1 Tuesday, 7 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody in the courtroom and
6 outside. Before the next witness is being brought in, the Chamber would
7 like to raise a matter. The Chamber's seized of an urgent Prosecution's
8 supplemental motion for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list with four
9 additional exhibits and attached appendix A. We would like to get some
10 more information about that and about the background.
11 Good morning, Mr. Vanderpuye, from the Prosecution. If we
12 understood the motion correctly, you are dealing with two maps, marked
13 maps, one list of exhibits and one intercept transcript. Do you intend
14 to use these documents with the witness of today, Ms. Frease?
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to
16 you, Your Honours. Good morning, everyone.
17 Yes, Mr. President. I do intend to use two of the exhibits with
18 Ms. Frease. Those are the maps that are referred to in the -- in the
19 motion. With respect to the list, that relates -- well, there's two maps
20 and intercept that I plan to use with Ms. Frease. And with respect to
21 the list itself, that pertains to the other witness, the confidential
22 witness PW-070.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, this list will not be used with the
24 witness of today, and therefore I suppose your supplemental motion is not
25 urgent in relation to this document. We --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's not necessary to deal with that urgently.
3 Is it really -- we understood that the two maps are, in fact, maps
4 contained in the map book we seen already and received as an exhibit. Is
5 it necessary to have the same again as an exhibit, especially we didn't
6 see any difference between those maps in the map book and attached --
7 those attached to -- to your motion. Perhaps you can explain that.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And I
9 appreciate -- I appreciate your concern. The reason why we did file the
10 motion is because there are very, very slight, practically imperceptible
11 changes in the map that we're seeking to get a 65 ter number for and the
12 maps that are contained in the map book, and that really only entails the
13 movement of some of the names of the locations that are depicted in the
14 maps in the map book, only slightly so that you can actually see the name
15 that is printed out on the map itself for the purposes of the maps that
16 we want to use with Ms. Frease.
17 So you're right, there is substantively no change to those maps,
18 and there are only very slight formalistic changes and that's all.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this doesn't relate to any markings made by
20 this witness?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: It does not relate to markings made by the
22 witness, no.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But again, Mr. Vanderpuye, why is it necessary to
24 have these additional maps if there are really no substantial
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: The only reason for it, Mr. President, is that
2 it just makes the maps clearer, so that you can actually see the
3 locations instead of having -- the locations indicated on the map rather
4 than having those locations covered up by a label that was placed on
5 there to identify the locations. That's the only difference in the map.
6 And it does, I think, make it a bit clearer, but substantively, it's not
7 really distinct.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you tell the Chamber when you disclosed this
9 map or these maps, these two maps, to the Defence?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll have to check with Ms. Stewart if you just
11 bear with me for a second.
12 [Prosecution and Case Manager confer]
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Ms. Stewart informs me that they were disclosed
14 together with the filing or in the filing themselves, and I've explained
15 the purpose of the maps also, I think, contemporaneously with the filing
16 in an e-mail to Mr. Gajic.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber will not deal with the list of
18 documents because they -- the Prosecution doesn't intend to use them with
19 this witness, Ms. Frease, but, Mr. Tolimir, are you in a position to give
20 us your opinion about the two maps and the one intercept? What is your
21 position on that, if you are in a position to tell us today?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would
23 like to greet all the present. May the Lord bless this house and may the
24 divine providence bring justice, not according to my wishes, but
25 according to God's will.
1 I have no objection to the maps or to the submission. As far as
2 the Defence is concerned, this can be treated in this way. Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer, Mr. Tolimir -- I'm very sorry. That
5 happens. We have had Mr. Thayer many days last week and yesterday. I'm
6 very sorry for that, Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 The Chamber grants your submission in relation to the two maps
8 and the intercept. There's no objection by Mr. Tolimir, and the third
9 document, the list of documents, we will deal with that before the next
10 witness, PW-070, will appear in court.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have -- I would
12 like to inform the Court that P140, 65 ter 2170, has now a translation,
13 and also P608, which is 65 ter 6372. And they have been uploaded, as I
14 understand it.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. They will be exhibits with
16 these numbers.
17 The witness should be brought in now.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, Ms. Frease.
20 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome to the Tribunal. Would you please read
22 aloud the affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
24 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, and please sit down. I
1 think you know the procedure in this Tribunal, and Mr. Vanderpuye has, I
2 suppose, some questions for you.
3 Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to you,
5 again. Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, everyone.
6 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE
7 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
8 Q. Good morning to you, Ms. Frease.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. I suppose we'll get right to it, and let me ask you, do you
11 recall having testified in the case of Prosecutor versus Popovic et al.
12 on 19, 25 -- 19 and 25 January, 26th and 27th February, and 1st and
13 2nd and 5th and 6th of March, 2007?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And was the testimony that you gave at the time truthful?
16 A. Yes, it was.
17 Q. And have you had an opportunity to read and review your testimony
18 prior to testifying here today?
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. And does your testimony as it was transcribed accurately and
21 fairly reflect what you, in fact, said during the course of your
22 appearance in that case?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. And does it fairly and accurately reflect what you would say were
25 you to be examined and asked the same questions today?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, at this time I would move to
3 admit the witness's previous testimony and the attendant exhibits related
4 to it -- or associated exhibits, I should say.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please give us the numbers for the record.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. It is P782, P783, and
7 just bear with me for a moment because I want to give you the numbers for
8 the associated exhibits as well. It's P787, 88, 89, 90 through --
9 through 800; 801 through 822; 823 through 834; 835 through 840A, B, and
10 C; 841A and B; 842; 843A and B and C; 844; 845A and B; 846; 847A, B, and
11 C; 848; 849; 850A and B; 851A and B; 852; 853 through 855; 836A -- I'm
12 sorry, 856 -- all right. It is 836A and then 856, 857, 858, 841 -- I'm
13 sorry, that's 841C, 843D, 845C, 859 through 863.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Some of them are under
15 seal. I think we should refer to --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Some are, that's true.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- the internal memorandum of the Registry of
18 yesterday. Then we have it clear on the record. But not every document
19 has a translation yet.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told that the following documents don't
22 have a translation. They could only be marked for identification pending
23 translation, these are: P766A and B, 772 and 773, 781. This is, I was
24 told, an audio but no transcript. P804, P810, P812, P815, P826A and B,
25 P827. The Prosecution has indicated that only the first page will be
1 translated. P828; 836A; 838; 841B and C; 843B, C and D; 845B and C;
2 847C; 848; 849; 850B; 851A and B; 852; and finally, 854.
3 Mr. Vanderpuye, some of these documents were used with this
4 witness in the Popovic case and admitted as exhibits, but some admitted
5 through witnesses in Popovic, and the last set of documents, from P836A
6 through P863, were not -- were only marked for identification but not
7 admitted in previous proceedings.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think that's correct. I think that's correct,
9 Mr. President. Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you are tendering all of them.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am, Mr. President, because I consider that
12 they are integral to the witness's previous testimony, and it will -- it
13 will facilitate the Court's understanding of that testimony and also
14 contextualise it.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber will receive the exhibits and the
16 list of the internal memorandum of yesterday in the parts I, II and III
17 because they were used with the witness and received in the other trial,
18 Popovic, and we will see how to deal with the exhibits which were not
19 admitted yet under IV of the list. We will see how to deal with that
20 during this examination.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a
23 surprisingly brief summary for this witness, but I do also intend to ask
24 her a substantial number of questions following it.
25 From April 1995 to July 2000, the witness worked as an analyst in
1 the Office of the Prosecutor. During this period, she was assigned to
2 the Srebrenica investigation.
3 The witness testified about the circumstances under which the OTP
4 obtained the collection of ABiH radio intercept material. In particular,
5 she testified about notebooks containing handwritten transcriptions of
6 intercepted radio communications, electronic data containing typewritten
7 versions of these intercepts, hard copies of this typewritten material,
8 as well as audiotapes of intercepts. The witness also testified as to
9 the manner in which the OTP investigated the reliability and authenticity
10 of these intercept-related materials.
11 The witness testified that after some initial efforts, the OTP
12 first began to acquire ABiH radio intercept -- intercept material in
13 1998. The OTP received this material in several batches over a period of
14 years, eventually resulting in a voluminous collection of
15 intercept-related material. The witness was directly involved in the
16 acquisition of this material and became a key figure in its processing
17 within the OTP.
18 Together with members of various sections within the OTP, the
19 witness worked closely with this intercept material for approximately
20 two years. She formed and supervised a team of interpreters and language
21 assistants to process the material and helped to develop a system whereby
22 the materials could be reliably tracked and searched. The witness was
23 involved in creating a database of intercept materials which facilitated
24 the ability to analyse and cross-reference the information contained in
25 various forms of the intercepted communications, for example, audio,
1 handwritten, and typewritten versions. Military analysts were consulted
2 and involved in this process and assisted in analysing information from
3 the intercept material and in linking its contents to the facts uncovered
4 during the course of the OTP's investigation into the events surrounding
6 The witness testified that from the very beginning the OTP began
7 to receive intercept-related materials, one of the OTP's main objectives
8 was to evaluate its reliability, its accuracy and its authenticity. This
9 was a continual process whereby the intercept team examined hard copy
10 typewritten versions of the intercepts, original notebooks containing
11 transcriptions of intercepted communications, audio recordings of
12 intercepted communications, where available, as well as electronic
13 versions of the typewritten material provided to the OTP on computer
15 The electronic versions of the typewritten intercepts were
16 carefully evaluated against hard copy versions of the same intercepts
17 which had earlier been provided to the OTP.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the
19 interpretation. Thank you.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: While the hard copy versions suffered from
21 problems commonly associated with poor photocopying, such as poor
22 legibility at the top and bottom of pages, the material revealed no
23 substantive differences. The witness also compared the electronic and
24 hard copy versions of the typewritten intercepts to the handwritten
25 transcriptions contained in the original notebooks and found that they
1 substantially conformed.
2 Several ABiH intercept operators were identified by the OTP
3 during the course of investigating the reliability of the intercept
4 material. These operators were interviewed by the OTP and provided
5 information concerning the interception process which further supported
6 the reliability of the material.
7 The manner in which the intercepted communications were
8 transcribed into the notebooks by the intercept operators was also
9 closely scrutinised. Markings in the notebooks such as words that had
10 been crossed out or changes in the handwriting or ink used to make
11 entries were investigated, discussed with the intercept operators, and
12 explanations were sought. It was through this continual process of
13 scrutinising the intercept material, as well as cross-referencing it over
14 a number of years, that any initial skepticism as to the provenance or
15 reliability of the intercept material was dispelled, and the OTP gained
16 sufficient confidence in the authenticity and reliability of this
18 The witness testified that despite inconsistencies that she came
19 across during years of dealing with the intercept materials, she never
20 came across any intercept that caused her to question the authenticity or
21 reliability of the intercept collection as a whole.
22 This concludes my summary, Mr. President. And as I -- as I
23 mentioned, I do have a number of questions for the witness.
24 Q. By way of background, Ms. Frease, can you tell us what work you
25 do now?
1 A. From the last time I was here, I continued to work for the Office
2 of the Prosecutor as a special advisor through about the end of the year
3 2007. I then returned to the United States and did some consultancy
4 work. In the last 18 months I've been working for a consultancy firm in
5 Southern Sudan as a manager, and the consultancy firm provides support to
6 the US agency for international development.
7 Q. And if you could remind us, how long did you work for the OTP
8 over the -- during the time that you were there, from the first -- when
9 you first arrived until you left? How many years was that?
10 A. I started in April of 1995 and left in July of 2000.
11 Q. And during that period, how long did you work with the OTP team
12 that was investigating the Srebrenica events?
13 A. I was among the first people who went out to begin the
14 investigation on Srebrenica one week after the events had occurred. I
15 then worked on other projects within the OTP but was substantially
16 involved in the Srebrenica investigation for the entire period that I was
17 with the OTP.
18 Q. And in the course of your involvement with the investigation of
19 the Srebrenica events, in what capacity did you work?
20 A. I was a research officer and an analyst and participated in a lot
21 of the field investigations and analytical work here in The Hague.
22 Q. And in terms of the analytical work that you did, could you just
23 give us a sense, very briefly a sense of what kind of things you did.
24 A. I did a lot of -- looked a lot at documents, evaluated documents,
25 and then the intercept project, of course, required a lot of deep and
1 detailed analytical work.
