1 Tuesday, 1 June 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody now in the third
6 courtroom, which is Courtroom I.
7 Before we ask the witness to be brought in, I would like to raise
8 a matter. The Chamber is seized by the Prosecution's supplemental motion
9 for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list with two additional exhibits,
10 filed on the 27th of May. I would first like to clarify something.
11 Perhaps there is a mistake or an error in the numbering of the intercept
12 transcripts. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Vanderpuye, you were
13 asking for admission of intercept number 524, but the Appendix A, there
14 is only the English translation of number 523. In B/C/S there is the
15 original with number 523 and 524. I would like to clarify with you, 523
16 is already an exhibit on the 65 ter list but not 524. Is that a mistake,
17 or is there a translation? Perhaps you can try to figure that out.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to you,
20 and good morning to Your Honours, everyone.
21 If you can just bear with me one second. I'd to just look at the
22 appendix and I can give you a response.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in the meantime, Mr. Tolimir, I will then ask
24 you if you have a comment to this Prosecution's motion for adding these
25 two documents to the 65 ter exhibit list. First we ask the Prosecution
1 for clarification.
2 [Prosecutor and Case Manager confer]
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I've looked at the
4 appendix. It appears to be an error, but I'd like to confirm that with
5 my colleague, because it relates to, I believe, his witness, and I think
6 he will know more certainly whether it is, in fact, an error than I
7 would. So if you could give us till the break, I can come back to you
8 with a response.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No problem with that. I wanted to raise this
10 problem as early as possible so that you have the time to clarify the
11 situation. And I will then at a later stage ask you, Mr. Tolimir, for
12 your comments to this motion of the Prosecution.
13 Could the witness be brought in. Thank you.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 WITNESS: PW-032 [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir. Please sit down. Please sit
19 Again, good morning. Now we can start. I would like to remind
20 you that the affirmation to tell the truth still applies, and I would
21 like to remind all speakers to switch off the microphone while the
22 witness is answering.
23 Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Witness. Yesterday when we left off I had asked
2 you some questions about the possibility of intercepting VRS
3 communications in light of the attitude towards security of those
4 communications by speakers and VRS officers that are the subject of those
5 intercepts, but I'd like to focus you, if I could, on more technical
6 aspects of that security.
7 What I'd like to know is, in your experience, did the VRS use the
8 means at their disposal in order to secure the communications from a
9 technical point of view, such as engaging in masking techniques or
10 reducing the power of communications, the use of cryptographic devices
11 and that sort of thing. If you could just tell us a little bit about
13 A. What I can say from my experience is that in the former JNA there
14 existed standard procedures about camouflage, anti-electronic protection,
15 and they were used to the extent of our ability in view of the fact that
16 we had a larger state in the past with a certain depth and a certain
17 width -- width so that interception and listening of this kind was rather
19 Let me stress --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should pause a moment because there seems to
21 be a technical problem with the screen. Is that correct?
22 Mr. Gajic, what is the problem?
23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the problem is we
24 can't hear the witness. We can't hear the witness on the B/C/S channel.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That problem should be solved by a technician
1 very soon. You have to wait for that. The normal channel is not
3 Could you please say something so that we can find out if the
4 translation is to be heard by the Defence.
5 THE INTERPRETER: One, two, three. One, two. Testing.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you -- perhaps, Mr. Vanderpuye, you could
7 ask the next question and we will hear the witness answering, and then we
8 can figure out if it is working.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. He hadn't finished his
10 answer, actually, to the first one.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you can repeat it.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll do my best. It was very poorly phrased.
13 Q. I had asked you about whether or not the VRS had taken advantage
14 of the technical means at their disposal in order to -- in order to
15 secure radio relay communications, and you were answering about that. If
16 you could expand on your answer, please.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you answer, was the translation to be
18 heard on the B/C/S channel? Mr. Gajic, can you tell us?
19 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we can hear the interpretation.
20 We could hear the interpretation before. We just couldn't hear the
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Please answer the question of the
23 Prosecutor, if possible.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I had begun to say, the Army of
25 Republika Srpska had a set of protective measures it was using. I
1 believe I spoke about that yesterday. There were protected channels,
2 secure channels.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, but we have to stop at the moment
4 because there is no technical connection to -- in the B/C/S channel to
5 the Defence. We need a technician, I think.
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] May I just ask the witness to say
7 something so we can check if it's working now.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One, two, three.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please repeat and count until -- up until --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Testing, testing.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it now working? Okay. Let us continue.
12 I had to stop you in the middle of your answer. I'm very sorry.
13 I apologise, but please continue if you remember.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I've been saying, the Army of
15 Republika Srpska had a set of protective measures. The first one was
16 working on ranges that we were not able to follow, primarily the SMC
17 range from 4.4 to 4.8 and 4.8 to 5 gigahertz.
18 The next thing, they also had supporting equipment and secure
19 channels. According to our knowledge, those channels went from the
20 General Staff of the VRS to Belgrade
21 not able to monitor these channels.
22 And third, there were analogue channels that most of them used
23 that we were able to monitor and we did monitor. Also it happened that
24 through the fault of operators or other personnel, we were sometimes able
25 to monitor even encrypted channels because they released telegrams that
1 had been encrypted in open communication, and then we would capture it.
2 There were also measures that were standard in telecommunications, using
3 code-names, using tables for identification, using identification
4 numbers, et cetera.
5 All these are very well-known techniques, and everyone was
6 familiar with them. However, they didn't always comply. They didn't
7 always apply them.
8 There were also communications they tried to mask by television
9 channels. For instance, you would make contact near a television
10 broadcasting station and try to establish communication.
11 Also, throughout this period personnel rotated. You could see
12 from yesterday's report that people were warned repeatedly. What does
13 that tell us? If operators were warning officers and other personnel,
14 that means that mistakes happened.
15 There were many other things that I could say, but I don't want
16 to burden the Court because it's very technical. In any case, the
17 conclusion is very simple: It's very clear that there were things we
18 were able to listen to and other things we were not able to listen to.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. You mentioned before we had the technical difficulty something
21 about camouflaging, and I don't know if that is the same as what you've
22 just discussed concerning television channels, but if you could explain
23 that to Court -- to the Court that would be helpful. And also I'd like
24 you to explain to the Court what the impact is on the strength of
25 broadcasting in terms of your unit's ability to intercept.
1 A. All the devices that the VRS had were 40 to 50 years old. I went
2 to school 30 years ago, and I trained on these old RRU-800 devices. That
3 means that they were practically obsolete. They could work with full
4 strength or diminished strength like 50 per cent, but it's my opinion
5 that they never used diminished capacity because that would have been
6 one-third of their ability. So they always operated with 70 to
7 80 per cent strength, which at that time was their full strength.
8 As for masking or camouflage, it was mostly used not to interfere
9 with secure channels. For instance, you would establish a link near a
10 television station, and we had no equipment for jamming.
11 Q. Is there any tactical military advantage to be gained from
12 transmitting a radio signal at full strength as opposed to transmitting a
13 radio strength at somewhat of a lesser strength?
14 A. From my point of view, from what I know, in order to have a
15 secure communication without any breakdowns, you always use full
16 strength. If you are talking about important things, about important
17 operations and you want to transmit the information properly, you would
18 normally use full strength so that your subordinate would understand you
19 correctly and comply.
20 Q. And is the danger of that the possibility that that communication
21 may exceed the distance that it's intended to reach and actually be
22 intercepted by someone else?
23 A. I've already explained. Every manufacturer provides supporting
24 documentation indicating the technical specifications of devices. We
25 learnt that at school. There are advantages and disadvantages of every
1 device. We went to the same schools.
2 Mathematically, you can dispute certain things, but in practice
3 it's not so. The manufacturer provides certain specifications and says
4 he guarantees communication. For instance, in the case of RRU-800, the
5 guarantee is for an 80 kilometre distance with one antenna and up to
6 50 kilometres with another type of antenna. That means that the
7 manufacturer guarantees that at the distance of 80 kilometres
8 communication will be possible. That doesn't mean that communication
9 will necessarily reach 130 kilometres.
10 Electromagnetic waves are not a live creature. They spread in
11 space. They have a certain degree of beaming. They have a vertical and
12 horizontal strength. It has direct and lateral range, and the range in
13 practice was greater, but it also depended on the hour of the day, on the
14 weather conditions, et cetera.
15 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Witness. I'd like to take you to
16 a completely different area for just a moment, and then I want to show
17 you a map, and I'd like to have you explain that to the Trial Chamber.
18 But before we do that, I want to ask you, after your testimony in the
19 Popovic case, were you retained by the Office of the Prosecutor as a
20 consultant in -- in the practice of interception?
21 A. Do you mean when I was there at that time or subsequently?
22 Q. After you testified in the Popovic case, were you retained by the
23 Office of the Prosecutor as a consultant?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And was -- what was the purpose of that? If you could just
1 briefly explain.
2 A. They needed some kind of estimate and analysis of the possibility
3 of intercepting VRS communications. That analysis had been done by a
4 Defence team.
5 Q. And did you have an opportunity to review that analysis?
6 A. That was three years ago, I believe. I think I still remember
7 parts of it.
8 Q. And did you assist the Prosecution in understanding that
9 analysis, that expert analysis?
10 A. Yes. I can very briefly say a few words about that analysis,
11 although I am not an official forensic expert.
12 That report had been done by an expert, who was very good in his
13 field, but his analysis was directed at one objective only, to prove that
14 it was absolutely impossible to intercept communications. First of all,
15 the man put in completely different -- wrong data. He shortened the
16 distance between different hubs of communications by 10 to 20 kilometres.
17 He put in the strength of usage of 50 per cent, and if we know that their
18 full strength was 70 per cent, then it was considerably diminished
19 compared to reality. He ignored the fact that we used makeshift
20 antennas, which after 1996, after the war, were directed towards the
21 west, and based on these measurements he used his own mathematical
22 calculations and tried to prove that we were wrong.
23 When that failed, he presented completely different documents
24 indicating completely different frequencies. He presented a whole table
25 of code-names from 1994 and locations of different hubs of
1 communications. I'm not going to go into detail but he used completely
2 inaccurate information.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for your answer.
4 Mr. Tolimir.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence has an objection. The
6 Prosecutor did not include onto the 65 ter list the documentation that
7 both he and the witness have been referring to, and he did not put us on
8 notice that this would be discussed. Based on what he just said, it is
9 clear that the witness cannot be objective since he appears also as a
10 Prosecution advisor.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, Mr. Tolimir. I think that the Chamber
12 will consider this clearly, and I think it is interesting information we
13 just received about the role of this witness for the Prosecution.
