1 Thursday, 8 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Good morning, everybody. Madam Registrar,
6 could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. All the accused are here. Defence
10 teams are all here with the exception of Ms. Condon who is sick.
11 Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. So good morning once
13 There are a few matters that we'd like to address. Then after
14 that we will continue with the exhibits process that we left -- we
15 interrupted yesterday. And then after the first break, we'll hand down
16 our decision on some of the issues that were raised yesterday, in
17 particular, in relation to these exhibits, but also other matters.
18 So you would be aware that yesterday the Prosecution filed a
19 motion for protective measures for Witness number 86. You would be aware
20 also that this witness is due to testify immediately after the next two.
21 It's our decision to raise this matter now to see whether there is any
22 response on the part of the Defence teams, whether there is any objection
23 to the granting of these protective measures so that if there are none we
24 can decide the same. Yes, I see that there are none.
25 So the Trial Chamber is seized with the Prosecution motion for
1 protective measures for Witness 86, filed on the 7th of March 2007. It
2 makes reference to the details contained therein, and the request of the
3 Prosecution to have in place protective measures of pseudonym and facial
4 distortion. There being no objection and since the Trial Chamber is
5 convinced of the -- considers this request justified, motion is granted.
6 Then there is a confidential Prosecution motion for leave to
7 convert one 92 bis intercept operator witness to 92 ter witness, which was
8 filed on the 5th of March. This relates to Witness number 75, who is the
9 next one, I understand, to give evidence. There are two issues that I
10 would like to raise. The first one obviously is whether there is any
11 objection from the Defence teams to the conversion of this witness to a 92
12 ter witness. And the second thing is more or less related first to the
13 Prosecution, but we'll still need to know what the position of the Defence
14 team is.
15 You have not really asked for the continuation of the protective
16 measures assigned to this witness in Blagojevic, or for new -- or for new
17 protective measures to be put in place. I mean this has been verified
18 because we do verify with each and every witness, especially those who
19 have already testified in other proceedings. So let's start with the
20 first one.
21 Is there any objection on the part of any of the Defence teams to
22 the conversion of this witness to a 92 ter? There are none. So that part
23 of the motion -- that motion is granted. And I don't need to go into the
24 details of the motion. It's a motion that was filed on the 5th of March.
25 Do I take it also that you are requesting for the protective
1 measures granted in Blagojevic to remain in place, or are you seeking
2 additional protective measures for this witness?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, good morning. Yes, we would
4 request the -- the Blagojevic protections remain in place.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Are there any objections
6 on the part of any of the Defence teams? We hear none. So the same
7 protective measures will remain in place. Thank you.
8 There is also a Prosecution motion which was filed three days ago
9 on the 5th of March, for leave to supplement the 65 ter list of exhibits
10 for two exhibits from Witness 154's prior testimony. This motion concerns
11 Witness number 154, who will be not the next one, the one after, and who
12 could actually start testifying today.
13 Is there any objection on any of the Defence teams to have these
14 two exhibits included in the 65 ter list? We hear none. So that motion
15 is also granted. And again, I don't need to refer to the substance or to
16 the relevant parts of the motion, it's granted in toto.
17 Finally you will recall that in the course of last week I had, on
18 behalf of the Trial Chamber, invited you to further your consultations,
19 particularly Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Haynes, who had stood up to deal with
20 this matter in relation to the confidential Prosecution submission or
21 motion to convert 12 viva voce witnesses to 92 ter witnesses. I don't
22 think I need to repeat what the substance of the debate was at the time.
23 I had the undertaking of both sides that you will take your time to
24 discuss this further and possibly come back with a solution to offer to
25 the Trial Chamber, failing which we will proceed to decide the matter.
1 Not today, obviously, because we are not prepared to give our decision
3 So, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. On that issue, Mr. Haynes
5 invited us for three witnesses to do viva voce. We agreed with him on
6 one, and denied -- turned down his invitation on the other two. Given a
7 moment, I can give you the witness number that we -- we agreed on, but of
8 course it was all per -- you know, subject to your final ruling, but I --
9 we can -- I'm reminded by my colleague, it's 108 was the one that we...
10 JUDGE AGIUS: You agreed upon.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We agreed to go viva voce with.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: 108, that is the witness number?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: You had agreed also here in open court about
15 Peccerelli, in other words, I had Mr. Haynes speaking, I assume, on behalf
16 of everyone that there was no objection as far as Peccerelli was
17 concerned. Yes, Mr. Haynes.
18 MR. HAYNES: The only two witnesses that we are left unagreed
19 upon, if that's even a word, are, I think, 117 and 132. And to cut the
20 matter short now, there is likely to be an issue you're going to have to
21 decide there because, as I said to you when I introduced the discussion,
22 there is a point of principle about this. And I can set that out briefly
23 in writing during the course of today if you would like me to or we can
24 argue it orally at some stage.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I would prefer to have -- I mean arguing it
1 orally will take more of our court time, so if it's not much work for you,
2 we would appreciate to have it in writing.
3 MR. HAYNES: I will undertake to get something to you by the end
4 of the week.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you so much. If, however, any of these
6 witnesses are due to testify Monday -- all right. Because in that case at
7 least we would argue -- try to -- try to get some kind of feedback on that
8 particular witness. But I see from the Prosecution side that that's not
9 the case. So we may safely proceed. And I thank you so much, first, for
10 your efforts, all of you, to try to reach this agreement. The Trial
11 Chamber is always appreciative of this. And we will await your -- your
12 filing, to which we will give you one day, Mr. McCloskey, then to respond.
13 So that by Monday morning -- by Monday we would have -- we would be in a
14 position to start discussing amongst ourselves.
15 The last thing is, Mr. Zivanovic. Mr. Zivanovic, good morning.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning. Good morning, Your
18 JUDGE AGIUS: You may be seated, please.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You have informally approached the Chamber,
21 intimating that your client would like to be exempted from attending this
22 Friday's sitting for reasons that you have very aptly described. We have
23 considered that. You don't need to formalise it. However, we would like
24 to have a written waiver signed by your client according to the procedure
25 that is normal and to which you would be familiar. So otherwise,
1 Mr. Popovic can stay away on Friday, provided we have this undertaking and
2 waiver. All right.
3 So I think we can safely start, and then we'll come back to you on
4 the various issues that were raised yesterday by -- by some of you.
5 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one matter I wanted to raise that I hope will
7 save us a little time. You were -- you are aware of the next witness and
8 his testimony in the Blagojevic case. He basically speaks of two
9 exhibits. One a notebook of intercept -- of tactical intercepts that was
10 done by him in his little unit where he was near Nezuk, and one stack of
11 papers of intercepts that was done by his unit down closer towards
13 In reviewing those materials, I have made the decision that the
14 papers, the pile of papers, is not something I will be asking the Court to
15 take any evidence or acts or conduct of any accused on. There are some
16 vague references that could be considered acts or conduct, but given
17 the -- just it's unnecessary for the Prosecution to take that evidence in
18 that way. I will not be offering any acts or conduct evidence from that
19 material, and as you know, my burden for the acts of conduct evidence is
20 greater, pursuant to your -- your ruling. So I have told that to Defence
21 counsel, and those papers are here and are part of the former record, and
22 available for the Court, but I am not asking any acts or conduct evidence
23 from any of that material.
24 As for the notebook for the other material, that principally goes
25 to the acts or conduct of -- of General Pandurevic, which Mr. Haynes and I
1 will be debating perhaps some issues, but you will see how that folds out.
2 But that's just the background of -- I am not aware of any other acts or
3 conduct in that material from other accused, though there are lots of
4 code-names that I am not at this time aware of who they are. That may pop
5 up later on, but I don't think so. So at this point, just for your
6 knowledge, the notebook will go to acts or conducts of General Pandurevic.
7 Also, and I'm sure you are aware of this, there will be witnesses
8 in the future that will be speaking directly to these intercepts, people
9 that were actually involved in these intercepts as a participant or
10 overheard them. That's true of both these tacticals, as well as the
11 others. But having said that, I don't think we need to wait until the end
12 for you to make any ruling on these intercepts, but just as you -- as you
13 see these tacticals, I -- there will be other evidence about them, because
14 they are, as I said before, a bit of a different animal, as you will see.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: As you know, we handed down an order yesterday in
16 relation to intercepts. We think it is of the utmost importance for the
17 Defence teams in particular to know what our position is in relation to
18 intercepts, because I can't -- we are -- we strongly feel that no Defence
19 team should be put in a position where they have to start their defence
20 without knowing exactly where they stand in relation to intercepts.
21 So irrespective of when you plan to bring forward these witnesses,
22 we will be proceeding with the exercise that we intimated we will be --
23 one thing, Mr. McCloskey. I mean -- and can I refer you to line 11 of
24 page 6, please? I will not read it again. There is the mention of a
25 place there where this next witness was supposed to be working. Do you
1 wish to redact that or not?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I -- I used the term "near" because it's actually
3 another place. And I thought that that would be okay in this situation.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Fine, okay.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's a difficult issue. I -- I have edited
6 another -- I edited my summary a bit because yesterday we had people in
7 the audience, and I will read again that edited version to try to make it
8 the safest possible. In fact, I've referred to the -- can we go into
9 private session for just one second.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means. Let's go into private session,
12 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr, Bourgon.
7 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
8 Honours. Good morning, counsel.
9 Mr. President, you just made reference to the order that issued by
10 the Trial Chamber concerning the intercept evidence. And there is one
11 issue I'd like to bring. I don't know if this is the proper time or not,
12 but in the order issued by the Trial Chamber at paragraph 1, the
13 Prosecution is being asked to file a written submission highlighting the
14 prima facie relevance of each tendered intercepted communication. We
15 feel, and of course I speak for this team only at this time, not having
16 consulted with my colleagues yet, we feel that this is very important
17 indeed, that the Prosecution gives the prima facie relevance of each
18 intercept and that they go further than saying this intercept is relevant
19 to all counts in the indictment. This will greatly facilitate our
20 position in order to be able -- for us to answer and respond and then get
21 meaningful debate out of this intercept issue. Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
23 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we understand the order and look forward to
25 meeting it in detail.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And then if it's not satisfactory to any
2 of the Defence teams, of course we will be prepared to hear any
3 submissions, to receive any submissions that you may have.
4 So let me go back one moment.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We were about to -- we had finished with your list,
7 of course with the caveat that we would be deciding on the remaining
8 issue, and then we were supposed to deal with the other request to tender
9 documents. I think we should start with you, Mr. Ostojic.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, Mr. Bourgon, I got the
13 impression yesterday that you had finished with the tendering process. Or
14 do you have -- do you have anything else.
15 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President. When the session closed
16 yesterday, I was absent, but my colleague raised the issue. The issue
17 that was being debated was whether the statement P2463 should be admitted
18 in evidence. And debate closed where we ran out of time and we did not
19 get a chance to fully argue the matter. And our position is that the
20 statement can go into evidence, but not the date report which accompanied
21 that statement.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic did deal with that in your absence.
23 MR. BOURGON: It is because in the transcript it's not -- the
24 matter wasn't completed and then we stopped the hearing yesterday.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to hear more.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If there is any new submission you would like to
3 make, yes, go ahead. But I think we've heard enough.
4 MR. BOURGON: Well, the -- based on yesterday's transcript, there
5 was the issue of the statement. And we oppose the fact that the date
6 report should not accompany that statement. But then I take it that my --
7 I'm not sure if my colleague was finished with his list and whether he
8 wanted to get into evidence the -- the report on the equipment, whether he
9 was going to submit a request for the report on the equipment, which is
10 another thing that we also want to oppose if my colleague wants to put
11 that order for the equipment in evidence.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think so. I thank you, Mr. Bourgon. But I
13 think Mr. Vanderpuye yesterday was quite clear that he was not including
14 this -- or that document in the list of documents he wished to tender, the
15 Prosecution wished to tender.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So that matter is moot.
18 Mr. Ostojic.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: We're tendering no exhibits, Your Honour, with
20 respect to the last witness.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
22 Does any other of the Defence teams wish to tender exhibits?
23 Madam Fauveau.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, document 5D198, that
25 must remain under seal because it reveals the name of the witness and for
1 the time being is not yet translated into English, we only have the B/C/S
2 version for the time being.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You also made use of 199. Do you wish to tender
4 that as well?
