1 Friday, 10 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon. First of all, we have to sit
6 only with two Judges today because Judge Mindua is not available because
7 of another urgent appointment, and therefore the Chamber decided to sit
8 pursuant to Rule 15 bis of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
9 Before the witness is being brought in I -- the Chamber wants to
10 render an oral ruling on the Prosecution's motion for a rescission of
11 protective measures for Witness 65 ter 200 which was made orally on the
12 30th of August, 2010. In order to properly deal with that, we should go
13 for a short moment into private session.
14 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The Chamber finds that the
10 requirements of Rule 75(J) have been satisfied, and thus grants the
11 Prosecution's motion.
12 The Chamber wishes to add one remark in this regard. As the
13 parties must be aware, the witness number 200 is a 92 ter witness in that
14 his testimony in the Krstic case was provisionally admitted into evidence
15 by this Chamber's decision on the 30th of March this year. Since this
16 witness gave evidence with a pseudonym and in closed session in that
17 case, the transcripts, which is the witness's 92 ter evidence, remain
18 under seal.
19 Both parties should take into account the situation that this
20 Chamber is not in a position to declassify these documents.
21 Does any party want to raise something in this regard?
22 Mr. Vanderpuye -- Mr. McCloskey.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that's my witness, and we will
24 endeavour to get that record opened up. I don't think anyone will
25 object, I don't think the witness will, so that our record is more open.
1 So I think that's -- I hadn't remembered that particular problem, but I
2 think that's probably what we'll do if -- if that's -- meets your
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber wanted to point out that there's a
5 distinction between protective measures and confidentiality of documents,
6 and therefore you should take the necessary steps in order to, yes, get
7 the right things done.
8 We still have to decide on the request of the Prosecution about
9 the tendered documents. We will do that after the first break.
10 The witness should be brought in now.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE [Resumed]
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Ms. Frease.
14 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to remind you that the affirmation
16 to tell the truth still applies, and Mr. Tolimir has some more questions
17 for you.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would
21 like to say hello to all those present, also say hello to Ms. Frease. I
22 wish that may there be peace in this house and may the divine providence
23 bring justice not according to my wishes but according to God's will.
24 At the beginning of today, since I was not able to do this last
25 time because I had acceded the allotted time, I would like to apologise
1 first of all to the interpreters because they had to work longer because
2 of my question. Also, I would like to apologise to you because I was not
3 precise in citing the documents that I was looking for in e-court, and I
4 would like to apologise to the registry, the Prosecution, also to
5 Mr. Vanderpuye, because I had compared him to a different Prosecutor from
6 the Prosecutor's office, which of course cannot apply to him because he
7 has always been fair to date. I would like to apologise to the Defence,
8 because I also did not tell them in time what I would be using of the
9 documents and in what manner I would be using them.
10 Also, I would like to thank everybody, and perhaps we could work
11 shorter if we're talking about the same team of terms. I'm willing to
12 sacrifice some of my time in order to make up for what happened last
14 Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, thank you very much. I think
16 everybody will appreciate your nice words. On the other hand, this is
17 the normal procedure. These things happen. Don't worry about that, and
18 I think the interpreters and the staff of the court are quite patient and
19 they will assist us in future as well.
20 Please go ahead.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
23 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Frease, I also would like to apologise to
24 you, because I quoted what was authentic as far as I was concerned, and
25 that is what is stated in the video footage. However, as you saw, you
1 didn't say that. So I apologise for putting the wrong quote attributing
2 to you because I didn't have the transcript at my disposal. Hopefully
3 today we will understand each other, and now I'm going to move to the
4 questions that the Defence requires to put in these proceedings. Thank
5 you very much. And I would like to apologise once again.
6 My first question would be: We saw from the examination-in-chief
7 that you have a Masters Degree in international relations. I would like
8 to ask you if in your studies and later you acquired the knowledge
9 necessary for the analysis of documents, including special training
10 required in order to be able to analyse the documents at hand. Thank
12 A. Yes, it's correct that I have a Masters Degree in international
13 relations. I did not receive any specific training with respect to
14 analysing radio intercepts. I would say that I have a -- that I pay a
15 high degree of attention to detail in my work.
16 Q. Thank you. As you said in the examination-in-chief, you worked
17 at the OTP at this Tribunal from April 1995 until July 2000, and then you
18 were a special advisor of the OTP after that until the end of 2006, 2007.
19 Please correct me if I didn't state everything correctly.
20 My question is: The analysis of the material that refers to the
21 intercepted communications from -- up to 1998, did you work on the
22 analysis of this material for as long as you were at your post until 1998
23 and then 2000, and did you subsequently as a consultant or advisor also
24 analyse these documents? Thank you.
25 A. So I worked on this material from about April of 1998 until I
1 left the Tribunal in July of 2000, and then I worked on it again, as you
2 say, from late 2006 until early 2007.
3 Q. Thank you. I apologise for putting a long question to you. I'm
4 interested in the second half of the question, the analysis of this
5 material. Was that completed in the period from 1998 until 2000 when you
6 were permanently employed at the Tribunal, or did you continue to do this
7 analysis work later in your capacity as special advisor of the OTP?
8 Thank you.
9 A. I continued to do the analysis when I worked for the Tribunal
10 from late 2006 until early 2007.
11 Q. Thank you. I apologise, but for the transcript can you please
12 tell us whether you were analysing the materials that you are testifying
13 on now in these proceedings also? I know that you were working for the
14 Tribunal then, but were you also doing an analysis of these materials
15 that are the subject of your testimony now? Thank you.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And were you doing this work because you didn't have
18 these materials available earlier but were receiving them successively,
19 or was there some other reason that you did this analysis? Thank you.
20 A. I wasn't working for the Tribunal at the time, so I didn't have
21 access to the material.
22 Q. I apologise. I think I misunderstood you. So from the year 2000
23 you did not work on the material that you are testifying about right now,
24 yes or no? Thank you.
25 A. Between 2000 and 2006 I did not work for the Tribunal. From
1 2000 -- late 2006, until early 2007, I did. At that time I had an
2 opportunity to review material that had come in in the interim and to
3 work on it.
4 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether while you were working
5 in this first period when you were still employed at the Tribunal and in
6 this second period in your capacity as special advisor, did you at any
7 point analyse any other documents, documents by any other army, for
8 example the Croatian Army, the Muslim army, or any other party to the war
10 A. I analysed the material that had been -- that related to the
11 Srebrenica investigation that had come to the Tribunal from the sources
12 that we've discussed, namely from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and from
13 the SDB from Tuzla. At that time, I did not look at any material from
14 the Croatians or other transcripts from other sources.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether -- were you only
16 dealing with the analysis of intelligence service or intelligence-type
17 material such as the interception centre and the like? Thank you.
18 A. Could you specify the period that you're talking about? Are you
19 talking about my -- the entire time that I worked for the Tribunal or the
20 latter period?
21 Q. Thank you. I will repeat my question. I'm asking you whether in
22 the period from 1998 to 2000 when you were working as an employee of the
23 Tribunal you were engaged on the analysis of military intelligence
24 material in this case by the services that were compiling secret data
25 information by means of interception.
1 A. Yes, I was working on that material, and I was also still very
2 closely involved with the Srebrenica team, the investigative team. Early
3 on I had participated in a lot of the field investigations. In the later
4 period I worked primarily on the material that you mention, but again was
5 always working with the investigative team.
6 Q. Thank you. And other than yourself, was anybody else also tasked
7 with analysing and processing communications that were received through
8 the work of the Military Intelligence Service during the war in Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina other than your closest associates who were subordinated
10 to you? Thank you.
11 A. At the time I believe that we were the only team in the Tribunal
12 that had access to this information.
13 Q. Thank you. And you talked about the first time you went to the
14 command of the 2nd Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina when you were given
15 access to the intercepted communications tapes. My question is: Were
16 you permitted to just see that these tapes existed, or did you also have
17 the opportunity to acquaint yourself with the contents also? Thank you.
18 A. We were just given access to the material at that time without
19 having access to reviewing it. That's my memory.
20 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us when was the first time that you had
21 the opportunity to review the material and look into the contents? Thank
23 A. Do you have a specific type of material in -- in mind, whether
24 the printouts, the notebooks, or the audio cassettes?
25 Q. I'm thinking of the material in general, just like I said in my
1 question, the material that you received from the Military Intelligence
2 Service of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps -- when was the
3 first time that you had the opportunity to review this material and find
4 out its contents? Thank you.
5 A. So in April I had a chance to -- well, I guess even in March when
6 we first got the -- that binder, had an opportunity to look through it,
7 the same for the notebooks in April, but the first time that we really
8 started to go through it, first of all, we had to figure out how we would
9 process it, because it was quite a large amount of material and it wasn't
10 clear from the beginning that this would be something that I would be
11 working on or whether it would be other people in the team.
12 So again my memory is that I believe it was in May that we took
13 a -- that there was a mission to Bosnia and that a small group of
14 interpreters and I began to go through the photocopied material and began
15 to enter it into an Excel table to begin to analyse the contents. After
16 that, we started -- we developed the other database and began to work
17 through the notebooks by data, because dates were -- there was a limited
18 time, and particular dates were of higher priority than other dates. So
19 it was just a gradual process of working through the material in a
20 methodical manner.
21 Q. Thank you. For the record, since I wanted to know when you began
22 exactly, I believe you said May but did not mention the year.
23 A. 1998. It would have been earlier than that that I would have had
24 a preliminary sort of look at the material, but that we really started to
25 work on it I think it was May of 1998.
1 Q. Thank you. Did other team members have access to the material or
2 were you the only one?
3 A. No. Other team members also had access to the material.
4 Q. Thank you. Could you please specify those team members provided
5 you recall their names.
6 A. The military analyst Rick Butler; Peter Nicholson, who wasn't
7 officially on the Srebrenica team but helped in several field missions;
8 interpreters; Jean-Rene Ruez, the team leader; Peter McCloskey, the
9 Prosecutor. For those who didn't speak the language, of course, their
10 ability to work with it was very -- well, it was limited. I mean, they
11 couldn't really work with it, but they certainly had access to it.
12 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us whether there are any notes in
13 existence about the material reviewed by you at the time, and are there
14 any notes about the programme as you said you created at the time?