14 Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And just so the
16 record is clear, the Defence was provided with a very detailed
17 explanation of this witness's involvement with the Prosecution as a
18 consultant in May of 1997, sent to them on the 21st of May, and it
19 details specifically the kinds of information that the witness assisted
20 the Prosecution analysing in this very complex interception report. In
21 terms --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Please carry on.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. In terms of your objectivity, Witness, has your engagement as a
25 consultant with the Prosecution in May of 2007 and your review of the
1 report of the Defence expert in the Popovic case in any way affected your
2 testimony here today or shaded the way you've presented matters of fact?
3 A. Perhaps I didn't understand the question correctly. I don't
4 remember this as clearly, and I'm testifying on the basis of my memory
5 back from those days. I worked in the company of officers who had
6 graduated from the military academy in Belgrade and specialised in PEB,
7 that's to say counter-electronic warfare, and they were the ones working
8 with me on this analysis. We did not discover anything new. I only
9 examined the data and matched it, the data in the Defence report, that
10 is, and concluded that it was inaccurate.
11 Q. All right. Thank you for that. And for your consultancy with
12 the Office of the Prosecutor, can you tell us how long that engagement
14 A. As far as I remember, five to six days.
15 Q. And did you receive any remuneration for that period of time?
16 A. Well, I don't know about that. What I received was to cover for
17 my stay here.
18 Q. All right. Do you know approximately how much that was?
19 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely. Perhaps a thousand or
20 a thousand five hundred convertible marks or $1.000. I'm not sure.
21 Q. All right. Are you testifying here today with the expectation
22 that you may be retained in the future as a consultant again with the
23 Office of the Prosecutor?
24 A. I really don't know.
25 Q. Do you have an expectation that you'll be retained as a
1 Prosecutor [sic] if you testify here today?
2 A. I personally don't think so.
3 Q. All right. I'd like to take you to a different area, and that
4 concerns the map that I promised to show you. It's 65 ter 911.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm told that the technic is very slow today.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Well, I can go to another -- well, I
7 can't, actually. I'm afraid I have to wait.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm optimistic it is coming up.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we could zoom in a little bit at
10 the title of it just so that the witness can see it and identify it.
11 Q. Witness, are you able to see the title of this map? Do you
12 recognise it?
13 A. Yes. This is a map that I believe was made back in 1998 or 1999
14 at the request of the ICTY Prosecution. It was done by the 2nd Corps
15 command. In fact, this is a copy of the situation as it existed based on
16 the intercepts of communications of the Army of Republika Srpska from the
17 period between January and September 1995.
18 Q. All right. I'd just like to go over with you some of the symbols
19 in this -- in this map.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could just zoom in on the triangle in the
21 middle of the screen right now and blow that up a little bit. A bit
22 more. Right there. That's fine.
23 Q. We have a number of symbols in this triangle, and if you need me
24 to make it bigger just let me know so that we can -- so that you can
25 explain this clearly as possible, but we have a number of symbols on this
1 diagram. The first I'd like to -- the first thing I'd like to address,
2 though, is some writing under the line. It's in the middle of the
3 screen. And can you tell us what that says?
4 And if you need it to be bigger, just let us know.
5 A. Below the longest line, you mean, in the middle of the screen.
6 Q. Yes, that's right.
7 A. It says that the path was established after the NATO strike, if
8 that's what you mean.
9 Q. Okay. And is that what the situation was in 1995, that this
10 map -- that you've indicated this map is intended to represent?
11 A. I've said that in 1995, for every particular month, the PEB
12 department produced analyses of the communication links used by the VRS.
13 The analyses examined each and every path, what sort of devices it used,
14 across which channels, and it was constantly updated.
15 This specific path is one that I cannot recall at this time. It
16 is an alternative to the path which ran across Ozren. I may be mistaken,
17 but after the NATO strikes, when they destroyed Kraljica, "the Queen,"
18 soon thereafter this path was established. Other than that, it had not
19 been active during the war through to the end of 1995. It was active
20 across Ozren and established from an SMC, so we weren't able to follow,
21 to monitor that one.
22 Q. When was the NATO strike that's referred to in this diagram?
23 When did it occur?
24 A. I said earlier that there were strikes in Bosnia toward the end
25 of the war, and then there were strikes in Serbia in 1999, and they
1 targeted hubs of communication in Serbia. I can't be more specific than
2 that. It's been 15 years, after all.
3 Q. All right. And if you could just take us through -- if we could
4 zoom out just a little bit, and if you could just take us through ... all
5 right, what these lines are that run all the way across the map. What do
6 they represent first?
7 A. The lines marked on this map are the radio relay links along
8 which the waves propagated, and as such they are imagined to exist like
10 Q. And do they show the manner of communication that occurred among
11 links that pre-existed the war, or do they show communications, radio
12 communication -- a radio communication network that existed only after
13 the war?
14 A. These lines indicate the links as they existed in the summer of
15 1995, except for the path that I've referred to a moment ago. Most of
16 the radio relay links existed before the war. I've already said that
17 these were, for the most part, stationary facilities, communications
18 facilities which belonged to the former JNA and subsequently to the VRS,
19 and if one of these hubs goes out of work, another one pops up and is
20 switched on in its stead. So that's the sort of a network that existed
21 in Bosnia
22 This particular map indicates the situation in 1995 and
23 demonstrates the links that we monitored. Not all of them, however,
24 because there were platoons at the level of the division which
25 intercepted communications, and there were also departments dealing with
1 the same matter in all the brigades, which covered specific paths within
2 their own areas of responsibility.
3 Q. Okay. Let me focus you in, if I can, on the bottom right-hand
4 corner of this map.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could zoom more tightly, yes, on the
6 cluster of lines that are centred. If you could just blow that up a
7 little bit, please. All right. Just a bit more, please. Okay. That's
8 very good.
9 Q. Witness, I'd like for you to mark this map, so I'll ask for a pen
10 to be given to you, but while that's happening could you just describe
11 what's on here. If we start with the triangle in the middle, you can see
12 the words "Panorama 99" there, near the triangle. Could you tell us what
13 the triangle itself represents?
14 A. The triangle in the middle is a symbol used by the former
15 Yugoslav People's Army standing for the radio relay hub or node at
16 Veliki Zep. In Yugoslavia
17 in the event of a war. These symbols were something that was taken over
18 from the documentation of the Yugoslav People's Army.
19 Q. Inside the triangle that you've just circled, you can see the
20 number 800 and then the number 1. I don't know if you -- maybe you can't
21 see it that well. Maybe we can blow it up a little. But can you tell us
22 what number --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you blow it up you will lose the markings.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I thought that might be the case.
25 Q. Could you just tell us what the number indicates.
1 A. I can see it. The number -- or, rather, let me first say that
2 the radio relay hub is a stationary facility which radiates a number of
3 links. So it is not just an intermediate station, meaning that there
4 would be one link coming into it and one out of it.
5 Now, 1 means that they were -- the paths were established with
6 RRU-1, and the other number means that they were established by RRU-800.
7 800, that is, means that they were established by RRU-800. You will see
8 that were also SMC 130S which were used to establish the path to Cer, and
9 then you will also see that we have SMC 130 as the path leading to
10 Strazbenica and onwards. Strazbenica was another radio relay hub
11 covering the Hercegovina Corps. So it went from Strazbenica to Jahorina
12 and to Pale.
13 The final lines leading in various directions stand for the
14 connecting paths between radio relay hubs and brigade commands for the
15 most part. The curving line, the winding line, to the left stands for
16 the wire link. The VRS Main Staff had, in addition to the RRU-1 path,
17 also a wire path connecting it directly to the Veliki Zep radio relay
19 Q. All right. If you could, I'd like to have you mark a few things
20 on this map. First with respect to the last thing you spoke of, which is
21 the wire line, can you just draw an arrow along that line indicating what
22 it is? So you draw a wire line from Veliki Zep to the Main Staff showing
23 where the wire communication is. You can put the letter W next to it so
24 that we know what it is.
25 A. If you mean the wire link, the connection between Veliki Zep and
1 Han Pijesak, then this is it.
2 Q. Thank you. And if you could indicate which the SMC lines were on
3 this -- on this diagram. If you can't, I can -- we can do it on another
4 one. And if you could write SMC next to that.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. The one that you've written SMC on that goes in a northerly
7 direction, where does it go to? Is that the one that goes to Strazbenica
8 or is that one that goes to another location?
9 A. The Army of Republika Srpska could hardly be able to establish
10 radio relay links without relying on the hubs in Serbia. So it
11 definitely used those. The top line indicates the SMC path between
12 Veliki Zep and Mount Cer
13 redirected signals onto the main hub at Avala, near Belgrade, which also
14 had a wire connection with the VJ Main Staff. And other path was the
15 alternative leading to east across Svinjari, Trebava, Kozara, on to
16 Banja Luka, but this isn't something that we can see on the map.
17 This other SMC path is the so-called southern path leading to
18 Strazbenica and on to Jahorina. It also led from Strazbenica to
19 Veliki Tmur. I think that there was another path leading to Serbia
20 I believe is called Cigota.
21 The documents we used to have indicate that there was another
22 section leading to Vlasic, where the TV Sarajevo journalist was killed,
23 and on to Klekovo and Pljesevica. In other words, there had to exist
24 alternative routes for all these.
25 I said there was another location in addition to Cer which was
1 near Cacak or Uzice, and I think this was established with the SMC set
2 which means that we weren't able to monitor it. In other words, this --
3 this was the skeleton of the lines which kept the whole system working.
4 Now, how were we aware of these facilities? Well, we had a
5 number of officers who had worked in these facilities before.
6 Q. Let's just focus in on the map for the moment. Let's just focus
7 in on what's in the screen on front of us for a moment, just for this --
8 for this part. You can see here a triangle on the left of the screen
9 that says the word "Zlatar." Do you know what that means? It's on the
10 top left corner of the map in front of you. What does that stand for and
11 what does it mean, if you know?
12 A. As far as I'm able to see, the symbol stands for the terminal
13 radio relay system in the area of Vlasenica. This is a code-name for the
14 Drina Corps, as, in fact, it says here. It had eight channels with the
15 radio relay hub at Zep, that's to say, with the superior command and
16 subordinate brigades. And I'm referring to the path running between
17 Zlatar and Veliki Zep. This path was established from the device
19 Q. Just so that we're clear for the purposes of this map, could you
20 put a VZ next to Veliki Zep so that we can see where it is.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Below where you've written that, you can see a triangle to the
23 right that has the word "Uran" on it. Do you know what that is and what
24 it means?