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection from the Prosecution or from any of
7 the other Defence teams? Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
9 Honours. No, we don't have any objection.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So this is being admitted, marked for
11 identification purposes, pending the finalisation of the translation
12 process. All right.
13 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry to come back on
15 the issue of this date book, which comes from another witness, but there
16 is, as was made clear before the Trial Chamber yesterday, the full date
17 book was shown to us at the break, just before we completed our
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's correct.
20 MR. BOURGON: We would like this date book to be disclosed to us
21 and we believe that it includes some information that would be very
22 important for our case. Moreover, there is a possibility that we will ask
23 for further cross-examination of the witness who -- to whom this book
24 belongs, which was a witness that testified here and that never made
25 reference to this book at that time. Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll come to that when we are seized with the
2 matter, and in the meantime, Mr. McCloskey, do you wish to indicate
3 whether you are disclosing that book.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: That book was provided to them yesterday to get a
5 good look at it. Ms. Nikolic asked me this morning if we could get a copy
6 of it and we're seeing if we can do that before it flies away. But I'm
7 sure we'll be able to work that out.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
9 So any further preliminary matters that you would like to discuss
10 or to debate? None. So I think we can bring in Witness number 75.
11 [The witness entered court].
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Before the witness starts, don't put his earphones
13 on for the time being. Ask him to sit down. Please make yourself
15 There is one further issue that I forgot to mention when I was
16 dealing with this witness. Even though you referred to the subject matter
17 thereof. You referred during your intervention to the tactical intercept
18 notebooks. These documents were, if you go back to our decision of the
19 12th September of last year, we had marked these for identification
20 purposes. This was our decision on Rule 92 bis statements.
21 We have tried to match these documents with your 65 ter list of
22 exhibits, which you submitted earlier on that year, on the 28th of April.
23 And we may be wrong, we stand to be corrected, I mean we make mistakes
24 every day, like you -- like the rest of us. But if they are not, and
25 please check, you will need to address this in order to conform with the
1 procedure that we have established. Unless there is no objection on the
2 part of the Defence teams, and we can then proceed.
3 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I have a number. I think it's correct, but
5 we'll check on it to make sure that that's not a problem.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I'm sorry to be so finicky, but I think
7 we need to be.
8 So, good morning to you, sir.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. Before you start
11 giving evidence, Madam Usher is going to hand you a piece of paper, that
12 contains the text of a solemn declaration that you will be testifying the
13 truth which you are required to make before you start your testimony. So
14 please stand up, read it out aloud, and that will be your solemn
15 undertaking with us.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
17 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
18 WITNESS: WITNESS PW-122
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
21 We have put in place for you two protective measures, namely the
22 use of a pseudonym. You will be referred to as -- by a number rather than
23 by your name. And also we are distorting the image of your face, so no
24 one can recognise you. Is that to your satisfaction?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: So Mr. McCloskey will go first, and he will then be
2 followed by the members of the Defence teams.
3 Mr. McCloskey. Thank you.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Examination by Mr. McCloskey:
6 Q. Good morning, Witness. If you could first take a look at this
7 paper which we parked P02464 and tell us, is that you?
8 A. Good morning. Yes.
9 Q. And have you recently had a chance to hear your testimony from a
10 previous trial?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And was it correct, to the best of your knowledge and memory?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And if you were asked those same questions again, would
15 your answers basically be the same?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to read a brief summary of that testimony,
18 pursuant to the system I've told you about.
19 The witness was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina and grew up in a
20 town near Sapna in Eastern Bosnia. He went to secondary school and
21 graduated in the field of electronics. In 1989 he did his mandatory
22 service with the JNA and was trained as a radio telegraph operator.
23 When the war broke out in 1992 he joined the Territorial Defence
24 and worked in communications jobs, repairing and maintaining
25 communications equipment. As the war continued he worked as a member of
1 the BiH and was involved in monitoring and intercepting radio
3 Could we go into private session for the next couple of
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. McCloskey.
6 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: The enemy frequencies were scanned, and when a
7 frequency was found containing communication, an operator from his unit
8 would transcribe in summary fashion the intercepted conversation on a
9 piece of paper, as it was occurring. The conversation was not written
10 down verbatim. The operator would write quickly to keep up with the
11 conversation and use abbreviations to assist in the process. The
12 conversations were not tape-recorded in July 1995.
13 The operator would give the paper with the conversation on it to
14 the witness and he would pass the information on up the chain via military
15 telephone. At the end of the day, most of the conversations from the
16 pieces of paper were copied into a notebook by one of the operators and
17 the paper was normally destroyed.
18 The witness kept one notebook containing intercepted conversations
19 from the period around the fall of Srebrenica enclave, which was used in
20 the site one location. And a stack of notes of conversations from the
21 site two location. The piece of paper from site two were pieces of paper
22 that the operators transcribed the conversations on.
23 The witness was asked to comment on an intercept from the notebook
24 from site one on page 7 of the English translation from 14 July, ERN
25 number 0084-8952 from the original B/C/S text.
1 The witness said he remembered this conversation because it was
2 inconceivable to him that a road was being built at this time during the
3 war. The witness identified the handwriting of one of his -- of one of
4 the operators and named that operator.
5 After the war, the witness attempted to provide the notebook and
6 the notes mentioned in his testimony to the BiH for archiving purposes,
7 but the documents were not accepted by the BiH soldiers doing the archival
8 work. Based on a request several years ago from the OTP, the witness
9 searched for other tactical intercept records, but was unable to find any
10 remaining records.
11 That concludes the summary.
12 Q. Now, can I ask you, when you were working in July, did you have a
13 military rank?
14 A. I didn't.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's redact these last few words. Go
18 into private session straight away.
19 [Private session]
11 Page 8449 redacted. Private session
13 [Open session]
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. I would just now like to ask you a few questions about what I
16 referred to in the summary as this notebook that was taken from site one.
17 And I'd like to give you the -- the original notebook, if I could, and
18 there's some little stickies on here that will help -- help you get
19 referenced. And if we, on the ELMO -- sorry, not -- if we could put that
20 on the ELMO, and I've showed you how to try to work the ELMO and the
21 microphone, and if we could get the -- well, actually, I think we'll just
22 work from the B/C/S at this point, is probably simpler.
23 So if you could -- if we could -- first of all, let me ask you. I
24 think it was back in 1999, did the Prosecution contact you and ask you to
25 review that material to see if there was anything relevant to Srebrenica
1 that you could think of or something like that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did you go through your notebook and mark in red pen three
4 items in response to that request?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And when the Prosecution saw that you had marked the notebook in
7 red pen, what did they say to you?
8 A. Well, I told them that I marked the conversations, and then I was
9 told that I shouldn't have done it, but it was too late. It was already
10 done. There was no going back.
11 Q. Okay. So can we -- we've got those three markings. If we could
12 just put that on the ELMO, and we've marked the first one with number 1.
13 And if we could get that on the ELMO and you could just tell us briefly,
14 read out what you have marked. And the ELMO is very sick, you can't see
15 the colour there unfortunately, Mr. President. But could you point with
16 your finger where the red mark is that you had made on the book, just on
17 the book itself so everyone can see?
18 A. [Indicates]
19 Q. And this particular -- this is P02231. Okay. And so why did you
20 mark that?
21 A. Well, this frequency has to do with the work of police forces of
22 the Zvornik MUP. Based on the conversation one could tell that they were
23 recruiting people for the field. They were ordered to stand under full
24 military equipment. That was on the 7th of July.
25 Q. Okay. Let's --
1 A. Just preceding the operations in Srebrenica.
2 Q. Okay. And let's go to number 2, which is also marked. And
3 perhaps I should read the ERN number of that page. The ERN, as we can see
4 is 0084-8947.
5 And we see -- we actually can see the red mark this time. Can you
6 tell us -- we see a date, I believe, of 12 July. What is this, and why
7 did you mark it?
8 A. Once again, this is the frequency of the Zvornik MUP. They are
9 mentioning full military equipment once again.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last bit of the
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, the interpreters didn't hear the last bit of
13 your reply. If you could kindly repeat it. Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the frequency of the Zvornik
15 MUP, once again. Once again they are speaking of recruitment and full
16 military equipment and then a name is mentioned, and the name is
17 underlined in red.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY:
19 Q. Okay. Let's go to the third one that you have marked. And this
20 is 0084-8952. We see some red, I hope you can see those red dots and a
21 little red arrow. Can you again -- now, can you -- and if I could, could
22 we have on the e-court, it should be P02232, page 7. So we can see the
23 English of this.
24 And while we're waiting for that, can you read the part that you
25 had marked for -- for the Prosecutor?
1 A. "Maric, Miladinovic, Mitrovic, member of the engineering corps,
2 they should stand by Rijeska with excavators in order to pave the road."
3 Q. Now, I know that's a bit unfair to do that to the interpreters but
4 if I could read the official English translation just for the record.
5 Unfortunately it hadn't come up yet. Page 7 of that document, please. I
6 don't know what page that is.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: If you can proceed by reading while this is -- yeah,
8 okay it is there now. Thank you.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: As we can see in the English it says, "For Maric,
10 Miladinovic, Mitrovic (engineers) to come at Nedo's inn with the excavator
11 in order to widen the road."
12 Q. Now, why did you note that?
13 A. It seemed suspicious to me that somebody could work on creating a
14 road, paving a road simultaneously with all these combat operations going
15 on. So I remember -- I remember this conversation, even today. We
16 immediately assumed that this could not have been anything to do with the
17 road, that it must involve something else. And later on it turned out
18 that we were right.
19 Q. Okay. Can you tell us, just by reference, I think we can go back
20 to what has been marked with a yellow number 1 in your book, it's actually
21 page 4 of the English, and note the date that this information was taken
22 on. It's number 1 on the yellow sheet, and it's page 4 on the English.
23 MR. HAYNES: You can lead on the date. It's okay.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY:
25 Q. It's 14 July, is -- is the date that's noted in the book. Is that
2 A. [No interpretation]
3 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to number 3 in the yellow page of the
4 original book, which is page 8 in the e-court. And this is just basically
5 the beginning date that shows 15 July. And if we could, after showing
6 which date we're talking about, now go to -- to page 13 on the e-court,
7 and page 4 on the original. And I want to read a section and ask you a
8 bit about it. And it says -- I'm reading the part where it
9 starts, "Vuk-Ikar-Pavle- I talked to Semso (Vuk) and stopped the
10 activities. They care for the head of column (soldiers). I suggested him
11 to release all those from the central prison in Tuzla and we would release
12 these. Pavle-we don't have a mandate to negotiate."
13 The next page on the English, page 14. "What did Semso say about
14 the captured policemen. He says that they are alive. If something
15 happened to them, all others will be finished. It will be 100 for one.
16 And after that he fired three more rounds (Rogatica). Pavle told him not
17 to negotiate with him. We'll kill them in the woods. And he can fire at
18 Serbia, Belgrade, Zvornik as much as he wants. Tell him that all of them
19 should surrender in Orahovac."
20 Now, we know from your testimony that you've described these as
21 being written in a summary fashion. But when I wrote like this my grammar
22 teacher said this was full of indefinite references. Can you put this
23 into context for us, who is talking about who? Because if it's summary
24 form, it's -- unless you were doing it, it's difficult to tell. For
25 example, "I talked to Semso and stopped the activities." Is that a direct
1 quote, is that -- can you -- can you just fill us in on that a bit?
2 A. This is a member of the army of Republika Srpska who spoke with
3 Semso, and Semso wanted to negotiate.
4 Q. How could you tell that Semso wanted to negotiate from this text?
5 A. Well, he says, "I spoke to Semso," the VRS member talked to Semso
6 and says that Semso would like to talk to him and that he asked the Turks'
7 frequency. I actually remember that myself. That the frequency was
8 requested from people who were at the head of the column that was breaking
9 through out of Srebrenica.