15 A. I think there would have been a trip report or a couple of trip
16 reports about the translation that we did in the field, but I don't
17 recall any other specific notes about the -- I'm not quite sure what you
18 mean when you refer to "programme."
19 Q. Thank you. I believe you said in one of your answers that you
20 created a project, specifying how you were to go about researching that
21 material. I wanted to know whether there are any notes still in
22 existence pertaining to such research about the material provided by the
23 military service.
24 A. It really came out in the form of a product [realtime transcript
25 read in error "protect"], of an Excel table in which there was analysis
1 and then also a database. There's a typo on the transcript. I think I
2 said "product" and not "protect." Line 21. Thank you.
3 Q. Thank you for the correction. Tell us this, please: After your
4 service with the Tribunal, that is to say after 2000, did you have
5 occasion to work with any other intercepts until you returned here in
6 2006 as the special advisor?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Thank you. Please explain the nature of work you carried out
9 after your employment with the Tribunal. For example, the work you did
10 for the Prosecutor's office of the ICC.
11 A. At the ICC I was responsible for helping to start the field
12 investigations for the Darfur investigation.
13 Q. Thank you. Could you please explain to the Chamber how you
14 became engaged in that and how it was implemented, the work you carried
16 A. I was hired by the Prosecutor to -- because I had had experience
17 in eastern Chad. The Prosecutor of the ICC had asked me to come on board
18 to help them get their investigation started.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you specify that period, the beginning and the
20 end of your engagement, perhaps if you remember the month and year.
21 A. June 2005 to June 2006.
22 Q. Thank you. Please tell us whether at the time you worked for any
23 NGOs, and, if so, which ones. If you indeed worked for certain NGOs
24 during what period was that?
25 A. In my previous testimony I mentioned that I worked for the
1 Coalition for International Justice which was a nonprofit based in
2 Washington, DC from 2000 until 2005.
3 Q. Thank you. Sorry. Was this NGO of yours deployed to crisis
4 areas between 2000 and 2005? What is it present in certain conflict
6 A. It was based in Washington, DC, but sometimes it required travel
7 to other areas. I travelled, for example, to East Timor on a number of
9 Q. Thank you. Was your travel to East Timor related to the conflict
10 there exclusively?
11 A. It was during the post-conflict situation -- or post-conflict
12 period, but, yes, it had to do with the conflict.
13 Q. Thank you. What was the relationship between your NGOs and the
14 globalisation process? That is to say, what is their position vis-à-vis
16 A. I don't understand the question.
17 Q. The NGOs you worked for, for whom you travelled to crisis areas
18 during the crises and post-crises, the areas such as Bosnia and Chad as
19 well as East Timor, did they send you there as part of their projects in
20 conflict-affected areas, and was that in any way related with
21 globalisation and the creation of the new world order?
22 A. My role was very specific and had to do with -- for example, in
23 East Timor, it was to assist the UN in setting up a special court to try
24 the crimes that had been committed when the Indonesian military withdrew
25 from East Timor.
1 I just can't respond -- I don't know how to respond to your
2 question about globalisation and the creation of the new world order.
3 Q. Thank you. Since we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes
4 concerning these particular issues, I -- I'd like to move on to the next
6 Regard -- as regards any analyses and testimony offered by you
7 before this Tribunal in various proceedings, did you also provide a
8 report, because most experts usually provide written statements or
9 reports, whereas I have never seen one originated by you. Concerning the
10 analyses you carried out, did you create a report or not? Was it simply
11 an ad hoc exercise?
12 A. I did not create a report. The product was essentially the
13 information that was summarised in an excel table.
14 Q. Thank you. Is there a reason why you did not carry out analyses,
15 produce reports, or provide statements? Is there any other reason in
16 existence in addition to your simply stating that you actually were
17 included in it?
18 A. My part of the work and those that I worked with was to analyse
19 the material and to determine whether we considered it to be authentic or
20 genuine and reliable. So the analysis of what the material meant was
21 really incorporated by the military analyst into the overall case.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether as an investigator or a
23 former investigator of the OTP, were you under an obligation to protect
24 the interests of the Prosecution when publicly presenting the results of
25 your findings?
1 A. My obligation is to this court and to speaking the truth and
2 providing the truth and nothing but the truth.
3 Q. Thank you. That is your obligation vis-a-vis the Tribunal, much
4 as any other citizen would have, but in particular vis-a-vis the
5 Prosecutor's office, did you have to protect their interests as a member
6 of the same office since you were either their employee or advisor?
7 A. I believe when I started we had to sign a document that talked
8 about the confidentiality and retaining confidentiality with the material
9 that we worked with, but I think that's different from your question
10 about protecting their interests, and I'm not sure what you mean by that.
11 Q. Thank you for stating that it wasn't sufficiently clear. I'll
12 try to clarify.
13 Were you under an obligation to, say, protect or guard the
14 interests of the Prosecutor's office as stated in the indictment and
15 other documents produced by the OTP and presented to the court while you
16 were employed here?
17 A. Again, "interest" to me is an odd word to use. Maybe if you
18 could provide the document that says that I could take a look at it, but
19 I always felt an obligation to retain confidentiality, to retain
20 integrity, and to be honest in the work that I was doing.
21 Q. Thank you. I will try to go by this in yet a different way. Can
22 you explain in brief what were your loyalty obligations vis-a-vis the
23 Prosecutor's office while you worked here, and are you still under such
24 an obligation?
25 Thank you. I apologise. I will repeat my question, because I
1 want it reflected accurately.
2 What loyalty obligations and protecting the Office of the
3 Prosecutor from competition while you were working for the Prosecutor's
4 office, and are you still under such an obligation?
5 A. What competition?
6 Q. I said forbidding competition, whereas something else seems to
7 have been interpreted to you. Maybe "forbidding competitions" means
8 something else to you, since in the meantime you seem to have been
9 working for the NGOs, for the NGO sector.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The accused may have in
11 mind the concept of "conflict of interest," yet he's not using the words
12 to describe that.
13 THE WITNESS: I don't know how to respond to this.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. We will try to use an example. When you worked for
16 the NGOs later on, could you use the examples presented to you at this
17 Tribunal and its Prosecutor's office? Given the fact that you also
18 worked for some other international courts which prosecuted parties to
19 other conflicts, could you specifically use the data and knowledge you
20 gained by researching the documents for this Prosecutor's office, and
21 were you under an obligation by this OTP to keep such information
22 confidential at that time and now?
23 A. If information was not public then, yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Since these are Military Intelligence Service
25 information and since you said that it was valuable information, they
1 were all secret. It was all secret. Are you still under an obligation
2 to keep that secret now, or is there still any ban in existence in terms
3 of forbidden competition vis-a-vis this Prosecutor's office?
4 A. This is a public hearing.
5 Q. Thank you. We seem to be -- have a problem with the word
6 "competition." I'm interested in this: Could you, for example, work as
7 an expert of Defence since you seem to have been an expert for the
8 Prosecution? Perhaps this will clarify the term "competition" or
9 rivalry. The word in B/C/S is "konkurencija."
10 A. First of all, I'm not here as an expert witness. Secondly, I'm
11 aware that this court has made a decision that former members of the
12 Prosecutor's office have been able to work both for the Defence and the
13 Chambers. The decisions that this court makes are its own. I can't
14 imagine taking such a decision. I don't think it applies to me.
15 Q. Thank you. Is there any decision by this court or the
16 Prosecutor's office that would corroborate what you just said?
17 A. Certainly. I don't think it's my position to give the examples.
18 Q. Thank you. For the transcript, could you tell us whether you are
19 in possession of any decision of this Tribunal which would give you full
20 freedom in terms of your participation in any other case, even on the
21 side of the Defence, for example, since you used to work for the OTP? Is
22 there any such document by the OTP which would prohibit you from working
23 for any Defence?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I object to the
1 question. The witness already -- the witness has already answered it.
2 She says as far as she's aware there's nothing that precludes her from
3 working for the Defence, and I think that ends the issue there.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last question included something
5 additionally, if she knows a specific document, and I think the witness
6 is able to answer this question.
7 THE WITNESS: I cannot point to a specific document.
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. The last sentence uttered by the witness was not
10 interpreted to me.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The sentence was: "I cannot point to a specific
13 Did you receive now the interpretation?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I did,
15 even before you repeated it, because the interpreters were lagging behind
16 slightly. Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. During the testimony in the cases of Blagojevic, Krstic, and
19 Popovic, did you carry out a selection of material that was to be
20 tendered through you or was that selection done by any OTP
21 representatives such as Mr. Thayer or Mr. Vanderpuye?
22 A. First of all, just to correct the record, I didn't testify in the
23 Blagojevic case. So with respect to Krstic and Popovic, the Prosecutors
24 ultimately had the say in which intercepts were included in the material
25 that was presented during the trials.
1 Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, whether in the team which studied
2 the intercepts by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina there was anyone who was
3 not a US citizen like yourself, excluding the head of team, Mr. Ruez,
4 because he was not directly involved in this.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. I didn't understand that "yes," what it referred to.
7 Yes, there was, or yes there wasn't? Was there anybody there who was not
8 from the United States so that I don't have to go into the list of who
9 else was in that team that analysed the list of the -- the intercepts.
10 A. Yes, there were other people involved who were -- who were not US
11 citizens, who were Bosnian citizens, who were interpreters. Translators.
12 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Can you please tell us, except for the
13 interpreters or the translator, of course you need translators for the
14 materials that are in the Serbian language, thank you, but was there
15 anyone other than them? Thank you.
16 A. At the time that I worked on the intercepts, there wasn't --
17 there weren't other investigators or team members who worked on them as
18 closely as I did with the interpreters. We communicated a lot back and
19 forth, the investigators, myself, the interpreters, the Prosecutor, about
20 not only the intercepts but about new information that was coming into
21 the investigation, but I was the primary person along with the
22 interpreters who were working on -- who was working on this material.
23 Q. Thank you. During these proceedings in this case, we've seen
24 that Mr. Ruez received some material. Other than receiving this material
25 in the period when you were also receiving material, did he just receive
1 this material or did he also conduct certain analysis of the material and
2 is there a record of such an analysis? Thank you.
3 A. No. He just received the material.
4 Q. Thank you. So he just has that document indicating that he had
5 received and signed for the material that is for the needs of this OTP;
6 is that correct? Thank you.
