1 Thursday, 1 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, good afternoon to you. Madam Registrar, could
7 you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] Same goes for the Defence
11 teams. Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Nicholls. The accused is
12 present -- sorry, the witness is present in the courtroom. There are some
13 preliminary matters that we wish to raise, but we have decided first to go
14 ahead with the testimony of the witness and try to finish it and then we
15 will come to those matters afterwards.
16 All right. Who is going first from the Defence teams? And you
17 have all the time you require.
18 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-104 [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Mrkic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you proceed, witness and Mr. Mrkic, you both
24 speak the same language. There is a tendency, it happens to us when we're
25 speaking English, of course -- yes, in the meantime I am receiving
1 interpretation of myself in French because I was on number 5, but I like
2 to hear the French language.
3 It is important that you allow a short pause between question and
4 answer so as not to frustrate the work of our interpreters, which is
5 already in itself extremely difficult. All right.
6 Mr. Mrkic. Sorry for having interrupted you. Go ahead.
7 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Yesterday when you spoke about your education you said that you
9 were an engineer. As far as I can understand your testimony, you didn't
10 graduate from university?
11 A. I graduated from a high technical school.
12 Q. A high technical school, very well. When did you finish that
14 A. In 1983.
15 Q. And after that you served in the army?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did you find your first employment straight after that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When was that, when were you first employed?
20 A. In the spring of 1985.
21 Q. So that means that you waited for a year to get your job?
22 A. No, in 1984 I served in the army and in the -- 1985 I found a
24 Q. What was your financial standing at the time?
25 A. I was of average financial means. My father was a worker, my
1 mother was a housewife, and at -- an at-home mother.
2 Q. Did you have any siblings?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How many?
5 A. Two sisters.
6 Q. Two sisters.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mrkic, use your discretion as you go along as to
8 when we need to go into private session, please.
9 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] I believe that most of my
10 cross-examination will require private session, as a matter of fact.
11 Q. Did you change employment quite often?
12 A. As was required every three or four years; relatively often.
13 Q. When did you become politically active?
14 A. In the 90 --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honour. The Court has rightly raised
17 my attention to it. I would ask, I can't stop it rolling, to redact on
18 page 2, I think, from -- after line 14 to page 3, line 6. As we're
19 going,, I mean, I'm just afraid of the combination being put together.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: For the time being at least we don't see a reason to
21 redact those lines. If there is agreement of course between you and
22 Mr. Mrkic that there will be other questions following, which, when
23 answered, would give greater significance to these few lines, then of
24 course we are -- would be prepared to redact. But we are not in a
25 position -- we are not in Mr. Mrkic's mind, so we don't know. But for the
1 time being I don't think we need to redact those lines.
2 What's your position on that, Mr. Mrkic?
3 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] For the time being I don't think this
4 is necessary. However, there will come a time when I will ask to go into
5 private session and that will happen very soon.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
7 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] We can go into private session
8 immediately, as a matter of fact.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then let's go into private session and
10 we don't need to redact what we have.
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 7967-7991 redacted. Private session
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. Madam Fauveau.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Your
2 Honour, I would like to inform you that the Defence of Popovic, Miletic
3 and Gvero won't have any questions for this witness, and the Defence of
4 Nikolic said that they would need 45 minutes, but they will only use up 20
5 minutes. Therefore, we have decided to give our time to the Defence team
6 of accused Beara.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: This is new to me. I mean, you don't decide to give
8 them time. I mean they have the time that we allow them to have. We
9 are -- the fact that there are seven Defence teams doesn't mean that each
10 one can ask for one hour or two hours and then give the one hour or two
11 hours- to one of the other colleagues. That's -- that would be very bad
12 court management, or case management on our part.
13 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President and good afternoon,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: In part -- if I could just explain, in part, when we
18 did the estimates several weeks ago and months ago when the witness
19 initially appeared, that amount remained in our estimate. And I
20 personally was the one who was putting the estimates in -- not in all, but
21 in most of the cases. In this one I had recalled that I asked that it be
22 increased from the initial hour to an hour 45, we were working under that
23 presumption. And I believe I conveyed to the court clerk, and I am
24 debating whether it is 100 per cent or not, so -- but that was my
25 recollection of it. And I had asked the other defendants, accused, if
1 they could assist us, just to put the Court at ease that we are not trying
2 to prolong it. We are going directly to the issue here, and we know the
3 Court's ruling prior that we cannot switch off, and, with all due respect,
4 it was -- we're asking if we can do that so that there can be enough time
5 to complete it within a reasonable period of time, and we know we are at
6 your discretion on that issue, so that's why we're asking for it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And reasonableness, Mr. Ostojic, should be the
8 beacon, the guiding light for us all. We were informed now before we
9 came in the courtroom that indeed you had asked for an hour 45 minutes.
10 Which means that you haven't exhausted that time because Mr. Mrkic has
11 been cross-examining the witness for a little bit less than an hour and a
12 half. So we suggest that you try to, or he tries to finish the
13 cross-examination within half an hour.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: We did try, Your Honour, but in all honesty, as we
15 try to be every day, it's hard to estimate sometimes the answer, question
16 rapport, and we have indicated that we think we can finish it in an hour.
17 We are not trying to prolong it. We're going right to the heart of the
18 issue. Let's see how it goes, but I am advising the Court to be up-front
19 with you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed and then we will play it by the ear as
21 we go along.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: But we will stop Mr. Mrkic if he doesn't go to the
24 point. Our suggestion is that you try and focus on the -- the key issues
25 in the testimony of this witness. Thank you.
1 Mr. Mrkic. Mr. Mrkic, shall we go back to private session?
2 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you. I don't think it will
3 be necessary.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So, now, Witness, we are in open session.
5 Please don't mention any details or names of persons or places that could
6 identify you.
7 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. I would like to focus on the statements you provided to the
9 Prosecutor's office. My first question is about the meetings with the
10 Office of the Prosecutor. Were you invited to these meetings, when was
11 that, how did these meetings come about.
12 A. I got a telephone call from a -- an MUP employee of the MUP
13 Zvornik and he told me when I was supposed to come to the police station
14 in Zvornik for the meeting.
15 Q. I suppose that he did not tell you what the topic of the interview
16 would be?