2 Q. And when was it that you first became involved in these
3 intercept-related matters?
4 A. In the spring of 1998.
5 Q. And can you tell us a little bit about how that came about?
6 A. In the summer, in July of 1995, we had learned or heard that
7 there were, in fact, intercepted conversations, but we weren't able to
8 obtain them at that time. Finally, by about the end of 1997, the
9 situation had changed somewhat on the ground, and in the spring of 1998
10 we were -- the OTP was given access to the preliminary -- some of the
11 preliminary material from -- that had been intercepted during that period
12 of July 1995.
13 Q. And once you -- well, were you involved, actually, in -- in
14 obtaining this initial materials that -- these first intercepts?
15 A. No. That was obtained by the team leader, Jean-Rene Ruez.
16 Q. And in terms of the OTP's ability to get the intercept material
17 following its identification, could you describe the level of
18 co-operation the OTP received from the Bosnian authorities in terms of --
19 in terms of getting access to this material?
20 A. Could you clarify your question, which periods you're talking
22 Q. Initial. The initial periods after 1995 when -- when it was
23 learned that there were potentially intercepts to be gotten, were there
24 efforts made by the OTP to get them?
25 A. Yes, there were.
1 Q. And in terms of the efforts made by the OTP, were the Bosnian
2 authorities forthcoming in providing access to the material or the
3 materials themselves?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And do you -- do you know why that might be or why that was the
7 A. I can speculate as to why that was the case.
8 Q. I'd rather not -- you not speculate.
9 A. Okay, okay.
10 Q. If you know then -- then you know or not. But in terms of your
11 evaluation ultimately of the reliability and authenticity of the
12 materials, did you consider the circumstances under which they were
13 obtained, whether or not they were given freely or they were given -- or
14 the Bosnian authorities were reluctant to give it to the OTP?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And how so? How did you consider it?
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you answer this question, I would like to
18 remind both speakers as you are using the same language, it's very
19 difficult for the interpreters to catch everything. Please pause between
20 question and answer.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your answer, please.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. When I first began to review the
24 material, I reviewed it with, I would say, a healthy degree of
25 skepticism, and there were always questions in my mind and in the minds
1 of other people that worked on this material about whether or not the
2 material was, in fact, genuine, and whether we could rely upon it for its
3 accuracy. So I would say that the entire time that I worked on the
4 material and that the team worked on the material that we always
5 scrutinised it and worked hard to make sure that we felt it was both
6 genuine and reliable.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE:
8 Q. Thank you for that, Ms. Frease. I'd like to show you a document.
9 Just bear with me for one moment.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: P791, please, in e-court.
11 Q. Are you able to see that on the screen, Ms. Frease?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you tell us what that is?
14 A. It's a receipt that was written, produced by the command of the
15 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated the 3rd of March, 1998, written in the
16 name of -- to Jean-Rene Ruez, the investigation team leader, for
17 materials handed over -- for radio intercepted material reports handed
18 over on the 3rd of March relating to VRS intercepted communication.
19 That's Bosnian Serb army communication.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please, Mr. Tolimir.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. In the transcript we
22 seem to have the witness saying written by the commander. In any case,
23 this document was not signed by the commander of the army of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Perhaps we should be more precise and say that it
25 was signed by Captain -- I can't really make out the name. Adnan. Thank
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think Mr. Vanderpuye will try to clarify that.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the document
4 speaks for itself. It indicates a person by the name of Captain Adnan.
5 Then it also has a stamp which indicates 2nd Corps Deputy Commander
6 Brigadier Sulejman Budakovic, and there's also a signature that indicates
7 the initials JR Ruez. These are all at the bottom of the document, and I
8 think -- yeah, we do have the original in -- we have the original in
9 e-court for everyone to see.
10 Q. Do you know what -- I'm sorry?
11 A. I was just going to clarify that when I started, I mentioned the
12 command of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not the commander.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And this Mr. Adnan, I think this is
14 only the first name and there is a family name which is partly unlegible,
15 something like Cohodarovic or something like that, just for the record.
16 Please carry on Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Now with respect to the assembled radio reports, do you know what
19 that refers to particularly?
20 A. Yes. I worked on these a lot. It was a compilation of about
21 550 pages of photocopied, typed out, compiled reports that were handed
22 over to us in a binder, over to the OTP in a binder.
23 Q. And do you recall what period of time these particular intercepts
25 A. From the 9th of July until the 30th or 31st of July.
1 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you another document.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's P792 in e-court, please.
3 Q. While that's loading, let me just ask, with respect to this
4 material, was that material specifically requested by the Office of the
5 Prosecutor or was it -- or was it selected and turned over by the
6 Bosnian Army on their own?
7 A. We had requested the intercepted material.
8 Q. And do you know whether or not this material relates to the
9 Srebrenica events solely or whether it comprises other information that
10 was gained through the army's radio interception unit?
11 A. We were specifically interested in the Srebrenica events, but my
12 memory is that there were also some conversations in that binder that
13 didn't necessarily relate to those events.
14 Q. Do you recognise the document that's now in e-court?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And can you tell us what that is?
17 A. It's the cover page for those 550 pages.
18 Q. And in terms of the 550 pages of hard copied intercept material,
19 were there any differences between that material and the printouts from
20 the electronic data that the OTP received subsequently?
21 A. Yes, there were differences. A couple of the differences were
22 that the headers on the various -- we learned later that the headers on
23 the various reports were missing, and also when we first started looking
24 at this material, we noticed that there were -- some of the reports were
25 written in typical sentence structure, typed in typical sentence
1 structure with a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence and then
2 small case letters throughout, where other reports, other messages, were
3 typed in all caps and were usually, in fact almost always, they started
4 with a particular type of comment, like on the -- I can't -- I can't
5 quite remember it right now, but like, On this particular day at this
6 particular time, on these frequencies we intercepted communication
7 between this person and this person or X and Y, and then it would
9 Q. And at the time that you received this material or shortly
10 thereafter, did you rely on this material? Did you consider it reliable
11 in terms of further investigations?
12 A. We were using it at the time as an investigative tool, and we
13 worked with it for a number of months in analysing it first before we
14 moved on to analysing the notebooks. I would say that when we first
15 started we were still unsure about its reliability.
16 Q. Following your receipt of this set of intercepts, did you
17 receive -- well, you did receive, I should say, other notebook --
18 notebooks or handwritten transcriptions of the intercepts. Do you know
19 approximately when that was when you received them?
20 A. We received them in April of 1998, though they had been
21 identified in March of 1998.
22 Q. And was that during the course of a mission in order to obtain
23 the materials?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I want to show you P285 in e-court, please. And while that's
1 loading let me ask you, do you recall approximately how many notebooks
2 you received initially?
3 A. One hundred and thirty-four plus one, which I guess makes it 135,
4 but I say plus one because the last one was something like a log that
5 wasn't used to transcribe conversations.
6 Q. All right. And can you tell us --
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: We're not broadcasting this, are we? Okay.
8 Q. Do you recognise the document that's on the screen now?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what do you recognise it to be?
11 A. A list of the notebooks, an inventory of the notebooks that we
12 identified as being significant to the investigation.
13 Q. I just want to draw your attention to the top left corner.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can blow that up a little bit.
15 Q. You can see a date there that's indicated of 11 March 1998. Can
16 you see it now?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is that the date that you received this material?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. Now, you can see the translation on the right-hand side
21 which says:
22 "Breakdown of 2nd Corps documents (office archive and intercepts)
23 submitted to the ICTY representatives."
24 But is it the case that it wasn't submitted on that day?
25 A. That is the case.
1 Q. And do you recall what day these documents were actually turned
2 over to the Office of the Prosecutor or when?
3 A. In April of 1998. We were hoping at the time that they would be
4 turned over in March, but we received word on the 12th of March that we
5 needed official approval from the Ministry of Defence to have them turned
6 over, so they were turned over on the following mission in April.
7 Q. All right. I just want to show you the next document which is
8 P284, and I want to see if you can confirm to us that this list that's on
9 the screen now, 285, is what's referred to in this next exhibit.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: We're not broadcasting this one either, I take
11 it. Thank you very much.
12 Q. Now, you can see on the document, the original on the -- on the
13 left, you can see your name right in the middle of it.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The document purports that a total of 135 documents were
16 registered and listed and duly packed into a cardboard box. This is in
17 the second paragraph, just so the Court is familiar with where I'm
18 reading from. They were packed into a cardboard box containing the
19 signatures of the representatives of The Hague Tribunal, Peter Nicholson
20 and an unnamed representative of the command of the 2nd Corps. And it
21 says a list of the individual documents is appended to this record,
22 1 through 135. Does this refer to the list that we've just seen?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. And does this document accurately reflect the date that the
25 documents were, in fact, handed over to you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It's indicated here as 20 April 1998. Is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Now, in addition to this material did you receive any
5 other material on or around this -- on this date or around this period of
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about that.
9 A. Yes. We -- we received some tapes, some reel-to-reel tapes. On
10 the -- I received 13 on the 25th of April, and it was during this time
11 that there was -- we had a mission to Tuzla with a -- an expert in
12 reel-to-reel communication analysis. He received 19 tapes in Tuzla on
13 the 25th of April, and then I drove down to Sarajevo and picked up
14 13 more tapes.
15 Q. With respect to the tapes that you picked up, the 13 tapes, were
16 those returned to the Office of the Prosecutor?
17 A. Did I deliver them to the Office of the Prosecutor?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And was that documented?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And have you had an opportunity to see the documentation
23 concerning that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And does it confirm what you've recounted to the Trial Chamber?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now I'd like to show you P289.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: P289, please.
4 Q. While that's loading, let me ask you, with respect to the
5 13 tapes that you picked up, do you know whether or not those tapes
6 contained anything of significance to the Srebrenica investigation, or
7 what's your recollection about that?
8 A. I don't remember.
9 Q. Okay. I see we have 289 in -- in e-court now. Do you recognise
10 this document?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And this document indicates that it's a record of transfer of
13 archival material gathered through ER, I assume it's electronic
14 reconnaissance, regarding the events in Srebrenica in 1995.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And it purports -- well, it says, I should say, that a
17 total of 19 tapes was found and listed, with signs made by Jack Hunter,
18 with additional signs on slips of paper placed in each box with the
20 That's in the second paragraph. And it says:
21 "A list of the separate tapes is enclosed with this record and
22 handwritten by Jack Hunter from number Q1 through Q19."
23 You recognise this, I take it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is this the event that you've just testified about concerning
1 his receipt of 19 tapes?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And also in the fourth paragraph it indicates that the tapes were
4 handed over to Jack L. Hunter Jr., US army, and it provides a social
5 security number. Do you know whether Mr. Hunter was a member of the
6 US army?
7 A. No. My information was that he -- well, he worked for ATF, which
8 is Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms organisation in the United States.
9 Q. And is Mr. Hunter the expert in radio communications or radio
10 tape devices that you were talking about -- I'm sorry, tape devices that
11 you were talking about?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did he take custody of those tapes for a period of time?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you know what, if anything, he did with those tapes?
16 A. He took them to his lab in Washington, DC, and analysed them,
17 made copies, provided copies back to us along with the originals.
18 Q. Now, following the receipt of these tapes in 1998, you received
19 some additional notebooks in 1999. Is that -- is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you remember approximately when that was?
22 A. In May of 1999.
23 Q. All right. I'd like to show you P286. While that's loading, let
24 me ask you, do you know approximately what intercept-related materials
25 you received then? How many notebooks, or if there were other materials,
1 what those were?
2 A. I received additional notebooks, 55 additional notebooks, that I
3 think turned out to be not so significant because they recorded different
4 tactical level communications and coded communication. Nonetheless, we
5 did receive those and --
6 Q. I think we have the document on the screen now, and I hope we're
7 not broadcasting it. Great.
8 You can see your signature on the bottom right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And this document says that you were handed over -- well,
11 you were handed over this material which is 55 A-5 format notebooks,
12 A-4 format notebooks. Well, there's one. And a -- two 1.4 megabyte
13 diskettes together with a diary.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. With respect to the information that was on the diskettes, do you
16 recall what that information was?
17 A. I recall that we weren't able to open the diskettes.
18 Q. You mean electronically or a physical package?
19 A. Right. Electronically we weren't able to get into them.
20 Q. Okay. And do you recall if 10th May was the day you actually
21 received this material?