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Thank you. Other than doing it in that way with Ruez
9 establishing the contacts with the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, can you
10 please tell us how you established contacts with the authorities of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to obtain the intercept material? Thank you.
12 A. I was a member of the Srebrenica investigative team, so I
13 established contact with them in the context of all of the other team
15 Q. Thank you. During the examination-in-chief, you emphasise that
16 immediately after the Srebrenica events you got in touch with the Bosnian
17 authorities. I would like you now to explain to the Trial Chamber how
18 you got in touch with them, in what way, and were you in the team then
19 immediately after the conflict or again I have received an erroneous
20 interpretation. Thank you.
21 A. So I was with Jean-Rene Ruez and two other people when we first
22 went to Tuzla in July of 1995. There were rumours, television
23 broadcasts, CNN broadcasts that something had happened in Srebrenica, and
24 the Tribunal took the initiative to send a small team to Tuzla to see
25 whether there was any substance to those reports. We stayed -- we
1 established contact -- Jean-Rene Ruez established contact. I was a
2 member of that group of four. He was the primary person. He established
3 contact with the SDB in Tuzla, and we began to review statements that the
4 police had been collecting from people who had been streaming out of the
5 enclave, many of them by foot.
6 My recollection is that we stayed there for about one month. I
7 then came back, and another team of investigators flew to Tuzla and began
8 conducting interviews with survivors of the mass executions.
9 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that in 1995 you did not establish any
10 kind of contacts in order to obtain intercepts? I asked you when was the
11 first time that you established contacts in order to obtain the
12 intercepts. These were other investigative actions that you mentioned.
13 Thank you.
14 A. At the time in July of 1995, Jean-Rene Ruez asked the SDB whether
15 there were intercepted communications. There were rumours that there
16 were. As we've discussed, we weren't given access to that material until
17 March of 1998. So in the interim period, Jean-Rene Ruez made several
18 requests, mostly verbal, to the SDB with whom he had established a
19 relationship, and certainly I also knew people there in the context of
20 mostly witnesses and ongoing investigative activities, but it wasn't
21 until the spring of 1998 that we began to receive material, intercepted
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I at this point in time put a question to the
25 Ms. Frease, could you help me. At the beginning of the
1 examination by Mr. Tolimir this afternoon, you explained that you worked
2 for the Tribunal, for the OTP, between 1998 and 2000. Now you're telling
3 us that you have been in the region in 1995 already. Could you explain
4 that to us. When did you start to work for the OTP, and what happened
5 from the first beginning up to 1998, so that we have it clear on the
7 THE WITNESS: I began to work for the Tribunal in April of 1995,
8 and my employment with the Tribunal continued until July of 2000. I
9 think the confusion arose around when I began to work on the intercepted
10 communication, which was in 1998. But prior to that time I had
11 uninterrupted employment with the OTP and worked for a large portion of
12 that time on the Srebrenica investigation.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That clarifies the
15 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In the period that the President asked you about, did you have
19 any contacts with persons who had any kind of connection or anything to
20 do with the intercepted conversations in the Army of the Federation of
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
22 A. By that I assume you mean the period from 1995 to the spring of
23 1998. And the answer is no, I did not.
24 Q. Thank you. Did you bring anything at the time for the needs of
25 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning any kind of technical
1 equipment or expendable material? Thank you.
2 A. No. We had no contact -- I had no contact with the Army of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina until we had contact with them specifically with
4 respect to the intercepted communication.
5 Q. Thank you. Since you were the main bearer of that task, could
6 you please tell us who was the person that you got in touch with first,
7 and when did this contact take place for the first time?
8 A. I would like to clarify that it was Jean-Rene Ruez who made a
9 request to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't remember
10 whether it was to the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or it was to the SDB in
11 late 1997 to have access to the radio intercepts. At that time I was not
12 involved in the radio intercepts, and it was unclear, even when we first
13 got the first 550 pages, that greenish-blue binder that we saw a
14 photograph of on Wednesday, that I would be involved in the project. It
15 was not clear from the beginning. So I think your question is slightly
16 misstated in that I became involved in the project after it was already
17 going. So in April I was introduced to the people that the previous team
18 had met and established contact with.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us when you established contact
20 for the first time and with whom, and from which command of the B and H
21 Army in order to obtain the radio intercepts? Was it an official contact
22 or a private contact? Thank you.
23 A. My work with the Tribunal always went through official contacts,
24 and the contact was with the 2nd Corps. We met with -- I believe we met
25 with the commander of the 2nd Corps at the time, and then we met with the
1 person who was in charge of the intelligence unit at the time. I could
2 mention names if that's necessary. I don't know whether we're doing that
3 in this session or not.
4 Q. Thank you. These are public figures who were at that post at the
5 time in the federation -- in the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina, so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to mention their
7 names in these proceedings. Thank you.
8 A. I'm afraid of getting the rank wrong, so I won't mention the
9 rank. I'll just mention the name. Budakovic and I believe it was
10 Colonel Sevko Tihic. From there, then, once we established the official
11 contact at the appropriate level, then we were given access to
12 lower-level majors and others who were actually involved in the hands-on
13 radio communication interception.
14 Q. Thank you. Are you able to say for the transcript, without
15 referring to names, what type of contact was established with the
16 intelligence unit of the 2nd Corps and your team, the team of the OTP?
17 Thank you.
18 A. It was professional contact. We were taken to the two sites.
19 They explained to us what they did at those sites and in general terms
20 how they worked.
21 Q. Thank you. And perhaps we can just leave aside this situation in
22 Tuzla and the 2nd Corps, and you can tell us whether the OTP, at the time
23 when you were processing the radio intercepts, requested to talk with the
24 intelligence service that was dealing with the intercepts from the United
25 States, Great Britain, France, those intelligence services who had their
1 presence in the theatre also where your investigators were. Thank you.
2 A. I don't know whether any of this is confidential. We attempted
3 to establish contact with the United States on this subject, but we
4 didn't get very far. My recollection is that they were able to confirm a
5 few of the code-names, Panorama, Badem, Palma, that sort of thing, but
6 nothing more. Or maybe I should say unwilling.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you need to verify the reliability of this
8 material through some foreign intelligence services that had their
9 electronic surveillance aircraft or troops in the area where the activity
10 was going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Thank you.
11 A. We weren't able to verify the reliability through the means that
12 you mention. However, we were able to verify the reliability in other
13 ways, which we've discussed over the last few days. I would add that the
14 additional information that we've received from Croatia further
15 corroborates the material that we've been working with over the last many
17 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us whether you felt there was a
18 need for purposes of reliability of some material which was incomplete or
19 you could not verify in any other way to have other similar material
20 either from other intelligence services that were in the area and that
21 were present in the airwaves with their electronic listening devices?
22 Thank you.
23 A. I agree that that would have been optimal, but as you know and as
24 we've discussed, it's -- radio intercepted communication is really highly
25 valued and highly protected by intelligence services, so we weren't able
1 to, at the time, get that sort of corroboration from other intelligence
2 services. Nonetheless, we were able to authenticate the material that we
3 did receive, and by testing it in many ways also consider it reliable.
4 Q. Thank you. We talked about the reliability and authenticity and
5 the completeness, and we will talk about this with specific documents in
6 mind, but what I'm asking is whether it would be desirable in the work of
7 an analyst to see this process, how it was conducted by other parties to
8 check whether all the information is present with all sources who were
9 doing the same kind of thing, because other users also were collecting
10 this information. For example, NATO was overseeing the electronic
11 surveillance, so if anyone established communications, they would monitor
12 the communications and then they would impose no-flight bans and were
13 recording everything. So were you able to check your material by
14 checking with this kind of information sources? Did you try to contact
15 anyone, you or the OTP, of those who were engaged on the monitoring of
16 this type of material? Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to hear the answer and then
18 Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President, we're getting into an
20 area of Rule 70 now.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's something different. Please continue.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah. I apologise. We -- it's very possible we
23 are making -- we make Rule 70 requests to many governments. As you're
24 aware, we make Rule 70 requests on these topics, and the actual request
25 is -- is something that, you know, I think we've gone into that and she's
1 answered it, but any more detail than this and we may be getting into
2 responses to such, and that is something that I -- I'm sorry to take out
3 of turn, but I need to protect the record for because we need to protect
4 Rule 70.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is the Defence aware of the conditions of this
6 state made by your -- for your application?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Given our -- our communication with the Defence
8 is not always as thorough as it could be, I think the Defence understands
9 the Rule 70 aspect of the aerial images because that's been a matter that
10 has -- and I apologise to Judge Nyambe, that has been a matter that's
11 been litigated over and over again and is part of the record, and there's
12 been objections that have been made.
13 And as for areas related to intercepted conversations, it's --
14 there is no history of that. I have not had any discussions with
15 Mr. Gajic about that, and, frankly, I can't remember if there even is a
16 history at this point, but it's just a sensitive area and I think it's
17 something that we need to take into consideration.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: I've just got one question for Mr. McCloskey. Why
19 you're apologising to me in particular?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I was apologising when I was -- I noticed I was
21 talking behind the pole and looking at Judge Fluegge. So I realised that
22 I was accidentally excising you out, so that's why I --
23 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- pushed my head around the pole. I'm sorry
25 about that.
1 JUDGE NYAMBE: Welcome to the other side of the pillar.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Only I was in a position to see your body
4 language, and therefore Judge Nyambe couldn't realise what you were
5 referring to.
6 Mr. Tolimir, I think the position of the Prosecution is quite
7 clear. You should take into account that there might and problem for the
8 witness if she got into an area which is related to Rule 70 material
9 provided by another state, but please carry on and try to find out what
10 is possible to obtain.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It's
12 sufficient for us when the Prosecutor replies instead of the witness,
13 because that is also entered into the transcript. If I put some
14 questions to the witness that they are unable to answer but they are --
15 they know the answer, then I kindly ask that they request a closed
16 session so that they can answer the question.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I'm going to ask you do you need a private or closed session in
19 order to be able to answer some of the questions that I put to you
20 previously? Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm afraid that would not help very much because
22 if a state or an entity made such a condition pursuant to Rule 70 not to
23 give the information, the source or other things, then the Chamber and
24 the Defence or anybody else in this Tribunal will not be able in the
25 position to receive this information. This is the problem. It's not the
1 problem of open or closed session but the problem is at all we are
2 allowed to get this information. Mr. Tolimir.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President. It's sufficient for me
4 for the witness to say whether she is aware of any Rule 70 limitations,
5 and if she's unable to answer the question. What is important to me is
6 for the witness to say whether she did not or did use any other material
7 or sources from other intelligence entities in order to verify the radio
8 intercepts that she was working on. Thank you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm convinced Ms. Frease is aware of the line she
10 isn't allowed to pass. Therefore, please carry on with your answer to
11 this question.
