this case, the other accused,
8 especially because those parts were not the subject of the
9 examination-in-chief by the Prosecution or cross-examination by any of the
10 Defence teams. And for those reasons, I would also like to add that the
11 part that is being requested for tendering here is irrelevant for this
12 case, and I absolutely believe that it cannot contribute in the slightest
13 degree to what the Trial Chamber is meant to establish. So I believe that
14 this information report, this report, should not be tendered as an exhibit
15 because I believe that it can be detrimental for the other accused and
16 that part was not the subject of the examination-in-chief by the
17 Prosecution or the cross-examination by some Defence teams.
18 On my part, I would also like to indicate that the list of our
19 documents to cross-examine this witness has been handed over to the
20 Registrar. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Just for the purpose of the transcript,
22 on line 23 of page 9, the document that you seem to be referring to,
23 according to the transcript is 3D81. I suppose you meant 3D88. Can you
24 check out for me, please, both the Nikolic Defence team and the Popovic
25 defence team?
1 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
2 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, 3D88 is a redacted version of 3D81.
3 And 3D87 is a redacted version of 3D80. Those are the two -- the two new
4 versions bear the number 87 and 88, whereas they were 80 and 81
5 previously. At the break, I will immediately show my colleague those
6 redactions and ask him to agree on the -- on having just those parts
7 tendered into evidence. If we cannot agree, I will simply withdraw those
8 documents because I feel they were -- the Trial Chamber can draw the same
9 conclusions without the documents, and in addition, the fact that my
10 learned friend did not choose to re-examine also reinforces the issue that
11 we raised during cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. What I wanted to make clear
13 is that we don't have before us either 3D80 or 3D81. What you seek to
14 tender, Mr. Bourgon, is 3D87 and 3D88, and if I was reading Mr. Zivanovic
15 well, he couldn't have been referring to 3D81 because you were not seeking
16 to introduce 3D81 but you were seeking to introduce a part from 3D87,
17 3D88. So the transcript needs -- I need your confirmation of this,
18 because I don't speak for either of you, obviously.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I didn't
20 know that the document was in -- redacted in the meantime and that it had
21 been given a different number. So what I said actually referred to
22 document 3D88. That's the information report of the 10th of April, 2006.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then two submissions. I noticed Mr. Haynes
24 standing before.
25 MR. HAYNES: I was going to say I do have a document to tender
1 into evidence but I'm conscious that there is a witness waiting to come
2 in, so if you want to deal with it later, I will do.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, you need to address two issues: One is
5 the submission by Mr. Zivanovic in relation to 3D88, which he is not
6 seeking to tender himself, it is only a submission. The other is in
7 relation to the five documents that he wishes to tender, namely from 1D211
8 to 1D214, and then your own document P1891. So let's take them one by
9 one. And in the meantime, I would appreciate if Madam Usher could go to
10 the room where the witness is waiting and explain to him that we've got
11 some matters to deal with in relation to the previous witness. So that he
12 doesn't get...
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start with the list. Do you have any
15 objections to the tendering of any of these five documents? Were these
16 put to the witness?
17 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honour. Yes, I absolutely object to
18 entering witness statements, which is what I believe these are, to -- to
19 the -- into evidence at this stage. You can't -- I think they can --
20 witnesses can be called, but just to -- there is no need for that at all.
21 The record was clear on this. You don't put in witness statements of
22 other witnesses in this way. I've never seen it done. I don't agree to
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And in relation to 3D88? It was a submission rather
25 than a request to tender.
1 MR. NICHOLLS: 3D88 is the redacted of 3D81, that's one I haven't
2 seen, but I will discuss that with my colleague, as soon as I get a
3 chance. That one, there might be a possibility for some agreement with
4 what my colleague said. The first one, 3D80, which is the witness's ICTY
5 statement, I find -- unless -- I find it almost impossible that would I
6 agree to any redactions to that and I would offer it myself, if there is
7 any -- any question, because there's been so much cross on that statement,
8 that it may be helpful just to have it in whole to show where the witness
9 was consistent, where he was inconsistent and as my client -- as
10 Mr. Bourgon said, to compare the testimony, the words with what was quoted
11 during cross-examination.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, these documents that you seek to
13 tender, particularly the first four, why are you seeking to tender these
14 documents, because they were not put to the witness?
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I did submit to the witness that
16 there are statements by certain survivors from a specific execution site,
17 wishing to point out to him that there, in this other location, executions
18 were being carried late into the night, and then they were transferred to
19 the location that he spoke about. I explained that to him. I told him
20 that. Others testified on that before this Trial Chamber, and statements
21 were given also by witnesses that were not heard in court. And I had no
22 reason to quote portions of the statements to him. He did not dispute
23 them in any way, and I believe that they are relevant in order to assess
24 his testimony because he said the executions at the location where he was
25 began only after the place where the executions were carried out before
1 that -- the meadow was completely full. And this is why I wanted to
2 present these other statements to him.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Just, Your Honour, looking at the transcript, I
6 think -- I think my friend may have inadvertently misspoke. I don't think
7 the witness ever said what is quoted here, that the executions in this
8 place began only after --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's not get into that argument, please. Because
10 that's -- may become a submission later on but not at the moment.
11 In relation to the fifth document, the Zvornik hospital medical
12 logbook, P1891, are you objecting to the Popovic Defence team's request to
13 tender it into evidence?
14 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour. And I'm sorry my difficulty is we
15 just got this, so I'm trying to make sure I know exactly what is coming in
16 off the list. No, I don't object to that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: This list we are in a position to decide upon
19 JUDGE KWON: Was it put to the witness, Zvornik hospital medical
20 logbook, in part?
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] That was not put to the witness by
22 me. It's a document on him being admitted to the hospital, but I cannot
23 tender that, since the Prosecution has the same document on their list of
24 documents that will be used to examine the witness that is coming now.
25 It's not essential to have this document on the list now.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't want to contradict you, but I think, and my
2 memory wouldn't fail me on this, we did see in the course of the testimony
3 of the previous witness the hospital medical entry which I suppose --
4 MR. HAYNES: I put it to him. It's P0251 [sic]. I was going to
5 seek to put it into evidence with the qualification that it bears the name
6 of protected witness 105 and it might have to be under seal or have that
7 redacted. And that solves that problem. The transcript is wrong, it's
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's deal with the totality of these documents.
10 Our decision on the first four documents in the list provided by
11 Mr. Zivanovic for accused Popovic is that we cannot exceed to the request
12 to have them tendered. Reason is as follows: In -- if the person
13 mentioned in this list has testified, then there is the testimony of that
14 person that can be relied upon. And secondly, if the person mentioned
15 hasn't testified, that's one more reason why it should not be admitted.
16 We do admit P1891 as a Defence document. Madam Registrar, you
17 need to pay attention to see whether this needs to go under seal or not
18 because I am not in a position to confirm that. I don't know.
19 As regards the document that Mr. Haynes is proposing to tender,
20 that's P0251, correct me if the number is not the right one, Mr. Haynes,
21 it is so admitted but it will be kept under seal because of the same
22 reasons mentioned by Mr. Haynes.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: The other reason that Judge Kwon brings up and with
25 which I associate myself, and I suppose you as well, and Judge Stole, is
1 that to our knowledge these four witness statements were not put to the
2 witness, were not put to the witness.
3 Are there any preliminaries that you wish to raise before we bring
4 in the next witness?
5 The members of the public, I wish to advise that for a minute or
6 so we will need to bring down the curtains, separating this courtroom from
7 the rest, and then you will be able to follow the proceedings after that
8 the witness has taken his place. Because the reason is that he is a
9 protected witness.
10 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. The transcript reads on
12 page 14, line 10, that the Trial Chamber admits P1891. I believe it is
13 1691, but I'm not sure. Can my colleague confirm this, because we on this
14 end, I do not have a copy here of that photograph that was used and that
15 was marked by the witness, but my understanding was it was 1691 and not
17 JUDGE KWON: It is a Zvornik hospital medical logbook.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: 1891 is the Zvornik hospital medical logbook that I
19 invited --
20 MR. BOURGON: I'm sorry. I thought this was that 1891 that
21 referred to the photograph that was marked, because that is 1691.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, that's --
23 MR. BOURGON: I apologise, Mr. President. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So could you please bring the curtains
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, sir. Can you hear me?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you and welcome to this Tribunal.
5 Very soon you are going to start giving evidence. Madam Usher is going to
6 hand you the text of a solemn declaration, which you are required to make
7 before us; namely, that in the course of your testimony, you will be
8 speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. Please go ahead, read it
9 out loud, and that will be your undertaking with us.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
11 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-105
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
15 We'll do our best to make things easy for you, and first thing I will do
16 is to explain very briefly that upon the request of Prosecution, we have
17 put in place three protective measures for you; the use of a pseudonym
18 instead of your name and then facial and voice distortion. The whole idea
19 is to hide your identity. I want to make sure first and foremost that
20 this arrangement is to your satisfaction.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Thayer will go first. He will put
23 some questions to you, and then some of the Defence teams will
24 cross-examine you.
25 Mr. Thayer.
1 Incidentally, Witness, if at any time you need a short break,
2 please, do let us know, and we will do our best.
3 Mr. Thayer.
4 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
5 Honours. Good afternoon, everyone.
6 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
7 Q. Witness, good afternoon. I'm handing you a piece of paper.
8 Please read it to yourself.
9 For the record, that's been marked as P02449.
10 Do you see your name printed on that piece of paper along
11 with "PW-105"?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. And we'll just pass that around.