22 A. That's my recollection, yes.
23 Q. I'd like to show you another document, which is P287, and we'll
24 need to go -- well, first we'll stay on the first page so we can make the
25 record clear. Do you recognise this document, first of all?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And it indicates it's a record of hand-over of archived material
3 to the investigative team at The Hague Tribunal.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could go to the second page in the
7 B/C/S and it will be the third page in English, first I will just note
8 that on this first page it says the archive material was handed over to
9 Stefanie Frease. And it indicates that it was given by Sevko Tihic, head
10 of G2 department, on 10 May 1999. And I want to draw your attention in
11 particular to lines 46 through 49 of this document.
12 And in -- do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And line 46 refers to 55 pieces, A-5 notebooks. Line 47 refers
15 to 4 A-4 notebooks, and 48 refers to the two disks or to two disks, and
16 49 refers to this shift agenda.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Does this document relate to or is this document referring to the
19 same material that was provided to you in the document we saw previously,
20 which was P286?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we please see the first page again.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, of course.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'd like to compare the dates. We see there the
25 entry Tuzla, 14th of May, 1999, but it relates to hand-over of the
1 10th of May, 1999; is that correct? Just for the record.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it is correct, but I -- maybe the witness
3 should answer the question.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. And as long as -- as long as the question is asked, can you -- do
8 you know why there was a difference of four days between the two of these
10 A. I don't remember.
11 Q. All right. Now, do you know or can you recall whether there were
12 additional transfers of tapes to the OTP following your receipt of
13 this -- this material in 1999? Do you know if there were additional
14 transfers that occurred in 2000?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. And can you tell us a little bit about that, what you
17 can remember?
18 A. Are you referring to the -- to additional military handovers
19 or --
20 Q. Yes, military handovers.
21 A. I don't have a specific recollection right now.
22 Q. I'd like to show you a document. If you can just hang on one
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. It's P38. If I could have that in
25 e-court, please. Oh, I'm sorry, 838, P838.
1 Q. Okay. All right. What we have here is a document that concerns
2 a search of the -- well, ARBiH archives located at Ramiz Salcin barracks,
3 Otoka, Sarajevo. Do you have any familiarity with this document?
4 A. Yes. It's a record of a search that took place by a different
5 OTP team --
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. -- during which tapes were seized. It was after the time that I
8 left the Tribunal.
9 Q. And how did you come to know about this particular document?
10 A. I was shown it by members of the Office of the Prosecutor.
11 Q. Okay. And was that in preparation for your testimony in the
12 Popovic case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. I'd like to go to page -- I think it's page 3, and what
15 this reflects --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this document P858
18 did not have a translation into the language I understand, into Serbian.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was P838.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: And he --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There are quite a lot of documents without
23 translation into B/C/S.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, that's -- that's correct, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the case of the accused, it could be helpful
1 to indicate a little bit further what is the content of the document so
2 that Mr. Tolimir can understand that --
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, what we can do
4 is -- well, let's go back to the first page and I can read into the
5 record a little bit what this document says so that we can familiarise
6 Mr. Tolimir with it. This is a document that's entitled "Inventory and
7 receipt of property obtained during the execution of a consensual search
8 conducted by the ICTY." And it reads in the first paragraph:
9 "I hereby certify that between 1830 and 0400 hours on the
10 16th and 17th day of October, 2000, at the archive of the former ARBiH
11 archives located at Ramiz Salcin barracks, Otoka, Sarajevo, a consensual
12 search was conducted by the following staff of the ICTY," and the names
13 are indicated.
14 In the -- following the names it indicates -- it reads:
15 "With the consent and co-operation of the person charged with
16 assisting the ICTY at the premises, namely, Major Ramezic Suad and
17 Major Adem Omerkic, and the attached inventory consisting of 4 pages
18 listing 20 items is a true and accurate record of the items handed over
19 during the search."
20 Now, if we can go to page 3, and it's really for a very limited
21 purpose of this document, you can see that there's a date,
22 16 October 2000, and next to it is written that 100 centimetres by
23 75 centimetres by 50 centimetres box containing numerous audiotape and
24 other -- and a number of audio magnetic reels. And then it lists a
25 number of cassettes tapes that were marked with numbers, and in this case
1 you can see that there are numbers 1 going all the way to 192.
2 And then if we go to the following page, you will see there's
3 another box, 17 October, same size, hundred centimetres by 75 by 50, and
4 it's containing 98 audio magnetic reels, and these are numbered 1 in
5 sequence, I think, all the way up to 114.
6 Now, with respect to these reel tapes, are you aware of any
7 significant -- or tapes that were significant to the Srebrenica
8 investigation that were recovered from this batch of material?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what do you recall as significant to the investigation?
11 A. I believe that it was tape 49 that corroborated a conversation
12 that was on a tape that was handed over to Jack Hunter on the
13 25th of April, 1998, tape number Q2, and that we found the same
14 conversation recorded from two different sites. So they were slightly
15 different in terms of their content, but they were clearly the same
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] At the end of the document we have
19 a handwritten note, the 17th of October, 2000. Could that please be
20 explained, and perhaps there is an explanation as to who inserted that
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think what
24 Mr. Tolimir's referring to is a signature, and it's the signature of
25 Daniel Perry. D Perry is what that says and it's date next to it,
1 17 October 2000. I think that's what you're referring. Please correct
2 me if I am wrong. It's on two pages. I should say, I'm sorry, it's on
3 each page of the inventory sheet.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you can ask the witness about this
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
7 Q. Ms. Frease, are you familiar with the signature of Mr. Perry?
8 A. No.
9 Q. And can you identify whether it is a signature on the bottom of
10 the sheet or something else?
11 A. It looks like a signature. It also looks like there could be
12 another signature on the right side. Probably the Bosnian counterpart
13 would be.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, just for the record, tape 49 that
16 the witness is referring to is P509. It's already in evidence.
17 Q. Now, you made a reference just now to tape --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, just a moment, please.
19 Judge Nyambe has a question for the witness.
20 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just a clarification. At page 27, lines 23 to 24,
21 you have stated that:
22 "So they were slightly different in terms of their content, but
23 they were clearly the same conversation."
24 Can you just elaborate on that, how there was a difference in
25 content but clearly the same conversation?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes. This was something that -- that puzzled us a
2 lot at the beginning, but what we learned was that when conversations
3 were recorded at the two different sites, one site could hear sometimes
4 some of the participants better than others, than the one at the other
5 site. So they mutually -- they helped -- they helped to fill out the
6 conversation usually, because on one side you would have some -- I guess
7 as I've just said, you could hear some of the people because of the
8 location of the antenna and the way that they could pick up the frequency
9 and where the particular conversation was taking place, you may have one
10 area that could pick up the conversation better and maybe both sides of
11 the conversation, where maybe in this other location, you would have it
12 also recorded, the intercept operator could tell it was an important
13 conversation but perhaps could only hear one side of the conversation.
14 So in this example, we had a situation where we had tapes -- we
15 had recorded conversations that had come from different two sites that
16 had slightly different content because of the fact that they were
17 recorded in two different locations.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. I think I was asking you about your reference to Q1 and Q2, and
23 with respect to the tapes that Mr. Hunter received, Q1 through 19, do
24 those tapes also contain significant information, other than the
25 reference that you've given now concerning the Srebrenica investigation,
1 the Srebrenica events?
2 A. I don't have a specific recollection.
3 Q. All right. Let me move forward. I'd like to show you P288. All
4 right. Do you recognise this document?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And can you tell us what -- what it is?
7 A. It's a receipt signed by Jean-Rene Ruez, again the team leader
8 for the Srebrenica investigation, from 2 Corps in Tuzla in which he
9 received additional -- yeah, additional documentation and information.
10 Q. And with respect to the specific reference here to station
11 diaries with data collected by the electronic reconnaissance EIV, platoon
12 I think that might mean, or company, it says 42 pieces. Do you know what
13 that means, what they're talking about or what's referred to?
14 A. Those are 42 additional notebooks is my recollection.
15 Q. Okay. And there's a reference here to 1.44 megabyte diskettes.
16 It indicates seven of them. Do you know what that relates to?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And can you tell us what that is?
19 A. Those are the electronic versions, the typed versions of the
20 conversations that were sent from the locations to 2 Corps.
21 Q. And these are the electronic versions that we've been referring
22 to that were compared against the hard copy, are they one and the same?
23 A. That's correct, except that these were more complete because they
24 had the headers and the footers. So the -- when we first talked about
25 the 550 pages that we received, and I mentioned that the headers were
1 missing and sometimes lines were missing at the bottom of conversations
2 towards the bottom of the page, these reflected the complete
3 conversations as they were reflected also in the notebooks.
4 Q. All right.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could just go over to Annex 2 of this
6 document. That should be page 3 in the English, and I think it should be
7 the same in B/C/S as well.
8 Q. Okay. Here you see it indicates a list of station diaries from
9 1995. It indicates the paper size is A5. These are the notebooks to
10 which you've referred?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And the notebooks that you received initially and up until this
13 point, did they contain these similar entries, similar markings such as
14 the registration information? We see here, "SP: 08/2-01-496," for
15 example, in the first line. It indicates a date -- well, sorry, in the
16 second line it indicates a date of 4 July 1995, and then a period from
17 12 July to 21 July 1995. Was that typical of the material that you
18 received prior to this time?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And did you yourself, by the way, document the material
21 that you received in terms of entering this information as well?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I'd like to go to the next annex, that's
24 Annex number 3. It should be the next page in both documents. Sorry, I
25 have to go one more in the English.
1 Q. All right. And what we have here, it says review of 1.44
2 megabyte diskettes with RI reports. And can you confirm that the period
3 covered by the electronic data that was received here from January, it
4 appears, through December 1995, is -- is accurate?
5 A. I didn't look at every diskette.
6 Q. Sure, but my question, and I'm sorry it was a bit unartful, but
7 does your recollection correspond with this, that the material that was
8 received at this time concerned basically the calendar year for 1995 as
9 opposed to 1994, 1996, and so on?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. All right. I'd like to move ahead. Now, in terms of
12 your recollection of the events concerning the chain of custody of these
13 materials, were you able to confirm that in any other documents, in
14 anything you looked at?
15 A. In some internal reports, yes.
16 Q. All right. Just bear with me one moment. I'd like to show you
17 another document. I'd like to show you P856, please.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand this document doesn't have a
19 translation as well, so I will just read the caption off so that
20 Mr. Tolimir can understand what it is. The caption reads -- oh, there it
21 is. There is a translation. Okay.
22 Q. Ms. Frease, do you recognise this document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And have you had an opportunity to review it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Does it comport with your recollection of the events concerning
2 the transfer or receipt of intercept-related material as you've testified
3 to today?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. And what I'd like to ask you is that following
6 this -- actually, not following this but separately from this, do you
7 have a specific recollection of the circumstances under which the OTP
8 received intercept materials from the MUP security forces of the -- of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you tell us a little bit about that, please.
12 A. We received material from the SDB in Tuzla in May of 1999, and
13 that came in the form of a lot of typed reports, a lot of typed
14 conversations, and also some diskettes, some electronic versions.
15 Q. And do you know whether or not --
16 A. And cassettes also.
17 Q. Sorry.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have P828, please, in e-court.
19 Q. I want to show you another document, please. Do you recognise
20 what this document is, Ms. Frease?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
23 A. It's an inventory of reports, intercepted communication that was
24 intercepted by the SDB on the dates that they indicate there and with the
25 report numbers as they indicate there.
1 Q. Now, I notice that you're reading the document and I forgot to
2 ask you this earlier, but are you fluent in B/C/S?
3 A. I would say I have a good working knowledge of it.
4 Q. Okay. So you are able to read this material that's on the screen
5 now untranslated?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And so you can see here the numbers and then next to it you see
8 od, o-d?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Okay. And then you see a date?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And those numbers, can you tell us what they correspond to or
13 what they are?
14 A. They correspond to the SDB's internal reports and the date of the
16 Q. Okay. And I'd like to go to the next page of this document,
17 where you can see the signature on it. Or maybe not.
18 A. That page doesn't seem to correspond to the previous one.
19 Q. It sure doesn't. Okay. Do you have a recollection of this
20 document? Do you know who signed it?
