1 Wednesday, 7 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Registrar, could you call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am, and good morning to you. I see
11 that all the accused are present. From Defence teams I see Ms. Condon
12 absent and Mr. Meek. I am informed that Mr. Meek will be showing up later
13 on during the day's sitting.
14 What about Ms. Condon?
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Ms. Condon is unwell, so today she
16 will not be at the hearing.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Please convey to her our best wishes for a speedy
19 From the Prosecution side, Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 Witness is present in the courtroom.
21 There are no preliminaries, I take it.
22 There are a couple of issues which we will address after this
23 witness has finished testifying.
24 So, good morning to you, sir, and welcome to this Tribunal.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: You are about to start giving evidence. Before you
2 do so, you need to make a solemn declaration that you will be testifying
3 the truth. Madam Usher is going to hand you the solemn declaration, the
4 text of the solemn declaration. Please stand up, read it out aloud, and
5 that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-158
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please take a seat and make
11 yourself comfortable. Mr. Vanderpuye will be putting some questions to
12 you, and then he will be followed by the Defence teams on
13 cross-examination. We have put in place for you two protective measures,
14 namely the use of a pseudonym instead of your real name, and also facial
15 distortion. I trust these have been explained to you. I just want to
16 know from you whether this arrangement is to your satisfaction.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. And then during your testimony we
19 will be going into private session and I trust this has also been
20 explained to you and all this is to guarantee your anonymity.
21 Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
23 Honours. Good morning, Witness. Good morning, counsel.
24 I would just ask if I could have the pseudonym sheet please shown
25 to the witness. That's identified for the record as P02462.
1 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
2 Q. Sir, please have a look at that document and let us know if that's
3 your name that appears on it. Don't read it out.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm going to put some questions to you initially, and I just want
6 to remind you, in case I haven't already, that when -- when I refer to the
7 location where you worked, I will refer to it as the southern location,
8 and I will try to refrain from mentioning any names or locations, as I
9 hope you will be able to do as well.
10 First, let me start by putting this to you: Do you recall having
11 given a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor which you signed and
12 acknowledged on the 27th of February of this year?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And was the statement, at the time that you gave it, was that a
15 truthful statement?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have an opportunity to read your statement before coming
18 here to testify today?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you read the statement in your native language?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was that the language in which you originally gave the
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And for the purposes of the record, can you just tell us what
1 language that is?
2 A. Bosnian.
3 Q. Are you satisfied that the statement accurately reflects what you
4 said and does it fairly and accurately reflect what you would say were you
5 to testify -- were you to be examined here today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At this time I would move to have the statement admitted, pursuant
8 to 92 ter. That's P02463, for the record. I do have a 92 ter
9 statement -- summary. If I can proceed with that, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I need to go --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because Mr. Bourgon has something to
14 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
15 Honours. Good morning, counsel. Just a quick -- Mr. President, along
16 with the statement that is being offered now into evidence, under Rule 92
17 ter, there is an attachment which is something that does not come from
18 this witness, which is a date book --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
20 MR. BOURGON: -- which he consulted, which comes from a previous
21 witness. And this date book, or the two pages therefrom, have never been
22 introduced in evidence before. And therefore, I do not think that this
23 should accompany the statement and then form part of his statement. This
24 is a separate document that has to be introduced the proper way.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Still we need -- we need to be able to read his
1 statement intelligently and understand it. If it makes reference to
2 the -- but anyway, you find -- your point is made. I mean I am not
3 contesting that; anyway, you are correct. On the other hand, if reference
4 it made to this page from that guy's personal date book, we would need to
5 have it.
6 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, I -- I think we need -- I agree
8 that we need to be able to take into account of all the documents
9 submitted to the witness to understand his statement and apparently there
10 were some documents that were submitted to the witness that are not
11 annexed or attached to this statement and that have never been
12 communicated to the Defence. I just wanted to state that for the
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, Madam Fauveau, if you would be kind enough
15 to indicate precisely which documents you are referring to, we can pool
16 all the documents together and Mr. Vanderpuye will find a way of
17 introducing them, if he so wishes. If he doesn't, of course, it's open to
18 you to ask for their introduction, if you feel the need for it.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm referring to paragraph 8 of the
20 witness's statement. It is a document that has the ERN number 03206608 to
21 03206637. There are therefore several documents, and I believe two or
22 three have been communicated to us, but altogether there are about 10, and
23 some have certainly not been communicated to us.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to address this once it has been raised.
25 Thank you, Madam Fauveau, and thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
1 You need to address these issues as you go along, if you are going
2 to make use of -- but obviously you are because you are tendering the
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's -- that's true. What is identified in the
5 statement as an ERN range. My understanding is that those documents are
6 available on the EDS. It's true that they are not annexed to the
7 statement. But they were particular documents which were shown to the
8 witness and that's the reason why the ERN range is disclosed.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm beginning to feel that this is one instance
10 where it's becoming counter-productive to have the 65 ter -- 92 ter,
11 sorry, procedure. We are going to lose more time --
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can proceed and then --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead and proceed.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- we can address it, I guess, later on, if you
15 wish. I would like to go into -- I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I -- I -- I have
18 difficulty with my colleague proceeding under 92 ter if the statement
19 cannot be admitted. This statement refers to documents, those documents
20 have to come in, but those documents were never put on the Rule 65 ter
21 list and some of these documents have never been communicated to the
22 Defence. So we have difficulty. This was -- the preparation of this
23 witness has been the object of two previous motions, one for the intercept
24 itself, one to have the witness transferred and have him testify under 92
25 ter. Both have been the object of objections raised by the Defence, the
1 Trial Chamber has overruled these objections, and said that the witness
2 would come and testify. Now we find ourselves, the morning of the
3 testimony of the witness, and we're not ready to proceed. I don't think
4 this is fair to proceed without having all the documents and whether my
5 colleague can tell us how he intends to introduce these documents in
6 evidence this morning. Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. The matter of converting the witness to
8 92 ter has already been decided so it is not open for discussion. There
9 is always the option for the Prosecution to withdraw from that position,
10 and offer his testimony viva voce if they so desire and of course it will
11 be open for discussion after that, but otherwise let's proceed and as we
12 go along we see whether these problems that you are envisaging,
13 Mr. Bourgon, materialise or not.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, sorry to come back to you again on this
16 issue. In relation to the personal date book, sheet from the person's
17 date book that is attached to the witness's statement that you referred to
18 before, what is precisely your objection?
19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. The -- this morning I
20 consulted with my colleague because that date book, for some reason I do
21 not have it. I am consulting my colleague in the back and she does not
22 appear to have it. It is yet to be confirmed because when I spoke to my
23 colleague this morning, I was shown a statement with this date book
24 attached but I have not received this so I don't know if my other
25 colleagues from the Defence have received this date book or not, but I
1 have not seen it yet. I just saw it this morning when I went to see my
2 colleague. So that's where my objection comes from. How can we proceed,
3 because this date book is the only way this witness can remember he was
4 ever on duty during that time-frame. So it is a document that is
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you mean to say that, not having seen it, is
7 because you don't have it or it's simply because when you became aware of
8 it, it was at the end of the day, sort of and you haven't had time to see
10 MR. BOURGON: At the moment I do not have it. I am checking with
11 my case manager, we are taking with the other people, the other teams, and
12 it appears that we don't have this document communicated to us this
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Fine. Okay. But you are not in a position to say
15 whether therefore whether this is a 65 ter document. Could we have the
16 reference, Mr. Vanderpuye, of the personal date book of the entire
17 document so that we can follow better?
18 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, as I was preparing the witness, I
19 imagine because this is a document that comes from a previous witness, I
20 don't want to say the name, but it comes from a previous witness who has
21 testified before this Trial Chamber, I imagine that this was a document in
22 evidence in and the first thing I did coming in this morning, I checked to
23 see what is the number of that document. Now, that's when I went to see
24 my colleague, the document has not been entered, admitted into evidence
25 with this previous witness, and I don't have the document yet with me.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Valid point. Mr. Vanderpuye, if you could help the
2 Trial Chamber and the Defence teams by a clear indication to the reference
3 of this personal date book from which that page is extracted.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's a personal date book of the -- of one of the
5 other --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The reference number. If it has a 65 ter number.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: It does not have a 65 ter number. It was a -- it
8 was a page that was shown to the witness in relation to his recollection
9 of the events concerning the date of the intercept. It's not a document
10 that we had or in our possession, and, in fact -- and, in fact, the
11 witness will testify as to exactly how it is he came into possession of
12 that --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry to interrupt you. You have the ERN number
14 which is 06066236. If you could correlate that to the 65 ter number,
15 we'll cut this discussion short. You will be able to find it. I can't
16 help you more, Mr. Bourgon. Because I myself don't know the 65 ter
18 MR. BOURGON: There is no 65 ter number, Mr. President.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is no 65 ter number. There is an ERN
20 number because that document was MIFed together with the statement to make
21 sure that the Defence counsel got it. My understanding is it's actually
22 attached to the signed copy of the statement as part of the same ERN
23 range. And so the ERN range of the signed document goes from 06066231
24 through 06066236, the last page being the document that Mr. Bourgon says
25 he doesn't have. Now my understanding was that that document, with the
1 ERN number on it and range, was furnished to the Defence, is in the
2 possession of the Defence, and therefore should contain the page that's at
3 issue. I don't know if the Court has it. But that's what it would
4 appear, if you -- if you enter that ERN number.
5 In addition, the statement itself refers to a range of documents
6 that are identified by the ERN as well and the Defence obviously are in
7 possession of that also. They certainly have access to get it, to the
8 extent it's referenced in the statement.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move and then we see how far we can get.