17 A. He just told me that I was invited to provide some information.
18 It was just an interview.
19 Q. Were you told that you would appear at that meeting as a
21 A. No, not at the moment.
22 Q. What did you think at that time? Why do you think they were
23 inviting you to that meeting.
24 A. I didn't know anything.
25 Q. Did you suspect that they invited you because of you or because of
1 somebody else?
2 A. Because of somebody else.
3 Q. How did you feel during the interview? Did you have an impression
4 that something was being requested from you, that --
5 A. No.
6 Q. I have read that statement of yours. Could you agree with me if I
7 said that the Prosecutor and his investigator asked you seven times before
8 the break about the same topic, about your contacts with some officers
9 from the Main Staff?
10 A. I'm sure you will find it in the transcript.
11 Q. Do you remember that?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Do you remember your answers to those questions?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. What were your answers?
16 A. That I was not allowed to talk about that.
17 Q. I have to correct you there. And if you don't agree with my
18 correction, then we can look at the statement. Every time you said that
19 you did not have any contacts with the officers from the Main Staff, only
20 once you mentioned that you had a meeting with General Mladic. Every
21 other time you your answer was negative. Every other time you said that
22 you didn't have any contacts with the officers from the Main Staff.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have some references to what he's talking
25 about in the interview? It doesn't match my recollection. I'm not trying
1 to take up time, I'd just like to know where specifically he's pointing
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough. You have every right to raise this.
4 Mr. Mrkic.
5 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] This is the interview that took place
6 on the 7th of April, 2006, pages 12, lines --
7 THE INTERPRETER: If the counsel could slow down.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay. The interpreters would like you to slow
10 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] I'll start with the first page. Page
11 12, lines 12 through 14. Page 14, lines 10 through 12. To avoid any
12 confusion, I'm talking about the B/C/S version of this interview. Page
13 14, lines 12 through 15. Again, page 14, lines 28 through 30.
14 Q. And this is your answer to the question about your meeting with
15 General Mladic, in other words when you said that you did have a meeting
16 with General Mladic. Page 16, lines 7 through 9.
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] If I need to go on, I can do that, but
19 I believe that the witness confirmed what I have just put to him.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Exactly. This is what -- what I was going
21 to say. First I was going to ask Mr. Nicholls whether he requires
22 anything else. I think the references are there. Secondly, I would like
23 the witness to repeat his answer, because it never made it to the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And what was the question?
1 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. The question was are you aware what your answers were to each and
3 every question that was relative to your contacts with the officers from
4 the Main Staff? I'm paraphrasing those questions, I'm not quoting them.
5 Your answer -- answer was always no, save for one answer when you said
6 that you did have a contact or a meeting with General Mladic. Is that
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, could I just clarify a point. Is what my
11 friend is referring to when he said page 12, lines 12 to 14, the question
12 which is on page 14 at line 4, "Okay, except Sreten Milosevic and this
13 Mihajlo Galic, did you know any more officers from the Zvornik Brigade?"
14 And then he says, "I knew the commander and I knew the deputy." Is that
15 one of the questions he's saying was a question about the Main Staff, when
16 he said he didn't know any? I'm just asking, for the record, for the
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's a fair question.
19 Mr. Mrkic, since you are referring the witness to the Main Staff
20 in particular, you need to clarify that to make sure.
21 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] Page 14, line 11 -- actually, 10. "Do
22 you remember anybody from the Main Staff from those celebrations?" Answer
23 on page 11, "Nobody from the Main Staff came."
24 The same page, line 12, "Did you have any contacts with the
25 officers from the Main Staff?"
1 Line 13, "I remember -- I remember one contact. I was at a
2 session of the Main Staff, General Mladic, Tolimir and Gvero came to that
3 meeting that was attended by me and my 10 associates."
4 On page 14, line 28, "Save for that one meeting did you have any
5 other contacts with anybody else from the Main Staff?"
6 Answer, "Yes, I did have a meeting, just one with General
8 Question, page 16, line 7, "After that meeting, did you meet any
9 other officer from the Main Staff?"
10 Answer is in line 9, and it reads, "No."
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have covered them all. So let's go to
12 the question. What's your question to the witness?
13 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Let's go into private session for a
23 short while. And pardon me saying this, but it's my tendency to be always
24 on the cautious side.
25 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] Actually, I think I would like to go
21 into private session for the next question.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the presiding judge, please.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go back to private session. Thank you for --
25 and apologies to you.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 8002-8011 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Let me clarify something which concerns yesterday's transcript.
20 In one moment asked by the Prosecutor - if I'm wrong you may correct me -
21 you answered that you were requested assistance to -- for the purpose of
22 taking care of the prisoners. Is that correct?
23 I believe this is a problem with translation, and this is why I
24 wish to rectify and then clarify this. It is page 44, answer begins at
25 line 19, and then goes over to line 1 on page 45.
1 Do you recall saying, since I have the transcript in English, that
2 it went for taking care and when -- is that correct?
3 A. I said that -- that prisoners had to be gotten rid of and he asked
4 me assistance.
5 Q. Assistance in what? Assistance in what did he ask of you?
6 A. In the burial, I think.
7 Q. Do you think, or are you certain?
8 A. I am certain.
18 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: The Trial Chamber appreciates that.
14 The witness should know, we are back in open session.
15 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Could you please describe the person that you spoke with?
17 A. I said that this was a briefing. It was not a dialogue.
18 Q. Well, could you describe that person?
19 A. Tall, camouflage uniform, well-built.
20 Q. Colour of hair, colour of eyes?
21 A. Grey hair, age around 50, 55. That will be it.
22 Q. Could you tell me, please, let me rephrase my question. Do you
23 recall when you sent -- saw Mr. Beara the next time when he was departing
24 for The Hague? Did you express any doubts as to the identity of that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When you expressed this to the OTP, what was their reaction to
3 that? Did they show you some photographs to identify that person?
4 A. No.
5 Q. This means you've come to a point where you are not certain or
6 maybe you are not 100 per cent sure, however you would like to put it,
7 that you saw this person on TV. This is what I forgot to ask you.
8 A. Yes, I saw it on TV.
9 Q. So you are not 100 per cent sure that that person was the person
10 that you spoke to and --
11 A. I said that the person on TV did not resemble the person who
12 introduced himself as such and who held that briefing at the Zvornik
13 Brigade barracks.
14 Q. Did the Prosecutor show you, although you have also said no, but
15 did you try to identify in any way that person with whom you had spoken?