21 A. Jean-Rene Ruez.
23 everyone can see it, but --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, we should know the number of this
25 document we have on the screen now. Is it still P856?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: It appears that it's not 856. Oh, it's P828
2 Ms. Stewart is telling me.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I misspoke. I was referring to P828.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, there it is.
5 Q. We can see on the screen now, the signature of Mr. Ruez, and the
6 date, 27 July 1999?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you another document now, and that's
10 Are you able to read what's on the screen now?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you mind telling us what it says?
13 A. It's a -- it's a record of a hand-over that took place by the
14 SDB, which was renamed after the war to AID, and it's dated the
15 28th of August, 2001. It's a record that the -- that the police handed
16 over five computer diskettes to an OTP investigator. It's signed by
17 Jean Gagnon on that same date.
18 Q. And the date that's indicated here is 28 August 2001?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And this concerns five computer disks, does it not?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. And also a table.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. Were listed in table.
1 Q. And do you have any familiarity with the material that is
2 discussed in this particular document, that is, the disks of data that
3 were received by Mr. Gagnon?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And can you tell us what that was?
6 A. A record again of the -- of the reports that were sent from -- of
7 intercepted communication.
8 Q. These are -- okay. So these are intercept reports, electronic
9 intercept reports; is that right?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Okay. And also in this document you can see on the second and --
12 well, the third and fourth lines that it indicates a period of June
13 through December 1995.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And that -- does that comport with your recollection?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if we can go to the next page of this document.
18 A. Again, I didn't work for the OTP at that time, but it's what I
19 was told subsequently.
20 Q. Have you actually seen these electronic versions of -- of MUP
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. And have you worked with them in your experience during the
24 authentication project and so on?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. You can see here on this page it indicates disk for the month of
2 June, 1995.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. On the following page -- we can go to the following page?
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you move to the next page --
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- Mr. Tolimir.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness is
9 testifying about the material that was not in the possession of the
10 Tribunal until the 28th of August, 2001, so it's a little bit strange how
11 you can testify about material that was not in the possession of the OTP
12 when -- once the witness was no longer employed there.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think that's a fair point, but I think it's
15 also clarified for Mr. Tolimir by the fact that the witness reviewed and
16 used these materials in preparation for her testimony in the Popovic
17 case, which as you know occurred in 2007, and that's the reason why it's
18 relevant. It's a relevant question to put to the witness about her
19 familiarity with the chain of custody and the documents that establish
20 the authenticity or the provenance of the materials with which she
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, the Chamber has to consider this
23 way of evidence because, in fact, you could put every document to every
24 witness in proofing or in testimony and then ask later about the
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is one additional ground, Mr. President,
2 and that is the document that I referred to before this one, which is
3 P828, was turned over to the Tribunal, as you may recall, on the
4 27th of July, 1999. It lists in there, in that document, the report
5 numbers for the materials which were received then, which correspond to
6 the report numbers which are indicated in the document that I've just put
7 to the witness.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We'll consider that during the break, but before
9 we break, Judge Nyambe has a question.
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: I just need some clarifications for me to better
11 understand the unfolding testimony. What is SDB?
12 THE WITNESS: It's a term that is used for -- okay. In the -- in
13 the former Yugoslavia, during the war there were various types of police,
14 sort of the traffic police, there was the secret police, and then there
15 were different regional units and sub-units. And so the CSB, for
16 example, would have been -- I can't remember now exactly how many there
17 were, but, say, something like seven in Bosnia-Herzegovina that would
18 have comprised regional areas. The SDB was for a smaller area, and that
19 was for the police but considered more the secret police.
20 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
22 JUDGE NYAMBE: Then you also refer -- I don't know, not
23 necessarily you, maybe Mr. Vanderpuye could shed some light for me. What
24 are RI reports?
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: You said "RI reports." Those are radio
2 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. Then one last question for the
3 witness. In your earlier testimony you said that there was some
4 resistance by the BiH authorities to hand over documents or intercepts
5 initially; is that correct?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 JUDGE NYAMBE: Why do you think there was this resistance?
8 THE WITNESS: At the time, in 1995, the war was still going on
9 and radio intercepted communication is extremely sensitive. It's sort of
10 like considered like the crown jewels of any kind of intelligence
11 gathering operation. They use the material in realtime to forward to
12 their command posts, either to protect their own people or to forward
13 information that they considered relevant. At the time we hadn't
14 established a relationship with them, and because the war was still going
15 on, I think that there was understandable hesitation and resistance to
16 handing over this very sensitive material to a group of people that they
17 didn't know and didn't necessarily know if they could trust. If that
18 material had been leaked, it could have compromised very sensitive
19 information from their side.
20 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I think we must have our first
22 break now, and you should consider the concern of Mr. Tolimir, and we
23 will do that as well, and we will resume five minutes past 11.00.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First of all, the Registry has to make a
4 correction of a certain document number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. P826B has been
6 provisionally admitted pending translation as public by mistake. It has
7 to be marked as under seal.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. We have to come back
9 to the previous document and to discuss the concerns of Mr. Tolimir.
10 Perhaps you could indicate which connection should be established between
11 the last document we saw on the screen, dated much later than the witness
12 was employed with the OTP, to the content of another document. Without
13 that, we don't see any foundation for using this document with a witness
14 who was at that time not employed by the OTP. Perhaps you can explain it
15 a little bit further.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I think I can
17 explain it in two ways. The first way is more direct. It relates to the
18 content of the document itself. Okay. I'll need -- I think I'll need
19 both in e-court if we can do that. It was P828. Sorry.
20 [Prosecution and Case Manager confer]
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, and P827. Okay. With respect to the
22 document that's now -- the documents that are now in e-court, the Court
23 can see that the document on the left has the date 27 July 1999, and it
24 refers to intercept reports that the witness testified about earlier, and
25 you can see on the left, immediately to the left of each date a report
1 number. The first one is 365, and if we go down the column, you'll see
2 the next one is 382, 387, 392, and so on.
3 I think the --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Microphone not activated]
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. Now, if we look on -- to the
6 document on the right, this document refers to computer disks, five
7 computer disks, which cover the period of June to December 1995. And you
8 can see from the first page on the left that that period encompasses at
9 least the documents that you see right there on the left.
10 If you go to the next page in document 827, it contains the
11 actual information from each disk, and there's one for June. There's one
12 for July. There's one for -- for one moment. One for August, one for
13 September/October, and so on, covering the period that's indicated.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any dates on this list.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Mr. President?
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any dates on this list. On the right
17 side of the screen. Only in the heading there is 1995.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Yes. In the heading you see it says
19 June 1995.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Exact.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: And beneath that you'll see what says the
22 "broj izvjestaja," and that is the report number. Perhaps the witness
23 can read the titles in so that we can get it clear on the record, because
24 we don't have an English translation, I think, of this one.
25 THE WITNESS: Right. So the first column is the number -- the
1 file number, the second column says report number. And the third column
2 again is file number, the fourth column again is report number. And then
3 the report numbers correspond to the report numbers on the original
4 receipt from 1999.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is there another page where we can see the date
6 of the -- when this document was produced?
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: The date -- I'm sorry, the date of the entire
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: The date of the entire document, I think, is on
11 the very first page. That's the 28th of August, 2001, right at the top.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. I see it, that what we just saw, the
13 column with the numbers was part of this document from August 2001.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I'm very sorry. That's correct,
15 Mr. President.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Could we
19 discuss the authenticity of a floppy disk as well as the authenticity of
20 a particular file based only on what the witness saw in 2010, whereas the
21 files were created 15 years ago. Could you please bear that in mind when
22 discussing any electronic files and when one has in mind how easy it is
23 to record or erase such data. Thank you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. I think that -- well,
1 there's a couple of things, and I can address those. I think I will
2 during the course of the examination make this a lot clearer than it has
3 been so far, and I will -- I will ask the witness, and I plan on going
4 into the witness's experience in working with these very materials.
5 That's actually next in my -- my next course of action, and that will
6 explain her familiarity with this material. It will explain her
7 knowledge and understanding of its content and of its provenance.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Once again, is there any relation between the
9 numbers of the document we see on the screen on the left side to
10 page number 2 of the other document we saw earlier from June 1995?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is, Mr. President. If you look at the
12 very first line for June, that is on the -- well, if we go to the second
13 page, please, in 827.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On the right side.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: The very first line of this -- if you could just
16 blow-up the first -- the first column. That's right. That's fine.
17 The very first report that you see here where it says "Report
18 number" or you see file number immediately on the left. Immediately to
19 the right of that you see report number, and you see that that number is
20 365. If you look at the report on the left side of the screen, it's 828,
21 and if we could blow-up the first -- yes, just right around there. If we
22 could blow that up a little bit, you will see that the very first report
23 there, June 21, 1995, is 365, and that's -- and the sequence of those
24 report numbers are the same in both documents. The document on the right
25 covers a period that's specified on the first page of it, which says from
1 June through December 1995. You can follow the report numbers right
2 through the entire document and you will see that they conform.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for the explanation, but now I would
4 like to know how -- just a moment, how you want to deal with the content
5 of not these documents but the related diskettes, transcripts, and so on
6 with this witness.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's -- that's exactly where I'm going next.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My
10 objection has to do with the issue of whether the list contains the
11 number of tapes in the possession of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
12 whether it is identical to the list of floppy disks which were kept
13 separately by the Secret Service of theirs at the time of those events,
14 or were these documents created later on following those events and then
15 the numbers of the files were cross-referenced. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I think it is necessary that you
17 clarify this problem, the matter Mr. Tolimir has raised.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just looking at
19 his question and I'll answer it.
20 Okay. I think I understand the question. I'll ask the witness
21 if she knows about that, but fundamentally what Mr. Tolimir is asking is
22 what was the -- as I understand it, what was the chain of events that
23 resulted in the production of these documents before they ever came into
24 the hands of the ICTY. That's how I understand his question.
25 Q. And if you -- if you know the answer to that question,
1 Ms. Frease, could you -- could you answer it, and if you don't, just say
3 A. The numbers that are associated with these reports, the document
4 on the left that's dated 1999, comparing those numbers to the numbers of
5 the reports on the document dated 2001, those reports were created in
6 1995. The electronic files were given to the ICTY in 2001.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were asked at the beginning of your testimony
8 about your work for the OTP until 2000, until the year 2000, and then if
9 I recall that correctly, you told us that you worked as a special advisor
10 for the OTP until the end of 2007. I think it's necessary to know what
11 kind of work did you carry out in this period between 2000 and 2007.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps the witness could help us with this
15 THE WITNESS: From 2000 until 2005, I worked in Washington, DC,
16 for a nonprofit called the Coalition for International Justice. In 2005
17 to 2006, I worked for the International Criminal Court. I then worked
18 for the Office of the Prosecutor in late 2006 for almost a year both on
19 this case in helping to prepare for the Popovic case, so continued to
20 work on the intercepts at that point, from late 2006 until spring of
21 2007, and then after that time worked for the Prosecutor as a special
22 advisor to the OTP.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, does that clarify the situation?
24 Are you satisfied with these explanations?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I am
1 not. My objection to Mr. Vanderpuye went along these lines: The way the
2 State Secret Service registered those floppy disks between the numbers
3 365 to 602, I believe, and is that list identical to the log-book kept
4 for the documents of the State Security Service -- sorry, the documents
5 of the army about the telephone conversations? So the floppy disks are
6 one thing, and the calls are another. How come the numbers tally since
7 one was compiled as we can see on the 27 of July, 1997, the one on the
8 left, and other one on the right is of the 28th of August, 2001. This
9 goes to the authenticity, which can only be ascertained based on the
10 original lists of floppy disks and reels.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, the document on the left side
12 bears the date 27th of July, 1999, and not 1997, just for the record.
13 Mr. Tolimir, I am personally of the opinion this is a typical
14 matter to deal with in cross-examination. Mr. Gajic, your legal advisor,
15 seems to agree, so that you can elaborate on that further.
16 I would like to give the floor again to Mr. Vanderpuye so that we
17 can see how he develops this problem with the witness. And at the end of
18 the day, to make that very clear, it is the Chamber who gives weight to
19 the evidence of the documents and to the evidence of this witness.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. There is -- there is something that Mr. Tolimir raised in his
23 objection which I think the witness can clarify, and that is he seems to
24 be suggesting that these documents refer to army intercepts. I wondered
25 if the witness can clarify that so that the record is clear as to what
1 the source of these radio reports is?