10 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
11 MR. BOURGON: Can we, Mr. President, say when this document, the
12 final statement with this attachment would have been sent to the Defence,
13 because it appears that none of my colleagues have received this statement
14 with this attachment.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that that would have been sent on or
16 about the day that the document was signed, which would have been on the
17 27th of February. That was the day that the document was -- was assigned
18 an ERN number, as it were, or MIFed, I think is the term. I had in
19 advance of this statement, sent the Defence a copy of the unsigned version
20 of the statement because I didn't have the ability obviously to process
21 the signed document, indicated in an e-mail that the statement I was
22 sending was unsigned and, in fact, that the witness had signed the
23 statement and that would be forthcoming. And in the statement it refers
24 to the documents that are -- in the statement that I sent that was
25 unsigned obviously refers to the documents that are at issue.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
2 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I -- looking at the -- on
3 the e-court system, this document that my colleague is referring to has
4 been uploaded on the e-court system under Prosecution documents. We can
5 just see it now on the e-court. But it appears that it wasn't sent to us,
6 and we never got any -- that the copy of the final statement or of the
7 attachment that came along with it.
8 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I would like to check, Mr. Bourgon. It seems that
11 this document was put on e-court on the 28th of February, and on the same
12 day or thereabouts, you received, in relation to this witness, the list of
13 documents that the Prosecution intended to make use of, and that this
14 particular page was amongst the documents indicated by the Prosecution.
15 In any case, because I mean we try to be as practical as possible,
16 if you wish -- if you are not in a position to cross-examine the witness
17 in relation to this document immediately, perhaps we can put you last in
18 the list, and cross-examine him when you have had time to refer to this
19 page and after maybe having heard his testimony as well as the
20 cross-examination of others.
21 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I have -- I will be able
22 to proceed. I will get a copy and we have it on screen now. And I will
23 be able to proceed. However, I -- I do have the list of exhibit that you
24 are referring to under 92 ter for Witness 186 and it does refer to
25 document 2463, which is the witness statement dated 26 February under
1 seal. Now, I have yet to check if this includes that document or not, but
2 I will be able to proceed this morning. But I maintain, nonetheless, my
3 objection that this is a document that is now being provided to the Court
4 and that has not been either on the Rule 65 ter list and that has not been
5 either -- there has never been any request for this document to be used,
6 whereas the litigation concerning this witness and this particular
7 intercept, dated January of 1995, months before the events that we are
8 talking about, this litigation has been going for a lot of time, and still
9 we do not have a request by the Prosecution to have this document
10 admitted, not admitted, but included on its Rule 65 ter list. Thank you,
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I don't want to prolong this discussion
13 much further, but in the Prosecution exhibit list in -- circulated on the
14 28th, the second document, that's the one after the pseudonym sheet, is
15 the OTP's witness statement dated 26th February, which would be 27th, and
16 the pages indicated run from 06066231, which would be the first page of
17 the cover sheet of the statement, right to and inclusive of the page which
18 is -- look at me, which is the extract or extract from the book. This is
19 included as part of the documents that the Prosecution wish to tender with
20 this witness. So to me it means that this is being included by them in
21 the statement itself as part of the statement. But let's proceed.
22 Because I think the further we prolong it, the more complicated it
24 Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 Sorry you have had to sit down and listen to -- but perhaps other
1 witnesses or other persons will understand that sometimes you are kept
2 waiting in the room because we have got procedural problems to deal with
3 and they are always time consuming.
4 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do have this 92 ter summary.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to go into private session just, I
8 think, for the first couple of paragraphs.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means. Let's go into private session,
11 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
5 Thereafter, the witness was assigned to the northern site until
6 his demobilisation in April of 1996.
7 As a commander at the southern site, the witness described the
8 procedure applied to the interception process which includes the
9 following: The monitoring of radio channels, the recording of
10 conversations, the transcription of these conversations on to paper or
11 notebooks, and the typing and sending of information in an encrypted form.
12 The witness personally typed and sent such reports.
13 The witness reviewed entries from the date book of a fellow
14 commander of the second detachment assigned to the southern site which
15 indicated that this second detachment worked through January 16th, 1995
16 and then resumed work on January 26, 1995. During the intervening period,
17 the witness's detachment was on duty.
18 The witness reviewed a report dated 19 January, 1995, detailing
19 the condition of the equipment located at the southern site and bearing
20 his name as the sender of the report. The witness confirmed that he typed
21 and sent out such equipment status reports regularly and that he sent the
22 report dated 19 January, 1995.
23 The witness further reviewed a report containing an intercept
24 recorded at 10.57 hours on 19 January, 1995. The witness confirmed that
25 the intercept was processed by his unit and that such reports were
1 regularly typed and sent by him daily to the automatic data processing
2 unit. That concludes my summary.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have any further questions?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do have a few questions I would like to put to
5 the witness, if I may.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
8 Q. Witness, as a commander of the unit in which you worked, can you
9 tell us relatively briefly what your responsibilities were with respect to
10 the training, supervision, for example, of your men?
11 A. Yes. When people were transferred from the OG 3 to the 2nd Corps
12 I trained my subordinates, I trained them to work on radio equipment for
13 scanning frequencies and interception of radio relay conversations. This
14 training mostly boiled down to the familiarisation with the equipment and
15 the method of work switching on the equipment, transfer of audio recording
16 on to the paper, and then the procedure would proceed through me. In
17 other words, they had to be familiar with the equipment. This is as far
18 as the training of my men went.
19 My other tasks were this: Every morning and during the day, if
20 there was no activity on the radio relay routes that we followed, I would
21 scan the band from 230 to 270 megahertz for RR1 and from 610 to 980 in
22 order to maybe observe some new active frequency. My following task was
23 to control and perform minor repairs of the radio equipment, antennas and
24 cables. And the last part was work on PC or as a radio operator, I was
25 familiar with work on PC typing and automatic data processing.
1 Q. Now, did you have responsibility for maintaining the schedules
2 with respect to the men that you supervised, administrative tasks such as
4 A. Yes. These were my tasks, my regular tasks as a commander
5 deploying people, working out shifts, sometimes shifts had to be prolonged
6 or curtailed. It all depended on the activity and the quantity of
7 information we collected and dispatched. In order to have a good
8 concentration of people working on equipment, sometimes we had to curtail
9 information in order to help the radio operator to be concentrated enough
10 to be able to monitor conversations on the radio.
11 Q. Now, with respect to the transcription of intercepts itself, were
12 your men permitted to draw inferences from the information they received,
13 to assume things or to guess?
14 A. No, no. Your Honours, it is my duty to provide a short
15 explanation at this point. In the -- in the profession that deals with
16 the interception of radio relay conversation, conversations, information
17 is only useful and of good quality if it is credibility and if it is
18 timely and if it dispatched for the automatic data processing in time. If
19 the radio operator does not understand a word or is not sure of the
20 accuracy of the word, then he had to ask one or two colleagues of his to
21 listen to the conversation again, and if the three of them did not
22 understand the word, we would put in slash brackets intelligible [as
23 interpreted] because if you speculated and you didn't understand the word,
24 it could lead people in the automatic data processing astray. I claim
25 that nobody was allowed to add or speculate. If they didn't understand,
1 they would have to indicate that in brackets by putting words intelligible
2 [as interpreted] or "I don't understand." Something to that effect.
3 Q. And during your tenure as a commander, did you give them that
4 specific instruction?
5 A. As for the specific instruction, this is something that people
6 adopted in the first part. As soon as they moved to the 2nd Corps, they
7 already were familiar with the technique, they were familiar with the
8 modulations of things that they were listening to. And then I would try
9 to explain the technical aspects of the equipment. Since I had worked in
10 the JNA for a while, I was familiar with radio relay communication system,
11 and then I would tell them that what they were learning was not only
12 mechanical process, that they had to understand why things were why they
13 were, why there was signal, why there was no modulation. I was there all
14 the time. I was providing them advice. I didn't have very specific
15 working hours. I would supervise them all the time. Sometimes I would
16 provide them with more detailed information and I would make sure that
17 they understood the technicalities of what they were doing.
18 Q. Now, with respect to the intercepts that had been transcribed, was
19 it the responsibility of the unit to send this information to another unit
20 in a timely fashion?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And was it the responsibility of the person sending that
23 information to extract the information from the handwritten material
25 A. Yes, yes. If there were omissions in typing handwritten material
1 by a PC and we did that in the editor, if there was an omission or a
2 mistake, then -- then this transcript would not be credible. This was
3 taken into account because, I repeat, if there was a typo or an omission
4 in transcribing the audio recordings, then this might have led people in
5 the automatic data processing astray and they would not have been able to
6 do their job properly.
7 Q. And can you tell us, in January of 1995, who was responsible for
8 typing and sending the intercepted material?
9 A. All the time that I spent in the 2nd Corps in the -- in this unit,
10 I was the only one in that department that I was a member of who was
11 working on the PC and who was sending dispatches to the automatic data
12 processing department.
13 Q. Was anybody besides you during that period of time -- well, was
14 anybody besides you during that period of time authorised to use the
15 computer or otherwise have access to the computer?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Now, with respect to the material that you sent and typed, did you
18 maintain a file of these electronic transmissions?
19 A. Whatever was sent can be found in the SP 610 programme, and this
20 remained there as proof. The programme itself stores whatever is sent,
21 and in the PC I had folders by the year, by the month, and by the date,
22 and on every date there were two folders, one was for dispatches, one was
23 for received materials. And the received materials were suggestions from
24 the commander or similar documents. And I would open documents and store
25 it into the folder for that day. And this was my archive of all the
1 conversations that we dispatched for the automatic data processing.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One question that perhaps would help us understand
3 better. Were these stored in an encrypted form in the -- in the computer?
4 That's number one. And secondly, was the encrypting software installed on
5 the computer the same time?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The archive was not encrypted.
7 It was in the original form. And it was encrypted before it was sent
8 through the Paket radio system. The archive form was in a normal form.
9 And before it was sent, we would use the programme for encrypting and then
10 it is then downloaded from the SB 610 programme as an encrypted document
11 and as such it was sent to the automatic data processing.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vanderpuye, are you going to deal with this SB
13 610 programme a little bit in detail?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I can.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE:
17 Q. You've heard the Court's question. Can you tell us a little bit
18 about this SP 610 programme and how it relates to the Paket radio system?
19 A. Yes. This SP 610 programme, version 610, is a programme for Paket
20 radio system that was used by ham radio operators. It was in Windows, and
21 some basic features of the programme were this: I had 10 channels that
22 could be active all simultaneously, and when I was sending data using this
23 programme, the programme user had a possibility, if the channels were
24 overbooked or if the communication was not good, he could manually reduce
25 the number of characters in the package that he was sending.
