1 Tuesday, 12 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So good morning, everybody. Madam Registrar, could
6 you kindly 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: Okay. I thank you, ma'am.
10 All the accused are present. From the Defence teams I notice the
11 absence of Ms. Condon and Mr. Ostojic. I think that's about it.
12 Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. Yes.
13 Are there any preliminaries before we bring in Mr. Rodic? Okay.
14 I understand that some of you at least wish to address the Chamber later
15 on after Mr. Rodic has concluded his testimony, and you will have, of
16 course, the opportunity to do so, as much time as you require.
17 Could you usher in Mr. Rodic, please.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 WITNESS: DJURO RODIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, to you, Mr. Rodic. Welcome back.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for keeping your appointment with us. I'm
24 sure that we'll finish with your testimony today and so you will be able
25 to go back home immediately after if you so desire.
1 I'll swear you in again. Madam Usher is going to hand to you the
2 text of the solemn declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Please read it out aloud. You know what it is all
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.
9 Mr. Vanderpuye was halfway through his cross-examination when we
10 suspended your testimony last time. He will now continue and finish.
11 Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to you.
13 Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, counsel.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rodic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Thank you for coming back. Mr. President is right; I'm just about
18 halfway through my examination of you, so please bear with me while we get
19 through it. First of all, I'd like to ask you, did you discuss your
20 testimony or your report with anyone during the time that you'd been away
21 from the Tribunal?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And did you speak to anybody regarding the subject matter of your
24 testimony more generally?
25 A. I meant I didn't discuss that subject during the break, but I did
1 discuss some arrangements for my travel to Belgrade.
2 Q. Now, the last we left off we were talking about a map,?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if I could have, please, 65 ter number 1468.
4 All right.
5 Q. Do you see that on your screen, sir?
6 A. Yes, I see it. It's a section of the map of the area that I
7 worked on.
8 Q. If we could just go down to the area of Veliki Zep. It should be
9 on the bottom. There it is. That's -- that's fine.
10 A. Yes, yes. That's it. That's Veliki Zep.
11 Q. And now, is this the same section of the map that was shown to you
12 by Mr. Zivanovic a couple of days before you testified last?
13 A. That is the location of the station.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, because I interrupt my
16 colleague. But I would offer this map to the witness so he could see it
17 much -- more clearly.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have any objection to that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have no objection. In fact I would just like
20 to identify that for the record, if it has an assigned number other
21 than -- other than what's displayed in e-court.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher, if you would please first show it to
23 Mr. Vanderpuye to -- okay.
24 Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The end radio relay station
1 Vlasenica is shown on both maps in the same place. The frequencies
2 between the end relay station Vlasenica and Veliki Zep are identical on the
3 map, 7805.00 megahertz, and 834.250 megahertz. The location of Veliki Zep
4 is the same on both maps, so it's radio relay direction R-800 between Veliki
5 Zep and Vlasenica, between the command of the Drina corps in Vlasenica and
6 the radio relay knob in -- hub, sorry, in Veliki Zep. We see SMC direction
7 to Veliki Zep, but I don't see it on the monitor. If you can move the map
8 towards the end point, it's this direction, SMC. Then move the map to
9 north-east, but -- but we don't see the full picture, but I know from the
10 map, the full one, that it first showed relay communications, that it's the
11 direction towards Cer, so the 120-channel radio relay axis Veliki Zep-Cer.
12 Q. All right. Can you tell from the map that you have in front of
13 you that's just been provided to you whether or not it is drawn from this
14 map that is in e-court now? And if you can't, that's fine too.
15 A. Well, on the basis of what I've seen so far, that's the map.
16 That's the right map. But I would also like to see the one that I
17 analysed, the other directions, Zvornik-Gucevo, and
18 Gucevo-Cer, and Veliki Zep-Bratunac. I would like to cover them all so I
19 am absolutely sure of my data.
20 Q. Did you review any map before you testified last other than this
21 map that's now before you?
22 A. I reviewed this map over two or three days when I came first to
23 The Hague and that's the information I have, the basis on that map. I did
24 not receive any other information subsequently.
25 This direction going towards Bratunac, RRU-1, it's not so clear on
1 the monitor, 252.275 megahertz, although megahertz is not written here.
2 That's one frequency, since there is reception and/inaudible/should have
3 been two, as on this map. Then on the same line we see RRU-800 towards
4 Bratunac with the frequency of 705.00. I don't see it on the map. We
5 should move it to the right. I suppose that's the other pair of
6 frequencies, 805 MHz towards Bratunac.
7 Q. I don't need for you to compare every point in the map. I just
8 want to know, frankly, if you've seen the larger map prior to testifying
9 the last time -- prior to testifying the last time you were in court.
10 That's the map that's on the computer. Have you seen that total map before?
11 A. Yes, I believe so. I believe that's the map.
12 Q. So before you testified on the last date, you were shown the --
13 the map in total. And if we could just zoom out for a moment so you can
14 see the entire map.
15 All right. So prior to testifying last, you actually did have an
16 opportunity to see this entire map; is that right?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. And on that map you were able to see the locations that are
19 indicated for Vlasenica; right?
20 A. Well, it's not very clear, but I believe it's Vlasenica,
21 Veliki Zep, Cer, Kuce -- Gucevo, and Zvornik. That is the axis that I
23 Q. All right. So that particular route as divided by those four
24 paths are clearly indicated on this map which you reviewed before you
25 testified last; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And in terms of their specific locations relative to the
3 interception posts, those locations are accurate, aren't they?
4 A. Last time I stated that the position as drawn on this map, the
5 position of Vlasenica is not exactly as I stated in my analysis. Maybe
6 it's a purely graphic matter. And the same goes for Zvornik. They are a
7 bit different from my analysis and my information: and the position of
8 the nodes Veliki Zep, Cer and Gucevo, is the same as far as I can see.
9 Q. All right. Just zoom in on the right-hand side of the map. Yes,
10 right there. Could you move that towards the middle please? Yes. The
11 location where Cer is. On the right-hand side in the middle of the map.
12 Is it possible to centre that? All the way on the right.
13 A. This is the left side.
14 Q. Other way. Yes. Okay. Do you see where it says Ka Avali on the
15 right-hand side? If you could just blow that up.
16 The location on the right-hand side of the computer at this time,
17 that represents the location of Cer, doesn't it?
18 A. Yes, Cer.
19 Q. Okay. That indicates that there is a RRU-800 device that operates
20 on that line towards Gucevo; right? Do you see -- do you see the number
21 800 on that line?
22 A. I see 200 and 800 on this, and on the schematics that I had, and
23 according to the data of the Drina Corps, it was the route of -- for
24 RRU-800, Cer-Gucevo.
25 Q. If we could just go down from Gucevo -- there it is in the middle
1 of the screen just about, towards Zvornik and if you could blow that up,
3 Okay, you have to come down a little bit on the screen. No, other
5 A. That's enough.
6 Q. All right. Do you see the line from Gucevo to Zvornik?
7 A. Yes, I see this route. It has one frequency, 123 -- it's not
8 quite clear. 823.00 megahertz.
9 Q. That's a frequency that corresponds to a RRU-800 device, doesn't
11 A. Yes. It corresponds to the range in which RRU is capable of
12 working on that route. I don't know whether the transmission is from
13 Gucevo or from Zvornik.
14 Q. Well, consistent with the path that you analyse which indicates on
15 it that that particular path is -- is communication along a RRU-800
16 device. Isn't that right? That's what's in your report.
17 A. On the route Zvornik-Gucevo, connection was established with
19 Q. And so with respect to the paths from Zvornik to Gucevo, Gucevo to
20 Cer, Cer to Veliki Zep, and Veliki Zep to Vlasenica, this map indicates
21 all of the correct devices that were in place according to your report,
22 doesn't it?
23 A. Those were devices that were in operation on the route Vlasenica-Zvornik,
24 or vice versa, Zvornik-Vlasenica, and only the Vlasenica-Zvornik and
25 Zvornik-Vlasenica communications took place along these radio-relay routes.
1 Q. My question is --
2 A. Sorry. On Veliki Zep, it was possible to connect onto
3 communications from the Main Staff of the VRS at Veliki Zep, as well as
4 the connection with Bratunac established with RRU-1.
5 Q. My question is whether or not those devices are accurately
6 depicted on this map as concerns the specific route that you analysed, and
7 they are, aren't they?
8 A. As for schematics, the multiplex devices are missing there, from
9 which we could see the capacities of these communications. From the data
10 of the Drina Corps, I know that on the Zvornik-Gucevo route, and an
11 intermediate station existed on Gucevo to Cer, there were 12 telephone
12 channels. As for the relay devices, it is depicted correctly
13 in the sense that the route was operated by a RRU-800. I do not claim
14 that the frequencies used on those routes as depicted here are correct.
15 Q. I'm asking about the devices. We can agree on that; right? That
16 the devices in terms of whether it's a RRU-800 or RRU-1 device along the
17 particular paths is accurately depicted in this map. Yes?
18 A. I will repeat. On the route Zvornik-Gucevo, there were a couple
19 of RRU-800 devices. On the Gucevo-Cer, there were also a couple of
20 devices RRU-800. On the Cer-Veliki Zep route, there was a double
21 transmitter, a pair of SMCC devices and on Veliki Zep-Vlasenica route
22 there was a pair of RRU-800 devices as well.
23 Q. All right. Now, you didn't have an opportunity to review this
24 particular map until after you'd written your report; right?
25 A. No. I looked at the map here when I came here. Two or three days before
1 the 23rd when I appeared here as an expert witness for the first time.
2 Q. All right. So you didn't have the benefit of this map when you
3 concluded in your report that the ABiH did not have information relating
4 to the radio relay route that you analysed; right?
5 A. No. That's why I drew some of my conclusions based on the
6 orientation of the antennas when we intercepted the conversations, because
7 these antennas from the physical locations of north and south were not
8 directed towards the facilities that we are talking about here, especially
9 not towards Veliki Zep where there was a strong concentration of
10 communication links which is visible from the angles, i.e., the azimuth,
11 that were represented in their reports for certain intercepted
13 It arises from that, and it is only logical, that they simply did
14 not provide for the optimum direction of their antenna system towards the
15 facility that was the object of interception.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecutor has
18 asked the witness if his conclusions would have been the same if he had
19 had this map. I think this question is relevant only if this map dates
20 from the year 1995, that is, from the relevant times.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What's your observation on that
22 Mr. Vanderpuye?
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it's a completely invalid objection
24 particularly to the extent that I haven't asked any question based upon
25 that other than whether the witness had the opportunity to review it prior
1 to drawing his -- drawing the conclusions that were contained in his
2 report. My question goes to the accuracy of the report as opposed to the
3 accuracy of the map.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecutor has
8 asked the witness whether his conclusions would have been the same if he
9 had had the map, and I believe that it is relevant with regard to the fact
10 whether this map existed in 1995.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't agree with you, Madam Fauveau. Whether it
12 existed or not in 1995, it's not relevant. The whole question boils down
13 to if he had this map available at the time he was drawing up his report,
14 his report would have been the same or would have been different. So --
15 and I think in any case he's now been told that this map doesn't go back
16 to 1995 in any case.
17 So let's -- let's proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Could I have please 5D00123 on e-court, please. If you could just
20 page down to the bottom of this. I think there's also an English
21 translation. Is there a translation that -- it's coming up or ...
22 Q. All right. Do you see that in front of you, Mr. Rodic? This is a
23 report from the --
24 A. Yes, I can see part of the document, actually.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. One moment. Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we see the date of this document, please?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, I was just going to page up so that you
3 could see the date.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that, both of you. We see the date
5 now, and it's 8/8/1995.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: This isn't being broadcast, is it? It is being
7 broadcast. Okay. I think we -- I think maybe we ought not to.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I mean, we don't have a hard copy of that
9 map, and we all think that it will be --
10 JUDGE KWON: 1468.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, 1468.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: A hard copy of 1468?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. Not now, later.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I'll bring it down.