12 THE WITNESS: In 1998, I believe it was the end of 1998, we tried
13 to obtain additional information, as I mentioned before, from the United
14 States. However, we didn't receive very much in return. In the meantime
15 and during my present testimony, we have discussed intercepted
16 communication that has come from Croatia and also from another source
17 from which we heard audiotapes and transcripts. So all of this further
18 reaffirms my confidence in the material that we received in 1998.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It is
20 not my intention to ask for anything that I do not need in order to put
21 my case.
22 Q. Could we please look at P787, please, in e-court. We are
23 familiar with this document. It's already an exhibit. We can see it
24 now. It is dated the 24th of July, 1995, sent by chief of SDB sector to
25 the Military Security Service Department of the 2nd Corps. So they
1 received this from him.
2 In the transcript, page 5000, lines 5 and 20, in answer to one of
3 the questions, you said as follows, and the question was put by
4 Judge Nyambe:
5 "In your previous testimony you said that Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 had certain reservations or tried to refuse handing over certain
7 material," and you answered affirmatively.
8 She asked you why you think that they had that position. Your
9 answer was that.
10 "... in 1995 the war was still ongoing and intercepted radio
11 communication is a sensitive issue. That type of intelligence
12 information is considered a jewel in the crown. They used that material
13 in realtime to forward it to their command posts or to protect their
14 personnel, or they conveyed what they deemed relevant. At that time, we
15 had still not established relations with them, and because the war was
16 ongoing, I believe it was understandable that they were reserved and
17 resisting the hand-over of such sensitive material to people they did not
18 know who may leak that material, in which case their crucial interests
19 may come in jeopardy."
20 That was on page 5000. Do you remember saying something to that
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we are running out of time with the
24 first session. I think we need the first break now, and we will resume
25 20 minutes past 4.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You were able to read the document. Have I correctly quoted you
7 concerning your previous testimony?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The document we have on the screen states that the material needs
10 to be sent immediately. The date is the 24th July, 1995. The document
11 is compiled by the SDB, which was authorised to contact international
12 organisations and bodies within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 They say that materials should be forwarded to you immediately in order
14 to have a file created.
15 Does this reflect what you said before the Trial Chamber, or is
16 this about something else?
17 A. I hadn't seen these documents before the Popovic trial, and what
18 this is is a request from the Ministry of Interior, the service -- the
19 SDB, the service that we first made contact with, and it's a request from
20 them to the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina asking the 2 Corps command to hand
21 over radio intercepts to us. So it affirms what I said before, that we
22 had knowledge, we had heard that they were radio intercepts. We had
23 asked for them from the police, but we had never received them, and I
24 didn't know until the Popovic trial that these requests had been made by
25 the police to the military. The military made a decision not to hand
1 over anything to us until 1998.
2 Q. Thank you. For the transcript, can you tell us whether
3 immediately after the events in Srebrenica, as early as July, for example
4 the 24th of July as in this document, when I was in Zepa, there was an
5 order requesting that intercept material be handed over to the
6 Prosecutor's office by Bosnian authorities. Have any such orders been
7 issued at the time?
8 A. We have this request in front of us, but as I said, I wasn't
9 aware of any formal requests or, as you call them, orders at the time.
10 Q. Thank you. You weren't aware of it, but can you tell us for the
11 record whether they indeed received a request for the material to be
12 handed over to you?
13 A. Whether the military received a request? I don't know. I wasn't
14 in the military. I mean, from this document it appears that they did
15 receive it.
16 Q. Therefore, they were requested to hand over the documents to you.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Was this done by the most senior official from the
19 State Security Service?
20 A. As far as I know, the gentleman who signed this order was the
21 highest authority in Tuzla from the SDB, from the police.
22 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that this SDB representative had free
23 field to play on to provide you the material with a level playing field,
24 or did he have to turn to the army for that?
25 A. This document shows that he turned to the army for that.
1 Q. Thank you. But since he turned to the army, would it not have
2 been logical for him to provide the SDB material as well in addition to
3 the army material, because I believe you relied on SDB material as well.
4 A. Yes. And in fact, we did not receive material from the SDB until
5 May of 1999. We did not know that the SDB was working at the same site
6 as 2 Corps until May of 1999, until we began to interview the intercept
7 operators. My recollection is that -- my recollection is that the
8 explanation that was given at the time was that the SDB was intercepting
9 communication on radio frequency 836 and that it was therefore a sort of
10 higher-level radio intercept -- that they were higher-level radio
11 intercepts and that the material that they thought would be more valuable
12 was the stuff that the lower -- the material that was being intercepted
13 on the different frequencies that the military was focusing on.
14 Q. Thank you. Have a look at the last sentence. I'll quote:
15 "We need the audio material in order to create a file which will
16 be handed over to the International Tribunal in The Hague."
17 What does that sentence tell us? That the SDB is asking for
18 material to create a file which in turn was supposed to be forwarded to
19 you. Yes or no?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. You, as Tribunal representatives, or perhaps someone
22 from your team, had you already sent a request to B and H organs for the
23 hand-over of such material prior to this document, or was this done of
24 their own accord?
25 A. I believe that this would have been -- this would have had to
1 have been done of their own accord because we had arrived in Tuzla a
2 couple of days earlier.
3 Q. Thank you. When did Mr. Ruez ask for that material, and when did
4 you get information of that material's existence?
5 A. I don't remember when Mr. Ruez made formal requests, RFAs, right,
6 requests for information, regarding the radio intercepts. There is
7 reference to a request having been made in late 1997 in which we -- my
8 prepositions are messed up. Just a minute. And for which or as a result
9 of which we then got access to the material in March of 1998.
10 Q. Thank you. Since you reviewed all that material, is there a
11 document in the OTP that is being kept by the OTP that had been sent to B
12 and H authorities requesting all material pertaining to war crimes which
13 actually served as the basis for any ongoing discussions about the fate
14 of such material?
15 A. The OTP made ongoing requests for information, so I wouldn't be
16 able to point to just one request. It was also a procedure that was
17 being established, the idea of requests for information, requests for
18 assistance. In 1995, of course, the Tribunal was still quite new and was
19 establishing its own internal procedures about how to request information
20 from governments.
21 Q. Thank you. You said that you were the head of team concerning
22 the intercepts and the processing of those intercepts and that you
23 started working in 1995. Does that mean that somewhere in your archives
24 there should be a request sent to the B and H organs, and did you ever
25 invoke that request at a later point in time?
1 We see on this document that it was sent in July 1995, and you
2 say that you received SDB material as late as 1999, in May, and in 1998
3 you received material from the Army of B and H. Can you explain to us
4 why the time gap?
5 A. I think it's important to remember that Jean-Rene Ruez was the
6 team leader and that the requests for information were mostly initiated
7 by him and going through him and information coming back to him.
8 I started working on the intercepts, as we've already mentioned
9 several times, in the spring of 1998, but that I was first involved in
10 the investigation in July of 1995.
11 I believe we looked at a document that Jean-Rene Ruez wrote that
12 goes through the chronology of when requests were made for the
13 intercepts, both verbally and then in writing, and that would have been
14 something that he would have done and that I was not responsible for
16 Q. Thank you. That is clear to me, but I'm asking you this: Did
17 you as part of your file have a document in terms of requesting material
18 that you subsequently analysed, and did you try to conclude why the
19 material was not incoming, whereas at the same time the whole world was
20 talking about Srebrenica and what happened there?
21 A. Such a document would have been in the team files. I don't
22 remember having any such specific document.
23 Q. Thank you. Let's have a look at an e-court document. It is
24 P788. Thank you. We can see it now in Serbian and in English. It is
25 very brief.
1 It is noteworthy to look at the document. It is dated 18 August
2 1995, and the title is: "Provision of Materials for the International
3 Tribunal, Instruction." It was signed by Chief Brigadier General
4 Jusuf Jasarevic who was Chief of the Main Staff of the Army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He is sending this to the 2nd Corps command. He
7 "We have been informed through the Sarajevo MUP SDB that in their
8 document 7-1022 of 24 July 1995, the Tuzla SDB requested audio recordings
9 from you regarding incidents linked with Srebrenica. Since the
10 recordings requested are very important to the dossier being formed for
11 the International War Crimes Tribunal it is essential that these
12 materials be provided to the Tuzla SDB sector."
13 Signed by chief Brigadier General Jusuf Jasarevic.
14 We see that this was the military intelligence service
15 administration of the General Staff of the Army of Bosnia and
17 My question is this: Is this not another document which clearly
18 indicates that in July and August all bodies of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
19 including the army, the staff, and the state security service worked
20 actively on the creation of that file and seeking material from the
21 2nd Corps, whereupon they did not receive that audio material which they
22 specifically asked for? Yes or no?
23 A. Well, I can't say that they worked specifically on the file.
24 This is a document that's created by, as you said, you know, the Army of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I think you need to ask them.
1 The first time that I saw this document was also in the Popovic
2 case. I was completely unfamiliar with the previous document and this
3 document until -- until they were presented, I think, in the
4 cross-examination during the Popovic case.
5 Q. Thank you. As an analyst, is it clear to you that these two
6 documents indicate that the organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as early as
7 July and August 1995, worked on the creation of the file, asking for the
8 audio material to be received from the 2nd Corps; yes or no?
9 A. I'm uncomfortable with the term that they "worked on creation of
10 the file." I understand that you're taking it from the last sentence of
11 the previous document. I mean, my understanding and my interpretation of
12 that previous document was that the SDB at the time was trying to assist
13 the Tribunal in providing information that would be useful in its
14 investigation of the alleged crimes that took place in Srebrenica during
15 the fall of the enclave. So this document -- let me backtrack. This
16 document is a response, clearly, to the first document that you showed in
17 which the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Main Staff, is asking 2 Corps
18 to hand over material to the SDB in order for the SDB to hand over
19 material to the Office of the Prosecutor.