2 A. These radio reports refer to information collected by the SDB, by
3 the police, and not to the tapes that were collected or recorded by the
4 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. And I'm not sure if we still have it displayed in e-court. I
6 hope so. We do. And could you read into the record what the -- what the
7 title of this -- well, I mean, what the heading of these documents -- of
8 this document on the left is, and then we'll go back to the first page of
10 A. The -- okay. So the heading is "Bosnia-Herzegovina agencija za
11 istrazivanje i dokumentaciju." It's number 1406, date 27 July 1999. It
12 says "drzavna tajna," "state secret." "Revers," I don't know how the
13 interpreters want to translate "revers."
14 THE INTERPRETER: "Receipt."
15 THE WITNESS: "Receipt." And then it says that:
16 "On the 27th of July, 1999, that we gave," and "we" being the
17 agency for investigation and documentation, the police, "gave to
18 investigators of the ICTY the following documentation which relates to
19 the -- which relates to documenting war crimes committed during and after
20 the fall of the safe haven -- safe zone -- UN safe zone of Srebrenica."
21 And then it gives a list of -- well, hold on. Let me -- there's
22 one more sentence.
23 So it says that there's a reproduction of the recorded telephone
24 conversations that were conducted via radio interception systems of the
25 VRS and then based on the numbers of the reports as follows, and then it
1 lists the numbers of the reports from and the date, and it moves
2 horizontally across the page. From number 365 on the 21st of June, 1995,
3 and as we've previously said it goes down to the bottom of the page,
4 number 602 on the 13th of July, 1995. There is a second page.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. If we could just go to the second page
6 that would be helpful. Of document 828.
7 THE WITNESS: So then it continues, and it continues from number
8 603 from the 13th of July, 1995, down to report number 1368 from the
9 12th of September, 1995. It's signed by Jean-Rene Ruez and a
10 representative of the Bosnian police, secret police.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE:
12 Q. And does it indicate the form this material was given in?
13 A. If we go to the previous page. It says reproductions of the
14 telephone conversations.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. If we can just go to the second page
17 Q. And can you tell us what the last line is in the document before
18 the signatures.
19 A. Twenty photocopied pages from a diary which the operators kept
20 during the war.
21 Q. And with respect to the other lines that precede that, what you
22 can see, 525, 531, 532.
23 A. Mm-hmm.
24 Q. Can you tell us what those lines say, those two lines?
25 A. It says:
1 "In addition, we are giving you tonske snimke," like "audio
2 recordings," "of conversations that were -- that are copies of the
3 reports, of the following reports, 525, 531, 532, 533, 1366, 1367, and
5 And then the next line says that:
6 "Audio recordings on cassettes were given that relate to the
7 following report numbers: 477, 491, 523, 534, 535, 536, 539, 691, 947,
8 and 939."
9 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate it.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I do apologise to the Court that we don't
11 have an English translation which would substantially speed this process
13 Q. But with respect to the document on the right, that's 827.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the first page.
15 All right.
16 Q. We can see in this document the same heading as the one -- as
17 828. Is that -- is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And it says "Bosnia and Herzegovina."
20 A. Right.
21 Q. "Agencija za istrazivanje i dokumentaciju."
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. Right?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. And that's the same heading as the previous document?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And is that the source of the same -- the same source of the
3 information that was provided --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- in this one? And if we go to the second page of this
6 document. 827. Under number 1, next to number 1, you can see it says --
7 well, it seems to say disks for the month of June 1995.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And as I've indicated before, if we go to the next page you can
10 see disks for the month of July 1995. Do you see that on the -- it's not
11 there yet. Okay. Do you see that there now, disks for July 1995?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And can you tell me what your understanding is as concerns
14 the report numbers that are indicated in 827 as they relate to the report
15 numbers indicated in document 828? That's the one that we just looked
17 A. They are the same.
18 Q. And I think it's important also to establish the nature of your
19 familiarity with this material, and so I wanted to ask you a little bit
20 about how it is that you came to know, and if you know, first, about
21 these MUP or SDB intercept reports. Have you been involved in handling
22 these reports or reviewing them?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you could just tell the Trial Chamber how that came about
25 and what is the nature of your familiarity with this material.
1 A. When I -- when I started to look at the material in 1998, in
2 April, and saw that some of the reports -- and now I'm referring back to
3 the 550 pages, noticed in those 550 pages that there was some material
4 that was in all caps with a particular heading. It wasn't clear for
5 almost a year what the difference was, why some were written in that way,
6 typed in that way, and some weren't. When we began to conduct interviews
7 with the intercept operators and learned that there was this police unit
8 that was also operating at the northern site and then we spoke with the
9 police about this, that was when it became clear that the reports -- some
10 of the reports originated from the military and some of the other reports
11 originated from the police, but that they were sharing the information to
12 their headquarters.
13 So I worked with this information a lot, got to know it very well
14 from the time that we received these documents from the police. We had
15 also, of course, been working with them before, just not knowing what
16 their provenance was, where they came from during the preceding year.
17 Q. Did you have an opportunity to work with this material when you
18 worked for the Office of the Prosecutor in 2006?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you describe for the Trial Chamber what the nature of your
21 involvement was with respect to this material and the intercepts
22 generally that were used by the Prosecution in that case?
23 A. I had an opportunity to -- to see the complete reports and to
24 work with information that the Office of the Prosecutor had received
25 since the time that I had left the office.
1 Q. And what work did you do exactly, if you could -- if you could be
2 a little bit more specific so the Trial Chamber gets a sense of what the
3 nature and extent of your familiarity with this material is.
4 A. It was very similar to the work that I had done previously in
5 trying to match everything up and making sure that in testing the -- the
6 reliability of the information, in cross-referencing it, in making sure
7 that if there were any differences in -- in the different versions,
8 including -- this does get a little confusing. I'll try to break it
10 We wanted to ensure that we had the most complete records
11 possible of the conversations. Sometimes we were working off of old
12 translations that had come from our original work with the material that
13 we received in 1998, where there were sentences missing at the bottom of
14 some of these reports. So this material, the material that we received
15 from the MUP in this case, but also the military later, was more complete
16 because the reports had their own headers on them. They had the complete
17 text. And so the work that I did in 2006 [Realtime transcript read in
18 error "1996"] and early 2007 was to make sure that everything was coming
19 together in the most complete form. At that time, of course, I was still
20 looking for any inconsistencies. I was asking people on the team who had
21 continued to work with the material during that time whether they had
22 seen anything in the interim that caused them any concern or alarm, and I
23 continued to reassure, I guess, myself that the material was genuine and
24 that it was reliable.
25 Q. Okay. Now, are you aware of whether or not the OTP received,
1 other than the tapes that are indicated here, or I should say, the
2 recordings that were indicated in P827 -- I'm sorry, it was P828. Other
3 than those recordings, are you aware of whether or not the OTP received
4 other recordings of intercepted communications from the MUP?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not any such recordings were
7 received by the OTP during the time that you were working for the OTP in
9 A. I don't recall.
10 Q. All right. Let me take you to another area.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you move to the next area, Judge Nyambe
12 has a question for the witness.
13 JUDGE NYAMBE: I just need a clarification from the witness. At
14 page 52 of the transcript, lines 9 to 14, you have stated that:
15 "So the work I did in 1996 and through early 2007 was to make
16 sure that everything was coming together in the most complete form."
17 Can you just elaborate exactly what you did. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I see a typo in the transcript. It should
19 say 2006 and not 1996 and early 2007.
20 This material is quite complex because of the way we received it.
21 We received it in bits and pieces, and we needed to piece it all together
22 as we got to, cross-reference it many times given that there were several
23 units working at two different sites and that there was handwritten
24 material and there was typewritten material and then there was -- there
25 were fairly poor photocopies of material. So in working with it, we
1 didn't get everything at one time, and then of course, the audio material
2 as well. So having worked on it for a couple of years, to me I can look
3 it at the various parts of it and understand it, but I think it's very
4 difficult to understand if you haven't spent days and days and days and
5 days and hours and hours going through it in incredible detail.
6 So in 2000 -- late 2006 and 2007 when I came in, we had received
7 additional information, and my work was to try to make the
8 cross-referencing aspects of this as straightforward as possible, to
9 present in as clear a manner as possible. So some of that involved
10 making sure that we had the most complete translations of a particular
11 conversation, and that would have involved going back to the original
12 material that we received, the 550 pages in 1998, seeing that we were
13 missing a few lines at the bottom of one page of a translation, looking
14 at now the final reports that were later transmitted, provided to the
15 OTP, looking at those, seeing that the conversations were identical up
16 and to -- up to a certain point where then the information was missing.
17 So I would identify that as a problem, because it was incomplete.
18 And then submitting that piece or that intercept for translation along
19 with the translation that had already been done.
20 So that's the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I talk
21 about trying to make the material as complete as possible.
22 JUDGE NYAMBE: Following on your explanation, so what form did
23 the end product take after you have your complete information? Did you
24 add on the original documents, or did you produce a new document, or do
25 you have pieces of this translation lying somewhere for comparison
2 THE WITNESS: We didn't add anything. We simply took the -- took
3 the complete record to ensure that the court had the complete record.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think I can -- I'll put some questions to the
5 witness. I think maybe we can clear that up a little bit.
6 Q. When you say -- when you refer to incomplete material, are you
7 referring to the -- are you referring to the hard copy material, or are
8 you referring to the electronic?
9 A. The hard copy.
10 Q. And the difference between the hard copy and the electronic
11 version, in your view, were those substantive differences?
12 A. They could be, yes.
13 Q. And when you say they could be substantive differences, do you
14 mean that the language or the words that were used are different or that
15 there were words missing or changed or what?
16 A. The words were not different, they were missing.
17 Q. And can you explain to the Trial Chamber why the words were
18 missing, that is, words relating to the conversations themselves.
19 A. They would be missing because they wouldn't be photocopied.
20 They'd be at the bottom of the page. We could sometimes see the faint
21 type but we couldn't -- we couldn't read it.
22 Q. And when you talk about making sure that the court had the
23 complete record, did that entail a comparison of that photocopied
24 material with the printouts from the electronic material, the electronic
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And in terms of the complete record that was provided to the
3 court or prepared for the court, was that based upon the information that
4 came from the electronic version of those intercepts or even the notebook
5 version of those intercepts rather than the photocopies that were
6 received in 1998? If you can recall.
7 A. I can't say for certain. My hesitancy is that certainly the
8 incomplete parts primarily came from the original document that we
9 received, the 550 pages. So the subsequent information that we have --
10 had -- for example, on this document dated 1999, the 27th of July, 1999,
11 I believe that those are complete records of -- so a complete form of the
12 electronic version that was received in 2001.
13 Q. And were you involved in any way in assembling or putting all of
14 these intercepts together in 2006 for the Prosecution?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And how many intercepts did that involve, roughly?
17 A. A few hundred.
18 Q. And did it involve intercepts that were received from the Army of
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did it involve intercepts that were received from the 2nd Corps
22 of that army?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did it involve intercepts that were received from the
25 21st Division of that army?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did it involve intercepts that were received from the CSB?
3 A. From the SDB, yes.
4 Q. Okay. And were those -- how were those -- those intercepts
5 assembled, if you can recall? Were they assembled chronologically? Were
6 they assembled in another way?
7 A. Yes, they were assembled chronologically.
8 Q. And were you involved in producing any kind of database or index
9 or anything like that relating to those particular intercepts?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And how so?
12 A. Well, the -- the index had largely been put together for the
13 Popovic trial by the time I arrived. However, that index was based on
14 work that I had done, that I had set up in 1998. In that index there
15 were two different systems that we used to analyse this information and
16 to cross-reference it in the analytical process. One was a simple Excel
17 table, another was an access database that was developed, that helped us
18 to be able to capture a lot of information that was coming through in the
19 conversations, as well as information about which notebook a particular
20 conversation was recorded in, what page number of the original 550 pages
21 was that notebook conversation recorded on, who the intercept operators
22 were who recorded the particular conversation. So I was very involved in
23 that entire process.
24 Q. And were there efforts made to determine the report numbers or
25 dates from the electronic version of the intercepts in order to arrive at
1 the correct date of a given intercept, for the army intercepts, for
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And were those same efforts made in relation to identifying the
5 source of the MUP intercepts? Was there a reference made to the report
6 numbers or other identifying information?