25 A. What I can see here is the terminal radio relay station, which
1 was a provisional one set up for a certain period. It says: "During the
2 operations at Zep in the range of RRU-1."
3 I think I remember it was our estimate that it was the same
4 device that had operated in the area of Pribicevac, and after the
5 operation in Srebrenica, the command moved the device into the Zepa area.
6 But I'm not saying this for a fact because we didn't have a station for
7 technical analysis of signals, but it's typical that as soon as it
8 stopped working in Pribicevac, the very next day the same frequency
9 occurred in Zepa.
10 Q. All right. I think we can go to another part of this map. Can
11 you just indicate for the record where the Main Staff of the VRS is
12 located, and just put an MS next to it.
13 A. The Main Staff, according to our information, was in Han Pijesak.
14 This is based purely on the intelligence gathered by interception.
15 Q. And in terms of the radio relay nodes that you've circled on this
16 map, were those areas that your units were able to intercept?
17 A. You see the frequencies indicated here. They were written down
18 and recorded. That means that we were able to monitor them.
19 Q. And just so that we're clear, one other thing for this map. If
20 you could put a circle around Uran, the triangle that we were just
21 talking about, and if you could write next to that it "Zepa" so it's
22 clear for the record what you have associated with it.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. All right. I think we can --
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to tender this marked exhibit at this
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This marked map will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P279.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks. If we could start again with -- with
5 the full map, and I'd like to go to a different section of it, because
6 it's rather large.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which part of the map do you want to have on the
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks, Mr. President. I'd like to have the
10 right-hand corner again, but a little bit more to the right this time.
11 That's right, embracing the entire corner. If we could blow that up just
12 a little bit to the -- if you could start just a little bit left of where
13 the lines converge. Not all the way in the corner but just a little bit
14 to the left and all the way to the right so we can blow that up.
15 Perfect. Okay.
16 Q. Are you able to see the markings on this side of the map? You
17 can see on the right-hand side "Badem," and over there you see a triangle
18 with 1 and 800 in it. Then you can see beneath that "Bratunacka
19 Brigada." Then you can see "IKM DK." Are you able to see it, or should
20 we blow that up so that you can see it better?
21 A. I can see it.
22 Q. And let's start with Badem. Over there see 1 and 800. Does that
23 apply in the same way as you've indicated for the triangle at Veliki Zep,
24 that is, it uses RRU-1 and RRU-800 communications?
25 A. From what I can see here, and that's contemporaneous, that was
1 the terminal radio relay station in the area of Bratunac. There's the
2 code-name of the Bratunac Brigade, Badem, and it had a direct connection
3 with the radio relay node Veliki Zep and further on towards the
4 Drina Corps command. Also, there was an alternative one-channel back-up
5 device, RRU-1, which communicated with Veliki Zep from this communication
7 Q. You made a reference to Pribicevac a little earlier in one of
8 your answers. Are you able to indicate where that is on this map?
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Okay. So you've drawn a circle around it now, and it embraces
11 the triangle number 1. Could you put a letter P in there.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. And in order to have communication between the Drina Corps
14 command at Zlatar, which is all the way on the left side of this screen,
15 and the communication with the Drina Corps IKM at Pribicevac, was that
16 communication able to occur directly or did it have to pass through
17 Veliki Zep?
18 A. Well, knowing the topography of the area around Srebrenica, to
19 put it quite simply, it's a complete wilderness. Only animals live
20 there. It's hunting grounds. Our men, soldiers, discovered that radio
21 relay route using RRU-1, which is easily mobile, and it used the
22 frequencies 259 to 275 megahertz. It says that on the 22nd January 1995
23 the forward command post was set up for the Skelani brigade, and an
24 extension, 311, was installed, and by dialling three digits, could you
25 connect directly to the command of the Drina Corps in Vlasenica.
1 We monitored this connection constantly after we discovered it,
2 because it was somehow illogical to set up a forward command post in such
3 a wilderness knowing that Srebrenica was a protected area, and that that
4 type of communication should be set up there was not really obvious.
5 Q. All right. I'm a little unclear about your answer, though. Is
6 it that -- well, let me ask maybe if you can clarify it. When you dial
7 the extension from the command to get the forward command post, does that
8 telephone or that radio connection go directly to the forward command
9 post or does it pass through Veliki Zep or some other location, if you
11 A. Since there was no optic visibility between Pribicevac and
12 Vlasenica, that connection had a linkage path through Veliki Zep and on
13 to Vlasenica.
14 Q. All right. I think we can go to another -- if I could tender
15 this, please, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P280.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should be aware of the time. You've now
19 used, including our technical problems, one hour and ten minutes.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 If we could go to the map. That's fine. And if we could just
24 blow-up the right-hand side a little bit larger, though, this time. A
25 little bit more northerly as well. We have to make a selection, I think,
1 larger than this. A bit larger than that, just to catch the angle on the
2 right-hand side of the screen. In the middle, you'll see -- on the
3 right-hand side you'll see an angle. If you can catch that in the square
4 then we'll be fine.
5 Okay. And if we could -- if we could make it a little bit less
6 to the left because that's not so important for this. A little bit more
7 north and a little bit more to the right. You see the angle on the top?
8 That's what I want to catch in this frame. Okay. Almost. That's it.
9 Right there. Just that right half of the screen up until the corner on
10 the right-hand side. If we capture that, that will be perfect.
11 All right. We can work with this. Just go down a little bit.
12 Down more. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Stop. Stop, stop,
13 stop. Okay.
14 Q. Witness, I know it's a bit small, but if you look where the
15 letter SMC is -- where the letters SMC are, can you tell us -- yes. Is
16 that the -- interesting. The SMC line that you've indicated before, that
17 goes to a place called Ka Avali. Can you tell us where that is?
18 A. Maybe I didn't understood -- understand your question. What
19 place did you mean, in the north? This line, at least that's our
20 assumption, is a relay connecting Veliki Zep in Bosna and Herzegovina
21 with the radio relay node Cer, in Serbia
22 radio relay node one connection went to Avala, Mount Avala
23 also used to achieve a radio relay connection through Gucevo with the
24 Zvornik Brigade. That's the south-west line, the thicker one, and the
25 finer one leading to Zvornik.
1 Q. Thanks. For the Mount Avala
2 with a circle, and S for Serbia
3 Gucevo and then for Zvornik. Are you able to see that on the map or ...
4 A. You can see everything except Mount Avala
5 Q. Well, we can't see Gucevo on the map. So if you could circle it
6 and write Gucevo or G next to it that would be helpful.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. And can you show us where the Zvornik Brigade is, if you can see
9 it? And put a Z next to it, please.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And right below the word -- the letter Z that you've written is
12 the word "Palma
13 A. That's the code-name of the Zvornik Brigade in 1995.
14 Q. And the circle that you put G around says "Brana 1999." Can you
15 tell us about that? What does that mean?
16 A. According to our information and intelligence, although there
17 must be more precise information, it a radio relay station that the
18 Zvornik Brigade manned in order to connect with the Drina Corps. Since
19 there was no optic visibility from Zvornik, they couldn't connect with
21 Q. And between Mount Avala
22 where the numbers 200 and 800 are written. Can you tell us what that is?
23 I think 800 we have pretty clear, but what does 200 mean?
24 A. In the communication systems of the VRS and the Army of
1 400 to 500 megahertz. That's our estimate, because we could catch the
2 signal but we couldn't monitor it.
3 Q. Then could you just write the name of the device next to the
4 number 200, please, on this map.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. And then to the left there's a line that extends downward where
7 24/800 is written. Could you explain what that is -- or what that means.
8 I'm sorry. It's towards the middle of the image, at the top of your
10 A. That's a radio relay communication set up for the requirements of
11 the Eastern Bosnia Corps. From what we know, it went from Bijeljina to
12 the Banj [phoen] hill, right here at Mount Majevica
13 Majevica Brigades. Number 24 means they worked with 24 channels using
14 the RRU-800 device.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. Were any of your interception units
16 or facilities able to intercept the Zvornik Brigade or the node in
17 Zvornik or the node in Gucevo or the node at Mount Avala
18 A. We were able to listen to them from both installations, the route
19 Vlasenica-Veliki Zep, or Cer-Gucevo. We were able to listen. This route
20 from Mount Cer
21 it will land precisely within the range of the Konjuh installation.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I would like to tender this marked
23 map, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This map will be received as well.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P281.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. If we can go to the
3 larger map again. I just want to focus in on the route if we can catch
4 it. We'll have to go to the right-hand corner again, starting up a
5 little bit. Up. Stop. From there all the way down to bottom on the
6 right-hand -- that's fine, I think. That's fine.
7 Q. Witness, are you able to see and can you draw for us the route
8 from the Drina Corps command to the Zvornik Brigade as you were able to
9 capture it in 1995? If you can trace that out for us.
10 A. According to our information, that connection was made from the
11 Vlasenica area towards Veliki Zep, then Cer, Gucevo, and Zvornik.
12 Q. And was it possible, as far as you're aware, in 1995, to have a
13 direct communication between Zvornik and the Drina Corps command without
14 going through this route?
15 A. I cannot say it for a fact, but a direct connection between
16 Vlasenica and Zvornik was not possible with a radio relay connection
17 without relying on a -- on a node.
18 Q. And were your interception units able to intercept communications
19 going towards Pale or going towards Han Pijesak?
20 A. From what I know, we had frequencies that came from the south.
21 On a larger map you could probably see it, that a wave beamed from
22 Mount Jahorina
23 I cannot see anything here, it's a different kind of map, but we have
24 reports of such intercepts, and we have also indicated frequencies that
25 went to the south.
1 Q. If you're able to, can you approximate where -- actually, we'll
2 leave it like this. I would like to tender this and I'll go to a
3 different area.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P282.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: And, Mr. President. I'd also like to tender the
7 large map itself. It's 65 ter 911, I believe. Yes, 911.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P283.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. Witness, I'd like to draw your attention to a different area, if
12 I could, at this point, and that relates to the notebooks that were
13 received by the -- by the Office of the Prosecutor. Now, do you know --
14 were you involved in the transfer of those notebooks to the Office of the
16 A. Yes. I was involved with the section for gathering information
17 on the 2nd Corps.
18 Q. And can you tell us where the notebooks were before they were
19 transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor, if you could in brief terms.
20 A. The other notebooks remained, as far as I remember, in the depot
21 at the northern site, because in end 1997, I came again to the
22 PED section of the 2nd Corps.
23 Q. And were they kept there throughout the period of time once they
24 had been filled out and collected, were they continually kept in one
1 A. The notebooks were first on the sites, the northern site and the
2 southern site. When they were filled, they were returned to the
3 installation at Tuzla
4 sometime in 1996 or 1997 the installation at Tuzla was closed down and
5 the whole unit was transferred to the northern site. And the notebooks
6 were transferred as well. And from there, when the investigators
7 arrived, they were brought to the command of the 2nd Corps and they were
8 handed over.