14 If you can, because there is a special microphone in front of you,
15 try to sit as close to the microphone as possible, and when answering a
16 question, whether it's from myself or my friends across the aisle or Their
17 Honours, just take your time, wait until you've heard the entire question,
18 and speak slowly, because we don't want to miss anything you have to say.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I know these events I'm going to ask you about are very
22 difficult for you to talk about, but everyone here, my friends across the
23 aisle, Their Honours, they all understand that and we just want you to try
24 your best to answer the questions. And His Honour has already told you,
25 if at any time you feel like you need a break, or if you feel like you
1 need somebody here with you, please, just let us know and we'll do
2 everything we can to accommodate you. Okay?
3 A. Very well.
4 Q. Mr. President, if we may move into private session for just a few
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Have you explained to the witness what
7 that means?
8 MR. THAYER: I have, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let's move into private session, please.
10 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now.
11 MR. THAYER: Thank you.
12 Q. I want to ask you some questions about the events of a particular
13 day that you told me for the first time about a year ago. Okay?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. First, would you please tell Their Honours how old were you at
16 that time?
17 A. I was seven.
18 Q. And would you please just, step by step, describe for Their
19 Honours what you remember happening that day. And I may have to stop you
20 every now and then to ask you a question, but please, just in your own
21 words, describe as best as you can, what you remember happening that day.
22 A. My father and I, (redacted), were at our home, and father was screwing
23 on a light bulb, I was looking out the window and a man was passing with
24 an axe on his shoulder and he said that the Chetniks are coming. Father
25 told me, hide behind -- beneath the bed. I hid, but they found us
2 Later they took us out of the house, they forced us on to a green
3 truck. They put some white cloth around our eyes. It became loose. I
4 asked father to tighten it, but the Chetnik did not allow him. And that
5 Chetnik later on tightened the blindfold very hard. He later took us to
6 the forest, we had to lie down on our stomachs, and they opened fire at
8 Q. Okay, Witness. I want to just stop you for a moment and ask you a
9 couple of questions, okay? Do you remember anything at all about the
10 people who put you on the truck? Can you describe at all what you recall
11 them wearing?
12 A. They had the variegated uniforms.
13 Q. You mentioned that you had asked your father to tighten the
14 blindfold on the truck. Was your father sitting next to you on the truck?
15 A. No, he was not.
16 Q. Do you recall where in the truck you were sitting?
17 A. I was first on the side, if you were stepping out of the truck.
18 And the father was all the way on the side, towards the driver.
19 Q. And who else was on this truck, if you remember?
20 A. I don't remember.
21 Q. Do you remember whether there were any other people on the truck
22 other than yourself and your father?
23 A. There were many people. My father and I were not alone. There
24 were some other people.
25 Q. Do you know whether some of those other people were soldiers or
1 whether they were civilians or whether they were both?
2 A. I don't know that. I couldn't say.
3 Q. When the truck stopped and you got out, do you remember whether it
4 was day-time or night-time or somewhere in between?
5 A. It was dark, it was night-time.
6 Q. Now, I wanted to ask you some questions more specifically about
7 what happened once you were taken out of the truck. Can you please
8 describe for Their Honours as best as you can remember, exactly what
9 happened when you were taken out of the truck?
10 Witness, do you need a break? Do you think you might need a
11 couple of minutes? I can tell you you are probably not the only one in
12 the courtroom, if you do.
13 A. I don't need a break.
14 Q. Very well. Take your time.
15 A. I don't need a break.
16 Q. Do you remember my question? Would you like me to repeat it?
17 A. If you could repeat it. I didn't hear it properly.
18 Q. Can you please tell Their Honours, as best as you can remember,
19 what happened when you were taken off the truck?
20 A. We left the truck and we lay down on the grass, and the Chetniks
21 later shot at us, and one doctor came from Zvornik and he saved me. He
22 took me to a jeep and drove me to the hospital and gave me an injection
23 which made me sleep. I fell asleep and they sewed up my arm and my leg.
24 Q. Okay, Witness, I just want to stop you again. When you were on
25 the ground after you were taken out of the truck, do you remember any
1 details about any other persons who were on the truck with you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. After you were lying down on the ground, do you remember anything
4 happening with respect to anyone else who may have been lying down on the
5 ground at the same time as you? If you don't remember, I'll move on.
6 You mentioned that there was shooting.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did something happen to you during this shooting?
9 A. I cannot at all.
10 Q. Do you remember any physical sensations after the shooting began?
11 A. Nothing.
12 Q. I want to focus your attention on the time that you went to the
13 hospital, okay?
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. First of all, do you remember what hospital it was?
16 A. In Zvornik.
17 Q. You mentioned that at some point you were given an injection that
18 made you sleep. Before getting that injection, do you remember whether
19 anyone at the hospital treated you in any way or did anything for you
20 before the injection?
21 A. No, no, I cannot remember.
22 Q. Do you remember how long you stayed at the hospital? And I don't
23 mean in terms of dates, but do you remember whether it was days, weeks or
25 A. I don't know correctly. I do not remember how long I stayed there
1 in the hospital.
2 Q. You mentioned that somebody stitched you. Do you remember anybody
3 doing anything --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- for you or to you before they stitched you, any of the nurses
6 or doctors? If you don't remember, just say so and I'll move on.
7 A. I don't -- don't remember.
8 Q. Can you describe for Their Honours where on your body the doctors
9 treated you?
10 A. My leg and my arm.
11 Q. Can you tell us which leg and which arm, please?
12 A. I can, but I cannot correctly remember. I can stand up and maybe
14 Q. If you could just indicate physically and I will make it on the
15 record which one.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him do that, yeah.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. Yes, I can.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Stand up and show us, yes. Thank you. That's not
19 what -- it's getting confused now.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The witness said he needed to go outside the
22 MR. THAYER: Mr. President --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him show us. Let him show us his own way.
24 Please tell us where you -- which parts of your body you were treated for?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This leg here.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the witness indicates the upper part
2 of his left thigh, on the front.
3 MR. THAYER:
4 Q. Witness, I -- Your Honour, I think it may be necessary for him to
5 be a little bit more specific than that. And it will -- and I can assure
6 the Court, I have a reason for asking for more specificity at this point.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Where exactly on your thigh, on your -- on your leg?
8 MR. THAYER:
9 Q. If you can just point to it, Witness, as specifically as you can,
10 where on your leg the injury is.
11 A. Here, here.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness, in answering this question, points to
13 his knee. Same -- same leg; left.
14 MR. THAYER:
15 Q. And, Witness, can you point to where your other injury is located,
17 A. My arm.
18 Q. And can you just point to which arm it is?
19 A. Here.
20 Q. Indicating, for the record, the right biceps area, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Okay. I think you can -- unless you
22 want to show us something else, you may prefer to sit down, make yourself
23 comfortable, and let's go ahead.
24 Yes, Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Witness, with respect to the wound to your knee, can you describe
2 the scar or marking, if any, that's there? Just describe what it's like
3 for the Trial Chamber.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have a photo of it? That way you may spare
5 him --
6 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, not that's as useful, I think, as the
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then go ahead, try to do your best to answer
9 the question that Mr. Thayer has put to you. If you've got problems we'll
10 try to help you.
11 MR. THAYER:
12 Q. Do you remember describing for me previously what the scar on your
13 knee is like, what it looks like, what it feels like?
14 A. I cannot. Not at all.
15 Q. Last week, Witness, I showed you some pictures in my office. Do
16 you remember that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. Can we see P02452, please.
19 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I presume, pursuant to prior
20 practices, this won't be broadcast, but I just, out of an abundance of
21 caution, want to make sure.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Alternatively, we go into private session, whichever
23 you prefer. I have asked him to indicate his preference. If you want do
24 it in open session, not broadcasting it, we are okay. If you want to go
25 in private session, we can do that.
1 MR. THAYER: We can stay in open session, as long as it's not
2 broadcast, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
4 MR. THAYER:
5 Q. Do you see a photograph on your screen?
6 A. I can see it.
7 Q. Do you recognise anyone in this photograph?
8 A. Yes, I recognise myself.
9 Q. And I take it that's you in the middle, just for the record?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: It can't be otherwise, can it? Let's go ahead.
11 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, if we may take the break now, I think
12 that would be convenient.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's have 25 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.23 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 3.52 p.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer.
17 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Witness, earlier in your testimony there were some things that you
19 said you couldn't remember, and you have had a break, and I just wanted to
20 first ask you whether there is anything that came back to your memory
21 during the break that you can share with Their Honours and, if there
22 isn't, that's okay, but if there is anything that came back to you during
23 the break about what happened, please let them know. I just have a couple
24 more questions for you.
25 Do you remember when we met in the home of some of your relatives
1 about a year ago? There was a big guy named Bruce, there was myself. Do
2 you remember that? Let me move on.
3 Do you remember last week when somebody read to you what you told
4 me at a previous meeting, at an earlier meeting when we met before? Do
5 you remember somebody reading to you what you had told me?
6 A. Yes, I do remember that.
7 Q. And do you remember that when that was read back to me, do you
8 remember that person saying the following, which is what you told me
9 before, "I recall that I was bathed at the hospital." Do you remember
11 A. Yes, I do remember that.
12 Q. Do you remember being bathed at the hospital?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Witness, I have no further questions. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Thayer.
16 Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will have no questions for this
18 witness. Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 Mr. Meek.
21 MR. MEEK: May it please the Chamber, we have no questions, Your
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
24 Ms. Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon.
25 MR. BOURGON: We have no questions for the witness, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Stojanovic or Lazarevic.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do not have any
3 questions either.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 Mr. Krgovic or Mr. Josse.
8 MR. JOSSE: Likewise.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes or Mr. Sarapa.
10 MR. HAYNES: No, thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't imagine there will be re-examination, but I
12 will just ask for formality's sake. Do you have any questions?
13 Sir, we have come to the end of your testimony, since no one else
14 has any questions to put to you. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish
15 to thank you for having been kind enough to come over and give testimony
16 in this case. Our staff will assist you as required and help you to
17 return home at the earliest. On behalf of everyone present here, I wish
18 you a safe journey back home.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Thayer. Documents.