7 A. Yes. My recollection is that that came through fairly clearly in
8 the -- in the reports that we got in July of 1999 from the police, from
9 the SDB.
10 Q. All right. I'd like to show you a document -- just bear with me
11 for one moment.
12 It's P763. First, I want to ask you if you recognise generally
13 what this is?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And can you tell us what it is.
16 A. It's a list of code-names used by the VRS, the Bosnian Serb army.
17 Q. And where do these code-names appear?
18 A. They appear in the -- in a lot of the radio intercepts.
19 Q. And you can see at the bottom it says "Updated from ERN
20 0211-3816." You see that there?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, do you know -- are you familiar with the document that this
23 particular exhibit updates?
24 A. Not specifically.
25 Q. Were you involved in producing such a document for the purposes
1 of the Popovic trial?
2 A. I don't have a specific recollection. It's certainly possible.
3 Q. Okay. And do these names appear -- as far as you can recall, are
4 these names code-names that appeared in the intercepts that you reviewed
5 in preparation for that trial and also prior to testifying here today?
6 A. Yes, though I don't recall all of them appearing.
7 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you another document, and that's -- I'm
8 sorry, it's P758.
9 And do you know generally what this document shows?
10 A. It shows the names that came up in the intercepted communication.
11 Q. And are you familiar with the names that came up in those
12 conversations? Does this -- does this fairly represent or comport with
13 your recollection of the names that you saw during your analysis of those
15 A. Yes, though again I would say that in the conversations I
16 analysed, I don't recall all of these names having come up.
17 Q. And were you involved in producing such a document for the
18 Popovic case?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Oh, and let me ask, before I forget --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, objection. Does
23 this document have anything to do with the persons who worked --
24 actually, who recorded or transferred the intercepted conversations onto
25 tapes or diskettes? Actually, that is my question. Thank you.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, could you clarify this with the
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. I think Mr. Tolimir's objection is
4 well taken. It's not intended to show who transcribed the intercepts.
5 This has to do with the reliability and authenticity of the -- of the
6 material that the witness is here to testify about. So I think I can ask
7 a couple of questions that may clarify the issue somewhat.
8 All right. We have the list of names on the screen.
9 Q. Let's start with the first one. Do you have familiarity with who
10 Lazar Acamovic was based upon your review of the intercepted
11 conversations? Do you have a recollection of that?
12 A. Specifically of him at this time, no.
13 Q. Okay. How about Colonel Ljubisa Beara?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And how about Colonel Vidoje Blagojevic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Ljubisa Borovcanin?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Slobodan Cerovic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Zoran Carkic?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Major Radomir Furtula?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Herve Gobillard?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Milan Gvero?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Richard Holbrooke?
5 A. Not because of this information.
6 Q. Lieutenant-General Bernard Janvier?
8 Q. These are some of the names that appear, obviously, in this
9 document here, and are you familiar with them during the course of your
10 assessment analysis of the intercept materials?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And before I forget, did you have an opportunity to discuss this
13 index of names of intercepted communications with anyone prior to your
14 testimony today to learn what its relationship is to an exhibit that was
15 submitted in the Popovic case?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what did you learn concerning this particular exhibit?
18 A. That it was an expanded list of an exhibit that had been
19 presented in the Popovic case.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the record, Your Honours, that's P1084 in
21 the Popovic case.
22 And if we could just go back for a brief moment to a previous
23 exhibit. It was 763.
24 Okay. I have to correct something. This exhibit that we're
25 looking now -- looking at now is what was P1084 in Popovic. The one that
1 we looked at previously was P1085. So the index of names of intercepted
2 communications was P1085 in Popovic.
3 Q. This is P1084 in Popovic. Did you have an opportunity to discuss
4 this particular document with anybody prior to your testimony here today?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you discuss or did you learn of what its relationship was
7 to the exhibit that was presented in the Popovic case?
8 A. Yes, that it was an expanded version of what was used in the
9 Popovic case.
10 Q. And is it familiar to you? Are the names that are in here
11 familiar to you based upon your review of the intercept evidence from the
12 Popovic case?
13 A. Many of them are, yes.
14 Q. And are they familiar to you based upon what is contained in the
15 intercept materials?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you a couple of maps, and this should
18 be --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just to clarify one matter.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You just indicated some numbers from the --
22 document numbers from the Popovic case.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But the -- all these documents have P numbers in
25 our case as well.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: These documents have P numbers in our case as
2 well. That's correct. What I wanted to establish --
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To link --
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- apparently unsuccessfully. Yes, that's
5 right. I wanted to establish what the relationship is between this
6 document and the one that was -- that is admitted, actually, pursuant to
7 the witness's Popovic testimony.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Please carry on.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
10 Q. I wanted to show you two maps, which is P784 first. Okay. Have
11 you had an opportunity to see this map before testifying here today?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you recognise the names that are indicated that are in
14 blocks, Krivace IKM, Podzeplje IKM, 65th Protection Regiment base, and so
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And are those names familiar to you as a result of your analysis
18 of the intercept materials that you've worked with?
19 A. Some of them are, yes.
20 Q. Okay. And which ones are, if you can say? Well, maybe I'll just
21 ask you. Are you familiar with Krivace?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Podzeplje?
24 A. I'm familiar with it. I can't say with certainty whether that
25 familiarity comes from the intercepts.
1 Q. And the 65th Protection Regiment?
2 A. Yes, I'm familiar with it. I'm very familiar with it. I can't
3 say that it's specifically because of the intercept material --
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. -- at this moment.
6 Q. And Borike IKM?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the Boksanica check-point?
9 A. Yes. Again, I'm familiar with it, but I'm not sure that it's
10 because of the intercept material.
11 Q. All right. I'd like to show you another map, if I could, and
12 that one is P785. Okay. Have you had an opportunity to see this map
13 before testifying here today?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And this contains a lot of the same locations. You can
16 see Godenje IKM, Boksanica check-point and Borike IKM over there on the
17 right in the lower quadrant of the map. And then you can see
18 Kravica IKM, Podzeplje IKM and the 65th Protection Regiment base that we
19 talked about before, then you can see a town called Han Pijesak. Are you
20 familiar with that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you know that to be where the VRS headquarters was
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. I'd like to move to another area yet.
1 And what I'd like to ask you about a little bit is the process by
2 which you authenticated the intercept evidence just in a general way.
3 Now, you've talked about it somewhat so I don't want you to -- I don't
4 want to have you repeat yourself, but you engaged in what's -- you
5 mentioned called the intercept project and from your prior testimony you
6 prepared what's called -- what you called an authentication binder?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, just in very brief terms, what
9 that project was about?
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you answer. Mr. Tolimir.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
12 should know when the witness saw these maps for the first time since
13 she's testifying to their authenticity.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. That's no problem. I should clarify.
16 She's not testifying to the authenticity of the maps but she is
17 testifying to her familiarity with the locations that are depicted in
19 Q. But if you could answer Mr. Tolimir's question as to when you saw
20 these maps that would probably be helpful.
21 A. I saw them in the last couple of days.
22 Q. And was that during the course of being proofed?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Please carry on.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. If you could tell us in really very basic terms what this
3 authentic -- what process was involved in producing the authentication
4 binder. Maybe you can tell us what it is generally and then tell us how
5 you went about preparing it.
6 A. In order to authenticate the intercepts, we wanted to be able to
7 confirm their content and their validity by using other sources, and some
8 of those sources involved notes that were taken by UN officials about
9 conversations that they had with particular members as designated in
10 particular conversations and where the time and date corresponded. So
11 there were UN personnel, notes from UN personnel that we used. We used
12 aerial imagery that corresponded to events that were discussed in the
13 intercepted communication. We used sometimes small things like one
14 person in a conversation would give the phone number of somebody else, a
15 Serb living in Republika Srpska at the time. So we'd get the phone book,
16 look up the person's name and find that that was the same phone number
17 that had been transmitted in the intercepted communication.
18 We looked at other sources as well but stayed away from anything
19 that would have come from the Bosnian forces, from the Bosnian side,
20 because we wanted to make sure that what we had was really independently
22 Q. And in terms of the binder that you put together, was that -- how
23 many intercepts did that involve?
24 A. About a dozen.
25 Q. And is there a particular reason why a dozen of these intercepts
1 were -- were verified or processed in this way rather than the entire
2 collection of intercepts that were available to the Prosecution at the
4 A. It was just a very vivid selection. It would have been
5 impossible to make that kind of an independent authentication of each
7 Q. And in connection with what case did you prepare this
8 authentication binder of material?
9 A. The first time was for the Krstic case.
10 Q. And did you prepare a second one?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And when was that, and for what case?
13 A. That was for the Popovic case, but a number of the same examples
14 were used.
15 Q. I'd like to ask you first in terms of determining the reliability
16 of a given intercept, if you could tell us aside from the -- the factors
17 that you've indicated, what kinds of things did you look at specifically
18 in respect of the intercept itself to determine or to consider in
19 evaluating its reliability or accuracy?
20 A. We looked at how the information fit into our knowledge of the
21 overall case and whether there were any really significant or glaring
22 differences in -- in what we knew and what was reflected there. Some of
23 the other material that we used to authenticate the intercepts came from
24 captured Bosnian Serb military documents, for example. But the
25 reliability, there was -- I guess a lot of the reliability also came from
1 our conversations with the intercept operators, because we had a lot of
2 questions initially about, you know, why was it that there were certain
3 conversations that we could tell were the same conversation but they
4 weren't -- but we were getting different parts of them, and until we
5 understood that there were two sites, four units working, and that they
6 could have been recording the same conversation, we had some questions in
7 our minds about -- I had questions in my mind about the reliability of
8 this stuff. But in talking with the intercept operators and
9 understanding the procedures that they used in recording them and that
10 that was, in fact, an exercise in dictation, essentially, and not
11 creative writing, and that they were very diligent in how they recorded
12 the conversations, those factors contributed to the reliability that we
13 could have internally on this body of work.
14 Q. All right. I -- what I'd like to do is to go over just a couple
15 of illustrative examples of what you're talking about. I think it would
16 be helpful to the Trial Chamber's understanding of the process.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: So first I'd like to have in e-court, please,
18 P840. B, I think, is English. I'm not sure what ...
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is under seal and should not be broadcast.
20 Mr. Tolimir.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] During examination-in-chief, it was
22 said that aerial imagery was used to check the authenticity. Could we
23 please receive more details about that, perhaps during the next session,
24 in order to see how the procedure actually -- what it looked like.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye may do that. Otherwise, it's up
1 to you to do that in cross-examination.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I do intend to --
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Thank you.
5 Q. All right. Ms. Frease, I wanted to draw your attention to that
6 particular intercept. It's an intercept that's dated 20th of April,
7 1995, and at a time of 1910 hours. Are you familiar with this intercept?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And have you had an opportunity to review this intercept
10 before testifying --
11 A. Do we have the same document up on both screens?
12 Q. Ah, the translation. Let's see what we have.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's -- I think it's a few pages forward in this
14 one. It's perhaps on the next page, page 2. Yes. It's now in the
15 middle of the page at 1910 hours. Okay. I think we have it now.
16 Q. Do you remember this intercept? It's an intercept from
17 April 20th, 1995 --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- and it refers to two participants, one named Colonel Popovic,
20 and then it says Zlatar, and then Palma and then Nikolic?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Are you familiar with these participants?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And how are you familiar with them?
25 A. Through working with the -- through working with the intercepts.
1 Q. And who do you understand them to be? Let's start with
2 Lieutenant Popovic.
3 A. Lieutenant-colonel --
4 Q. Lieutenant-colonel Popovic?
6 for the Drina Corps.
7 Q. And do you see the name Zlatar?
8 A. Right. That was the code-name for the Drina Corps.
9 Q. And then next to that you see the word "Palma," can you tell us
10 about that?
11 A. That's the Zvornik Brigade.
12 Q. And then next to that you see the name Nikolic?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And do you know who the Nikolic refers to in the context of this
16 A. In the context of this intercept it would be Drago Nikolic, who
17 was the security person at the Zvornik Brigade.
18 Q. During this conversation you can see that there is a -- well,
19 there's a conversation between Nikolic and Popovic. Do you see that?