9 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 855.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: We shouldn't broadcast this document, please.
11 Q. Witness, this is a document that's dated 24th April 1998. It
12 purports a transfer of 135 documents, and I'll refer you to paragraph 2
13 of the document. Were you involved in that transfer? It was to a
14 representative of the Office of the Prosecutor.
15 A. As far as I can see I was involved, but I was not alone. There
16 was a whole group. I just represented that group on behalf of the
17 2nd Corps.
18 Q. And were those documents actually transferred to the Office of
19 the Prosecutor, to your knowledge?
20 A. This is just a cover letter for a set of documents, and the cover
21 letter indicates the total number of documents handed over. There is a
22 signature here, but I believe there's another supporting document.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to tender this document, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it should be under seal.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Under seal, yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 855 will be Exhibit P284, under seal.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show the witness -- I'd like to show
4 the witness 65 ter 862.
5 Q. Witness, do you recognise this document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what is it?
8 A. I think that it's a cover -- or, rather, it's a letter
9 accompanying the earlier record, and it contains a list of every document
10 handed over to the ICTY.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: And we should go to the last page of this
12 document. It should be page -- I think it's page 5 in e-court. We're
13 not broadcasting it are we? Good.
14 Q. All right. Do you recognise -- do you recognise your signature
15 at the bottom of this document?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the last number of the documents handed over here is 135,
18 isn't it?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The numbers that are written just after the enumeration, for
21 example, 134, 135, the numbers that are written to right of that,
22 strictly confidential numbers, do those correspond to entries in the
23 notebooks that you've spoken about before?
24 A. There's a number of different pieces of information contained
25 here which indicate the entries in the notebooks save for 133 and 135,
1 which relate to individual sheets of paper that we bound together and
2 indicated that they totaled 68 [as interpreted] sheets.
3 Q. And these strictly confidential numbers that are written down
4 here, do they correspond what is written inside the notebooks?
5 A. Certainly. Only the notebooks had such numbers written in them.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document
8 as well. I think it should also be under seal.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received under seal.
10 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P285, under seal.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it is time for the break.
12 Mr. President, I just want to inform the Court that I have about five
13 more documents to go through for the purposes of chain of custody and
14 then I'll be finished with my direct examination with the leave of the
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We must have the first break now and we will
17 resume at 11.00. The Court Officer will assist you during the break.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The first thing I
22 wanted to mention to you is in relation to the question you'd asked about
23 the error concerning our filing. In fact, it is an error, and we will be
24 filing a corrigendum shortly. As I understand it, also we have a hard
25 copy of the correct translation available for the Trial Chamber should it
1 wish to examine it.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have received it in the meantime. Thank you
3 very much.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. The second thing is that there is a
5 correction, I believe, that has been made in the transcript. It looks
6 like page 29, line 17. Page 29, line 17, which indicates the witness's
7 answer concerned a document which contains 68 sheets and that should be
8 80 -- actually, the typewritten version of it says 83 sheets. I believe
9 the witness said 86. So that should be corrected. At least the
10 transcript should be corrected to reflect what he said. The document
11 speaks for itself.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you clarify that with the witness?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, I think I can. Just a moment. Let me get
14 the P number for that one. I think it was -- it was 65 ter 862, so it's
15 P285. And if we could have that in e-court, just so I can show it to the
16 witness. He could take a look at the document. And if we could go to
17 the last page, I think it was page 5 of this document, and blow-up the
18 very bottom of it where you can see the number 135.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The B/C/S version disappeared again. We had it
20 on the screen already.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know if we're able to blow it up. If we
22 can't, that's okay. We have the English translation anyway. And I think
23 under -- in row 135, we can see it refers to radio interceptor daily
24 report, and next to that immediately you can see it says 83 sheets and
25 then 83 documents. So I just want to clarify with the witness what he
1 said in reference to row 135. So if he can see that, that would be
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right. I can see now that it's 83.
4 At first glance I thought it was 88.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE:
6 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Witness. I'd like to show you
7 65 ter 858.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: This also shouldn't be broadcast, please.
9 Q. This is a document that's dated 10th May 1999, and it shows that
10 material was handed over to an investigating team at The Hague consisting
11 of A5 format notebooks, 55, and then it says original transcripts of
12 conversation A4 format notebooks, 1 piece, as well as 1.4 megabyte
13 diskettes and a shift diary kept by an individual.
14 Witness, do you recall being involved in the transfer of these
16 A. Yes. On the orders of my superior, I handed the material over.
17 He authorised me to sign the document and give it to the person named
19 Q. Thank you for that.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE:
23 Q. Witness, with respect to the -- I'm sorry.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P286, under seal.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE:
1 Q. Witness, with respect to the 1.4 megabyte diskettes, are those
2 consistent with the types of diskettes that were used in respect of the
3 interception operation of your units?
4 A. These were 1.4 megabyte diskettes that were mostly used at
5 cryptographic stations and probably contained typed reports. I can't
6 recall exactly what they contain.
7 Q. All right. Thank you for that.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If could I have the witness shown, please,
9 65 ter 1644.
10 Q. This is a document that's also from the 2nd Corps command, and it
11 relates to the hand-over of certain material on 14th May 1999. Now, if
12 we go to the second page of this document, we can see the individuals
13 that were involved in this transfer. Do you have any recollection of
14 this transfer or were you involved in the transfer in any way?
15 A. I can say that I know approximately when this was handed over,
16 but I myself did not take part in it. It was a different department.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document not be admitted
19 through this witness if the -- if the document was not authored by or
20 handed over by the witness?
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, I believe that that's -- that's a fair
23 question to put once I've finished using the document if I intend to
24 tender it, but I do intend to establish a sufficient foundation for its
25 admission. So I would submit that the question is premature.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. At the very -- if we could go to the next page in the English
4 translation. We'll stay on the B/C/S page. You can see that items 46,
5 47, and 48 refer to the transfer of transcripts of conversations in
6 A5-size notebooks, 55 pieces; transcripts of conversations in A4-size
7 notebooks, 1 piece; and taped conversations on 1.4 megabyte diskettes, 2
9 Do you have any knowledge of those documents being transferred in
10 relation to your intercept operation?
11 A. I can say that I did not take part in the drafting of this
12 record. My department was charged only with handing over documents that
13 were the result of intercepting. This is a collated record made by the
14 then superior officer. These were documents originating from other
15 departments, including the items listed here under 46, 47, 48, which --
16 and 49, which came from my department and which were the subject of the
17 earlier document we looked at. Now, the material listed under 50 did not
18 come from my department.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: On that basis, Mr. President, I would tender
21 this document into evidence.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The decision lies in your hands. I
24 understand the witness said that he did not produce the document. Was it
25 someone else? Well, I don't know. The witness stated that he did not
1 take part in the hand-over, and that's the extent of my submission.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber is of the view that this witness was
6 not involved in the handing over of the documents and was not in a
7 position to identify parts of this document, so that the Prosecution
8 should consider another way to tender this document if it seems to be
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Witness, you can see the date of this document was
12 14 May 1999
13 that you participated in. To your knowledge, does the 50 -- do the
14 55 A5 notebooks and one A4-size notebook and two diskettes reflect the
15 material that you were involved in transferring to the representatives
16 from the Hague
17 A. Your Honour, I most definitely handed over the 55 A5-size
18 notebook, one A4-size notebook to Ms. Stefanie Frease. What happened
19 most probably was that she took that record and combined it with the
20 records of other documents handed over from other departments and that's
21 how this record came about. But I can also state that I did not take
22 part in the process leading up to this particular record.
23 Q. Thank you, Witness.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just for the record, Mr. President, I would note
25 that -- I'm just going to find the exhibit number. The entries that are
1 in 46, 47, and 48 of this document, and 49, correspond almost verbatim to
2 P286, which was the document I qualified prior to presenting the witness
3 with this one. Just so the record is clear as to that, and I can show it
4 to the Trial Chamber if you'd like to see it again, but if you look at
5 entries on this document, 46 - the 55 pieces, A5 size; A4 size, one
6 piece; two pieces concerning the disks or the agenda or shift diary of
7 that individual - you'll see that reflected verbatim in the exhibit that
8 I've just -- that is, P286 that I've just tendered.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful if we can see that on the
10 screen again.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know if it's
12 possible, but it would be great if we put this translation up on the left
13 side and put in P286 just in English so the Trial Chamber can see exactly
14 that and can juxtapose one another.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have only the two translations on the
16 screen. We wanted to have the first one. Yes. Thank you.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. And I think if you can compare items
18 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the right with items 46, 47, 48, and 49 on the left
19 you'll see that -- well, they're identical.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, if we could just go into private
24 session for a moment, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
1 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe.
6 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes. As I understand you, you are trying to
7 introduce the document on the left as part of your evidence through this
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right.
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: But this witness has said he did not author it and
11 he was not involved in the transfer of this particular bundle of
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's -- that's right too.
14 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. Now, I think I can see your difficulty, but
15 I'm wondering whether you needed to be belabour the point to introduce
16 this document through this witness. Why not through the person who has
17 signed there?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it can be done both ways, to be -- to be
19 honest. I think it can be introduced through this witness, because the
20 document itself encompasses the materials with -- which the witness has
21 said he handed over to a representative of the -- of The Hague Tribunal,
22 and that is a document that is already in evidence. It's P286. So even
23 though this witness didn't author the document, he has testified that the
24 document, in fact, reflects the materials that he handed over that is
25 shown in P286. That's the reason why it's relevant to introduce it
1 through him. Not because he authored it and not because he didn't author
2 it or he didn't sign it, but the document itself reflects the physical
3 materials that he was involved in handing over. That's the reason why
4 I've had them put on the -- in e-court at the same time so we can see
5 that they are the same documents, and it's part of the chain of the
6 transfer of that material.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any comment?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I do not
11 intend to challenge anything or create complications for Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 I wish to draw your attention to one logical matter. If this witness
13 handed over only four documents listed here under 46 through to 49, it is
14 illogical for him to be used for the admission of the remaining
15 45 documents he knows nothing of. I do not dispute that the documents
16 containing these particular contents listed here under 46 to 49 should be
17 admitted through him, but I don't think he should be used for the rest.