16 A. They asked me about some details, whether he wore glasses, what he
17 looked like and so on and so forth. I'm sure you will find it in the
18 transcript of my interview. They asked me to describe him.
19 Q. They didn't show you a photo of any kind?
20 A. No, they did not.
21 Q. And now you are saying here as you sit here, that that person whom
22 you saw on TV on the way to The Hague did not resemble the person with
23 whom you had spoken previously?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. MRKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Mrkic. One moment.
3 Yes, Madam Nikolic.
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. I have a few questions
7 about your interview and your testimony today. (Redacted)
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we are back to square one.
19 Yes, Mr. Nicholls. Shall we go into private session?
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. So let's -- we can stay in open
22 session. And redact lines 20 -- last part of line 23 on page 52 to lines
23 6 -- 7 of page 53. And if you are going ask him further questions on
24 persons to whom he may have been related, or had contacts with at the time
25 that could expose or will reveal his identity, then we will go into
1 private session.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, I believe
3 you are right and that it would be advisable to go into private session.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session for a short while and
5 then revert back when it is necessary.
6 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So Madam Nikolic has finished her cross-examination
11 for accused Nikolic. Does anyone else wish to cross-examine the witness?
12 Let's start with Mr. Zivanovic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Stojanovic or Mr. Lazarevic?
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't have any
16 questions for this witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau, I think you have already made a
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. No questions,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Josse.
22 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, in the light of what's happened, I would
23 be quite grateful if I could have a few minutes to discuss matters with my
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MR. JOSSE: And also, frankly, with my learned friend who
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We understand that --
4 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: -- Obviously in light of what was stated. So we will
6 have the 25-minute break now. All right? And we will continue
8 MR. JOSSE: Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, I would like to know, however,
10 before we go on break, Mr. Sarapa, will you be cross-examining this
12 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Yes, for some half an hour,
13 approximately. Not more than 45 minutes all together.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Which should leave us time to deal with
15 the so-called preliminaries which are now appendices. Yeah, okay. Let's
16 have the 25-minute break now.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Mr. Josse.
20 MR. JOSSE: I am most grateful, Your Honour, and the Chamber will
21 be relieved to here I have no cross-examination.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you so much. So that leaves us with
23 Mr. Sarapa.
24 Go ahead.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Sarapa:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, any time you require us to
3 go into private session, please, Mr. Sarapa, don't hesitate.
4 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] For my first question, I will
5 probably need to go into private session [as interpreted]. I will
6 certainly have to go into private session for my third question, and for
7 the later questions I will indicate to the Trial Chamber a time when
8 private session is needed. I will probably not put such questions, but it
9 is better to be in private session.
10 Q. Is it --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, for your first question you need to
12 go into private session. Let's go into private session straight away.
13 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] No, not for the first two. Not for
14 the first two questions. I will need private session for the third
15 question. My two first questions are of a general nature and the answers
16 cannot reveal the identity of the witness.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I was misled by the transcript. Thank
19 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Is it true that the units of the Territorial Defence in Zvornik
21 municipality were organised on the principles of Leparskin [phoen], which
22 means that there was no clearly-defined front-line?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is it true that the defence line would follow the form of
25 concentric circles, depending on the prevalence of either the Muslim
1 forces or the Serb forces?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Now can we please go into private
5 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means.
6 Let's go into private session, please.
7 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar, could you provide for the
5 redaction, please. And let's proceed. We never know what to expect.
6 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Can we go into private session,
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 8023-8024 redacted. Private session
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it that there are no further Defence teams
7 that wish to cross-examine the witness.
8 Is there re-examination, Mr. Nicholls?
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Briefly, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.
11 MR. NICHOLLS: And we need to go into private session, please.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that, let's go into private session.
13 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Witness, that brings your testimony to an end,
23 there being no further questions for you. Our staff will assist you,
24 after you leave the courtroom. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish to
25 thank you for having come over to give testimony, and also wish you a safe
1 journey back home.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, before we proceed with the next witness, do you
5 wish to tender any exhibits in relation to this witness?
6 MR. NICHOLLS: I do, Your Honour. First, the pseudonym sheet
7 under seal, P02457. And I would also tender, if there is no objection,
8 the Zvornik Brigade duty officer logbook which I showed an excerpt to the
9 witness. There are other witnesses who -- that will be discussed
10 extensively in this trial, other witnesses will talk about it, but I would
11 tender it now as well.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection? I hear none. So these two documents
13 come in, are admitted. The first one of which is under seal. The second
14 I don't think needs to under seal.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: It does not need to be. For a limited purpose, I
16 would also tender the transcripts of the witness's interview.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: It happens that sometimes we are telepathic, the
18 members of the bench and we were all -- when I asked you whether this
19 needs to be in -- under seal or not -- let's go into private session.
20 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
24 MR. BOURGON: You asked if there are there was a question whether
25 there were any objections and maybe we read in a bit too much. I just
1 want to know if my colleague wants to enter just that one page he showed
2 or if he wants entered the whole book. We believe it would be better to
3 wait until we have another witness with the whole book, simply because
4 this person is not a member of the Zvornik Brigade. This witness was not
5 asked any questions what is the logbook, what its purpose is. That page
6 we have no problem, but the rest we prefer to -- it comes with another
7 witness who can explain that and also the dates because we will also have
8 some questions concerning not only that logbook for that month, but the
9 translation of the logbook for a longer period of time.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: You have made your point.
11 What's your position after hearing Mr. Bourgon.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: That's fine. I thought there might be something
13 along those lines. We'll admit it later. It's been marked, we have the
14 ID number for it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think what Mr. Bourgon said makes sense. So we
16 will only admit for the time being the pseudonym sheet under seal, and you
17 are about to embark on a dangerous journey, so let's see how much wind is
18 against you.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: It's been dangerous for weeks, it feels like.
20 The -- there was intensive cross-examination on this -- on these
21 transcripts. Lots of propositions put to the witness, "you said this
22 seven times," "you said this six times," and the references were given. I
23 think that for Your Honours to evaluate as best you can the testimony of
24 the witness on direct -- well not on direct, but on cross-examination,
25 you're going to need that transcript to see whether he answered his --
1 whether the answers and the things put to him were correct or not.
