1 Tuesday, 27 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case
9 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All the accused are here. All Defence teams that I
11 can see. Prosecution, I note, is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye, and I
12 don't think there is anyone behind the column.
13 So before we continue with Ms. Frease's testimony, there is one
14 pending motion, Prosecution motion that we told you we would be deciding
16 Here is our decision: The Trial Chamber is seized of a
17 Prosecution motion for leave to amend witness list by adding one intercept
18 operator supervisor, Witness 196, as a 92 ter witness and for protective
19 measures. This motion was filed on the 16th of February. It was followed
20 by a response on behalf of Drago Nikolic, filed on the 21st of February,
21 and subsequently by a Popovic Defence motion, basically joining the
22 Nikolic response in its entirety.
23 All these three instruments, filings were filed confidentially.
24 We will not be mentioning any names so we can proceed in public. By means
25 of the motion, the Prosecution proposes to call Witness 186 pursuant to
1 Rule 92 ter and also seeks an order of protection pursuant to Rule 75 in
2 relation to this witness, allowing the assignment of a pseudonym and the
3 use of facial distortion during his testimony. So basically the request
4 is for the Trial Chamber to grant the Prosecution's request to amend the
5 65 ter list of witnesses and permit the appearance and testimony of
6 Witness 186, and in addition that this witness be granted the protective
7 measures I referred to before.
8 In their response the Drago Nikolic and the Vujadin Popovic
9 Defence teams raise various objections to the Prosecution motion. I'm
10 going to deal with them one by one and decide them as we go along.
11 The first objection is in the sense that the additional witness
12 proposed by the Prosecution is not the operator who transcribed the
13 intercept dated 19th January 1995. That is P2437. As such, the Defence
14 submits that calling this witness would defeat the Trial Chamber's 12th
15 September, 2006 decision on Prosecution's motion to admit written evidence
16 in lieu of viva voce testimony pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
17 Our decision is as follows: The argument that the additional
18 witness proposed by the Prosecution is not the operator who transcribed
19 the intercept dated 19th January 1995 in itself is not a fundamental
20 reason, a basic reason why consequently the Prosecution motion should be
21 dismissed. In addition, the Trial Chamber has taken into account the
22 argument or the reason brought forward by the Prosecution, namely that in
23 regard to this particular intercept -- intercept, they have been unable to
24 identify the operator/transcriber of the intercept itself. As a result of
25 this we are of the opinion that -- or we come to the conclusion that the
1 Defence argument does not hold water.
2 The second objection is in the sense that the Prosecution motion
3 is filed out of time and that the Trial Chamber's 12 September, 2006
4 decision should not be read as a blanket decision to call additional
5 intercept witnesses at any time during the Prosecution case. Admittedly
6 we cannot agree more with the Defence objection or statement that our 12th
7 September, 2006 decision should not be read as a blanket authorisation,
8 and this is precisely why in each case that the Prosecution wishes to add
9 to the 65 ter witness list, as far as intercept operators are concerned,
10 as well as others, permission is to be sought. And the Trial Chamber will
11 grant or dismiss according to circumstances.
12 In this case the Prosecution has sought permission. We have still
13 not closed the chapter on intercept evidence, and that in itself is not a
14 determining factor, but we cannot agree with the Defence assertion that
15 the Prosecution motion is filed out of time.
16 And then there are three objections that we are going to put in
17 one basket, namely, the intercept in question falls outside the temporal
18 scope of the indictment, to wit in the sense that it deals with --
19 supposedly was intercepted in January of 1995. Additionally the intercept
20 does not involve the acts or conduct of one or more of the accused in the
21 context of the charges laid against the accused. And finally that the
22 Prosecution, according to the Defence, has not shown that this intercept
23 is critical to the Trial Chamber's understanding and determination of the
24 issues raised by the indictment. This objection can be summarily
25 dismissed by reference to our prior decision of the 10th of January 2007,
1 during which dealing with exactly the same intercept we had stated that it
2 is prima facie relevant and probative of issues raised in the indictment.
3 It would be superfluous to repeat the arguments and submissions and
4 details of our decision.
5 So, in conclusion, there being no arguments brought forward to
6 sustain -- no arguments brought forward contesting the justification
7 issuing the protective measures sought by the Prosecution, our decision is
8 to grant the Prosecution motion in total. This witness will be assigned a
9 pseudonym and he will be Witness PW-158, and he will testify in addition
10 with the protective measures of face distortion. The Prosecution is of
11 course granted leave to include this witness in its 65 ter witness list.
12 All right. Later on, Mr. McCloskey, we would like to have a word
13 with Mr. Nicholls in relation to the matters that were raised yesterday.
14 We need to know what his position is now, after having had the opportunity
15 to go through the redacted versions of the two documents to -- which
16 Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Zivanovic referred to yesterday so that we would be
17 put in a position to decide the matter. So I suggest after the break or
18 at the beginning of the next session.
19 So -- yes, Mr. Bourgon.
20 MR. BOURGON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
21 Your Honours. We -- I did indeed show the redacted versions to my
22 colleague yesterday, who was -- said that he does not agree and does not
23 want to entertain these documents being admitted as such in the redacted
25 Now, with respect to these specific documents, having reviewed the
1 matter and having reviewed the testimony of that witness on both Thursday
2 and Friday of last week, we are of the view that we do not need to file
3 these documents in evidence, whether in redacted or in a non-redacted
4 form, as we believe that the credibility of the accused, what we wanted to
5 do, has been done. So it is not necessary.
6 That being -- that being said, Mr. President, the issue however,
7 in itself is bound to come up once again. And to us it is very important
8 that whenever it's an issue of credibility and whenever it's an issue of
9 filing a document for impeachment purposes, our view is first that the
10 Prosecution should not be involved in the process. The Prosecution should
11 not decide what the Defence wants to file in evidence to impeach a
12 witness. That's the first part of the equation. And the second part of
13 the equation is, we are of the view that only those specific portions
14 should be -- that the document itself should be redacted in order to show
15 just a specific portions of the documents -- of the document that are
16 necessary for impeachment purposes.
17 And it appears to us, Mr. President, that this is also in line
18 with a previous rule of the Trial Chamber if not a ruling at least an
19 opinion which was given and I, with all due respect, refer the Trial
20 Chamber to page 856 of the trial record at lines 15 to 18 where this issue
21 was previously discussed. It appears to us now that the Trial Chamber
22 would be changing view by asking for all the documents to be admitted in
23 evidence. Now, of course in this case it doesn't apply; we simply
24 withdraw and we do not want these two documents admitted. But it is an
25 issue that is bound to come up again, if there are other witnesses that --
1 for whom we wish to file documents for impeachment purposes. Thank you,
2 Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. I take it that then
4 Mr. Zivanovic's submission becomes moot?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. All right. So I think there is no further
7 business to discuss on this.
8 Judge Kwon.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Bourgon, could you give me the date of the
11 MR. BOURGON: I believe, Judge, 28th of August of this year. 28
12 August of 2006, sorry. And page 856 --
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. BOURGON: -- lines 15 to 18.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That was in a different context, Mr. Bourgon, and we
16 never of course relinquished our prerogative to ask for an entire
17 statement to be produced nonetheless if we so deem it necessary in the
18 interests of justice and for our better understanding of the proceedings.
19 But in any case, we'll -- we'll come to that matter whenever it arises
21 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 My apologies to you, Ms. Frease. I knew that you would bear with
24 us, but between standing outside in your room, waiting to be called and
25 not knowing at least you have had the pleasure of assisting to this part
1 of the proceedings. So we are going to continue and finish with your
2 examination-in-chief, and then we will proceed with the cross-examination.
3 As it looks for the time being, on paper, I don't think we will finish
4 with your cross-examination today. But the chance is slight -- a slim
5 chance is there. So let's start with the examination-in-chief,
6 Mr. Vanderpuye. Let's continue with the examination-in-chief. Hope we
7 don't start it again.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
9 Your Honours. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
10 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
11 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
12 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
13 A. Good afternoon.
14 Q. Fortunately I only have a few questions left for you. If I could
15 just have Madam Usher for one moment, please. I would just like to show
16 the witness these two packets that I think have been provided to the
17 Defence. And also to the Court.
18 Now, Ms. Frease, you testified yesterday about two identified
19 intercept operators who had not been called in the Prosecution's case, and
20 I wondered if you had had an opportunity to see these packets before?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do those packets relate respectively to those intercept
24 A. Yes, they do.
25 Q. And have you had an opportunity to look at the contents of the
1 packet, that is the underlying intercepts themselves?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And those intercepts, were they included as part of the
4 Prosecution's collection of intercepts?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And were they derived from notebooks obtained by the
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And did you observe anything about those intercepts, having
10 reviewed them, that suggests to you that they were created in any manner
11 differently from any of the other intercepts you reviewed?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. All right. Now, can you tell me, tell the Court rather,
14 that in your review of the intercepts that form the collection that the
15 Prosecution has put forward in this case, did you ever come across one
16 that was done in a way or contained information such that it caused you to
17 have serious questions about the authenticity or reliability of the
18 intercept collection as a whole?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. That concludes my direct examination. Thank you very much,
21 Ms. Frease.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 Who is going first? Mr. Zivanovic, how long do you expect -- I
24 know that we have a fresh estimate, but maybe if you declare it ...
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I asked for two hours, and I
1 believe that this is exactly how much I will need.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: You will have as much time as you require for the
3 time being, provided you don't ask repetitive questions. So go ahead.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. You've told us that you started working in the Prosecutor's office
9 of this Tribunal in April 1995 and that you started working on the
10 intercepts sometime in March or April 1998. Do you know whether the
11 Prosecutor's office, before 1998, asked from the government of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina to be provided with these intercepts? So did this happen
13 before 1998, at any point in time?
14 A. Yes, it did.
15 Q. And what kind of replies did you get from the government of Bosnia
16 and Herzegovina, if any, and if you know that?
17 A. I vaguely remember a request in the fall of 1997 that the Office
18 of the Prosecutor made to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, to which I
19 believe we did not receive a response, and which we followed up on in
20 January of 1998.
21 Q. Do you know that already in 1995 that there was a request for
22 these intercepts?
23 A. We had heard that intercepts existed, but I'm not aware of a
24 formal request having been made at that time.
25 Q. What about informal requests?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you get any response to any of those informal requests?
3 A. My memory is that the responses were essentially that the timing
4 wasn't right.
5 Q. Did you ever approach the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 during that period of time, between 1995 and 1998, and asked them to
7 explain that bad timing? Did you ask for an explanation of that?
8 A. I myself didn't. Whether someone in the Office of the Prosecutor
9 did, I'm not sure.
10 Q. Were you yourself not interested in the reasons for the delay?
11 Did you not want to know why the intercepts were only submitted three
12 years later and not before?
13 A. We were involved in a lot of other activities, and it wasn't an
14 area that was my responsibility.
15 Q. And whose responsibility was it? Could you tell me that?
16 A. Yes. The team leader, Jean-Rene Ruez.
17 Q. You were supposed to evaluate the authenticity of these
18 intercepts. The fact that these intercepts were not provided to you for
19 as long as three years, did it have any relevance in the assessment of the
20 authenticity of these intercepts?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you aware of the possibility that these intercepts might have
23 been fabricated, reinvented, corrected, and tampered with during that
24 period of three years?
25 A. Not specifically during that period of three years, but that that
1 was a possibility in general, yes.
2 Q. During the three-year period, do you know where the material
3 surrounding these intercepts was? Where was it physically located?