18 I think the witness said clearly two times that he was not involved in
19 their hand-over. Of course, it will be up to the Trial Chamber to make a
20 decision on the Prosecution's motion.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: May I respond for a moment. I think
22 Mr. Tolimir's conflated --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Mr. Tolimir's
25 conflated two issues. I'm not seeking to introduce the notebooks through
1 this document; I'm seeking to introduce the document itself because the
2 document is a record of custody of the materials, of the notebooks. So
3 if the notebooks went to one person and then to another person and then
4 to another person and then wound up at the Tribunal, all of those records
5 are essential and relevant to the chain of custody, and that's what this
6 document shows. It shows that the 55 notebooks went from one person to
7 another person and then to the person at the Tribunal, and that's the
8 reason for its relevance. Even if the witness didn't write the document,
9 didn't author the document, or even didn't see the document, as long as
10 he can say that those notebooks are the notebooks that he handled in the
11 chain of custody, then it is appropriate and relevant -- it is
12 appropriate and relevant evidence of that fact, of the record of
13 transfer, not the documents -- I'm not seeking to tender the documents
14 through this.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Nothing
18 in my objection had to do with notebooks. I only referred to the four
19 documents listed on the right-hand side which, as can be seen clearly,
20 the witness himself handed over to the representative of the Tribunal and
21 not a representative of his army, but it is illogical for him to be used
22 for the admission of a document listing a number of other sets of
23 material that he was not involved with. I did not mention notebooks at
24 all. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The Chamber will consider that.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: After having considered the situation, the
3 Chamber is of the view that the statement of the witness on page 35,
4 line 3 through 8, is essential and he stated that he personally handed
5 over, as he is recollecting that, four items of this long list of
6 documents to Ms. Stefanie Frease, a representative of the OTP. Taking
7 into account this statement of the witness, we will receive this document
8 to have a full picture of the chain of custody of the -- especially these
9 four parts of the documents, so that at the end of the day we can give
10 weight to that, how these documents, the notebooks, came from the custody
11 of his unit to the OTP of this Tribunal. It will be received.
12 If I remember correctly, it was tendered under seal. Is that
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: P286 should be under seal.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is under seal, but the new document.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: The new document doesn't need to be. I don't
17 think there's any specific reference to the witness in this document.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1644 is now Exhibit P287.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. I'd like to show the witness, if I
21 may, 65 ter 859.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I'd like to have the witness shown
24 65 ter 859, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is this the document on the screen you were
1 asking for?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, we have it. Thank you.
3 Q. Witness, this is a document that is from the 2nd Corps. It
4 indicates from the G-2 department. It's dated 13 December 2000, and it
5 purports that there was a transfer of additional materials here
6 consisting of, among other things, 42 pieces, it says "station diaries
7 with data collected by EIV," electronic reconnaissance, and also 7 pieces
8 1.44 megabyte disks with data collected by electronic reconnaissance.
9 And then there are some other documents. It says review of radio
10 surveillance reports, dated 1 August to 30 August 1995.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the next -- to Annex -- Annex 2.
12 That's two pages up in the English. And I think it's also two pages up
13 in the B/C/S.
14 Q. First of all, are you aware of a transfer of the station diaries,
15 42 pieces of these, in -- in 2000 from the G-2 unit?
16 A. I can say I'm familiar with these documents. It's highly
17 probable - in fact, there was no one else - that we handed the technical
18 operation and the superior commander authorised this with his signature.
19 Q. And the strictly confidential numbers, dates that are indicated
20 in this Annex 2, do those correspond to the methodology or the manner in
21 which the intercept notebooks that were generated by your department were
23 A. Well, I think that fits. It corresponds.
24 Q. And let me show you Annex 3 of this document. That's on the next
25 page, I think both in the B/C/S and in -- and in the English.
1 Can you tell us what this EIV abbreviation means?
2 A. Electronic reconnaissance.
3 Q. And was your unit engaged in that activity?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you can see here that these are for January through -- it
6 looks like November of 1995 -- December of 1995, I should say, in
7 various -- various parts among the seven disks. Would that correspond to
8 the types of disks that were used by your unit in -- in doing the
9 intercept -- intercepting -- in intercepting communications?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you say whether or not these materials as reflected in this
12 document came from your unit?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: On that basis, Mr. President, I would like to
15 tender this document as well into evidence.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P288.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 0 -- I'm
19 sorry, 856, please.
20 Q. What you have on the screen in front of you now is a record of
21 transfer of archival material gathered through ER regarding events in
22 Srebrenica 1995, and it indicates that a representative of the Tribunal,
23 Jack Hunter, and representatives of the G-2 and 2nd Corps command
24 selected and made a list of tapes from 1995.
25 Let me ask you, Mr. Witness, were you involved in the transfer of
1 these tapes?
2 A. In the preparation of these recordings I was involved, and I was
3 partially involved in the hand-over. However, I was not a signatory.
4 But I did accompany this gentleman who visited the northern location. He
5 inspected the equipment. He listened to some intercepts from that
6 period. And there was a whole team working down there in the hall of
7 veterans, and we selected some magnetic tapes that they reviewed, and I
8 believe they were supposed to go somewhere else and continue their job.
9 So we packed these tapes into a cardboard case, taped it and signed, both
10 of us, so that he could inspect it a few days later, see that it hasn't
11 been tampered with, and he carried it further on.
12 Q. Of the tapes that you packed, were these a total of 19 tapes as
13 is indicated in this document, if you can recall?
14 A. If it says 19, that means there were 19.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, on that basis I would tender this
16 document also into evidence.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P289.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to show the witness 65 ter 863,
21 Q. Witness, what you have in front of you is a tape -- a photograph
22 of a tape, or a photocopy of a photograph of a tape, indicating number
23 48/Q2, and then it has an ERN number, T000-0471.
24 First of all, do you recognise the label that is on the tape at
25 the bottom in the photograph, where it says 48 -- 08/2-01 and it looks
1 like 4 -- 144.
2 A. This is our marking, but the handwritten note at the top, that's
3 not something we wrote.
4 Q. All right. Thank you for that. I'd just like to -- I think we
5 can go through just a couple of pages of this before I move to tender it.
6 If we could go to page 2. I just want to show you the back side of this
7 tape. Is that your marking, by the way, the label that's on it?
8 A. No.
9 Q. All right. And if I can show you page 3. Do you recognise what
10 this shows?
11 A. I think this is a cardboard box where these tapes were placed.
12 Q. All right. If we could go to page 4. I want to show you the
13 other side of the book.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could rotate it that would be helpful.
15 All right.
16 Q. Do you recognise what's on this?
17 A. Before, in the old Yugoslavia
18 occasion of Tito's birthday, there was a big festivity involving
19 athletics and other performances by pupils and teenagers. There were a
20 number of exercises, always accompanied by music, and I even recognise
21 some people here. Professor Mikic, who worked at the faculty of sports.
22 Then Professor Meho Alic-Partic. And this is a floppy disk [as
23 interpreted] that we received. I remember this technician, Suljo, who
24 still works there. This was taken from Radio Tuzla. Of course, the
25 contents was immediately erased so we can use it for recording
2 Q. All right. In the transcript there's -- it records that you said
3 the word "floppy disk." I just want to confirm what you were referring
4 to. It's page 44, line 25. Did you refer to floppy disk, or did you
5 refer to tape?
6 A. It's a magnetic tape or a diskette tape. We can call it whatever
7 we like.
8 Q. All right. Can you confirm that the box and the tape, in fact,
9 are the product of your unit?
10 A. That's correct. Absolutely correct.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would tender this as well into
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, that will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P290.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 863. Oh,
16 sorry, 864. This shouldn't be broadcast.
17 Q. Witness, what I'm showing you now is a note that was found inside
18 the box 48
19 A. If I remember well, before the hand-over we received an order
20 from the superior commander to re-listen to these magnetic tapes and to
21 record some typical signs, indications, locations, participants, place
22 names, as we can see here. This is a description of the contents of each
23 magnetic tape and the signature of the person who did the listening. And
24 this description is also placed in the box, together with the tape.
25 Q. Witness, with respect to the tapes and the notebooks, were they
1 ever transferred from the place where they were held to any other
2 location before they were turned over to the -- to the Tribunal?
3 A. I've already said that notebooks were taken from the sites to a
4 place near Tuzla
5 the northern location. Also, the tapes were taken from the southern
6 location, together with other tapes, to the northern location.
7 Q. Do you recall approximately when that was?
8 A. Roughly in 1996, 1997, when division units were disbanded. We
9 got hold of a large number of tapes at that time. Some installations
10 were closed down and their tapes were taken to the northern location.
11 The whole army was being reorganised and transformed. We were not under
12 any obligation to store these tapes and the material recorded on them.
13 The moment the intelligence section returned them, that meant they --
14 that they lost their importance. However, there was no time to erase
15 everything. Some things were dubbed, some things remained on the tapes
16 that were in use, and that happened in 1996 and 1997. They were all
17 stored in the northern location.
18 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 854.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'd forgotten. I would
20 like to offer this into evidence.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P291, under seal.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to show the witness 854, please.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was it necessary to receive the last one under
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: The signature at the bottom.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
7 Q. Witness, what you have in front of you now is a document that
8 was -- that is, I should say, dated 19 September 1996, and it concerns
9 the 2nd Corps command, and it records the hand-over of the 2nd Corps
10 intelligence archive materials. And in particular, under item 1, it
11 refers to a number of archive materials, including 3.5-inch diskettes,
12 5.25-inch diskettes, UHER audiotapes, audio cassette tapes, as well as
13 archives for the 21st Division, I believe, 22nd, 25th Division, and a
14 number of other files.
15 Does this correspond to your recollection of the timing of the
16 reorganisation of the army and, in particular, with respect to the
17 disposition of tapes and other materials concerning your unit?
18 A. This corresponds to the period of reorganisation of the army.
19 However, I was not involved in drafting this document. I know people who
20 did this from the intelligence section, because I served at that time as
21 commander of that unit.
22 Q. Does it correspond to the materials that were used by your unit?
23 If you can recall, and if not, that's all right as well.
24 A. Yes. It corresponds to the material that was at the disposal of
25 our unit and that was in the keeping of the intelligence section. This
1 must have been preceded by a process of gathering the material in our
2 unit and turning it over to our intelligence section, but I didn't get
3 involved personally.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In this document, on the right-hand
5 side, in Serbian, it says that these documents had been seized. The same
6 must read in English. So I don't know what the relation is between this
7 witness and the documents. What can he possibly know about the substance
8 if -- if this is being introduced through him and the documents have been
9 seized, because he says he wasn't involved.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think Mr. Vanderpuye did not finish his
11 questioning to this document. Please carry on.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Witness, do you know who Kasim Mesic is? He's indicated as a
14 signatory to this document.