20 Q. Thank you. Does the author of this document, Jusuf Jasarevic,
21 referring to the document of the 24th of July, 1995?
22 A. We can go back to the first document to double-check the numbers,
23 but certainly it refers to a document on the 24th of July. I don't
24 remember off the top of my head whether it is -- whether that document
25 number was 7-1022 as is indicated here. My guess is that it would be.
1 Q. Thank you. If you need to see it, can we please have these two
2 documents shown to you in e-court. That would be P787 as well as this
3 document that we're looking at now on the left-hand side. Actually, we
4 can see it now, and we can see where it says with its document 7-1022,
5 dated 24 of July, 1995, and then at the top in the heading we can see
6 that same number, the 24th of July. You can see 7-1022 --
7 A. It looks like there's also a J behind it; right? In the original
8 document 7-1022J, maybe? Anyway, yes, the same numbers.
9 Q. Well, it doesn't really matter for us to establish that. What I
10 would like you to say is whether there was a will, because you couldn't
11 say whether you know or don't know, but was there a will among the state
12 security organs and the military security organs to provide the materials
13 to the Tribunal? Yes or no? Thank you. Can that be seen on the basis
14 of these documents? Thank you.
15 A. Yes.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. Since there was a will both on the part of the State
19 Security Service as well as the intelligence security organs of the B and
20 H Army, can you please then say why this material was not provided to you
21 until 1998 and May 1999, as you mentioned a little bit earlier? Thank
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this question
25 has been put to the witness already on a number of occasions. She's
1 already answered it, and I don't see that we're getting anywhere by
2 re-putting the question to the witness on the basis of this document or
3 any other document. She referred specifically to the note that -- that
4 was prepared by Mr. Ruez in relation to requests that were made and in
5 relation to the responses that were had as a result -- in relation to
6 this material, and I don't know that asking the question again is going
7 to produce a different answer.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to hear the answer, maybe very
9 brief, but without any further repetitions.
10 THE WITNESS: I do not know why this material was not produced
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you it. Carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Witness, it's very important for you to clearly state for the
16 transcript whether you know why did you establish that in your analysis,
17 why you did not receive these documents at the time this initiative was
18 started by the organs that you requested the documents from, why did it
19 take three years for this to happen? Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, now I think this is really a
21 repetition. The witness stated several times that she was involved
22 analysing this material in 1998 and not earlier and was not responsible
23 for that, and especially about the reasons why the -- the army and the
24 MUP in Bosnia was not responding earlier, she says very clearly she
25 doesn't know, and therefore I think it's not the appropriate witness
1 to -- to maintain this information. You should perhaps wait for another
2 witness who could help you with this information. Please, not again the
3 same question, but carry on.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
5 thought that this witness knew why it did not receive something that was
6 requested and that initiative was launched to receive this document, so
7 in the beginning I quoted what the witness thinks why this material was
8 not handed over, but the witness said that they were willing. There was
9 a will for them to hand it over. This is what I am trying to show. If
10 you have something, you hand it over. If you don't, then you are not
11 able to hand it over. Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This witness was not working for the Army of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina but for the Prosecutor's office, and she said very
14 clearly several times that she doesn't know. I think you should leave it
15 like it is and move to another topic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Now
17 we're going to look at Exhibit P789, if possible. Can we look at it in
19 We will not force the witness to say anything. It's enough for
20 her to say yes or no. I mean that constitutes an answer as far as I'm
21 concerned. Thank you.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. We can see up on the screen a document of the 2nd Corps command,
25 the security department that had this material, these radio intercepts,
1 in their possession. The document speaks about all initial documents,
2 requesting them to hand over the audio material. And if you can look in
3 the second paragraph of the document, they say:
4 "In accordance with the above, we request that you make a
5 selection among your audio recordings relating to the fall of Srebrenica
6 which contain data relating to war crimes and the crimes of genocide by
7 the aggressor against the inhabitants of the so-called 'safe area.' We
8 request that you submit this to us so that we can forward it to the Tuzla
9 CSB - SDB Tuzla in compliance with the above requests."
10 So you can see that this date, actually this document was sent as
11 early as August, and that in the last sentence it states:
12 "We request that you act upon with this document as soon as
13 possible in order for us to fulfil the aforementioned tasks in a timely
15 My question is: As an analyst, did you take note of this second
16 paragraph where a selection of audio material is being requested? What
17 does this selection mean according to you? What is that supposed to
18 refer to? Thank you.
19 A. I also saw this document for the first time during the Popovic
20 trial, and I guess my answer in part is the same, that I'm not sure I'm
21 the right person to -- to be asking this to. In 1998, it's true that we
22 received a selection of material in that blue binder, those 550 pages.
23 It could be that that's the kind of selection that they're referring to
24 here, but again it -- I'm not a member of the -- haven't ever been a
25 member of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and so I'm not exactly sure
1 what that means, but it could -- it could mean something like what I just
3 Q. Thank you. You were investigator relating to the materials that
4 were provided to you. As an investigator, did you ask yourself whether a
5 selection was given to you of material that the Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 Army felt the Prosecution should or shouldn't know, and could that be the
7 outcome, and could that affect the reliability of this document in view
8 of this collection of documents, in view of the fact that a selection was
9 made as to what would be included or not in the binder? Thank you.
10 A. Yes. We took that very seriously, and that was why it was so
11 important that we receive the notebooks, all of the notebooks, and that
12 we with be allowed to go through them thoroughly, from cover to cover,
13 conversation to conversation. It was also the reason that it was
14 important for us to receive all of the electronic versions of the
15 conversations, so that we felt that we were getting a complete record of
16 what had been transcribed.
17 Q. Thank you. We also saw the last time at the end that these
18 electronic transcripts or records were incomplete. Does this, too, raise
19 some doubts about the material having been processed in a -- in an
20 appropriate way suiting the interests of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
21 and then in turn presented to you as material that you requested? Thank
23 A. The notebooks were certainly complete. That's something that I
24 can talk about because I worked on those for a long period of time. The
25 electronic records came later for me. I cannot say with a hundred per
1 cent certainty that we received all of them. I believe that we did, but
2 I would need to review the files completely to be able to give you a
3 thorough answer.
4 Q. Thank you. You have looked at these three documents of the
5 B and H Army that we pulled up on the screen and which you seen before in
6 an earlier trial, and you can see that there was a will among all the
7 organs to provide these documents, but still you did not receive them?
8 What I'm asking you now is this: Did you inquire about the
9 technical and personnel resources at the disposal of the SDB? For
10 example, did they have an audio-recording lab, and how much time did they
11 need in order to make this selection of material? Thank you.
12 A. There's -- I'd like you to clarify your question a little bit
13 because there are a couple of different issues inside of it. One of them
14 has to do with the material that was provided by the military, by the
15 army, and the other is a question about the SDB. So could you break your
16 question down for me, please.
17 Q. The army provided you with material in 1998, as you stated in
18 your previous testimony, and the MUP provided material to you in May
19 1999; is this correct? Thank you.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you can see by the documents that we just looked at that the
22 MUP was actually supposed to provide this material to you and take it
23 from the army, because they were given the assignment of compiling and
24 putting together this audio material. It talks about audio material. So
25 I'm asking you whether you know what the equipment and personnel
1 resources were at the disposal of the State Security Service. Did they
2 have an audio lab in this period when the request for material was
3 submitted to the time when the material was actually submitted to you in
4 1998 and 1999? Thank you.
5 A. What I know is that the SDB was working from the northern site
6 during the time in question. I do not know about their lab facilities.
7 Q. Thank you. If necessary, I can break down my question even
8 further, but here is a sub-question: Do you know what the duties of the
9 State Security Service are and what kind of assignments or jobs does it
10 carry out? Thank you.
11 A. I don't know in great detail, no.
12 Q. Thank you. Can you see from these three documents that the army
13 was supposed to provide the State Security Service with the material that
14 is referred to here as audio recordings or radio intercepts by name? Yes
15 or no?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And is it evident from these three documents that the
18 army did that, that it acted pursuant to the request and handed this
19 material over to the MUP? Is that clear from these three documents?
20 Thank you.
21 A. No.
22 Q. Have you noted that the military commander -- commanders was
23 asking the corps command to hand over this material to the State Security
24 Service? Yes or no?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. And have you noted from the documents that the State
2 Security Service is asking for the same thing so that we would be able to
3 form a dossier or a file? I think I read that sentence to you earlier.
4 Thank you.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. And did you look into how much of the material was in
7 the possession of the SDB that they used to form this dossier, and why
8 did they then give it back to the army, and why was it the army that
9 handed this material over to you and not the SDB, which was supposed to
10 hand it over to you?
11 So my question is why did the State Security Service deviate from
12 that last sentence and return the material to the Army of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina handed this
14 material over to you instead of the SDB? Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'd like to hear the answer, because I'm pretty
16 sure that this witness is able to answer the question.
17 THE WITNESS: I actually wanted to call your attention to
18 something in the documents that we looked at yesterday, and this goes to
19 the question. The -- at the first site, at the northern site, the SDB
20 and the military shared information. So the SDB would provide its
21 information to the military, and the military would then forward it to
22 its command. The SDB also forwarded it to -- forwarded its own
23 information to its own command.
24 Now, my memory is a little hazy on the information that the -- I
25 believe that there was a complete exchange of information between these
1 two bodies. So what you will see in, for example, tab 4 or tab 5 of that
2 binder that we looked at Wednesday afternoon, is that the heading on it
3 says "Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina 2 Corps," but the actual agency that
4 recorded the conversation was the SDB in Tuzla.
5 I believe that the answer that we got when we asked this question
6 was that the SDB felt that it was because a lot of the material was not
7 their own that they did not have the right to hand over military
8 intercepts to the OTP without the military's consent.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. We've seen in the document P788 that the Brigadier
11 General, the chief, Jusuf Jasarevic, agreed. He gave the permission for
12 the military documents to be handed over to the state security. We saw
13 that in the document. And we've also seen in the first document that the
14 state security said that they were the ones to form the dossier was
15 supposed to be handed over. I read to you the last sentence which was
16 quite important. And we saw from your answer now that the DB had this
17 material. So there was a request for something that they already had.