15 Q. Okay. Do you see this document in front of you, Mr. Rodic, that
16 it's dated 8 August 1995?
17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 Q. Now, if we could just go down to the bottom of this document. And
19 at the bottom of this document do you see an area which relates to the
20 locations and code-names relative to the VRS?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And are you familiar with those code-names and those locations?
23 A. Well, as for the locations that were of interest to my analysis,
24 I'm familiar with them. I was not interested in any others. As for the
25 code-names, they didn't mean anything to me at all.
1 Q. All right. If we could just page up to the first paragraph of
2 this document. Do you see in this --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: For your information, there is no broadcast -- or
4 was it broadcast? It was broadcast. So we have to redact that part
5 because it shows the site, one of the sites.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it does. Thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Just leave it in our hands. We'll deal with that.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Now, this document is in fact an order, isn't it?
11 A. Yes. That's what it says. The radio surveillance order.
12 Q. And there's a specific instruction to the radio intercept units to
13 direct their antennas towards Zvornik, Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, and
14 Srebrenica, Bratunac and Vlasenica. Do you see that, corresponding
16 A. I can see that, but I cannot interpret the same way you are doing
17 it. It says here that radio surveillance should be carried out on the
18 frequencies 784.700 megahertz, Zvornik-Vlasenica-Han Pijesak. That's one
19 frequency and these are three facilities, or three radio relay axes. I am
20 not able to say about this radio frequency Zvornik, Vlasenica and
21 Han Pijesak are geographic at different coordinates. In other words, I
22 cannot tie this frequency either to Zvornik or to Vlasenica or to
23 Han Pijesak, and especially in view of the light where Han Pijesak is.
24 According to what I have Han Pijesak is a place between Vlasenica and Crna
25 Rijeka and Veliki Zep, and I don't have Han Pijesak in my analysis because
1 as far as I know no radio communication worked there.
2 The second frequency, 654.000 megahertz, it says the radio
3 surveillance should be done on route Srebrenica-Bratunac-Vlasenica.
4 As radio relay person, when I take this territory into
5 consideration, if the person who issued this order, that thought that this
6 was a communication that was established, I did not analyse it, but I can
7 confirm that due to the nature of the obstacles, the geographical
8 obstacles -- obstacles, this radio relay route cannot function as such.
9 In my view, this is a very undefined order, very vague order. One
10 frequency with two routes and three facilities, it is very dubious as to
11 which route would this frequency relate to.
12 This is my approach. I'm not entering into the matter of the
13 style of order issuing and the way the orders were drafted in the BiH
14 army. I'm approaching the subject from the point of view of a radio relay
16 Q. All right. Thank you for that. Now, your analysis of the radio
17 relay route in question, from Vlasenica to Zvornik, was based upon a
18 report that you looked at, which was dated in 1993; correct?
19 A. Can you give me the number, please?
20 Q. The number is 04314791. You have it right there in front of you.
21 Do you see it?
22 A. Yes, I've found it in the attachments 12 and 13. This is a report
23 of the Drina Corps command to the Main Staff concerning the radio relay
24 communications. They tell the Drina Corps, and the date is 2nd October
1 Q. All right. In fact, one of the frequencies that's referred to in
2 that document corresponds to the operation of a RRU-800 device between
3 Vlasenica and Veliki Zep. That's under Article 2 in that document; right?
4 A. Under item 2 in the document, as part of the attachment 12, so,
5 it deals with the work and the time route Veliki Zep, 24-channel, right,
6 the direction Veliki Zep, the Drina Corps, i.e., Vlasenica.
7 Q. All right. And one of the corresponding frequencies on that path
8 is 680 megahertz; right?
9 A. Yes, 680 megahertz, yes.
10 Q. Now, if I could have P02822 in e-court, please.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: We're not broadcasting, are we?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Usher -- Madam Registrar? Okay.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. All right. First you see the date of this document. This is 18th
15 November 1993.
16 A. Yes, 18th.
17 Q. And you can see this is a document that originated in the southern
18 site, or at least refers to the southern site; right?
19 A. Yes, the southern site, yes.
20 Q. If I could please go to -- it's the ERN number is -- ends 649, so
21 six pages forward. If we could go down to the bottom of the page.
22 Now, with reference to this document, sir, do you see an
23 indication in the document as to the frequencies that are active? Well,
24 maybe I can direct your attention to it. In the document, you see in the
25 direction of Vlasenica, an azimuth of 115 degrees. Do you see that -- do
1 you see that on that document?
2 A. Yes, above the table.
3 Q. And you see that one of the active frequencies within the range of
4 the operating RRU-800 device is 680. That's on the left column, second
5 from the bottom.
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. According to your information, based upon the 1993 Drina Corps
8 order, that call responds exactly to the frequency that was in operation
9 along that specific route; right?
10 A. That is the frequency.
11 Q. And --
12 A. The only thing that is missing is the fact that there were two
13 frequencies on the route from Vlasenica to Veliki Zep or from Veliki Zep
14 to Vlasenica. So this is not very well-defined.
15 The second undefined thing is whether this is from Veliki Zep.
16 I'm talking about the document that is in front of me.
17 In the document that I used, that frequency was from Veliki Zep
18 towards Vlasenica.
19 Q. All right. Well, what's depicted on this particular document is
20 that it's from that direction and it corresponds to the frequency that you
21 say was in operation based upon a 1993 Drina Corps order; correct?
22 A. Correct. According to the frequency plan, this frequency was
23 operational from Veliki Zep towards Vlasenica. This was according to a
24 Drina Corps order. You're right.
25 Q. So in 1995, it's apparent that the ABiH had information concerning
1 the frequencies in operation that you claim were in operation since 1993,
2 at least along that particular path. Isn't that true?
3 A. For this particular frequency, I would say that that is the case, yes.
4 Q. And did none of the documents that you analysed concerning the
5 intercepts that you looked at actually contained that specific frequency?
6 Isn't that true? In 1995.
7 A. True. But my calculation shows that they could not, here at the
8 southern site, irrespective of the frequency, not even with the equipment
9 they had, due to the relation of the angles of the radiation diagrams –
10 they could not intercept any conversations on that frequency.
11 Look at my calculation, please.
12 Q. Your conclusion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the ABiH had
13 the information concerning an active frequency since 1993 that you claim
14 was in effect and in operation in 1995, and yet not one intercept that you
15 examined in relation to your analysis corresponds to a frequency that
16 they've known about for two years. That's your testimony? Is that what
17 your conclusion is?
18 A. Based on the documents that I reviewed, that I had at my disposal,
19 that would be the case, which I confirm. No document that I reviewed with
20 regard to this frequency --
21 Q. All right. This document wasn't one of the documents you reviewed
22 before you made your report. Fair to say?
23 A. No.
24 Q. In fact, during the course of preparing your report you came
25 across no document that actually indicates that the frequencies you
1 believed to have been in operation in 1995 were those frequencies that
2 were in operation in 1993; isn't that true?
3 A. I reviewed the documents that are specified in my analysis.
4 Q. And there's no document specified in your analysis establishing
5 the --
6 JUDGE KWON: Can I interrupt you for a minute? It's a problem of
7 a double-ended question, the previous series of questions. You asked this
8 document was wasn't one of the documents, and at the end you added, "Fair
9 to say?" The witness said no. No to what?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you,
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Judge Kwon.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Judge Kwon.
14 Q. This was not a document that you reviewed prior to preparing your
16 A. No.
17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: He said ne. I could hear him clearly say ne.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. And the only document that you were able to find concerning the
21 frequencies that were in operation in 1995 is in fact a document that is
22 dated in 1993.
23 A. When it comes to the documents originating from the Drina Corps,
24 the answer would be yes.
25 Q. You've reviewed no document or seen any document establishing what
1 the frequencies in operation were in 1995 that's actually dated in 1995?
2 A. When it comes to the frequency, the answer would be no. When
3 we're talking about frequencies.
4 Q. You've reviewed no document prior to preparing your report which
5 indicates that the frequencies were not changed between 1993 and 1995?
6 A. For the radio relay connections, I didn't. As for the other types
7 of connections, I saw a number of documents regarding various radio
8 systems that changed very often.
9 Q. And part of your analysis you reviewed the technical aspects of
10 the equipment that was used by the ABiH; right?
11 A. What I could collect as data, yes, and what I considered
12 sufficient for the level of the analysis that I was involved in.
13 Q. And as part of your review of the technical aspects of the
14 equipment, you reviewed a list of equipment, an inventory as it were.
15 A. Yes. I had documents for the north and the south sites with jobs,
16 pieces of equipment for -- at various workplaces and some other
17 specifications specifying other equipment, i.e., the entire inventory for
18 both these sites which is auxiliary to radio equipment, antennas,
19 recording devices, and similar equipment which I did not specify in my
20 analysis because it is auxiliary equipment. I just provide short comments
21 about those in my analysis.
22 Q. Well, in particular in your analysis you provided some comments
23 about equipment that you were not sure what it was used for; isn't that
25 A. Yes, that's true.
1 Q. And in particular, you referred in your report to the use of a
2 converter in the capacity of interception of one of the sites; do you
3 recall having done that?
4 A. Yes. This is on page 11 of my report. A converter which
5 converts a signal from a 150 to 18 megahertz.
6 Q. And in your report you indicated that you didn't know what it was
7 used for; right?
8 A. As part of the interception of conversations on RRU-800 and RRU-1.
9 I don't see a reason for this converter, because this converter converts
10 the frequency of 150 MHz to 18 MHz, and the frequency area of a RRU-1,
11 which is a lower area, is 235 to 270 MHz, and for RRU-800, 610-960 MHz.
12 So this converter cannot accept frequencies of these two pieces of equipment
13 and convert it into a lower frequency that would lend itself to analysis. I
14 believe for that it is pointless for the interception of conversations by
15 these two pieces of equipment, and I don't know why it should be an
16 accompanying piece of equipment together with the RRU-800 and RRU-1. And
17 especially the SMCC equipment which is within the range of 4.4 to 5
18 gigahertz, which is far beyond
19 this range.
20 Q. Fair enough. You made the same observation of a different
21 converter, S042; that's also in your report, right? And you indicated
22 that it had no clear role. That's in section 5.2.1b of your report.
23 A. Yes. That's in item b.
24 Q. Now, with respect to your observations of equipment that you
25 couldn't make out what it was used for, did you consider the possibility
1 that that equipment could have been modified and used in a function other
2 than it was intended for?
3 A. I didn't have any information about any modification, because in
4 that report the purpose of the equipment is not specified, and it's not
5 specified which frequency area is input, which is output, there is no
6 sensitivity indicated, or the level of output. So from those elements
7 that I had I could not analyse much.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it was --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Just a minute. Madam Fauveau.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to have to interrupt the
12 witness. I believed that he had finished. In fact, there is a little
13 mistake in the transcript that could be important. It's on page 19, line
14 7, RRU-800 was mentioned twice, and the first one should have been RRU-1.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you for that, Madam Fauveau, but let's
16 make it a practice, if it's something that has to do with the transcript,
17 just let us see that you need to address us, but you should wait until the
18 witness has finished answering the question if he happens to have already
19 started. But this time I quite understand, because even I understood that
20 he had finished his -- his answer basically.
21 Let's finish your answer first, Witness. You had started
22 saying, "I didn't have any information about any modification, because in
23 that report the purpose of the equipment is not specified and it's not
24 specified which frequency area is input, which is output. There is no
25 sensitivity indicated or output. So from those I could not analyse much."