20 A. Right, mm-hmm.
21 Q. Okay. And in the conversation you can see there is a reference
22 to someone by the name of Jovicic?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. And in the middle of the page you'll see that it says,
25 attributable to Nikolic:
1 "Your personnel guy from up there, Jovicic, sent two Polish
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were you able to evaluate this particular intercept before your
6 testimony in the Popovic case?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what can you tell us about this in terms of its authenticity?
9 A. Well, we found additional documentation and then an audio
10 recording that corroborated the conversation.
11 Q. Okay. I'm want to show you another document.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you move to the next document,
13 Judge Nyambe wants to put another question to the witness.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you very much. At page 67, lines 14 to 21,
16 you have said:
17 "I had questions in my mind about the reliability of this stuff,
18 but in talking about -- I think to the intercept operators and
19 understanding the procedures that they used in recording them, and that
20 that was, in fact, an exercise in dictation, essentially, and not
21 creative writing, and they were very diligent in how they recorded the
22 conversations, those factors contributed to the reliability that we could
23 have internally on this body of work."
24 Can you just focus on what features or procedures actually
25 removed the doubts that you had initially on the reliability of this
1 stuff, as you referred to it in your testimony?
2 THE WITNESS: There were many different factors in -- that
3 contributed. The intercept operators were instructed to sit down, to put
4 on headphones and to write what they heard. When they came across a
5 conversation that they thought was important, they would begin to record
6 it. If they thought that it was important, they would begin to
7 transcribe it right away. We heard -- when we started to interview the
8 operators, they went through and explained similar procedures and that
9 when they weren't sure of the people who were talking, that they were
10 instructed to put question marks. If they heard clearly who the people
11 who were talking were, then they would indicate those names at the top of
12 the conversation and indicate the time. On the dates they were less
13 consistent in the notebooks.
14 Furthermore, all of the operators followed the same procedure,
15 and later when we began to listen to the audiotapes, we could also hear
16 that they were recording -- that they were transcribing the words that
17 they heard recorded. So it was -- these were people who were selected to
18 be in this unit in part because of their level of education and their
19 ability to follow the procedures that had been laid out for them.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In other words, you did the same as the intercept
21 operators did. You listened to the tapes, you didn't transcribe it, of
22 course, but you followed the transcript in front of you created by the
23 intercept operators, and you tried to compare it. Is that my correct
24 understanding of your --
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Also, later -- yes, we did that.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 JUDGE NYAMBE: I have a further clarification. This procedure
3 that you have explained just now, does this relate to -- okay. Maybe let
4 me rephrase my question.
5 In evidence so far relating to radio intercept operators, I have
6 identified radio intercept operators that came from MUP and also radio
7 intercept operators that were volunteers. Did you come -- did you --
8 does this procedure also relate to those who were volunteers and not from
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. When you say "volunteers," it -- I would -- I
11 would say probably military would be the term that I would use. They may
12 have called themselves volunteers because maybe they weren't getting
13 their salaries or something, you know. I mean, they were called -- they
14 were called up to serve in the military during the war. But, right, two
15 different groups.
16 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. Thanks.
17 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I think some of these examples might also
20 shed some light on how the process worked. So I have -- I would like to
21 call up into e-court P833.
22 Q. Okay. Do you recognise this document, Ms. Frease?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And can you tell us what it is?
25 A. It's a document that was produced by the headquarters of the
1 Drina Corps in Vlasenica. It's dated the 20th of April, 1995, and it
2 talks about the deployment of two Polish volunteers.
3 Q. And to whom is this document addressed, to what unit of the
4 Drina Corps?
5 A. To the command of the Zvornik Brigade.
6 Q. And --
7 A. Which is Palma.
8 Q. From whom -- okay.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is the witness answering questions
10 or is she merely reading the contents of the document? It doesn't seem
11 to be clear since the witness, I believe, speaks both languages. And I
12 also believe this is the first time she's seeing the document.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, carry on, please.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. By whom is this document signed?
16 A. Lieutenant-colonel Radenko Jovicic.
17 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of evaluating the intercept we just saw,
18 which concerns Colonel Popovic, chief of security of the Drina Corps, and
19 Nikolic, chief of security of the Zvornik Brigade, that was dated
20 20th April 1995, how did you consider this document in relation to that
21 particular intercept?
22 A. I considered this -- this document to be -- to authenticate the
24 Q. And how so? What were the factors that you looked at to make
25 that judgement?
1 A. The date, number one, the participants involved, so the fact that
2 it was coming from the Drina Corps going to the Zvornik Brigade, that it
3 was talking about two Polish volunteers. It's a very specific thing that
4 you're not going to find -- I mean, I would be surprised if you'd every
5 find it again. So I guess the specificity of the -- both the intercept
6 and the specificity of this document. And then this document names
7 the -- the individuals even though the intercept didn't, but those --
8 those are factors that -- that I considered.
9 Q. Okay. Did you review any other documents in further determining
10 the reliability or accuracy of this particular intercept?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what did you look at, if you can remember?
13 A. The death record of one of these volunteers.
14 Q. And --
15 A. And --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have P3834 [sic] in e-court, please. I
17 see there's an error in the record. It's just P834. I think we'll need
18 page 33 of this document in the B/C/S, and we will need -- I think the
19 corresponding page is 17 in English, but it doesn't contain the actual
20 names, just the headings and some notes.
21 Just so we have it fresh in our minds, one of the individuals
22 named in the document that I just showed, P833, was a person by the name
23 of, and I may have trouble pronouncing this, but it looks like it's
24 Mjetejslav Szulinski.
25 What I want to show you is if you look down to line 450 of this
1 document, if we could just blow that it up. Okay. Well, just blow-up
2 the name alone. That I think will make it very clear. Okay. That's
3 very good.
4 Q. Does that name -- did you consider this fact in terms of
5 verifying or authenticating intercepts as you say?
6 A. It was further authentication.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could just zoom out for a moment, and
8 if we can go over to the next column, next to the name there's a date of
9 birth there. You can see 14.07.1964. Okay. And there you see it says
10 14.07.1964 and then it says "Poljska."
11 Q. Can you tell us what that means?
12 A. Polish. Poland. From Poland.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can slide over to the last column on the
14 right. One more, please. And we have there the date of death.
15 Q. Do you see this Ostrelj? Can you tell us about that, if you
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Okay. But you can see the date of death is reported as
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I see it's
22 the break. I have one exhibit which I think will take a minute to show
23 and it's P816. All right. If we can just blow that up a little bit.
24 Q. All right. I don't know if you're able to see that very well,
25 but you can see the date of the document is 1st July 1998. It says
1 Sarajevo on it.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then it says tape/cassette number/side.
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Do you see that?
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. And in there it's -- it's indicated 49A and B.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. And beneath that you can see the column that -- the row that says
10 018027. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell us, did you consider this document also in terms of
13 evaluating the particular intercept?
14 A. Yes. And the tape.
15 Q. And you can see in the summary of this particular document
16 concerning that intercept or concerning the recording --
17 A. Mm-hmm.
18 Q. -- it reads:
19 "Two volunteers from Poland sent by the," and it says,
20 "personnel? are mentioned whom Nikolic will dump in the Drina."
21 Did you find that text particularly in the intercept in question?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And was the OTP involved in preparing this summary?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And who was it prepared by, if you know?
1 A. It says on the document the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
2 the Federation army Joint Command.
3 Q. And you indicated previously that tape 49 was a significant
4 intercept for the -- a significant tape for the purposes of the
5 Srebrenica investigation. Is this one of the reasons why?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I think we can -- I think it's
8 appropriate to take the break at this point, and then I'll continue,
9 hopefully, a little bit after the break.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We must have the second
11 break now for technical reasons, and we will resume at five minutes past
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.10 p.m.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have to apologise for our delay. There was a
17 certain matter to be raised outside the courtroom.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye, you should proceed.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
20 I would like to continue a little bit in this vein. If I could
21 have P846 in e-court, please.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This should not be broadcast. It's under seal.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank
25 Q. Ms. Frease, what I'm showing you is an intercept which is dated
1 16 July 1995, and timed at 1358 hours. Are you familiar with this?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is this one of the intercepts that you have analysed in terms
4 of establishing its authenticity and reliability?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And were you been able to do that having analysed the
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And I wonder if you could just indicate to the Trial Chamber a
10 little bit about this intercept, what it talks about and what it was that
11 led you to the conclusion -- or that you considered in terms of
12 identifying its -- its reliability and accuracy and authenticity.
13 A. This conversation took place on the 16th of July at 1358,
14 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon, and it's a conversation that involves a
15 request for 500 litres of D2 fuel for Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic. It
16 indicates that this is needed, otherwise his work is going to stop.
17 That's a significant -- it was a significant conversation even at
18 the time that we began to look at this material because through knowledge
19 of the investigation we were aware of events that were taking place in
20 Pilica farm during that time. I believe on the next page there's mention
21 of Pilica.
22 Q. Okay. Let's -- let's turn over to the next page.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Let's stop for a moment. I would like to ask the
24 witness how do you -- could get the information from this document that
25 it is from the 16th of July, 1995.
1 THE WITNESS: We had to go through a dating process on -- we had
2 to establish the date for each of these conversations, so my recollection
3 at the time is that -- well, we had first looked at the printouts, those
4 first 550 pages I keep talking about, and my recollection is that in
5 those pages it was indicated that it was the 16th of July. When we then
6 got the notebooks, I don't have a firm recollection now of this
7 particular notebook and this particular conversation, but there was a
8 process that we went through to establish dates for each of the
9 conversations. But you're right, just looking at this it doesn't appear
10 on this page.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. If we could go to the next page. And I think you can see in this
14 page the reference to what you were talking about, where you see the name
15 Golic in the middle of the page, and it reads:
16 "Golic, Pop just called me and told me to contact you.
17 500 litres of D2 have to be sent to him immediately, otherwise his work
18 will stop."
19 And then it reads:
20 "Yeah, man. Yeah, 500 litres or else his work will stop."
21 Below that you can see it reads:
22 "A bus loaded with oil is to go to Pilica village. That's it.
23 "500 litres.
24 "No, it should go with its fuel tank from the vehicle battalion."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And were you able to verify or, I should say, that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And how so?
5 A. Well, through a fuel order that came from the -- from captured
6 documents, documents taken from the Zvornik Brigade headquarters.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Under a search warrant.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Now, if I could have -- it's P17. I think it's
10 page 66 in the English, and the B/C/S translation is page 67. The
11 document that I'm going to show is also under -- I think it's ...
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is -- I need page 66 of P817. This is not
14 it? I've misspoken?
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: P17.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I didn't hear. P817.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's coming up now.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. And I'll need page 66 and page 67. Yes.
19 Page 67 is the B/C/S, so I guess we can just do it in sequence so that we
20 can maybe save a little time.
21 Q. Ms. Frease, do you recognise what this document is?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And what is it?
24 A. It's an order for fuel. It's a document that was captured, taken
25 under a search warrant from the Zvornik Brigade.
1 Q. Is this the document you were describing?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could focus on the right -- I'm sorry,
4 the left corner of the document, upper corner. Yeah, that's just fine.
5 Q. You can see that it says "Material list for dispatch."
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And it has a number on it, 2140?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And next to that, in box number 6 it has a date?
10 A. Yes. The 16th of July, 1995.
11 Q. And if we go a little bit down this page to box number 14 and 15.
12 That will be a little bit to the right too. You can see where it says
13 name and address of the recipient.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. And that indicates "KDK."
16 A. Right. The command of the Drina Corps.
17 Q. And it says beneath that in box 15, "Addressee station." You see
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And what is --
21 A. It says "For Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic."
22 Q. Okay. And if we go a little bit down the page, beneath box 25
23 and 26, it will be to your left, it specifies what's being ordered?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what does it say?
1 A. It says diesel fuel D2, and further down it says 500 litres of
2 D2 fuel. And then it says 140 litres were returned.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, is this the original
5 document? Are we talking about its authenticity, or is this a document
6 created in English, because the Drina Corps didn't have any forms in
7 English. Thank you.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was going to ask the same question as you,
10 Mr. Tolimir. I wanted to see -- when this document is finished to have
11 the B/C/S original and so we can identify if it's the same.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Unfortunately because the pages are in
13 sequence they're not displaced side by side. Otherwise, I think we could
14 have a translation of it. But as I've indicated, we do --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's too small to have both versions on the
16 screen at the same time.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Right. So we'll just go to the next page and I
18 think we can clarify this very quickly. First, let's focus on the top
19 right-hand corner like we did before.