10 Q. From this bit, can -- is the operator hearing anything from Semso,
11 or just from the Serb person?
12 A. Only the Serb side.
13 Q. Okay. So it's fair to say that this -- this information is being
14 said by -- can you tell how many participants are saying this? Is this
15 one person that is saying what I just read or is it more than one Serb
16 soldier or officer?
17 A. There were two, because you always need to have two speakers. In
18 this case it was Vuk Lovac and in the continuation of the conversation you
19 can see that they continue to speak about this conversation with Semso,
20 because it is mentioned that a member of the army of Republika Srpska
21 asked for people to be released from the central prison and then this one
22 later told him, also a member of the army of Republika Srpska, that he was
23 not authorised to negotiate and that Semso can say whatever he wants. But
24 that they are going to kill those people in the woods. There was no
25 question of negotiations or anything like that.
1 Q. Okay. Now, let's -- is there any way, from your records, to sort
2 out, from this book, to sort out any sort of time-frame for this
3 communication, when that occurred on the 15th?
4 A. 1330 hours.
5 Q. And why do you say that?
6 A. The time is written down, Vuk Lovac, 1330 hours and then there is
7 the next part of the conversation at 1300 hours 45.
8 Q. Oh, I see. That is in the section before the one I started to
9 read. Okay. So that up at 1330, is that where the conversation actually
11 A. Yes, that's when it started.
12 Q. Okay. All right. Let's go from the afternoon of the 15th now to
13 the page that begins with 16 July. It's number 15 in e-court, it's number
14 5 on your little yellow sheet. He can probably flip it himself, but...
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
16 MR. HAYNES: I don't mean to be difficult, but the only person
17 who's got the yellow stickies is the witness and it would be helpful if we
18 could have the B/C/S e-court references so that the accused could make
19 proper comparison.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I fully agree and I thank you for pointing that out,
21 Mr. Haynes.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's -- that's 18, and when we get to it, I
23 can read the --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, until just -- are you working on it,
25 Madam Registrar?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: B/C/S e-court is 18, but he's flipping to it in
2 the original document.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The original document in B/C/S is on the ELMO, so
5 everyone following B/C/S can follow on the ELMO, and then the English
6 version is in e-court, in the English channel. Maybe for reference the
7 Prosecution can give the page number in B/C/S.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that satisfactory, Mr. Haynes?
9 MR. HAYNES: Certainly.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So we can proceed.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's the theory, if I can see on the ELMO, we
12 can get the ERN I can just repeat it for the record. If it's 0084-8958.
13 But that's just to orient us to the 16, if we could now turn the pages.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Each time refer specifically to the page, Mr.
15 McCloskey, please.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We -- on the English version is 16, which
17 should be on e-court. And the -- it's number 6 of the yellow tab on the
18 original. Which is on the B/C/S e-court, 18. Okay.
19 Q. And what I wanted to refer you to is an entry that says 1330
20 hours, "Their evacuation is going to start. If they shoot you shoot as
21 well. Users covered the area from our/unintelligible/and homed in
22 artillery. They were not audible. They work with small power."
23 Can you tell us again, "Their evacuation is going to start." Who
24 is that -- who is speaking now, or which side is speaking and who is
25 the "they" referred to, based on your knowledge of how this worked?
1 A. The specific conversation says, "Their evacuation will begin."
2 They are thinking of the evacuation of the Muslims. And this is spoken by
3 a member of the army of Republika Srpska. If they fire, if the Muslims
4 fire, then you should fire too. He is giving him some sort of approval,
5 or permission, that if anybody from the Muslim side shoots, that they
6 should then fire in return.
7 And at the end of the conversation it says that the participants
8 worked with small strength. This is not understood. It means that we
9 were not able to pick up the rest of the conversation because it was
11 Q. Okay. Now, just the -- my last little section is marked on tab 7
12 in the original, and we can see that's just the next ERN, I believe. Yes,
13 last digits 8962. It's page 19 in the English e-court, and I want to take
14 you down to the bottom of the English version, it -- and in the B/C/S
15 it -- the part I wanted to ask you about says, "Palma in person for Lovac
16 1 in person. We are negotiating with the opposing side that they get out
17 in the direction of Nezuk. Down the stream and up to the left towards
18 Zuta/zemlja/yellow soil/."
19 Again can you tell us which side -- which side is talking. Just
20 orient us a bit on this? When it says "we," who is that?
21 A. Members of the army of Republika Srpska. They are saying that
22 they had agreed with our side, the Muslim side. That a number of the
23 Muslims could get out in the direction of Nezuk, and they are giving the
24 route of movement to the left towards Zuta/zemlja.
25 Q. Okay. And can you, from looking at your notebook, give us any
1 idea of roughly the time or precisely the time, whatever, that this
2 conversation took place?
3 A. The exact time is not given here, but it was after 12.25.
4 Q. Okay. Then let's -- let me continue, which is the next page in
5 the English, page 20 may be the same page on the B/C/S, and it starts
6 off -- B/C/S e-court 20, page 23, "Palma-Lovac 1-we agreed that their
7 access is going to be towards the stream so that we liberate Resnik and
9 Again, the "we" is who or what side?
10 A. These are members of the army of Republika Srpska who are
12 Q. Okay. So that is the same for the next line. "We are going to
13 open it there and once it passes we are returning to our old positions.
14 It is about the withdrawal of our dead and wounded and the Chetniks
15 received an order to shoot if someone attempted to go into the depth of
16 the territory."
17 Now, again, let's try to be clear on this. "We are going to open
18 it there and once it passes we are returning to our old positions." Who
19 is the "we" in that sentence?
20 A. Members of the army of Republika Srpska.
21 Q. Okay. And now we have this statement, "It is about the withdrawal
22 of our dead and wounded." Do you know who the "our dead and wounded" are?
23 A. They were members of the army of the republic of Bosnia and
25 Q. Okay. And then it says, "And the Chetniks received an order to
1 shoot." So I don't imagine the Serb forces are referring to themselves as
2 Chetniks, are they?
3 A. This was the operator's note, or remark.
4 Q. Okay. And I think you probably testified about this, but just one
5 last question. You have testified that you worked in -- with the
6 operators. How is it that you are able to tell who is speaking and help
7 us understand that? How do you know that?
8 A. I spent a lot of time myself in such centres during the war,
9 before the fall of Srebrenica, and before all these activities around
10 Srebrenica. So a large number of these conversations I am familiar with.
11 As for the remarks or notes by the operators, they used to do that often.
12 It didn't have the form of a report. Often next to the authentic text the
13 conversation would be summarised and then in the context of that you would
14 say "they" meaning the army of Republika Srpska and when you say "we"
15 or "us" they meant the army of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It
16 was like that.
17 Q. One last question in private session, if I could.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Go into private session, please.
19 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. I saw that you testified in another case before this Tribunal, and
10 of course you remember that?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And I saw that in that case you said that these notebooks -- you
13 handed the notebooks from what you can remember, you gave them up to
14 Ms. Stefanie, you didn't mention her last name. So what would I like to
15 ask you is if you remember exactly whom -- to whom you handed over the
17 A. I just managed to remember Stefanie, that name. She was in that
18 team. So I handed over the notebooks to her, to Stefanie. She was the
19 first one of the team that I met.
20 Q. Thank you. When you handed over the notebooks, did you make a
21 document, did you sign anything, did you sign anything, did she sign
22 anything or someone else, did they sign anything?
23 A. No, I didn't sign anything. I have no documents relating to that
24 and I cannot remember if there was anything like that on the part of the
25 Prosecutor. If it was some document with some kind of protocol number, I
1 probably would have asked to have this document to cover myself, but since
2 it was just a notebook, I didn't have any special measures about that.
3 Q. Well, do you remember approximately when you handed over the
5 A. I think it was sometime in 1999.
6 Q. 1999. You told us, amongst other things, that the documents that
7 were at location one and location two, as we're calling it here, that you
8 tried to hand over the documents to the archivists of your unit, of your
9 command, and that they refused to accept that. Can you tell us what their
10 reasons were, why they refused to accept that?
11 A. The only and the main reason was that the notebook was not in the
12 form of a report, it didn't have a protocol number. Because based on a
13 protocol number, you could make some kind of document to enter the
14 notebook into the archive. So it had nothing to do with the content of
15 the notebook, it was just the fact that it wasn't registered properly,
16 paginated and so on. They didn't even want to look at what was inside the
17 notebook, at the material contained in the notebook.
18 Q. And because of that, did you address any of your superiors, did
19 you point out the problem that the archive personnel did not want to
20 accept into the archives that material that was of exceptional
21 importance? How was that resolved?
22 A. It was very difficult to resolve that because, in the command
23 system, there was an order and it's very clear in that order what is
24 archived and what is not. I tried to go around that, but it didn't work.
25 So I returned the notebook to my safe, and I kept it.
1 Q. Thank you. According to the information that we have here, you
2 had your first contact with the Prosecution on the 17th of May, 1999, and
3 that was when you talked about what your work was. In the document that
4 is called an information report here, it is stated that the witness is
5 sure that many conversations were registered and stored in the archives.
6 Can you please -- that many of the conversations were written down and are
7 archived. Do you recall that in your contact with a certain Alastair
9 A. Yes, that is what I said, and it was true. But not -- does not
10 refer to the notebooks in location one, it refers to notebooks from
11 location two. Those conversations were properly archived. Unfortunately,
12 I didn't manage to find them later.
13 Q. Before you testified the last time before the Tribunal, you had
14 some notes that you had in preparation for your testimony, and we received
15 those notes. They are your conversations with investigators and members
16 of the OTP. And at that time, in the conversation, you mentioned the
17 documentation from those two locations, but you said that the documents
18 were not received into the archives, either from location one or from
19 location two. Do you remember that?
20 A. It's not the entire archive, it's probably the part that you have
21 in the other notebooks from the other centre, which we indicated to be
22 location two. So you do have some material from there that they also did
23 not wish to accept, together with this other notebook.
24 Q. Thank you. And can you tell me, what was accepted into the
25 archive and wasn't found later, what exactly was that? Were they papers
1 or was it something else?
2 A. They were reports. Reports that were forwarded to the division
3 command in the encrypted form, and they were also at the command from
5 Q. When you say Kladanj, it's neither one of those centres?
6 A. Yes, it is, but it was sent through the encryption section via
7 Paket radio.
8 Q. In 2002 you had another interview with the OTP investigators, with
9 a certain Jean Gagnon, and on that occasion you said that you were going
10 to get in touch with one of your colleagues who also worked on that with
11 you. I'm not going to mention his name, but I assume that you know who
12 I'm referring to. And that you were going to ask him if he still had the
13 intercepts from that period. My question is, since you had these
14 notebooks that you talked about and in view of the fact that some of them
15 were presented to the archives through the reports, you expected that your
16 colleague would also have some intercepts from that period. Is that
18 A. I didn't accept -- I didn't expect that I wasn't completely
19 convinced, but I sort of had it in the back of my mind that perhaps he had
20 the original notes, because from location one, the transcripts or the
21 conversations were copied later, or parts of it. So I assume that perhaps
22 he did have some of the original papers, because he was there for a lot of
23 the time; although, most of those papers were destroyed and actually he
24 confirmed that most of the papers were destroyed.
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
2 this witness. Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's time to have the break a few minutes
4 ahead. 25 minutes. Is that sufficient because of the redactions? 25
5 minutes. Thank you.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: As we stated earlier on at the beginning of the
9 sitting we are going, before we continue with the evidence of the
10 witness -- should do it after. Okay. Let's leave it until later. Let's
11 continue with the evidence, and then we'll hand down the decision later on
12 after we are finished with his testimony.
13 Mr. Zivanovic has finished his cross-examination. Who is going
14 next? Mr. Ostojic.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Witness.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Sir, I'm going to have a couple questions for you, and very few
20 maybe with 20 minutes, I think we should be able to finish, hopefully.