4 A. I know where it was found only.
5 Q. Where, where was it found?
6 A. It was found at the northern site. A collection of the notebooks
7 were found at the northern site. And some of the tapes were found, were
8 located at the 2 Corps headquarters.
9 Q. And what about the printed material, where was that found?
10 A. At the 2 Corps headquarters.
11 Q. And what about floppies, disks?
12 A. Those were provided to us by staff members of the 2 Corps from
13 their records there.
14 Q. The floppies followed the notebooks with a one-year delay. Did
15 you ask why?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Were you simply not interested or did it just not occur to you
18 that you should ask? Did you just forget to ask?
19 A. It was a process, and as we learned more about the process, it
20 then became relevant to ask for -- to ask whether they had the electronic
21 copies of those recordings. At the beginning it was all very new, we were
22 learning the process as we went along.
23 Q. Does this mean that -- that you did not request all of the
24 material from them at once, that you just asked for some piecemeal
1 A. This was very sensitive material to them. And it required
2 building trust among the OTP team and the people that we were working with
3 in Tuzla. So we went -- we went by -- step by step and as that trust
4 developed and as we learned the process, more material was given to us,
5 including those diskettes.
6 Q. In other words, in 1998 you received just some of the material as
7 a result of the limited trust that the government of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina placed in you at the time. Is that what you're saying?
9 A. I believe that trust was a factor, and I also -- let me say that
10 it wasn't clear to us what was necessary in order to understand the full
12 Q. Do you mean the process of transcribing intercepted conversations,
13 the transfer of transcribed conversations on to other bodies, is that what
14 you mean when you say "process"?
15 A. If I could just ask you to clarify what you mean, "on to other
17 Q. Certain institutions within the BiH army, certain units that
18 followed a certain hierarchal organisation. For example, a unit from
19 northern site would inform its superior command and the latter would then
20 contact their superior command in turn. This is what I meant when I
21 said "other bodies."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In 1998, were you told what the process was? Who was it who
24 informed whom about those intercepted conversations and how the
25 communication was carried out?
1 A. It was members of 2 Corps staff that began to inform members of
2 the Office of the Prosecutor's team.
3 Q. Were you informed at the time about the line that those intercepts
4 follow from the moment the conversations were intercepted onwards to the
5 higher, to the superior commands? Did you know it at the time? Did
6 somebody tell you exactly what the chain was?
7 A. Do you mean were we -- were we told whether the conversations were
8 forwarded to the command at the time?
9 Q. Yes, that as well. But I suppose that you were told what the
10 purpose was of interception and who should be informed about those
11 intercepted conversations within the military structures of the BiH
13 A. Yes. We were told that they were sent to headquarters.
14 Q. In 1998 you were provided with some tapes, a certain number of
15 tapes, you were provided with notebooks and you were given a binder
16 containing some 550 pages all together, as you say. You could conclude,
17 based on all that, what the -- what methodology was used to intercept
18 conversations. My impression is that no further explanation was
19 necessary, that you could have inferred from all that what was necessary
20 in order to intercept and process those conversations. Am I right in
21 saying that?
22 A. I don't think so, no.
23 Q. Then can you explain what the case was, what would be a fair
24 representation of your knowledge at the time?
25 A. Well, I -- I think to come back to an example that we've used in
1 the past, the fact that two or three conversations were recorded at the
2 same time. We didn't know that there were multiple units working at a
3 particular site when we started, so it required more investigation to
4 understand how the entire process worked.
5 Q. You say when you started working. What period exactly do you have
6 in mind? Is it the time when you started working on intercepts, sometime
7 in March or April? Is that the time that you have in mind?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How long did it take you to acquire that knowledge that you have
10 just talked about, to learn about the process?
11 A. I think we gained a -- I gained a much better understanding once
12 we started to interview the operators, which was in 1999. So it took over
13 a year, I would say.
14 Q. And before that you were never told that the conversations were
15 recorded at various places, not just one place?
16 A. I can't say for certainty.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
18 Exhibit number 1D226.
19 Q. Do you have it before you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is a report dated 24 April 1998. Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can we scroll down a little, please? It says here, "Results of
24 investigation." And in the first paragraph it says, "On 21 April 1994" -
25 it says here 1994 but I believe it was 1998 and that this is just a typo -
1 that the gentleman in question went to the northern site, and that
2 together with him was Ms. Stefanie Frease. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can we please move to page 3? Page 3 of the document.
5 Could you please look at the fifth paragraph?
6 JUDGE KWON: Do we not have English translation?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Has this been translated?
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The original is in English. The
9 translation is into B/C/S. The original is English, I'm sure of that.
10 THE REGISTRAR: The only document in the system is this one in
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but if it's being made use of, we will need it
13 in English.
14 Yes, Madam Fauveau first.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] If I may assist the Chamber, the
16 same document is in the system under number 5D187, and there is indeed a
17 translation into English available.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.
19 Mr. Ostojic.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: No comment, Your Honour, anymore.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So perhaps we can see it. We need to be able
22 to follow. I mean, and I can't follow in Serbo-Croat.
23 THE WITNESS: Is there a concern about names of certain
25 JUDGE AGIUS: No one has mentioned this, but let's go into private
1 session for a short while, yeah.
2 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Ms. Frease, I conclude based on this that you were aware of the
14 existence of both of these sites when you started working on intercepts.
15 Is this fair to say?
16 A. Mm-hmm, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. I had an opportunity to see that the last batch of
18 materials that arrived concerned the printed versions of the intercepts
19 and that this arrived in the Tribunal in 2001 in the month of January. As
20 far as I understand, at the time you no longer worked for the Tribunal.
21 But given your subsequent engagement, I'm sure that you are aware of that
22 batch of material that arrived at the time?
23 A. Could you tell me which batch of material you are referring to and
24 who would have brought it in? Whether it was printed or electronic
1 Q. Goes to the electronic version -- I correct myself, the typed or
2 printed versions. That material was mentioned in the statement of
3 Jean-Rene Ruez. I cannot tell you or be more specific about the material
4 because in his statement he said that it was reams of materials that was
5 being recorded when he was given the statement and that was in March 2001.
6 And out of that statement it follows that no other printed materials had
7 been received by the Tribunal.
8 A. I don't recall that. I recall there being electronic material
9 that was brought in by Jean Gagnon, and I believe that was at the
10 beginning of 2001, and that Jean-Rene Ruez had brought material in, in
11 December of 2000.
12 Q. Let's take a look together, please, at the statement that I just
13 mentioned by Jean-Rene Ruez. It's Exhibit from the Prosecution list,
14 P1087 [as interpreted].
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could counsel repeat the
17 JUDGE KWON: Would you repeat the number again?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could repeat the number, please.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. P1079. Correction,
20 P1079, not P1087. Yes, now it's correct.
21 Q. This is Jean-Rene Ruez's declaration. Could we take a look at the
22 next page, please. At the bottom there is the date 10th of March, 2001.
23 Isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Let's peruse the last paragraph of that declaration, for starters.
1 There is mention being made of a mass of printed transcripts, and it is
2 said that they were transferred to the OTP in January 2001, and that they
3 are being listed or registered.
4 A. Yes, and ...
5 Q. I would like to ask you about another thing. In this declaration
6 Mr. Ruez summed up all the materials, intercept materials that were
7 received and requested by -- from the Bosnian authorities. I never saw in
8 this material the binder of 550 pages that you mentioned. Could you tell
9 me of a document which records the transfer of that binder?
10 A. I cannot, off the top of my head, but I -- I believe that I can
11 find a transfer document for you on that.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish the Prosecution to do that for you,
13 Mr. Zivanovic?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I would like very much to see
15 that, because we haven't had an opportunity to see that at all.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
17 Mr. Vanderpuye, we will continue, but in the meantime, if you
18 could kindly try and locate it. If -- if this document exists, of
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will happily look into the matter.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
22 Go ahead, Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. You told us that the 550-page binder contained printed materials,
25 but with no headings on the printed materials, they contained only the
1 contents of reports without the headings. Is that correct?
2 A. The -- yes, if I could explain just a little bit. It's partially
4 Q. Please go ahead.
5 A. The 550 pages contained both material that was recorded by the
6 police and by the military. The conversations that were recorded by the
7 police had the standard heading on it that they put at the beginning of
8 every conversation. You're familiar with those, I think, on the
9 above-mentioned date at this and this time, this frequency we recorded,
10 blah, blah, blah.
11 The headings for the military -- the military -- let me go back.
12 The headings on the conversations that were recorded by the
13 military were not included in that set of -- in that collection of 550
15 Q. In other words, you did not have the military intercepts in the
16 binder which contained 550 pages. Is that correct?
17 A. No. We had the military intercepts as well. We just didn't have
18 the headers for them.
19 Q. Which means intercepts intercepted by the military were contained
20 in the 550-page binder but without the headers?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you please tell me who handed that binder over to the
24 A. I would --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
1 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, are we in private session?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now. If we need to go in
4 private session, we will do so for the mention of this person. If -- if
5 you are going to mention anybody.
6 THE WITNESS: I would like to check it. I may have been the
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we will remain in public session. In the
9 meantime, during the break, if you have an opportunity of checking,
10 perhaps you can go through your documents or records and then let us know
11 after the break.
12 Mr. Zivanovic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will go back to this question
14 after the break.
15 Q. For now I would like to ask you on another matter. You told us
16 that these reports without the headers were an analytical tool, in
17 essence, and that the headers were not included to facilitate analysis of
18 that material. Am I right in interpreting your testimony in this way?
19 A. My understanding was that the binder that we received was a
20 compilation of the material that -- that 2 Corps was using.
21 Q. Did you have any explanation why the headers were excluded from
22 the materials?
23 A. No. At the time we didn't even know there were headers on the
25 Q. Thank you. Judging by your experience, given your work with the
1 BiH army and judging by the consultations with your colleagues who also
2 were involved in investigation and analysis, would it be true if I said
3 that the BiH army was organised and structured in accordance with the same
4 principles as any other modern armed forces?
5 A. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question.
6 Q. Could you answer a question whether, in the BiH army, there was a
7 principle of subordination being observed? Simply put, a subordinate had
8 to follow his superior's orders?
9 A. Again, I'm not a military expert.
10 Q. You have not consulted any experts that you worked with about
11 these questions that I am putting to you?
12 A. No. I mean, I observed in meetings -- I mean, I understand ranks
13 and ...
14 Q. But you don't know that a private is supposed to obey his
15 superior's orders?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move, Mr. Zivanovic. Let's move, change the
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
19 Q. Now I would like to go back to the document, or the declaration by
20 Mr. Ruez. In his declaration Mr. Ruez says that on several occasions the
21 Tribunal in 1995, 1996, and 1997, and let's go back to page 1, please,
22 while I'm saying this. Paragraph 3. So it says here that the Tribunal in
23 1995, 1996, 1997, addressed AID, requesting access of the intercepts and
24 the reply was that the timing for handing over such materials was not
25 right. First of all I would like to ask you whether you know what the
1 acronym AID stands for. Could you tell us that?
2 A. I believe -- with absolute certainty, not at this moment. I think
3 it's [B/C/S spoken] [No interpretation].
4 Q. You are correct.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It was not translated in English.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but I think we've heard before what the acronym
7 stands for. So let's proceed.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. I would like to ask you about that. You know what the acronym SDB
10 stands for; I presume that you used to come across that acronym in the
11 materials that were you given in the binder.
12 A. I know what the acronym stands for. Without looking at the
13 material in the binder, I can't say for certain that that -- oh, well,
14 yes, it might have been there next to a date. SDB.