1 In principle, this is 255 characters, or packets. How would this
2 work? He would take a packet and send it to the modem at that time we
3 used VICOM. VICOM prepared it to be understandable by the radio
4 equipment. It takes by the microphone and through the correspondence PC
5 comes to the end user's PC. And then this is returned to my PC. My PC
6 receives the package and compares it to the package that has just been
7 sent. If there is a congruence, if there is a match, then my PC confirms
8 the accuracy of the package and starts sending a new package.
9 In an alternative case, if the return package is not the same, is
10 not matching the original one, then the PC confirms the irregularity of
11 the package and starts resending the original package. And in the
12 programme itself, there is a frame in which you can see how many times the
13 PC, i.e., the programme, has sent this particular package or packet. In
14 the programme itself, there is a chat mode possibility. For example, I
15 could communicate in a written form with my correspondent. I could
16 communicate with them and everything that is going on on that particular
18 Q. All right. Thank you very much for that. Let me just ask this so
19 at least I have it a little clearer in my own head. Is this Paket radio
20 system essentially a wireless, digital network?
21 A. Yes. The data dispatch was in a digital form.
22 Q. And is it basically set up with a computer, a transceiver and a
23 type of modem?
24 A. Yes. A computer, a modem, a radio receiver and of course an
1 Q. Okay. And does it work in a way that the data that leaves the
2 computer enters a modem and is changed to a form that can then be sent
3 through the transceiver -- transmitter, I should say, to the antenna?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the packets you are talking about here, you are talking about
6 specific amounts of data sent from one computer to another. Is that
8 A. When I spoke about the quantity of characters in a packet, this is
9 just one part of a complete, typed report. SP610 takes a packet with 255
10 characters or lower number of characters to speed up the communication
11 between the two PCs and the SP PC that receives the packet, this second PC
12 has to confirm the accuracy of the packet. It is not just one whole
13 report, written report as one packet, but various parts of that document,
14 each of them feature as one packet.
15 Q. Okay. And you're referring to the data that comprises the report
16 that makes up the report, right?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. Okay. Now, was it your responsibility as a commander to regularly
19 fill out reports about the condition of the equipment located at the -- at
20 the site where you worked?
21 A. Yes. That was my obligation every day. I had to report on the
22 state of the equipment, I had to put my remarks and requirements for the
23 upcoming period. And I also had to account for the number of men who were
24 on leave, who were on sick leave and so on and so forth.
25 Q. Now, at the end of those reports did you normally type your name
1 as the commander of the unit?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did anybody in your unit other than you have the authority to
4 put your name on such a document?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Now, did you prepare such a report on the 19th of January, 1995?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is that indicative of whether or not you were working on that
10 A. This indicates that on that day I was working.
11 Q. And on the days that you worked, was there anybody besides you
12 that was responsible for sending or typing or encrypting transcripts of
13 radio relay intercepts?
14 A. No.
15 Q. I'd like to show you a document, if I could. P02437A and B. In
16 e-court, please.
17 All right. First I would just like to start with this page, if I
18 could. The first thing I'd like to draw your attention to is have you
19 seen -- I just want to make sure it's not being broadcast.
20 THE REGISTRAR: It is not being broadcasted.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much.
23 Q. The first thing I want to do is refer you to the header on this
24 document. Do you see a date that's indicated on this header?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it's fair to say that that is the 19th of January, 1995. Is
2 that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And there is also a location. Don't read it out, but can you
5 confirm that that's the location that you worked at on that day?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, there's some other information that's below that. In
8 particular, there's an entry on this document that reads, "RM br. 1" do
9 you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And can you tell the Court what that indicates, what that
12 shows? Or what it means, I should say.
13 A. RM number 1 is workstation number 1. In our room where we worked.
14 This is the physical place of work, the place where the operator worked.
15 Q. And does that -- does that reference correspond to an actual
16 location within the unit that you commanded?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And next to that there is an indication of "IC-100/RRU 1."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what that indicates?
22 A. This is the piece of equipment that we used to monitor the radio
23 relay route, and RRU-1 is the mark for the radio relay equipment 1, which
24 was the means of communication of -- of the JNA.
25 Q. And is that information consistent with the equipment that was
1 used at your unit?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the date, were you required to enter
4 that information when you sent a report?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And when you sent a report, was that sent on the same day that the
7 transcription was actually taken?
8 A. Yes. The practice was to send out the information as soon as
9 possible to the -- to the automatic data processing.
10 Q. Just bear with me for one second. Okay. Could we now go to page
11 3 of this document, please. I need to go to the bottom of the document.
12 That's great.
13 Okay. If I could just refer your attention to an entry that's
14 made on this report that is timed at 10.57. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I'm sorry. And can you tell us whether or not that is an
17 entry that is consistent with information that was captured at your unit?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And what about this entry can you tell us is consistent
20 with it having been captured at your unit?
21 A. The frequency here is 785.000 so you can conclude that we were
22 monitoring RRU-800, which is the radio relay device used by the JNA, which
23 was 610 to 960 megahertz. Then there is this information which indicates
24 how we manage to monitor those frequencies without having the adequate
25 equipment. With a radio receiver, with that frequency range, we monitored
1 785.000 megahertz. We also had a signal at the ultrashort-wave device.
2 There was a modulator or a mixer with a local oscillator and that
3 frequency was modulated and was sent from that modulator to the KT device,
4 that was the Kenwood TS-450 and then the channels were separated because
5 the RRU-800 device can send 12 channels. It has that option. Had we not
6 done this conversion, this modulation, and then the division at the KT, it
7 would be as if somebody was speaking to me, 12 different voices were
8 speaking to me in my earphones and I wouldn't be able to understand them.
9 So then what this indicates is that we had the local device,
10 transferred it to the KT, memorised them, and then from that device we
11 would transfer the channels to another device. And this is how we were
12 able to separate the channels and monitor what was actually being
13 broadcast by the RRU device.
14 Q. Okay. Can I ask you, do you see a reference below the
15 participants to "RR," and then it says "trasa Zvornik-Vlasenica." Do you
16 see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us whether or not that was within the range of the
19 areas that were monitored by your unit?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Just so that we're clear for the record, could you just tell us
22 what that means, the part where it says "RR trasa"?
23 A. It means the radio relay route.
24 Q. Now, you have previously seen the date at the beginning of this
25 document. Had you been working on that date, would you have been the one
1 to have typed this information?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you have any doubt about the fact that you were working on
4 that date?
5 A. No. I was absent only in September 1994 when I went to a training
6 course and the New Year 1995. I had some private problems and these are
7 my only two absences, when I was not actually on the schedule at the
9 Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to review entries of a date book
10 of a fellow commander prior to coming here to testify? Don't tell us his
12 A. Could you please repeat your question? It's not clear to me.
13 Q. Okay. Did you have an opportunity or look at the entries that a
14 colleague of yours or a fellow commander had put in a personal date book
15 prior to testifying here today?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. All right. Could I just have P02463 uploaded into the e-court for
18 a moment. All right. If I could just refer to -- oh, the English version
19 of it, I'm sorry. And refer to the last page, which is 0606-6236.
20 JUDGE KWON: Can you go into private session a minute?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Of course.
22 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I would just ask that the document
12 not be broadcast.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: It is not being broadcasted.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Maybe we can blow it up a little bit.
16 And I think we need to go -- I think we need to go to the bottom of the
17 page. In any event.
18 Q. Do you recognise this document, Witness?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And is this the document that you reviewed, the date book?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And just so that the Court is clear, can you -- well, first of
23 all, can you tell us, did you come into possession of this date book
24 yourself, physically?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And did you retrieve the date book from the colleague to whom it
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you bring that with you when you came to the Tribunal?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And after having reviewed this, these entries, did that assist you
7 in any way in determining whether or not your particular detachment was
8 working on the 19th of January of 1995?
9 A. Yes, and you can see that here, that they finished their shift on
10 the 16th of January, 1995. The last shift was from 10.00 to 1400 hours.
11 Excuse me. And then from 1400 hours our group took over. Our group came
12 on duty.
13 Q. Can you tell us when the other group came back on duty? And I'll
14 ask that the document be moved over to the right and to the top of the
16 A. The colleague came on duty again with his group on the 26th of
17 January, 1995. The first shift was from 1400 hours.
18 Q. Now, between your colleague's group and your group, were there any
19 other groups that worked at that particular location? With whom you
20 alternated, I should say.
21 A. No, no. It was just our two groups at that location.
22 Q. Okay. Having reviewed the report, that is the typed version of
23 the intercept, do you have any reason do believe that what you saw of the
24 intercept is anything different than what was sent by your unit?
25 A. I don't see any reason that they should be different -- there
1 should be any differences.
2 Q. Thank you very much, Witness, that concludes my direct
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 Mr. Zivanovic.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. I'm going to begin precisely where my colleague left off, about
11 the notebook that you looked at. Can you please tell me, why did you look
12 at the book? Why did you go through it?
13 A. It was my colleague's diary from the other shift, and I brought
14 the book with me to the Tribunal.
15 Q. Thank you. Did you hand the book over to somebody?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you please tell me to whom?
18 A. I handed it over on the 22nd of February. The 22nd of February --
19 no, no, excuse me. On the 26th of February of this year.
20 Q. Thank you. Can you just tell me to whom you gave the book?
21 A. To the gentleman who took the statement, who took my statement.
22 Q. Is he from the Prosecution?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me how you got the idea to take
25 the book with you?
1 A. My colleague got in touch with me, and he offered it. I didn't
2 take this document -- kind of documentation home with me or kept it with
3 me after I was demobilised. I didn't have any need to. But this was his
4 private document, so he offered it to me and he said maybe there will be
5 something there that I will need. So that's how that happened.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me, since we didn't have the
7 opportunity to look at the notebook, is it a large notebook? Are there
8 many pages, or is it just these two pages?
9 A. I think it's a small A4 notebook. More or less A4 format, and it
10 has several pages. It's his kind of record, the deployment of his people,
11 staff, when he was on the shift.
12 Q. Thank you. I wanted to ask you something else. We have different
13 information about how information or data was entered into the computer.