18 Now, please tell me why did the DB hand you over this material in
19 May 1999 and why did the army provide you with their material in 1998,
20 and in these three years, from 1995 to 1998, was the material being
21 processed perhaps by the state security, if they had a lab or something
22 like that? Thank you. Did you look into that particular question?
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks, Mr. President. I'm on my feet again and
25 the reason is because in this last question there are about five
1 questions. One is why did the state security agency act one way, why did
2 the army act another way, why didn't they turn the information over
3 immediately. And I think it would be more helpful and perhaps more
4 efficient if Mr. Tolimir could put his questions one at a time to the
5 witness so that she can fairly understand them and answer them.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness asked earlier for a break-up of a
7 long and detailed question.
8 THE WITNESS: I think, though, to this last series of questions,
9 really, I don't feel as if I'm the right person to answer the question,
10 because I didn't work -- I -- I was outside of this whole process, and I
11 don't know the answer to the question. I don't know why it didn't
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I'm not asking you to say why this didn't happen. I'm asking you
17 whether you looked into the matter of these materials not being handed to
18 you for three years, and did you look into that and could that perhaps
19 reflect on the reliability and the authenticity of the material? Did you
20 investigate that? I'm not asking you to answer. Thank you.
21 A. I only learned about these documents during the Popovic trial
22 when I was in -- on cross-examination. So the answer is no, I didn't
23 look into them because I didn't even know that the documents existed.
24 Q. Thank you. As an investigator with a priority of dealing with
25 documents that are authentic and reliable, can you please say whether the
1 actions of the B and H authorities regarding this recorded material gives
2 rise to any kind of doubts that something was done with that material
3 since it was not handed over to you immediately, because it took three
4 years before the material was actually handed over to you. Thank you.
5 A. I understand your point. Having been through the material as
6 much as I have been, I do not have any doubt about the authenticity and
7 the reliability of the material. It would be -- it might be good to know
8 the reason for the delay, but the delay, in my view, again having worked
9 with the material as much as I have and also having seen new material
10 coming in from other agencies that corroborates this material, I still
11 have no doubt in its authenticity and its reliability.
12 Q. Thank you. We looked at an audio recording yesterday that went
13 along with that transcript, and we can see that that transcript of that
14 audio recording is missing certain sentences after which I would like --
15 after which Judge Nyambe put a question to you. Do you recall that or
16 not? Thank you.
17 A. I would like to be sure that we're talking about the same thing.
18 I think it was tab 4 in the binder where Judge Nyambe addressed the
19 Prosecutor and said that she was having a hard time following the
20 transcript and the audio translation. Is that correct? So --
21 Q. Yes. Thank you. That's right.
22 A. So that's an example of a situation where the SDB in Tuzla - and
23 I'll refer to tab 4, I have it in front of me - where the SDB in Tuzla
24 makes a notation at the beginning of the conversation that they are only
25 able to hear one side of the conversation. So they have recorded the
1 conversation of the person designated as X, who is a VRS military
2 officer, and that transcript only goes through what X is saying.
3 When we looked at the notes recorded by the UN, by
4 Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter, his notes indicated, I would say, five
5 different points reflected in five separate paragraphs. In the
6 conversation that the SDB recorded, because they could only hear one side
7 of the conversation, that is the VRS military officer, only points 2 and
8 5 are reflected in the transcript of that conversation. However, if you
9 go to the final transcript, the one where both sides can be heard, then
10 in that conversation you will find reflected points 1 through 5 as are
11 reflected in the notes of Lieutenant-Colonel De Ruiter.
12 Does that help explain how it's possible that there are parts
14 Q. Thank you. It is clear to me why there are parts missing
15 concerning those participants who were not members of the VRS. Whenever
16 UNPROFOR representatives were being recorded, we see that one end is
17 missing. For example, the VRS officers who took part. However, we could
18 hear later on the audio recording that what Mr. Y is saying is also heard
19 well, but this is not found in the DB report.
20 Does it not tell you that the DB itself made decisions on what
21 would make part of the transcript or not and whether such a transcript
22 can then be considered authentic and reliable?
23 A. I think we'd have to go through a specific example in order to
24 concretely discuss that point. It's certainly possible that a word,
25 words, or a sentence could be missing. It depends, of course, how many
1 times you listen to an audiotape. I have had the opportunity to listen
2 to audiotapes and to try to transcribe them, and it's very difficult and
3 takes a high level of skill to do. There were also times when the SDB
4 just made a summary of a conversation.
5 In all of the analysis that I've done, however, I never -- I have
6 not come across situations where there are serious substantive
7 differences between the various recordings or transcriptions of
8 conversations, whether those were done by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
9 whether they were done by the SDB in Tuzla, whether they were done by the
10 Croatians, or as reflected in the new audiotapes that we've listened to.
11 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you saw that the Prosecutor, during
12 examination-in-chief, played an audio recording to us, and up to a
13 certain point we were able to follow. Later on, a few sentences were
14 missing from the text, and then after the few missing sentences, the
15 transcript continues, and the SDB provided you with that as an authentic
16 and reliable document, whereas we can all see that it misses important
17 informations. There are three or four sentences missing, making it
18 unreliable and unauthentic. This is the specific example I had in mind.
19 My question is this: Is there a possibility that the SDB carried
20 out their selection in precisely that way when they selected what would
21 be made part of the transcript based on the audio recordings they had?
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to hear the answer first and then --
23 [microphone not activated].
24 THE WITNESS: I think I would feel more comfortable if you could
25 reference the specific audio that you're mentioning here so that we're
1 all sure that we're talking about the same thing.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The reason I'm on my
4 feet, Mr. President, is that we have a somewhat confusing situation here
5 as put by the -- as indicated in the question put by Mr. Tolimir. What
6 we had on Wednesday when the audio was played was a tape recording, a
7 transcript of that tape recording, and a transcript completely separate
8 from that recording that's done by the SDB. So we had two transcripts
9 and a tape. And in terms of what was missing from one transcript or
10 another is not clear in the question that Mr. Tolimir has -- has put to
11 the witness insofar as there were two, and I assume based in the context
12 that he's talking about the SDB transcript, which was -- which contains,
13 as is indicated in the transcript itself, only one side of the
14 conversation which was heard on a separate tape. That is a tape
15 different from the tape from the -- that the SDB used to compose their
17 So that's the -- that's the essence of the objection, is the
18 question is unclear, and if Mr. Tolimir can put a more clear question to
19 the witness I think we can get a little bit further and faster.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone, please.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness asked to see the
24 transcript. It is tab 4. It is dated the 9th of July. It is a DB
25 document. We were able to follow the whole audio recording up to the
1 fifteenth line. It was identical, whereas in line 15 an entire paragraph
2 is missing, which could be heard well on the recording. And we could
3 hear the person on the other end of the line for whom the SDB claimed
4 could not hear -- could not be heard.
5 Q. My question is this: Could the SDB say they could not hear
6 someone, whereas we are unable to ascertain whether that is true? Was
7 such a possibility in existence when you judged the authenticity and
8 reliability of such documents?
9 A. We are talking about two different things here. One of them is
10 the fact that on the audio recording that we listened to yesterday under
11 tab 4 we could hear both sides of the conversation. That was a
12 completely separate recording from the SDB recording. Okay? The SDB
13 recording, we could only hear one side of -- we could only hear one side
14 of the conversation. Actually, we didn't hear it. We saw the transcript
15 of it.
16 But to go to your point about whether or not the SDB would have
17 selectively excised certain passages from material that it handed over,
18 my answer would be no. And the reason for my answer is that not just the
19 SDB but also the military, and not just the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 but also the Croats and also this other material that we have, that these
21 people are trained to be -- to essentially do the same work that a court
22 reporter is doing, or to do the same work that these simultaneous
23 interpreters are doing. They are highly skilled, and they are trained to
24 take down exactly what they hear; whether or not they agree with it,
25 whether or not they think it could have been said differently or better.
1 Their job is to record what they hear. And my experience in working with
2 this body of material is that that is what the people who were involved
3 with it did.
4 Now, whether or not a mistake is made on a transcript the same
5 way that a mistake can be made on this transcript of this court
6 proceeding, it's possible, but as a pattern, I would say no.
7 Q. Thank you for your answer. Having analysed the issue and seeing
8 that you are familiar with it, I would like you to tell us where those
9 people were trained, how, and who trained them.
10 A. I don't know. They received -- well, I know that some of them
11 received training internally during the war, during the conflict in
12 Bosnia. I mean, which schools they went to, I don't know. You'll have
13 to ask them.
14 Q. Thank you. I did. It's in the transcript. Let us now go back
15 to this to this issue. Have a look at the transcript on page 4 of this
16 tab. You say that the DB could not hear one of the collocutors, whereas
17 in line 16 they could. It seems that when the DB wants to hear, they do.
18 How come they hear a person on one line and don't hear that person on the
19 next? And on the audio recording we could hear them all. Does it mean
20 that all of the words uttered by UN representatives were omitted and that
21 they only transmitted what one person said because it was caught on air?
22 And it is impossible that they could not hear one of the collocutors at
23 all. In line 16, for example, the person seems to be saying, "Okay." Do
24 you see that?
25 A. Yes. After the "Hello, hello. Okay"?
1 Q. Person X says, "Please repeat." And then the answer is: "Okay."
2 Or you can look at line 1 if it makes it easier while they're
3 establishing connection. One person says "Hello," or "Good morning," or
4 "Good afternoon," and so on.
5 My question is this: Since you analysed all of the transcripts,
6 did you notice that the DB never conveyed what an UNPROFOR representative
7 said or someone else engaged in a conversation with the members of the
8 army? Did you notice that or not, and if you did not, why is that?
9 A. Well, I mean if we just go to tab 5 --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While we do that, just for the sake of the
11 record, I think we need a clear and precise quotation, Mr. Tolimir. In
12 your question you said: "Then the -- there was the answer, "Okay." But
13 in the transcript we see -- saying X -- X saying, "Hello. I can't hear
14 anything. You'll have to repeat it all. I did not understand anything.
15 Could you please repeat that."
16 And then you said the answer was, "Okay." I don't see that in
17 the transcript. I see again X saying, "Okay."
18 I just wanted to quote that for the sake of the transcript. You
19 can't take it from this written document that one is the answer and one
20 is the question.