15 Q. Do you know what this acronym stands for?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you tell us, please?
18 A. It's the State Security Services.
19 Q. Did you hear that after the war, after that service was renamed
20 and that it was given the name, Agency for Research and Documentation; is
21 that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Let us take a look at Defence Exhibit 1D2818 -- 218. 1D218. This
24 document has not been translated; we have it only in the B/C/S version.
25 Could you please take a look at this document and tell me in -- in
1 the header, if you could scroll up a bit, it says, "Ministry of the
2 Interior." Then the state security sector, or the acronym SDB. Could you
3 confirm that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you see the date, 24th of July, 1995?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you please read out the addressee, the army of the republic
8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the 2nd Corps, is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you read out or can you see the subject, "Fono documents
11 being requested"?
12 A. Yes. Though I don't know what "Fono" means.
13 Q. Fono meaning audio. This is a synonym in BHS [as interpreted] for
14 audio documents. And from this very brief text, one can tell that what is
15 requested are audio tapes, so-called Fono documents, referring to
16 Srebrenica. Given, and I quote the last offensive against the protected
17 zone, and that this audio material is sought to prepare materials for the
18 ICTY at -- is that correct? Can you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you ever see this memo, this document? In search of the
21 intercepts, have you ever heard about the existence of such a request?
22 A. No.
23 Q. I presume that you do not know the reply that this memo
25 A. No.
1 Q. Let us take a look at 1D219. This document has not been
2 translated either. Is this a document prepared by the General Staff of
3 the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
4 A. That's what it says in the header, yes.
5 Q. Is this document, does it bear the date 19th of August, 1995?
6 A. The 18th of August, 1995, yes.
7 Q. Was it addressed to the 2nd Corps command?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is there a seal testifying to the receipt by the 2nd Corps command
10 on the 19th of August, 1995?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Does this document request the handing over of materials for the
13 "international court - instruction"? Is it stated in the document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does this document refers to the previous document from the 24th
16 of July, 1995?
17 A. Yes, I would want to compare the numbers, but by the date and --
18 and that -- it appears to, yes.
19 Q. I don't know whether we can juxtapose those two documents, the
20 previous one and this one for the purpose of you comparing the references
21 or the numbers. If it's possible, I have no objection to that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there contestation from the Prosecution that the
23 reference is to the previous document that we saw?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: The microphones don't seem to work. If I speak
25 loudly --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I can do nothing about it, Mr. Vanderpuye. I can
2 see you are pushing all kinds of buttons. If I hear what you say I can
3 repeat it and we can proceed.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is no objection to the juxtaposition of the
5 two documents; however, I do have an objection to the relevancy, only to
6 the extent that I think that my esteemed colleague is implying that this
7 is a response to the prior letter which the witness testified she wasn't
8 aware of.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I don't think he said that it was a response.
10 He said it is a further letter, as I understood his question.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Then I withdraw the objection.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can safely take it that the reference is
13 to the previous letter that we saw on the screen a few minutes ago. So we
14 would rather not lose time. Let's proceed. The date was certainly the
15 24th, 7, 1995, and the [B/C/S spoken] [No interpretation], it's the same.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 Q. And in the last two rows of this memo, does the Main Staff of the
18 BiH army request from the 2nd Corps command to hand over those materials
19 to the SDB sector of Tuzla?
20 A. [Microphone not activated] Okay. Is the entire letter on the
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Frease.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. Reading all these intercepts you mentioned that on
1 numerous occasions it was stated that they were sent to the intelligence
2 organ of the 2nd Corps. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I've just been told by my colleagues is that the previous
5 document, if you could read it, it's a very brief one, and since it has
6 not been translated, let's help those who do not read B/C/S. Maybe I can
7 read it out loud and you confirm it or you can read it out aloud,
8 whichever way it's easier for you. Would you like me to read it out aloud
9 and you can confirm it?
10 "Through the SDB Sarajevo MUP we've been informed that the SDB
11 Tuzla, through its document 7-1022, dated 24th of July, 1995, requested
12 from you audio recordings that refer to the events connected with
13 Srebrenica. Given that the requested audio recordings are of very great
14 importance of the dossier which is being collated for the international
15 war crimes court, it is necessary for these materials to be handed over to
16 the SDB sector of Tuzla."
17 Is this what it is stated in this document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In a great number of printed materials and documents that you
20 received, and I'm going back to what I started asking questions about, you
21 saw that they were addressed to the intelligence organ of the 2nd Corps.
22 Is that correct?
23 A. Previously I said yes. I would -- I would rather be able to look
24 at one of the headings of one of the documents to see whether it
25 specifically says the intelligence organ, but certainly, yes, they were --
1 they were addressed to 2 Corps headquarters.
2 Q. You took all that over from the intelligence organ of the 2nd
3 Corps. Would that be fair to say? Can you confirm that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could we please look at 1D220. Is this another letter -- I
6 apologise, can you scroll up a little to show the heading?
7 Is this a letter drafted by the command of the 2nd Corps and does
8 it bear the date of 24 August 1995?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Again, a request was made to hand over audio recordings relative
11 to Srebrenica to be used by the SDP [as interpreted] of Tuzla?
12 A. Yes, it's a very faint copy, but it -- yes.
13 Q. Could you please look at the text, we are not going to read it
14 together, a reference is made to the previous two letters and a request is
15 made that the audio materials should be forwarded to the state security
16 department of Tuzla. Is that correct?
17 A. The copy is very faint on the screen for me. Are you looking --
18 can you tell me where you're looking? Okay. Right at the beginning of
19 the letter.
20 Q. You can look at the very beginning of the letter, the first
21 paragraph, or even the second paragraph.
22 A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
23 Q. Can we then conclude that again a same -- the same request was
24 made on the 24th of August, 1995, and that the request refers to the audio
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can I now look at 1D221.
3 A. May I just see the bottom of this document?
4 Q. Of course.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Q. 1D221, please. Is this a letter that was drafted by the general
7 staff of the BiH army on the 7th of July, 1996?
8 A. The 1997 of July, 1996, yes.
9 Q. Yes, the 7th of July, 1996. And it was sent by the Ministry of
10 the Interior of the Federation; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you please look at the first paragraph of the letter? I'm
13 going to read it out aloud and you tell me -- I believe that the letter
14 was actually translated into English, that there -- I believe that there
15 is an English translation of the document. I have been able to locate it
16 on the EDS system. Don't you have it? No. Okay, I'm going to read the
17 first paragraph and then you can tell me whether it is correct or not.
18 "Pursuant to your request we have examined and verified a large portion of
19 the collected information relative to the period of the occupation of
20 Srebrenica and Zepa. We have established that all -- which aggressive
21 forces participated in the occupation and the crimes that were committed.
22 We have also established the names of the persons who in any way were
23 engaged in the operations of the occupation, either through direct command
24 or direct participation. In addition to the names of person we have also
25 been able to establish information that we are privy to about their
1 participation and the type of engagement. Most of the information was
2 collected through electronic reconnaissance and all the audio documents
3 were submitted earlier, as early as 1995 at the request to the agency for
4 research and documentation of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina so that
5 the intelligence service of the Main Staff of the BiH army does not
6 possess the original documents that might serve as a valid proof in a
7 possible trial."
8 Have you ever seen the document?
9 A. No. The answer was no.
10 Q. Yesterday you showed us -- actually, in your previous testimony
11 you said that for the analysis of the intercepts that had been placed at
12 your disposal you had used various sources, among which you used
13 information that you received from various sources from other countries,
14 from the photos, aerial photos, and I suppose that you received some
15 information from the BiH army. Could you please be more precise and tell
16 us what sources did you use when you analysed the intercepted
18 A. I didn't use any sources from the BiH army. It -- I used
19 sources -- this is off the top of my head, but to the best of my
20 recollection I used video footage that was taken during the time of events
21 by VRS cameramen and by Zoran Petrovic. Aerial imagery that was provided
22 to the Court by the United States, letters that were provided to the
23 Tribunal by UNPROFOR command, so from UN headquarters. Military documents
24 that were seized in Zvornik, at Zvornik Brigade headquarters. And
25 military documents that were obtained from the VRS Ministry of Defence.
1 Those are the ones that I can remember right now.
2 Q. When you say that you used aerial imagery that you received from
3 the United States, can you tell us whether you are talking only about a
4 video footage or are you also referring to some audio recordings?
5 A. No audio recordings, and when I say "aerial imagery," it's from
6 the air, not video footage.
7 Q. You said that you didn't use information or documentation that
8 originated from the BiH army. Did I understand you well? Did you say
10 A. As far as I remember, yes.
11 Q. Can you tell us why? Why did they not want to provide you with
12 information about the Republika Srpska army or was there any other reason
13 for that?
14 A. No, we thought it would be much more objective if we could go to
15 outside parties. Or to have corroboration from VRS documents themselves.
16 Q. Does this mean that you had your reservations about any
17 documentation that might have been provided to you by the BiH army,
18 that ...
19 A. No.
20 Q. Would it be fair to say that you first had to look at their
21 documents in order to be able to draw a conclusion that it was not what
22 you needed?
23 A. There was never -- there was never an issue really of -- of
24 including BiH documents in trying to corroborate the intercepts. The
25 intercepts had been provided by the -- by the Bosnian authorities, and it
1 was those intercepts in particular that we were trying to corroborate, so
2 we didn't want to use anything that was associated with the BiH in order
3 to corroborate material that they had provided to us.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Popovic, we will have a break in about three
5 minutes' time. Mr. Zivanovic, sorry. I mean I keep ...
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We can have our break straight
7 away, as far as I'm concerned, if that's okay with the Trial Chamber.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: The reason why I asked you is that I sensed we were
9 coming to that.
10 So we will have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank you.
11 And my apologies to you.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. I will continue where I left it off before the break. You have
17 told us that you did not use any material on the Republika Srpska army
18 that would have been provided to you by the BiH army when you carried out
19 your analysis. Is that a fair representation of what you said?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Was that your personal position, or was it a position of the
22 investigative team of the Prosecutor's office?
23 A. The majority of the information that we had from BiH authorities
24 actually -- well, didn't come from the authorities themselves, but from
1 Q. My question was very specific. I'm not talking about the
2 authorities, I'm talking about the BiH army. My question was this: Did
3 you receive information about the army of Republika Srpska that was in the
4 possession of the BiH army?
5 A. We received some information at a certain point. I don't remember
6 exactly when. I think it was -- could have been in May of 1999. But it
7 wasn't considered relevant.
8 Q. Did you consider it reliable?
9 A. It's hard for me to talk about it in sort of very general terms.
10 One -- one things that comes to mind is some tactical intercepts that we
11 had received as well that we simply weren't able to confirm.
12 Q. My question did not refer to the intercepted information, but
13 other information that the BiH army might have had about the Republika
14 Srpska army as their opponent, as their enemy.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Excuse me, Mr. President. The -- I do object to
17 the question to the extent that it doesn't identify the specific
18 information that my colleague has put to the witness. I think the witness
19 has answered the question to the best of her ability. She has indicated a
20 general response to a rather general question. I think if there is
21 specific information my colleague wants -- wishes to inquire about, he
22 should perhaps put that to the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you have to say about that, Mr. Zivanovic?
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I accept that, and I will move on
25 to another more specific question.
1 Q. Could you please look at 1D222. Again we don't have an English
2 translation. Can we together confirm that this document was drafted by
3 the joint command of the army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 and that the date on the document is the 3rd of March, 1998?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can we also confirm that this document was sent to Mr. Jean-Rene
7 Ruez, who was the leader of the investigation team?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is this a list of the collected material and documents that were
10 being handed over to the investigation team of the international tribunal
11 in The Hague? Does this transpire from the first three lines in the body
12 of this text? A list of the collected material and documents that are
13 being handed over to the investigation team of the international criminal
14 tribunal in The Hague?