21 You mentioned this morning on page 31 in your answer to my learned
22 colleague of the Defence on lines 21 and 23 that you turned over your book
23 to a woman with the Prosecution named Stefanie. And what I'd like to
24 first confirm that, correct?
25 A. I know that I talked to Stefanie, but I can't remember exactly
1 whether she was the one, it's been quite a long time since then, so I
2 can't remember. I think that it was Stefanie. She was the first one that
3 I talked to.
4 Q. To help refresh your recollection, I'm going to give you her last
5 name and you could tell me if that helps refresh your recollection. I
6 have in our notes and records, a woman who worked for the Office of the
7 Prosecutor at or around that time by the name of Stefanie Frease. Does
8 that help refresh your recollection?
9 A. I don't know. I don't know the last name. There was a Stefanie
10 from the Prosecution, yes. There was.
11 Q. Now, in your book that you brought with us that we have seen the
12 original, there is a lot of code-names listed, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. At any time did you try to decipher the code-names that were
15 identified in your book?
16 A. Well, at that time while this was being done I wasn't really
17 interested in it much, the actual name of the participants. I was more
18 interested in learning the facts and how the facts could be used to
19 promote the interests of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In radio
20 communication it is quite difficult to learn the actual name of
21 participants. One can make some conclusions based on commands,
22 headquarters, and so on, maybe some other factors are important, but you
23 can learn more about the rank and function than learn the name.
24 Q. Okay. Let me just briefly show you Exhibit 1084, which was
25 previously introduced in the record. And it's going to appear hopefully
1 on the screen in front of you. And these are VRS code-names that were
2 prepared, I believe, and I say it respectfully, prepared by the Office of
3 the Prosecution and Ms. Frease or her group at that time. When you get it
4 up, I'll ask you a question, Mr. Witness. Okay. It's there.
5 Do you see it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you obtain or see from the office of the Prosecution any
8 similar sheet for code-names or index of names of intercepts with respect
9 to your book?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And just so the record is clear so it's easier for you this is a
12 code-name list for the VRS, the next document is 1085, I would just ask
13 that you briefly look at that. Because I mentioned that that was the
14 index of names on intercepts. So if you could just take a look at that so
15 I can show that I was fair to you, even though you answered the question.
16 It's coming up now, sir. And this is the index of names on intercepts
17 that I was referring to. Did you ever, with Stefanie or anyone with -- at
18 the office of the Prosecution, create an index of names for some of these
19 codes that you recorded or others in your unit recorded in the book that
20 we've discussed during your direct examination?
21 A. I didn't. Although I did mention some of the coded names for
22 which I knew the identity fully, and I think that in 1999 this was written
23 down during one of the meetings. But those were the names of the people
24 who had used these code-names throughout the war, and we were 100 per cent
25 certain of their identity. If necessary, I can identify some of those
1 names. I didn't really deal with this specifically, this was just
3 Q. I'm interested to know too, so thank you for the invitation, and I
4 will accept you on it. Who was Premijer?
5 A. I think that Premijer was the communications centre of the 1st
6 Zvornik Brigade. What they did was retransmit, that is to say if the
7 connection was bad they would retransmit the conversation.
8 Q. Okay. And one name that I'm interested in, who was Strsljen?
9 A. To tell you the truth, I can't remember. I followed Premijer for
10 a long period of time, almost throughout the entire war, so that's why I
11 could remember that name. But as for Strsljen, I can't remember.
12 Q. Okay. In your book I noticed a couple words that I needed your
13 assistance with. And I'll read them out in English, and hopefully -- I
14 couldn't necessarily find them in the B/C/S language, but in the 13th and
15 14th of July, 1995, there is an entry there about war materiel. Do you
16 remember what war materiel would have referenced?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: The best way is to show him the reference, I
19 think, as opposed to his memory.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed. I'm sure Mr. Ostojic can do that.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: It's on page -- on the English version, page 7, I
22 think the same page that the Prosecutor was using with the witness, which
23 would be on P2232, page 7. And according to at least the English version,
24 this is conversations that were taken on the 14th of July, 1995, which is
25 the same page my learned friend referred to. And it's in the middle of
1 the page.
2 Q. It starts with, "On a frequency 293 at 2045." Do you see that?
3 A. I have the English version and I can't read it.
4 Q. With the Court's permission, if the usher could hand him the
5 original version and he can find it. It should be tabbed already since --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: What we could see from what was on the ELMO is that
7 I think that page is tabbed, yeah.
8 MR. OSTOJIC:
9 Q. Sir, so if you could look at the yellow tab when you were on your
10 direct, I think it's the second yellow tab. But you could help, since you
11 helped tab these, I think, maybe you could find the entry for the 14th of
12 July and then it's three pages after that. Did you find it?
13 A. Could you please tell me again which intercept?
14 Q. It's "On a frequency 293 at 2045." Did you find it, sir?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would you be kind enough to let us place it on the ELMO and just
17 point to that intercept so that we can maybe follow along, which is at
18 frequency 293 at 2045. Okay. Now, can you read that sentence to us,
19 please, because I have questions regarding three different -- four
20 different points in that sentence, if you don't mind. Can you read it
21 into the record for us?
22 A. "Igman 1 - Lovac 1 and Lovac. Surround the forces with war
23 equipment, reinforcement is arriving from the Main Staff. Mome's men are
24 coming now." Most likely it says "Mome's."
25 Q. Thank you. My question is, do you know what was being referenced
1 when they said "war equipment"?
2 A. I suppose that he knows.
3 Q. I thought so, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. What are they
4 talking about? What type of war equipment are they talking about, sir?
5 A. We could only suppose at the time what kind of war equipment, most
6 likely tanks, Pragas, personnel carriers, and other things like that.
7 Q. Other things like ammunition, correct?
8 A. Naturally. Because without ammunition equipment means nothing.
9 Q. Now, this word "reinforcement" is coming, what is that? What is
10 that? Can you describe that, tell me what you thought that was?
11 A. It most likely means, I can't now go into the essence of what
12 happened before and what happened after, but I can suppose that they
13 believed that they did not have enough men, and they asked for
14 reinforcement and this message had been sent and then they told them that
15 new reinforcement was on its way from the Main Staff, and that there would
16 be some additional people from Mome. I believe that it says "Mome" here.
17 I don't know who these people were.
18 Q. Were you able to capture or record, in the book that you have, any
19 other reference to Main Staff regarding war equipment or reinforcement,
20 other than this one entry?
21 A. Well, the organisation of radio communication that we monitored
22 was such that the words Main Staff and people's names were used
23 infrequently. The case was quite different on radio relay communication.
24 What was mentioned here was quite a rarity, such words as Main Staff,
25 names of commanders, and so on, that was mentioned very seldom. Perhaps
1 the people who worked on radio communication were not really interested in
2 mentioning these names, because it was organised by somebody else, and
3 they merely executed what they were told to do.
4 Q. Okay. And then just one other word I wanted you to help clarify
5 with me. The word "axis," do you know what that is, a-x-i-s?
6 A. In the same intercept.
7 Q. No, no, it was referenced in an intercept approximately 10 pages
8 further on, and it's on page 20 of the English version and it should
9 appear, sir. And I think with the Court's permission, you could take the
10 book, approximately the 16th of July, 1995. If you go to the 17th of
11 July, it's about a half a page above that. If the Court permits, I think
12 he will.
13 So again, if I can just repeat it to help you a little bit. If
14 you find the entry of the 17th of July, it would be immediately preceding
15 that, so before the 17th of July entry. You should have it tabbed because
16 you discussed it a little bit, something before that, you talked about the
17 yellow soil with my learned friend, about the negotiation with the
18 opposite side. Did you find it?
19 A. Yes, I did find it.
20 Q. And just so we're clear, can we place it on the ELMO, please. And
21 this is a conversation between Palma and Lovac 1, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you just read the first sentence up to the town Govedarica?
24 A. "We are negotiating with the opposite side to have them come out
25 near Nezuk and then the stream to the left towards Zuta/zemlja. Palma
1 Lovac 1, we have agreed that their access is going to be towards the
2 stream. So that we liberate at Resnik and Govedarica."
3 Q. Do you know what they're referring to when they say "axis" there,
5 A. Yes, I do. I think that they were referring to the axis of
6 movement of the part of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was
7 leaving the encirclement in Srebrenica because this is the period after
8 some agreement had been reached and that was the direction that they were
9 supposed to take on their way to Nezuk.
10 Q. That was approximately the 16th of July, at least according to
11 your book, correct, 1995?
12 A. This is when it was noted down, yes.
13 Q. Did you ever record or identify any of the participants in the
14 conversation by their first name Ljubo?
15 A. I can't remember.
16 Q. Well, let's take a look at the entry of the 14th of July, 1995,
17 sir. And again, the Court, I'm sure, will permit for you to take the
18 logbook and --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
20 MR. OSTOJIC:
21 Q. It should be tabbed because I think it was used. So if I can
22 direct your attention to the 14th of July, 1995. Intercept --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait a moment. Make sure that he's found it because
24 he's still flipping through the pages.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: I will show him where it is, approximately, with
1 that as a guide.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have the corresponding English page number,
4 MR. OSTOJIC: In English, it's page 4.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 4.
6 MR. OSTOJIC:
7 Q. Have you found the entry of the 14th of July, 1995, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If you can place it on the ELMO. Just point it to us so we can
10 orientate ourselves. Great. Now, in our English version, it all comes in
11 one page. They don't break it off. So it's the page immediately
12 preceding that, I would like to discuss with you, which is the paragraph
13 above or, in your case, the paragraph that is on the left-hand side of the
14 book where the date, the 14th of July, 1995, appears. Do you see that?
15 And it's really the second line from the bottom where you talk about
16 Premijer and then you have this Strsljen and then in parentheses you see
17 "Ljubo," close parentheses.
18 A. Most likely since it's written in the parentheses I would say that
19 it was mentioned in a previous conversation, so the operator knowing that
20 this involved some Ljubo, put this information in parentheses.
21 Q. In your meetings with the various investigators and those
22 including Ms. Stefanie, did you ever discuss with them who this possibly
23 could be?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Sir, I suggest to you that this is not Ljubisa Beara but it's some
1 other Ljubo that hopefully, during the course of this trial, will present
2 that evidence. What do you say to that?
3 A. I am not in the position to know whether this is the Ljubo or some
4 other Ljubo, but I'm sure that some Ljubo was mentioned, since we have
5 this information in parentheses. Nobody would write down something unless
6 there was a reason for that. There was no need for us to do that. I
7 wrote down in one of the intercepts that the conversation was not really
8 audible, so the operator noted that down. He didn't try to invent
9 anything, he just wrote down that it was barely audible. So I know that
10 this involved some Ljubo, but I don't know which one.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you. My next topic, and really it's my last topic,
12 in the period of mid-July 1995, you referenced many ambushes. Do you
13 recall that in giving your testimony earlier today? I'm sure you do.
14 A. Your question is not quite clear. What do you mean by ambushes?
15 Whose ambushes?
16 Q. Well, for my first question, it's irrelevant whose ambushes, but
17 in the documents that you have provided us, the word "ambush" appears
18 several times.
19 A. Well, if it concerns this document, the one that we provided, then
20 these ambushes were the ones organised by the members of the Serb forces
21 in order to capture as many people as possible. People moving from
22 Srebrenica to the free territory, moving through woods, streams and so on.
23 So these are the ambushes.
24 In addition to what I mentioned here, I also remember quite a
25 number of conversations which mentioned things like summary executions, no
1 need to keep them alive and things like that. Some of that information
2 may even be found in the notebooks.
3 Q. Okay. I'll look for that, thank you. With respect to the
4 ambushes just, sir, how many ambushes were there during the course of that
5 three or five-day period? Again, mid-July, 1995.