14 Amongst other things, you have seen the report that my learned friend from
15 the Prosecution showed you where there is the heading with the date and
16 the number under which the reports were sent.
17 My question is, when the information was entered into the
18 computer, does the computer programme assign this number of the report and
19 the date, or is this entered by hand?
20 A. At the time we used queue editor for data entry. Everything was
21 entered by hand. It wasn't like this, like it is now with Windows, where
22 it is automatic. So everything was entered by hand.
23 Q. So that there is no confusion, I am only asking about the date and
24 the number, not about the text of the report.
25 A. Yes, yes, yes. I'm talking about the date. The Q editor is a
1 very simple typing programme, that's why I mentioned it. It's not like
2 Windows Word where you can copy, paste and you can transfer the date from
3 one file to another. For each file, when you opened it, you had to type
4 it in.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: You are moving at a terrific speed. Please, slow
6 down. Slow down. I wouldn't like to be in the interpreters' shoes. They
7 are making a real big effort.
8 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, sorry. Excuse me for the
10 interruption. On page 30, line 21, I thought the witness in his response
11 said that at the time we used the Q editor for data entry, everything was
12 entered by hand. It was not like the Windows and then he proceeds to say
13 where it was automatic, so everything was entered by hand. I thought
14 that's the way it was but we can clarify it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Ostojic, for pointing that
16 out. It makes sense. Perhaps the witness can confirm that and I see him
17 nodding. But please, Witness, and Mr. Zivanovic, you both speak your
18 language, both highly intelligent people. And you tend to answer -- put
19 questions in a fast mode. So please slow down and allow a pause between
20 question and answer. I mean everything that is being said by you in your
21 own language needs to be translated to us in English and -- and in French.
22 So that usually takes time a little bit longer.
23 So, Mr. Zivanovic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. You have seen the report that was shown to you by my colleague,
1 and you explained to us that the packet that the reports are sent in, they
2 are practically sent -- the reports are sent with a certain number of
3 characters, so frequently an entire report does not fit into one packet
4 that is sent but is divided into several packets. If I understood you
6 What I would like to ask you is, when you look at this report that
7 was shown to you, can you tell us how many packages were required to send
8 out such a report? You can give us an approximate number if you are able
9 to do that.
10 A. It's hard to say how many packets that is now. The fact is that
11 in your question I didn't hear everything in its entirety. Not the whole
12 report was packed into several packets, but the parts of the report, for
13 example, 255 characters are picked up, they are sent off, then
14 confirmation is received, then veracity is confirmed or not, and then a
15 new batch of 255 characters are sent off and that's how it goes until the
16 end of the report.
17 Q. I understood that. So my question is, when you look at a report
18 that you just saw before, can you please tell us whether you were able to
19 send this off in one packet or whether this was not possible?
20 A. No, not in one packet. 255 characters is too little for a report
21 like that.
22 Q. So you mean a larger number of packets?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: You didn't heed what I told you. Again you are
24 jumping with questions and answers without even the least pause. Please.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. So in any case, this had to be sent in several packets, a report
4 of this kind. Well, let's close this topic, if you are unable to tell us
5 approximately how many packets would be required to send off a report like
7 A. No, I cannot give you an approximate number. You would need to
8 count the characters, but definitely it could not be packed into one
9 packet, this entire report. Because -- excuse me. When you look at the
10 report, you cannot look at it like this, it would have to be encrypted.
11 We have spaces here, space between words, two or three spaces. When it's
12 encrypted, the report, if you were to look at it, then it looks more like
13 a series of hieroglyphs with no spaces in between.
14 Q. Yes, yes, I understand. Thank you. Can we move into private
15 session now, please, briefly.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move into private session
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 8376-8377 redacted. Private session
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Who is going next? Mr. Ostojic.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
8 Q. Good morning, Witness. How are you?
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. I have a couple of areas I would like to cover with you so I can
11 understand this process a little better. Can you share with us -- you
12 spoke of this SP 610 programme, and can you explain to me some of the
13 features that that programme had in 1995?
14 A. Yes. SP 610 programme was used for Paket radio, and I already
15 said that ham radio operators had used it before. It features a tape with
16 my code signal. It also features 10 channels, and I could be connected
17 with 10 correspondents. Each of the channels, when you change the
18 channel, there is a round band where I see the signal code of the
19 corresponded with whom I am connected. I can use these to change the
20 channel and then I also have a chat mode through which we can monitor what
21 we call traffic. I can monitor traffic, and in the central window of the
22 monitor, we can chat like we do today on the Internet. We receive
23 information through this so-called chat mode. If there is anything else
24 you wish me to tell you about the software, I can tell you. In other
25 words, I use a modem, this was a VICOM model which contains two integrals
1 since 7041 was one of them.
2 Q. Thank you. That's very helpful. Did the programme have a lock
3 key or a key-lock mechanism to capture the data that you were actually
4 typing in, and that no one can then edit that data? Did it have that type
5 of mechanism?
6 A. The mechanism as such did not exist. Maybe I should try and
7 explain this. I apologise. I don't mean to offend anybody. Your
8 profession, you use words in order to prove things, and we technicians, we
9 do it by our hands. When I type a file, when I type a report in the
10 editor programme, then I process it in the programme or software for
11 encrypting. When I can -- want to connect with the correspond, I call for
12 the encrypted file, and then I send it, all the files in their original
13 forms, the typed forms will remain in the folder system under the year,
14 the month and the date.
15 SP 610 programme sends the encrypted report immediately to the
16 correspondent. I did not have a special mechanism to store the encrypted
17 material. I could only store the original typed forms.
18 Q. That's what I would like to focus on. The original typed forms
19 that remained in the folder system, when you said under the date, month or
20 year, that you captured certain conversations, were you able, subsequent
21 to that, was there a capability, and I'm not suggesting that you did this,
22 sir, but was there a capability to edit those folders, as you call them?
23 A. There was a technical capability. However, when I type a file, I
24 send it immediately to the data processing unit. And what was left in my
25 archives I processed myself in order to make some conclusions. To help
1 myself, I would create my own network in order to be able to compare some
2 things. But the report, by then, has already been sent to the automatic
3 data processing. I did not see the purpose or the goal of anybody to
4 fiddle with the report. Because I've already told you the information
5 that we sent had to be sent in a timely fashion and it had to be reliable,
6 it had to be credible, and this all depended on the speed at which it was
8 Q. And, sir, don't -- I'm asking you this respectfully. Please don't
9 read into my questions. I'm not suggesting that you went back and edited
10 it, but you were one of the commanders of the northern site in 1995,
11 correct? I meant to say southern site, but I said northern. Southern
12 site, if I may correct that. Is that correct, sir?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when we say 1995, I know we talked about intercept in January
15 1995, you were also the commander of that same southern site in July of
16 1995, correct?
17 A. Yes. Up to the moment when I was demobilised I was the commander
18 of my unit.
19 Q. And I think you gave us that date as 1996, but we'll leave as the
20 record. Let me ask you, the same process that you explained during your
21 direct and that was read in your 92 ter statement, did you utilise that
22 statement process in January as you would have in July of 1995? Meaning
23 the same way, you were the only one who was the typist? Is that the way
24 it worked in July as well?
25 A. Yes. You said 1996, I believe it was in the -- in April, on the
1 5th of April, 1996 when I was demobilised. And up to then I did what I
2 did. But the whole unit was transferred to a different location at one
3 point. I continued typing for my own department, and I believe that this
4 was in November 1995 when we were relocated. The same unit, the same
5 people, the same equipment, relocated to another location, but I continued
6 performing the same tasks for my own department as of then.
7 Q. And that's the information we have, November 1995, and then you
8 were ultimately demobilised in April of 1996. I'm not concerned about
9 that so much, what I'm concerned about specifically and you may have
10 answered it, but I want to clarify it for the record. In July of 1995,
11 were you the only one who would actually enter or type this information as
12 you've described it, in the computer, while using the SP 610 programme?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, as the commander of the southern site in July of 1995, can
15 you tell me when the Prosecutor first contacted you to discuss your role
16 with the intercepts or what we've called the intercept project? When were
17 you first contacted to assist and give evidence to this Court?
18 A. On the 20th -- no, before that. I was contacted by phone. On the
19 22nd of February, I believe that this was when I had my first contact on
20 the issues of intercept -- on the issue of intercepted conversations.
21 Q. And help me with this: Not 1996, but actually 2007, correct?
22 That's when they first contacted you, correct? 2007. I know.
23 A. I apologise, I'm sorry. Yes, yes. On the 22nd of February 2007
24 we had our telephone contact on the issue of intercepted conversations. A
25 gentleman from -- I believe he was an investigator, he had contacted me
1 before in order to see whether I would be willing to testify, whether I
2 still remembered certain things. But he didn't mention anything specific
3 about any conversation. This was just an introduction to any future
4 contacts that I would have.
5 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. Now, did you first get contacted
6 by this investigator from the Office of the Prosecutor or did you have
7 this conversation with your friend, and please don't mention his name, who
8 shared with you his diary, I think, as we've called it? Do you know what
9 I'm talking about, which friend and which diary?
10 A. After my initial introductory contact, and before I left to come
12 Q. Did you look through the entire book to see if, in fact,
13 January -- strike that. If, in fact, July 1995 and the work schedule was
14 identified in that diary of this friend of yours that you brought to The
16 A. I would not be honest if I told you that I looked at every single
17 page. But I did look at had this particular part that you're referring
19 Q. I'm referring to July -- January -- I'm referring, sir, to July of
20 1995. Did you look at the work schedule for July of 1995?
21 A. I don't think that I did not look -- I didn't look at July, I -- I
22 mostly dwelled upon January 1995. I didn't pay so much attention to other
23 dates, I focused on January 1995.
24 Q. Well I had an opportunity for about three minutes to look at that
25 logbook, and I tried to scan through to find July 1995, and it -- if we
1 could be kind enough, with the Court's permission and the assistance of
2 the usher, to have the-- give the original diary book to the witness, I
3 have a couple of concrete questions on that. If you don't mind, sir?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: If you have it available, yes. Do you need to refer
5 him to any particular page or...