15 I apologise. I did not hear your answer, so I have repeated the
16 question, which probably wasn't necessary.
17 Does it continue to say in this letter that pursuant to an order
18 of the commander of the joint command of the army of the Federation dated
19 16 February 1998 at a request of the Prosecutor's office of the
20 international criminal tribunal in The Hague reports that were collected
21 by radio reconnaissance are being handed over as well as the information
22 on the organisation and formation structure of the Drina Corps of the
23 Republika Srpska army?
24 A. Yes. And your previous question also yes. I had been looking at
25 a different part of the document so I wasn't following what you were
1 saying. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. We may then say that two things were handed over on
3 that occasion. Reports collected by radio reconnaissance, as well as the
4 organisational information structure of the Republika Srpska army, Drina
5 Corps. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's what it says.
7 Q. Can we move on to the next page of this document, please?
8 The next page is the organisation and formation structure of the
9 Drina Corps. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we move on to the following page, please?
12 A. Sorry, on the transcript the answer was yes. And then the
13 question was, "Can we move on to the following page, please?" Thank
15 Q. At the top of the page do you see a box with the abbreviation DK?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Does this stand for the Drina Corps?
18 A. Yes, I would say it does.
19 Q. Could you please read on the bullet one on the left side of the
20 page what does it say there? Or maybe I can try and read it. It
21 says, "Zvornicka MBR," which is the abbreviation for the motorised
22 brigade, so it is the Zvornik Motorised Brigade isn't it?
23 A. Okay. Again, I mean, I'm not a military expert, so I can help as
24 much as I can, but I think I will be limited in what I can help you with
1 Q. I don't think you will need any expert knowledge for this. Again
2 under 2 it says Zvornik RLPBR [as interpreted]?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I assume that you don't know that the abbreviation that you see
5 here stands for a light infantry brigade?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. We may then conclude that there were two Zvornik Brigades.
8 Wouldn't that be correct?
9 A. Your question --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. We're asking the witness
11 to speculate on matters outside the subject of her direct examination. We
12 could literally go through and spend weeks, if he's throwing up documents
13 like this, without any tying, he is not putting his case to the witness.
14 I just -- we're going nowhere.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 What's your comment on that, Mr. Zivanovic?
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] My comment is that the witness
18 explained to us that she was involved in analysis based on various
19 sources, and it arises from this document that these documents were given
20 to the investigation team that was led by Mr. Ruez, and that these
21 documents should have been used when radio reports were being handed over,
22 accompanied by this letter.
23 On the other hand, these radio reports that were submitted with
24 the documents do not exist in any file, in any binder, not even in the
25 statement provided by Mr. Ruez. You know that my general position is that
1 I am contesting the authenticity and the reliability of all the materials
2 that were obtained through radio surveillance, and in that sense I believe
3 that my question is relevant.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Your question was, we may conclude that there were
5 two Zvornik Brigades. Wouldn't that be correct. The previous one is also
6 related to abbreviations standing for light infantry brigade. Anyway,
7 let's confer a little bit amongst ourselves, please, before we decide
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So we agree with the position taken or the objection
11 raised by Mr. McCloskey. I mean that's the caveat. If you wish to put a
12 direct question, you are in cross-examination in any case to the witness,
13 whether she's made use of these documents, then obviously you are free to
14 put such questions. On the other hand, on these military issues she has
15 already told you that basically she knows what the ranks were, and that's
16 about it. She doesn't know much more. So -- yes, Madam Fauveau.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a question
18 with regards to the procedure, maybe we can shed some light on this.
19 Mr. McCloskey is not the person who was examining. I do not oppose to
20 this, but I would like to know if the same principle is applied to the
21 Defence, basically. He is not the person who led the
23 JUDGE AGIUS: If I remember well, and my memory doesn't fail me,
24 Madam Fauveau, this rose up with Maitre de Roux and Maitre Pitron in
25 Brdjanin when they had a habit of both standing up, you included, and I
1 said either one or none. So she saw Mr. De Roux yesterday and that must
2 have revived her memory.
3 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, and I -- I agree with that, I think we have
5 to try to do that. Obviously otherwise it would be impossible. On the
6 other hand, I am the only one from the Prosecution is here day in and day
7 out and sees the bigger picture. I have also been here since 1996 so I
8 can see these documents and see how they relate or don't relate to the
9 intercepts. And so while I try to keep my mouth as quiet as possible when
10 other people are here, I -- I really sometimes I just will -- will object,
11 and I -- I try to keep that to a minimum because I -- I agree with that,
12 that's an important rule.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: If you had come from my region, I would have
14 attributed it to Mediterranean temper, Mr. McCloskey.
15 Anyway, if we could avoid such interjections, however, I think
16 that should be the rule that we ought to follow. And you can ask -- ask
17 to stop for a moment, you can confer with Mr. Vanderpuye, who is more than
18 capable of then transmitting the objection to us and to the rest.
19 So I apologise to you, Mr. Zivanovic, for that interruption.
20 Please proceed in accordance to the direction that we gave you. Thank
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Q. On the first page of this document you saw that reports on radio
24 surveillance were handed over to Mr. Ruez. Did you see those reports
1 A. I would have to know which reports you're referring to. It could
2 be -- well, I would rather not speculate. I mean ...
3 Q. I wouldn't want to speculate either, but I don't have any other
4 information except for what I read from page 1, so I cannot say anything
5 else. But let's go through the document page by page to see whether radio
6 surveillance is mentioned anywhere. This document is 20 page long, we can
7 go page by page. I contest that there are no mentions of radio
8 surveillance reports, and if the Prosecution stipulates, then we can drop
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. It's rather complicated, isn't
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it is. I don't know if it might be just
13 a better question to put to the witness whether she's seen this document
14 before and that might solve the issue right quick, as they say.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a pertinent remark.
16 Mr. Zivanovic, I suggest you put that question first to the
17 witness. Of course she might be familiar with the document or she might
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to hand
20 over this document to the witness - its hard copy - to take a look at it,
21 and to tell us whether it is the document in question and whether it makes
22 mention of radio surveillance reports at all.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: This idea of -- this idea of having the witness read
24 through a document which is not hers, which she may not have seen before,
25 and asking her to go through it and reply or state whether it makes
1 mention of a particular subject matter, I mean it's -- it's a procedure
2 to which I am completely not only unused, but not familiar, but alien,
3 completely alien. If you intend to make use of this document if you
4 intend to tender it, it speaks for itself and then you put the question
5 to either the person who can give us explanations on the document, but
6 why this particular witness? I mean, if the document doesn't mention for
7 example intercepts, and it's a 20-page document, why should we spend I
8 don't know how many minutes for the witness to go through the entire 20
9 pages and then to confirm what appears on the face of document itself?
10 I mean, I don't know. I'm not used to that kind of -- I haven't
11 conferred with my colleagues on -- on this, so I stand to be corrected,
12 but I think it would be a mere waste of time. Let me confer with my
13 colleagues first.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Our suggestion is, let's start first, you ask -- you
16 put the question to the witness whether she's familiar with this document,
17 whether she's seen it before, and then we see which way to proceed. But,
18 please, let's not waste time. Go ahead, Mr. Zivanovic.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like just to
20 ask the witness whether, after March the 3rd, she received from Mr. Ruez
21 any radio reports by which I mean radio intercepts. Because witness was
22 in charge of that material within the investigation team, and this
23 document refers to the handing over of the radio surveillance reports and
24 the organisation and the structure of the Drina Corps, and this is
25 something that she ought to be in a position to answer, of course if she
1 knows that, and this is the gist of my question.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a completely different question. We are
3 talking of a document. First we need to establish whether she is familiar
4 with the document, whether she has seen it before. You don't -- anyway,
5 let's start with that first.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall having seen this document before.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So you can move to your next question, please, but
8 not asking the witness what the document contains or does not contain.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not going ask that. I wanted
10 to ask something else, Your Honour.
11 Q. Did you receive from Mr. Ruez any radio intercepts after the 3rd
12 of March, 1998?
13 A. I think this is related to a previous subject that we talked
14 about, which was when did we receive the binder of 550 intercepts. I
15 believe that we received those in March, but I -- I really need to check
16 documents to be able to confirm that.
17 Q. I understood you as saying that you received that in April 1998
18 and it was received by Mr. Peter Nicholson as far as I can recall this was
19 your testimony here?
20 A. I would have to look at documents.
21 Q. Thank you. Let me broach another subject of the notebooks. Were
22 you present when the notebooks were listed on the 11th of March, 1998?
23 A. No. Not to my recollection.
24 Q. You took over those notebooks on the 24th of April, 1998. Is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you, on that occasion, leaf through or read what was in the
4 A. I leafed through some, as far as I recall, but I didn't read
6 Q. Was the choice of those to be leafed through was random or did you
7 have any instructions that guided your selection of which are going to be
8 leafed through?
9 A. The selection had already been made. It was made in March when
10 the notebooks were first discovered. And then they were put in a box and
11 sealed. When I returned, when I went to Tuzla in April I picked up those
13 Q. I asked you about the choice of the notebooks that you are going
14 to read and not selection of the notebooks that would be taken by the
16 A. I still don't understand your question.
17 Q. You said that you went through some notebooks, that you did not
18 read them out, you just leafed through them, took a look at them. As I
19 am -- am I correct in saying that you said that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So my question is, was the choice random, the selection of the
22 notebooks that you are going to leaf through or go through?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In those notebooks did you notice any corrections being made,
25 maybe another figure being written instead of a pre-existing figure or
1 something like that? Did you notice such interventions in those
3 A. It's very difficult for me to say nine years, you know -- nine
4 years have passed since -- since that happened. They were certainly
5 working documents, and I did notice that different ink was used in the
6 notebooks, but I don't have specific recollections of specific mark -- you
7 know, cross-outs.
8 Q. I'm not asking you about the date when you took over those
9 notebooks on the 24th of April, but later on when you had ample time to
10 peruse them, I believe in priming yourself for this testimony, you did so,
11 and did you notice any corrections to the dates or names or frequencies or
12 any other modifications using different inks or different longhand, et
14 A. Yes. Once the notebooks were in our possession, we had an
15 opportunity to go through and to log all of the notebooks. To go through
16 and to note the dates that were contained within the notebooks, to have a
17 quick look -- to also note the names that were contained within the
18 notebooks, to provide us a guide, to know how to approach the analytical
19 part of extracting the information from the relevant notebooks. And, yes,
20 during that analysis I noticed cross-outs, different types of ink used,
21 different handwritings in the -- in the notebook. As I said, they were
22 clearly working documents.
23 Q. My question being, did you try to establish or check when these
24 modifications took place?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. Please take a look at two notebooks, I believe it's
2 possible to do so by placing it on the ELMO.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Let me stop you for a moment,
4 Mr. Zivanovic, so that I will try to clear this up a little bit better.
5 His question was: "My question being, did you try to establish
6 and check when these modifications took place." Your answer was no. Do I
7 take it that in the process of your work analysis you did discuss these
8 corrections, modifications, with any of the operators that you may have
9 had contact with, or that you never discussed the -- these modifications
10 or alterations on the notebooks with anyone?
11 THE WITNESS: We talked about the modifications with the
13 JUDGE AGIUS: And could you come to a conclusion? And if yes,
14 what was that conclusion?
15 THE WITNESS: That they would -- that they made corrections as
16 they went along. If they replayed the tape and could hear things better
17 and could correct the record, their transcription, then they made those
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Did you believe such explanations given by the operators?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you double-check in any way these claims?