2 The second reason for putting it in is, there was a strong attack
3 on the process in this case, the way the statement was taken, the way the
4 Prosecution behaved in the statement, whether there was a record at all of
5 this one portion of the interview. All that attack has been made and it's
6 true that one question was withdrawn during the direct, during the
7 cross-examination. But the allegations are still there, and I think it's
8 important for Your Honours, since that strong attack was made, to see the
9 entire record of what happened when, and how long.
10 I cannot see even the possibility of prejudice in putting those
11 statements in to you for the limited purpose, not for the truth of the
12 matter, not as -- not as testimony, but simply to evaluate the testimony
13 of the witness here, because if everything my learned friend said was
14 correct, then it will -- that will be apparent, it will help you to get to
15 the truth and to evaluate the testimony, if what I said was correct, the
16 same. Maybe it will be in between. The Defence put portions of that
17 statement on the screen, only the portions they wanted to. And I think
18 you should be able to read the -- his interview in its entirety, to see
19 whether it's true that he departed from his prior testimony, his prior
20 statement, to see if it's true that he said that he had never had these
21 meetings or that and this happened and to see if it's true that the
22 Prosecution made no record of what occurred. I think it will help you
23 with this important witness to be able to follow his testimony. Obviously
24 it would not be given to a lay jury back home because they would not know
25 how to assign the weight and purpose it was given to you, it is not
1 particularly complex but it's not something they could do and it would be
2 dangerous. But Your Honours know the only evidence you are going use is
3 what the witness said before you here under oath, and you can use that to
4 see whether or not the attacks on cross-examination were well-founded and
5 whether the witness was correct in his answers, which were predicated on
6 what he had said in the statement.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Ostojic?
8 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Court's permission, if I could address
9 this. The two points raised by my learned friend on the basis for
10 introducing such evidence do not honestly have any merit. First of all,
11 the question with respect to the witness, whether he said that he was or
12 was not, or had contact with the Main Staff on six, sevens occasions. I
13 invited my learned friend that we could sit down at any time and go over
14 it and we'll highlight specifically, and we gave him specific references
15 to that. The witness, at the end of the day -- despite our attempt to
16 highlight that, at the end of the day was asked the question and he
17 answered it. He answered it, as I'm sure we all remember, without me
18 telling the Court again what the answer is.
19 So despite whether it was five, or seven, 10 times that we've
20 stated -- that he denied having a meeting, he asked them, "Did you ever?",
21 and he gave us that answer. So I don't believe that's a proper basis.
22 The second basis, that there was an attack on the Prosecutor that
23 my learned friend, co-counsel asked, it was withdrawn at the end of the
24 day and he withdrew that question on the record, and we did apologise to
25 him and we probably overstepped our bounds, our excitement in the
1 courtroom, and we did apologise after the break. We withdrew the
2 question. However, to cure that is not to put the statement in.
3 To cure it would have been simply on redirect, which my friend had
4 an opportunity to ask him specifically those questions on whether or not
5 there was such involvement with the Prosecutor or prosecutorial
6 misconduct. They didn't do that. Now they're trying through the back
7 door to bring in a statement that covers more issues that they didn't
8 cover in their direct, that we didn't cover in our cross, and I object to
9 it and ask that the Court not allow this, even in this exception, but at
10 any time to allow the Court to have these statements in, as you previously
12 And I'm also just being given I am given a reference page, for the
13 record as well, on page 33, lines 8 through 14, if the Court can look,
14 during his testimony today, where what I just said was actually confirmed.
15 Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
17 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I took the opportunity at the last break
18 to speak to Mr. Nicholls, and ask him what he intended to do. And he had
19 the courtesy to tell me that he was going to make this application. Could
20 I say two things: I -- we would much rather this interview was not
21 admitted as an exhibit in this case. But secondly, and importantly, he
22 has said in the last few moments to this Chamber that he's only asking for
23 it to be admitted on a limited bases and not as to the truth of its
24 contents. All I say before I sit down is, were the Chamber to admit it,
25 and if so, we submit it should not be admitted. The Chamber should make
1 it clear that it would only be admitted on that basis. And clearly the
2 Chamber must consider Mr. Nicholls's application in relation to what he
3 said and, in particular, the cross-examination that Mr. Mrkic embarked
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Are there any further -- yes, Mr. Bourgon.
6 And then I will give you the floor again, Mr. Nicholls.
7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. As a matter of principle,
8 I fully support the positions taken by my colleague, Mr. Ostojic, and as
9 well as my colleague, Mr. Josse. The idea is it's not for the Prosecution
10 to ask to have the statement of a witness admitted into evidence. The
11 only reason -- the only time where this should take place, if the
12 Prosecution wants to use a statement after requesting permission and
13 obtaining leave from the Court because they want to treat their own
14 witness as a hostile witness. In some circumstances like this, it may
15 happen that the Prosecution could ask for a statement to be admitted into
16 evidence. But in this case, if somebody wants to decide what should go
17 into evidence in terms of assessing the credibility of a witness, it has
18 to be the Defence. In this case, the Defence of Mr. Beara is not
19 requesting for that statement to go into evidence and that should be the
20 end of the matter.
21 If, as Mr. Ostojic said, in redirect questions had been asked
22 with, again, leave to use the statement because it was used during the
23 cross-examination, maybe again there could be established a -- Prosecution
24 could establish a basis. But in this case, there is absolutely no basis
25 for the Prosecution to ask for a witness statement to be admitted into
1 evidence. Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further remarks?
3 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls? Please decide.