21 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think everybody has the tender sheet.
22 The only additions or corrections --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objections by any of the Defence
24 teams? We essentially have six documents.
25 MR. THAYER: The only additions or corrections, Mr. President, are
1 that P02450 is not being tendered. In its place is P02452 which has
2 already been admitted through a prior witness. P04251 also has been, I
3 believe, admitted through the testimony of the prior witness.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? There are none. So these documents
5 will be admitted.
6 MR. THAYER: And we just ask that they be placed under seal as
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. All of them under seal, please.
9 MR. THAYER: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
11 MR. HAYNES: Only this, out of an abundance of caution: P02451
12 appeared on page 14, line 14 of the transcript, as P0251, and has now
13 appeared as P04251. So for the avoidance of doubt, it's P02451.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Haynes. All right. So
15 that's decided. Ms. Frease, I suppose.
16 MR. THAYER: She's ready to go, I believe.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: For the record, Mr. Vanderpuye is present in the
19 [The witness entered court]
20 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Ms. Frease, and welcome back.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Good afternoon.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye will be proceeding with his direct.
24 We don't need to repeat the solemn declaration. You know that you are
25 testifying pursuant to the one you made when you first started giving
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
5 Honours. Good afternoon, counsel.
6 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
7 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. Ms. Frease, I just want to welcome you back, and hopefully we
10 won't be too long. But I did notice that you have some documents with
11 you. I just want to make sure that we can identify for the record what
12 those are. And if you don't mind, if you could just go through them and
13 let us know what you have with you?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. I have the index to the intercepted radio communications that was
17 on the CD that we provided to Defence counsel and to Your Honours. I have
18 the index of names that accompanies that material also on the CD. I have
19 the maps also that are on the CD, and the VRS code-names that are also
20 included on the CD.
21 In addition to that, I have photocopies of some conversations that
22 are included in the CD that Mr. Vanderpuye, I -- or I believe had been
23 given to -- to others today, but anyway, that we anticipate discussing.
24 Q. Okay. Just so that the Court is aware and Defence counsel is
25 aware, we are actually in the process, as I speak, of copying those
1 documents for the Defence counsel. They are documents that I believe
2 Ms. Frease has highlighted in contemplation of her testimony that will be
3 placed on the ELMO so everybody can see them, because they are part of the
4 anticipated direct, but I also wanted Defence to have physical copies of
5 them and they are being made and should be ready according to the latest
6 update within about 20 minutes or so. Hopefully they will be here well in
7 advance of her cross-examination.
8 All right. Let me just take you back to your previous testimony
9 for just a moment, if I could. Do you recall testifying that you received
10 a series of notebooks from a commander in the 2nd Corps in 1998?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And did that commander prepare a handwritten list or
13 inventory of the notebooks that you, in fact, received?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And I believe you testified previously that that list or
16 the notebooks you received numbered 134 plus a diary or something like
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. And at the time that you received these notebooks, were
20 they numbered, that is physically, one through 134, 135?
21 A. Yes, they were.
22 Q. Okay. Could I have, please, 65 ter 1075 on the EDS, please. All
23 right. Could we make this just a little bit bigger? All right. I think
24 that's all right.
25 Ms. Frease, first of all, is this the document that you're
1 referring to?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And could you just tell us very briefly, since we've -- I
4 think gone over some of this already, but could you just tell us from left
5 to right what those particular designations are?
6 A. On the left-hand column, those are the numbers that the notebooks
7 were numbered, so 1 through 134 plus the diary. The next column has --
8 indicates the number that was assigned to it by the 2 Corps and the date
9 that they assigned that number. The next column indicates the format of
10 the notebook. So here in most cases A5, a few were other sizes. And then
11 the far right column indicates -- indicates when the notebooks were opened
12 or begun.
13 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Have you had an opportunity to compare the
14 number of the notebook against the next column, which you've indicated is
15 a -- I believe it's a confidential number or something to that effect?
16 A. Right, it's a strictly confidential number that the 2 Corps
17 assigned to it.
18 Q. And have you had an opportunity to compare that number against the
19 number of the notebooks?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Okay. And did they conform to one another? In other words, did
22 that number appear in the notebook that is indicated?
23 A. Yes, I did that years ago --
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. -- the comparison.
1 Q. Did you do that for 1 through 134?
2 A. And beyond 134, up to 191.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you have up until recently, been reviewing
4 and working with the intercepts used in this particular case; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you -- you've testified previously about the process of
8 developing what you refer to as an authentication binder?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you attempt to continue the process of identifying material
11 that corroborated the intercepts that are used in this particular case,
12 beyond what was done with your authentication binder?
13 A. Yes. Other documents were -- I was made aware of.
14 Q. Okay. And can you give us an example of the type of material that
15 you've come in -- you've been made aware of or that you've subsequently
16 relied on or used?
17 A. A lot of military documents and internal documents to the VRS at
18 the time of the events.
19 Q. Okay. And in assessing the reliability of the intercepts that are
20 used in this particular case, did you rely exclusively on the
21 corroborative documentary material that you -- that you looked at, or did
22 you rely on other information?
23 A. On other information as well. The authentication binder was
24 really designed to -- as a sample of the types of -- the type of material
25 that we could draw from in order to independently corroborate some of the
1 intercepts. So in that authentication binder we drew -- I -- at the time
2 I drew from video, from VRS military documents, from documents from the --
3 from the RS ministry of the -- defence ministry, from UNPROFOR. The one
4 big area that I didn't draw from were witness statements.
5 Q. Now, before we get into the substance of some of those things, I
6 would just like to focus your attention on the organisation of the
7 intercept material that is used in this particular case, if I may. Now,
8 you had indicated previously that you were continuing the organisation of
9 the intercepts that are used in this case, and can you tell us -- could
10 you tell us briefly what the process, or the result of that process was?
11 A. The result of the process was a three-binder set, or the
12 intercepts that -- that were handed out on CD. It's a collection of about
13 220; I think it's 217 intercepts.
14 Q. And can you tell us what was involved in the organisation of that
15 set of binders or that collection of material?
16 A. It involved matching up the handwritten copies with the electronic
17 printouts, comparing those, ensuring that we had translations for each of
18 those. In some cases ensuring that we had two translations, one for the
19 notebook, handwritten copy and one for the electronic copy, because there
20 were some differences that -- that were notable.
21 It also involved compiling, creating an index and ensuring that
22 the dates and times and participants and user names and summaries were --
23 were included on there.
24 Q. Okay. Now, did you personally oversee the organisation and
25 essentially the creation of that binder, binder of three -- three-set
1 binder, I should say?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And in reviewing the translations that were involved in
4 compiling the material, did you have occasion to make any changes to the
5 translations that you had originally received or originally reviewed?
6 A. Yes, there were occasions where we needed to send them back for
7 revision and sometimes that was because we had been working off of the old
8 printouts where, as we discussed previously, lines were missing at the
9 bottom or lines were missing at the top.
10 Sometimes if the two -- the two versions of the notebook and the
11 electronic copy differed slightly, but we had sometimes two different --
12 two different translations for each of those documents. So sometimes we
13 asked that they be conformed to essentially one translation but with the
14 notable differences reflected in each of the copies. If that made sense.
15 It was in order to -- to -- to make sure that the translations, as much as
16 possible, reflected the original documents that -- that we were working
18 Q. And were you directly involved in that process?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you rely also in that process on the assistance of other
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And without telling us who those people were, could you
24 tell us what they did?
25 A. They were translators, and language assistants mostly.
1 Q. Okay. Let me just move to another area, if I could. Before I get
2 there, could I just ask you if you can recall off the top of your head any
3 specific examples of the types of translation errors that you encountered?
4 A. Sometimes we asked that a translation be redone even if a word was
5 wrong. One comes to mind where there was a word "narediti" which means to
6 order, and in the translation it came back as "to offer." We thought that
7 was substantial enough, that it was worth having it translated again.
8 Q. In particular with respect to that intercept, was that requested
9 and was that done?
10 A. Yes, it was.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. And there were also other occasions where we were working -- we
13 had originally worked off of printouts that had been used as analytical
14 documents by the people who -- by the -- by the police in particular,
15 where they underlined certain phrases or sentences in those. So we tried
16 to have, as much as possible, that underlining taken off so that the
17 documents would be as clean as possible.
18 Q. Okay. And when you say that this -- there were analytical
19 documents by the people who -- well, there is an indication here in the
20 transcript, I'm sorry, was a reference to the police in particular. Is
21 that -- is that what you said?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. So you are talking about -- you're talking about intercepts
24 involving the police, the military police?
25 A. No, I'm sorry. Let me clarify.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Some of the first printouts that we received from the police in
3 Tuzla were their working documents, where they had underlined certain
4 sections in them.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. When we sent them for translation, they came back with the
7 underlining in them. When we then received the electronic copies, the
8 electronic versions of those identical documents, the clean -- what I'm
9 referring to as clean copies are the ones that we have included in the
10 three-binder set. Therefore, we wanted the translations also to be what
11 I'm calling clean copies, without the underlining in them and without any
12 remarks that would have been placed there by people who were analysing
13 them, the police.
14 Q. In other words, to conform with the original document?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And can I ask -- let me just take to this other area. With
17 respect to the collection of the intercepts, are you aware of whether
18 there remain operators for which -- well, which that -- which have not
19 been identified?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And do you know approximately how many operators with
22 respect to the intercepts that are used -- being used in this case, how
23 many intercepts, I should say, for which an operator hasn't been
25 A. I think there's just one.
1 Q. Okay. And do you recall the date?
2 A. The 28th of October, 1995.
3 Q. Now, with respect to that particular day, are you aware of whether
4 or not there is a notebook entry corresponding to it?