1 And you were about to tell us something more. If you could continue now,
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, quite simply in the report
4 dealing with these workplaces, there is no rationale indicated for what
5 the equipment was used and what the interceptors were using so I couldn't
6 make any assumptions there. And the primary object of my analysis was the
7 receiver. So I followed the signal from RRU-800 to the entry into the
8 receiver. What happened later was irrelevant to me. Why? Because in my
9 calculations I indicated that if the receiver was not receiving a signal,
10 or was not receiving it in good quality, then it was irrelevant what later
11 happened in the technology, the analysis of signals, and whatever else
12 they used.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go to the correction or mistake that
16 Madam Fauveau indicated. We are at line 19 -- page 19, line 7. And the
17 correction is to the effect that although we have in the transcript
18 RRU-800 mentioned twice, the first one should be RRU-1. Is that correct,
19 Madam Fauveau?
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And is that correct, Mr. Rodic?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes. So there are two
23 different devices. RRU-800 is one of them. What I said about the
24 converters is that they are not necessary for that range at all. In fact,
25 they cannot accept the signal from that – from those devices.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
3 Q. You know, my question was, Mr. Rodic, whether or not you
4 considered that. That's about as simple as the question can be, and the
5 answer should be a yes or no. Can you tell me?
6 A. Whether I considered the converter S042. Should I go back to it
7 and remind myself?
8 Q. Whether or not you considered the possibility it could have been
10 A. No.
11 Q. What about with respect to the antennas used?
12 A. I cannot assume such things, and I never found in their reports
13 anywhere that they modified something or to which purpose they might have
14 modified this converter S042.
15 Q. All right. And you never reviewed any statements, testimony of
16 anybody or operator involved in the actual processing of these intercepts;
18 A. No, I did not take into account any previous testimony or witness
19 statement except maybe one that I will deal with later. None were
20 presented to me. And that one that I mentioned is not linked to this
22 Q. All right. Now, of the intercepts that you actually looked at
23 that are indicated in your report, do you know whether or not you
24 considered all of the 213 intercepts that have been offered in this case
25 from those particular locations?
1 A. I took into account the intercepts for which I had some background
2 information, the frequency, with which antenna it was intercepted. I took
3 into account the intercepts of which I had technical data about the
4 process of interception. I don't know how many documents were available,
5 but I selected the intercepts that are here in my file, in my analysis.
6 Q. Well, are you aware that in your analysis the number of intercepts
7 that correspond to the intercepts that have been offered in this case of
8 the 213 is about 83? Were you aware of that?
9 A. You mean included here, 83? No, I did not reckon that.
10 Q. Did you -- did you calculate in your report how many of those
11 intercepts, the ones that you -- that are actually -- that correspond to
12 the intercepts that have been offered in this case, how many of those
13 intercepts actually originated with the 2nd Corps units whose equipment
14 you analysed?
15 A. I did not quite understand the question.
16 Q. All right. Are you aware that in the northern site there was more
17 than one interception unit in operation in 1995?
18 A. According to the reports, I see that there was this one unit, and
19 there was also the State Security Service of Tuzla. Those are the only
20 things I noticed.
21 Q. Now, you didn't actually analyse the equipment that was used by
22 the state security services of Tuzla in your report, did you?
23 A. I did not have occasion to see in any of the documents what kind
24 of equipment they had or to analyse it. There was only one background
25 document which told me that they had a rotor -- a rotator in the northern
1 location. It was not in operation yet, and then it was stolen. It was
2 actually a security report speaking about the detection of the
3 perpetrator. I don't know if they were an operative unit, but in some way
4 they were present with their equipment. I don't even remember the date
5 because it was irrelevant to me.
6 Q. All right. But you're aware that they had equipment that was
7 different from the equipment that you actually analysed. Yes?
8 A. How would I know? It was not stated anywhere. They did not
9 describe the kind of equipment they had in the information I had. In
10 other words, I don't know because I did not have such documentation. And
11 their reports are very peculiar. They have a different format from the
12 other formats used by the BH army. They are worded in general terms
13 without indicating who the participants in the conversation are.
14 Q. So your report in general does not address the viability or
15 possibility of interception by the state security services operating out
16 of the north facility at all; right?
17 A. No. The only thing that I mentioned in my prior testimony is that
18 frequency, 630 megahertz. In their reports, it was stated that it was
19 used somewhere in the area of Sarajevo, Lukavica, Rajlovac, and so on.
20 Q. And you're also aware that in your report consideration of the
21 intercepts that you looked at you attributed certain intercepts that were
22 created by the state security services to the intercepts that were secured
23 in the southern facility. Are you aware of that?
24 A. Maybe. I cannot tell now.
25 Q. Now --
1 A. I cannot differentiate now between various numbers and who they
2 belonged to.
3 Q. Well, when you organised your report did you take into
4 consideration when you were attributing the possibility of intercepts to
5 each of these two locations what unit was actually intercepting from those
7 A. Well, in my report the focus is on which frequency exists on a
8 certain location. Everything else is auxiliary. Which unit, whether it
9 was the south or northern location, or whether it was state security or
10 somebody else. The focus is on the fact that a certain frequency was
11 subject to listening.
12 Q. Now, did you consider the fact that there was yet another, a third
13 unit operating from the northern facility, independently of the equipment
14 that you analysed? Were you aware of that?
15 A. You know what? I can assume that there was a unit in the air,
16 that it was perhaps outside the borders of the area controlled by the BH
17 army. I can assume anything, but my job was to analyse what the BH army
18 was doing. I can make various assumptions, but I don't want to because it
19 would be less than serious. I have some knowledge about how this is done.
20 A third person can intercept certain conversations, and they can be noted
21 in notebooks and transcripts can exist, but this is something I can state
22 only in general terms. I cannot go into deeper analysis.
23 Q. All right. So the answer is no, you didn't consider the fact that
24 there was another unit operating from the northern facility in terms of
25 your analysis.
1 A. In my analysis, I did not take that into account because I did not
2 have any documents to corroborate the existence of such units, except
3 knowing that the state security from Tuzla was also intercepting
4 conversations. I knew that they had some equipment for it, but apart from
5 their presence in the northern location, I cannot confirm that they
6 operated from another location as well. It's not in any of the documents.
7 Q. And you didn't consider the incidents where the frequencies that
8 were monitored with respect to the possibility of interception were the
9 same among all three units, did you?
10 A. You mean that they recorded the same conversations on the same
11 frequencies, if I understood you correctly. You mean the same transcripts
12 were made by the same three intercepting parties?
13 Q. What I'm asking you is whether or not you considered that when you
14 looked at these intercepts that you analysed. Did you look to see whether
15 or not there were incidents in which all three independent units recorded
16 on the same frequency, the same purported location? Did you look for
18 A. No, I did not look for it because I was primarily interested in
19 whether on the frequencies that I knew, with communications between
20 Vlasenica and Zvornik, interception was technically possible in view of
21 the receiving frequencies. I did not go deeper into analysis or
22 comparison. Maybe I should have done. Maybe that's a failure. Maybe I
23 would have noticed some discrepancy in contents, but I didn't analyse that
25 Q. In terms of the intercepts that you actually did look at, those 83
1 intercepts, you can't tell us now how many of those intercepts actually
2 relate to the route that you analysed, can you?
3 A. Not one. Except that those two frequencies were unknown, and they
4 are a possibility. But they are only two out of 16 frequencies, and I
5 don't have insight into two frequencies between Cer and Gucevo where
6 possibly two out of 16 were from the northern or southern location.
7 Q. Well, what my question is, I suppose, is: Is it possible that of
8 the intercepts you examined that relatively few of them actually purport
9 to have been captured along the route that you analysed? Did you analyse
10 that possibility?
11 A. Well, I've already said there were 16 different frequencies that
12 were listened to from the northern and southern location, and there were
13 only two unknown frequencies, the receiving and transmitting one between
14 Gucevo and Cer. That alone tells us how many other problematic
15 frequencies existed, namely the intercepts I introduced in my analysis, of
16 course according to available documentation and especially the plan of
18 Q. Well, the plan that you're talking about actually doesn't contain
19 two central frequencies to the route that you analysed; right? Doesn't
20 that tell you that the plan that you analyse is incomplete? All right.
21 A. No, because it was within the jurisdiction of the Drina Corps to
22 monitor routes between Vlasenica to Veliki Zep and from Zvornik to Gucevo.
23 Other routes, Veliki Zep-Cer and Veliki Zep-Gucevo were within the
24 jurisdiction of the Main Staff. That's why the Drina Corps did not report
25 to the Main Staff about these frequencies, because they were not within
1 their area. That's why they're not in the documents of the Drina Corps.
2 You can see that also from other documents dealing with securing
3 the equipment covering those radio relay routes, those communications.
4 Q. We have documentation from -- from Gucevo to Zvornik; right?
5 A. Yes. We have frequencies Gucevo-Zvornik and Zvornik-Gucevo,
6 because that's a radio relay route with which the Zvornik Brigade relied
7 on Gucevo, and it had to have that information because the transmitting
8 frequency towards Gucevo was the frequency on the RRU-800 in Zvornik, and
9 the receiving frequency in Zvornik was the same as the transmitting
10 frequency from Gucevo. That's why they have to have in their file both
11 frequencies but not Gucevo towards Cer.
12 Q. You also don't have the frequencies for the back-up RRU-800 device
13 that you say was operating between Veliki Zep and Cer; right? That's not
14 in the document that you -- that you referred to, is it?
15 A. No. There were no frequencies. That equipment was in preparation. The
16 purpose of the equipment was to be back-up when SMC for some reason is out
17 of use, so that the most -- selectively, the most essential communications
18 between Veliki Zep towards Cer, and Gucevo and Zvornik can be relayed.
19 So in principle, when you plan a route like that you secure a
20 workplace for it at the facility and antenna, and you wait until the
21 moment when it's necessary to use it, and that's when you determine the
22 frequency, because that switch can take place suddenly, but it may not
23 take place at all for many years.
24 Q. Sir, you have no information whatsoever when, if at all, that
25 back-up RRU-800 device between Cer and Veliki Zep was ever in operation.
1 Isn't that true?
2 A. In 1994 it was active when there were NATO airstrikes on Veliki Zep.
3 So the SMC route Veliki Zep-Cer was not in operation, and that's when the
4 back-up of RRU-800 was used. I don't have information about the frequencies,
5 but I personally was involved in enabling the SMC route, and when the SMC
6 route was enabled again then this back-up route was switch off, after
7 covering the major communications between Veliki Zep and Cer for a while.
8 Q. We're talking about within the period of your analysis; right?
9 Within the period of your analysis you have no information whether or when
10 that particular unit was in operation; isn't that true?
11 A. The radio relay route covered by RRU-800 between Cer and
12 Veliki Zep had no need to operate because the capacity, as I showed in my
13 analysis, was realised between those two facilities using the SMC, which
14 has the double capacity of RRU-800, even when the latter is working at
15 maximum capacity. It was senseless to use them both at the same time.
16 There also existed a secure communication route which I did not include in
17 my analysis because I did not have any information that there were any
18 communications from cryptographically protected routes.
19 Q. The SMC device you're talking about is the one that you went to go
20 fix in August of 1995. That's what you're talking about?