4 And Madam Fauveau, if you wish to raise the same issue that you
5 did yesterday.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I would like to make a brief
7 comment. We, as you know, will hear -- be hearing from many more
8 witnesses of -- from the VRS and from the civilian Serb authorities that
9 were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor. When the Defence
10 challenges the integrity and absolute corruption, is the -- is what they
11 accused us of, about turning off the tape, filling in answers. When they
12 do that, they are putting the entire process of the interview in
13 question. And I think our reputation and our performance here, we can
14 deal with that. But if this is going to be an ongoing issue that we're
15 going to have to listen to this each time, I think the door begins to get
16 open on what really happened in that interview. I think that they have
17 opened that door with what Mr. Meek said early on. And as I say, there's
18 -- there's more at stake here than -- than merely the credibility of this
19 witness and this particular interview, as I see this as a pattern where
20 each important witness we have this big challenge to the integrity, either
21 of the witness or of the Prosecution. As you will recall, this is
22 happening over and over again. And I think there must be some logical
23 consequences to this kind of conduct. As you saw, there was nothing to
24 what Mr. Meek had said and the other questions were withdrawn.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I made an argument, I
2 didn't give evidence. And all I stated was that in this particular
3 interview they violated their normal procedure, which is to not talk about
4 the case when the tape recorder is turned off. You know, they never said
5 I was wrong about that. You denied it and it's done. This is a backdoor
6 way for them to try to get these statements in. I agree with Mr. Bourgon,
7 in certain limited circumstances if they want to impeach their own
8 witness, they can do that. Or in re-examination. They chose not to do
9 either of those. So I don't believe that has any merit whatsoever. And
10 frankly in all of these statements that I have seen in this case, this is
11 the only time this happened. So, I mean, we're not saying this happens on
12 a regular bases with the OTP. So in argument, certainly isn't evidence, I
13 wasn't attacking them, I just said it was irregular. Big deal. Not a
14 basis to let it in, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let's confer.
16 Any -- apart from this, any further documents that would you like
17 to tender.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Mr. McCloskey covered pretty much what I was going
19 to say. Just very briefly, this is not novel. This has happened in other
20 trials I've been in here, in the Limaj trial, and in other trials where
21 document or witness statement is made of such extensive use it can be
22 helpful for the Chamber to have it, and the Trial Chamber knows what
23 weight to give it, which is none, other than adjusting, viewing the
24 credibility of the witness.
25 And I just have to disagree with Mr. Meek. I did deny what his
1 allegations, it was not just sort of a friendly argument, it was a full
2 frontal attack on what happened. And the only way I think to fix that is
3 to put in the record.
4 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we are unanimous on this. Considering the
7 extensive use that has been made of this -- these two interviews, we are
8 of the opinion that we need them before us as a Trial Chamber, with the
9 understanding - I need barely repeat that we are four professional judges
10 that know exactly how to make use of these statements - but to be
11 specific, as Mr. Josse himself suggested, they are being admitted to -- on
12 a limited basis, as put by you, Mr. Nicholls. And certainly not for --
13 and not for the truth of -- of their contents.
14 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry, neither our
16 exhibit list nor the Prosecution's exhibit list was -- were both
17 statements included. So I'm not sure, only the 7th of April 2006 was
18 included. The 9th of April is not, and was not. So I don't -- we never
19 relied on that statement in any of our questioning. The only questions
20 came from the interview of the 7th of April.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: One question for example was whether any of the two
22 interviews, whether it was true that in both interviews he never mentioned
23 Colonel Beara, for example. That was one question. How -- how --
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I wouldn't --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: How can we come to a conclusion?
1 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, I wouldn't want
2 to debate that with you and it's your recollection. But I am certain that
3 that was not raised because the second interview had something totally
4 different to do than the first interview. So I'm confident we didn't raise
5 it in that manner, but I will take a look at it and ask the Court to
6 merely reserve it so that we can re-address that issue tomorrow. And I
7 will closely go through the transcript to look at that again.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have these two transcripts admitted. I
9 don't know the dates. You need to tell us the dates.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Over our objections.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes, of course.
12 MR. MEEK: Judge, just for the record. I apologise, excuse me.
13 Just for the record, look at page 71, starting at line 16 when
14 Mr. Nicholls makes his argument. He says that in other trials where a
15 witness's statement is made, and he made that earlier, "statement." He
16 didn't come around to "statement" until later in his argument because he
17 knows that we never -- no one made any cross-examination to do with the
18 second statement. It was all about the first statement. And Mr. Nicholls
19 knows that.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: That's --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: That's not true. I said "statement" as a generic
23 term. That means statement, this is his statement, it is one statement.
24 The second statement is putting on the record what was said during the
25 first statement. It is one statement and it was made use of, as
1 Your Honour picked up. It was this, you have never said this, you never
2 said that. This was in the included, and I think the Court has made its
3 ruling. And if that statement is not of value, then it is a nullity.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Listen, I am not used, after having handed down a
5 decision, to reopen the discussion unless there is -- is something, but
6 for that matter you have referred us to page 71, I can refer you to page
7 66, line 3, where he is definitely referring to transcripts and not
8 transcript. But anyway, the discussion on this is closed.
9 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. We will be asking for
11 certification of this decision in order to go before the Appeals Chamber.
12 We believe that this is an issue that does go and we will do that in
13 writing, Mr. President. And I would also ask that we ask for a stay of
14 the Trial Chamber's decision until we get decision on both certification,
15 and the case may be before the Appeals Chamber. Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: There is -- but we will deal with both. In the
17 meantime, they are admitted.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then we will await your motion for
21 MR. OSTOJIC: And we will join that, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Pardon.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: I will join that, obviously, as well just so the
24 Court -- when he said "we," I was assuming he was going to just --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, if you could avoid overlap.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: You mean you want to join in as well?
2 MR. MEEK: No, Judge, I want to correct what I said earlier. Page
3 66, line 10, where Mr. Nicholls is asking and speaking about what's
4 correct and not, the second reason for putting it in, "there was a strong
5 attack on the process in this case, the way the statement was taken." And
6 he knows it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I sent my message loud and clear when the
8 decision has been taken. No further discussions, please.
9 One thing that we need to clear up, because there may have been a
10 small misunderstanding. That Zvornik Brigade duty officer logbook, you
11 have withdrawn that, you are not tendering at all?
12 MR. NICHOLLS: No, not at this time. We will do that later with
13 another witness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. So -- yes. Now, we come to
15 documents from the Defence. Beara team.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may again handle this. Just to go quickly, we
17 would like to tender 2D64, 7D238, 2D67, and 2D68.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections on the part of the Prosecution? Or
19 for that matter from any of the Defence teams because they may have an
20 interest too.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't think they put 2D64 and 67 to the witness.
22 But I don't have any strong objection to that. They talked about it. I
23 don't see the need for 2D68 to come in, but I -- I guess I don't have any
24 really strong objection to it. It -- the -- I just don't see the need for
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to respond to that, Mr. Ostojic?