21 Would you like to add something, Ms. Frease?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, I just -- it's not -- it's not really
23 accurate that they only ever wrote down what the VRS were saying. I
24 mean, there are a number of examples here where that is true, but as
25 we've discussed, and as I'm sure you discussed with previous witnesses,
1 it's very -- it happened a lot that they could only hear one side of the
2 conversation. If you go to tab 10, there on that conversation they hear
3 both the interpreter and they hear General Tolimir. So it really had to
4 do with how they were able to pick up the conversation, how strong the
5 signal was coming in. I don't see that there would have been -- what
6 would the motivation have been to cut out what the UN was saying?
7 There's no -- I just -- I didn't find that as a pattern in the analysis
8 of this information.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I saw you on your feet.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. With respect to the first
11 issue, which is the passage that General Tolimir was referring to, that
12 is in the transcript. It's in the MUP transcript 9 July 1995. It's in
13 the second page behind the tab where it's one, two, three, four lines
14 down. You can see X say "Hello. I can't hear anything. You will have
15 to repeat it all. I didn't understand anything. Could you please repeat
16 that." And then immediately following that X says, "Okay." That's in
17 this transcript.
18 You can find that also in the full transcript, the separate
19 transcript of the -- of the tape that was the result of the seizure,
20 which is separate from the MUP -- from the MUP transcript that we've just
21 read. I think I can refer you to exactly where it is if you just give me
22 one second.
23 And you can see that on the second -- well, rather, on the first
24 page of that full transcript, that is the transcript of the seized
25 material that is not the MUP material. You can see the last line on that
1 page says, "Okay," and that's attributed to General Tolimir, who is X in
2 the other transcript. If you go to the line where General Tolimir's
3 speaking, just before that "Okay," you will see that it reads:
4 "I did not understand anything. Could you please repeat that."
5 And that corresponds exactly to the MUP transcript which
6 attributes those phrases to X.
7 The other issue that I wanted to address was General Tolimir's
8 assertion that you can only -- that the MUP have a practice of only
9 transcribing the VRS side of conversations and not the UNPROFOR side, and
10 the witness has already identified to the Court that that is not the case
11 for tab 10 in this binder of material, it's not the case for tab 11, and
12 it's not the case for tab 12 either, and in all three of these
13 conversations you can see both participants are recorded and transcribed
14 by the MUP. So I just wanted to clarify the record on that issue.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I have a problem with this
16 statement. You are not giving evidence.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Correct.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have everything on the record. We have the
19 binder with the tabs. We have seen that yesterday we have received the
20 documents. We can read it as well. I think we shall carry on.
21 Mr. Tolimir, your next question, please.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. My next question is if in a transcript there is 50 per cent of a
25 conversation missing when we cannot hear one person at all, can it be
1 considered reliable? Thank you.
2 A. The 50 per cent that is there can -- I think can be considered
4 Q. Thank you. And how did you ascertain the reliability as an
5 analyst, and how do you know what the other person who is heard is
6 answering? What is it in answer to, because the other person is not
7 heard. And we have a number of such examples.
8 A. Sure. We've talked about what reliability -- how reliability is
9 defined, how I define reliability, and it goes to the internal process of
10 how the conversations were recorded, the training of the operators, the
11 practices that were put in place, looking at the body of work and looking
12 for holes in it. So even if you can hear 50 per cent of the
13 conversation, that 50 per cent can be considered reliable.
14 Q. Thank you. The conversation you just saw in tab 4, in the
15 presence of another witness, was used to indicate how everything that
16 happened was my fault in Srebrenica and that I failed to do everything
17 asked of me by the collocutor, and yesterday in the transcript we could
18 see that this was not the case. Is it then reliable or is it not? Thank
20 A. It's difficult for me to comment on someone else's testimony. I
21 don't know what they said, and I don't know what the context is.
22 I'm here to talk about the radio intercepts as a whole and not to
23 talk about fault one way or the other.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to ask one question to clarify the
2 Have you made any investigation why on several occasions one
3 side, one person taking part in the conversation was not heard? Was
4 there any technical explanation for that? What could have been the
5 reason that sometimes you have record of both speakers and sometimes only
6 of one? Have you made any inquiries in that respect in your capacity as
7 member of the OTP?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. And especially when we were coming across, as
9 we have talked about, the various versions of the same conversation and
10 why is it that you can hear one, or you have both participants recorded
11 in one conversation and not in another, or why does one conversation
12 start in one place and one starts in another.
13 From a technical point of view with respect to the SDB and why it
14 was that at times they could hear both sides of conversation and other
15 times they could not, I did not ask that question. I don't know from a
16 technical standpoint why at times they could and why at times they could
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. Page 57, line 23, starting line 23,
20 General Tolimir --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 56 --
22 JUDGE NYAMBE: Fifty --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Fifty-five.
24 JUDGE NYAMBE: Fifty-five. All right. Starting with line 23.
25 There General Tolimir has asked you:
1 "The conversation you have just saw in tab 4, in the presence of
2 another witness, was used to indicate how everything that happened was my
3 fault," and it goes on, and your answer is -- okay. First I just want
4 some clarification. Are we talking about the tab 4 that we have with us
5 here that was given to us?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Your Honour, are you -- are you
7 putting the question to me?
8 JUDGE NYAMBE: I'm putting the question to somebody.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Well, then I'll answer it.
10 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that's what we're referring to. I
12 believe that's what General Tolimir was indicating.
13 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you. Now -- and your answer to that is,
14 "It's difficult for me to comment on someone else's testimony," and on
15 and on, but this is -- in my tab 4 is a document that was examined
16 yesterday. It refers to report number 521. You cannot comment?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't know what somebody's previous testimony was
18 with respect to this.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In order to conclude this, my question is as follows: Did you
24 inquire or research whether the SDB was actually selecting their material
25 to be put before the Tribunal and its investigators, and if you did --
1 sorry, and did the SDB after that return those documents to the army
2 which had originally sent the material to the SDB?
3 A. Okay. So the first part of the question has to do whether or not
4 we inquired or researched whether the SDB was actually selecting their
5 material to be put before the Tribunal.
6 Yes. We asked that all reports that the SDB recorded be handed
7 over to the ICTY. We stressed that point in July of 1999 when we took
8 possession of documents. Some documents were not provided. If you look
9 at the sequence of numbers, the sequence is not -- there are gaps in the
11 We stressed the importance of receiving everything and not a
12 selection. We -- what we received was a selection.
13 And the second part of the question I don't understand.
14 Q. Thank you. The second part of the question was: Did the SDB,
15 after selecting what it will give to the Tribunal and what it will not,
16 return the rest of the documents to the army and then the army gave you
17 those selected documents? Is that something that you looked into? Thank
19 A. No. The sequence in how you express it is not accurate.
20 Q. Thank you. I asked you whether the State Security Service
21 because it was tasked by all the authorised organs to make a selection of
22 the material. So after the selection did return the material to the army
23 and then the army handed the material over to you in 1998? And you can
24 reply whatever you like to that question.
25 A. I think it's important to make a separation between the three
1 documents that you mentioned, P788, P789, and whatever the -- maybe P787,
2 to make a separation between what was requested in those documents and
3 what happened with the Tribunal. In other words, we had direct contact
4 with the military. What military gave us we retained. We gave them back
5 copies of the tapes that they had handed over to us, but what the
6 military gave to us we retained. What the SDB gave to us we retained.
7 We had two separate relationships, one relationship with the
8 military and one relationship with the SDB. They shared information in
9 1995 that went into their respective reports. So we got duplicated
10 information from the various -- from the military and from the police.
11 Q. Thank you. Please, can you tell us for the transcript -- thank
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, earlier you said, "In order to
14 conclude this, my question as follows -- is as follows," and since then
15 quite a lot of time passed by. We are over time again. We have to take
16 our second break now, and we will resume at 20 minutes past 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 6.21 p.m.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please carry on.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. So that I don't have to put the question again, and I can if you
23 wish, but you still haven't answered it, so based on what you said
24 before, could you please say what was the year that you received this
25 material. You said you received it first from the army and then from the
1 SDB, but it's important for you to tell us for the transcript what year
2 you received what.
3 A. We received the material from the army beginning in March of
4 1998, and we received the material from the SDB in July of 1999.
5 Q. Thank you. My question is: Did you look into why the material
6 was handed over to you so late? Thank you.
7 A. I think Jean-Rene Ruez's memo might be the best reference for
8 this question. He had requested the material several times over the
9 course of the years, intervening years, and by the end of 1997 made
10 another request and it was granted so that a mission was planned in March
11 of 1998 during which time the first material was handed over from the
12 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina 2 Corps in Tuzla.
13 Q. Thank you. Of course we are going to look at this because you
14 asked for it, the memo by Mr. Ruez, but we can do it later. We don't
15 have time now. But if you can tell us whether you looked into, based on
16 what we said just now, and we saw those other three documents where all
17 the audio recordings were supposed to be handed over to the DB, why were
18 not the decisions by the authorised bodies respected and all the
19 documents handed over to the DB, and then why was this then handed back
20 to the army and the army handed you the material in 1998 and then the DB
21 handed it over to you later? Thank you.
22 A. I think you have you've mischaracterised this, and I also draw a
23 strong distinction between the three documents that you showed and the
24 chronology in which the OTP received the intercepted material.
25 I cannot make a connection between your statement, those letters,
1 and the reality of how are the OTP's relationship developed with the army
2 and with the SDB with respect to the hand-over of the intercepted
3 material. I believe I've gone through the chronology of how we received
4 the material, from whom, what, when. I am happy to go through it again,
5 but I cannot make a connection between the three documents from 1995,
6 from July and August of 1995, and the reality that we experienced in the
7 spring of 1998.
8 Q. Thank you. I'm not asking for your opinion. All I'm asking you
9 is whether you looked into it or not. For example, the first document I
10 read the last sentence to you where it says the DB says to the army on
11 the 24th of September:
12 "We need the audio recordings in order to form a dossier that
13 would be handed over to International Tribunal in The Hague."
14 You remember that probably. That is the first document. And
15 then the second document is the document of the main general in charge of
16 the security of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Main Staff of the
17 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Jusuf Jasarevic, in which he says that
18 according -- that the audio recording should be handed over to the MUP
19 for the file that is being formed for the International Tribunal. So he
20 also is aware that a dossier is in the process of being formed.