5 A. Yes, there is.
6 Q. And is the particular intercept, was that found in the notebooks
7 that were received by the office of the Prosecution?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And have you personally seen the notebook entry to which
10 that intercept corresponds or that date corresponds?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And in your having looked at it, did it appear to you that it had
13 been manipulated or tampered with in any way?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And are you aware of whether or not the binder collection includes
16 any intercepts of known operators whom -- who have not been called as
17 witnesses in this case?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you know how many such operators have not been called?
20 A. I believe two.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Yes, two.
23 Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at the intercepts that are
24 associated with those two operators?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And did those intercepts originate from the notebooks that
2 were furnished to the Prosecution -- to the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Are there any intercepts concerning those two operators
5 that are extraneous to the materials that were received by the Office of
6 the Prosecutor from the ABiH?
7 A. What do you mean by "extraneous"?
8 Q. They came from some place other than the ABiH?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. And have you personally seen the notebook entries regarding
11 those two operators?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do those entries appear to have been manipulated or tampered
14 with in any way?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. And to the best of your recollection, are those entries
17 actually included within the binder collection, or the collection of
18 intercepts used in this case?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 Q. Now, did you develop other material in relation to the binder set,
21 such as indices, et cetera?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And I believe you have indicated that you -- you did that, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. I would just like to briefly -- can I get that displayed on
1 the ELMO, right? I would like you to go through briefly, so that we
2 can -- for the Court's benefit, explain to the Court what those -- what
3 those things are. I think the first thing I'd like to start with are the
4 maps. And I believe -- I would like to have 65 ter 1086 through 1089,
5 please, displayed on e-court. Okay. And I understand we can do it
7 Okay. Do you see what's displayed on e-court just now?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you just tell us very briefly what these -- what this map is
10 intended to depict?
11 A. In the --
12 Q. What's it for?
13 A. In the top right corner it has the dates of 12 to 13 of July. It
14 was used in a previous case. What it does is it serves as a guide when
15 reading through the intercepts and even the index to the intercepts,
16 because there are so many places that are -- that are discussed in the
17 intercepts. So it's -- it's intended to help orient a person as they're
18 reading through the intercepts. So they -- they can -- so that they can
19 imagine what's happening on the ground and see the proximity of locations.
20 What it also does is really show the sequence. It shows the
21 sequence of the column going through the woods. It shows the sequence of
22 detention and -- and detention locations. And the sequence of events over
23 a period of time.
24 Q. Okay. Could we just take a look at the next one? 1087. And I
25 think that will be it.
1 Okay. Do you see what's in e-court now?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that essentially the same thing and -- the same map and is it
4 for the same purpose?
5 A. It's -- it's a different map used for the same purpose.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. The dates on it are the 14th and the 15th of July and so it
8 depicts more the events that were happening on those days, again as
9 reflected in the intercepts and is intended as a guide.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 A. And the same for the other two maps that are included.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Of course I could do this
14 in cross, but maybe the witness could -- my colleague could ask the
15 witness how she can draw sequence of events from the map. I see a date, I
16 see a time-frame, but I don't see how she can get a sequence of events.
17 Maybe she can explain that. We'll save some time in cross-examination.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to address that with the witness or do
19 you want -- do you prefer to leave it to Mr. Bourgon for
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can address it, I think.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, please. I thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. I think you've heard the question of my esteemed colleague. I
25 guess my question to you is -- first of all, did you draw the map?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And is it -- is your understanding of what the map depicts based
3 on information that was furnished to you by somebody else?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. All right. And is that the case with the other maps that
6 are featured as part of the material that accompanied the collection of
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, may I have P02443, please, displayed in e-court.
10 Okay. Do you see what's displayed in e-court now?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's a document entitled, "VRS code-names."
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you tell the Court briefly what the purpose of this
15 information is?
16 A. It's also intended to help orient anyone reading the intercepts to
17 what the code-names refer to so that they can put the code-names in
19 Q. Is this also essentially something that's put together in order to
20 assist the reader of the collection of material?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And are these names that you happened upon yourself or are
23 these names that were provided to you by other people?
24 A. These are names that were provided -- they were provided by other
25 people. This -- this list was -- was also used in previous cases.
1 Q. Okay. And these are names that appear in the intercept material
3 A. Most of them.
4 Q. Okay. Could I have P02444, please, displayed in e-court.
5 Okay. Do you see what's displayed in e-court now?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It says, "Index of Names, Intercepted Communication" right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let me ask you this: Was this list of names developed in order to
10 assist the reader of the material of the intercept material?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. Okay. And with respect to these particular names, are these names
13 that you happened upon yourself or are these names and titles information
14 that you derived or was furnished to you by other sources?
15 A. From other people within the Office of the Prosecutor and again it
16 was something that -- it was a list that accompanied the intercepts in
17 previous -- previous trials.
18 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the names that are indicated on this
19 list, do those also include the names of some of the accused that are on
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And with respect to the names of the accused that are on
23 trial, did you notice anything unusual?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Could you tell us what, if anything, you noticed?
1 A. That Mr. Borovcanin's first name is incorrect. It's indicated
2 here as Ljubisa. It should be Ljubomir. And that for General Miletic's
3 name also it's recorded on this document as being Radovan, and it should
4 be Radivoje.
5 Q. Okay. Could we just look at the -- there's a second page, at the
6 second page of this document, please.
7 A. There are four pages to the document.
8 Q. Could you scroll down, please. Okay. Thank you very much.
9 You see the second name from the bottom?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that what you are referring to?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And other than that, did any other errors come to your
14 attention or do you recall having seen any other errors with respect to
15 the list of names?
16 A. No, I would only say that it's not an exhaustive list.
17 Q. Okay. I just want to ask you about, finally, the index that you
18 created, and I'm going to, with the Court's permission, have the witness
19 shown a copy of the binder in which the index is actually contained. And
20 I would like to have her put it on the ELMO, if I may.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. What's wrong? Do we have a problem?
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
24 Q. Well, maybe we could just go through and you could discuss what
25 kind of information is in it if that's all right with the Court and then
1 to the extent that maybe we can get the problem solved in the interim, we
2 might have an opportunity to have a look at it. But I think all of this
3 material had been provided in advance in any event, so hopefully the
4 testimony will just put this in context.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to be in a position to follow,
6 Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I don't know what time the break would be
8 normally scheduled, but --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The break, I had planned it for 5.23.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: We're a little early.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: But of course if it is more convenient to have the
12 break now to give time, a possibility to the technicians to sort it out,
13 we can have it now.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: That would be great. I also have, I believe, the
15 material that I wanted to furnish to Defence counsel as well.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think there is agreement here to have the break
17 now. So shall we restrict it to 20 minutes? 20 minutes.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much.
19 --- Recess taken at 4.36 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 5.02 p.m.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we are in the
23 process of trying to show the witness the binder. If we could give that a
24 try now, maybe.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And the ELMO I suppose is back in order.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, it's on. I can say that. I'm don't know
2 whether it actually works yet.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It does.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. All right. Ms. Frease, I don't know if it appears this way to the
6 Court, but it appears to be out of focus on my monitor.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We are used to it, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
9 Q. Ms. Frease, can you see what's displayed on the ELMO?
10 A. It's a bit fuzzy but I can see it.
11 Q. All right. Okay. Could you just take us from the left-hand
12 column to the right-hand column and tell us about that?
13 A. The left-hand column contains the 65 ter numbers of the individual
14 intercepts. The next column is the date that the intercept was recorded.
15 The next column is the time that it was recorded. The fourth column
16 contains the names of the users, if they're known, the participants, the
17 people who were speaking in the conversation. The fifth column contains
18 the names of other individuals mentioned within the conversation, and the
19 last column on the right is a summary.
20 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the users that are indicated in this
21 index, are these the names as they were indicated in the intercepts or are
22 these sort of interpretations of the names that were mentioned in the
24 A. No, these were the names mentioned in the intercepts and all of
25 the information contained here really comes from the intercepts. There
1 isn't -- there isn't interpretation from me or anyone else about the
2 contents of what's here. There may be one or two small exceptions. But
3 in that -- in that -- those exceptions may be where there was already a
4 summary that was written of the intercept itself. So really these are --
5 they are excerpts, extracts, of quotes from the intercepts.
6 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to this -- this first one, right on the
7 list there, 19th January, 1995, could you tell us whether or not, if you
8 are aware if there is a notebook or an operator identified with respect to
9 that particular intercept?
10 A. There is not a notebook associated with it. There is a printout
11 associated with it, an electronic --
12 Q. And do you know whether or not an operator has been identified
13 with respect to that intercept?
14 A. Yes. Yes, someone has been identified.
15 Q. Okay. And did you participate in trying to ascertain who the
16 operator was that transcribed that or is related to that intercept?
17 A. That was done by other members of the Office of the Prosecutor.
18 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the content of the summary itself,
19 you've indicated that that's derived from the intercept itself?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that's based upon obviously a translation of the intercept?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Okay. And is the purpose of that to assist the reader in going
24 through the -- the intercept --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. -- material?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. I might mention, I think the Court may already know, but for
5 example, just in glancing down at the fifth -- at the fifth row where it
6 says X and then in parentheses it says, "Zivanovic" and then it says Y and
7 then in parentheses it says "Pantic," this is where an operator would have
8 probably recognised the voices but wasn't certain and therefore indicated
9 the names in parentheses.
10 Q. Is that based on your understanding of how the operators in fact
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The nature of the operation itself?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. I just want to take you to another area, if I could. Now,
16 you testified previously that among the factors you considered in terms of
17 evaluating the reliability of the content of the intercepts is whether or
18 not they were recorded, for example, on more than one occasion by more
19 than one operator or more than one location. Do you recall that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you aware of whether or not that, in fact, occurs with respect
23 to the intercepts that are contained within the binder collection?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. And can you approximate how many times you have noted that that
1 has occurred?