6 MR. OSTOJIC: It's not numbered, but I think I could direct him to
7 it, I think. If not, I can get it and then give it back to him, if that's
8 okay with --
9 Q. Can you find the approximate page where it starts with May 1995.
10 Could you maybe look through that logbook for me. I said May,
11 specifically for a reason, but maybe you could help us. It's in the
12 middle of the logbook or diary. Or if they give it to me, I could just
13 direct them right to it, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that would be easier, Madam Usher.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Just keep going. Thank you. I apologise. Your
16 Honour, we can maybe place it on the ELMO but then we should not broadcast
17 because it obviously identifies the various operators on certain pages.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: That can be done.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may ask him this question so he can orientate
21 Q. This seems to be about the middle of the book, correct,
22 Mr. Witness? The middle of the diary?
23 A. Somewhat after the middle.
24 Q. Yes, fair enough. On the left-hand side we see that -- can you
25 tell us what date this entry is?
1 A. I don't think I can say it here.
2 Q. I see what seems to be with the red ink 26-05 but I'm not asking
3 you to confirm that. Do you see following that, sir, that there were
4 several pages that were pulled out of the original diary? Do you see that
5 if you look at the original, can you make that -- do you have that
6 understanding as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And if you look, there is one page that's left with almost a
9 quarter inch of the page, but then after that there seems to be an
10 additional several pages, maybe five to 10 pages that were torn out of the
11 book. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you ask your friend why there were pages missing from this
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you have any idea why someone would want to pull out pages out
17 of this diary specifically apparently a period after, I contend, after the
18 26th of May, why they would tear out those pages?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I object to the question. It seems to me that it
21 calls for speculation.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I think -- I think it's a fair question. If he
23 knows the answer, he will give it.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: It also assumed --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: If he doesn't, he's not to speculate. He knows that
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It also assumes a fact that is not in evidence
3 which is whether or not it was actually torn.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: The alternative is pages have fallen out of the --
5 and got lost, deliberately got lost. So let's move.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I have to answer to this because I -- the witness
7 said yes to my question that they were torn out, but in any event.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. Please answer the question.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Sir, do you want me to restate the question, if the Court permits?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.
12 MR. OSTOJIC:
13 Q. We don't want you to speculate. I want to know if you know. Do
14 you have any idea why someone would want to pull out pages out of this
15 diary specifically for the period following the 26th of May, 1995?
16 A. I don't know. If the diary were mine, then I might be able to
17 remember or explain why the pages were pulled out. Since this was not my
18 diary, I can only speculate.
19 Q. And thank you for that, and thank you for helping us at least
20 clarify that issue with respect to the diary.
21 I want to change the subject so I do not need the diary --
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ostojic, can I know what date it is that's
23 appearing after this torn out page.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I can take a look. I didn't actually go through.
25 JUDGE KWON: I would like to see. You can see, no.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: It's blank pages, Your Honour. But I didn't go
2 through each one, but we can do that.
3 JUDGE KWON: No, I leave it to you. Thank you.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll follow up. Thank you, Judge.
5 Q. Can we see what the next date is or the next entry in this diary.
6 Can you find it for us, sir. If you don't mind, quickly, or however you'd
7 like to do it, if you could find the next entry in the diary. Yes.
8 A. The following entry is an electronic scheme of a pre-amplifier, I
9 would say.
10 Q. And I think, although I had a cursory review of the diary, that
11 the balance of the diary book, meaning up to -- starting from this scheme,
12 after that date that I contend is the 26th of May, 1995, there are other
13 schematics or other drawings in connection with the various equipment that
14 may or may not have been used, correct? The rest of the pages, right?
15 A. Can I have a look at the following pages, please?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I see are schemes. Ham
18 operators always do that. We collect schemes. These are all filters, BW
19 52, this is another pre-amplifier. This is the scheme of a pre-amplifier.
20 MR. OSTOJIC:
21 Q. Let me ask you this, going back to this SP 610, and this computer
22 system and the folders that you would send out in the encrypted version.
23 Did you retain a copy of those folders with the typed version of the
24 conversations in your computer that you could personally maintain or what
25 did you do with that after you were demobilised or after you left the
1 southern site in November 1995?
2 A. I apologise, SP 610 is software, it is not a piece of equipment.
3 Up to the moment when I was demobilised, we kept this in our archives and
4 we retained it in PC and once I was demobilised, obviously, this wasn't my
5 personal equipment, I couldn't take anything home, everything was left
6 with the unit.
7 Q. I understand that it is software, sir, but it is maintained in the
8 hard drive of the computer, is it not?
9 A. The archives, yes.
10 Q. What I'm asking you, sir, is did you turn that equipment in which
11 had the software which contained the folders, did you turn it over to
12 anyone in specific, given that you were commander of the southern site,
13 any time after -- any time during November 1995?
14 A. Look here, what I am given as my basic equipment -- obviously I
15 could not be demobilised if I had not returned all those. Only when I
16 returned all the equipment, I could be demobilised, and all that
17 equipment, everything that I had worked on, remained with the unit. I
18 don't know what came of it after I was gone.
19 Q. And, sir, I'm not suggesting anything, and I understand the
20 process. My question is, if we still have this equipment, this computer
21 that may or may not have been retrieved from the southern site, would the
22 material or the folders, as you call them, still be in the computer, saved
23 in some fashion?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think the witness has already answered the
1 question. And he's -- he's said that he doesn't know what happened to it
2 once he left it.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: It might be a slightly different question.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him answer the question.
5 MR. OSTOJIC:
6 Q. Mr. Witness.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: In a way you have already answered this question
8 which was put in a different manner before. However, if you would like to
9 add anything, particularly addressing this particular question that has
10 now been put to you, go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether there is
12 anything else to add, as the gentleman has said this remains in the hard
13 drive. It's normal. I don't know what happened to the files later on.
14 There might have been a virus that entered the hard drive, but this would
15 only be my speculation. What I said stands.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So on the day you left the site and the
17 unit, to your knowledge, this material was still there stored in the
18 computer. Is that -- would that be a correct statement?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, everything was stored in the
20 folders and all this had to remain in the computer.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have any knowledge at all as to what happened
22 to that material stored in that computer after you left? Did you receive
23 any news or any information which could enlighten us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Sir, I'd like to go to another topic related. But I'd, with the
3 Court's permission, to go into private session just to identify a name
4 that was used before?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into previous session, please.
6 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now. Thank you.
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. This individual that we just talked about, how often did you see
3 him in June and July of 1995, whereupon he took the archives to the 2nd
4 Corps? Was it daily, weekly, monthly?
5 A. Look, when I was talking about this gentleman whose name I'm not
6 going to mention again, I didn't say that he was there on that day. And
7 as far as I can remember, the question was not about either that
8 particular day or that particular month. It was just put to me to explain
9 the procedure, and to say what happened to the material and as to your
10 specific question, I can tell you that I saw him during our hand-overs,
11 the change of shifts. And they -- those hand-over of shifts were not the
12 same in the summer and in the winter. For example in the winter, if there
13 was a lot of snow, people would stay on shift for longer time. In the
14 summer this time would be shorter. Sometimes he would come to make
15 rounds, to inspect. Sometimes it would be every day, sometimes not.
16 Q. I'm not so interested in the period when it was snowing. What
17 about in the summertime? Do you recall in June and July of 1995 whether
18 this gentleman would come on a daily basis to your southern site to pick
19 up materials in order to archive them?
20 A. No, not every day.
21 Q. Give me an approximation so we can have a better understanding how
22 often, to the best of your recollection, did he come to retrieve these
24 A. He would be present at every change of shift. But if there were a
25 number of audio recordings and if we were faced with a situation that we
1 would have to start working on the reserve tapes then we would communicate
2 with them and they would come, collect the full tapes and they would bring
3 us new, fresh tapes so that we always had tapes in reserve.
4 Sometimes, if they assessed that they needed to talk to us or take
5 a particular tape which was important in their view, they would come and
6 collect it on the same day. So they would not come to collect the typed
7 conversations but the original tapes.
8 Q. And thank you. I may have misunderstood when you said shift, and
9 you mean shift by whatever that 10 or 12 or 15-day period that your unit
10 was assigned the tasks that you have described earlier, correct? So he
11 would come at the end of your shift, meaning those X amount of days, I
12 think it was 15 or so, that you worked, correct? With the exceptions that
13 you have listed here for us now?
14 A. The shift actually meant the hand-over of duty. When one shift
15 was being relieved by another shift. That was what I meant. The
16 changeover. And I emphasise that one of them would be there definitely
17 but there were also cases when they would come for an inspection. These
18 would be my superior officers who would come for an inspection. It could
19 be every five days or a week, and these spot checks were not something
20 that was announced in advance.
21 Q. I'm familiar with those kind of supervisors. But in any event,
22 can you tell us, sir, because in the area of the military that you worked,
23 in that southern site, was there ever a logbook that would record who
24 would be entering and exiting the southern site? Do you ever maintain
1 A. From what I can remember, at the time, no, because we had security
2 at that location. So all the security matters in relation to the actual
3 facility was something that was in their jurisdiction. They were doing
5 Q. And what was the name of the unit that was providing that security
6 that had the jurisdiction to permit people to enter or exit the southern
7 site in July of 1995? And if you need to go into private session, we can,
8 but I don't know that it's necessarily necessary.
9 A. I think it was called -- the unit, it was a 2nd Corps unit, it was
10 called the unit for security of facilities and persons.
11 Q. Now, going back to this gentleman who was the one retrieving or
12 taking the archives from the southern site, while you were the commander
13 there, did he ever give you a receipt or a document identifying what
14 materials he was taking out of the southern site?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know if there was ever a policy or procedure to have any
17 time you transfer archived material or documents of that sort, to record
18 anywhere what was being given to this individual or any other individuals?