21 A. No. Yes. Yes. The device, yes. But I didn't go to repair it.
22 It was regular technical check-up and assistance so that the whole system
23 including the SMC, the RRU-800 and all the multiplex devices that existed
24 there would be brought up to a good level. And I already said that the
25 VRS did not have the staff for that, and that's why a team, including me,
1 came to improve it. It was not out of operation. It's a double
2 transmitter and receiver, unlike the others. It has two radio devices,
3 and it's very robust. So when one radio is not working, the other one is,
4 and the communication is of good quality. But it's always better to have
5 two transmissions over two radios on SMC, and the job of that team was to
6 bring it up to snuff technologically, so that it can function as
7 envisaged. It was not broken down; it was a scheduled maintenance and
8 assistance, and it was purely by chance that we found ourselves on that
9 day at the facility at Veliki Zep.
10 Q. Mr. Rodic, your report doesn't account for four potentially active
11 RRU-800 frequencies.
12 A. Four. You mean two. Four are mentioned on the route
13 Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route, Zvornik and Gucevo, but there is no reference
14 to Gucevo-Cer. Whereas on the route Cer-Veliki Zep, there was the SMC,
15 which is not within the frequency range of RRU-800.
16 Q. Sir, you testified that there was a back-up RRU-800 device that
17 could operate between Cer and Veliki Zep. That much is accurate; right?
18 A. This means, and I repeat --
19 Q. I just want a yes or no, if I could, please.
20 A. The piece of equipment has its place.
21 Q. Is that accurate or not?
22 A. In the preparation without any specific frequencies.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated] ... Already answered --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The witness already answered the question.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Where? Where? Where did he answer it?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I can't see exact page, but he was asked about it.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he can -- the question, previous question --
5 let me freeze this.
6 "Mr. Rodic, your report doesn't account for four potentially
7 active RRU-800 frequencies."
8 And he answered -- the first answer was, "Four. You mean two.
9 Four are mentioned on the route Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route, Zvornik and
10 Gucevo, but there is no reference to Gucevo-Cer, whereas on the route
11 Cer-Veliki Zep there was the SMC which is not within the frequency range
12 of RRU-800."
13 And then there was the next question where you interrupted: "Sir,
14 you testified that there was a back-up RRU-800 device that could operate
15 between Cer and Veliki Zep. That much is accurate; right?"
16 And then your -- he started answering, and we had your
17 interruption -- or intervention. But the thing is it's being put to him
18 that indeed he has already made such a statement, but he is being asked to
19 clarify. So let's continue.
20 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 29, line 9 up
22 to line 13, the witness answered the question, since he stated as
23 follows: "[In English] The radio relay route covered by RRU-800 between
24 Cer and Veliki Zep had no need to operate, because as I showed in my
25 analysis, was realised between those two facilities using the SMC."
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. She could be right. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: My question to him was whether it could operate
3 as distinguished from whether it was in operation, and I think that's an
4 important distinction in light of the fact that the witness is claiming to
5 have personal knowledge that that it was never in operation during the
6 period of time which he conducted his analysis.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Very well. I think we can proceed. Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: He answered this question too.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Where? Where did he answer it?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: At the same place.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No. At the same place he said --
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It was [indiscernible] route.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: He "had no need to operate because as I showed in my
14 analysis between those two facilities using SMC which has double capacity
15 of RRU-800, even when the latter is working at maximum capacity. It was
16 senseless to use them both at the same time. There also existed the
17 secure communication route which I did not include in my analysis because
18 I did not have any information that there were any communication from
19 cryptographically protected routes."
20 Yeah, but the question is more precise than that, whether he has
21 knowledge, actually, that the RRU-800 was also used in spite of your
22 conclusion that there was -- it would have been senseless to -- to use it.
24 What you testified earlier on is your conclusion, your opinion
25 based on your expertise that it wouldn't have made sense using the SMC and
1 also the RRU-800, but can you exclude that the RRU-800 was indeed made use
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I exclude that possibility. The SMC
4 has a five-time bigger capacity than the RRU-800. Not double the
5 capacity, but five times the capacity of.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: He's your witness, Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We've overpassed the time for our break. We'll have
9 a 25-minute break, and we'll continue after that. Thank you.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rodic. You just indicated, I think, last before
15 we took the break that you exclude the possibility that the RRU-800
16 device, the back-up device on the path between Cer and Veliki Zep was in
17 use during the period of your -- the period of time that your analysis
18 covers. That's between June and August of 1995. Is that right?
19 A. That's correct. I don't see the logic. If a 120-channel system
20 is operational between Cer and Veliki Zep, I don't see a logic of a
21 RRU-800 with up to 24 channels working at the same time.
22 Q. Okay. That's not part of the frequency plan that you reviewed
23 from the Drina Corps of 1993?
24 A. There is no frequency for that path in the frequency plan that I
25 reviewed for my analysis, and that is actually part of my analysis.
1 Q. Now, you didn't -- you didn't obtain any other frequency plan
2 other than that, the 1993 one from the Drina Corps?
3 A. No. I don't have any other frequency plan, actually.
4 Q. And did you ask for any such frequency plan for 1995?
5 A. I asked for all documents relative to that period, and I received
6 what I received.
7 Q. So your analysis was conducted in light of the documents that you
8 had at your disposal and no other documents; is that right?
9 A. Of course.
10 Q. And there is no document that's included with your report that you
11 otherwise relied on directly establishing the frequencies that were in use
12 in 1995 during the period of your analysis; right?
13 A. When it comes to frequencies, there's none. There are other
14 documents that I reviewed, quite a lot of them.
15 Q. Part of your analysis that's concluded in your report relates to
16 having reviewed certain scouting or searching reports that were made up by
17 the ABiH. That's in section 6 of your report.
18 A. Yes. I analysed reports on the search of frequencies. Those are
19 frequencies that the BiH army searched at these two sites, but they are
20 not linked to any documents, or at least I did not find such documents
21 about the intercepted communications. They just searched the frequencies
22 and their quality and that's what is stated in the reports.
23 Q. So with respect to that aspect of your report, that analysis has
24 really nothing to do with the documents that you in fact analysed
25 concerning the intercepts -- the intercepts that are appended to your
2 A. I can't establish a link for two reasons. Firstly, what I
3 included contains a frequency, an azimuth, and a time. Here there is a
4 time, an azimuth, but it does not contain any contents, and I don't think
5 that the purpose of that was to record intercepted conversations but just
6 to record the spectrum, i.e., the frequencies that appear under a certain
8 Q. Okay. And with respect to the angles you analysed, those angles
9 corresponded to a direction that was westerly from these facilities; isn't
10 that true? The interception facilities, so that I'm clear.
11 A. Yes, you can tell it's clear from the north side, 240 degrees
12 would be almost opposite to the facilities that I analysed. For example,
13 this is under item 6.1. Further on, under 6.2, again from the location
14 north, this is 286 degrees. Again, this is even less favourable angle
15 with regard to the facilities that remained on a different side to the
16 maximum direction of the antenna where the reception of the intercepted
17 conversation is the worst. 274 degrees from the location south, this is
18 again a westward direction, and the facilities are mostly located in the
19 east or in the south-east.
20 Q. And so the conclusion that you drew as a result of analysing these
21 searching or scouting reports is effectively that when the antenna is
22 turned opposite to the direction in which the radio relay route is, that
23 the reception is worse than when the antenna is turned toward that route.
24 Is that fair to say?
25 A. Yes. You can see this from any of the diagrams of the antenna
1 direction. We can look at the enclosure 30. If the antenna is turned --
2 Q. Well, let me just ask it in a general way, because --
3 A. In general terms this is the least favourable direction. I have
4 the very correct diagrams of these antennas. There is a slight variation.
5 There is less favourable direction and extremely unfavourable direction.
6 Q. All right. Now, with respect to the intercepts that you actually
7 looked at, none of those intercepts correspond to any one of those
8 scouting directions, that is either 240 degrees, 274 degrees, or 286
9 degrees. That's right, is it?
10 A. That is right, because I have stated exactly under item 10 that
11 these intercepted conversations were done on the 135 degrees and 170
12 degrees of the antenna angle, or as they said it, from the south-east or
13 south direction. Based on that, for the known frequencies, I carried out
14 my calculations under item 11. For these specific frequencies for these
15 two facilities, for the frequencies that I had in the BiH army documents,
16 I carried out my calculations and represented them in the tables under
17 item 11 of my report.
18 Q. Now, with respect to your calculations, it is true that the
19 ability to receive a given signal depends upon the angle in which it's
20 transmitted and the angle from which it's received; right?
21 A. Absolutely right, because an antenna has a diagram of emission,
22 and in addition to the optical radio visibility and the distance between
23 the two points in addition to other parameters, the efficiency of the
24 antenna depends on that as well.
25 Q. So the ability to hear a given frequency or receive one varies
1 depending upon the angle that a receiving antenna or a transmitting
2 antenna is turned; right?
3 A. That's one of the factors.
4 Q. Given the pattern of emission from any one antenna, either
5 transmitting or receiving, the angle that the reception is -- from which
6 there is reception can drastically affect the ability to receive a
7 transmission; right?
8 A. Very drastically. The angles can be such that the antenna cannot
9 receive any signal, because it falls within the minimum range of antenna's
10 reception, which is more than 30 decibels. This is a thousand times
11 lesser strength of reception at the receiver.
12 Q. All right. So given that, it's very important to be precise in
13 the angles from which -- from which reception can be gained in terms of --
14 in terms of analysing the ability to receive a given transmission?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You concluded based upon your review of the intercepts that are
17 referred to in your report that the direction of 180 degrees, rather, the
18 direction of south corresponded precisely to 180 degrees; right?
19 A. For the south site it says in the reports 180 degrees, and for the
20 north it says south. And since this south can be undefined, but I believe
21 that south in -- in respect of north would be best represented by 180
23 Q. That's fair enough, but that's an assumption that you made, isn't
25 A. An assumption, yes.
1 Q. Okay. And you also assume that when you saw the direction of
2 south-east that that meant -- that meant a degree direction of 135 degrees
3 precisely; right?
4 A. When it comes to the south site, then the operator states in the
5 documents 135 degrees. In terms of the north site, he says south-east and
6 I took 135 degrees as the most correct or accurate orientation.
7 Q. Fair enough. But that's an assumption that you made, isn't it,
8 because the exact degree angle is not indicated on the document; right?
9 A. It is not indicated, but I put it down to the style of writing.
10 Q. All right. You can agree that where the document indicates a
11 direction of south or south-east, it does not also indicate a direction of
12 180 degrees and 135 degrees respectively; right?
13 A. It is not indicated for the location north. It is not indicated.
14 Q. So let's deal with the location north then. With respect to the
15 location north, isn't it true that if the angle is precisely 180 degrees
16 that can affect the reception in a way differently than if the angle is,
17 say, 175 degrees or 185 degrees?
18 A. Yes, of course. In the case of these antennas, yes.
19 Q. And wouldn't it be reasonable that within the actual corps itself,
20 the unit itself, that identifying a direction as south could be very well
21 sufficient enough to convey a precise direction?
22 A. I'm afraid I did not understand your question. What am I supposed
23 to say?
24 Q. I'll rephrase the question. The direction south that's indicated
25 on the documents that you looked at from the north facility wasn't created
1 for the benefit of you or me or anyone else in here; right? That's an
2 internal document.
3 A. You mean the locations south and north. Yes, I believe that this
4 is an internal document. If you want me to talk more precisely about
5 these locations I can go on in order to avoid any confusion.
6 The north location is to the north from the south location.
7 Q. Yes, that's true. What I'm saying is that when the direction
8 south is indicated in a document that was created by the north facility,
9 that that indication is sufficient to convey a specific direction to the
10 people that are in that facility that are doing that job. Would you agree
11 with that?
12 A. If I were an operator, I would not use that. If I knew the
13 location, I would provide a very accurate orientation of the antenna to
14 the last degree, and then I would have the best reception from that
15 facility if I did that.