2 A. About 10 times.
3 Q. Now, I just want to take a look at a few of those just so that the
4 Court has an idea of what it is you are talking about. The first one I'd
5 like to look at, if I could, is -- could I have 65 ter 1182 brought up on
6 e-court? And could I have P02367 brought up on e-court?
7 THE REGISTRAR: 1182A, B, C or D?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: 1182A, B, C or D, good question. 1182B, please.
9 And then I think B also with respect to 2367. I don't know if it's
10 possible to have both of those...
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it possible or not? I'm told it's not. We can
12 put one on the ELMO, if you have it available, and one on e-court.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, actually, Mr. President, I was going to -- I
14 was going to see if the witness could actually display them both, since it
15 involves some comparison, which I think would be helpful for the Court to
16 follow. I thought it might also be helpful to have it on e-court
17 separately, but if that's not possible, it's probably better to use the
18 ELMO. All right. So we'll use the ELMO. Let me just remove the binder,
19 if I could.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you need Madam Usher's assistance?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, please, just to remove the binder so we can
22 set these intercepts the witness has in its place.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Whose highlighting is that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is the witness's highlighting and those are
25 the copies that I indicated have been provided to Defence counsel. I
1 don't know if they have been made available to the Court. They have.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: They have, but I just wanted it from the horse's
3 mouth, if possible, to avoid any problems on that. So we have it all
4 cleared up. Go ahead.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE:
8 Q. Okay. Ms. Frease, could you please tell us what you have just
9 placed on the ELMO?
10 A. Actually, I think I'm going to have a change the document, because
11 what's on the screen is the handwritten version of the same document that
12 is typed. Is it possible to have the typed version of that conversation?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think with -- we do have that on e-court, I
14 suppose, don't we? If someone would give us the --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's 1182C.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: 1182C.
17 THE WITNESS: Can I have some help with the ELMO?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. Could you just tell us what you've placed on the ELMO?
22 A. Yes. What I have placed on the ELMO is a conversation that was
23 recorded on the 15th of July at 2226 by an operator who worked at the
24 northern site for the division that was up there. And what is on the --
25 what do we call this screen? E-court. What is on e-court is a typed
1 version of the same conversation that was recorded by a member of the 2
2 Corps staff, also based at the northern site. And each of these people
3 recorded the same conversation.
4 What I'd like to do is just, in -- that's where the highlighting
5 comes in, is just to -- to compare the two conversations. So I will start
6 with the frequency. They both took it off frequency 255.850. The one on
7 e-court shows a time of 2225 hours, the other one shows 2226 on the ELMO.
8 The one who recorded it from the division picked up the conversation a bit
9 earlier than -- than the operator working at the -- working for 2 Corps at
10 the northern site. So that there are -- the first few lines here on the
11 ELMO that I'm pointing to were not picked up by the operator, whose
12 conversation is recorded on -- on e-court.
13 So I'll start with the sentence, the first sentence, X on the
14 e-court, and then just go through what's written here to compare the
15 words. And they -- they both say [B/C/S spoken] and then there is a
16 slight difference here, [B/C/S spoken] which means that -- what he -- what
17 he gave last time to Josipovic.
18 And then the next -- the next time X speaks -- or sorry, then the
19 end of this sentence. I'm sorry. This is a bit cumbersome. The end of
20 this sentence then says [No interpretation] [B/C/S spoken] that it should
21 be directed immediately towards Vinko. And that's in the third -- the
22 second X on the -- on the e-court, if you see that. The [B/C/S spoken]
23 [No interpretation] that it should be directed immediately towards Vinko.
24 And then Y says [B/C/S spoken] [No interpretation] just the material. And
25 it says -- and then there is this long paragraph which is word for word
1 identical. I could read the -- the whole thing out, but I -- I'm not sure
2 that it's -- that it's all that --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Unless any of the parties wishes you to, I don't
4 think it is necessary.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay. And then we go down to point 4 on the ELMO.
6 And then -- which is the third time that Y is speaking on the e-court.
7 The man at the division misses the words [B/C/S spoken] just let me write
8 it down." But then they have the same words [B/C/S spoken] [No
9 interpretation]. And then there is a slight difference here: [B/C/S
10 spoken] [No interpretation] and then they both make the same mistake of
11 saying Vinkovic. In other words, that they are putting it at -- they are
12 directing it to somebody named Vinkovic. Then they correct themselves. X
13 corrects it and says "Vinko, Vinko, Pandurevic." And they both have that
14 "Vinko, Vinko, Pandurevic." Then they go down. They say "Okay," and
15 that that was ordered by General Miletic. [B/C/S spoken] [No
17 Then the next sentence is different. The first part of it sounds
18 similar, but is different. And I'll come back to that. And then it just
19 goes on instead of saying, "Da, da, da", "Yes, yes, yes", this one
20 says "Ja, ja, ja," which is also yes, yes, yes. That he is on 175. "So
21 get back in touch with me. Let me know." And then they both -- they both
22 record, "Good, okay. No problem." And, "I'm waiting for your answer."
23 The one sentence that is different is where one says -- the one
24 that I'm pointing to on the ELMO says that "Savic brought it and he wasn't
25 at home." The one that's on e-court says -- and it follows the sentence
1 that General Miletic ordered it, it says, "Good, I'll put him as the
2 signatory for this movement. It is an example of where two operators
3 recorded the same conversation and from -- yeah.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before we proceed. We have both on
5 e-court and on the ELMO two documents which show a name. Are they being
6 broadcast or not, Madam Registrar? I just want to make sure, first, if
7 they are being broadcast and, secondly, whether it is okay to broadcast
8 with that name appearing.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, they were broadcasted.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there a problem, Mr. Vanderpuye, I mean that
11 individual over there?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think there may be, because what I see on the
13 typewritten -- on the typewritten intercept is the name of a protected
14 witness, unfortunately. I wasn't aware of that. I thought we had a
15 standing rule that it wouldn't be broadcast --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: It just occurred to my mind, that's why I want you
17 to verify. But anyway, I think -- I think Madam Registrar will deal with
18 that. You will inquire a little bit with the technicians. And then I
19 will sign the necessary document. In the meantime, from now onwards,
20 until we are referring to these two documents, please, no broadcast or
21 else see if you can have on the e-court and on the monitor the same
22 document in such a way as to eliminate -- I mean if you zoom in, maybe, we
23 can eliminate the name on e-court, and I think with a little -- it will be
24 easier to eliminate the name on the ELMO by putting something on -- on it.
25 A piece of paper or something.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: At the same time, it's easy to say, let's not
3 broadcast. This part of the testimony is dealing specifically with
4 something very fundamental, the way the documents were treated by
5 Ms. Frease and her colleague. So I think we owe it to the public to
6 remain in public as much as possible, and to show what the exercise was.
7 I think it needs to be something thicker. I can still read the
8 name. That's perfect.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but we haven't solved the e-court one. I said,
11 try to zoom in or bring the document down in a way -- a little bit -- a
12 little bit up. It's -- no. No, but we need to see it all. It was --
13 just go from 255.850 megahertz right up to the last line reporting the
14 conversation. That's all. And zoom on that. No, no, no. Halfway
15 through the page you see 255.850 megahertz. It's further down. Further
16 down. Okay. No. It's not okay. She's still showing the name. We are
17 losing -- wasting time. It's easy. Go from 255 to the last line of the
18 text, eliminating the next two lines as they appear on the left, on the
19 right-hand side. That's it. A little bit further down. Okay. Go
20 straight -- yeah, that's perfect. All right. I think we can proceed now.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
22 Q. Now, Ms. Frease, you indicated that there was a difference in some
23 portion of the conversation. Is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And the difference occurred in reference to -- I think a
1 word that is indicated here on e-court as, "Potpisu"?
2 A. Mm-hmm.
3 Q. And can you tell us -- first of all --
4 A. It's the whole sentence, really.
5 Q. All right. And what is the import of the sentence, one relative
6 to another, if you could just tell us?
7 A. It doesn't -- it doesn't change the -- the substance of the
8 conversation. It's just that in -- in the one it says -- it follows the
9 line that this was ordered by General Miletic, and that the next sentence,
10 Y says, "Okay, I'll put it -- I'll put him as the signatory," or, "I'll
11 put him down in the signature block," essentially.
12 And this other one says --
13 Q. Let me stop you. When you say the other one, are you referring to
14 the conversation that occurred at 2226?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
17 A. The one at 2226 has had a sentence that doesn't really follow
18 logically, that doesn't follow the previous line very logically. And
19 again it's the same sentence that General Miletic ordered it. And then
20 the next line, this operator wrote down on document 00804650 as "Savic
21 brought it. He wasn't at home."
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. And then the rest of the conversation proceeds, I mean, matches up
25 Q. Did you take into consideration the differences in, for example,
1 these two specific intercepts in determining or evaluating the reliability
2 of the communication?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And could you tell us how you considered something like
5 that, something as stark of a difference between the two as that?
6 A. Well, I think -- I think that the -- the conversations are -- are
7 very reliable. That there is a difference, you know, the operators can
8 hear things differently or hear more static or whatever, but the fact that
9 they got -- that so much of it was really identical, to me, speaks to the
10 reliability of -- of the intercepts.
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever encounter a situation in which you had an
12 operator who transcribed part of a conversation, another operator perhaps
13 transcribing a different part of the same conversation, and a third
14 operator transcribing yet another part or total of the conversation? Do
15 you ever encounter a situation similar to that?
16 A. Do you mean where two or three different people were involved in
17 writing down one single conversation, like where they would have handed
18 off a notebook from one to the next or were there -- where there would
19 have been two or three different people recording the same conversation at
20 different locations.