21 And the third document is --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, may I interrupt you. I think the
23 witness is aware -- aware of these three documents. We have seen it.
24 Everybody could read it, and you have put many questions in relation to
25 these document to the witness. In order to save time, you should put a
1 question to the witness. The witness is very well aware of these
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. But I
4 did not get an answer about whether the witness looked into --
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Who formed the -- the dossier that was supposed to be handed over
7 to you, and why was the instruction from Jasarevic deviated from? Thank
9 A. I believe I mentioned a couple of times that the first time that
10 I saw these documents was in March of 2007 during my cross-examination in
11 the Popovic trial. I was completing my work with the Srebrenica team at
12 the time. I was not working on these documents or on this case after I
13 completed my cross-examination in that case. Therefore, the answer is
14 no, I did not look into it, and I do not know the answer.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, your next question, please.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. Well, you have now just said what I was asking you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now look at D48 in
19 the e-court, page 22. This is page 251 of the intelligence service study
20 on the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are interested in the third
21 paragraph. Thank you.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone, please.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. Well, we can see the page on the right-hand side.
1 This is page 251, which I asked for, where it says -- this is paragraph
3 "According to a Canadian intelligence officer, the NSA did in
4 fact monitor many high-level conversations -- according to Canadian
5 officers, the NSA was able to intercept, break, and read the coded
6 military traffic of the Bosnian Muslims, the Serbs, and the Bosnian
8 Perhaps you can look at that paragraph now.
9 "From 1994, a special Bosnian group had been operating at the
10 NSA ... following interception, a signal was translated, processed, and
11 analysed and within four hours was on the desk of the intelligence
12 customer such as the CIA or the State Department. According to an
13 American intelligence official, in this period this NSA team carried out
14 one of the best operations in its history."
15 My question is: Have you ever heard of this, and if so, can you
16 please give your comment on this? Thank you.
17 A. I have never heard of this.
18 Q. Thank you. As an investigator, were you ever interested in what
19 these foreign intelligence services that were the strongest were thinking
20 about what you were investigating? Thank you.
21 A. It really wasn't relevant to the investigation. We -- we
22 attempted to get information, as I mentioned previously. We didn't get
23 it. It was -- it seemed like a dead end.
24 Q. Thank you. Precisely because you didn't know whether Bosnia
25 would hand it over and it had promised that it would do so, did you, I
1 mean did the Prosecutor's Office or your investigative team ask for
2 information from these major countries that were signatories of the
3 Dayton Peace Accords and which had their own forces, and now we see what
4 America was doing. Thank you.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again I would like to hear the answer and then we
6 can have your objection.
7 THE WITNESS: We asked, and we really didn't receive anything.
8 We received, as I mentioned earlier today, we received a very small
9 amount from the United States, basically just code-names. There may have
10 been something very small from another country, but that was it. The
11 door was not open, and it was not possible to receive any meaningful
12 information from those agencies.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to
15 reiterate the Prosecution's concern about Rule 70 issues, and I know that
16 you've dealt with that already, but I was concerned that the question
17 might elicit that kind of information.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the witness is aware of that line, red
19 line, and you could see it from the answer we have heard. Thank you very
21 Mr. Tolimir.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I would like you to look at this last paragraph again where it
25 states that in 1994, there was a special Bosnian group of the national
1 security agency, and I read why in the previous paragraph. So my
2 question is: This period of their stay in Bosnia and their activity to
3 gather electronic data, does this coincide with the time covered by these
4 transcripts that you were analysing as an investigator of the OTP? Thank
6 A. I have no knowledge of this Bosnia group, and I'm not familiar
7 with the document that we're referring to.
8 Q. Thank you. Well, I quoted this and asked whether in 1994, 1995
9 the activity of this group coincides -- I mean, I read that. This is an
10 exhibit. Does that coincide with this work, but I take into account your
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please look at Exhibit
13 D48, page 47 in the e-court. This is a study of the intelligence
14 service, about the intelligence -- about the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
15 and we would like to look at the first paragraph on the right-hand side?
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You can see this. It says:
18 "Nonetheless, an ABiH general claimed that the messages were
19 actually intercepted and analysed in realtime. This assertion should
20 however be treated with the utmost skepticism. If the Bosnian Muslims
21 did have realtime Comint, then why did they not use it. According to a
22 US intelligence official, this would have been the 'best PR stunt ever,'
23 and the Bosnian Muslims could -- had they had any influence on military
24 and political measures, they should have been available on the evening of
25 the 10th of July at the latest."
1 So this is the position of this agency that was investigating
2 this and had written a study on the intelligence warfare in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period from 1992 to 1995 and it is quite
4 contrary to your position. Thank you.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please slow down while reading, and
6 sorry for interrupting.
7 Mr. Vanderpuye, is there any problem with broadcasting this
9 I was told it will not be broadcast. It's a confidential
11 Mr. Gajic?
12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, this is a
13 study by Cees Wiebes. It's a public document so I don't see why it
14 cannot be shown publicly. This is something that is accessible to
15 everyone and is an integral part of the investigation carried out by the
16 Dutch institute on wartime documentation.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could just go
20 into private session for a moment.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE:
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 5220-5221 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. My question is this: Did you know that this book of the Dutch
1 institute was published as early as 2003, before you testified in the
2 cases before this Tribunal we referred to, and -- well, I believe it was
3 before the Popovic case testimony of yours. Did you have occasion to
4 read any part of the relevant study which had to do with your testimony
5 and your research? Thank you.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The reference to this
7 material as being published by the Dutch institute is not correct. It is
8 not a publication of the Dutch institute. The year of publication is
9 correct, but the source of the information is incorrect, and I'd like
10 Mr. Tolimir to put that to the witness in the proper context, because to
11 suggest that it's a publication of the Dutch institute may be misleading
12 to the witness.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, would you clarify the situation?
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] In order to clarify this, could we
15 please have in e-court page 5 of this document. Page 5. We're
16 interested in the right-hand side of the screen.
17 Please have a look at the last paragraph on the screen beginning
18 with "This study is an appendix to the Srebrenica report."
19 Could the witness please refer to that as well as everyone else
20 in the courtroom, and I believe any issue as to the source of this
21 document may be thus clarified.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have the very last part of that page,
23 please, on the screen, including the footnote. Thank you.
24 Ms. Frease, do you recall the question? It was a long time ago.
25 THE WITNESS: I just remember my response, which was "No," but
1 let me re-read the question.
2 Mr. -- Mr. Tolimir corrected himself when he said that it was
3 before I testified in the Popovic case but after I had testified in the
4 Krstic case, and, no, I'm not familiar with this document.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise if I was
7 wrong, but I think it was before she testified in 2006 and 2007 in the
8 Popovic case and others. I may be wrong, though, because I'm unable to
9 check it right away. I think I asked about the Popovic et al. case, and
10 I don't think their case was tried before 2003.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness stated just that what you are stating
12 before. She confirmed it.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We are
14 almost out of time.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. My question is this: When you did you arrive at a conclusion
17 regarding why the material was provided as -- as late as 1998 and not
18 before given that you were in contact with the same people back in 1995
19 as well as you testified in examination-in-chief and during
20 cross-examination? Thank you.
21 A. I can't say that I arrived at a conclusion about why this
22 material was provided as late as 1998. I offered an opinion about why it
23 could be the case, and in the context of the investigation and how things
24 were proceeding, the timing did not seem unusual. In 1995, as I
25 mentioned, the war was still going on and radio intercepted
1 communications are very sensitive. Intelligence agencies, as you can
2 appreciate, do not want to reveal their sources and methods. In 1996,
3 during the investigation, we obtained access to Republika Srpska and
4 started to be able to identify locations of detentions and executions.
5 In 1997, that work continued, and in 1998 we were able to begin to
6 conduct search warrants. And during that same time, around that same
7 period, we were finally provided access to radio intercepted
8 conversations. From 1998 the work continued with exhumations, with
9 further investigations, identifications of people who would have been
10 involved in the alleged crimes, and to me it all seemed like a very
11 natural progression.
12 When I began to work on the material, we had very serious
13 concerns about its reliability and its genuineness. We didn't know
14 whether we would be able to rely on it for lead purposes only or for
15 something more. As I continued to work on the material with the team,
16 not only the translators but also the information that was coming in
17 through other parts of the investigation, we were able to corroborate the
18 conversations independently through captured documents from the VRS,
19 through notes taken by UN officials, through telephone books that we
20 obtained in Republika Srpska, through aerial imagery obtained by various
21 governments, and all of this material layered provided corroboration.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Mr. President, I don't want to use more than the time we have
24 today, hence I will continue next week, because a number of different
25 questions arise from this answer provided by the witness. I'd like to
1 thank you for now, and we'll continue this conversation later. Thank you
2 very much.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Tolimir.
4 Before we break, I would like to raise the matter of documents
5 used by the Prosecution. We have seen a long list - we discussed it on
6 Wednesday already - divided into four parts. We received as exhibits the
7 documents in part 2 and 3 but not yet in part 1 and 4, and therefore I
8 would like to mention that I understood the Defence that one exhibit you
9 were in doubt about the source and to compile the list, I think that was
10 P774, and Mr. Vanderpuye indicated that they don't intend to tender this
11 document. All others on the list they want to tender, and would I like
12 to ask the Defence if there are any objections to this submission of the
13 Prosecution to tender these documents.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Defence has no
15 objection to the tendering of any document which may indicate my guilt as
16 the accused irrespective of its nature. We never object to that. We
17 only need to be provided with everything there is, of course.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All documents on the list will be received as
19 exhibits, except P774, with the given numbers, some of them under seal.
20 That's indicated as well. And some of them don't have an English
21 translation yet. I think that is on the record already. These cases
22 only marked for identification pending translation.
23 I hope we have everything now clear on the record.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, one clarification by the
1 registrar, please.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P773A and P773C will be marked for identification
3 pending translation, and Exhibit P773C will be admitted under seal.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was necessary, because that was not
5 reflected in the memorandum.
6 Ms. Frease, thank you for your patience. We are not at the end
7 of your examination, as you will have realised. We have to adjourn now,
8 and we will resume on Monday in the morning in this courtroom at 9.00.
9 And a reminder again, no contact about the content of your testimony to
10 either party.
11 THE WITNESS: Certainly.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I wish everybody a good weekend.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day
15 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.