24 A. Only among the various operators. Not with an outside handwriting
25 expert, for example, though, no.
1 Q. Please take a look at the two notebooks that I asked to be placed
2 on the ELMO. P22308 [as interpreted] and 2322.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So for the record, the transcript shows P22308, it's
4 P2308, if I heard Mr. Zivanovic correctly.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 2308. [In English] That's
6 correct. [Interpretation] That's correct.
7 Q. The 2308 notebook, please turn at page 9685, 0779685. Can we
8 confirm that there was a modification to the channel?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Otherwise, can you tell the time, 11515 [as interpreted], and that
11 the frequency was 785000?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Please take a look at the other notebook, 2322. Page 0784. Place
14 it a bit lower, please. Or lift it up. Can you see the same frequency in
15 this other notebook, but now it's third channel and the time has been
16 altered also?
17 A. I wouldn't say that the time has been altered. I think they just
18 drew a line through the zeros for 10.05 in the morning.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment --
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Do you mean --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Why wouldn't the other three zeros behind 785 be
23 crossed like that as well?
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I stand to be corrected, but the first one across
1 the first zero isn't just a straight line, it looks like a one with --
2 with the tail or whatever it is.
3 THE WITNESS: Right. If I could just refer to the other page,
4 there's a marking through the zero three on the channel. Here. And yet
5 no -- no marking through the zero on the -- on the time.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I take your point. Yeah. Okay.
7 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In other words, you believe that in this case there was no
10 alteration or correction, but could you tell me what was the time when
11 this intercept was transcribed?
12 A. From this I would say 10.05, but I would -- I would double-check
13 it at this point, since we have the opportunity to double-check. I would
14 double-check it and cross-reference it against the electronic copies.
15 Q. In your opinion, could these alterations influence the
16 authenticity of these transcripts? In one case we have a different
17 channel; instead of a channel 3 now it's channel 5. If you go back to the
18 previous notebook the first entry that you had to look at. And so if you
19 were to align these two entries, then you would have the same channel,
20 same frequencies, and same time, and recording of two different
21 conversations at the same time. Would that, in your opinion, influence
22 the authenticity of what was transcribed here?
23 A. I think there are just too many hypotheticals in what you have
24 asked. So I would -- yeah, I mean I -- I would check more. Against the
25 -- against the hard copy records to see, but in principle I -- I would
1 say, no, that this -- this wouldn't affect, you know, the reliability.
2 Q. You -- thank you. I no longer need these notebooks.
3 Among other things, you stated that the notebooks were recorded in
4 the corps command before handed over to units that would transcribe
5 intercepts, that they would be given a registration number, and that that
6 registration would be dated. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, I believe that those numbers were registered. They were
8 registered by the captain, and I believe that they were registered at the
9 corps headquarters, yes.
10 Q. From the operators we received information that they would receive
11 empty notebooks, marked by the registration number and date, and then they
12 used those notebooks to transcribe intercepted conversations. Did you
13 receive the same information about that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In a number of notebooks, entries of intercepted conversations and
16 the dates of intercepted conversations precede the registration number and
17 the date of the opening of the notebook. Did you pay any heed to that?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm going to object to my colleague's question to
20 the extent that I don't believe it accurately reflects the records of
21 these proceedings and if he has specific information with respect to when
22 the notebooks were written in, as opposed to the date of their opening,
23 then I would ask that he come forward with that and put that to the
24 witness specifically.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think Mr. Vanderpuye's perfectly right. You
1 need to be more specific in this, not vague or generic as you have been.
2 So if you have a specific instance, which I'm sure you would have, go
3 straight there, but ...
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I recall that we had some 20
5 witnesses, and my questions were aimed at this and they responded to
6 that. I have to admit that I have not prepared a transcript of these
7 testimonies, but if this is a pre-condition for my question, given that
8 nobody in the courtroom recalls my question and the answers that we
9 received, then I will not insist on that and I will go on to another
11 JUDGE AGIUS: It's up to you, but you can rephrase your question,
12 putting to the witness that several intercept operators have stated this,
13 what you maintain they have stated, and then ask her whether she is -- she
14 was aware of this, whether she's ever taken it into consideration in her
15 analysis, had in the sense of whether it was an important factor for
16 analysis purposes or not. But that's about it, if you want to pursue the
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It seems to me that I put this
19 question in the same way or a similar way that the witness discussed this
20 matter of registration number and the date of registration, but -- well, I
21 will of course follow this line and I will ask the witness whether she
22 received, with operators with whom she conferred, information about
23 receiving empty notebooks from the command with -- only bearing the
24 markings of the registration number and the date of registration.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think she has answered -- answered that already.
1 She told you, "Yes, that's what they told me."
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. My next question. Did she notice that in certain notebooks one
4 can -- could find entries that precede the dates of the notebook being
5 registered with the command?
6 A. I don't recall that off the top of my head. But I would have to
7 look at the -- at the list of registration numbers.
8 Q. Could I now look at Prosecutor's Exhibit -- please bear with me
9 just a moment. 1072 is the number of the Prosecutor's exhibit. Can we
10 please look at enclosure number 2, and the page number is 01085070.
11 Could you please look under number 4. The date when the notebook
12 was opened, I mean the registration of the notebook, was it the 28th of
13 May, 1995?
14 A. That is what is indicated on this list, yes.
15 Q. Yes, and then in the brackets, does it say that the first entry in
16 the notebook is dated 13 of April, i.e. a month before that?
17 A. That's what it says.
18 Q. Isn't the situation very similar with the following notebook on
19 the number 5, it was registered on the 24th of April, and the first entry
20 is dated the 10th of April?
21 A. That's what it says, yes.
22 Q. Isn't the situation the same with notebook under number 10, which
23 was open on the 28th of April and the first entry was made on the 4th of
24 April, apparently?
25 A. That's what it says, yes.
1 Q. Notebook number 11.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. My question is this: We could go on and look at the list and find
4 a number of such notebooks but in order to avoid wasting time, let me ask
5 you this: Did you notice this before, and did you take this into account
6 when you analysed and assessed the reliability of the contents of such
8 A. These were notebooks that were obtained after I left the court and
9 in order to really comment on them I would -- I would like to see the
10 notebooks. Usually there was a date at the beginning and a date at the
11 end, a registration date at the beginning and registration date at the
13 When we asked the captain who was responsible for registering the
14 notebooks, the significance of those numbers and the dates, we asked him
15 that as a way to try to gauge the dating of some of the conversations
16 contained within the notebooks to see whether those registration numbers
17 and dates could in some way help date, say, the beginning conversations in
18 the notebook if the operators hadn't recorded the date. And he -- my
19 recollection is that he essentially told us not to rely on the dates that
20 were registered within the notebooks, either at the beginning or at the
22 Q. Thank you. I have indeed shown you a list that was compiled after
23 you had left the Tribunal, but I can also show you a list of the notebooks
24 that you handed over. I'm talking about Prosecutor's exhibit number
25 P1068. Can we please look at page number 4613.
1 Look at number 85, please, for example.
2 A. What's the date of this document?
3 Q. The date is -- maybe we can go back to the first page; 24 April
4 1998 is the date. And this is the date when you received the collection
5 containing -- containing some 135 or 136 notebooks. And this is the annex
6 with the hand-over document.
7 A. Okay.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: So do you need to go to the annex, Mr. Zivanovic?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, please. I would like to go
10 back to the page that was already shown.
11 Q. And can you please look at bullet numbers 85 and 86, just to save
12 time, let's not go from one notebook to another. Under 85, can you see
13 that the notebook was registered on the 28th of May, 1995, and that the
14 first entry was made supposedly on the 23rd of April, 1995?
15 A. Yes, that's what it says.
16 Q. Can you also look at the following bullet point, number 86. The
17 notebook was registered on the 12th of June, 1995, and the first entry was
18 made on the 10th of April, 1995.
19 A. Right. Yes, I see that. Again, it's hard for me to comment
20 without actually seeing the notebooks because sometimes there were also
21 registration numbers that were indicated at the end of the notebooks.
22 So -- but honestly, we didn't use these registration numbers and dates as
23 a gauge. They were -- we considered them internal working numbers and
24 registration numbers of the ABiH, which didn't affect the analysis of the
25 information contained within the notebooks.
1 Q. Thank you for your explanation. Tell me, please, just one more
2 thing. You noticed that in certain places covering the same period of
3 time there were a number of notebooks, there were two or three operators
4 working in two or three places, and there were a number of notebooks that
5 were being used at these two or three places covering the same period of
6 time. Did you notice that, and did you ever wonder about that?
7 A. There were a number of notebooks that were used simultaneously at
8 a specific site, yes, for a specific period of time. That is true. And
9 that was because there were multiple operators working at the time, they
10 all three, or if they were more, couldn't write in one notebook. They
11 needed to have more than one notebook. So they would write in a notebook,
12 each operator, if there were say two or three working at the same time,
13 they would each have a notebook. They would write in it. When one gave
14 the notebook to the typist, maybe someone else was on break, they would
15 pick up another notebook and they would keep writing conversations in that
16 other notebook.
17 Q. You know that there were a number of notebooks used in parallel,
18 and that in a number of notebooks there were no dates, the dates were not
19 indicated. Could you then conclude, based on that, that there might have
20 been some confusion about the dates, that this could have been a source of
22 A. I don't believe that there were any notebooks in which no date was
23 indicated. It's true that in many of the notebooks only a few dates were
24 indicated. So, yes, this was a source of confusion for us early on. At
25 times it was possible to frame conversations by a beginning date and an
1 ending date if the conversations in between the two were consecutive, from
2 day to day to day to day. Once we then received the electronic versions,
3 these helped to solidify the dates.
4 Q. You received electronic version only a year or a year and a half
6 A. That's right. That's correct. We -- at the time when we were
7 analysing the material contained in the notebooks, if we were certain of a
8 date, we bolded the date. In our analytical document, in our working
9 document. If we were unsure of a date, if we were guessing at it, we left
10 it unbolded so that we knew whether -- how much certainty we had about the
12 Q. Thank you. I wanted to ask you something about the tapes that you
13 have already spoken about. You have told us here that the authorities of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina in March 1998 allowed you access to these tapes and
15 that there was a total of 19 tapes, as far as I can remember. Could you
16 please explain and tell us whether this access meant that you were allowed
17 to hear those tapes or were you just allowed physical access to those
19 A. I wasn't present at the time. I know that the 19 tapes were
20 identified, but I don't -- well, I don't know. I would rather not
22 Q. You have also testified about these tapes, and you said that on
23 the 25th of April, 1998, these tapes were transferred to the Tribunal.
24 But they were then returned on the 4th of April, 2000. Can you please
25 tell us who was in charge of those tapes in the meantime, who had custody
1 of the tapes during the -- that period of time?
2 A. The tapes were handed over on the 25th of April to Jack Hunter,
3 who took them to Washington, D.C., for analysis and to make copies.
4 Q. And he returned them on the 4th of April, 2000, wouldn't that be
6 A. That's correct. He returned the originals on the 4th of April,
7 2000. I believe that he made copies before that and provided those copies
8 to us before then, which we worked from. But I would have to check the --
9 the documentation on that.
10 Q. And he kept the originals until the 4th of April, and on that date
11 he returned the originals as well, didn't he?
12 A. Yes, he -- yes.
13 Q. You were not present at the hand-over of those tapes, were you?
14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. I would like to jog your memory by showing you the hand-over
16 record dated 25 April, and I believe that the document was already shown
17 to you by my learned friend on his examination-in-chief. The number of
18 the exhibit is P1069.