21 Q. The latter, similar to what you have just -- similar to what you
22 have just testified about?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you have occasion to notice that that occurred within the
25 collection of intercepts offered in this case?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. All right. Can we take a look at 65 ter 1179A is the
3 English version, I believe. That relates to a conversation -- a
4 conversation at 9.55. 65 ter 1179H. And ERN 0091-2614. Unfortunately it
5 shares the same 65 ter number as another exhibit.
6 For your benefit, Ms. Frease --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Vanderpuye. Let us see what is
8 going to be broadcast before you broadcast it, please.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: This is okay.
11 THE WITNESS: I think we'd like the B/C/S version of this, and if
12 you have it in the handwritten -- in fact, there is only the handwritten.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. 1179B. 1179I. And ERN number
14 0080-4535 through 4537.
15 Q. Just for your benefit, Ms. Frease, I'm referring to intercepts
16 dated 15 July, 9.55, 9.57, and 10.00.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. Now, I know it's going to be kind of difficult to go through this
19 on the ELMO, but we'll give it a try and see how well we can go forward.
20 A. Okay. If we could have the first page of this document. And this
21 will be a little cumbersome because this conversation was actually
22 recorded by three operators; one at the southern site, and two at the
23 northern site.
24 Q. Perhaps I could ask, if you encounter lines, for example, that are
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. I think probably it would just suffice to tell the Court that they
3 are identical rather than to read through them. That may speed things up
4 a little bit.
5 A. Okay. Okay. The copy that's on the ELMO has the -- the
6 conversants are cut off on the left-hand column, though the -- the packets
7 that were handed out have the people who were speaking indicated on the
8 left-hand column.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Ms. Frease, because the transcript says
10 that supposedly you said the copy that's on the ELMO. There is nothing on
11 the ELMO at the moment.
12 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I meant e-court.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Just -- I mean I -- I just wanted to correct that.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We must make sure that there are --
16 that's good enough for me to be broadcast, unless you disagree with me,
17 Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do agree with you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's take them one by one with caution,
20 however this can be broadcast as it is.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay. So the first two documents that we are
22 looking at, the one on e-court and the one on the ELMO, the one on e-court
23 was recorded at the northern site by the division, by an operator in the
24 division, and the one on the ELMO was recorded at the southern site by an
1 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt, but could you give me the 65 ter
2 numbers again on each intercept: One on ELMO and the other on e-court.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Your Honour. The one on e-court is 1179E.
4 The one on the ELMO is 1179E. E as in Eric. The one on e-court is 1179B,
5 as in boy.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Also, I think it may be easier just to refer to
8 the times, because they're different. The one on -- the one on e-court is
9 at 9.55, the one on the ELMO is at 10.00. So it may be more handy to
10 distinguish between them by the times.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I'm asking to follow later on.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. I appreciate that.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. So both of these conversations record that
14 they were picked up on frequency 255.850, and the times as we just
15 discussed are five minutes off. They both indicate that the participants
16 are -- one indicates, the one on the e-court at 9.55 says Colonel Ljubo,
17 and Krle, and the one on the ELMO says Ljubo Beara and General Krstic. So
18 the one on e-court picked up the conversation a little bit earlier on,
19 which is how he got the full name of Ljubo Beara and Krstic, who is also
20 referred to as Krle. The first point that they are similar on, and it's
21 indicated as number 1 on the ELMO, is where -- I shouldn't read through
22 this, is that -- anyway, point 1 says that -- that Furtula did not respect
23 the order given by the boss. On the e-court version of that conversation,
24 from the northern site, it says Burtula didn't respect the order of the
25 boss, didn't follow the order of the boss. So there is a difference
1 obviously on the first letter of the name.
2 On the second point, let me just point to it here. You can see it
3 though. This sentence is different on the two conversations. And I can
4 come back to that. I mean it's a little similar to the last conversation
6 Point 3 says -- is similar, is -- is almost -- is identical.
7 Almost identical. That he needs 30 people as it was ordered.
8 The fourth point says to take them from Nastic on -- on the
9 version on e-court it says -- gives the name of Nasic. On the one that's
10 on the ELMO, it gives the name of the Nastic. Nastic was the commander of
11 the Milici Brigade or to get them from Blagojevic, the commander of the
12 Bratunac Brigade.
13 Then if we could go to the next page on e-court, please. And then
14 the last -- the first sentence up there on the e-court says, "I can't pull
15 out anything from here," which is identical to that sentence.
16 And then the next -- the next one, point 5, comes through on
17 the -- on the e-court part way down, and again there are -- the words are
19 And the sixth point also, "I'll have to move everything -- I'll
20 disturb everything in his direction if I pull them out. And a lot is
21 depending on him." And that's the same sentence, the last sentence on
22 e-court version of the document is identical.
23 And then the rest of that conversation was not recorded by that
24 operator at the northern site at the division. So now what I'd like to do
25 is, because there is a third recording of this same conversation and
1 because we're limited in how many things we can show at one time, I'd like
2 to ask whether a different document could be brought up on the e-court.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And you are going to compare it or contrast it with
5 which one, with the same one we have on e-court?
6 THE WITNESS: Right. Actually with the same two that are on
7 e-court. Because they are the same document, but what's -- what's
8 different about this third conversation is that it was picked up on a
9 different frequency. And so only one of the conversants was audible.
10 Only Colonel Beara could be heard, but you still see the similarities, the
11 identical words being used but only from one side of the conversation.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: What I suggest is that on e-court -- unless it is
13 possible to have the other document on the e-court and we split the page,
14 then what I suggest is that the new document the witness has just referred
15 to, we will use the monitor -- the ELMO.
16 THE WITNESS: Is it possible to get two pages on the ELMO?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah? Because then that would make it easier.
19 JUDGE KWON: And 65 ter number for this one?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the printout, Your Honour, that's for the
21 conversation at 9.57 a.m., July 15th, is 1179J, as in jump.
22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's pretty good. That's pretty close. Is
23 that clear enough to work with?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It's very fuzzy. Yes, that's better to an extent.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE:
1 Q. All right. Ms. Frease, could you tell us about -- could you tell
2 us about these two comparisons, that's between the 9.55 conversation and
3 the 9. -- I'm sorry, the 10.00 conversation?
4 A. The 9.57. This one is the 9.57 and the 10.00 conversation. This
5 is the third version of it, which was recorded at the northern site by the
6 2 Corps unit. And if we just match up the numbers along the side of the
7 page, I won't go through and read them all, but it's -- it just matches up
8 verbatim what was -- what was recorded here. And then there are also
9 some -- some smaller differences. But you'll notice on the -- on
10 document -- on the document -- on the intercept recorded at 9.57 that I
11 mentioned that only one of the parties could be heard. So, for example,
12 point 2, where General Krstic was speaking before, that's not audible on
13 the other -- on the other conversation. But point 3, where Colonel Beara
14 says that he needs 30 people as it was first ordered, and then the
15 conversation goes on and it tracks -- it tracks all the way down where
16 there are suggestions. General Krstic makes a suggestion that -- that he
17 try to get some of the Red Berets from Blagojevic and then point 10 on
18 each of them says but only four -- only four have remained, the rest of
19 them took off. They're not there anymore. And there are a few cuss words
20 in there too.
21 And then -- and then point 11 is that they should go immediately
22 to -- to Drago's and point 12, that Colonel Beara is saying to Krstic,
23 calling him Krle, "I don't know what to do anymore."
24 And then it goes on, point 13, when there is a suggestion that he
25 look -- that he go to the MUP to look for them, that -- that they don't
1 want to do the work and that there is no other solution except these 15 to
2 30 men from Indzic's guys. And then it finishes off at the end with
3 Colonel Beara saying, "I don't -- I really don't know what to do anymore.
4 I'm telling you in all seriousness, I still have 3500 parcels to deliver
5 and I don't have a solution."
6 Q. With respect to this intercept, as concerns the differences
7 between them, did you make -- did you evaluate whether or not the
8 differences between them substantively changed the meaning or the content
9 of the communication in question?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what did you -- what did you determine?
12 A. That it -- that the content didn't change.
13 Q. Now, during your evaluation of these --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Could the witness tell us
16 if there is a difference at line 11. I mean, this is not my language, so
17 I am trying to match the word, just line 11 on both sides, see if there is
18 a difference between the two. Please.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
21 THE WITNESS: The last four words on the conversation at 9.57 say
22 [B/C/S spoken] "Let them come or go to Drago's." On the one at 10.00, the
23 last four words are the same, [B/C/S spoken], "Let them go to Drago's".
24 In the first two words -- okay, let me go back to the first one at 9.57,
25 it says [B/C/S spoken]. "Okay, please urgently have them go to Drago's."
1 The one on the right at 10.00 says, "Look into it" essentially, [B/C/S
2 spoken] "and have them go to Drago's."
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know if that sufficiently answers my
4 colleague's question.
5 MR. BOURGON: Thank you.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. Did you encounter during your evaluation of these types of
8 intercepts where there were multiple instances of recordings, did you have
9 occasion to compare intercepts that were taken verbatim with intercepts
10 that were essentially summarised, or summaries of the communication?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And in evaluating or comparing those two types of
13 intercepts, did you find that there were any substantive differences
14 between the summary version of it and the verbatim version of it?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Could I just have -- I think, and finally, 65 ter 1196. Do
17 you have a preference as to whether or not it should be handwritten or
18 printed, Ms. Frease?
19 A. I think that -- I think the typed copies are just easier to look
21 Q. Fair enough.
22 A. So...
23 Q. Okay. So I would like to have 1196C, please, displayed in
25 A. In this one it's...
1 Q. All right. I would also like to have P02456C displayed
3 A. So that the headers are on maybe, just -- yeah, a little bit
4 lower, I think. It's the second page of the one on the left.