6 A. Well, this entire encirclement is something that I perceive as
7 ambushes because it's not like the members of the Serb army were only in
8 one position, no. They were in various posts and forward positions, so it
9 could only be perceived as ambushes. And as for how many times it was
10 mentioned, you can see it in the conversations. It was noted down by the
12 Q. Well, I don't want to be unfair to you. As you sit here, sir,
13 having reviewed your logbook in preparation for your testimony, given that
14 you met with two investigators, testified in another case, as you sit
15 here, do you know what your best recollection is as to how many ambushes
16 were conducted in mid-July 1995?
17 A. I can't remember, as I have said to you. Because there was so
18 much going on. And in my preparations for the testimony, I didn't really
19 focus on ambushes. There were such cases, there were lots of them. In
20 addition to what was noted down, I also remember that I heard great many
21 such conversations and I was tasked with conveying this to the others. So
22 in addition to the operator, I also had to convey it and I know that there
23 were great many such cases, but I can't tell you how many were noted down
24 in this material.
25 Q. And just one final question, if can ask you this, with the Court's
1 permission. I know you state that there were a lot of them. You said
2 there were a lot of them, specifically on line 25 of page 45. Does that
3 mean to you more or less than seven?
4 A. Definitely more.
5 Q. Thank you, sir, very much.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
8 I have Ms. Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon for Drago Nikolic. Go ahead.
9 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
11 Q. Good morning, Witness.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. I have a few questions for you based on where you were in July of
14 1995. And my first question is I would ask that you confirm -- maybe it's
15 better if we move in closed session?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to private session, please.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 8477-8481 redacted. Private session
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
5 MR. BOURGON:
6 Q. Now, on the basis of your book, Witness, and the conversations
7 that are reported in your notebook, it is my understanding that there was
8 more than one network in operation at the time where these conversations
9 were intercepted from.
10 A. Yes, there were many networks, and on different frequency ranges,
11 they were not all on the same device, and all on the same frequency range.
12 They were some measures from 30 to 69 megahertz and radio connections from
13 130 to 160 megahertz. At that point in time, perhaps we had other
14 equipment, but actually, we were focused only on those two: 30, 69, 95,
15 and 140 to 170 megahertz. There were several networks too.
16 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber and
17 maybe some of my colleague here, just to define what is meant in general
18 terms by a network, would you agree with me that a network can be defined
19 as a number of stations using the same frequency to communicate together?
20 Would that be very general and basic definition of what a network is?
21 A. Yes, three or more stations. Two can be considered to be a radio
22 route, three or more can be considered to be a network, if they were in a
23 radio network and if they were using the same frequency.
24 Q. And would you agree with me, Witness, that it is possible for any
25 one station to be heard on more than one network?
1 A. Yes. Some, usually the communications persons, would get some
2 kind of plan for the connections and then they would know if somebody else
3 was working also who was not in their network. The device allows them to
4 move into a different frequency and to hear somebody who was not part of
5 their network. This is of course possible if technical conditions allow
6 that. We're talking about frequency ranges. Within one frequency range
7 you can hear it, sometimes you cannot go into a different range. Or
8 better said, the equipment has to be of the same frequency range in order
9 for them to be able to hear each other.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, this last question that I posed was more
11 addressed or not so much in the technical sense, but more in the fact that
12 it is something that can happen for one station to have access, and to
13 participate in conversations on more than one network.
14 A. Yes, if the technical conditions permit. Yes.
15 Q. And would I be right in saying that usually any given network
16 would change frequency from time to time and that you would -- you could
17 maybe access that same network but you would have to find it whenever that
18 network would change the frequency used? Is that correct?
19 A. It's like this: Each radio network has several frequencies, and
20 they are changed from time to time. They can be changed in time
21 periodically or at the request of an operator. So in a more quiet period
22 when the traffic is not so busy, perhaps it could be a problem to find the
23 network again. But when the traffic is pretty high then, really, it's not
24 that difficult. We would perhaps need a minute or two to find this new
25 frequency. When the traffic was heavy. When it was light there would
1 have to be some kind of broadcast to be able to locate it. You could not
2 locate it without a broadcast. During this key period it was not
3 difficult to locate a new network or a new frequency. A lot of it was
4 known, whether there was some kind of code indicating a shift to a new
5 frequency, we knew all of those codes, and we would monitor that, we would
6 write them down, and we would almost simultaneously move to the new
7 frequency as the other participants in the network.
8 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, going back, or moving from this
9 question, if in your notebook you have frequency -- I just use one
10 example, I could use any, and I see frequency 150.185. And that's a
11 frequency that was used for a particular station at any given time. My
12 question to you is, if I see the same frequency again in your notebook, it
13 doesn't mean that the same station is using it, and actually that the same
14 network is using it the second time around. Is that correct?
15 A. Well, from what I managed to understand of the question, it's like
16 this: If we register one frequency and two, three or four participants
17 are operating on that frequency and then we if we were to hear again in an
18 hour on the same frequency some other participants, it can mean that they
19 are from the same network or from the same frequency, or it can mean that
20 somebody new has joined that frequency. But believe me, when you are
21 really into the work, when you work with that, you learn a lot, you
22 remember a lot of the modulations, the timbre of the voice of the person
23 that is speaking. And then it's is not a problem for you to recognise
24 whether it's this speaker or that speaker. Perhaps for you as a lawyer it
25 is difficult for you to understand this, but at that time for us it was
1 really not a problem at all to be able to tell who is who.
2 Q. Thank you, Witness. My last question, did you at any point in
3 time establish or make a sketch of all of the networks that were in
4 operations and all the stations for each of the networks or basically did
5 you ever draw a communications plan in use within the VRS army?
6 A. Before the activities, I did this kind of work throughout the
7 whole war, so before I did have plans with descriptions of specific units,
8 this participant is this, this participant is like that and so on. As for
9 this period, first of all, it would be very difficult to describe that
10 during the period of combat actions around Srebrenica. It would be
11 difficult to make these differences because all the participants went from
12 one frequency to another, so in my view perhaps it -- there were no
13 clearly defined radio networks. The participants had the possibility for
14 the Premijer to tap into a different network, so it was very difficult to
15 define specifically who was part of which network and who used what
17 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. I have no further questions.
18 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. I have on my list the
20 Borovcanin team. Mr. Stojanovic.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have into
22 questions for this witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Stojanovic and Mr. Lazarevic.
24 I have the Miletic team. Madam Fauveau.
25 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, General Miletic's
1 Defence has no questions for this witness.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Petrusic.
3 The Gvero Defence team have now announced that they have no
4 questions for this witness.
5 MR. JOSSE: That remains the position.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And finally we have the Pandurevic team. Mr.
7 Haynes, go ahead.
8 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
10 Q. Witness, it's right, isn't it, that you achieved some excellence
11 in the field of electronic warfare?
12 A. Well, I assume that I did, if I may evaluate myself.
13 Q. I mean you did -- you did receive decoration for your service in
14 that field?
15 A. I did, and I am proud of that.
16 Q. And you were familiar, very familiar with the sort of devices
17 that, if I may put it that way, that the opposition was using in
18 communicating with one another?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And there were basically two systems, weren't there, there was the
21 RUP radio and the Motorola?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Each of those had a range of about 20 kilometres. That's right,
24 isn't it?
25 A. Perhaps on paper, but in practice, especially in Bosnia, which is
1 of a hilly terrain, and the lay of the land, it could have been perhaps
2 two kilometres. If it's open terrain then it could have been greater, but
3 through translators or repeaters, it can be augmented, but actually in
4 practice, the range is not as high as it is stated in theory.
5 Q. You've anticipated my next question. The other weakness of this
6 communication system is that they can't communicate with one another. If
7 you have a Motorola, you can only speak to somebody else with a Motorola
8 and if you have an RUP, you can only speak to somebody else who has an
10 A. In technical terms, yes. That is why we use the communications
11 centres which had the RUPs and the Motorolas, so some sort of
12 communication devices that could communicate with hand-held Motorolas.
13 They were a little different, so if there was need to communicate, they
14 were used to convey certain information from that network to the other
16 Q. Thank you. So we have two situations in which two parties who
17 might want to speak to one another have to speak through an intermediary
18 or a series of intermediaries either because they are on either side of a
19 hill or because they're using different radio systems.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And without going to specific examples, that is why we see in the
22 book that you are showing us very often more than two correspondents to
23 any different conversation. You can see three, four, up to seven
24 correspondents in some of these conversations or summaries.
25 A. That's how it is usually. Perhaps in a description of a
1 conversation, you can have participants that took part, but often an
2 information is repeated five, six or 10 times, until it reaches the end
3 user for that information or perhaps an order is repeated several times
4 for three or four units. You are not going to find that in the notebooks,
5 because the operator who was transcribing that perhaps felt that there was
6 no need for him to copy five times over the same material.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, one thing I want to ask you about, which I don't
8 think you've dealt with, is as it were, the creation of the summary in the
9 book. At site one, which is the only site I'm interested in, there were a
10 number of operators, weren't there?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And as you've already told us, conversations, even these
13 repetitive conversations where a message is relayed down the line, would
14 often take place on different frequencies or even different systems?
15 A. Probably, yes.
16 Q. Now, as I understand the position, the operators wrote notes on
17 pieces of paper.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Those pieces of paper have been destroyed but the contents of
20 those pieces of paper were summarised into the notebook you've referred
22 A. The contents were entered but I cannot state that everything was
23 entered. We only sometimes heard parts of conversations but what was
24 entered, that was it. We would hear the conversations and we would pass
25 it on to the forward command post, and perhaps not everything was written
1 down. What I am saying is that not everything that we heard was entered,
2 but what is entered is that. It's part of that.
3 Q. What I'm really seeing if you can help with is whether the entries
4 in the notebook might have been or were indeed the product of several
5 operators' notes?
6 A. The material, yes, but the transcription itself, no. Perhaps it
7 was just entered by one or two operators. The gathering of the material
8 was the output of all of the operators.
9 Q. Thank you very much. So sitting here today, when you look at that
10 book, in particular, some of the conversations you have -- some of the
11 entries you've been referred to, what, in fact, you are looking at is a
12 summary of a number of operators' notes of a number of different
14 A. It's most likely a summary. These are not verbatim conversations
15 of everything that was said. It's just a kind of skeleton or a
17 Q. That's very helpful. I'm going to put this to you in terms. It's
18 impossible, isn't it, now, looking at that book, to attribute any
19 particular words to any particular speaker?
20 A. I cannot attribute anything to anyone. I am not going to mention
21 the names. But according to the call signs, the secret names, that person
22 is said to have stated something. At the beginning I already said that I
23 cannot claim that such-and-such a person is personally such-and-such a
24 person. It's not something that I can claim. But that such a participant
25 stated such-and-such a thing, that is certain. There is very little room
1 for mistakes during the entering of the data, because there were several
2 operators there mostly, and they consulted one another and that kind of
4 Very often several operators would listen to the same
5 conversation, perhaps one of them can mishear something, but the others
6 would then correct it.
7 Q. That's not really the point I'm putting to you. Many of the
8 passages you have been referred to and have looked at are summary, and
9 they are the summary of perhaps three or four people who have spoken
10 during the course of the creation of that summary. What I am suggesting
11 to you is, looking at that summary, you can't tell us now who contributed
12 what to that summary.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, that's a misstatement of the evidence.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I didn't read his evidence as necessarily
15 meaning what you have suggested now. If you look at page 60, lines 4, I
16 cannot attribute anything to anyone. I'm not going to mention the names.
17 But according to the call signs, you can -- beginning of it, it said I
18 cannot claim that such-and-such a person is person such-and-such." Or
19 page 59, on line 15. The material, yes, but the transcript itself, no.
20 Perhaps it was just entered by one or two operators gathering of the
21 material was the output of all the operators.
22 MR. HAYNES: That's very well, Mr. President. I was trying to
23 deal with the matters generally. I will have to deal with it by specific
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We will not stop you.
1 MR. HAYNES: No, of course not.
2 Q. I'm going to move on from there, if I may. Now, in the
3 organisation of any military operation, one of the things that the
4 commander will do is to create what's called a plan of correspondence;
5 isn't it?