19 A. I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to when the tapes came
20 back to us on the 4th of April of 2000. On the 25th of April, 1998, I was
22 Q. And you had an opportunity to read the hand-over document, didn't
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can I ask you to look at the penultimate paragraph in the
1 document. In the penultimate paragraph it says that the tapes are being
2 handed over on the 24th of April to the representatives The Hague
3 Tribunal, Jack Hunter is indicated as a member of the American army, and
4 there is a -- a clause here in the joint command of the army of the
5 Federation in the administration for intelligence work and security. At
6 the hand-over of other tapes there should be an inspection and selection
7 of the tapes and the decision should be made on the further use of those
9 Do you know that after this date, i.e. the 25th of April, 1998,
10 the tapes were listened, selected, and whether a decision was made on the
11 further use of these tapes? Do you know anything about that?
12 A. There was -- actually, if I could just make a correction to the
13 translation of Jack Hunter's position first. Oh, it does, in fact, say
14 U.S. Army, though he wasn't with the U.S. Army; he was with ATF, Alcohol
15 Tobacco and Firearms, but that's okay. It's wrong in both documents.
16 No selection was made. The 19 tapes were handed over, we took
17 them all, had copies made, and I returned them, returned copies to the --
18 to 2 Corps.
19 Q. In other words, what was agreed on the 25th of April was not
20 followed through, those things that I have just quoted to you were not
21 followed through?
22 A. Where you say the tapes should be listened to and selected and the
23 matter of the further use of those tapes should be resolved. Is that what
24 you are referring to?
25 Q. Yes, yes, precisely that.
1 A. We had ongoing --
2 Q. I apologise, and it says here that this should be done in the
3 joint command of the Federation army. It says here actually the tapes
4 should be listened to and selected and the matter of the further use of
5 these tapes should be resolved in the joint command of the Federation
6 army. Actually, in its intelligence and security administration.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I can anticipate what you are saying. Yes, Mr.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm going to object to the question because I
10 don't see necessarily that it carries the import that my colleague is --
11 is implying to the extent that it carries import with respect to the
12 actions of the receiver of the tape as opposed to the actions within the
13 administration of the army, which gives the tape, and I don't think the
14 witness is in a position to answer that question at all.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 What do you have to state to that, Mr. Zivanovic?
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If the witness cannot reply, she
18 should say so and I will not insist on an answer.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please look at the paragraph, penultimate paragraph
21 to which you have been referred to earlier on and to which Mr. Zivanovic's
22 question refers. If you wish him to repeat the question he will certainly
23 do so, and tell us whether you are in a position to answer that question.
24 Because obviously it has some relevance, I mean it's ...
25 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. My question: Do you know whether the tapes were listened to, as
3 it is indicated here? Were they selected at the intelligence and security
4 administration -- I apologise, I shall rephrase the question.
5 Was the obligation honoured and the obligation was that the
6 Federation army joint command, the intelligence and security
7 administration, the tapes should be listened to and selected and the
8 matter of the further use of these tapes should be resolved. Are you
9 familiar with that? Do you know whether this was followed through,
10 whether this obligation was followed through?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Preliminarily, Your Honour, that seems to be a --
13 a -- kind of a difficult worded compound question. Secondly, it seems to
14 me that the obligation my colleague is implying exists in that paragraph,
15 it's not clear to whom that obligation applies therefore it doesn't
16 establish a bases upon which the witness can reasonably answer the
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop. I think I will leave it. I think the
19 witness is perfectly capable of reading English. She knows exactly what
20 that paragraph says, and Mr. Zivanovic is seeking from her information as
21 to whether all that transpires from that paragraph was adhered to.
22 So you can answer that question, please. Go ahead.
23 THE WITNESS: We listened to the tapes. No -- as I -- as I
24 indicated, no selection was made. We received the 19 tapes. We listened
25 to them and we had ongoing contact with the ABiH with regard to the core
1 [phoen] proceedings. I don't have a recollection about whether there was
2 specific communication about the further use of these tapes needing to be
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you. You have just told us that Mr. Hunter took those tapes
6 over on the 25th of April, 1998, and took them to the United States of
7 America, that he had taken over the originals of those tapes. We had
8 different information from the witnesses who were heard before you and who
9 worked with those tapes. There was a testimony by a witness who said that
10 the tapes that were recorded on these two locations were sent to the
11 superior command and that they were re-recorded, that a new recording was
12 made on different tapes, and that the originals were then erased and
13 returned for a repeated use in these two locations, because there was a --
14 an acute shortage of tapes and this is why this procedure was used. Were
15 you privy to that information as well? Were you aware of that?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: My -- my problem is, why do you put it to the
17 witness that this information that you have is somewhat different from the
18 information that she gave us? At the end of the day, if you have one
19 tape, and you erase it and you record again, and you erase it and record
20 again, there comes a time when you are left with one recording.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe my question wasn't clear. A
22 witness has told us here in this courtroom, and I'm not going to name the
23 person, that the tapes that were received from these two sites, from these
24 two locations were sent to the command, they were listened to at the
25 command, and certain relevant conversations were recorded on a different
1 tape, whereas the original tapes was erased, the conversations were erased
2 from the original tapes and the -- the empty tapes were -- the tapes were
3 returned to those sites.
4 My question is this: When the witness mentions originals, is she
5 referring to the original originals that were recorded on the sites, or is
6 she referring to the originals which were actually copies of the originals
7 made at the headquarters before the original conversations were erased and
8 the tapes, empty tapes sent back for re-recording.
9 THE WITNESS: I'm referring to the tapes that were given to us by
10 2 Corps command.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And were you told that these were copies of
12 originals or were you told that these were originals? I mean, this is the
13 whole issue.
14 THE WITNESS: Right. There were -- and I would have to go back
15 through all 19 tapes to -- and look at them all again, but the one that
16 we're talking about -- I mean, certainly they did record the original
17 conversations on to other tapes, conversations that they considered to be
18 important, that they copied on to other tapes to be archived. I believe
19 that among the 19 tapes that we received there could also have been, but
20 I -- I can't say this for certainty, there could also have been original
21 tapes there. But it is true that there was a shortage of tapes and that
22 they made copies of conversations that they put on to tapes and then sent
23 the used tapes back to the sites.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. From this follows that the command or superior command
1 of those two sites or two platoons of the corps command had an archive of
2 tapes bearing the recordings of important conversations. Is this what you
3 are saying, if I understood you correctly?
4 A. The command, being 2 Corps, would have had, could have had
5 compilation tapes, but not the command of the two sites.
6 Q. And these are the compilation tapes that you received, or did the
7 tapes that you received originate from the two sites?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. Are these documents being broadcast?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: The one on the monitor, I don't think so. Perhaps
12 we can check.
13 THE REGISTRAR: No, they're are not being broadcasted.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: They are not being broadcast.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. During your examination-in-chief you heard a tape played back, and
17 you had an opportunity to see a transcript -- the transcript of that
18 conversation. It's P2352A and B. Did you notice or were you informed
19 that the transcript of this tape and the translation of that conversation
20 was not correct in the part?
21 A. Could you be more specific?
22 Q. Yes, I can. Before we -- I have the Prosecutor's letter informing
23 me of that, given that I objected to the translation, I believe that it
24 would be practical to take a look at this letter, because it's not a part
25 of the e-court, it can be placed on the ELMO, and to see the -- those
1 inaccuracies in the translation and could you confirm that this is so to
2 me, please? Let's please go to second page. Please, could you place the
3 B/C/S version, not the handwritten copy, because it -- there is -- there
4 are markings and corrections in that part which is -- it is stated that
5 one part from the tape has not been inscribed or transcribed into the
6 notebooks. Could you place the B/C/S version 2352F.
7 Please, let's take a look at the second page of the B/C/S version,
8 and I believe in the English version that is ...
9 Just a moment. I'm not sure whether the corrected version is
10 being put into the e-court system at all.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have a hard copy, Mr. Zivanovic? Perhaps we
12 can move faster --
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I do have this.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher, could you please help Mr. Zivanovic and
15 put this on the ELMO and move along.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] These two documents. Second pages
17 of both documents. Just the second pages of both the B/C/S version and
18 the English version.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I understood Mr. Zivanovic to require the B/C/S
20 version. Yeah. We have both now.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Exactly to see what was omitted
22 from the original translation of this transcript, I'm not sure whether
23 it's visible clearly.
24 Q. Can you see that?
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. Given that you listened to this tape and you saw a previous
2 version of the transcript, do you agree that those parts were omitted from
3 the previous version?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Does it say here the Popovic and Nikolic are interlocutors? Is it
6 made reference where Popovic says, "Send them" or "A task should be given
7 to them." And were the words to be looked into omitted? Not a correction
8 to be tried and not to be looked into?
9 A. The words on the transcript are [B/C/S spoken] [No
10 interpretation]. Right. "To put him to the test," the English
12 Q. Could you tell me, without those words, which were omitted here,
13 whether Popovic's words could have another meaning?
14 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
15 Q. You know the content of the conversation.
16 A. I was --
17 Q. If those words were omitted, would his previous utterances be
18 given a different meaning, be interpreted in a different way, if those
19 words, [B/C/S spoken], "ought to be put to the test" were omitted?
20 A. I wouldn't say so, no.
21 Q. Let's see now. In the previous part of the conversation, the
22 other interlocutor says that those two volunteers would be thrown into the
23 Drina. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, I think it says that they would be slaughtered and thrown
25 into the Drina.
1 Q. But it continues with Popovic's words, "Don't do that, send --
2 give him an assignment." Or it says, "Send them in to attack." So if the
3 words [B/C/S spoken], "be put to a test," were omitted, would Popovic's
4 suggestion that these men be given a task to be put on the attack to be
5 killed, which means that there would not be thrown into the Drina, but
6 would fall to a bullet?
7 A. That wasn't the way that I interpreted the conversation.
8 Q. Without these words?
9 A. Without.
10 Q. Okay. Excellent. I did not interpret this in this way, but --
11 either, but this interpretation is much more precise. I am very glad in
12 that you agree with my interpretation, but I do believe that this puts
13 certainly both interlocutors' utterances in a completely different
14 context. Do you agree? These words, [B/C/S spoken], "ought to be put to
15 the test"?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. You first. And then I after.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: First, I -- I don't think it's the case that the
18 witness said she agreed with Mr. Zivanovic's interpretation of the meaning
19 of these -- the context, I should say, of the intercept. So I -- I think
20 that's --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I meant to --
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- not an accurate characterisation.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. That's precisely what
24 I wanted to say too. I didn't understand at any time Ms. Frease to concur
25 with your interpretation; rather, she distances herself from it. Correct
1 me if I am wrong, but -- because I mean it will not be the first, nor the
2 last time. But -- but that's how I understood her.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I must have
4 misunderstood. I will have to ask Ms. Frease to clarify that part to me.
5 Q. Could --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: And shall we do that after the break?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I am concurrent with that. Thank
9 JUDGE AGIUS: 25 minutes, please.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 6.17 p.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you start, Mr. Zivanovic, one moment. All
13 the Defence teams please may I bring to your notice that the Prosecution
14 has earlier on filed submission to convert Witness number 154 to Rule 92
15 ter witness, and I think it is important to know if there are any
16 objections from any one of you.