2 MR. OSTOJIC: The Court should grant my request since they don't
3 have any other objection.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I was going to tell Mr. Nicholls, when in doubt --
5 the rule is when in doubt, don't.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: In all seriousness, with respect to 2D68, a lot was
7 covered. I think the Court will look through that document because it's
8 an OTP witness in another case who specifically highlights certain aspects
9 of what we consider to be crimes that may have been committed or were
10 committed, at least alleged by this witness, by the witness that we've
11 just heard. And I think you can see the two points that he differentiates
12 between certain witnesses that he claims were perpetrators of those
13 crimes. So we think it is relevant.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it you are not submitting this for the truth
15 of its contents either.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: We hope to bring the witness forward on that, with
17 the assistance of the Prosecutor, so we can locate him.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mrkic is looking for him.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, any objections from any of the Defence teams?
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: The conclusion we arrive at or two, I don't know,
25 which is the right one, is that these four documents are all being
1 admitted, and they will be marked accordingly by our staff. Or by the
3 Does anyone else, Mr. Sarapa or Madam Nikolic, do you wish to
4 tender any documents?
5 Mr. Sarapa?
6 MR. SARAPA: No, thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: No. So that comes to an end.
8 Now, yesterday we adjourned with some unfinished symphonies still
9 ongoing. One was declaration from you, Mr. McCloskey, that following the
10 statement by Mr. Vanderpuye you had given instructions for a thorough
11 check and recheck of the documentation that may relate to Ms. Frease's
12 testimony. And that depending on that first you would give us information
13 on that and secondly depending on that we would know more or less when to
14 expect her to return. So can you update the Trial Chamber on that,
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I believe Mr. Vanderpuye has the -- has the
17 latest on that, and I hope it's good news.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. So in that case, you needn't hide
19 behind the column, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Please excuse my positioning this afternoon.
21 Good afternoon to you, Mr. President, to Your Honours, counsel.
22 I do have the latest on that, and the latest on that was that we
23 had completed a search of all of the data archives of -- in our database.
24 And we did identify some additional documents which I furnished to the
25 Defence late last evening, I think around -- close to 10.00. That's about
1 the time that we got through sorting through what we found, and turning
2 over what we thought we were responsible to turn over. I don't know if
3 the Defence has had an opportunity to go through those documents, digest
4 them and prepare themselves for cross-examination. But I'm informed by
5 the investigation team that undertook this search and others that we have
6 completed a thorough search of our database. I also did check to see if
7 there were any physical files lying around in the area where Ms. Frease
8 previously worked, and there were no such files. I also asked the
9 investigator to check if there were cupboards or cabinets or things of
10 that nature to identify if there were any such files and I am told that
11 there were none. What we have turned over I think represents the totality
12 of the documents relevant to Ms. Frease's testimony that we don't believe
13 are covered by Rule 70, paragraph A, as we discussed yesterday. That's
14 the news.
15 She's here, and we're prepared to proceed. I believe -- I believe
16 the Defence is aware that she's here today because I think you had invited
17 her to come back to be cross-examined today.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, does any one of the Defence team wish to
19 address the Trial Chamber? Madam Fauveau.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we received the
21 documents yesterday regarding General Miletic we can continue with the
22 cross-examination of Ms. Frease, but before doing so I'd like to raise a
23 question. Among the documents we received yesterday there are five
24 reports, informative reports taken by the Prosecutor during interviews
25 with witness who have already testified. PW-131, PW-129, PW-124, PW-136,
1 and PW-145. These documents have been in the possession of the OTP since
2 1999 because that's the time when the reports were drafted.
3 Yesterday I raised the issue of an apparent breach of the Rule 68
4 obligation by the Prosecutor. I spoke to the Prosecutor about it. We
5 never agree on this. What we think is Rule 68 obligation is not
6 considered so by the Prosecutor. I can understand why information can be
7 understood differently by both sides, but here we are in a case of
8 violation of Rule 66(A)(ii) and there is no possibility of a dual
9 interpretation of the -- such rule. The Defence was not able to duly
10 prepare for cross-examination. I'm not in a position to tell you whether
11 the cross-examination would have been any different, but I'm very
13 We have received today information statements, basically, by
14 witnesses who have already testified in this case. Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. McCloskey?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Your Honour. It's my understanding that
17 there -- that's correct, though the -- Ms. Frease was at interviews with
18 investigator Dean Manning, and Dean Manning's statement of that, of that
19 witness, has been provided to the Defence. Ms. Frease in a few situations
20 had made an additional note or two about something the person had said and
21 those, when we found them, we turned them over. I didn't find anything
22 particularly significant in -- in any of those additional bits, but when
23 we found them, yes, we should have turned them over and -- but I don't see
24 any -- any -- any Rule 68 in them. But we of course remain available to
25 bring back someone, if -- if there's some need or we can -- but I frankly
1 don't see anything that gets anywhere near that. But we are -- we're --
2 we wanted to make this as correct as we possibly can. But these are small
3 details that Ms. Frease added in addition to the statement that the person
4 had. I believe that's -- that's correct, and Mr. Vanderpuye agrees with
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think what I can say is that, strictly speaking,
7 we are seized of a submission but not of a specific request, so I won't
8 say anything more on it. Later on, if we are at any time seized with the
9 issue that you raised, Madam Fauveau, we'll give opportunity to the
10 Prosecution, to yourself, to air your views and then we'll hand down a
12 And that applies of course not just to you, but any -- because
13 we're talking of witnesses that testified in the trial.
14 Mr. Haynes, yesterday, towards the end of the session, of the
15 sitting, raised an issue relating to a motion of yours, Mr. McCloskey, to
16 convert 12 witnesses to 92 ter witnesses. And my impression, after having
17 heard both of you, was that maybe you could have a roundtable between you,
18 amongst you and in regard to one or two of these witnesses you could make
19 one kind of submission in relation to others, maybe another. Have -- what
20 I want to know is two things: Whether you have met and discussed this,
21 and whether you have come to some kind of agreement amongst you or between
22 you, and then, depending on the answer, I will move to my next question.
23 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have had a chance to talk about it briefly.
25 He's given me the names of two of the three people I think that he was
1 interested in. He made sense, and I want to go back and take a look at
2 those witnesses. It may be simpler for everyone to just do a brief direct
3 on some of them. But I need more hours in the day, unfortunately,
4 Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I mean ...