15 A. Kasim Mesic was chief of the electronic warfare section within
16 the intelligence organ of the 2nd Corps.
17 Q. And did his -- well, did he have any particular relation to the
18 intercept operation that you were attached to?
19 A. Yes, he did. He was an officer who had graduated from the
20 military academy specialising in counter-electronic warfare, and he had
21 close ties with our unit.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would again offer this into
23 evidence. I think there's a sufficient enough nexus between the
24 witness's work and the signatory to the hand-over of this material. I
25 actually don't see in the English translation that it says "seized" -
1 maybe I just missed it - but it does say that it was handed over. I
2 think that's a sufficient enough basis, but I'm prepared to live with the
3 decision either way.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber's of the view that we can't see
6 enough reason for a connection between this document and the evidence of
7 this witness, especially when he -- when asking your question on page 47,
8 line 25 and the next lines, "It corresponds to the material that was at
9 the disposal of our unit," and so on. And then it says, "This must have
10 been preceded by a process of gathering the material in our unit," and
11 then he said, "I didn't get involved personally." So that we have not
12 enough reason to receive it.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you for that.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The request is denied. Please carry on.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Just bear with me for one second,
16 Mr. President.
17 All right. I think you'll be happy to hear that this concludes
18 my direct examination. I appreciate your indulgence.
19 And thank you, Witness.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We all have been very patient. It was late
21 enough your finish. You took -- you took much longer than expected and
22 indicated by you.
23 Mr. Tolimir, do you have cross-examination for this witness?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I do
25 wish to cross-examine the witness, by your leave.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please, continue.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the witness to
3 make a short pause after my question and to follow the interpretation as
4 recorded on the screens. I will do the same so that we do not overlap.
5 Can we call up 1D128. It's a book which I will use in
6 cross-examining this witness. It is in English. It is a book written by
7 Cees Wiebes about intelligence work in the course of the war in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the period between 1992 and 1995.
9 In order to see the source in the book can we turn to page 5 in
10 e-court and chapter -- or, rather, paragraph 3.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
12 Q. [Interpretation] It says as follows:
13 "This study is an appendix to the Srebrenica report by the
14 Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. A central position in the
15 study is occupied by the role of national and international intelligence
16 and security services in the war in Bosnia
18 This is my first question for the witness: Did you in any way
19 participate in the development of this study of the Dutch institute? Did
20 you in any way contribute to it?
21 A. I can give you the following brief answer: On the order of my
22 superior I gave a statement. I don't know which year that was precisely.
23 There were representatives of NIOD, N-I-O-D, there at the time, and the
24 statement I gave was, in fact, my view of the situation in Srebrenica in
25 terms of electronic reconnaissance. The view that I gave was based on
1 the intelligence gathered by interception. This statement was
2 subsequently published on the internet, though I must say that nobody
3 told me that it would be published subsequently.
4 At that point in time, my superior came to my office and said
5 that I should talk to these people, and, in fact, I could not have talked
6 to them without previous approval from my superior.
7 Q. Thank you. I wanted to ask you, in fact, if you needed a prior
8 approval from the BH Army to talk to these people, to the ICTY, or any
9 other international organisations. Did you, in addition to this verbal
10 order from your superior, have any written consent allowing you to get
11 involved in these sort of discussions? Thank you.
12 A. I can't remember exactly. I think that NIOD was the first group
13 to address these issues. Others followed later. In the case of NIOD, I
14 had a verbal approval from my superior, and he in turn from those higher
15 up, I suppose, for this discussion to take place, because others
16 participated in discussions with them.
17 Before my arrival here, I sought and was given both an order and
18 an approval from the ministry.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you explain for the Trial Chamber what NIOD
20 stands for? Secondly, did you have a written -- did you receive a
21 written approval for your testimony here, since you are now in
22 retirement? Thank you.
23 A. NIOD is a Dutch acronym standing for the Dutch Institute for War
24 Documentation, in former Yugoslavia
25 did not need any sort of approval for the testimony that I'm giving right
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show up -- show or call up
4 1D128. This is page 2 -- this is page 45 in the e-court of the book.
5 Let me quote this:
6 "The existence of intercepts can be construed from
7 interviews" --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please, Mr. Tolimir, could you please first give
9 a reference where on these two pages is the passage you are quoting, for
10 the sake of the interpreters.
11 Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I -- I just want to
13 make sure we're not broadcasting this.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 5 from the top. Page 297,
15 line 5.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Could that be enlarged and
17 not broadcast. The English page, please.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will not be mentioning names.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Carry on. Please carry on.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that I can read this if I
21 do not reveal the identity of the witness.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And I quote:
24 "The actual existence of this comment could be construed from
25 interviews with," this witness, I will not say his name, "who performed
1 the duty mentioned herein within the 2nd Corps."
2 So I think we can use it in open session since I did not reveal
3 the identity of the witness. Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Carry on, please, and put a question to the
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, this information is in the public domain and it mentions
8 the names of all those who talked to these people including you. You
9 gave statements on issues about which you're testifying here. Did you
10 personally ask for your testimony to be granted protective measures?
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I
14 object to the question. The question of this witness's protective
15 measures is a matter that I think Mr. Tolimir is aware has -- should be
16 addressed before the Chamber that issued them, and the circumstances
17 under which they are -- they were granted certainly have no bearing in
18 these proceedings.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And, Mr. Tolimir, as you are aware, the
20 protective measures were granted by the previous Chamber, not by this
21 Chamber. They are just still in place. Please bear in mind what
22 Mr. Vanderpuye told you and carry on.
1 (redacted) And my
2 question was whether he himself sought protective measures for his
3 testimony. If he can answer the question, fine. If not, it is up to the
4 Trial Chamber to give the ruling, but I did not place his identity at
5 risk in any way.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, nobody says that.
7 Mr. Vanderpuye, what is the problem?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I say that, Mr. President, and I say that
9 because Mr. Tolimir has given a page reference of a public document and
10 indicated the witness's name is in it, and given the subject matter of
11 his testimony that precedes this statement, I think it couldn't be more
12 clear who the witness is. So I would ask for that last comment at least
13 to be redacted from the record so that the witness's identity is not put
14 further at risk.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We will redact that portion, but I would like to
16 ask the witness to answer the question of Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before I answer, I -- I have to say
18 that this is more of pressure being exerted on me rather than a question.
19 At the time when I performed my work, I had to obey orders, and it's not
20 just me. There were many others who were members of the intelligence
21 department of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we had to abide by
22 certain procedures, including approvals issued by the ministry, by the
23 Supreme Command to me personally. We weren't aware of the workings of
24 the ICTY or of the NIOD. We were told that there were issues we could
25 discuss since these were sensitive matters.
1 As an officer of the army, I was given the possibility to appear
2 as a protected witness, and I accepted the offer. In fact, I wasn't even
3 aware of the possibility for a witness to be not protected.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for your answer.
5 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Thank you. I apologise if you feel my question as pressure upon
8 you. This isn't my intention at all. I only wish to look at things that
9 seem logical or illogical.
10 Are you aware of the fact that this publication mentions names
11 and locations from where VRS communications were intercepted? Are you
12 aware of the fact that these pieces of information are published in the
14 A. Well, I must admit that I didn't read these portions of the
15 publication. What I can say, and this wasn't much of a secret, the
16 facilities used for intercepting purposes were formally JNA facilities
17 that were adapted for the new use. It was only logical for these
18 installations, since they remained in the territory controlled by the
19 BH Army, to be used to these ends.
20 Q. Thank you. These two installations, the northern and southern
21 sites that were used for intercepting purposes, were they under the same
23 A. You being an officer will understand that in the period up until
24 1995, after my arrival there, the unit was stationed at three locations
25 that I mentioned. This particular unit was under the direct command of
1 the 2nd Corps command. It was a unit attached to the staff, and you will
2 know what this means. So we were under the command of the individuals
3 mentioned herein. When it comes to their speciality, which was
4 intelligence, they were under the intelligence department.
5 Q. Thank you. Now that you mentioned the intelligence department,
6 does the name of Mustafa Kajrulahovic [phoen], Brigadier General of the
7 BH Army, ring any bells?
8 A. I only remember someone saying at some point that the general
9 died. I don't know anything else about him.
10 Q. Do you know which position he held in the BH Army? I'm
11 mentioning him since his name appears in the documents.
12 A. Well, I know that he was on the Main Staff, on the General Staff.
13 Q. Thank you. Did he have anything to do with intelligence
14 services, since you've just said that the unit was tied to the
15 intelligence service of the 2nd Corps?
16 A. I believe that my superiors would be better placed to answer this
17 question. As far as I can remember, he was the head of the intelligence
18 administration for a while.
19 Q. Thank you. Did you send the intelligence you gathered to the
20 intelligence administration of the BH Army?
21 A. I know that we sent the information to the encryption service,
22 and I suppose that they forwarded the information to the intelligence
24 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us who helped you to select and vet
25 personnel who would be involved in intercepting in terms of the
1 suitability of their background to intelligence work?
2 A. I joined the unit in February of 1995. By that time the unit had
3 already been put together. I can't tell you who was behind the
4 selection. I only know that when personnel was looked for they relied on
5 recommendations, and I know that they had to be vetted in a way in the
6 intelligence department, just the same way we were.
7 Q. Thank you. Who did you send the information you gathered at
8 northern and southern sites to in terms of the chain of command?
9 A. We sent the information in its original form to the intelligence
10 department of the 2nd Corps.
11 Q. Am I mistaken in saying that you, in fact, sent the information
12 to the intelligence organ of the 2nd Corps?
13 A. No, you are not mistaken. That's right.
14 Q. Did the intelligence organ of the 2nd Corps have the obligation
15 to send the information to the intelligence organ of the army?
16 A. It would only be logical.
17 Q. Do you know who was at the head of the intelligence organ of the
18 army whilst you were a member of the corps?
19 A. Try as I might, I really cannot remember who was the person
20 number one in that sense in the army.
21 Q. Thank you. It's not a problem. You should give the answer you
22 think you should give.
23 At transcript page 2159, line 22, state that the shifts of
24 operators would be rotated every 24 hours. First of all, tell us if this
25 reflects your memory of the events.
1 A. I do recall that in 1995 the men rotated every ten days. Now, as
2 for the 24-hour rotation or shifts, we had fixed shifts, but people
3 worked as needed. Whenever the situation permitted, they would rest.
4 Otherwise, they would have to work nonstop, and I did say that operators
5 worked around the clock.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me what was the ability of operators to
7 accurately transmit a conversation, an intercept, if they have to work
8 constantly, 24 hours a day, for a period of ten days?