17 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
18 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, we need to look at the testimony
19 before we can decide and know exactly what will be used with the 95 ter,
20 under the Rule 92 ter.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: His testimony in Blagojevic, his testimony in
22 Blagojevic. The thing is that this person, should we finish with
23 Ms. Frease before the end of the week, is scheduled to testify on Friday.
24 And it would be in everybody's interests to have the transcripts
25 distributed in time for you to be able to see it, because then we come to
1 the other problem, we haven't had time to read them. So if you could
2 possibly help us here, we will make sure that --
3 MR. BOURGON: Can we give you an answer in the morning? Or at the
4 beginning of the next session. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. The other thing is this, Mr. Zivanovic.
6 Excluding our interventions, objections and other problems, but I wouldn't
7 like to classify his objections and our interventions as problems, but you
8 have taken already two hours and 30 minutes. So how much more time do you
9 think you need?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will see to it to
11 cut my cross short, but I would like to point out that the question that I
12 broached, I understood for that to be broached by the Prosecution in their
13 examination-in-chief, but this was -- this has now cropped up in
14 interpretation of omissions and corrections so I did not know that this
15 will have to be covered in my cross. I would like to conclude on this
16 issue and then move on to another area, and I will see to it to be as
17 brief as possible.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: How much time? We need to know.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think I will take 15 to 20
20 minutes for that.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We believe you can finish in 10 minutes,
23 Mr. Zivanovic. Go straight to the point --
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will try to do so.
25 Q. Ms. Frease, you testified here in connection with these
1 intercepts, or this intercept, and you recall that you listened to the
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You read the transcript?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You are fluent in BHS [as interpreted], as you said?
7 A. I have a good working knowledge of it, yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: This is what I mean. Go straight to the point. You
9 asked her the question already, repeat it.
10 You were under the wrong impression she had agreed with you, she
11 hadn't. So just put the question straight to her. We don't need to
12 repeat whether she has listened to the tape, whether she --
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Directly.
14 Q. Please, my direct question to you, you have words of one
15 interlocutor to the effect that two, those volunteers, will be -- have
16 their throats slit and thrown into the Drina, and the words of the other
17 interlocutor, "No, don't do that. Send them on an attack." Does this
18 imply that the other interlocutor, suggesting that they should be sent to
19 an attack, is suggesting that they would be killed in another manner?
20 A. No, that's not my interpretation of this intercept.
21 Q. Thank you. This is not my interpretation either.
22 I will now move to the other part of what I set out with. I
23 believe that this is sufficient. You said that you analysed the
24 intercepted conversations on the basis of some supporting documents. And
25 by this I mean P1074, tab 8. It goes for an intercepted conversation
1 between Zlatar and Palma, 16th of July, 1995 at 1358?
2 A. Yes. May I just remove these documents and have the transcript
3 back up on the screen? Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher will attend to you.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please be shown this tab 8,
6 document from tab 8, or under tab 8. In the English version that's --
7 that's 0603140 in the English version and 06031401 [as interpreted] in the
8 B/C/S version and refers to the supporting documents for the intercept
9 0603135. I have here 1074, tab 8, as I recorded it. Could I please ask
10 Madam Usher to place this on the ELMO? Could you please place it on the
11 ELMO? I'm not sure it can be seen clearly, particularly the English
13 JUDGE AGIUS: It can be seen much clearer on e-court. We have the
14 first page or at least one of the pages on -- on e-court. I'm referring
15 to the English version, of course.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Please, let's not mention names, but can you tell me whether you
18 see on this document the name of the person who received the fuel in
20 A. The person at the bottom of the document where it says, "Received
22 Q. I leave that to you, whether you see at any part of the document
23 the name of the person who received the fuel in question.
24 A. The person to whom the fuel was directed was -- it's indicated
25 here for Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.
1 Q. Excuse me, this is not my question. I asked you whether, on this
2 document, there is any mention of who received and not whom it was sent?
3 A. Then in the bottom -- at the bottom of the document, box 36, it
4 says, "Received by," and there is a name.
5 Q. Can we state then that this is not Popovic's name?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you knew or whether through your analysis or through other
8 sources, did you hear that this may be a person who would -- under
9 Popovic's command at the time?
10 A. I am not familiar with this name.
11 Q. Is it known to you that if you take a look at this document, can
12 we state that this fuel was addressed to the command of the Drina Corps?
13 The acronym KDK?
14 A. Can you scroll up on the document a bit? Mm-hmm.
15 Q. Please scroll up.
16 A. Yes. Box 14 says, "Name and address of recipient." And it
17 says, "Command of --" it has the initials on the original document of KDK,
18 the Command of the Drina Corps.
19 Q. Did you learn whether the person that you mentioned just a second
20 ago that received the fuel, was that person part of the command of the
21 Drina Corps?
22 A. I do not know.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And one correction. If you scroll down to the
24 bottom of the document, please, it doesn't say fuel received by, it means
25 findings and signature of the commission to be received by. And then
1 handwritten, "Received by ...". So we can leave it at that. You have
2 already two answers that he was -- she doesn't know if she was -- he was
3 under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel or whether he was a member of the
4 Drina Corps. Okay. So let's move to the next.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Another question. Can you see from this document where -- into
7 what type of a vehicle was this fuel stored?
8 A. The copy that I have is not -- is small and not very clear.
9 It's -- I don't -- I don't see a specific type of vehicle mentioned, no.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Another question, a whole question, did you stay
11 studying this document for the purposes of the analysis of the relative
12 intercept, or -- or -- or not? I mean was this one of the documents that
13 you examined?
14 THE WITNESS: It was.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. And did you take into consideration the
16 points that Mr. Zivanovic has raised?
17 THE WITNESS: No. Not specifically.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further
20 questions for this witness.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
22 Now, the Beara team. You had indicated an hour, I think.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: You can start off today and we will continue
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
3 Q. Good evening, Ms. Frease.
4 A. Good evening.
5 Q. I know it's within been a long day. I'd like to cover a couple of
6 questions with you, specifically in connection with your background. Can
7 you tell me whether or not you are a criminologist?
8 A. No, I'm not.
9 Q. Are you an attorney?
10 A. No I'm not.
11 Q. Can you describe for us the experience you had prior to your
12 employment with the OTP which involved handling of evidence in criminal
14 A. I didn't have any specific such experience.
15 Q. How about general?
16 A. No.
17 Q. How about describing any experience you may have had prior to your
18 employment with the OTP which involved inventorying of evidence?
19 A. Not inventorying of evidence, no.
20 Q. How about any experience you may have had prior to your employment
21 with the OTP with respect to chain of custody of potential evidence?
22 A. No, not specifically.
23 Q. Now, you gave us some opinions, I think, in the last three times
24 that you have testified over the course of the several days, you used some
25 words and I wanted to know what your definitions of it so we can
1 communicate on the same page. You used the word "authentic" a few times,
2 and can you tell us what you mean by the word "authentic"?
3 A. What I mean is whether or not the documents in question are --
4 come from the source that we believe they come from.
5 Q. And how about the term "chain of custody" what is your definition
6 of that?
7 A. Chain of custody describes the point at which material is taken
8 into the custody of the Office of the Prosecutor, and -- and is followed,
9 the integrity of the that custody is followed throughout the period.
10 Q. Okay. We'll get back to that definition a little later, probably
11 tomorrow, but -- so are you saying that the chain of custody and your
12 testimony involving any chain of custody is limited solely to the time
13 that the documents or evidence that we are speaking of, the audio, et
14 cetera, notebooks, that's limited only upon the time that the OTP, its
15 representatives, received it, correct?
16 A. That's the -- yes.
17 Q. Am I fair to understand from your testimony that you have no
18 evidence of what the chain of custody was from the time, for example,
19 these logbooks were written up until the time they were turned over to you
20 in April of 1998?
21 A. I -- we don't have -- as far as I know we don't have anything
22 documented about the path that those -- the location of those notebooks
23 from when they were written until they were stored at the site where they
24 were found.
25 Q. I just don't want to lose my computer. If you don't move it every
1 30 minutes it sometimes -- now, another word that you used yesterday, for
2 my learned friend, on page 68 lines 20 through 25, and page 69, the
3 first -- line 1 through 3, you use the word "material difference" in
4 describing or answering a question of my learned friend. What do you mean
5 by "material difference"?
6 A. I try to not use legal terms in general. But what I meant was
7 a -- a difference that would change the -- the overall meaning, I guess,
8 of the -- the substance of the conversations.
9 Q. What about -- would a material difference be the identity of one
10 of the participants in a purported intercept conversation? Would that be
11 a material difference to you?
12 A. It could be.
13 Q. Okay. Why wouldn't it be in any circumstances?
14 A. Given the nature of this material, if an intercept operator didn't
15 hear correctly and you had a whole sequence of there being other names
16 used, then it could have been simply that they misheard it.
17 Q. Now, how many alterations or additions or changes in a purported
18 intercept conversation would there need to be in order for you to
19 constitute or confirm that it was a material difference?
20 A. I can't give you a specific answer to that.
21 Q. We'll get some of those tomorrow.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. Let me talk a little more about your experience while you were
24 here at the OTP. Am I correct in understanding that before the intercept
25 project, I think as you have coined it, you worked in different division
1 or department of the OTP, correct?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You were still on this Srebrenica case, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you were involved in the exhumations of a couple of graves,
7 A. I was involved in identifying the locations of graves, but not in
8 the actual exhumations.
9 Q. Were you involved during that tenure, and I think it was 1996
10 through 1997, were you involved at that time in any -- being involved in
11 receiving of any artefacts or potential evidence in a criminal
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And who were you working under at that time?
15 A. Well, we would have to go mission by mission.
16 Q. Well, I have two that I wanted to discuss with you, actually, so I
17 will make it simpler. How about the Cerska mission?
18 A. The team leader, Jean-Rene Ruez was present during that.
19 Q. And who was the senior forensic advisor, if you recall? William
20 Haglund, do you remember that?
21 A. Yes, could be.
22 Q. And the other one you were involved with was Pilica, which was
23 Branjevo farm, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And at that point, could you just describe for us what exactly was
1 your role with respect to the collection and maintenance of artefacts or
2 evidence that you received from those grave sites?
3 A. To backtrack a little bit, on previous missions where we visited
4 other -- other locations, I kept track of material of -- for example
5 blindfolds and other material that we found and logged. During those
6 specific missions -- I would have to see the documents to know whether I
7 was responsible for logging the for example bullet casings that we found.
8 Q. And I know we have a little time. Do you remember that as a
9 result of Dr. Haglund's -- I don't know if I should call it leadership,
10 but his role in these exhumations and your role as being someone involved
11 in that chain of custody and artefacts there was some criticism as to how
12 that was handled. Are you familiar with that?
13 A. I'm not -- I'm not specifically familiar with any criticism about
14 the Cerska or the Pilica collections, no.
15 Q. How about any others?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What others?
18 A. Exhumations, which was something I wasn't involved in.
19 Q. Okay. Well which ones, do you remember?
20 A. I don't remember specifically, no.
21 Q. Let me ask you this:
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Go ahead.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Now, are you familiar with the 1997 San Antonio report?
25 A. I have not read the report, but yes, I know ...
1 Q. Do you know that in that report that they criticise the actual
2 handling of the artefacts?
3 A. Yes, by the exhumation teams, but, again, I was not a part of the
4 exhumation teams.
5 Q. Are you familiar -- and I understand that. Are you familiar with
6 whether or not the committee recommendations that were given after that,
7 in 1997, actually set out what the standard should be for chain of
8 custody in retrieving and keeping potentially criminal evidence such as
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. If I tell you that in 1997 the committee recommendation
12 was, under number 4, "Develop a standard operating procedure for the
13 collection and handling of evidence." Did anyone share that with you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. How about under number 10 where it says, "Develop a double 'up
16 down' chain of custody system and form." Did anyone advise you of that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. At any time subsequent to your involvement -- in this first period
19 when you were involved in receiving or inventorying artefacts or criminal
20 evidence, were you ever explained what an up and down chain of custody
21 system was?