16 Q. Right. So the precision of that angle is important to the ability
17 to receive. Right?
18 A. It is very important for the following reason: The diagram of the
19 antenna reception is -- is dependent on the angle, very dependent on the
21 Q. Right. And so your analysis of the ability to receive based upon
22 the general direction of south is based upon an assumption of the accuracy
23 of the angle that you looked at, isn't it?
24 A. When this comes to the northern site I would say so, yes. If
25 we're talking about north, yes. When it comes to the southern location,
1 they provide very accurate angles there.
2 Q. Those angles that are indicated in the documents from the southern
3 facility correspond to the general directions of south and south-east;
5 A. They correspond the way it is indicated. 180 is pure south, 135
6 degrees is between 90 and 180 degrees, and this is pure, optimum south-east.
7 And I believe they had the same views of the whole situation at the northern
8 situation, but they put things on paper differently. That's my opinion.
9 Q. All right. Just bear with me one moment. All right. Could I
10 please have P02827 in e-court. We're not broadcasting, are we?
11 Do you see this document in front of you, this report from the
12 2nd Corps?
13 A. Yes. From the southern facility.
14 Q. And do you see a particular azimuth corresponding to the
15 direction, as is indicated, of Vlasenica?
16 A. Just a moment. Bear with me, please.
17 Q. I'm just talking about what's on the screen in front of you now.
18 A. Yes, yes. The azimuth is 110 degrees. Just a moment. Let me
20 Yes. My azimuth is 113 degrees, 113. I used the data for the
21 southern interception facility towards Vlasenica was 113 degrees and here
22 it is indicated 110, which is very close. I was familiar with the final
23 location of this radio relay station Vlasenica is somewhat broader than
24 what I knew the location to be.
25 Q. All right. So it's clear from this document, by the way which is
1 dated the 14th of February, 1995, that the direction, the azimuth, from
2 the southern facility in the direction of Vlasenica is not 135 degrees or
3 180 degrees; right?
4 A. I see 113 in my analysis.
5 Q. It's not in your analysis and the report which I'm referring to
6 which should be on the --
7 A. Yes, yes. But that azimuth I didn't find anywhere in the
8 documents that I included in my analysis.
9 Q. So this document makes very clear that the southern facility was
10 perfectly aware of the azimuth that corresponded to the direction of
11 Vlasenica from its own position; right?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Could my colleague
15 indicate to us whether this document P2827, first, if this document is on
16 the Rule 65 ter list of documents of the Prosecution and whether this
17 document has ever been disclosed to the Defence and, if so, when the
18 document was disclosed. Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can pretty surely say it does not have a 65 ter
21 number. I think it is responding to the direct examination of the
22 witness, and I can say that it was disclosed along with all of the other
23 intercept-related material, and so the Defence has access to that document
24 as well.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 Madam Fauveau.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm practically
3 certain that this document has never been submitted to us, and I have a
4 small reservation, but I'm practically sure. The worst is that the
5 document does not come from a -- comes from a protected witness and that
6 this document should have given us. It's in the EDS -- it's not in the
7 EDS, in fact, but it's in a general collection, and that has many million
8 documents. So the very fact that it's in this collection doesn't mean
9 that that document has been disclosed to us.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Can you be more -- Mr. Bourgon. Before I give
11 you the floor, Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Bourgon.
12 MR. BOURGON: I'd just like to know, Mr. President. I believe
13 this document here that we have was -- we were informed by the Prosecution
14 that they would use this document for cross-examination a couple of days
15 ago. Now, our understanding is that the cross-examination of this witness
16 began long time ago and that all documents to be used in cross-examination
17 should have been given to us at that time and not in the second part of
18 the cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: This particular document was on -- was on the
21 list which was the subject of much debate the last time when
22 cross-examination began. That was -- that was the list that was turned
23 over to Defence pursuant to --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It was already on the list on that occasion, in
25 other words?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed. There is nothing for us to say if
4 that is the case.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Could I have, please, P02822, please,
8 shown to the witness. Could we again turn to ERN number ending 649.
9 Q. All right. Do you see this document before you, Mr. Rodic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is another document that was generated by the southern
12 facility back in 1993; right?
13 A. I don't see the top.
14 Q. All right. This is a document that I showed you before, but we
15 can go to the first page if you need to see --
16 JUDGE KWON: Tell us the number again. 2822?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE KWON: English page number 2.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
20 Q. Do you see the date there of November 18, 1993; right?
21 A. I see the location and the date.
22 MR. MEEK: Is there an English translation of this document
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. Yes, it is. I see the assistant --
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Of the two relevant pages, yes.
1 Q. All right. If we could, could we go back to page ERN ending page
3 Okay. Mr. Rodic, could you just about down to -- that's fine.
4 Mr. Rodic, do you see an indication in that document as to an
5 azimuth relating to Vlasenica from the southern facility of 115 degrees?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That's about 2 degrees off from your own calculation, isn't it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And this document also indicates that the ABiH knew very well what
10 direction from its facility that particular --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer, Mr. Rodic.
12 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In fact, the Prosecutor just asked a
14 question, and I wanted to know which particular route is included, is
15 involved in this question.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's indicated on the document.
18 Q. Maybe you can just read the document. That would maybe make
19 things a bit clearer, Mr. Rodic. You see this chart at the bottom of the
20 document? Can you read what the sentence is above it?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau.
22 One minute, Mr. Rodic.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe it's much
24 more complicated than that because there are code-names which are totally
25 unfamiliar to us. Perhaps the witness can tell us something about the
1 route, but we cannot take the -- the Prosecutor's assumptions as a basis.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: To be perfectly frank, I really don't understand
4 the objection. There don't appear to be any code-names that I'm referring
5 to on this document, and -- and I'm not making any assumption. I'm simply
6 asking him whether or not the document reflects a direction of 115 degrees
7 from the southern facility.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau first.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's really too much.
10 There is clearly the document code -- the code-name Barrier, Barijera, in
11 this document. I would really like a clear answer if possible. If not, I
12 think it's practically falsification of evidence.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The azimuth is not 115 but 125 in this document,
15 and it is mistake.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: 125.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And it was said 115 in -- at the page 44, line 5.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: But on the document that we have on the monitor, it
19 says "Vlasenica azimuth 115", and at the end --
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, I saw 125. Top of the --
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think perhaps we're not referring to the same
22 thing. I'm referring to the bottom of that document. I think it's very
23 clear what's written in the bottom of the document, and frankly, I don't
24 believe that it would be appropriate to represent that there's been a
25 falsification of evidence in this case. The document is there for
1 everybody to see, and it's -- I'm asking the witness, I'm directing his
2 attention specifically to read a line that was above a chart that is
3 depicted on the document. The witness can read it, and I'm not putting
4 any words in his mouth.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't really follow the objection or understand
8 it. The witness is directed to the last line on what he can see on the
9 monitor, which is "rezultati pretrage opsega", and whatever, ending with
10 "Vlasenica azimuth 115", and answered the question Mr. Vanderpuye put to
11 him, but then I think what Ms. Fauveau raised in relation to the beginning
12 of the document, the first part that's the Barijera, if the witness can
13 give us clarification on that we can deal with that too. I doubt whether
14 he is in a position to do that because this document doesn't originate
15 from him in any case.
16 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I referred to the
18 conversation that is just above the passage to which the Prosecutor now
19 refers to, because that part was shown at the time when I made my
20 objection, and in fact that conversation there is the same azimuth and
21 that's where the reference to the code-name Barijera is.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Obviously, it seems we are talking about the latter
23 part or the bottom part of the document and not the first part. So let's
24 concentrate on that and move ahead, please.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Mr. Rodic, could you just read that line that is -- well, read the
2 line at the base of the document, if you could.
3 A. Towards the end. "Scan results for the range 230-270 megahertz
4 RRU-1 in the direction of Vlasenica azimuth 115."
5 But I don't see the results.
6 Q. Could you read the lines that immediately precede the chart that
7 you see in the screen in front of you now.
8 A. "We hereby submit to you the overview of active frequencies in the
9 range RRU-800 of the frequency range 610-960 megahertz in the direction of
10 Vlasenica azimuth 115."
11 Q. This document makes clear that the facility at the southern site
12 was perfectly aware of the correct azimuth from their location to the
13 direction of Vlasenica, doesn't it?
14 A. Concerning the azimuth, yes, but as for frequencies there were not
15 that many frequencies in the whole area.
16 Q. I'm asking only about the azimuth, and we can agree on that;
18 A. We can, that approximately that was the azimuth from the southern
19 location towards Vlasenica.
20 Q. Now, you hadn't reviewed this document either before you prepared
21 your report; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in your report you didn't find a single intercept that
24 corresponded to an azimuth of 115 degrees; right?
25 A. I didn't have a single document indicating 115 degrees from the
1 southern location.
2 Q. Would it be fair to say that none of those documents represent or
3 purport to represent an interception occurring from that particular
4 location; right?
5 A. According to the documents that I included in my analysis, yes.
6 Q. Now, with respect to the directions of 180 degrees and 135 degrees
7 from the southern facility, you did not analyse whether or not those
8 azimuths or directions corresponded to other radio relay routes or nodes?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek?
10 MR. MEEK: Excuse me, Mr. President. Could we have a date for
11 this document, this purported intercept?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Which document are you talking -- this, the one
14 that's on EDS right now? On e-court? Yes the document was read into the
15 record. The date of it was 18th November 1993. It's report number is
16 02-1811, and it's in a sequence of documents spanning a range from
17 02042643, ERN number, through 02042654.
18 Q. All right. All right. I think my last question was, Mr. Rodic,
19 whether or not you analysed if the directions of 180 degrees or 135
20 degrees corresponded to radio relay routes or nodes other than the one
21 that you analysed.
22 A. In my calculation I took into account the directions of
23 orientation of antennas from the northern and southern locations as
24 indicated in documents. I did not adjust them to facilities. I took them
25 as they were indicated in documents. Whether they correspond or not, I
1 don't know. If they corresponded, then they had the maximum efficiency of
2 reception, and that manifested itself. And I have to add I made
3 calculations for the four known locations from the plan frequencies. I
4 did not assume any other frequencies derived from documents.
5 Q. All right. So you didn't analyse whether or not those routes in
6 particular corresponded to the location of Pale, for example, or to
7 Han Pijesak, for example? Is that fair to say?
8 A. Pale, no. That was outside the scope of my job. For Han Pijesak,
9 I didn't have any schematics, and I don't have the plan of routes towards
10 Han Pijesak. In the plan of communications of the Drina Corps, I have no
11 routes from any point towards Han Pijesak.
12 Q. Okay. So you -- the answer is you never actually analysed that or
13 considered that in terms of trying to identify where those azimuths
14 connected, if anywhere.
15 A. Well, I couldn't analyse something that's not in the schematic of
16 radio relay communications.
17 Q. Well, you didn't ask for any other radio relay schematics, did
19 A. It was outside the scope of my job, of my assignment.
20 Q. And the documents that you analysed that corresponded to the
21 directions of 180 degrees and 135 degrees, do any one of those documents
22 purport to have been -- to be intercepts from the locations that you
24 A. I cannot state that with any certainty now because -- I can only
25 say that the documents I included were not intercepted on the known
1 frequencies between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep. I did not analyse the
2 broader radio relay network.
3 Q. So your report doesn't exclude the possibility that those
4 intercepts could in fact be genuine and have originated from a radio relay
5 route other than the one you analysed; right?
6 A. I did not analyse that, so I cannot confirm, and I cannot rule out
7 the possibility.
8 Q. And the ones that you -- the frequencies that you claim rule out
9 the possibility of interception along that radio relay route is predicated
10 on a 1993 Drina Corps document; right?