6 A. Well, one of the commander's assistants would do that.
7 Q. And what is meant by that is that the call signs and radio
8 frequencies and reserve radio frequencies to be used will be set out for
9 the purposes of the operation?
10 A. Yes. That's what it is. Code-names are designated for various
11 units, frequencies that are going to be used, codes that are going to be
12 used for certain places, certain locations and certain activities.
13 Q. The sort of radio equipment that was in use, that you were
14 monitoring here, has many, many different frequencies, doesn't it?
15 Perhaps I should say channels, set channels.
16 A. Both terms are correct. And there can be many of them. We
17 already mentioned RUP 12, 30, 69 and 95. They have about 800 channels.
18 As for Motorola frequencies, there can be a tremendous number of channels
19 and frequencies that can be used there. I should also mention that the
20 entire frequency range from 140 to 170 megahertz is something that the
21 receiver can scan within a minute. The entire range and whenever
22 something comes up in that -- in that range, the scanner will pick it up.
23 Q. In setting a plan of correspondence you would limit the number of
24 reserve frequencies that were going to be used during the course of the
25 operation, wouldn't you?
1 A. You mean myself or somebody who is drafting the communications
3 Q. I'm asking you the question borne of your experience as an
4 electronic warfare office?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That is still vague.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
7 MR. HAYNES: Okay.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you be more specific.
9 MR. HAYNES: Yes.
10 Q. It would be usual, wouldn't it, during the course of drafting a
11 plan of correspondence for a military operation, to have, say, eight or
12 nine pre-set channels that would be used and which those who were
13 communicating with one another would move to, to avoid being detected?
14 A. Probably. Each plan can have a number of frequencies, not
15 necessarily just 10. It can have 15. Which presupposes that all of the
16 participants know when to switch to another channel. But let me repeat it
17 now: Given the amount of communications during that period of time, it
18 was no problem for us at all to detect it. It took us a minute or two and
19 we would find the same network again.
20 Q. I'm not doubting that for a minute. In fact, I'm trying to agree
21 with you in that suggestion. I think by the -- by the 14th of July you
22 had located many, many of the channels that were being used by the forces
23 that you were monitoring, hadn't you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you had also discovered the call sign that they used to
1 indicate that there was a need to shift channels and that call was "Sava"
2 wasn't it?
3 A. Yes. Then they would say "Sava" and then a certain number and
4 then the participants would then know that they needed to switch to that
5 particular frequency. This was done in order to prevent us from knowing
6 that they were switching to another frequency so that we wouldn't go
7 searching it.
8 Q. And one of the other things you'd identified was the commander,
9 the chief of the operations, and you had done by the 14th of July, hadn't
11 A. I can't remember that. I don't know what you're referring to.
12 Q. Well, I'm going to try and refresh your memory. I'd like to put
13 the book from site one, that's P02231 in B/C/S, and 2232 in English, on to
14 e-court. And I'd like the witness, please, to see page 6 in -- I'd like
15 us to see page 6 in the English and the witness to see page 11 in the
16 B/C/S. This is at the very top of the page in English. It's about
17 halfway down in the B/C/S, and what you are looking for, Witness, is the
18 phrase "Lovac 1, it's the chief. They were looking for him to come to the
19 base." I'm told the screen needs to go up a bit for the witness.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps he could be directed to the original, as
21 we can see, we didn't get a very good image.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that can be done. And it should be done.
23 MR. HAYNES: It's the page with the ERN number at the top 8951.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: 8951 or 8941?
25 MR. HAYNES: 8951.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the original here. Could you
3 please repeat your question?
4 MR. HAYNES:
5 Q. Yes, of course. About halfway down you should see an entry which
6 in the English translation reads, "Lovac 1- it's the chief. They were
7 looking for him to come to the base."
8 A. Well, that could be an assumption of one of the operators. Based
9 on something, based on a previous intercept he identified him as commander
10 or somebody addressed him as chief, and based on that he made this
12 Q. Thank you very much. My point is that that is an identification
13 of Lovac 1 as being the chief of operations of the forces you were
14 monitoring, isn't it?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That does not reflect the evidence.
16 It doesn't -- there is no where does it say "operations".
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
18 MR. HAYNES: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to argue this in
19 front of the witness, but that's a disingenuous objection. Mr. McCloskey
20 knows very well the subsequent evidence we will find out very well who
21 this is.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would ask the witness to leave the room so we
23 can respond to this attack.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Either leave the room or -- do you understand
25 English? I'm asking you, do you understand English?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Are you happy if he removes his
3 headphones, Mr. Haynes and Mr. McCloskey? Or do you want him out of the
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we can very easily clear this up.
6 Mr. Haynes and I have been chatting about this. I think he used an
7 unfortunate word but I'm fine if he removes his headphones.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So Witness, could you kindly remove your
9 headphones, please. And Mr. Haynes, do you want him out or --
10 MR. HAYNES: No, no. There really is very little between us here.
11 It was probably a loose question, but I don't think there will be any
12 dispute who Lovac 1 was in this case.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: He is not a chief of operation though, this is a
14 important military distinction. We can maybe do the stipulation right
15 now, who he is and what the evidence will come through, if you like.
16 MR. HAYNES: I'm happy with that, yes.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go into private session.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Of course. Let's go into private session.
19 Let's make it more complicated.
20 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, Mr. Haynes and Mr. McCloskey, we've had --
23 we've heard from both of you what we needed to hear and what is important
24 to hear. Given that, we are going to leave it entirely in your hands to
25 rephrase the question, whichever way you think reflects your position. I
1 mean, we have understood what the position according to the Prosecution
3 The witness can put back his earphones. Headphones, sorry.
4 Headphones. And -- Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES:
6 Q. Sorry about that, Witness. It was probably all my fault, but
7 we'll get back to some questions now.
8 You would agree now, and -- that passage I showed you was on the
9 14th of July, that by the 14th of July you had identified virtually all of
10 the frequencies in use by the forces you were monitoring and you had
11 identified somebody whom you believed to be the chief of those forces?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry to object, but the first part of that
13 question I think the witness had answered that it was impossible to
14 identify all the frequencies. So that's a misstatement. I don't think it
15 was purposeful, but again -- and it's a two-part question which makes it
17 JUDGE AGIUS: He can answer the question. He can answer the
19 Yes, go ahead. Witness, can you answer Mr. Haynes's question,
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as I have said, and I was
22 about to say when the Prosecutor interrupted me, it was impossible to
23 identify and monitor everything. There are no technical possibilities to
24 do that, because they could always use other networks or frequency ranges
25 and we would normally do what we were ordered to do or what we could
1 technically do, that we were capable of. And as I said earlier, it's very
2 difficult to identify various code-names and call signals with full
3 accuracy. Perhaps this was noted down because one of the operators heard
4 it in one of the intercepts.
5 To tell you the truth, I listened to this, and I did not reach a
6 conclusion that Lovac 1 was a chief. And the term "chief" alone could
7 mean a number of things. Chief of Staff or chief of something else. So I
8 never reached that conclusion that you are mentioning now. Perhaps one of
9 the operators noted it down because, based on the context on what was
10 said, that's the conclusion that he drew. Or maybe this reflects some
11 personal fears that he had. Maybe he feared his own chief and concluded
12 that this person was in charge on the other side too.
13 Let me repeat that it is very difficult to accurately identify,
14 and I do not want to be held to what I said about the possible identities.
15 And in another situation in a different type of communication, perhaps in
16 radio relay communication, perhaps they mention names more often, so it's
17 easier to identify people there. I hope that this explanation was good
18 enough. If not, please let me know and I'll try to explain again.
19 MR. HAYNES:
20 Q. Well, I don't know the extent to which you have familiarised
21 yourself with the book from site one. But much of the monitoring of
22 communications from site one concentrate on Lovac 1 and Lovac, doesn't it?
23 A. Most likely they were one of the most powerful or frequent
24 participants. Because what is noted down here was definitely uttered.
25 There were some other intercepts, some other communications that were
1 established but not recorded or not recorded in this notebook. So the
2 notebook reflects only a small number of conversations.
3 Q. I mean, we are agreed on this, that in that book, Lovac appears 82
4 times, and Lovac 1, 62 times. It looks like your operators were
5 concentrating on monitoring his communications quite closely, doesn't it?
6 A. Well, I didn't count how many times they were mentioned. The job
7 itself, the frequency itself, the communications and the content of
8 communications was such that we focused on this. This was a long time
9 ago, and it's hard for me to say that my reasoning went along these lines,
10 I know this guy and I feel like listening on to him. But at the time they
11 were probably the participants that interested us and we zoomed in on
12 their network and followed them, monitored them. I'm sure that there were
13 many other conversations on other frequencies that were also of interest
14 to us, but we didn't monitor them because we were focusing on this
15 particular one.
16 Q. Thank you very much. As you've said, not only did you monitor
17 Lovac 1 very closely, you followed him every time that he moved frequency,
18 I suggest to you. Would you agree with that?
19 A. Well, this kind of imposes itself. I told you that already. He
20 switches the frequency, we go look for him, detect him, and monitor him
21 again. Most likely they were mentioned more than others because we were
22 interested in their conversations more than in another's. When scanning
23 the frequency range, one comes across various conversations, including
24 ones that were not relevant for that particular area, that are completely
25 irrelevant, and we would not record them or note them down and try to
1 detect their call signals, while neglecting what was of interest to us.
2 That was the reasoning why we did what we did, and now it seems as though
3 we focused only on Lovac 1 and Lovac 2, but that wasn't the case in
5 Q. And in that regard, some sort of indication that he was, and I
6 will use as neutral a phrase as possible, an important commander or an
7 important chief, would have made you double and redouble your efforts to
8 make sure you captured every one of his communications?
9 A. Perhaps we didn't have to double our efforts. We simply monitored
10 that network and that was it. We successfully found them again, whenever
11 they changed frequencies, and the operators made certain assumptions about
12 the importance of certain participants who were indeed important. It
13 would be stupid for me to say now that these participants were not
14 important for us when we monitored them closely.
15 Now, as for doubling our efforts in order to monitor them, most
16 likely we would have done it had there been other conversations in that
17 frequency range that were not important to us.
18 Q. I just want to ask your view of this: Given the close monitoring
19 of this particular radio user, would you think it conceivable that that
20 person could have dictated a long report over the radio without you
21 hearing it and making a note of it?
22 A. I don't know, to tell you the truth. Let me tell you something.
23 I can't remember, this was quite a long time ago. And I'm not in the same
24 line of work anymore. So I'm a bit rusty. I don't remember these things.
25 But let me tell you what's important: Perhaps something could have
1 escaped our attention because we were not experts who never missed
2 anything. Also, perhaps that we registered some reports, but they are not
3 included here. Because let me repeat again, there were many, many things
4 that I cannot find going through the notebook. They were conversations
5 that were recorded and their content was simply conveyed to the forward
6 command post without recording them. And that is the problem, because had
7 they been recorded, our job would have been easier, as would be yours.
8 Q. I would just like you to have a look, please, at what is page 8 in
9 the same exhibit in the English, page 13 in the B/C/S. And if you would
10 prefer to look at the document on ELMO, the number at the top of the page
11 on the physical exhibit is 8953.
12 A. I found it. What's your question?
13 Q. Sorry, I'm wrong about that. It's page 4 in the English, page 9
14 in the B/C/S, and the number at the top of the page on the physical
15 exhibit is 8948. Have you found it, Witness?
16 A. I have.
17 Q. I'm looking at an entry that should be at the bottom of the page
18 for you, which in the English reads, "L1 requested a vehicle to come and
19 pick him up because Lovac needed to talk to him urgently. After that they
20 sent a Peugeot car."
21 A. I don't see it on this page.
22 Q. It might be 8949.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: It was the same page to which Mr. Ostojic had
24 referred you before where there is the entry for the 14th of July.
25 MR. HAYNES: The number at the top of the page is 8949, not 8948.
1 I apologise.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If I remember well, it should be on the left side of
3 your logbook. That's how Mr. Ostojic described it.
4 How long will you be on this particular page, Mr. Haynes, because
5 we need to have a break soon?