5 Q. All right. Is that -- is that appropriate for you to --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- to see?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Can you -- can you basically tell us what about these --
10 what about these two intercepts are common or corroborative of one
11 another, if you can?
12 A. Mm-hmm. I'd like to start with the one on the right. Well, just
13 both of them. We're looking at the -- at the conversations at 1627, and
14 they were both taken from frequency 251.675. They both recorded the time
15 as 1627, and one -- one of these was recorded at the northern site and the
16 other at the southern site.
17 I'll start with the one on the right. And it's the first
18 conversation up at the top where the -- where the participants are 354 X
19 and Vujovic, in parentheses, military police. And then it's a summary of
20 a conversation. The first line of that conversation says that participant
21 354 gave a list of people to Vujovic from the military police who he was
22 supposed to gather together, who he was supposed to collect.
23 And then the second line of that conversation says, and if he can,
24 to essentially sort of put together some more, because it's very weak up
25 there. And then the third line in parentheses it says, "A list of seven
2 Then the conversation on the left which was recorded from the
3 southern site is a transcript of the conversation. And I would direct
4 your attention down to the -- well, also just in terms of the
5 participants, that it's the duty officer for the military police,
6 extension 354 and someone they record as being Vojovic instead of Vujovic.
7 The third time that participant L speaks it says, "Is this Vojovic?" And
8 he respond, "Yes." And he says, "It's 354." And then he says, "Yes."
9 And then L says, "I have that list of people." So that corresponds to the
10 first line in the other conversation.
11 And then four more lines down you'll see a list of seven names,
12 with a period after the last name. And then the next sentence says, "And
13 this guy says if you can -- if you can sort of add some more, or get some
14 more, you know." And then two lines down he says, "Because it's weak up
16 Q. In evaluating the two intercepts, would it be fair to say, in your
17 opinion, that the summarised version of the conversation carries the same
18 import as the verbatim version of the intercept?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And with respect to the three that -- that you just
21 testified to involving conversation, a purported conversation between
22 Beara and Krstic, did you have occasion to notice whether or not one
23 intercept operator, for example, may have missed the introduction or
24 another intercept operator actually got it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is that an unusual occurrence with respect to your evaluation of
2 the intercepts that are used -- that have been used in this collection?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Is that one of the tools that you used in order to evaluate the
5 reliability of the information or what was conveyed in the conversation?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, some of the differences that you have highlighted for the
8 Court have been -- well, I would say rather evident, clear. And that
9 those are points where they were incongruous. Is there an explanation
10 that you can offer with respect to why two intercept operators listening
11 apparently to the same conversation write down completely different words?
12 A. There could be several explanations. Depending on the words that
13 they wrote down, sometimes the words sound very similar. They could
14 have -- there could have been more static that someone else was picking
15 up. They could have been listening different -- listening to it a
16 different amount of times. One may have listened to the conversation more
17 times than another, and therefore has been more accurate. It's hard to
19 Q. Okay. I take it you don't have any first-hand knowledge of that.
20 Is that fair to say? As to the circumstances that would explain --
21 A. Right.
22 Q. -- the differences?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. But --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, you can put it differently. I'll put it
1 myself: Did you ever discuss this with the various intercept operators or
2 with some of them?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And what did they tell you? How would they account
5 for the differences?
6 THE WITNESS: Just like that, that they just could have heard it
7 wrong. One pops into my mind where there is a conversation with someone
8 nicknamed Nidjo, and later on in the conversation it says, "Hey Mico."
9 They sound very similar. It doesn't make sense that that name -- that
10 that nickname would have come in there.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm being told that we can't go on for two hours
12 without a break, and that's because of exigencies and arrangements that
13 exist here. What I suggest is that we give Ms. Frease also a short break
14 and allow the rest of the group to make the necessary arrangements so that
15 we can then continue up until 7.00. So we will have between 10 and 15
16 minutes' break now. Thank you.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 --- Break taken at 6.00 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.18 p.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE:
22 Q. Ms. Frease, I think we left off and I had been asking you some
23 questions about the differences that you found between these
24 simultaneously captured intercepted communications. Could I ask you
25 just -- in evaluating the differences that you found, did you find that
1 the import of the conversations had changed in any way as a result of
2 those differences? In other words, was the conversation materially
3 affected, in your mind, based upon those differences?
4 A. I can't think of any -- where I thought there was a material
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. Is it possible for me to have the transcript on the screen?
9 Q. And did you find that aside from these differences, that you
10 didn't believe or find to be material, that the simultaneously captured
11 intercepts were materially consistent?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Now, if I could, I would just like to bring your attention
14 to a different area. And in particular, I wanted to draw your attention
15 to an intercept captured at 10.09 on the 13th of July. And I think I can
16 have it brought up on e-court. The 65 ter number is 1130. I think the
17 English and B/C/S version should be displayed; that would be A and B. If
18 you need to see the typewritten version to make it easier to read, just
19 let me know and we could have that done as well.
20 I don't believe the pages correspond that are in e-court right
21 now, but is it possible to go forward on the page on the right? That is
22 ERN 0080-0808. I think you may have to go forward another page.
23 A. I think it's back one page, actually, to 810.
24 Q. All right. If you could go back. All right. Thank you.
25 First, do you recognise this intercept?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And have you had an opportunity to look at it and evaluate
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, with respect to this intercept in particular, there is an
6 indication that there is a conversation that involves someone -- well,
7 appears to be a Colonel Beara?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Somebody by the name of Lucic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And somebody by the name of Zoka?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about this intercept, and have
14 you looked at it in terms of seeking out corroboration or trying to make a
15 judgement as to its reliability?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Can you tell us what about this intercept you looked at?
18 A. Well, aside from looking at the general context, I looked at it
19 also in relation to overhead imagery that was taken on the 13th of July at
20 2.00. And this conversation was recorded at 10.00 in the morning and
21 indicates that there were 400 -- they're referred to here as Balija, which
22 is a derogatory term for Muslims, who have shown up in Konjevic Polje and
23 that they should be put on the playground, and lined up in four or five --
24 in four to five rows.
25 Q. Now, with respect to the reference to the playground, did you form
1 an opinion as to what that was referring to?
2 A. Yes, the soccer field. I believe it refers to the soccer field in
3 Nova Kasaba, which is down the road.
4 Q. Okay. Was that the subject of the photograph that you previously
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. For the record, that was 65 ter 1662 and 1663. Previously
8 indicated in the record.
9 Okay. Now, you said that there is an indication in the
10 conversation with respect to people being lined up. Is that right?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. And can you tell us, that appears to be, at least from the
13 conversation, a statement that is attributed to Mr. Beara?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to this particular intercept, did you
16 obtain or become aware of other corroboration with respect to prisoners
17 being lined up in a soccer field?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Could you just tell us what that information was?
20 A. Well, it -- being lined up specifically on the soccer field, there
21 are -- there's a conversation at 1602 on that same day about a larger
22 group of -- I think it's 1.000 or 1500 men that have been gathered
23 together. There are also the couple of intercepts at 1400 and 1405 on
24 that same day that correspond to a telegram that we discussed before about
25 troops that should be patrolling that area.
1 Q. All right. Let me just refer you -- if I could have 65 ter 1142,
2 please, displayed on e-court. If I could just refer you to this
3 intercept. That's 1142A and B, for the record. Just to bring to the
4 Court's attention, this document has a signature at its base, and I think
5 I'm rather concerned about broadcast with respect to the signature. I
6 don't know if there is a way to size the window so that we can avoid a
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct. Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. We will do
9 that before we broadcast, okay.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. All right. Ms. Frease, do you recognise this intercept?
12 A. Yes, I do. The signatures, the names are still coming up on my
13 screen. Is that right?
14 Q. Yes, they are. I don't believe we're broadcasting though at this
16 A. On both documents; right?
17 Q. Sorry?
18 A. On both documents?
19 Q. On both.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed because otherwise we're going to waste
21 too much time. Let's not broadcast any of these and go ahead.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE:
23 Q. Do you recognise this?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is this the 1602 conversation that you referred to --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- previously?
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. In this conversation you indicated that there was reference to a
5 number of people that were in a stadium in Kasaba; is that right?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Is that what you interpreted to be the playground?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Now there is an indication here of a person named Malinic.
10 A. Right.
11 Q. And do you know who that person is?
12 A. Yes. He was the -- he was the commander of the 65th Protection
13 Regiments, military police.
14 Q. Okay. And do you know whom, if anybody, he reported to?
15 A. He reported to his commander who was Lieutenant-Colonel Savcic.
16 Q. You've indicated previously that there is a reference to a
17 telegram with respect, bearing upon the -- these particular people that
18 are in the stadium; is that right?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Okay. Could I have 65 ter 0192, please, on e-court. Okay.
21 Now, is this the order you're referring to?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And there is indication of 1400 hours at the top of it?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Okay. And what is that a reference to, if you could tell us
2 A. It's an order that was written by the commander of the 65th
3 Protection Regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Milomir Savcic and it's an order
4 to the commander of the military police battalion of the 65th Protection
5 Regiment. It's also addressed to General Mladic and to General Gvero, not
6 by name but by position for their information.
7 Q. Is the commander of the military police battalion of the 65th, who
8 is that person?
9 A. It's Zoran Malinic.
10 Q. Okay. And this telegram relates to, it says, a thousand members
11 of the former 28th captured in -- it says Dusanova Kasaba?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Is that Nova Kasaba that you've indicated previously?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. You also indicated that there was a mention of this
16 telegram in a separate intercept; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know offhand what intercept that was?
19 A. It was at 14.05 on the 13th of July.
20 Q. Could I please have P02362 displayed on e-court. A and B,
22 THE REGISTRAR: Could you please repeat the 65 ter number.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: P02362. P02362.
24 THE WITNESS: That doesn't...
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. On the English version I think -- I think
1 we need to go back to the first page. I think.