11 A. Yes. Yes. Two sections, that is, four frequencies.
12 Q. Your position is that between 1993 and 1995, the frequencies
13 relative to those radio relay paths never changed; right?
14 A. I don't have such documents. I have no document indicating that
15 the frequencies had been changed. All --
16 Q. Sorry, go ahead.
17 A. All I know is that within the radio relay network of RRU-800,
18 frequencies are rarely changed. I know that from my service and
19 especially the last 10 years, because that is a very complicated job that
20 requires change of frequencies not only in the narrow area but in a broad
21 area as well, and that particular one would have required a change of
22 frequencies even in the FRY, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Such changes
23 did not happen in that system of radio relay communications.
24 Q. Okay. But you also have no document indicating that the
25 frequencies remained the same.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you answer.
2 Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the
4 Prosecution has been coming back on this issue on numerous occasions since
5 the beginning as to whether the expert witness had some documents or
6 information that would indicate precisely what was the situation in 1995.
7 The witness has answered the question. But my objection at this point is
8 that the Prosecution should put its case to the witness. Do they have
9 documents that alter the situation presented by the expert witness? That
10 would be the -- at least a fair position, a fair -- to allow the witness
11 to know if the Prosecution have a different case to put to the witness.
12 Do they have information that the frequencies were changed? I think that
13 would be very important. Other than that, the witness has answered on
14 numerous occasions that he has done his report on the basis of the
15 documents that were given to him.
16 Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Bourgon.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think the case has been put and the reason why
20 the case has been put is because the intercepts in question establish what
21 the Prosecution's position is with respect to the nature and the extent of
22 the frequencies that were in effect during the relevant period of time.
23 It is the witness -- the witness has been directly been confronted with
24 that position because he's analysed those documents. His position is that
25 those documents don't correspond to the existing frequency scheme in place
1 in 1995. The Prosecution's case is, I think as Mr. Bourgon is well aware,
2 that the intercepts themselves establish the frequencies that were in
3 place during 1995, and the witness is well aware that that's what the
4 position is.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
6 MR. BOURGON: With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. President,
7 this is not the issue and this is not the question that I asked. The
8 question that was put by my colleague to the witness was: "Do you have
9 any information that would tend to show that the frequencies were modified
10 between 1993 and 1995?" The witness has said, "On the basis of the
11 information that I have, those frequencies were not changed." My position
12 is: Does the Prosecution have any documents, does the Prosecution have
13 any information which would contradict the conclusion of the expert that
14 those frequencies were indeed changed. Do they have any documents that
15 show that the frequencies were changed. That's the issue, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I understand Mr. Vanderpuye, and of course I'm
17 not going to comment on his statement is -- that the evidence or the proof
18 that you are referring to is the transcripts of the intercepts themselves.
19 That's how I understand Mr. Vanderpuye's position to be but I stand to be
20 corrected, of course.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is correct, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I am not reflecting your position as I understood it
23 to be. On the other hand if you wish to add anything to what Mr. Bourgon
24 stated, you're free to do so.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then let's -- let's proceed. I think it's
2 clear enough that it's obviously for us to decide and try to make some
3 sense out of all of this. It is not easy.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. My previous question to you, Mr. Rodic, was you've indicated that
6 you based your conclusions on a 1993 document because, in fact, you didn't
7 have any other document establishing that the frequencies had in fact
8 changed. My question to you is: Did you see any document indicating to
9 you that they had not changed?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this question has
12 been asked on several occasions. I don't know how anybody can prove that
13 something doesn't exist. Usually we can only prove things that do exist,
14 facts that are established. If the Prosecutor has any documents to that
15 effect, let him show them to the witness. I am in complete agreement with
16 my colleague Mr. Bourgon in that respect.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: We are trying to square the circle here. So let's
18 proceed, please, Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's proceed. I think we have exhausted this
21 part, and we have understood the respective positions in any case.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think by pursuing your line of questions
24 you're going to get any further elucidation on this issue.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye, for understanding.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Mr. Rodic, it's clear from your analysis that -- that there is --
4 A. Go ahead.
5 Q. It's clear from your analysis that there is -- you reach no
6 conclusion as to the possibility of interception with respect to the RRU-1
7 device. Is that fair to say?
8 A. I did not analyse this because I did not have the concrete known
9 frequencies at the concrete radio relay path, and I did not want to draw
10 conclusions based on any assumptions.
11 Q. And therefore none of the intercepts that have been offered by the
12 Prosecution in this case corresponding to that device are in any way
13 affected by your report?
14 A. And they have not been dealt with in my report up to the stage
15 that would allow me to draw concrete conclusions for the concrete radio
16 relay paths.
17 Q. With respect to the intercepts that were purportedly obtained by
18 the state security services, you made no analysis of the equipment that
19 was used to obtain those intercepts?
20 A. I did not have at my disposal any documents. Their documents
21 covering intercepted conversations show a style very different to those
22 compiled at the locations north and south. The data provided there is
23 very scarce, very general. The few documents that I saw only provided the
24 essence of the conversations. They did not record entire conversations.
25 They did not fully document the entire conversations. They provided,
1 rather, the summaries thereof.
2 Q. All right. You didn't analyse their equipment, so you don't know
3 what they were capable of receiving; fair to say?
4 A. I did not have any documents about their equipment, and I did not
5 analyse it, and I'm repeating this for I don't know how many times now.
6 Q. I'm just going to ask you to answer the question, if you could,
7 yes or no. That will make things a little easier. Did you analyse the
8 equipment that was used by the 21st Division of the ABiH army?
9 A. I can't -- I don't know. Could you please be more specific? What
10 is the 21st Division?
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I know about the units at the location north of the BiH army and
13 the location south of the BiH army.
14 Q. Are you aware that the 21st Division also engaged in interceptions
15 that are part of the intercepts that have been tendered by the Prosecution
16 in this case? You could answer that yes or no.
17 A. I'm not aware of that.
18 Q. So there's no distinction in your report between any equipment
19 that might have -- might have been used to gain those intercepts versus
20 the equipment that might have been used by the 2nd Corps?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor should say it clearly
23 whether his today's position is as follows: That the equipment used by
24 different units was different and in what sense, because I believe that
25 this is contrary to any evidence that we have heard so far.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Did you examine any document other than 2nd Corps documents
4 concerning the equipment that was used by them?
5 A. No, only the equipment at the locations north and south. I don't
6 even know the structure of the units. I don't know who they belonged to.
7 I was only interested in the locations where the conversations were
8 recorded and what equipment was used to intercept those conversations.
9 Q. Were you -- were you made aware of the fact that the state
10 security services and the 2nd Corps operated independently of one another
11 in the northern facility? Was that ever brought to your attention?
12 A. Well, the very few reports I had and I read drafted by the state
13 security, I can say based on that their activities were absolutely
14 separate. But as for their cooperation and possible interaction and
15 overlapping of their authorities, I wouldn't know anything about that. I
16 never looked for that in those documents, and therefore I can't confirm
17 whether this was indicated in any of these documents. I won't be able to
18 confirm that they acted separately or that their actions overlapped. This
19 was simply not part of my brief.
20 Q. So your report doesn't draw any distinction in that way between
21 those units; right?
22 A. There was no way for me to establish any differences or
23 similarities in that respect.
24 Q. Okay. Now, you didn't examine any physical aspects relating to
25 the possibility of interception such as notebooks, tape recordings, things
1 of that nature?
2 A. Tape recordings, no, but I did inspect some notebooks and written
3 records. I looked at the original notebooks and the typed texts that were
4 typed subsequently, and I did see quite a few of such documents. I never
5 listened to any audio recordings. I didn't have any tapes at my disposal.
6 Q. Based upon your conclusion in general, it would seem as though
7 audio recordings would be nearly impossible based upon the signal levels
8 that you've indicated could have been received from the interception
9 sites. Isn't that right?
10 A. For what I calculated, I said it very accurately. If you look at
11 the end of my calculation, page 43, bullet point 11.8: The direction
12 Veliki Zep-Vlasenica, under the angle of 135 degrees and 180 degree, there
13 was poor reception at the northern location. I did not therefore exclude
14 the possibility of listening to a conversation, but as for the frequencies
15 and the angles for these four frequencies, Vlasenica-Veliki Zep and
16 Zvornik-Gucevo, I did not analyse Veliki Zep-Cer because it would have
17 been pointless, there were no transcripts at a different range, and I
18 didn't analyse Cer-Gucevo because I was not familiar with the frequencies
19 there. The sum results of the possibility of listening in to
20 conversations refers to the four known frequencies and the four known
22 Q. All right. Well, you would agree that the existence of a tape
23 recording is relevant to the question of whether or not your calculations
24 are accurate if it purports to be from the intercept or from the radio
25 relay route that you analysed. Wouldn't it be?
1 A. At these frequencies there are no documents, and it is not
2 indicated what equipment was used to intercept. I only knew the azimuths,
3 and I did it for all the three types of equipment that were at the
4 locations north and south.
5 Q. That's not my question, Mr. Rodic. My question is whether or not
6 the existence of a tape recording purporting to have been taken on the
7 radio relay route that you examined, whether that's relevant to your
8 analysis. That's my question. Can you answer that yes or no?
9 A. The existence -- well, if they did not exist, then you could not
10 prove the interception. The existence of the equipment for interception
11 at north and south locations is important to intercept a conversation, if
12 I understood your question correctly.
13 Q. I'll move to a different area. The calculations that you made
14 with respect to the signal strength, that is, the strength at which a
15 given transmission is received was based upon your analysis of the
16 equipment that you believe was used; right?
17 A. It is based on the equipment that emitted the strength and the
18 equipment that I had as having existed at the locations south and north
19 where the conversations were being listened in, and I had that indication
20 in the documents.
21 Q. And your conclusions as to the possibility of interception are
22 based on the calculations that you made as a result of these signal
23 levels; right?
24 A. Yes, on the calculations of the signal levels at the point of
25 entry into the receiver in respect of its reception threshold or the
1 quality if that signal is higher than the reception threshold when any
2 such reception was possible.
3 Q. All right. And you're talking about the ratio or the comparison
4 of the signal that is, for example, the voice communication against any
5 background noise that may exist; is that right?
6 A. No. I analysed whether the signal that arrives from RRU-800 to
7 the listening-in device, and that was received through the antenna system,
8 I analysed the quality with which the receiver could receive the signal
9 under all these circumstances influencing the quality of the signal at the
10 reception end. I did not analyse what happened later on through the
11 reception of the signal, the recording of the signal on the tape. I can
12 comment only upon the written documents as to what happened, when the
13 reception of both interlocutors was clear; when one is clear, the other
14 only half clear; when one interlocutor is clear and the other could not be
15 heard at all. This is something that you can find in the written
16 documents. Such situations are documented.
17 Q. One of the things that you concluded was that there was a certain
18 level beyond -- beyond which a signal couldn't be received if, for
19 example, what's called a squelch is activated. Isn't that true?
20 A. If it is activated, yes. If it's not, then again yes, but it
21 cannot be done below the threshold of the receiver. The receiver has a
22 threshold. The sensitivity is indicated in the document for each
23 receiver, and it has been taken into account in my calculation for this
24 particular type of the receiver.
25 As for the squelch, this is a level below which reception is
1 possible but the quality is very low, and it drops gradually down to the
2 level where reception becomes absolutely impossible.
3 Q. All right. So your calculation as to what could be received is
4 predicated on your analysis of the equipment that was used to receive.
5 Isn't that true?
6 A. Certainly based on the parameters that I was able to find, and
7 this is primarily the sensitivity of the receiver, the evaluation of their
8 reception threshold, the evaluation about the quality, i.e., when the
9 quality is good, when the quality is excellent, and these are the three
10 parameters on which I base my calculations. The parameter that is very
11 important is the parameter of the lowest possible level below which no
12 reception is possible.