6 MR. HAYNES: I have got one or two questions about this page, then
7 I want to return to something I was asking the witness about before and
8 then I'm finished a topic.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Should we have the break now or what do you suggest?
10 What do you prefer to --
11 MR. HAYNES: Could I just finish this topic?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
13 Did you find the relevant part?
14 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Haynes.
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. Firstly, can you confirm that, in this book, the use of the letter
18 L and L1 is equivalent to the use of the words Lovac and Lovac 1?
19 A. I already mentioned that before and also in my previous testimony,
20 that a large number of abbreviations was used. Just so as not to lose
21 time, not to write out Lovac 1, Lovac 2 in full. In any other event these
22 abbreviations were used. With other words, if you wanted to say testing
23 the communications, then you would use these abbreviations just so that
24 you do in the waste time rewriting the same phrases over and over again.
25 Whenever, in the notebook, you find that there is an L or L1 participant,
1 the -- that signified Lovac 1 and Lovac 2.
2 Q. Thank you. And could you also confirm that the accuracy of that
3 particular entry, that Lovac 1 requested a vehicle to come and pick him up
4 because Lovac needed to talk to him urgently and after that they sent a
5 Peugeot car?
6 A. I believe that it is accurate. I mean, I cannot be 100 per cent
7 sure, but I believe that that is accurate. They sent a Peugeot. It means
8 that from the rest of the conversation somebody informed him that a
9 Peugeot was sent to pick him up. And so on.
10 Q. And would you take it from me that that was on the 13th of July?
11 I'm sure we can agree that.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, that was -- that was the sort of information that you were
14 recording about Lovac 1 on the 13th of July. On the 14th you discovered
15 or somebody discovered that he was the chief. I'll simply put this to
16 you: After that discovery, you would have noted down, wouldn't you, if he
17 had used his radio to dictate a combat report?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This has been asked before. We're
19 going back over again.
20 MR. HAYNES: It's in a different context now.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: This is in relation to combat reports now. And I
22 think we can accept it.
23 MR. HAYNES:
24 Q. Do you remember the question or do you want me to repeat it,
1 A. There's no need to repeat it; it's already been said. The chief
2 of Lovac 1, we've already said that I know what I said, and I think that's
3 clear. There's no need to repeat myself.
4 As for the combat reports, I am not informed about that. I don't
5 know exactly what you mean. If you're thinking of the frequency of the
6 conversations involving Lovac 1 and Lovac 2, we've already talked about
7 that. But if you consider the conversations to be the same as combat
8 reports, then that's all right. But as for any longer kind of reports,
9 then I don't know what you mean.
10 Q. I'll put it this way: On the 14th of July, after the information
11 that led you to believe that Lovac 1 was the chief, would your operatives
12 have been instructed to record and write down anything he said over the
14 A. Again, well, I hope that we resolved the issue with Lovac 1 and
15 the chief. Secondly, they received instructions from me, what they would
16 be monitoring. But if I was not there, I already mentioned the system
17 that we used. Lovac and Lovac 1 themselves, in their conversations, the
18 content of the conversations, forced us to monitor them and to stay with
19 them. They wouldn't have forced us to do that if it was a false network
20 because that is something that we very quickly established. We knew these
21 were reliable pieces of information and naturally we monitored that. And
22 we also monitored everyone else who was in their network and not only in
23 their network, you will find in the notebook that there were also others.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think Mr. McCloskey has been proven right because
25 when you condense this answer, I don't see much difference from what the
1 witness said from page 70, line 15 to page 71 line 18. It's more or less
2 the same. Anyway, you are free to conclude on this part, Mr. Haynes.
3 MR. HAYNES: We can take a break now.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. We will have a break of 25
6 --- Recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
9 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I see from behind the column,
11 Mr. Nicholls.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Excuse me, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You want to know what's happening with your witness.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, exactly. Good afternoon. I understand there
15 is approximately 20 to 25 minutes left of cross-examination, that there is
16 a short redirect and that Your Honours will issue a ruling so I wondered
17 if I could release the witness. I don't think we'd get to more than a few
18 minutes of his testimony. He's been waiting for a while.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think we can release the witness.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you very much.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 Mr. Haynes.
24 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Witness, I've got three topics left to deal with you, and I'm
1 going to take them as briefly as I can. I want to ask you about a couple
2 of code-names that appear in the book from site one. And you've already
3 referred to both of them. The first is the name Pavle, and that appears
4 first of all at pages 13 and 14 in the English, and for your benefit, in
5 the book it's page 8957 at the top, or page 17, B/C/S, on e-court. Have
6 you found it, Witness?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. Now, you should see the name Pavle linked there together with Vuk
9 and Ikar and then lower down on its own.
10 A. Yes, I see the code-name Pavle.
11 Q. And you can confirm that it appears on that page three times?
12 A. I see it there as four times.
13 Q. Thank you. I'll stand corrected. And could you now go to page 17
14 in the English. That's on your book, Witness, is page 8960 at the top.
15 Or page 20 in B/C/S e-court. It should be near the top of your page,
16 Witness. And it's in a section that begins --
17 A. I've found it. I've found it.
18 Q. I'm going to ask you to read that over to yourself. I'll read it
19 to you in the English. It says, "Palma asks, Lovac 1, that's L1, if the
20 blue police could shift to the right and leave at 1000 hours. L1 gave them
21 a message that they were going to set off at 1000 hours. At 0610 hours
22 Lovac 1 asked Ikar to check with Pavle if they left as Lovac 1 ordered
23 them to. Vuk told Pavle to speed up the insertion of the blue at the
24 right wing and move on as soon as possible. Pavle has to make contact
25 with me ASAP."
1 Do you see that?
2 A. Yes, I see it.
3 Q. Now, I'm not going to take unfair advantage of you. We agree,
4 that is the Prosecution and myself agree that those are the only
5 references to Pavle in the whole of that book. So he's mentioned
6 effectively in two conversations seven times. And I want to look at the
7 text of that conversation that you're looking at now.
8 Would you agree that from the text of that conversation that it
9 appears that whoever Pavle is, he is somebody who takes orders from Lovac
10 1, Vuk and Palma?
11 A. Well, you can see from the conversation that Pavle is supposed to
12 do something in compliance with an order from Lovac 1 and Palma.
13 Q. Thank you. And also Vuk tells him to speed up?
14 A. Yes, that's what it says. Yes.
15 Q. So would you agree with me that it appears whoever Pavle is, he is
16 someone who is subordinate to those these people?
17 A. Well, you can conclude from this conversation that he is
18 subordinate to Palma and Lovac 1.
19 Q. Would you also conclude from the fact that he only appears twice
20 in the whole of this book in two conversations, he's not a terribly
21 significant operative for your purposes?
22 A. I'm going to go back to the -- to what I said before. We were
23 monitoring certain frequencies, I'm not going to say that Pavle was not
24 important to us. At that moment everything was important to us, and I'm
25 not going to say that this is the only conversation where this certain
1 Pavle was mentioned. I don't know who it is, but the fact is that if you
2 went through the notebook, I haven't really gone through it in detail for
3 a long time in order to be able to refer to specific names, but if you
4 went through it and that -- you say that's it, then it's possible that he
5 has been mentioned that many times. But also, throughout the whole
6 operations it is impossible that there were no other conversations where
7 Pavle was mentioned, but we have just what is written here.
8 And you can conclude on the basis of this conversation that he was
9 receiving orders.
10 Q. Thank you very much. Now, one of the other persons mentioned in
11 that particular conversation is Palma. Now, is Palma a code-name with
12 which you were familiar before you embarked upon this particular operation
13 from site one?
14 A. I think that Palma was the command of the 1st Zvornik Brigade.
15 Palma was used in radio relay communications. Here it's said, and you can
16 connect it to that in some way, but again, in radio connections, the names
17 and the secret codes are very difficult to link together.
18 Q. Now, I'm going to show you some other passages to indicate that
19 your operators seem to draw a distinction between Palma, as it was the
20 organisation, and Palma, a person. I'm going to ask now that you be
21 shown, please, page 18, English, e-court, page 21 B/C/S e-court, and for
22 your purposes, Witness, that's 8961 at the top. Can you see it at 9.25,
23 and again a little lower down, below 10.30, that the correspondent is said
24 to be "Palma in person"?
25 A. "Palma in person" means that unit commanders addressed each other
1 in person. If you say some unit it's not necessarily a person, but if you
2 said "Palma in person" it would mean that that would be the commander of
3 that unit. That's how it was.
4 Q. Thank you. So your understanding of the codes, even before you
5 were involved in this operation, would be that "Palma in person" would
6 indicate the commander of the Zvornik Brigade?
7 A. I assume that that was so, but I don't think you can state
8 anything with certainty, but in all operations, that addition "in person"
9 was something that referred to the unit commanders.
10 Q. And would the contrary be true, that if the entry did not
11 contain "in person" it would simply indicate that it was a communication
12 from command headquarters?
13 A. That would be that, yes. If you just mentioned the secret name,
14 it could be that somebody from the centre of the brigade or the centre of
15 the unit was conveying something, but if you say "in person" for the most
16 part what was meant by that was the commander of that unit. Or the
17 komandir, if it was a lower ranking unit.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, I dare say you were aware of that -- at that time
19 that the commander of the Zvornik Brigade was Vinko Pandurevic?
20 A. I did, yes.
21 Q. And I know that certainly recently you've had occasion to hear his
22 voice, haven't you?
23 A. No, I didn't. No. Even if I were to hear it now, you cannot
24 really compare that to how it was then, and I've already said it was quite
25 a long time ago, so I'm not in that environment anymore. I'm not doing
1 that sort of work anymore. So I really don't think that I would be able
2 to recognise the voice now.
3 Q. Please don't misunderstand the question, but during the course of
4 your proofing for coming to give evidence here, you were played a tape,
5 weren't you, by Mr. McCloskey?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you were able to identify some of the people who were speaking
8 on that tape. One of them was Semso Muminovic, wasn't it?
9 A. Yes, but it wasn't difficult to recognise his voice. He has a
10 characteristic voice, so it was no problem at all to recognise him.
11 Q. And he was speaking on that tape to Vinko Pandurevic?
12 A. I know that not from this kind of work, not from radio
13 reconnaissance. I know it. I was at some points in time next to Semso
14 Muminovic when the negotiations were underway.
15 Q. Thank you. And were you next to him on both the 15th and the 16th
16 of July when such conversations took place?
17 A. I said that I was not next to him all the time, but I was there
18 for some of the time when the negotiations were going on.
19 Q. Thank you. How many conversations were you present at?
20 A. To be honest, I was doing other work at that time, but I was there
21 two -- perhaps for two conversations, and I didn't really pay so much
22 attention to that. It wasn't in my job description to monitor that.
23 Q. I understand that, but you now know, you probably knew then that
24 one of them was being recorded. Was the other one recorded as well?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. The conclusion of the first -- in the
1 first question --
2 MR. HAYNES: That's fine, I will rephrase it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's the case of putting two questions.
4 MR. HAYNES:
5 Q. You heard that tape this week. From the best of your
6 recollection, was that a conversation you were present at?
7 A. There were more conversations probably. I cannot recall all the
8 particulars of a conversation. And as I said, that's not what I would
9 have been able to do. I mean, had that been the only thing since 1995
10 that I was supposed to remember, I would probably have remembered it. But
11 that wasn't the only thing.
12 Q. Was there a tape recorder being used at either -- sorry. Was
13 there a tape recorder being used at either of the conversations you were
14 present at?
15 A. I am not really aware of that, but perhaps there could have been a
16 Dictaphone like the journalists would use. I did not record it, so --
17 myself, so I really don't know if there was some other recording.
18 MR. HAYNES: Private session, please.
19 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
11 MR. HAYNES:
12 Q. The conversations you recall, were they on the same day or more
13 than one day?
14 A. I was there for the duration of one day.
15 Q. And so far as you were aware, did Semso Muminovic speak to any
16 other member of the army of Republika Srpska?