22 A. No.
23 Q. To this day do you know what it is?
24 A. No.
25 Q. As a result of this report, do you know if any changes were made
1 as to the chain of custody in how the Office of the Prosecutor used and
2 utilised those artefacts?
3 A. Artefacts that came from the exhumations?
4 Q. Correct.
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Okay. Could you tell me in the brief moments that we have, what
7 training did you have from anyone at the Office of the Prosecutor as to
8 what the proper system or form was for retaining and preserving criminal
9 evidence in order to satisfy the requirements of any chain of custody?
10 A. This could be a lengthy answer.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: I have all the time in the world.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay, now I think it's working.
15 I am going object to the grounds of vagueness. I don't think that
16 the requirements of any chain of custody sufficiently identifiable for the
17 witness to intelligently respond to the question.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I think I can reply briefly.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: He is referring to the standards of the OTP.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: But, Judge, if I can reply quickly in the minute
21 that we have, her answer indicates she not only can give us a reply, she
22 can give us a rather lengthy one. So I don't know the basis for the
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we will have to come to that tomorrow.
25 Judge Kwon?
1 We finish at 7.00, not a quarter to 7.00.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought it was a quarter to as well.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So provided your answer will not take more than 16,
4 17 minutes, go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: In order to put things in context, in 1995 the war
6 was still going on. In early 1996, March of 1996, we gained access to the
7 territory of Republika Srpska. The Tribunal had been operating for a
8 short period of time at that point. Before going out into the field we
9 were aware that it was necessary to have a system by which to record any
10 evidence that we collected. At the time there was an FBI agent who was
11 working with us, and he was a part of the first missions.
12 Q. Mm-hmm.
13 A. We developed a rudimentary system, tables, and kept track of any
14 evidence, any -- for example, shell casings, identification documents,
15 blindfolds, whatever it was that we found in particular locations. We
16 numbered them, photographed them, and recorded them on these Excel
17 tables. They were brought back to the Court and at the time the Court did
18 not have an evidence locker. Much of the material that we brought back
19 was -- had a foul odour to it. We had no place to store this sort of
20 material, so it was put in a small locker next to the women's dressing --
21 bathroom on the first floor, which then stunk up the whole first floor.
22 It was after that that we got a container that was put in the back
23 of the building where this material was stored. It was checked into the
24 evidence unit, the evidence unit had control over it, but we were very
25 aware, from the beginning, that there needed to be a process by which we
1 kept track of the material that we were collecting, the sites that we were
2 collecting it from, we had designated letters and numbers -- letter --
3 letter designations for each site. For example, what is now known as the
4 Orahovac site, we had an LZ designation for Lazete, and numbered the
5 specific items that we found at that location when we visited it.
6 So now I have forgotten your question.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. I just wanted to know what the training you were given from the
9 OTP in order to meet the standards, not only prior to but after the San
10 Antonio 97 report, in connection with the chain of custody.
11 A. The training that I received, and the -- the forms that we
12 developed within the OTP really came from the Srebrenica investigation. I
13 am not aware that there -- and there may well have been, but I'm not aware
14 of whether or not there were changes that were made after the 1997 San
15 Antonio report that you refer to.
16 Q. Tell me specifically what consisted of this training that you were
17 given, what did it involve?
18 A. It involved sitting down, speaking with the FBI investigator, who
19 had a lot of experience in conducting crime -- crime scene analysis. We
20 had someone else. I don't remember who he worked for at the time, but he
21 also had that type of experience. He was out with us in the field. I
22 received first-hand instruction from them and here before we departed, and
23 made forms that were then used in the field approved by them, in order to
24 ensure that what we did was -- was done in a way that could be tracked and
25 that -- that was responsible.
1 Q. Did this -- did this FBI person ever tell you that you should
2 investigate or inquire as -- in order to determine the authenticity of a
3 document to determine where the document was prior to your receipt, who
4 handled it, when they handled it, over what period of time they handled
5 it, and where it was handled?
6 A. The FBI agent that I referred to was someone that we worked at --
7 worked with in the field. So as I said, with bullet casings,
8 identification documents, blindfolds, ligatures, that sort of thing. I
9 believe he had left the -- the court by the time we had worked -- by the
10 time we received the documentary evidence.
11 Q. So just to help you here, if he didn't, did anyone?
12 A. Specifically about handling documents and the need to keep them in
13 their integral, original form, yes.
14 Q. What about in determining where the documents had come from?
15 Really, that's what I'm looking at. Because as you know, in this
16 instance or in this case, from July 1995 up until April 1998, that's what
17 we think or I think, respectfully, is a critical period to determine where
18 the chain of custody was, terms that you have used, and you have used
19 "authentic", terms that would I like to use with you. What, if anything,
20 did anyone instruct you to make inquiries as a result of you gathering
21 this information for that time period?
22 A. No one gave me any specific instructions about that period.
23 Q. What about general instructions?
24 A. As I said, we had a general idea of where the documents came from
25 by speaking with the people who were responsible for creating those
2 Q. It's my understanding that you were the person, if I can call you
3 that, in charge of the intercept project. Would that be fair, or was it
4 Mr. Ruez?
5 A. I was not immediately put in charge of the intercept project, but
6 fairly -- within a couple of months I was put in charge of it.
7 Q. Within a couple of months after April of 1998, correct?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Now, if we can have 5D187 on the e-court, please. 5D187. And
10 this is -- while they're bringing it up, this is the report from the ATF
11 that you mentioned with Jack L. Hunter. On the top of that report it
12 says, and it's dated the 24th of April, 1998, and it says it is an
13 intermediate report. And my question is to you - you can take a look at
14 that to verify - did you know or did you ever review Mr. Hunter's final
15 report given your testimony here today that he had the logbooks for
16 approximately two years from the end of April 1998 up until April 4th --
17 5th, I think you said 2000. Did you ever obtain his final report and what
18 his analysis was of these logbooks and audio tapes, et cetera?
19 A. I don't believe we ever received a final report from Jack Hunter.
20 He didn't review the logbooks, he only had the tapes.
21 Q. I stand corrected, thank you for clarifying that for me. Do you
22 know if there are any other subsequent reports, after the 24th of April,
23 1998, that Mr. Hunter provided to the OTP?
24 A. Off the top of my head, I don't believe so.
25 Q. Now, in sticking with this document, and I know it's getting late,
1 but I think we could cover it in a couple of minutes. If you look at that
2 document, am I correct to understand that this intermediate report
3 discusses the specimens and evidence that was actually collected and that
4 was boxed in relating to a March 11th, 1998 visit, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I can't see anywhere in that document, although it's four pages
7 long anywhere in that document where it covered that the logbooks were
8 sealed, as you so state?
9 A. Well, that would make sense because he was specifically
10 addressing the -- the tapes. He wasn't -- he wasn't involved in -- in the
12 Q. So during your visits to the various sites, including the Corps
13 command, as you called it, that would be in Tuzla, right?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. Okay. When you visited Tuzla and the various sites, the northern
16 and southern site, is it your testimony that at no time during this visit
17 were logbooks ever discussed or presented to you?
18 A. No, they had been sealed in -- at 2 Corps command in a box,
19 photographs were taken of that box by -- by the people who sealed it, and
20 I believe we may have taken photographs of the box when we opened it in --
21 in April to check it.
22 Q. Okay. This would have been the visit from March 10th and 11th,
23 1998, correct?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. We have a trip report from Mr. Hunter dated the 9th through the
1 14th, 1998, and it's dated March 23rd, 1998. I'll share the ERN number,
2 we don't have it in e-court but I think we can put it on the ELMO, it's
3 ERN number -- just for the record, if I can put that in, 00889127 and
4 128 at the end. So I know it's late, but if we could just take a quick
5 look at that document. And the ERN number appears right above the
6 word "report" or near that area, but that's irrelevant.
7 Now, if this was the visit with Mr. Hunter, and he mentions the
8 people who were involved, I -- I looked at that and it's a two-page
9 document. Does it mention there at all the logbooks or the notebooks?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. Just in the last couple of minutes that we have, I just
12 want to clarify a couple of things. And I know I'm skipping around, so if
13 you don't understand I'll try to put it in context. With respect
14 specifically to the logbooks --
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. -- am I correct that you were not involved in placing the numbers
17 on the front of the logbook with a black pen. Is that correct?
18 A. That's correct, for -- for notebooks numbers 1 through 134.
19 Q. And you were the only person who made the notations on those
20 notebooks from the 57 that you received subsequent, so from 135, I think
21 it is, up until the end, correct?
22 A. Right. To 191, yes.
23 Q. Who -- who is the person who placed the number or categorised --
24 or numbered the books 1 through 134, sorry?
25 A. I believe -- I believe it would have been one of two people, and
1 maybe even both people. One of them working for the Office of the
2 Prosecutor at the time, Peter Nicholson, and the other one, the captain --
3 Q. That we've mentioned that we are not going to identify?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Now, you also mentioned to us yesterday on page 39 that you did
6 not rely on witnesses' accounts and statements in creating or formulating
7 your analysis respectfully in connection with your testimony. Is that
9 A. It --
10 Q. It's lines 1 through 2, I'm sorry. Just so they have it for the
11 record, page 39.
12 A. With respect to the authentication binder, that is correct.
13 Q. Okay. How about with respect to assessing the reliability?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That's correct also, you did not rely on that?
16 A. That's not correct. I did rely on it.
17 Q. Let me just grab your testimony here quickly. And -- and I'll
18 read it to you because I know we have a couple of minutes. It starts on
19 page -- I'm sorry, I actually misspoke on the page. It's actually page
20 33, lines 20 through 25 and then it goes on to page 34 of yesterday's
21 testimony, lines 1 and 2. So I couldn't read my own handwriting.
22 Here's the question, Ms. Frease, by my learned colleague from the
23 Office of the Prosecutor. Question on line 17: "And in assessing the
24 reliability of the intercepts that are used in this particular case, did
25 you rely exclusively on the corroborative documentary material that you --
1 that you looked at, or did you rely on other information?"
2 Answer, commencing on line 21, page 33: "On other information as
3 well. The authentication binder was really designed to -- as a sample of
4 the types of -- the type of material that we could draw from in order to
5 independently corroborate some of the intercepts. So in that
6 authentication binder we drew -- I -- at the time I drew from video, from
7 VRS documents, from documents the -- from the RS ministry of the defence
8 ministry, from UNPROFOR. The one big area that I didn't draw from were
9 witness statements."
10 Now, my question to you, is in assessing the reliability, what did
11 you rely on?
12 A. In my view, those are two different questions. The authentication
13 binder was designed as a collection of a few samples of intercepts that
14 could be independently corroborated through other sources. In other
15 words, the authentication of the material.
16 In assessing the reliability of the material -- well, but I guess
17 it also goes to the authentication. In working through the material for
18 the couple of years that I worked on it, I drew from my knowledge of what
19 I knew from the case, and also what I knew from witness testimony.
20 Q. If I could just have one last question, I think it might short
21 circuit something. You mentioned the word or used the words
22 "independently corroborated." In other testimony that I have seen, that
23 I've read, you use the word "internal consistency." Do they mean the same
24 thing to you?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: If my colleague could just clarify the context in
2 which the terms were used, I think that would be helpful.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
4 Shall we do that tomorrow, Mr. --
5 MR. OSTOJIC: [Microphone not activated]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll adjourn until tomorrow afternoon, 2.15. Have
7 a nice evening, all of you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
10 February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.