13 Q. All right. This is a bit technical.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I now have a break, please? I
15 apologise. Can we have a break, please?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. Rodic, and please feel free to ask us
17 that any time you need. We'll have a 25-minute break.
18 How much more do you have, Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Probably 10 minutes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So we'll have a 25-minute break,
21 and then we'll finish with the witness. Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you. Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. I just have a few more questions for you really. Now, of the 83
4 intercepts that are referred to in your report, you did not take account
5 of how many of those intercepts relate to the RRU-1 device and how many of
6 those intercepts relate to the RRU-800 device; is that fair to say?
7 A. No. Everything relates to RRU-800, i.e., whatever was intercepted
8 from the locations north and south and documented in my report is relative
9 to the RRU-800. I did, where the fields were measured, but no documents
10 in the form of transcript are present. Whatever is indicated under
11 chapter 10 is relative to the intercepts from the RRU-800 device.
12 Q. All right. You were aware, of course, that of the 213 intercepts
13 that have been offered in this case by the Prosecution, 148 of those
14 intercepts relate to the RRU-800 device. Are you aware of that?
15 A. I don't know the figure, but I introduced those conversations for
16 which I had the indication of the frequency, or I recognised the
17 frequencies from the documents, and I knew under which conditions they
18 were recorded, under which azimuth and at which location. I may not have
19 recognised the facility for all the conversations, and I may not have
20 recognised the azimuth and the equipment for all the conversations, but I
21 did for most of them.
22 Q. All right. And you're aware, of course, that the remaining 65
23 intercepts correspond to the RRU-1 device for which -- or toward which
24 your report is not addressed in any respect; right?
25 A. Again, I don't know the exact figure, but there are quite a number
1 of intercepts from the RRU-1, but I have not taken them into account
2 because I didn't know the frequencies, so I could not do my calculation
3 because I did not have all the parameters. Also, I did not have the end
4 locations of the interlocutors in those conversations.
5 Q. And I think you indicated at the beginning of your testimony that
6 generally, it was possible for the ABiH to intercept communications.
7 A. Yes. This is what I stated with regard to the equipment that
8 covered the frequency range of the RRU-1 and RRU-800. Under certain
9 circumstances, it could intercept conversations.
10 Q. And those circumstances would have to do with the direction of the
11 antenna and, of course, the distance and the frequency.
12 A. There are several other parameters. There's strength and so on
13 and so forth. But mostly it is the direction of the antenna, the
14 distance. When I say the direction of the antenna, it also refers to the
15 direction between the RRU-1 and RRU-800 devices, as well as the direction
16 of the antennas from the interception stations to the -- to the
17 interception object. And there is also the profile of visibility. In
18 other words, there are no geographical obstacles.
19 Q. Okay. And so you've identified from both the north and south
20 facilities relay points that are within their radio and optical
22 A. Yes. I analysed that from the north and south facilities, both
23 the optical and radio visibility to all the points on route
24 Vlasenica-Zvornik, on that path.
25 Q. And the locations that have both optical and radio visibility with
1 both the north and the south facilities including Veliki Zep, Cer, and
2 Gucevo; is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And but for the fact that the antenna orientation on the documents
5 that you've examined does not correspond to the best direction or best
6 field to receive transmissions from those points, your conclusion is that
7 it would otherwise be possible; right?
8 A. It's a possibility, but we need to calculate. Because it's not
9 only the direction of the antenna and the intercepting station but also
10 the orientation of the antenna on the radio relay section at the point
11 where the communication is taking place, and of course the distance
12 between the critical station, that is the object, and the intercepting
14 Q. And the calculations that you did in this case related to 83 of
15 148 RRU-800 intercepts?
16 A. The calculation I did, I did for the four known frequencies, and
17 that relates to the documents that are contained in, I believe,
18 paragraph -- or chapter 10 of my report. In fact, the analysis relates to
19 that, whereas the calculation relates precisely to the object on both
20 intercepting stations with the azimuths specified in the documents.
21 Q. And when you say azimuth, you mean both the particular direction
22 as is indicated on the documents from the southern facility, and the
23 general directions as is indicated on the documents from the northern
24 facility; right?
25 A. Speaking of the southern facility, there are two known azimuths
1 for the direction of the antennas, and for the northern one I said the
2 north was 180 degrees and south-east was 130 degrees. That's the most
3 precise correlation between north and south, in my opinion.
4 Q. All right. All right. So based on your assessment, but for the
5 fact that the documents that you reviewed indicated azimuths which didn't
6 correspond directly to the points on the radio route you analysed, the
7 position of the facilities, in relation to the three points you indicated
8 which had radio and optical visibility, made it possible to intercept
9 communications on that radio relay route?
10 A. Generally speaking, yes, but in that specific case, in the
11 specific case I would have to make a calculation for the specific
12 frequency and specific orientation. I am an engineer, and I allow the
13 possibility that interception was possible but I would have to calculate
14 as I did calculate for some known frequencies.
15 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodic. I have no more questions for you?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Rodic, let us clarify just a few points that
20 were brought up in cross-examination. Could you first tell me -- let's be
21 clear first of all. These communications between the Drina Corps, on the
22 one happened, and the Zvornik and Bratunac Brigades on the other side,
23 were they through RRU-800, and could they be intercepted and listened to
24 from another radio relay facility from Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Bijeljina,
25 some of the installations that are indicated on the map shown you by the
1 Prosecutor, and that was not included in your analysis?
2 A. I think I've said that already. No, briefly, because those
3 communications were effected only through
4 Vlasenica-Veliki Zep-Gucevo-Zvornik route. They didn't use other routes,
5 and that's why they couldn't be listened to from other radio relay routes.
6 A conversation for instance between Vlasenica and Zvornik took place only
7 on this route and could be listened to only on this route from the
8 installations that covered this route, and strictly on the frequencies
9 allocated to that route.
10 Q. You've just answered my second question as well. Just one more
11 thing. In the documentation that you reviewed, is there any indication
12 that some of the devices, RRU-800 of the Drina Corps, were on some other
13 locations apart from Vlasenica, Veliki Zep, and all the others, ending
14 with Zvornik? The Prosecutor asked you if they could have been mounted on
15 trucks or other vehicles, and that's perhaps why you didn't analyse them.
16 A. From what I analysed in the documents of the Drina Corps, I didn't
17 find any such information. There's one document, 03 --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness be instructed to say this
19 slowly, the numbers.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Excuse me. The interpreters cannot follow you. Could you please
22 repeat the numbers.
23 A. 0437-6584 and 0437-6538, dated 24 July 1995.
24 It says: "The Drina Corps has at its disposal a total of two
25 RRU-800 devices. In view of the existing schematic of communications of
1 RRU-800, it's logical that one of these devices was in Vlasenica where the
2 corps command was stationed, and the other one was in Zvornik, in the
3 Zvornik Brigade. Thus units of the Drina Corps with which communication
4 existed. In light of this, I conclude that the other RRU-800 device did
5 not exist in the Drina Corps." And I have a copy of this document.
6 Q. Thank you. I'm going to skip some questions because you've
7 already answered them. I just want to go over some documents that you
8 have been shown, and that will be the last part of my examination.
9 The Prosecutor asked you if you had occasion to see all the
10 documents. In other words, he asked you what documents you were shown by
11 the Defence, and it could be inferred from that that we had made a
12 selection. I want to show you one letter given us by the Prosecution
13 advising us of some documents.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D330.
15 THE REGISTRAR: The document is not in the system.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Put it now at the ELMO, please.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Rodic, I suppose you see the document now.
18 A. I see several documents within one.
19 Q. This document is in English. It's actually part of the
20 correspondence between our Defence team and the Prosecution requesting
21 some documentation related to radio relay devices RRU-800 and RRU-1, and
22 generally the documentation that was necessary for your analysis. This
23 document was not translated into B/C/S, but still I would like you to pay
24 attention to the numbers and tell me whether in drafting your report you
25 had occasion to see these documents and whether you used any of them in
1 your analysis.
2 The first document -- or, rather, the collection is
3 0426-7022-0426-7130. It's a collection of documents from the so-called
4 Shield Operation of November 1995. Did you find in this documentation
5 anything that you used in your analysis?
6 A. From this first part of documents in attachment 5, I used 0426-7034. It's
7 appended to my report, attachment or annex 15. We analysed this several
8 times and it's a schematic of radio relay and personal communications of the
9 Drina Corps. This confirmed the existence of a RRU-800 route in combination
10 with an SMC, right, Vlasenica-Veliki Zep-Cer-Gucevo-Zvornik route through
11 which the Drina Corps communicated with the Zvornik Brigade from Vlasenica,
12 and it could also use it to communicate with the Main Staff of the VRS.
13 Q. Did you use anything else apart from this schematic out of this
15 A. It's a rather large collection, and I didn't use the other
16 documents because they do not relate to radio relay communications; they
17 were not relevant to my analysis. Most of them are documents concerning
18 radio communications and radio frequencies that significantly differ from
19 RRU connections, and they were not pertinent to my report, and they were
20 not within the scope of my assignment. And if I may say, some of them
21 include orders to establish communications, schematics of encryption codes
22 of documents, et cetera, things that were not pertinent to an analysis of
23 radio relay communications.
24 Q. Could you please look at this other collection, 0444-3355 to
25 0444-3372, also from November 1995. It's practically a report that the
1 Drina Corps forwarded to the Main Staff on the same subject. Did you use
2 perhaps any documentation from this collection?
3 A. Well, they're almost the same documents, slightly smaller in
4 volume. It's a schematic diagram of the radio relay wire communications
5 of the Drina Corps. It is identical to what I had previously said about
6 it. That is why I didn't need to include it as a duplicate in the analysis.
7 Q. Let us look at the next collection, 0431-4759 to 0431-4959. It's
8 a total of 200 pages, documents dating from 1992 to 1996. Did you use any
9 of them?
10 A. Yes. I used them. For instance, 0431-4791 and 0431-4792. That's
11 precisely the plan of frequencies that we discussed so much today. And
12 the second one is dated 2nd October 1993.
13 In annex 1, it's appendices 12 and 13. And it was precisely from
14 these documents that I established the frequencies from the two routes
15 that I indicated and made my calculations.
16 Q. Did you see in that collection any other documents that you used
17 in your analysis?
18 A. As far as I remember, the other documents were not pertinent, and
19 they related mainly to some documentation that was seized from the
20 Bratunac Brigade, as well as various code-names used in some
21 communications, the table of signals for encrypted maps, lists of
22 officers, orders to establish communications, schematic of communications
23 that I was not interested in because it's a totally different area, the
24 schematic of encryption, the schematic of radio stations and all the other
25 things that accompany an order to establish communication.
1 Q. Let us look at the penultimate collection. That's, then, 045646 -- 4625
2 to 0456-4902. Let me remind you, those are the maps. There are – there were
3 quite a few maps there. Did you use any of these documents in your report?
4 A. I have looked at the maps, but I did not use find schematics of
5 wire connections. They related to certain military operations, units
6 mounting attacks, defence positions, encrypted maps, et cetera. Mainly
7 they are encrypted maps, and I do not understand anything about that. I
8 could not understand. I didn't find anything relevant to wire connections
9 in those maps.
10 Q. Let us look at the last document, 0437-6353 to 0437-6710. Did you
11 find in this collection any relevant documents?
12 A. I found one document - it's very important - called the file of data on
13 the combat readiness of the 5th Battalion, dated 24th July 1995, indicated
14 with ERN 0437-6581 to 0437-6587. It's about the 5th Signals Battalion.