2 THE REGISTRAR: This the only page in e-court. There is only one
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. We --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are not broadcasting, are we? Okay.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Looks like we're having some difficulty finding
7 the translation.
8 Q. Are you able to read the B/C/S version of this?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Is there an indication with respect to a telegram or an
11 order in this B/C/S version?
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. Can you tell us where it is --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- if you see it?
16 A. It's five lines down. X is speaking. But the -- the second line
17 in the -- the second line in the conversation refers to the football
18 pitch, the football field. And then five lines down where X is speaking,
19 he is saying to his sort of buddy, "Don't accept anyone. I'll -- I'm
20 going to send you a telegram, an urgent telegram now. Don't -- don't
21 accept anyone. I'll send you the telegram right now and explain -- and
22 explain everything or explain things. Provide security, secure it well
23 and you'll get the telegram now."
24 Q. Now, is there an indication on this intercept as to the time that
25 this conversation is alleged to have occurred?
1 A. Yes, at 1405.
2 Q. Okay. And do you recall the time that was indicated on the order?
3 A. 1400 hours.
4 Q. Okay. And did you consider that in terms of evaluating the
5 reliability of not only this intercept, but the one previously at 1009?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And the -- the intercept at 1009 also mentioned a man named Lucic
9 that Colonel Beara addressed and he is a member of -- Pavle Lucic is a
10 member of the 65th Protection Regiment. It's the 2nd Motorised Brigade, I
12 Q. Thank you for that.
13 A. Motorised battalion.
14 Q. If I could move you to a slightly different area. And that
15 relates to additional corroboration you did with respect to some of the
16 intercepts in this particular case. What I would like to have is -- on
17 e-court is 65 ter 1187. And I think we can have A and B shown on e-court.
18 And that relates to an intercept purportedly occurring at 1111 on 16th of
20 A. Mm-hmm.
21 Q. Okay. First -- all right. First, do you recognise this
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And did you have an opportunity to evaluate the reliability
25 of the information that's contained in this intercept?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And in particular, can you tell us what it is that you focused on
3 and what it is you were able to establish in terms of corroborative
5 A. The general subject matter of the intercept, which has to do
6 with -- first it's a -- it's a conversation between Colonel Ljubo Beara
7 and Cerovic, who was the assistant commander for morale and religious
8 affairs, I believe it is, at the Drina Corps, and X. And Cerovic is
9 saying that triage has to be done today on the -- and then you'll see
10 there are a few dots and question marks, but if you go down to the fifth
11 line, it says, "Triage has to be done on the prisoners." And then X, who
12 is the other participant in that conversation with Cerovic at the
13 beginning says that Colonel Beara is here, and then further down in the
14 conversation it -- Cerovic says that he's received instructions from above
15 to do triage on those, and then he's interrupted and Beara says that he
16 doesn't want to talk about it on the phone.
17 So it is the general subject matter of triage being done on the
19 Q. Okay. And were you able to determine whether or not there was
20 legitimacy to what was being discussed in this particular intercept?
21 A. With respect to corroborative material, yes.
22 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what corroborative material, if any you
23 found, in relation to the triage of prisoners?
24 A. An entry in a duty officer's logbook.
25 Q. Could I have 65 ter number 0377 please shown on e-court. Okay.
1 With respect to the B/C/S version, I think we will find the entry on page
2 146, and with respect to the English translation, we will find the entry
3 on page 27. Thank you.
4 Could I just direct your attention to time indicated, 1115. First
5 of all, do you recognise what this document is?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And what is it?
8 A. It's an excerpt from the duty officer's logbook from the Zvornik
10 Q. Okay. And let me direct your attention to 1115. Can you tell us
11 what, if anything, you found in terms of entries at that period of time?
12 A. Yes. The entry says, "It was reported from Zlatar that triage of
13 wounded and prisoners must be carried out (it was reported to Beara)."
14 Q. In your view, was that corroborative of the intercept which
15 occurred at 1111 on the same day?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, do you know anything about who made the entry in the duty
18 officer's logbook on the 16th of July?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And can you tell us who that was?
21 A. It was -- the duty officer that day was Trbic.
22 Q. And do you know -- well, let me ask you, do you know Trbic's first
24 A. I -- I -- it escapes me right now.
25 Q. Okay. And do you know what Trbic's position was?
1 A. He was in the security detail at the -- at the Zvornik Brigade.
2 Q. Okay. Now, can you tell us how you know who made that entry on
3 that date?
4 A. From -- from people in the Office of the Prosecutor.
5 Q. Okay. All right. Let me refer you to a different entry in the
6 duty officer's logbook. And that's at page 148 in the B/C/S version, and
7 page 29 in the English version.
8 A. If -- with respect to the -- to the entries and who was the duty
9 officer, on that day there are a handful of intercepts that refer to that
10 person having been the duty officer as well.
11 Q. Okay. All right. Why don't we have a look at this one and maybe
12 if time permits we might be able to get back to that one.
13 I would like to direct your attention first to the entry at 1400
14 hours with respect to this particular document. Have you seen that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And can you tell us what it refers to?
18 A. It refers -- well, what it says is that Popovic requested a bus
19 with a full tank of 500 litres of D2 diesel, and that the Zlatar duty
20 officer and Golic were informed.
21 Q. Okay. And is this information corroborative of intercepts that
22 you have evaluated or looked at in the collection offered by the
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you recall off the top of your head what those intercepts
2 A. Yes, it was -- it's an intercept at 1358 on the 16th of July.
3 Q. Could I have, please, P02454 displayed in e-court. A and B,
5 A. That's a different day.
6 Q. Just bear with us for a moment. I'm sorry. Bear with us for just
7 a moment. I apologise. All right. We have a misidentification of that
8 particular intercept, so let me just move on and maybe we can revisit it.
9 A. I have the 65 ter number.
10 Q. Okay. Are you referring to the index?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Tell us what's on the index.
13 A. 1189.
14 Q. Thank you kindly. Okay. It's at the base of the document on the
15 right, if you could scroll down, I guess, or up. All right. Do you
16 recognise this intercept, Ms. Frease?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that the intercept that you were referring to previously?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And this is a reference to a request for 500 litres of D2 diesel
21 fuel; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Is this what you found corroborative of the -- I should
24 phrase it the other way. Did you find the duty officer's entry
25 corroborative of this particular intercept?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And are there any other intercepts that you found corroborative of
3 this particular order?
4 A. No, but we found a fuel log that -- that also -- that further
5 corroborates this and the duty officer's log entry.
6 Q. And the fuel -- fuel log, you said?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And is that a document that -- that is a part of your
9 authentication binder?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Just for the record, that was in the authentication binder,
12 which is 65 ter 1074, and it was located -- and P02127, located at page 66
13 and 67 of that document.
14 I just want to refer you, I think, to one other area and that
15 relates to page 85 of your authentication binder in particular. Now,
16 that -- if I could have in e-court is 65 ter 1074. And I believe we can
17 go to page 85 of that document. I think on document on the -- on the
18 left-hand side, if we could page forward, we will find the precise
19 intercept that is the subject of the corroboration.
20 A. I'm sorry...
21 Q. I just want to go forward in the document on the left to page 86,
22 which is 0603-0160. Okay.
23 A. And the intercept on the right is from the previous conversation.
24 Q. Very well. Now, with respect to the document on the left, there
25 is a time that's indicated of 1458 hours. It is an intercept of X and Y;
1 is that right?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Okay. And did you consider this intercept in evaluating the
4 reliability of the collection of intercepts?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what about this specific intercept you
7 considered and whether or not you were able to corroborate the information
8 that's contained in it?
9 A. Yes, well it -- it starts off, and very quickly you see that it
10 refers to some sort of a report. The first -- the first line X says, "On
11 the last point ... in the last sentence of point 2."
12 And then it goes down a couple more lines. It says on line
13 8, "Petkovici-Baljkovica-Memici" and then it just goes on and talks about
14 where the front-line is and there is some discussion about the names of --
15 the locations and stuff. But what was interesting about this was
16 trying -- was to see whether we had a report that corresponded to these
17 points and these locations.
18 Q. And did you find such a report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can I have please page -- I believe it's page 91 of the same
21 document shown. That is ERN 0603-0165.
22 Now, Ms. Frease, do you recognise what's displayed on e-court?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And you've indicated that you found corroboration for the
25 reference to Petkovici, Baljkovica, and Memici?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us where in this document -- first of all, tell us
3 what the document is and tell us where in the document you found
4 corroboration of the intercept?
5 A. Can you scroll down a little bit more? What this is -- oops,
6 sorry. I said that too soon. Can you go back up? Thanks.
7 It is a -- an interim combat report that was written on the 18th
8 of July 1995.
9 Q. Is that the same date as the intercept?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. And it came from the command of the Zvornik Brigade. So then if
13 you could scroll down a little bit, please. You see point 2, there are
14 few paragraphs in this report, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3,
15 actually indicated with numbers, number 1, number 2, number 3. So after
16 number 2, then at the bottom of that point or paragraph you see the
17 references to Petkovci-Baljkovica-Memici front-line.
18 Q. That is in the last sentence of point 2 as indicated on this
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And that's what's specifically referred to in the intercept?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Okay. And based upon that -- let me ask you, can you consider
24 that in evaluating the reliability of this particular intercept?
25 A. Right. Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: If the next topic you're going to deal with can be
2 resolved in three, four minutes, okay; otherwise, we adjourn.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it might be wise to adjourn. I don't
4 really think it will take more than 10, 15 minutes, but...
5 JUDGE AGIUS: She still has to -- Ms. Frease still has to return
6 for cross-examination.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: That will last more than 10 minutes, I would
9 imagine. So let's adjourn now. Tomorrow's sitting is in the afternoon,
10 as you all know. Thank you.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
13 February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.