19 A. I don't remember that such records were kept. I really cannot
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness. I have no further questions.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
24 Mr. Bourgon.
25 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
2 Q. Good morning, Witness.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. I need to begin my cross-examination to go back to an issue which
5 was raised by both of my Defence colleagues in order to get further
6 clarification. I refer back to page 40, lines 5 to 6 of the transcript,
7 and that is for the benefit of my colleague. You mentioned that the
8 moment at which you contacted your friend to get the diary, or about the
9 diary, was after the first contact with the investigator, and before
10 leaving for The Hague. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, what I'd like to know is -- my understanding is that there
13 was a second phone interview with the investigator before you came to The
14 Hague. Is that the case?
15 A. On the 22nd of February, 2007.
16 Q. And this would be the second contact, at which point you answered
17 questions to the investigator. Is that correct?
18 A. It was mostly about my personal information, that's what we talked
19 about. My particulars.
20 Q. What I'd like to know, Witness, is whose idea was it in the first
21 place to consult the diary which belongs to your friend? Was that
22 suggested to you by the investigator or did you come up with the idea?
23 For example, I will contact my friend, this way maybe I can sort out
24 whether I was on duty or not on the 19th of January. How did it all come
25 about? Whose idea was it at first?
1 A. In the first conversation I wasn't able to confirm definitely
2 whether I was at the facility then, meaning at specific dates. However,
3 recalling what New Years eve I spent at the facility and which one at
4 home, then I kind of felt that I may have been up there in January. I
5 wasn't able to state the exact dates. And perhaps the colleague also had
6 some sort of documentation. Do you understand? Because at that moment I
7 wasn't able to recall that, yes, on such-and-such date I was there. My
8 memory isn't as good at that. But recalling the New Years eve and some
9 other things, I knew that I was definitely there in January. And my
10 colleague got in touch with me by telephone and said that he had some
11 documents. If I remember correctly, perhaps the investigator asked me if
12 the colleague could have anything, but in any case, I really cannot say.
13 You know, maybe he did have something like a document, something in his
14 home archives.
15 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, I fully understand that January of 1995
16 is a very long time ago, and it is not possible for you to recall
17 everything during that period. However, what I have difficulty
18 understanding is that you are having a conversation with or a telephone
19 interview with an investigator, you cannot recall, you have an idea that
20 you might have been there in January but you can't recall exactly if you
21 are. But then your colleague gives you a call. How did your colleague
22 know that you were into that conversation with that investigator?
23 A. I didn't have an idea that perhaps I was there; I knew I was there
24 for sure. But it was just a matter of dates. As for whether someone else
25 contacted my colleague, I really didn't discuss that with him. He simply
1 gave this notebook.
2 Q. Now, I take it, Witness, that you met with your colleague to -- so
3 that he could hand over this diary to you. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did your friend inform you that he had testified before this
6 Tribunal in the same case?
7 A. When he gave me the diary, it was a very brief meeting, and we
8 didn't discuss that, but from earlier knowledge, I know that he did
9 testify with protective measures, yes.
10 Q. And did your friend ever discuss with you the contents of his
11 testimony, not so much the exact contents, but how this thing -- how
12 testifying before the International Tribunal works? Did he share that
13 with you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And my last question on this topic, with regards to the diary, did
16 your friend inform you or provide you with any information concerning the
17 diary? And I refer now to the questions which were posed to you by my
18 colleague concerning the fact that pages were missing or which period it
20 A. No, no.
21 Q. And did your friend mention to you whether he had shown this diary
22 when he testified or whether he had given it to the investigators of the
23 International Tribunal?
24 A. He didn't tell me that. As to whether he did give it or not, I
25 really don't know. But he himself didn't tell me anything.
1 Q. Now, the diary, I think you still have it with you. And from what
2 I could see when I looked at it during the break, there are a series of
3 pages that are kind of detached that are at the end of the diary. Did
4 your colleague provide you any information with these pages or any
5 guidance, make sure you don't lose them, this is counted? Did he tell you
6 anything about the diary?
7 A. No, no.
8 Q. Thank you. Let me move on to another topic. And I'd like to --
9 you to confirm that the conversation which was shown to you this morning,
10 I'm talking about the intercept, that you yourself were not -- you were
11 not the one who listened or who heard that conversation and who
12 transcribed it. Is that correct?
13 A. I was not the one who recorded the conversation, and who then
14 transcribed by using headphones, the audio recording to paper. This is
15 not something that I did. I was not doing radio surveillance. The person
16 who is monitoring the equipment with headphones, that is not something
17 that was my job. I didn't do that.
18 Q. And can you assist the Trial Chamber today by telling us which of
19 the operators did the actual listening and transcribing?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I -- I think I know what you're going to say. If
21 he -- if you are requesting him to mention a name, we need to go into
22 private session. All right?
23 Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Vanderpuye?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is one of the things I had in mind.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the other?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: The other is for -- if my colleague could be more
2 specific with respect to what period he's talking about or what intercept
3 he's talking about, because the question seems like it could call for a
4 whole list of the roster of operators.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not sure you are correct. I think all along I
6 was thinking he was referring to this particular, but correct me if I'm
8 MR. BOURGON: We're talking about the same intercept,
9 Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought so.
11 MR. BOURGON: And I think maybe that might be a good opportunity
12 to mention that when the Prosecution applied to have this witness testify
13 here, we were informed and the Trial Chamber was informed, that he was
14 about to testify about several intercepts. But there is only one, and
15 that's only the one I'm talking about.
16 Q. Now, sir, let me make that question more precise.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: You still haven't told us whether we should go into
18 private session.
19 MR. BOURGON: Not necessary, because I will change the way I ask
20 the question.
21 Q. Do you know the identity of the exact operator who listened to the
22 conversation and who transcribed it? Do you know who it is exactly?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Without mentioning the name.
24 MR. BOURGON: Without mentioning the name, yes.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot say who it was.
1 It's been a long time since then and I really don't know whether X, Y or Z
2 transcribed a specific conversation. It's been too long. I can say one
3 of those people, but it's not possible to say such-and-such person
4 transcribed it, no.
5 MR. BOURGON:
6 Q. Thank you, Witness. That's what I suspected. That's why we don't
7 need to get into names. But can you also confirm that this conversation
8 in or on specifically 19 January, 1995, that if you are the one who -- who
9 typed the conversation, that it was given to you on a piece of paper,
10 because notebooks were not available at that time. Is that correct?
11 A. It's correct that it was I who typed it from the paper into the
12 computer. But I really cannot say definitely whether it was typed from a
13 piece of paper or from a notebook. That is something that I really cannot
14 do. We used a lot of old archives, papers that were typed on with a
15 typewriter on one side, and then we turned them over and used the blank
16 side to transcribe conversations. So I cannot remember whether it was a
17 piece of paper or a notebook, but I was the one who would type such data
18 from the paper or the notebook into the computer.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, do you remember whether notebooks were available
20 in January of 1995?
21 A. I don't remember that.
22 Q. And with respect to that specific intercept, we're always talking
23 about the same one, my understanding is that you were not shown the -- the
24 handwritten version of this conversation because it is not available
25 today. Is that correct?
1 A. Well, I did have it then when I was typing it, and I hope nobody
2 interprets this the wrong way now, no. At that time, yes, I had to have
3 it in order to type it into the computer, but at this time, no.
4 Q. That was the purpose of my question, at this time. Now, my
5 colleague asked you a question, and I refer here to page 22, lines 3 to 4
6 of the transcript, and the question was as follows: "Did you file a
7 report concerning the status of the equipment on 19 January?" And your
8 answer was "Yes." Do you recall that question?
9 A. Yes, I do remember that, and I think that I also said that such
10 regular reports about the state of the equipment, whether it was
11 operational or not, was something that was sent out every day.
12 Q. Now, my question concerning this specific report of 19 January,
13 that's the question which was posed to you, I suggest that, unless I show
14 you specifically this report today, that you could not remember that on
15 19th of January you filed such a report. Is that correct?
16 A. I'm sorry. Can you please repeat your question?
17 Q. I will. In response to a question by my colleague, you mentioned
18 that you filed a report on the status of the equipment on 19th January,
19 1995. My question is, without seeing such a report with your name on it,
20 you could not tell the Court today that you indeed filed a report on that
21 date. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. The report that would have a date with my signature, then of
23 course I was the one who sent it. To be honest, if it wasn't for that,
24 and if I didn't have the notebook from my colleague, I really wouldn't be
25 able to remember. If you were to ask me now, for example, about October
1 1994, it would be very difficult to say if I was there definitely on a
2 specific date without having some kind of aide such as a dispatch by me or
3 the schedule of shifts, something like that.
4 Q. Thank you, Witness. I would like now if we could have on e-court,
5 both the English version and the B/C/S version, of 2437, that is Alpha in
6 English and B for Bravo in B/C/S. If we can have this in e-court, please.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm only a little concerned about the reference
14 to the names and I'm wondering if we might proceed in private session
15 before the witness answers the question and maybe the references to the
16 specific names could be redacted from the transcript before we do that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.
18 MR. BOURGON: I don't really think it's necessary, but really it's
19 up to the witness whether he feels that this information could allow
20 someone to identify him. I doubt it because there were several operators
21 coming from areas. These are names given to detachments. But if the
22 witness so wishes, I have no problem with redacting the information.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: The problem, Mr. President, is he has been
24 identified as the commander of that unit and there weren't that many.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we don't even need to refer -- refer the
1 matter to the witness. Let's redact lines 4 to 8, please, of this page,
2 page 58.
3 Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. And thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
4 MR. BOURGON: I apologise, Mr. President. I should have been more
6 Q. Now, if we can on the e-court both the Alpha and Bravo side by
7 side, please. Now, my question, Witness, I would like you to look at this
8 intercept, the one on the right side, which is in your language. Can we
9 minimise so that we get the full top part, the full header? Thank you.
10 If you look at this intercept, the way it is there, and my colleague asked
11 you a number of questions concerning information included in this
12 intercept. Now, I suggest to you that if you just look at the intercept,
13 and that is before you remember that on 19 January 1995 you were there.
14 If I just look at this intercept I suggest to you that there is nothing on
15 this intercept that – (redacted)
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just didn't want -- just did want to point out
19 that the -- what I see on my screen, anyway, refers to a different
20 intercept. So I'm not sure if my colleague has noticed that or this is
21 just a different question.
22 MR. BOURGON: To be honest, I'm looking at it and I can't read it
23 because it's too small, but --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: You asked to have it minimised.