6 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
7 MR. HAYNES: Just to fill you in, of the original 12, I considered
8 that the application is perfectly good in relation to eight of them.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
10 MR. HAYNES: Without --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you tell me straight and plain whether there is
12 agreement to convert the testimony of Mr. Peccerelli?
13 MR. HAYNES: Yes.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: When is that witness due to come over? Because I
15 thought I was going to expect him after witness PW-104.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: He is in my office right now, but we're hoping to
17 get Ms. Frease done first.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One moment.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We have, as you know been discussing amongst
21 ourselves on all this, and Judge Kwon would like to say -- state
23 JUDGE KWON: I don't it will affect, at the end of the day, the
24 actual conduct of the examination, but my question was whether we need 92
25 ter at all in case of expert witnesses. With the regime, that kind of
1 regime or format of examination has been possible, even before the
2 existence of 92 ter, so can I hear your observation.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: At this point I'm confused with 92 ter and 92 bis
4 and 94 and A and B and -- but most of our experts are 92 bis and the plan
5 is a very -- well, 15 minutes, maybe 30 minutes, there is some new issues
6 that have arisen that you may want to hear about, but yes, I don't know
7 if we need to do 92 ter for experts. Most of them have already been 92
8 bis, and I think that kind of covers -- covers the issue that we are all
9 concerned about. But if there is something in particular --
10 JUDGE KWON: Then there comes another tukwej [phoen] issue between
11 the relationship between 92 bis and 94 bis. But as long as there is
12 agreement between the parties, it's fine.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, okay. I don't think I will add anything to
14 what Judge Kwon said. In reality, these, Peccerelli and someone else, I
15 forgot his name now -- yes, Dakwija [phoen], were two experts that you
16 wanted to bring forward to testify viva voce. They were not included in
17 the 92 ter list. So I think you can understand Judge Kwon's statement,
18 even better, after having said that.
19 Gentlemen, and ladies, before then, shall we come -- recommence
20 with Ms. Frease? Is there any objection? None. Shall we bring her in,
21 please. We are not going finish with her today, obviously, I mean, but we
22 will make a serious attempt.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: And just a housekeeping -- she can come in, fine.
24 I am informed that -- with one of these, that Mr. Baraybar is here, is
25 from Peru. He's here to testify in the -- what we call the MOS case, the
1 Kosovo case. He was -- the Prosecution cannot seem in that case to figure
2 out when he's going to testify. We're actually -- they're doing -- trying
3 to do the same thing we are, and we'll try to -- as soon as we can sort
4 out when he will be able to testify in both these cases, we will inform
5 you. But I am told that he cannot testify on Monday. That may be because
6 he's in the MOS case and we don't want him to be on the witness stand in
7 two cases at the same time, if we can help it. Anyway that's a detail, we
8 will inform everyone.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We will go down in history if we succeed in doing
10 that. Have him in two witness boxes at the same time.
11 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We finally made it, Ms. Frease. And you will be
15 here for less than 15 minutes, that's more or less the time left. But we
16 will proceed today and then we will continue tomorrow.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Who wishes to go next?
19 Mr. Ostojic.
20 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, Judge. I have a question.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't promise you an answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Is it possible at all to see a document that
23 Mr. Zivanovic presented to me when I was here last?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: If you tell us which document it was.
25 THE WITNESS: It was the fuel order.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, yes. Do you need to see it today?
2 THE WITNESS: No, no.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Or can you see it tomorrow?
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, mm-hmm.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: It will be brought tomorrow and shown to you.
6 Unless you need to see it today in the wake of any question that may be
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We will do that.
10 Mr. Ostojic, again my apologies to you for interrupting you.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
13 Q. Good afternoon, again, Ms. Frease. Or good evening again. The
14 last time we met a couple days ago, I put a question to you and then we
15 ended basically for the day. Do you remember the question?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you for that. I asked you that you have used the word
18 during your testimony in this case, "independently corroborated," and in
19 other testimonies you have used "internal consistency" to establish that
20 corroboration. Did those two words, "independently corroborated" and
21 "internal consistency," mean the same thing to you?
22 A. I think it would be depend on the context, but I would say not
24 Q. And describe for me how it wouldn't?
25 A. Is it possible for you to give me examples of cases where I've
1 used those two terms?
2 Q. You have in the Krstic case, for example, in looking at certain
3 intercepts you said to Judge Wald, I believe, that these documents show an
4 internal consistency, and that that was an - I am summarising for you. I
5 could get it for you exactly - that that was the basis for you showing
6 that they were corroborative with each other.
7 A. In that example I would say that I was -- hold on just a second.
8 Let me read your question again. That -- that I was probably referring to
9 material contained within the intercepts. And the subject matter within
10 the intercepts.
11 Q. You shared with us in your intercept binder a sample, as you
12 called it, of the intercepts you showed, there was some corroboration.
13 Did you find in any of the intercepts independent corroboration as opposed
14 to corroboration with other intercepts from other logbooks like I think
15 you did for an intercept that was purportedly captured on the 14th of
16 July, 1995?
17 A. Which intercept on the 14th of July?
18 Q. The one that you testified about involving, purportedly, Mr. Beara
19 and General Krstic.
20 A. On --
21 Q. In the binder you show that there is four entries in four
22 different sources. My question is just -- to put it right to you, other
23 than those intercepts which are internally consistent, according to you,
24 did you have any other independent corroboration with respect to that
1 A. I think that was an intercept on the 15th of July. The one --
2 you're speaking about the one at 9.55, 9.57, and 10.00?
3 Q. Correct.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the binder is right in front of you.
6 A. There is. There is another conversation that relates to those
7 three from the 13th of July at 1919, I believe.
8 Q. You said that, but I'm talking about independent from the logbooks
9 themselves, or the printouts, was there --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, could we avoid overlap,
12 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry.
13 Q. Other than the notebooks themselves, and the printouts as you've
14 testified to, was there any other independent source of corroboration?
15 A. No, I don't believe there was.
16 Q. Can you share with us, Ms. Frease, your efforts to obtain third
17 party or independent sources in -- that you utilised in the determining
18 whether or not the logbooks were authentic?