15 I've already said something from that document, and in one of the
16 attachments of the Drina Corps from that date in July 1995, it is stated
17 that...the existing situation, the situation with this combat readiness. It
18 has two RRU-800 relay devices. The other documents relate to other branches,
19 artillery, engineering, et cetera, and they were not pertinent to my report.
20 Q. I apologise. If I understand you well, this document belongs to
21 the 5th Battalion of the Drina Corps, and it says that it only had two
22 RRU-800 devices; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. That is exactly the case. I have the document in front of
24 me. And when it comes to that issue, there is a table about the radio
25 relay devices, and it says that they have two RRU-800 devices. That is
1 the situation on the ground.
2 Q. Thank you very much.
3 A. You're most welcome.
4 Q. Mr. Rodic, I apologise. I have omitted to ask you just one more
5 question in reference to my learned friend's question, and it has to do
6 with the map that you looked at that was drafted by the 2nd Corps of the
7 BiH army.
8 Let me can you this: First of all, based on this map were you
9 able to conclude when it was drafted, when it was drawn?
10 A. No, I wasn't able to do that. The dates here are when the date --
11 when the map started being used and ended being used, but there is no
12 other dates for certain routes or relations.
13 Q. Can you tell us based on your inspection of this map when the
14 inscriptions were made on the map, markings, frequencies, and everything
16 A. I had an opportunity to be in charge of such maps, and every data
17 that is entered into the map should bear the date when the situation was
18 recorded or when the situation was discontinued. When it comes to radio
19 relay directions, that means when a radio relay route was established and
20 when it was discontinued.
21 Q. Let me ask you something about the similarities or possible
22 differences between this map on the one hand and what you found in your
23 analysis on the other hand. First of all, was there a RRU-800 direction
24 between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep, both in this map and in your analysis?
25 A. Generally speaking, the map confirms my findings. It encompasses
1 the Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route which was established through the RRU-800
2 device which exists in my report.
3 Q. Does it also confirm the SMC route between Veliki Zep and Cer?
4 A. I've already spoken about that earlier today. The radio relay
5 route between Cer and Veliki Zep, this route is entered into this map so I
6 can confirm that.
7 Q. Does this map also show the RRU route between Veliki Zep and Cer?
8 A. No, it doesn't.
9 Q. Let me ask you another thing: In your analysis you have found
10 that there was a route between Veliki Zep and Bratunac which was
11 established through a RRU-1 device.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This map shows me that there is a RRU-800 connection. I believe
14 that this map depicts frequencies as well, the frequencies from that
15 RRU-800 device.
16 My question to you is this: Did you find anywhere in the
17 documents that you inspected certain conversations that were recorded on
18 that route that was purportedly on these frequencies recorded on this map?
19 A. The schematic diagram is not drawn the way radio-relay communications
20 are drawn in similar diagrams. Nevertheless, there is a route here between
21 Veliki Zep and Bratunac where the RRU-1 and RRU-800 are drawn using symbols.
22 My interpretation is this: This was the author's discretion of depicting
23 this as two routes. From the documents analysed in my report, it arises that
24 there were a couple of frequencies, 705.000/805.000 megahertz for the RRU-
25 800, and these frequencies I could not register and I did not register in
1 the documents that I introduced into my analysis.
2 Q. One more question. In any of the documents issued by the VRS
3 army, to be more precise Drina Corps, did you find anywhere the existence
4 of a route RRU-800 between Bratunac and Veliki Zep?
5 A. I find it in the schematic. 0426-7034, dated November 1995, and I
6 have recorded that this was the Operation Stit or Shield. There is a
7 dotted line, which means that that route may have existed in the
8 preparations for that operation, but I don't have any data on the
9 frequency plan showing that any communication was established along that
10 route, i.e., that it ever became active.
11 Q. In other words, you did not find it in the frequency plan of the
12 Drina Corps.
13 A. That is correct. I never found it there.
14 Q. When you say that this route is indicated in a dotted line in the
15 schematic, does this mean that before November 1995 it existed at all even
16 as a dotted line?
17 A. According to the rule of maintaining these schematic or maps, it
18 was not active. It did not become active during that period of time.
19 Q. Mr. Rodic, thank you very much. I have no further questions for
21 A. Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Any other of the Defence teams that wish to
23 address some questions to the witness? Mr. Bourgon.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I only have one question
25 for the witness.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
2 Examination by Mr. Bourgon:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic. I'd like to refer you to an answer you
4 provided this morning to my colleague and that was on page 15, line 7,
5 where you spoke about the two missing frequencies on the route from
6 Vlasenica to Veliki Zep. Do you remember testifying about those two
7 missing frequencies?
8 A. Yes. Those two frequencies were on the radio relay route
9 Cer-Gucevo. I don't have them. I did not find them in any of the
10 documents. Those are the two frequencies for the RRU-800 device. I was
11 talking about the frequencies covered by the RRU-800 device.
12 Q. Now, my question is, Mr. Rodic, given the number of frequencies
13 that were identified by yourself and used for your report, and given the
14 fact that only these two frequencies were missing, my question is what are
15 the possibilities that there were indeed conversations intercepted on the
16 two missing frequencies?
17 A. I cannot exclude the possibilities that no conversations were
18 intercepted on these two frequencies and that they are part of the
19 framework of my analysis. However, with regard to the 16 frequencies from
20 these two facilities, I'm excluding the remaining 14 that I have
21 introduced into my analysis based on the documents that I produced.
22 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I have no further questions.
23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. Is there anyone else who
25 wishes to put questions to the witness? None?
1 Mr. Rodic, that means that your testimony finishes here. For a
2 moment I thought we were going to continue tomorrow, but it went okay.
3 On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish to thank you for having
4 come over again to continue with your testimony, and I also wish you a
5 safe journey back home. Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would also like to thank you, the
7 Prosecution, the Defence. I have tried to contribute to the extent I
8 could under the circumstances, and I hope that my evidence has been clear,
9 and thank you very much.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I can assure you that we are all
11 appreciative of your efforts in a rather complicated sphere of activity.
12 Thank you so much. You will now receive -- you will be escorted out of
13 the courtroom, and you will receive the assistance you require. Thank
15 We have these options, Mr. Vanderpuye, and Defence teams. I know
16 that the Defence teams wish to address the Trial Chamber on another issue.
17 If we do the tendering of documents now, I don't think we will have time
18 for the submissions. On the other hand, Mr. Haynes, the submissions
19 that -- are they going to engage us for a long time or --
20 MR. HAYNES: I would have thought that the 10 minutes now is
21 better used for the tendering of documents which could be completed in
22 that time.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought so as well but I just wanted to make sure
24 first. And the understanding is that tomorrow before we start with the
25 new witness we'll go through this topic that you wish to address the
1 Chamber --
2 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's do the tendering now. Yes,
4 Mr. Bourgon.
5 MR. BOURGON: Just as information to the Trial Chamber,
6 Mr. President, one of the submissions that we will be making tomorrow
7 relates to the fact that six of the Defence teams in this case are of the
8 view that unless a decision has been taken with the joinder of
9 Zdravko Tolimir, the newly arrested person, that we should not proceed
10 with any further witnesses until a decision has been made on the joinder
11 motion, and we will be arguing this tomorrow. I just thought it would be
12 important to give you notice and also to give notice to the Prosecution
13 that this will be argued tomorrow.
14 Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye -- thank you so much
16 for giving that prior notice to us and to the Prosecution.
17 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Documents.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would think that on direct they would tender --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes. Exactly.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Prosecution -- Defence teams. Mr. Zivanovic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, we submitted our list of documents
25 for tendering into evidence, but I'd like to add three documents, three
1 more documents mentioned by the witness during his testimony. So it will
2 be very, very good if we can do it later or tomorrow morning.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I assume that what he's referring to is some
4 document -- I haven't -- I haven't at my disposal anyway.
5 Are you -- Mr. Zivanovic, are you referring to a document you
6 handed over sometime back which listed four documents?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: No?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I refer to --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. I refer to the documents 04376581 to 6585,
12 then document 04314801, and 04267034.
13 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't follow you either.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: These documents were mentioned by the witness
18 during his evidence.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we've got the right document now. So we're
20 talking of the expert report itself, which is 1D321; correct?
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Then Confidential Annex I and Confidential Annex II
23 attached to the expert report which are respectively 1D322 and 323, then a
24 map marked by the expert witness, which is 1DIC119. Then the e-mail
25 correspondence with Janet Stewart, 1D330. Then the four -- the three --
1 the documents that you mentioned a minute or two ago. That is ERN
2 04376581 to 6585 in part. That is pages 6584 and 6585. And then ERN
3 number 04314801, and ERN number 04267034. Correct?
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: These, I take it, do not include the additional
6 three documents.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Additional.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: They do include the additional three documents.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, no, these are these three documents.
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Zivanovic, are these three additional documents
11 ones that attached to the e-mail Prosecution sent to you?
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes. All three documents are among these
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Judge Kwon, and thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
15 What I wanted to know is this: That when you stood up, you mentioned,
16 inter alia, that in addition to the existing list that you had circulated,
17 you wished to add three new documents that the witness had made use of.
18 These are the -- they are listed already in this one?
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. I was not aware that it was sent to you
20 already. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: In addition, I am also being told, Mr. Zivanovic,
24 that during his testimony the witness also used a diagram which he put
25 markings on and which he signed on the 24th of May, which was given the
1 number IC120, this one.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. It should be put at the list also.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objection on the part of the Prosecution
4 for any of these documents?
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. We do object to -- I believe
6 it was 1D330. That is the e-mail correspondence between members of our
7 staff and the -- and the Defence attorneys. I don't think that it's a
8 relevant document particularly to the extent that all of the information
9 that was elicited in it with respect to the documents that were looked at
10 by the witness, the ERN ranges, et cetera, are already part of the record.
11 It just seems superfluous, and as a policy issue I don't think it would be
12 entirely appropriate to have the names of our staff, particularly not
13 material to our case, as part of the record in the case and that's
14 essentially the nature of the objection.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. What's the purpose of the tendering of those
16 documents -- of that document, 1D330? That is the correspondence, e-mail
17 correspondence with --
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'd like to show that the Defence presented to our
19 expert just those documents presented to the Defence by the Prosecution,
20 that's all.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Would you agree to have this kept under
22 seal just to protect the identity of -- of your member of your staff, of
23 the member of your staff? I don't see any big deal in this matter, to be
24 honest with you.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: And it's not. I think that's fine. I think
1 that's fine. The only issue is that it's not clear that the testimony of
2 the witness establishes that that's the only case, but that's fine as a
3 procedural issue.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: But that's argument. Okay. So let's keep it under
5 seal. And since I myself I think mentioned the member of the OTP staff
6 earlier on, I think that will need to be redacted. When I -- when I
7 referred to the -- to 1D330, when I was going through the list, I think I
8 mentioned the name. No? All right. Okay. Okay.
9 Anyone else from the Defence teams objects to any of the documents
10 of Mr. Zivanovic? None?
11 Any other Defence team wishes to tender any documents with this
12 witness? None.
13 Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. We would like to
15 tender P02827, P02822. And I understand that the map is already in
16 evidence. 5D123 is already in evidence. And that's it.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections?
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So they are so admitted. We're talking of 2827,
20 2822, and 5D123, which is already in evidence in any case.
21 My attention is being drawn to the fact that these three documents
22 we decided not to broadcast, so I think that they will stay in the records
23 under seal. All right?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to adjourn now so as not to take more time
1 from the Prlic case. We'll meet again tomorrow in the morning. Please be
2 prepared to deal with the matters that you would like to make submissions
3 upon, to wit the joinder -- joinder issues. Thank you.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day
6 of June, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.