25 MR. BOURGON: Yes, Mr. President. English is fine. The B/C/S
1 version, I think, is the wrong one. I was looking for 2437 Bravo.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: That would be on page 3.
3 MR. BOURGON: Oh, yes, because it's a report that includes many
4 intercepts. So if we can go on, the page number is 6615. Yes, this is
5 the right page. And if we can move it up. Thank you.
6 Q. Now, Witness, I refer your attention with that same question on
7 the right side of your screen, and that is the intercept that starts with
8 azimuth 110, and which would be a conversation between someone called
9 Nikolic and someone called Popovic. Now, I repeat my question. (redacted)
13 A. Your Honours, I apologise, I'm not so concentrated because the
14 gentleman probably accidentally spoke of the location where I was, so I've
15 lost my concentration because my identity is in question because I was the
16 only one who was there from the beginning until the end, as a commander.
17 So --
18 Q. I apologise to you, Witness, and we will go into closed session
19 and if we can redact the information, Mr. President. We are looking at
20 lines -- it's at page 60, lines 8 and 9, but it was also mentioned
22 JUDGE KWON: 59, lines 12 and 13. 13.
23 MR. BOURGON: On page 13 [sic], indeed.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So, we need to redact lines 12 and 13. The second
25 half of line 12 and all -- and the entire line 13 on page 59. And then on
1 page 60, lines 8 and 9. And the last two words on lines -- I think I
2 would redact straight away last two words on line 6, on line 6, line 7, 8
3 and 9. And you should put your mind at rest now that we have taken that
4 out. All right.
5 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. If we can go into private
6 session for this question.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session, please.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 8404-8406 redacted. Private session
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MR. BOURGON:
2 Q. So I suggest to you that there is a possibility that this
3 intercept actually involves a third person. Would you agree with me?
4 A. It is possible.
5 Q. And it's also possible that maybe there's a mistake, and Mico is
6 actually Nidjo. Is that another possibility?
7 A. If you are implying that this might be a typo, an M instead of an
8 N, I would not agree with you, and I apologise for that. Then there will
9 be another typo in this letter "Ch."
10 Q. Even if it's not a typo, it's simply that you typed the
11 information that came from you, but it is the actual operator who listened
12 to the conversation, he could have heard Mico when actually it was Nidjo.
13 Is that possible?
14 A. If the operator heard Mico, then he wrote Mico. And if you will
15 allow me, I have an explanation for you.
16 Q. Go ahead.
17 A. For example, my friend, and I'm not going to use my family name,
18 refers to me by a shortened version of my family name, but this is my
20 Q. I understand this, Witness. But we have -- we already established
21 that Mico is not the shortened version or the nickname of either Popovic,
22 Pope, Nikolic, or Nidjo, and you acknowledged that. Is that correct?
23 A. The logic would say yes, but I can't be sure of that.
24 Q. I understand, Witness. Now, if you look at where it says Mico,
25 this line is attributed to N. And N, my understanding, would be Nikolic,
1 based on this intercept, but I can hardly see Nikolic referring to himself
2 and saying Nidjo. So if N was saying Mico, it means that there's actually
3 someone else, called Mico, in that conversation. Is that correct?
4 A. If you are saying that there was a third person involved, then no.
5 But it could be a third person that was referred to in the conversation.
6 It is correct when you say that when Nikolic speaks he is not going to
7 refer to himself as -- by this nickname. But there is a possibility that
8 Mr. Popovic also has a nickname, and that you don't know.
9 Q. But you don't know that either, and actually you cannot really
10 assist the Court today with any of the contents of this intercept. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. I believe that I have already answered that question. There could
13 not have been a third person involved directly in that conversation. It
14 is only possible that a third person was referred to in the conversation.
15 I can only speculate that Mr. Popovic might have a nickname, but it's only
16 speculation. I can't go into that, I'm not sure of that.
17 Q. This is exactly my point. This is speculation, and you cannot
18 tell anything about exactly what is going on in that intercept, because
19 what you did is you typed it and you had no involvement whatsoever in
20 listening to the intercept. Is that correct?
21 A. It is correct that I did not have headphones on my head, and that
22 I was not sitting at the equipment. I was not involved in the transfer of
23 the audio recording on to the paper. I've already said that a number of
24 times here. But here, this person N, and the key word Mico, in the next
25 line it is P, which means that the person called Popovic says, "Okay, go
1 ahead. Tell me." These are the facts of this conversation.
2 Look here, I apologise, maybe my words and my vocabulary is not as
3 rich as yours but I'm trying hard. Here you have the person N using the
4 key word Mico and the next word is, "Go on, say" uttered by P. So this
5 person P, in -- understands this as person N addresses him. I don't know
6 whether you understand me when I'm saying this.
7 Q. What I understand, Witness, is that this is all speculation on
8 your part and you don't know really what happened in that intercept?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move on. We've got enough on this,
10 Mr. Bourgon.
11 MR. BOURGON:
12 Q. My last question to you, Witness, is that you mentioned in
13 response to a question which was posed to you by my colleague that
14 whenever an intercept operator did not understand a word he would consult
15 with his colleagues. Were you ever involved yourself in this guessing
16 game, or the game of -- of helping another intercept operator in finding
17 out what was heard on a tape? Were you ever yourself involved?
18 A. Sir, I apologise. I would not call this a guessing game, and I
19 apologise once again to you and to everybody here in the courtroom. War
20 is no game for anybody. I apologise once again, and I would not accept
21 your question in that particular form. I would not use the words guessing
22 game. People behaved in keeping with the rules and this is no game.
23 However, I believe I understood your question.
24 Quite a number of times I would be called if the operator did not
25 understand a word and I would try to help them, and there is no harm in
1 that. They are my subordinates and I would be there to help them to try
2 to understand what they couldn't understand. Would that be an answer to
3 your question? Are you satisfied? With the proviso that I'm not happy
4 with the term that you used, the guessing game.
5 Q. I apologise if I used word "guessing game" because my intention
6 was to use the word that if an operator did not understand, he had to
7 consult his colleagues. And my question was very simple, whether you were
8 involved in finding out what the word that the intercept operator could
9 not understand. My question to you --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: He has answer it. Let's move--
11 MR. BOURGON:
12 Q. And you have answered that question. What I would like to know,
13 is when you typed the conversation, any conversation, did you ever go back
14 to the operator and say, "Listen, this conversation doesn't make sense.
15 You must have heard wrong." Did you ever do that?
16 A. Look, nobody's perfect. We all speak in different ways, we use
17 wrong cases, wrong tenses. We make mistakes when we speak, and when I
18 read these, I can't be sure whether the person speaking made a mistake in
19 their speech or what. There's no way for us to know whether it was the
20 operator who made the mistake or whether it was the feature of the speech
21 of the person who -- who spoke at the time. And you know that this
22 happens. Nobody is perfect. And there is nobody in this world who has
23 not used a word incorrectly. That's why we would listen to a conversation
24 over and over again, if we had doubts about the accuracy of the
25 transcript. And I apologise for taking up a lot of your time.
1 For example, if I use a word incorrectly, then even my son will
2 correct me and say, "You have used a wrong word." I'm trying to explain
3 things to you. And I can answer that, yes, we did listen and relisten to
4 the tapes, and I don't think that it is a mistake to listen to things over
5 and over again. This is what I was trained to do when I was in the JNA,
6 and we did that quite often.
7 Q. Witness, I don't want to interrupt you and I thank you for this
8 answer because that's exactly what I was trying to establish. And that
9 was my last question, but I would just like to have a yes or a no. Once
10 you had that piece of paper and you typed it, you typed whatever was on
11 that piece of paper, and you did not go back to the operator. Can you
12 please answer yes or no, if that is correct?
13 A. Your Honours, my answer to the previous question and to the second
14 question cannot be either yes or no. I would like to say that I did not
15 check every piece of paper. However, if there was something illogical in
16 that conversation or looked like a mistake or an error to me, then I would
17 go and check that piece of paper with the operator. So I can't just
18 answer by saying yes or no.
19 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Bourgon, before we break, if you could give me
21 the transcript page number in which you said that there is a reference to
22 the second typist in addition to this witness who typed into computer.
23 MR. BOURGON: Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: I was unable to find it.
25 MR. BOURGON: We need to go into closed session.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's go into private session.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Kwon is only asking for the transcript line or
4 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. We will have a break now of
1 25 minutes.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon has finished. So the Borovcanin
5 team, Mr. Lazarevic.
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We decided not to
7 cross-examine the witness.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
9 Madam Fauveau for General Miletic.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
11 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to clarify one thing with regard to
12 the journal that you received from your colleague, and Your Honour, I
13 think it might be best to be in private session for this series of
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We can do that straight away. Let's go into private
16 session, please.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 8415-8418 redacted. Private session
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Madam Fauveau.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
21 Q. Is it true that the unit to which you belonged also dealt with
22 jamming of conversations?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And within your unit there was a person who was specifically in
25 charge of jamming, or were the operators who intercepted the conversations
1 also in charge of jamming or scrambling?
2 A. Not the operators who were in charge of interception. Not them.
3 Q. Therefore, there was a person who was specifically responsible for
4 jamming conversations. Is that correct?
5 A. Look, these conversations that we recorded from the RRU-1, and the
6 RRU-800, we did not jam, because simply then we would be in the situation
7 of jamming our source of information, but as part of the anti-electronic
8 warfare activities of the 2nd Corps, there was a unit for anti-electronic
9 activities. They were scramblers who did not only jam or disrupt enemy
10 conversations, they also formed fake radio networks and spread
11 misinformation so that the anti-electronic warfare of the other side would
12 receive false, incorrect information and so on. That was a special,
13 separate unit that, as part of the Anti-Electronic Warfare Unit, that was
14 doing that kind of work.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness
16 Exhibit 5D198, and I'm sorry, I can't understand why though we introduced
17 this exhibit into the system more than 48 hours ago, it still doesn't seem
18 to be in there.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We found it, so I don't know what the problem is,
20 but I'm sure Madam Usher will do her best. And, in fact, on the screen
21 now, I do see the previous one on e-court. So it was found.