20 Q. And you can see there it says "Broj"?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And what does that mean?
23 A. Top left-hand corner, "number."
24 Q. Okay. And it indicates the same number as before, 2140?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And next to that you can see "Datum"?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. That means "date," I take it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. And it says 16.07.95?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if we go down to box 14 and 15 -- wait a minute. Before we
8 go down we can see in box number 4, there's an indication of a military
9 post, 7469, VP, military post 7469, and it says "Zvornik."
10 A. Right.
11 Q. And then if you look on box 14, can you tell us what that says?
12 A. Box 14 says "KDK."
13 Q. And that you understand to mean?
14 A. The command of the Drina Corps.
15 Q. And beneath that in box 15?
16 A. For "Potpukovnik Popovic," for Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.
17 Q. Okay. And let's go down to box 25 --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should slow down a little bit.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, I'm sorry.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're overlapping. Both speakers should bear
21 that in mind.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. In box -- under box 24, can you tell us what that says?
24 A. That says diesel fuel, "dizel gorivo," D2.
25 Q. Okay. And if we go a little bit down the page. Okay. Can you
1 tell us what that says?
2 A. What I see on the screen says 140 litres were returned.
3 Q. Okay. And if we go up and under box number 28. Do you see the
4 amount of --
5 A. Yes. From 500.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we can zoom out a little bit. Well, zoom
8 out so we can see the whole document.
9 Q. Now, was this, to your understanding, an original document, a
10 copy of an original document, or was this something that the OTP made up?
11 A. No. This is a copy of an original document.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I want to show you another document. It's P14.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you really mean P14?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Mr. President? Did you say did I
15 mean P14, 1-4? Yes, I think so.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just want to avoid the confusion we had with
17 the last one.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, yes. I'm sorry, I don't
19 have the record in front of me so I don't see what was recorded there.
20 Okay. And I think we'll need to go to, as I have it here,
21 page 148 of the B/C/S. Okay. And for the English, I think it's the same
22 page number.
23 Q. Are you able to read this, Ms. Frease? Maybe we can save a
24 little time if you can just read it into the record that relates to this
25 [overlapping speakers] --
1 A. I can read most of it, but I can't -- I actually can't make out
2 all of it. There's a -- it's the duty officer log-book from the Zvornik
3 Brigade, and at 1400 hours there's a notation that says that Popovic was
4 asking for -- that he should be sent a bus full of fuel and to send him
5 500 litres of D2, that this was requested -- that the request was made to
6 Zlatar, the duty officer, and -- I can't read the last word, really.
7 Q. I think we have the translation.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's at page 29 of the English. In English. So
9 maybe we can put that on the screen so everybody can see it. Okay. We
10 have it.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would recommend if you continue in that way
12 that the witness should read it in B/C/S.
13 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, no, no. It was absolutely fine, and I think
15 we are all happy that you are really able to read the B/C/S text, but if
16 you read it in B/C/S, we will receive the translation of the text
17 immediately by the interpreters.
18 THE WITNESS: Certainly.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a recommendation for Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. All right. And you can see it now, I think, very clearly. In
22 the translation it reads:
23 "At 1400 Popovic requested a bus with a full tank and 500 litres
24 of D2 (diesel) Zlatar Duty Officer Golic informed."
25 Does that conform to the intercept that you were analysing in
1 terms of verifying its accuracy, reliability and authenticity?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I'd like to show you another one, if I may.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And this is an intercept from 16 July at 1111 hours.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Bear with me one moment. I'll give you the
7 P number. It's P845A.
8 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with this intercept, Ms. Frease?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about this one.
11 A. It takes place at 1111. It's in the morning. It's a
12 conversation between Colonel Ljubo Beara and Cerovic and a person X, and
13 it talks about needing to conduct triage on the prisoners.
14 Q. Okay. And did you know a little bit about the context of this
15 intercept? What I mean by that is do you know a little bit about what is
16 meant by "triage" as has been revealed by the investigation conducted by
17 the OTP?
18 A. I would rather not comment on the use of the word "triage."
19 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you, did you consider the use of the word
20 "triage" in terms of evaluating this particular intercept?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. How so?
23 A. Well, because it's a word that isn't very commonly used.
24 Q. Okay. And did you -- were you able to locate this word or locate
25 the context of this conversation in any other material?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what material was that?
3 A. It was also in the duty officer's log-book.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: May I have P14 in e-court again, please. All
5 right. In this case we should go to 146 in the B/C/S, and with any luck,
6 it will be at page 27 in the English. All right. There has been some
7 luck, I see.
8 Q. If I could draw your attention to the entry at 1115 hours. Do
9 you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you --
12 A. What it says is that at 1115 hours it was reported from Zlatar
13 that triage of wounded and prisoners must be carried out, and that it was
14 reported to Beara.
15 Q. And can you just remind us who is Beara in the context of this --
16 well, in the context of this intercept and this entry?
17 A. Colonel Beara was the chief of security for the Main Staff.
18 Q. Okay. And just so that we're clear, this duty officer notebook
19 belongs to what unit of the VRS?
20 A. The Zvornik Brigade.
21 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you another -- or I'd like to have you go
22 over another example of the methods that you used in terms of
23 authenticating this material.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll need in e-court, please, P663. I
25 understand it's 663A. Sorry.
1 All right. We -- the translation on the left is of a different
2 section of this intercept. Okay. It should be page -- all right. We
3 can start here. All right. Well, we'll start here, I guess, and then
4 we'll work our way.
5 Q. Do you recognise this?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And what do you recognise it to be?
8 A. A conversation that took place at 1009. I know it to have taken
9 place on the 13th of July, though it's not indicated here.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. What I'd like to do is to move over to
11 page 3 in the B/C/S of the document. Okay. And then we'll have to go to
12 the next page in the English. We need ERN ending 596 in the English.
13 There we go. Okay.
14 Q. You see this intercept is at 1009 as you've indicated. It
15 involves Zoka. Can you tell us who that is?
16 A. I believe it's Zoran Malinic, who was the commander of the MPs,
17 the military police, for the 65th Protection Regiment.
18 Q. It involves Beara, who you've already mentioned, and it involves
19 someone named Lucic.
20 A. Who was the deputy to Zoran Malinic.
21 Q. Deputy commander of the 65th Protection --
22 A. Of the MPs, right. Of the military police.
23 Q. Okay. And can you tell us a little bit about this conversation.
24 A. It's a conversation in which they're talking about the fact that
25 so far 400 Muslims have shown up in Konjevic Polje, which is an
1 intersection. It's the crossroads. I'm sure you know this now, but a
2 crossroads where a lot of the column of Muslim men came through. They're
3 talking about putting them onto a soccer field that's located just south
4 of that intersection in Nova Kasaba and lining them up in four or five
6 Q. All right. I'd like to -- I'd like to take you -- well, first of
7 all, did you have an opportunity to examine this one and for the purposes
8 of -- of determining its authenticity and reliability?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what else did you look at in order to determine this?
11 A. Aerial imagery. And then there were other conversations that
12 were sort of mutually reinforcing.
13 Q. Can you tell us something about the significance of the language
14 that's used here where it reads "Hello Signor Lucic."
15 A. Yes, it's a detail, but I think an important detail and the kind
16 of details that we looked at when we analysed this material for things
17 that stood out as being oddities, and why was it that this word "sjor"
18 was being used here. It's a term that's used along the Dalmatian coast
19 that means -- here it's translated as "Signor," and why would somebody
20 like Beara be using this word. But it was consistent because
21 Colonel Beara was posted, stationed down in Split on the Dalmatian coast
22 for many years. So even something like this would have made the
23 conversation and in the context internally consistent.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have P410 --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you leave this intercept, we're interested
1 to know how do you relate this document to the soccer field you were
2 talking about some seconds earlier.
3 THE WITNESS: I think on the second page it mentions Kasaba. I
4 could be wrong. We could go to the second page.
5 I don't see it here.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what is the relative
8 location of Konjevic Polje to the soccer stadium?
9 A. It's a few metres away. That -- south of that intersection of
10 Konjevic Polje.
11 Q. Okay. Now, I was about to call up a document which I think will
12 help clarify this somewhat, and it was P410.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Could you clarify A or B?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, I'm sorry.
15 THE WITNESS: Oh, here's a reference in the -- in the -- sorry, I
16 just saw it in the B/C/S version, to the "igraliste," which is soccer
17 field. It's the playground, sort of. So it didn't specifically say
18 Nova Kasaba playground but it says "igraliste" which means "playground."
19 Yeah. It can be "soccer field" in that conversation.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see that in the English translation.
21 THE WITNESS: Maybe we need to go to the next page of the English
22 translation. Here. It says: "Put them all on the playground." About
23 halfway through on the first page. "Shove them all on the
24 playground ..." It's B speaking, Beara.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: P410A, please.
2 Q. Okay. Here we have a later conversation indicated here at 2.00.
3 Are you familiar with this intercept?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what does this intercept relate to?
6 A. It relates -- well, it says that there are more than a thousand
7 now and that they are at the football stadium, football field. On the
8 football pitch would be another way to say it.
9 Q. Okay. And do you see any reference in this particular intercept
10 to some of the same people that were referred to in the previous
12 A. Well, to Zoka.
13 Q. And who would that be?
14 A. Zoran Malinic.
15 Q. All right. I'd like to show you P857 in e-court, please.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Actually, let's make that P858.
17 Q. All right. Do you recognise what's depicted in -- what's shown
18 in e-court now?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And what do you recognise it to be?
21 A. It's an aerial image of the football pitch at Nova Kasaba.
22 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. And did you consider this in determining the
23 reliability, accuracy and authenticity of the prior two intercepts that
24 we've just seen?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And what did you consider in particular about this aerial image
2 in relation to those intercepts?
3 A. The date and the time, and the fact that the analyst that
4 provided information about this image indicated that the dark kind of
5 rectangular shapes on the image were people.
6 Q. And in particular, the date on this document is indicated as
7 13 July 1995 at 1400 hours?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And that coincides with the intercept we've just seen?
10 A. That's correct.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I want to show one more document. I know that
12 we're just at the break but I think -- I'd like to show this one and
13 hopefully it will be fast. This is -- I'd like to have P125 in e-court,
15 Q. This is a document. Do you recognise it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You've seen it before?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what do you recognise it to be? What is it?
20 A. Well, it's an order to the commander of the Military Police
21 Battalion of the 65th Protection Regiment. It is -- the date on it is
22 only indicated at the bottom as the 13th of July, 1995, as the -- as the
23 date, and there's also a time of 1510 that it was delivered. At the top
24 of the document it says that it's from Borike at 1400 hours and that it
25 has to do with the procedure or treatment of prisoners of war.
1 Q. Okay. Now, did you consider this document in terms of
2 authenticating the previous intercept that we just saw, the one at
3 1400 hours on 13 July?
4 A. Yes, because of the content also of this particular document. It
5 starts off by saying:
6 "There are over 1.000 members of the former 28th Division of the
7 so-called BH Army captured in the area of Dusanovo (Kasaba)."
8 Q. And is that the area in which the soccer pitch is located?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Dusanovo Kasaba is that the area that is depicted in the aerial
11 imagery that we've just seen?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the number of prisoners that are indicated in this document,
14 does that coincide with the number of individuals indicated in the
15 previous intercept?
16 A. Yes. The second sentence of that document also says that the
17 prisoners are under the control of the Military Police Battalion of the
18 65th Protection Regiment.
19 Q. And it's addressed to the commander of the Military Police
20 Battalion of the 65th Protection Regiment who you've identified as whom?
21 A. Sorry.
22 Q. Who was the commander of the military police battalion --
23 A. Zoran Malinic.
24 Q. And is he mentioned in the previous two intercepts that we've
25 looked at?
1 A. He's mentioned as Zoka. Zoka can be a nickname for Zoran.
2 Q. Did you consider this particular document, A, relevant to the
3 prior intercepts, and did you consider it in terms of establishing the
4 authenticity and reliability of those intercepts?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think this is a good place to stop. I
7 appreciate your indulgence, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We have to adjourn now.
9 This courtroom will be occupied by another Trial Chamber. We have to
10 continue tomorrow, and you should be reminded not to communicate with
11 either party about the content of your testimony during the break.
12 We adjourn and resume tomorrow in the afternoon, 2.15, in this
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day
16 of September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.