9 A. Well, I have in a way answered this question in my statement.
10 Every break, every moment of spare time that there was people used to
11 rest. Of course there was exhaustion, but there was always at the
12 forefront of their mind the idea that either they would be doing this job
13 and enduring it or else go to the front line.
14 Q. Yesterday when the Prosecutor showed you documents we saw two
15 documents, one on the left and the other on the right, and one of them
16 said it concerns the 1st Krajina Corps and the other said, "They will go
17 with the 1st Krajina Corps." Is this a serious mistake or is it a
18 reflection of the fatigue experienced by the operator? Did they note
19 down conversations based on how they construed them?
20 A. Well, there were mistakes, and of course people were tired. And
21 I think this sentence has been taken out of the context. I think it can
22 be quite clearly understood if looked together with the earlier reports
23 and the later reports.
24 Q. Yes, but you will admit that if you say it concerns the 1st Corps
25 or they will go with the 1st Corps, the difference is a major one. And
1 this is how it was conveyed in these telegrams.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I remind both speakers not to overlap and to
3 wait as that the transcript stopped. Please now your answer.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that it's possible.
5 Mistakes occur, but as I said, this was taken out of context.
6 Information does not only come from people who come by it through
7 electronic reconnaissance. There are other sources too. The information
8 which the ultimately reaches the commander of the 2nd Corps or even
9 higher up would, in fact, have its final form and shape.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Does this mean that these intercepts would be read and re-read in
12 order for them to get their final form?
13 A. Well, you will know that the information could not be forwarded
14 to the commander in this particular form. We had an electronic warfare
15 department in our unit which had six men, I believe -- seven men, I
16 believe, and all of them read these reports and gave their assessments of
17 them. There was also a department gathering information from other
18 sources. There was also the analysis department, and the analysis
19 department was the last stop for these reports before they reached the
20 commander and before the commanders were briefed on possible activities.
21 Q. Witness, do you wish to say that you were part of this chain
22 within the intelligence department, the one that you referred to in your
24 A. If you're referring to the security department, yes, I was.
25 Q. No, I'm not referring to the security department because it has
1 nothing to do with dispatching and checking telegrams. I wanted to know
2 if you were part of this verification process of intercepts that you
3 referred to a moment ago.
4 A. Can you please set a time-frame on your questions. I don't know
5 if I'm supposed to answer in relation to the period when I performed this
6 specific duty in the unit, or in relation to the period when I was on the
7 intelligence department during the war, or in the intelligence department
8 after the war? Can you be more specific, please?
9 Q. Well, I don't think this question is that important.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have these documents
11 shown side by side, P2692 and P296B.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: P269A and P296B.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it P96 or P69?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P269A, P269B. Thank you.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Now we can see --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. It says it concerns Talic's men, on the right; and on the left it
22 says, "They will go with Talic's men."
23 My question is: Do you notice the difference?
24 A. In the language, yes.
25 Q. Can one mistake change the whole sense of a message?
1 A. That happens.
2 Q. At the end of all this analysis process, did you finally
3 establish what it was actually? Will they go or does it concern them?
4 A. If you take this conversation in particular, you are taking this
5 question out of context, because it says clearly at the end, "It has all
6 been settled, because the start is tomorrow."
7 Q. Have you preserved the audiotapes so we can check and redress
8 these mistakes that concern serious matters that are the subject of a
9 trial before a court? Were the tapes preserved with intercepts?
10 A. We've seen from the records that most tapes had been turned over
11 to the relevant command. Whether this intercept was one of them on one
12 of the preserved tapes, I cannot say now because I don't know what the
13 section has dubbed onto different tapes and what not. That was not my
14 job. My job was to collect the raw material and pass on this
16 Q. On page 2184, lines 21 and 22 of the transcript, you say the
18 "I am sure that the entire truck-load of such notebooks had been
19 burnt because we had no firewood."
20 Now, my question is: Is it logical to burn evidence of an
21 activity that you were trying to document as firewood?
22 A. If you allow me, Mr. President, I would respond with a question
23 that doesn't require an answer. Is it logical for there to be a war in
24 the 21st century? Of course it would be logical that the life and the
25 lives of people who were working on this were more important than
1 documents. I allow that mistakes were made, but if it's -- it is logical
2 also that if you have no firewood you will use paper to make a fire.
3 And to add just one more thing. Just before I came to the unit,
4 once a report was typed up it became official. There was no
5 responsibility or accountability for any information written down in hand
6 by any -- on any piece of paper.
7 Yes, there was one truck-load of paper that was burnt, but not
8 all of them were documents. There was all sorts of paper on that truck.
9 There were too many tapes for all of them to preserve -- to be preserved.
10 Even in the former JNA, some tapes were handled, then erased, then
11 returned to operators for further use.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Excuse me, Mr. Tolimir. We are running out of
13 time. We must have the second break now, and we will resume at 1.00.
14 We adjourn.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I just want to tell you we have
18 to -- you have to stop your cross-examination for today three minutes
19 earlier because I want to raise some procedural matters. Now you have
20 the floor. Please continue your cross-examination.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Since we
22 will continue our examination tomorrow, you please interrupt me when it's
23 time, or my advisor will do so.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Witness, at transcript page 2160, line 7, you said that in 1995
1 your unit numbered some 50 to 60 men. In July 1995, how many people were
2 assigned to the northern and southern locations of those who were on
3 duty, excluding those who were resting at that point?
4 A. I can't give you precise information. I can tell you that, in
5 general terms, between eight and ten people worked in a single shift in
6 northern and southern locations. In other words, altogether some 15 to
7 18 people.
8 Q. And how many platoons did you have?
9 A. As far as I remember, we had had two platoons monitoring radio
10 relay communications, one platoon monitoring shortwaves, one radio
11 jamming squad, and the command.
12 Q. Is this consistent with the number of 50 to 60 men that you
14 A. Well, roughly. I think that in the documentation you could find
15 a list. Let's say you had 17 to 18 men per platoon and then some KT
16 platoon would bring it up to 36, and then we had four to five men in the
17 encryption department, and then the command where there was the company
18 commander, deputy, and I.
19 Q. In this book --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D128, page 299,
22 which is page 46 in e-court, paragraph 2. There it is.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Paragraph 2, if you speak English and I'm quoting paragraph 2:
25 "The question that now needs to be answered is: What was
1 possible regarding the processing of the intercepts in realtime? Simple
2 arithmetic shows that if the number of channels multiplied by the number
3 of required personnel is greater than the number of available personnel,
4 then near-realtime processing and reporting is impossible."
5 Five lines further down it reads:
6 "If we assume on the basis of this estimate that an absolute
7 minimum of ten channels had to be monitored continuously, that three
8 persons were needed per channel for interception, transcription, and
9 reporting, and that there was a rotation of three shifts a day and a
10 seven-day working week, then at least 90 operators would have had to be
11 active at the northern facility alone, not to mention 15 or 20 staff for
12 support, technology, security, catering, and so on. Hence, if there were
13 20 channels - probably a more realistic estimate - then at least
14 180 people would be needed. In reality, a maximum of ten people worked
15 at the northern location. Most of the communication was recorded on
16 tape. It seems, therefore, that near-realtime analysis and processing
17 was unattainable."
18 This was a rather long quotation from the book. I think you were
19 able to follow and that you can answer my question. I would like to hear
20 your comments on this analysis provided by the author of the book. This
21 is a contribution or an attachment to the report on Srebrenica, and it is
22 a very serious study produced by a Dutch authority. Thank you.
23 A. I've never seen nor read the study. I've already said what was
24 required in order to have matters as ideally they should be in the army.
25 The author presented the analysis that reflects his view of what seems
1 fit. In my view, this is an unrealistic analysis which does not
2 correspond to the reality that the personnel was faced with at the time.
3 It could have several objectives: To deny or to demonstrate the way
4 matters should be.
5 I took different figures and elements into my analysis, and I
6 know the way people worked, and I'll stop there.
7 Would you believe me when I say that on holidays or at weekends I
8 would serve as many as 25 networks, communications networks? If we
9 proceeded from the number of channels, let's say 12, and then calculate
10 the number of personnel we need, we would not end up with the number of
11 180 but with the number of 580.
12 What we were able to have was one channel, and the device scanned
13 constantly, hopping from one channel to the other. Whenever an
14 interesting conversation was come across, intercepting would start. If
15 the conversations were not interesting, they would be skipped.
16 Perhaps I will write a book some day. I may be already preparing
17 one. And then based on documentation, we will demonstrate that a job of
18 work can be done with the minimum of forces if one likes what he's doing
19 and if one puts his all into it. I don't see what the point of reading
20 in analysis is. I think that it's a bit futuristic, as it were.
21 Q. Thank you. Let me stress again that this is an attachment to the
22 report on Srebrenica by the DutchBat. It is the contribution for the war
23 documentation produced by the Dutch government. There was a trial
24 connected to this issue, and this documentation was submitted for the
25 purposes of this trial.
1 I'm reading this in connection with what you said yesterday, and
2 it is up to the Trial Chamber to compare this with what you were saying.
3 You said that you had between 50 and 60 men. Is it possible for 50 to
4 60 men to do what the minimum of -- of 180 would be required to do?
5 A. Well, I think that in the course of our work we showed what was
6 possible. We showed that everything was possible.
7 Q. Thank you. You and your unit numbering 50 to 60 men, were you
8 able to do what the author of this book claimed was impossible? Can you
9 please answer for Their Honours?
10 A. I will say upon response -- full responsibility and under oath, I
11 will give you a short answer and that's yes. If you want a long answer,
12 let me tell you that there were individuals who gave their view and
13 understanding of matters long after the war was over. And I would very
14 much like these people here to do -- to form a shift and see if this can
15 indeed be done by as many people.
16 Q. Do you know that this analysis was produced on the basis of
17 documentation adduced at trials, including this one?
18 A. This will be repetitive. I don't know what they did and how much
19 they did. I only know what the unit I headed in 1995 did and how much it
20 did. It is their right, regardless of their level of professionalism and
21 qualifications, to write what they want.
22 Q. That's why I asked you at the outset if you gave any statements
23 to them and if you communicated with them with the approval of your
24 superiors. They approached this study in a serious manner, going as far
25 as to talk to the people concerned. So did you or did you not co-operate
1 with the authors of this book?
2 A. I don't know who the authors are. What I know for a fact is that
3 I did not discuss this. What we discussed were general matters such as,
4 to the best of my recollection, that Srebrenica had been planned six days
5 earlier, when they were looking for tyres for trucks and buses. Already
6 at that time we alerted the command to the fact that something was going
7 on, not to speak of the fact that the Pribicevac installation was set up
8 at that time, which was the primer.