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And I would like to request that
23 exhibit not be broadcast.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that, Madam Fauveau.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Is it true that this report has to do with scrambling of
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not sure that we have the --
4 JUDGE KWON: It's the one on the ELMO.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think that the one on the ELMO is the same
6 one as we have in e-court.
7 JUDGE KWON: That's the previous one.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: That's still the previous one.
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is that document, and I don't
11 understand why it isn't in the system, because we did put it into the
12 system more than 48 hours ago.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: 198, 5D198. Let's proceed on the basis of the ELMO
14 because we didn't find it either. Without broadcasting it, yeah. Thank
16 Go ahead. Sorry, Madam Fauveau, for that interruption, but it was
18 The question to you, Witness, is, is it true that this report that
19 you have next to you there on the ELMO deals with scrambling of
20 conversations? And we haven't got your answer as yet.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This report states that I sent
22 out information, and I was given the task of installing a mini Kobac
23 device, which could operate in that range, and I submitted a report about
24 what I did, and my conclusions. And it states here that all this was done
25 in order to check whether jamming can be done, and I did that, and then
1 five minutes later the signal on this frequency disappeared, which is
2 normal, that the other side would protect its connection.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And is it true that the frequencies that you tried to jam during
5 this trial that you were carrying out, were done with apparatus known as
7 A. Sorry, but I think that earlier in my testimony today I have
8 already said that we did not -- I mean, if my interpretation was correct,
9 we were not catching the frequencies from the RRU-1. We did not have such
10 a device to catch those frequencies. We were monitoring their RRU-1
12 Q. It is surely my technical skills that are not sufficient, but what
13 I would like to ask is whether the frequencies that you were trying to jam
14 and this report deals with are, in fact, frequencies you were monitoring
15 and recording with the help of an apparatus, RRU-1?
16 A. Yes, with this frequency 258.275, 258 megahertz and 275 kilohertz,
17 it means that that is the frequency within the range of an RRU radio relay
19 Q. You were speaking earlier of the daily reports that you would
20 send, namely on the condition of equipment and the equipment that you
21 needed. Did you send those reports on a daily basis, once a day, or did
22 you simply send them whenever it was necessary?
23 A. Once a day.
24 Q. And in those daily reports, did you note down other information,
25 all the relevant information relating to the important events of the day?
1 A. No. The reports that I sent out once a day, if we focus on
2 reports on the operational state of the technical equipment, the devices,
3 the antennas that we used in our work, those reports were sent once a day.
4 But that sort of report is not the same as this kind of report. In the
5 other reports there was a list of all the equipment, and then there was a
6 column saying whether they were working properly or not, there were
7 remarks relating to absences, if anyone was away due to illness, something
8 like that. And then there were also remarks, what was needed in the
9 coming period, so that when they came for the hand-over of duty, they
10 could also prepare equipment, cables, food, medicines, and bring them.
11 That kind of thing.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau any time we don't need to stay in
13 private session, please let us know. Oh, we are in open session. Okay,
14 all right. We have reverted. Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry for that.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. And in the daily reports, and I'm no longer referring at all to
17 the report that you have before you, but in the daily reports that you
18 would send, did you note down the frequencies on which you recorded
19 conversations during the day?
20 A. I apologise, the reports on equipment, as far as I can remember,
21 this is not where I recorded any frequencies. However, on the reports of
22 the intercepted conversations on radio equipment, this is where I entered
23 the workstation, the frequency and the equipment on which the
24 conversations were recorded.
25 Q. And with regard to the jamming, were there specific reports on the
1 frequencies that you tried to jam and those that you were able to jam? Or
2 was this written down in your daily reports?
3 A. No. I believe that we're talking at cross purposes here. The
4 report, that I have in front of me, is an attempt to see whether this mini
5 Kobac equipment can also do jamming. My department was not in charge of
6 any jamming. This is just -- there was an order that I received to try
7 and submit a report, based on which they could act. They could either
8 purchase the equipment or transfer the whole thing to the jamming unit.
9 This is just to provide an overview of the situation and see what results
10 may be achieved. This was not a specific task that my department ever
12 Q. When you receive orders from your superiors, do you -- did you
13 receive those orders by radio, by computer, or in printed form?
14 A. Well, you see, there were orders that I received through the Paket
15 radio communication in this particular form, but there were also orders
16 that I received on paper, as well as orders that I received verbally, but
17 not via the Paket radio. But when we handed over our duty, when there was
18 a shift change, then the commander would provide us with instructions,
19 suggestions and orders as to how to proceed on a certain task. I
20 preferred orders in written form, because they were best for me, although
21 it was not always possible to issue written orders. But very often I
22 received some instructions or guidance as to how to do things over the
23 Paket radio.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues]... orders recorded in a logbook
25 or some form of register when you received them?
1 A. As far as I can remember, no. Everything that was received
2 through Paket radio, I believe that I've already told you that I had
3 everything archived, everything that I received from my superiors.
4 Q. And with regard to the orders that you had to give to your
5 subordinates, did you print out those orders or did you communicate the
6 information to them verbally only?
7 A. Verbally. We were all there in the same room. I don't know
8 whether this suffices by way of explanation. We were in the same room, I
9 would read the order out if I received it from the automatic data
10 processing that collected information from everybody else, not only from
11 us. And then they would be privy of some other information or they would
12 know something we didn't know. They would suggest to us what we should
13 do. Or for example, if they could not follow a frequency in a different
14 location, then they would send us information or issue an order to us to
15 see whether we can follow that frequency, what the signal quality and
16 strength was, and then I would communicate that to my men. We would never
17 communicate in writing, we would only communicate verbally from one desk
18 to another.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness
20 Exhibit P2437B but it might be better easier to give him the hard copy
21 because I'd like him to look through all the pages.
22 Q. In the meantime, is it true you said in your statement that you
23 would you write down your name on the reports that you would send? On
24 page 2, paragraph 7, for the transcript.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Witness, would you please look at this report and tell me how come
2 this report does not show your name anywhere?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It must not be broadcast, obviously, because there
4 is the name of the site.
5 Witness, please take the document in your hands, flip -- flip
6 through it and see if you're in a position to answer Madam Fauveau's
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our regular daily reports, this is
9 where I put my signature. I did not sign these other reports because it
10 was implied that I was the one who was sending them. And then those
11 people at the automatic data processing would look at the date and they
12 would know that the reports came from me. In the Paket radio
13 communication, I had my signal code that changed every day and based on
14 that code they would know that that report had arrived from my location.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What you have just said with regard to those reports containing
17 the intercepted conversations, is it valid as well for -- it's valid as
18 well for the other reports that you did sign. Is that true?
19 A. Your Honours, I apologise, I'm not exactly clear on the question.
20 I don't understand the question.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: The question, I'll rephrase it. If, as you say, the
22 command knew your call sign and the code which changed on a daily basis,
23 why was it necessary to sign some documents and not sign others? Because
24 had you decided not to sign any of them, they would have deciphered the
25 source of the information as being you in any case. I don't know if that
1 made it clearer or not.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my regular reports on equipment,
3 I always put my name. I really don't remember what the practice was in
4 the other reports. And I really can't remember why I didn't sign these
5 reports, these documents. I really can't remember now.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, I mean to stay on the question. Had you not
7 signed those reports, would the command have identified you as the source
8 of those reports? Or wouldn't they have been able to do that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The command -- the command could
10 identify everything based on my sign code. Let me go back to the Paket
11 radio communication. I changed my sign code every day, the command did
12 the same. We did it every day according to the plan of work, and this is
13 something that is applicable to all -- all the military, everywhere in the
14 world. And we also changed the code for the encryption of that particular
15 report. If I were to put my own code, that was in the plan of work. And
16 the command put a different code, then the encrypted signal could not have
17 been decrypted. On the basis of that and on the basis of the code sign,
18 they would immediately know where the report came from.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. I take it that the Gvero and
22 Pandurevic Defence teams do not wish to cross-examine the witness. Is
23 that correct, Mr. Krgovic?
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Microphone not activated] We have no question for
25 this witness.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Haynes?
2 MR. HAYNES: Your Honour, yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So, is there re-examination?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there is no re-examination. I'm not sure if
5 I understood Mr. Haynes. Yes --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Means --
7 MR. HAYNES: It was in the response to the question, "Is that
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, there is no re-examination at all.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So, Witness, we don't have any further
11 questions for you. That means that your testimony finishes here, ends
12 here. Our staff will assist you. On behalf of the Tribunal and my
13 colleague, I would like to thank you for having come over and also wish
14 you a safe journey back home.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Very quickly, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. We would offer -- well,
21 first there is a pseudonym sheet, there is the intercept. Okay. Yes. We
22 are offering the intercept. Because it's part of a report, I would ask
23 that you would consider accepting it under seal. I know it would be
24 marked for identification in any event. And that is identified as P02437A
25 and B.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Witness statement, I think I've previously
3 referred to.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: P02463.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's it.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections? We hear none. Of course the
7 intercept --
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Are there any objections on the part of the Defence?
12 Yes, Madam Nikolic.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As far as P02946
14 document is concerned, that's the pseudonym sheet, we don't have any
15 objections and we don't have any objections to the statement. But the
16 supplement to this statement which belongs to another witness, this was
17 not compiled by the witness that we heard today. And we are talking about
18 shift duties for the month of January, 1995. We object to that because we
19 believe that this document was not disclosed in a timely fashion, it does
20 not bear the 65 ter number, and it was not the subject of the application
21 for the submission of this document according to the Rule 65.
22 Further on, the Defence intends to invite the owner of the
23 notebook again. Today the entire notebook was disclosed, and that's why
24 we intend to recall the witness and examine him on the contents of the
25 notebook. If the witness had been examined on the notebook, then we could
1 be talking about the criteria of relevance and reliability as well as the
2 credibility of the document and its relevance for this case.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have to leave it there because we have
4 overstepped our time limit. We will take this up again tomorrow and
5 finish because I suppose there are also documents that the Defence teams
6 wish to tender and I wouldn't like to take more of the other Chamber's
7 time. So we will come to this tomorrow morning.
8 Thank you so much. Have a nice afternoon and evening.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of March,
11 2007, at 9.00 a.m.