19 A. Well, I think we've talked about this before, right. Using
20 videotape, using notes from UNPROFOR, note-takers of conversations between
21 UN officials and members of the VRS. A lot of VRS documents.
22 Q. And you find that third party independent source, even though it
23 includes one of the participants or parties, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, what about independent, as I call them, third party sources,
1 like you mentioned in your testimony the other day on page 44, lines 9
2 through 11, and again on page 31, line 5, that you mentioned, and I
3 will -- I think I'm quoting it directly, but you were asked by my learned
4 friend, Mr. Zivanovic, did you double-check it in any way, and you gave an
5 answer, and then you said, "not with an outside handwriting expert." So I
6 want to talk about that a little bit, and using this outside handwriting
7 expert, do you think he would qualify as a third party, independent
9 A. If you're talking about when the notebooks -- let -- let me
10 preface it by saying I don't know precisely what the skills of a -- a --
11 of a handwriting expert or an expert in ink and dating ink and all of
12 that, what they are able to do, what they're able to determine.
13 Q. Well, did you inquire ever?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you inquire if a handwriting expert can determine the age of a
16 piece of paper, that he can tell you exactly when that paper was
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you inquire of any third party, independent source, including
20 a forensic handwriting expert, to determine whether the logbooks were
21 manufactured or put in the market on a certain given date?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. Who is Mr. Ten Camp?
24 A. Ten Camp?
25 Q. I think. Or is it Kemp? Camp? He is a forensic handwriting
1 expert that the Office of the Prosecution used from time to time in other
2 cases. Have you ever used the handwriting expert to determine the
3 authenticity of the logbooks that we are discussing in this case?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you ever call the manufacturer of the logbooks to determine
6 when the logbooks were actually created?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. Did anyone under your direction when you took over this intercept
9 project, as we've called it from time to time?
10 A. No, not to my knowledge.
11 Q. Do you know what the year of the publication of these logbook or
12 notebooks are?
13 A. No.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do see that the question has been answered.
16 The objection is -- I do see that the question has been answered but the
17 objection is I would ask my learned friend to put a more specific question
18 to the witness since it is not clear that all the logbooks were
19 manufacturing or not at a given date or time.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, that's very fair, Your Honour.
22 Q. I mean, Ms. Frease, very quickly this way: You have no idea, in
23 fact, that -- when any of the notebooks were manufactured, meaning you
24 don't know if they were manufactured all at the same time or they were
25 manufactured over a period of time, correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Now, did you ever notice in any notebook that there was bar-code
3 information on one of the logbooks or some of the logbooks?
4 A. I can't say that I paid specific attention to bar-codes, no.
5 Q. Are you familiar with what a bar-code is? We see it every day in
6 a grocery store when they have us zip through the lines, right?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. What do you think is contained in those bar-code information
9 sheets that are on things such as logbooks?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: That question clearly calls for speculation,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought, if she knows. I know what a bar-code
14 contains, for example, so ...
15 Yes, Ms. Frease.
16 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's her answer to you. Go ahead.
18 MR. OSTOJIC:
19 Q. Let me ask you if you could summarise for us briefly, the
20 printouts for a second, do you know if the information that was above the
21 line, the prefatory information, whether or not that was placed in the
22 computer and generated by the computer automatically, or were intercept
23 operators able to input dates or other significant information on that
24 portion of the printouts?
25 A. I will have to make an assumption here. Because I had left at the
1 time that the electronic copies were decoded and electronically stamped by
2 the evidence unit here. In looking at the electronic copies and seeing
3 that a couple of the dates were incorrectly typed, I would assume that
4 they had the ability to type the dates.
5 Q. Now -- and I know we only have a couple of minutes. I'm just
6 trying to understand, when you were the lead person or head person of this
7 intercept project, you had many people working for you. Did you record
8 when you had meetings with these people? Like a memo to file?
9 A. You assume I had many people working. I think that's an
11 Q. I apologise for that, but I thought your testimony was, just to
12 try to short circuit it, that you had translators working for you,
13 investigators working for you, researchers working for it, and it's my
14 mistake probably but whatever the number of people were, did you maintain
15 a record of meetings with those people?
16 A. No, I didn't.
17 Q. Okay. When you met with witnesses, did you also create or
18 generate what's known as an information sheet or an information report?
19 A. Yes, sometimes I did.
20 Q. When would you and when wouldn't you?
21 A. I would create -- for example, I would create an information
22 report if I met with someone and perhaps didn't take a statement from
23 them, but we had a conversation in which they provided information that --
24 that was important, that was relevant.
25 Q. And you would be the sole determining person -- or you would be
1 the sole person to determine whether that information was important or
2 relevant; is that correct?
3 A. Sometimes it was very easy to know whether the information was
4 relevant or not. If I ever had a question about anything, I always
6 Q. How many intercept operators did you personally interview?
7 A. I can't give you a specific number.
8 Q. More or less than 10?
9 A. I would say less.
10 Q. We'll go over them. Hopefully tomorrow.
11 While interviewing these intercept operators, did you recognise or
12 find that there were some inconsistencies between their stories?
13 A. What do you mean by "their stories"?
14 Q. By how they told you they were required to fill in the logbook,
15 when they received the logbook, whether or not they knew the participants
16 in the logbook, whether changes should be made to the logbook, when
17 changes or modifications should be entered into the logbook, things of
18 that sort.
19 A. There weren't inconsistencies with respect to -- as far as I
20 remember, with respect to when they needed to fill in the logbook, because
21 all of the conversations recorded by the military at that time, during the
22 time period that we're talking about, there was a requirement to record
23 the conversations in logbooks.
24 When they received logbooks there might have --
25 Q. It might be our time. Her microphone is flashing, I think, and
1 that's why she's hesitating. Someone's sending her a signal from
2 somewhere, with all due respect.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It may mean it's 7.00.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Maybe.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think let's adjourn here, and your question was
6 extensive in any case, so I think --
7 MR. OSTOJIC: It was just to put her in the context and I'm going
8 break it down.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it's a fair question. And I think it needs to
10 be broken down into the various -- and then she will respond to it
12 Tomorrow we are sitting in the morning and not in the
13 afternoon --
14 THE WITNESS: Okay.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: -- so we will meet here at 9.00 in the morning.
16 Thank you.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Friday, the 2nd day of March,
19 2007, at 9.00 a.m.