17 A. I never really discussed that topic with him. I know that when I
18 would come to the forward command post, and if I wanted to see him, I was
19 told that he was speaking with Pandurevic, and after that I never really
20 spoke with him. I had no need to ask him who or if he spoke with
22 Q. Regardless of what you were told directly by Semso Muminovic, you
23 have told us there were a number of people present. Did anybody else ever
24 tell you that he spoke to anybody other than Vinko Pandurevic?
25 A. To make it clear from the start, I was not at the command post
1 then, the forward command post. Perhaps I came when that part of the
2 conversation was going on. I wasn't there to see what Semso Muminovic was
3 doing or to question any of those present at the forward command post,
4 what Semso Muminovic was doing, whether he spoke with Vinko or this person
5 or that person. I had my own assignments at the time, I completed them.
6 This did happen at the time. I was a participant there, even though that
7 did not occupy too much of my attention. So I don't know. I didn't ask
8 anyone at the forward command post about it; I had no need to do that.
9 Q. Just so we're clear, did you ever hear any suggestion that Semso
10 Muminovic had spoken to somebody called Vukotic?
11 A. I personally didn't.
12 Q. Would you turn your book, please, to page 8957? That's page 13 in
13 the English. It's a passage you've looked at before. It's -- it should
14 be about halfway down your page, maybe only a third of the way down, and
15 it's the passage that begins, "Vuk- Lovac 1330 hours."
16 A. I found it. When I said that I didn't hear, what I meant, I
17 didn't hear from anybody present. This conversation I read it later, but
18 to tell you the truth, these negotiations were not within my scope of
19 duties, and what is written down here was written down in order to record
20 the thoughts and the position of the army of Republika Srpska. I
21 personally wasn't interested in who talked to whom and so on.
22 At that moment, I wasn't even paying attention to whether this was
23 Vuk, this was Pandurevic. All I was interested in were the facts.
24 Q. Given what you know, leave aside what's in front of you, given
25 what you know about what was going on over the period that you were at the
1 forward command post, is it possible that in those entries where it is
2 written "Vuk" should be written "Vinko"?
3 A. Most likely this operator would not have written down "Vuk"
4 without a reason. He must have been mentioned. They couldn't write Vinko
5 at all, because operators were really not privy to the identity of a
6 participant. Most likely this was mentioned earlier. In this case, the
7 conversation was between Vuk and Lovac, a code-name was used, but I don't
8 know anything about this code-name.
9 Q. Just going down the page a little, you can see, can't you, from
10 the -- what's written in the book, that the first conversation concerning
11 Semso or Zukov was at 1330 hours that day?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And at 1410, that's 40 minutes later, an order was given to cease
14 all activities.
15 A. It says here that a truce had been agreed, and that further firing
16 should stop.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last sentence.
18 MR. HAYNES:
19 Q. Would you mind repeating your last sentence, Witness, please.
20 A. It says here that they agreed on a truce, following which a shell
21 was fired and then they mention artillery Igman, and Igman 1, and then
22 following that they asked for all further action to cease at 1410.
23 Q. Thank you. Just one more thing on this point. In the tape
24 recording you listened to with Mr. McCloskey, it's right, isn't it, that
25 Semso Muminovic refers to Vinko Pandurevic by his first name, Vinko, and
1 Vinko Pandurevic refers to Semso Muminovic by his nickname, Zukov?
2 A. Most likely that's how it is. This recording was made on
3 Dictaphone, so other voices are heard as well.
4 Q. How do you know the recording was made on a Dictaphone?
5 A. I suppose so. Because nothing else could have been used. I don't
6 think that a UHER was used, because there wasn't one there. There was
7 also no computer at the forward command post, so there was nothing else
8 but Dictaphone.
9 Q. Can we now go, please, to page 19 in the English. For you,
10 Witness, it's 8961 at the top. And it's page 21 in the B/C/S e-court.
11 Have you got the page, Witness?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And to help you, we're looking at the very bottom of that page at
14 the entry that's timed 11.40.
15 A. I found it.
16 Q. And just so that it's in the record, it reads, "Igman 1 said that
17 weapons are to be ready to fire at planned targets. During this period,
18 user Sidro was not responding and everyone called him. They also fired
19 their artillery at our weapons. At 1140 they seized some elements of our
20 weapons but they did not fire because of the cease-fire."
21 It appears from that at 1140 on what is the following day, the
22 16th of July, there is still a cease-fire in place or there is a
23 cease-fire again in place from the previous day. Would you agree with
25 A. I can't remember now. But --
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: [Previous translation continues] ... I don't think
2 there is in evidence in the record that there was a cease-fire on the
3 15th. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't see that. If I am, I stand
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, what's your position on that?
6 MR. HAYNES: I thought I had just elicited the answer in relation
7 to page 13 that there was an order to cease all activities and the
8 activities were stopped. It's at page 13 in the English. And the witness
9 has just given the evidence that his understanding was that there had been
10 a cessation of activities.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I apologise.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. Would you like Mr. Haynes to repeat the
13 question to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be good.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, please.
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. Looking at that entry for 1140, it appears that there was a
18 cease-fire in existence at that time, doesn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And on the question of interpretation of these summaries that we
21 were dealing with earlier, can you help me as to what it means when it
22 says "they also fired their artillery at our weapons"? Who is "they" and
23 who is "our"? Can you tell one way or the other?
24 A. I can't decipher this with great accuracy.
25 Q. No. That was my point earlier on. It's very difficult to because
1 it's a summary of conversations that have been summarised for you by a
2 number of people. That's the position, isn't it?
3 A. Based on this conversation it is clear that Igman 1, which must be
4 somebody in charge of the artillery, conveyed that the weapons are to be
5 prepared to fire at previously determined and planned targets. And then
6 it says that participant Sidro did not respond, everybody called him in
7 order to convey something to him, but they didn't manage to get in touch.
8 Q. Now, would you just go over the page, please, because I'm going to
9 try and finish with you today, if possible. To your page 8962. We're
10 still on English page 19, and we will go over to page 20. And that's in
11 the B/C/S, page 22 on e-court.
12 Now, you read this passage earlier. It's the one that
13 reads, "Palma in person for Lovac 1 in person." Have you got that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it goes on, "We are negotiating with the opposing side that
16 they get out in the direction of Nezuk up the stream and up the left
17 towards Zuti/zemlja." "Palma 1 to Lovac 1." This looks like a separate
18 call. Would you agree?
19 A. I don't know what you mean by separate call.
20 Q. Well, the participants, Palma and Lovac 1 are listed again. So it
21 suggests that -- it's a separate call from the one previously we were
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it says, "We agreed that their axis is going to be towards the
25 stream so that we liberate Resnik and Govedarica. We are going to open it
1 there and once it passes we are returning to our old positions. It is
2 about the withdrawal of our dead and you said that that was the BiH dead
3 and wounded and the Chetniks received an order to shoot, if someone
4 attempted to go into the depth of the territory and that message was at
5 quarter past 1.00 in the afternoon. Do you agree?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that time, what you weren't asked to read by Mr. McCloskey, is
8 the Chetniks received an order not to open fire while the men were going
9 through. I would like, since you weren't asked this, your interpretation
10 of that sentence, please?
11 A. No, this pertains to the same thing. Members, and I already said
12 that members of the army of Republika Srpska had been given an order not
13 to fire at Muslim forces unless the Muslim forces do that first. I have
14 mentioned that earlier.
15 Q. Witness, I had one or two other questions of you, but I see the
16 time and I don't see there is any need to keep you here just to ask them,
17 so I am not going to ask any further questions.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Do you think you can finish
19 your redirect in two minutes?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead. And I thank you so much,
22 Mr. Haynes.
23 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
24 Q. Witness, this RUP radio that you say was operated by the VRS that
25 you were capturing communications from, did that have an encryption mode
1 or cipher mode?
2 A. RUP 12 is a device that has absolutely no encryption capability.
3 There was another device, and those who are not familiar with the
4 equipment could easily confuse them because they're almost identical.
5 This one with encryption capability was called RUP 2/2K. It's a basically
6 similar device, but it has an additional segment which enables encryption.
7 So this additional segment enables the participants to have encrypted
8 communication, something that cannot be detected with ordinary equipment.
9 However, there were ways of getting around that, sometimes they would not
10 use the encryption segment, and they would speak openly. Sometimes that
11 happened. We would force them to stop using the encryption device, and to
12 use the language that was intelligible to us.
13 Q. How about the Motorola, was there any way to encrypt the Motorola?
14 A. If simple Motorolas were used then, yes, there are so-called
15 Motorolas with a scrambler that have the encryption capability. And they
16 can be jammed. They used it seldom because other participants could not
17 understand them, and they would not be able to communicate with other
19 Q. Did you know from -- or did you have information from listening to
20 these communications from the VRS and the Serb police how many men from
21 the Serb army or police forces were killed before the corridor was opened
22 on the 16th?
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, I know it's late, but I think it's
24 beyond the scope -- I'm sorry. Beyond the scope of the cross, and if he
25 wanted to ask that, he should have asked that possibly in his direct.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you have the same objection, Mr. Haynes.
4 MR. HAYNES: Quite.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think the tenor and the meaning of much of his
7 cross was that his client opened this corridor out of some --
8 MR. HAYNES: And I don't think he ought to say any more in front
9 of the witness.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think my point is clear, that there was some
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Our conclusion is that certain part of the
14 cross-examination was broad enough to allow for the conclusion that this
15 arises from it. So go ahead, Mr. McCloskey. And please try to bring your
16 redirect to an end because we have already overstepped by five minutes.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: My last question.
18 Q. Did you have any information of how many young Serb men died
19 before the corridor was opened on the 16th?
20 A. To tell you the truth, I didn't have any reliable information.
21 But I think that it wasn't a significant number because those people were
22 not armed. This is my opinion. And I didn't have any specific
23 information to this effect.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: You can stop there.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
2 MR. HAYNES: I just wonder whether Mr. McCloskey would be good
3 enough to clear up an answer the witness gave in redirect, namely, how it
4 is that this witness and his operatives forced the Bosnian -- the army of
5 the VRS to speak openly, because it's plain on his witness statement. I
6 didn't cross-examine him about it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: And we, not being technical people, how can you --
8 you said that there is the R -- RUP 2/2K, which had an encryption device
9 segment, but however, you were in a position to force the VRS to stop
10 using that encryption device, and to use the language that was
11 intelligible. How could you do that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is how we did it: If, when
13 scanning a frequency range, or if during the conversation they would
14 mention that they are going into safe mode, then all we could hear were
15 unintelligible signals. We couldn't hear any figures, names or anything
16 like that. So whenever we came across such communication, we would jam
17 them briefly with a powerful device. And this jamming would interrupt the
18 signal so that the other person on the other end could not understand it
20 In the majority of cases, throughout the war, based on my
21 experience, the signalsman, since they have to pass the information
22 across, would switch off the encryption device and talk openly. Whenever
23 they tried to use such devices, there would be a serious miscommunication
24 between them. And very often they would then speak openly about topics
25 that should normally be encrypted. And the best way to force them to
1 cease using encryption would be to jam their conversations.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: At the same time, and please, Madam Registrar, you
3 could communicate to Judge Antonetti the reason why we overstepped our
5 But that would also mean that they would be immediately aware that
6 someone is monitoring that conversation. So it would be tantamount to
7 going back to a situation or position where they would continue to be
8 monitored. Would that not be a correct proposition?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not necessarily. Because in the
10 middle of the conversation they could not, or they could hardly realise
11 that there was jamming, because they receive encrypted message. They
12 don't hear audible human voice. And they could think that, yes, there is
13 some interruption, but they do not necessarily have to conclude that it's
14 due to jamming. It could be due to other problems.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. We have to stop here. Witness, I
16 wish to thank you for having come over to give testimony and I am thanking
17 you on behalf of the Trial Chamber. I also wish you a safe journey back
18 home. Our staff will attend to you.
19 We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.00. We will
20 address the exhibits and we will give our ruling tomorrow morning. Thank
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of March,
24 2007, at 9.00 a.m.