9 Now, as for this, I don't know how they came by the information
10 and how they ultimately saw the information.
11 Q. I didn't want to go into all these various topics, but you've
12 mentioned on several occasions the setting up of this Pribicevac
13 installation, did you not?
14 A. Well, as we were intercepting communications, we came to hear
15 that this was an extension that was 311, this new extension, 311, that
16 was introduced.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown document
18 1D129, page 2. This is an analysis of the air-lift conducted by the
19 BH Army, and I'm referring to the air-lift with Srebrenica and Zepa, or
20 above Srebrenica and Zepa.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Let's look at page 2, lines 1 through 8. And I will read the
23 relevant portion. It's the line below headline "Introduction."
24 "Between the 27th of February, 1993, and the 7th of May, 1995
25 there was an air-lift from the territory of the Republic of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina to meet the needs of the enclaves of Srebrenica, Zepa,
2 and Gorazde. The main aim of introducing and maintaining the air-lift
3 was to transport and ensure combat equipment, evacuation of wounded, the
4 functioning of government organs in the enclaves, additional training of
5 the officer corps on free territories of the Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to maintain communication."
7 You see, this was in place as of the 27th.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now turn to page 3, lines 3
9 through 3 [as interpreted]. Thank you.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Line 3, I'm reading:
12 "The first flight for Srebrenica took place on the
13 27th February 1993
14 This document says that flights for Srebrenica started just after
15 the protected areas was established.
16 Then we have page 7, line 39, 40, and 41. Let us look at (B),
17 "Engagement of forces and equipment."
18 "The air-lift was organised on the 31st December," it says 1995,
19 but that's a mistake, it should be 1994, "and 7th May 1995, with the
20 forces and equipment of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
21 and included the use of helicopters and crews of the air force and
22 anti-aircraft defence of the BH Army."
23 Now, let us look further down. It says:
24 "Hours of flight, 10.25.
25 "Expenditure of fuel, approximately 8.200 litres.
1 "Transported to Zepa: UBS 17 tonnes."
2 That's why this forward command post was set up there starting
3 with February 1995. These activities of the BH Army begin early in 1995.
4 Now, I want to ask you, did the Drina Corps work in parallel to
5 that, in response to that, in setting up this forward command post in the
6 time when this was a protected area?
7 A. I don't think this document has anything to do with me. I don't
8 know who wrote it. Our job was to provide our opinion as gatherers of
9 intelligence. You just confirmed that this extension line was indeed
10 established there, and a moment ago you discussed an analysis made by
11 some gentlemen saying that we were not able to intercept it, we could not
12 listen to it, et cetera, and I agreed with you.
13 Q. This author spoke of the need to process information in realtime.
14 If the Army of Republika Srpska received information in realtime that
15 there were activities preparing to connect the enclaves between
16 themselves and with Tuzla
17 steps in realtime to respond to that? This began in early 1995.
18 A. It's a good question, but you can't answer it with a yes or no.
19 First of all, from where I was sitting and the people who were working
20 with me were sitting, nobody every said an attack on Srebrenica is being
21 prepared. We just said something is going on. It could have been
22 anything. It could have been what is referenced here. So you can't say
23 yes or no to your question. We just said something was going on,
24 something was afoot because this radio relay route must have been set up
25 for a reason.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness page 1
3 and the last page of this document. This is page 1. Thank you. I'd
4 like the witness to comment. Does he see the heading of this document?
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Does it say "Communication Centre" of the command post of the
7 Main Staff, Kakanj? And the date is 17 February 1996.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This is a document disclosed to the Defence by the Prosecution.
10 It was prepared by the units to which you belonged. Could this have been
11 sent as a telegram by your unit, because we see it's the -- it's the
12 address of your unit.
13 A. I really have to tell you that I'm seeing this document for the
14 first time, and I have no clue.
15 Q. I understand. But this encryption section, does it belong to the
16 communications centre?
17 A. We had nothing to do with the communications section. We didn't
18 have any link with them. There was a special section within the
19 2nd Corps with the communications battalion, signalsmen, and it was their
20 job to organise communications.
21 Q. You just said you had nothing to do with the intelligence
22 service, that you had nothing to do with the communications centre, that
23 you had nothing to do with this encryption section. Tell this
24 Trial Chamber to which unit you actually belonged.
25 A. You really must have misunderstood me. (redacted)
5 section of the communications centre. They really had nothing to do with
6 us, because we had our own encryption people. The encryptors of the
7 command of the 2nd Corps were in one building, and the encryptors of the
8 intelligence section were in a separate location.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Can we go into
11 private session for just a moment, please.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
13 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Witness, would you tell us, your unit in charge of electronic
4 reconnaissance and so on, where did it belong in the general structure,
5 the intelligence department or the staff? Who was your subordinate in
6 the chain of -- your superior in the chain of command, looking from the
7 General Staff down to battalion level?
8 A. I'm answering for the second time. The unit served the purpose
9 of command and control, and it was subordinated to the commander of the
10 2nd Corps, to whom I had to report every week.
11 Now, along the professional line, and I think you should
12 understand this, the unit was subordinated to the intelligence
13 department. The security department was separate from the intelligence
14 department. The intelligence department prepared orders and other
15 material that the commander would sign. That was one aspect.
16 Another aspect: He sent instructions and reports and analytical
17 documents, et cetera, in order to promote our work. In other words, my
18 unit was directly subordinated to the 2nd Corps commander.
19 Q. I understand that, but you said professionally speaking,
20 professionally speaking, you were linked with the intelligence service.
21 I wanted to get that answer earlier, but you probably did not understand
22 my drift.
23 Now, this document that we see on the right-hand side of the
24 screen, and knowing as we know now that you belonged to the intelligence,
25 was this signed by Colonel Edin Hrustic?
1 A. Yes, that's the name.
2 Q. Is that -- is this a document of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
3 A. It appears to be.
4 Q. Was it addressed to Enver Hadzihasanovic, Chief of Staff of the
5 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, personally?
6 A. Probably.
7 Q. Can you read this sentence on the first page:
8 "Pursuant to your oral order, we provide you here with an
9 analysis of the work of the operation of air-lifts to Srebrenica, Zepa,
10 and Gorazde."
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Would you confirm that this is an original document, since we
13 received it from the Prosecution?
14 A. I don't think you should ask me that.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I request that this document be
16 admitted as a document showing realtime assessment of activities on both
17 sides relating to Srebrenica.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have no objection to its admission.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: By majority the Chamber is of the view, as
22 earlier this morning, this document can't be admitted into evidence on
23 the same reasons the document earlier this morning tendered by the
24 Prosecution was not admitted into evidence. That means this witness
25 couldn't identify this document, told us that he has seen it for the
1 first time today, doesn't know anything about the content and the author
2 of the document and the authenticity of the document, so that this is not
3 the right person to admit this document into evidence. Although we
4 realise the Prosecution hasn't raised any objection.
5 Carry on, please, Mr. Tolimir.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
7 requested that this document be admitted as proof of the realistic nature
8 of evaluations. It doesn't matter that the witness doesn't know who
9 wrote it.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the Chamber has ruled on your
11 request. Please carry on.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Just a
13 moment ago, you decided to admit 45 documents that the witness had not
15 Let me now ask for 1D151.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This document is not in e-court, I'm told.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do we have in e-court 1D129?
18 Sorry, 1D137. Could we see the last page of this document.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. All these are weapons received thanks to the air-lift. Quoting
21 line 6 from the bottom:
22 "On 10th February 1995, three prostitutes were found and brought
23 into custody in Zepa who had been in the UNPROFOR base, Russian
24 battalion, for ten days, and as a result of their questioning, it was
25 found that they had told of the entire situation and basic concepts of
1 combat activities. I therefore suggest that you change the route. It
2 could be done from the direction of Zepa towards Kladanj.
3 "To our ultimate victory."
4 Signed, "Naser Oric."
5 What I'm trying to tell you, Witness, is that all sorts of
6 vagabonds and prostitutes knew what was going on in the area, and your
7 main commander asked for the route to be changed. Did you know this, as
8 an officer?
9 A. I really don't know. I never questioned these prostitutes.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you have to stop your examination
11 for today. We have only very few minutes left and we will continue with
12 the evidence of this witness tomorrow morning.
13 Just in brief, you have requested in one -- in paragraph 16 of
14 your response to the Prosecution's motion to convert eight proposed
15 92 bis intercept operator witness to Rule 92 ter witnesses. We have
16 addressed the Chamber with your request to have the possibility to review
17 the original, the diaries, notebooks, and typed intercepts.
18 I would like to ask the Prosecution if there are any concerns,
19 objections, to that request.
20 MR. THAYER: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon to
21 Your Honours and everyone.
22 I'll just field that one, Mr. President. I actually met with
23 Mr. Gajic last week. We produced for him all of the relevant original
24 notebooks. He had an opportunity to spend some time reviewing them.
25 There were also, I believe, packets of original intercept material, the
1 actual printouts among those notebooks. And as always, should the
2 Defence seek to review any of the originals, we will make them available
3 as we have in the past.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that. Then I think --
5 Mr. Gajic.
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can only confirm what
7 my learned friend from the Prosecution just said. A few days ago I had
8 occasion to review a number of these notebooks. I can't remember how
9 many, but around 20, I think. That request we made in our submission has
10 practically been fulfilled.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that. The Chamber is
12 satisfied this problem is solved.
13 The second matter is the following: We received this morning the
14 corrigendum to the Prosecution's supplemental motion for leave to amend
15 the 65 ter exhibit list. Now we have the right document and translation.
16 I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir, would you like to comment this
17 motion of the Prosecution? Is there any problem or objection to this
18 admission of additional two documents to the 65 ter exhibit list?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We need some time to
20 consult, my legal advisor and I, and perhaps if you allow me we will give
21 you an answer at the beginning of the session tomorrow.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine. We need the answer before the next
23 witness appears here in the courtroom. Thank you very much.
24 And I would like to remind the Prosecution that there is an
25 outstanding matter. In our decision of the 30th of March, 2010, we asked
1 the Registry to mark for identification several documents, and I was told
2 that the Registry asked the Prosecution to provide them with the
3 exhibit -- no, with the 65 ter numbers of these documents. That hasn't
4 been done yet, and we would be very happy if you could do that as soon as
6 These were -- have been my procedural matters for today. We have
7 to adjourn. I apologise that we dealt with these procedural matters in
8 your presence, but it was the most practical way because of your
9 protective measures.
10 We have to adjourn. We resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day
14 of June, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.