Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6944

 1                           Friday, 26 February 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is the case IT-08-91-T, the

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             Good morning to everyone.  May we begin in the usual manner by

10     having today's appearances, please.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  On behalf of the

12     Prosecution I'm Tom Hannis with our case manager, Jasmina Bosnjakovic.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  On

14     behalf of Mr. Stanisic's Defence team, Slobodan Cvijetic and

15     Eugene O'Sullivan.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  [Previous translation continues]...  Igor Pantelic

17     and Dragan Krgovic.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19             Mr. Hannis, are you ready to continue with your

20     examination-in-chief of this witness?

21             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour, if I may address one thing before

22     we bring in the witness.  Following the suggestion from the Bench

23     yesterday, I identified some 14 documents that are in the nature of

24     dispatches, outgoing dispatches from CSB Banja Luka, they seem to be

25     regular in form.  I provided a list to the Chamber and to Defence to see

Page 6945

 1     if Defence had any objection to me moving to tender those en masse, as it

 2     were.  I've heard from Mr. Krgovic.  I understand that he doesn't have an

 3     objection, but I haven't heard yet from Mr. Cvijetic and Zecevic team or

 4     Mr. Stanisic as to their position.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we wish to express

 7     our reservations and put our objection on the record, and this is due to

 8     our standpoint regarding the contents of these documents -- I do

 9     apologise.  The joint standpoint of all the Defence teams is that we have

10     no objection.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

12             So it merely remains a matter of organisation and mechanics as to

13     how you -- how these are marked and put onto the record, isn't it?

14             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honour, I would propose to tender them.

15     The list has been submitted to the Registry.  They're in chronological

16     order.  I should note that on the list we provided yesterday, number 7,

17     which is a document dated 29 May 1992, it was 65 ter 0144, was admitted

18     yesterday as Exhibit P1007.  This was the fax document.  I jumped to it

19     because the witness had mentioned fax and so I jumped to it to use it as

20     an example.  So it does not need a new number.  It's on the list as

21     number 7, that should be ignored, but the others if we could start with

22     the next number in line and just number them sequentially that would

23     be -- I would appreciate that.

24             JUDGE HALL:  The Registry will deal with those documents

25     accordingly.  Thank you.

Page 6946

 1             Could the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, as I understand by the calculation I

 3     have perhaps five minutes left.  I would like to request an additional 20

 4     minutes or so to finish-up with this witness.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, do I correctly --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  -- do I correctly read that the present schedule

10     anticipates this witness carrying over into Monday?

11             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I guess based on the estimated time for

12     Defence cross-examination, that's likely to happen.  I don't know if

13     their estimated time has changed now or not, but I think the previous

14     indication was they had about five hours between the two of them.

15             JUDGE HALL:  I see.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It will certainly be less than

17     that, so I think we will complete this witness today.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Rakovic, good morning to you, sir.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Before Mr. Hannis resumes his examination-in-chief

23     of you, I would remind you that you're still on your oath.

24             Yes, Mr. Hannis.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 6947

 1                           WITNESS:  DRAGO RAKOVIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3                           Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]

 4        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Rakovic.  Yesterday I had shown you a document

 5     that was the report for the first six months of 1992 on the work of your

 6     centre in Banja Luka.  I'd next like to show you Exhibit P621.  This is a

 7     document dated October 1992, and it purports to be the report on the work

 8     of the centre in Banja Luka for the period from 1 July through 30

 9     September 1992.  Do you remember being shown a part of this document

10     during your proofing?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could go to page 31 in the English, and I

13     think in e-court it's also 31 in the B/C/S.

14        Q.   Yes, this is section 5.1 on the functioning of the system of

15     communications and crypto protection.  Are you able to read that

16     paragraph on your screen?

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18        Q.   And you'll see it indicates that during this three-month

19     time-period there were 1.996 non-coded dispatches and 152 coded received,

20     while there were 1385 non-coded dispatches and 43 coded dispatches that

21     had been sent or delivered.  I don't know if you recall the six-month

22     report, but I think the numbers were more in the neighbourhood of 9.000.

23     Do you remember that the number was much higher during that time-period?

24        A.   I remember that it was 9.600 in that report.  I saw that

25     yesterday during my proofing.  I also saw this during my proofing, this

Page 6948

 1     number of 1.900 and whatever it says here.  Well, even during the

 2     proofing I said that something was not clear to me.  As this is an

 3     excerpt from that report, it ought to refer to this three-month period

 4     evidently.  And if we look at the six-month period where it's 9.500, the

 5     portion is 1:2 or 2.5.  And I really couldn't say whether this report as

 6     it was written was correct or whether the number of dispatches actually

 7     decreased.  I really couldn't say what happened.  Perhaps this is

 8     information referring to one month because we had three-month periods,

 9     six-month periods, and so on.  It might have been a typing error or maybe

10     somebody copied the figures for just one month by mistake instead of the

11     three-month period because this is really a far smaller number of

12     dispatches compared with the number in the other report.

13        Q.   I agree with you about the difference in the number, but you as

14     head of that section, wouldn't you be responsible for this information

15     that's being put in the three-month report for the centre?  And you're

16     saying you think the information is incorrect?

17        A.   What I'm saying is that it's possible that this is a report

18     referring to a period of just one month.  Perhaps the figures were

19     switched by mistake, because according to this it would seem that this

20     was the number of dispatches for the entire period covered by the report.

21     I was responsible, but I could have made a mistake.  It's also possible

22     that the number of dispatches decreased.  I can't assert whether this is

23     due to a decrease in the number of dispatches or to an error in

24     reporting.

25        Q.   Well, you're still in the same job you had back in 1992, and I

Page 6949

 1     assume that's because you're competent at your job.  This report says

 2     it's for a three-month period.  Now, assume for a minute, if you will,

 3     that the numbers are correct, isn't it possible that the reason for the

 4     big decrease in numbers during this three-month time-period is because

 5     after the 1st of July, relatively speaking, things in terms of

 6     organisation in the MUP have improved since the beginning of the year and

 7     certainly since April.  So things have calmed down.  There isn't a need

 8     to send so many dispatches.  Perhaps other means of communications like

 9     the phone lines are working better, fax machines are working.  That could

10     be a reason for a decrease in dispatches, no?

11             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, it's obviously a leading question.

12     The answer is very simple.  I can clarify that in cross, Your Honour, but

13     what the Prosecution suggests, I mean, it doesn't --

14             JUDGE HALL:  I understand you, Mr. Krgovic.

15             Mr. Hannis, before Mr. Krgovic's intervention, it struck me as an

16     odd question having regard to the, perhaps not clear, but the answer that

17     the witness had, in fact, given to the earlier question, the -- it's

18     really a question that's asked and answered.  I -- the question that you

19     just phrased which Mr. Krgovic objected struck me more as an argument

20     that you're making with the witness.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour, perhaps I phrased it badly.  What

22     the witness had said was one possibility is that the information in the

23     report is wrong and it's only for one month instead of three months.  But

24     he conceded the possibility the information is correct and that there was

25     a big decrease.  I guess my question should be:

Page 6950

 1        Q.   If those numbers in the report are correct, why do you think the

 2     numbers have decreased to such a significant extent?  Do you understand

 3     my question, Mr. Rakovic?

 4        A.   I understand your question, but it's very hard for me to answer

 5     because I didn't write dispatches and have 500 dispatches in my book for

 6     the first three months and a hundred for the second three.  I would have

 7     observed that something had changed and the number had decreased, but all

 8     I can say here is that there are these two possibilities.  There's also a

 9     third possibility, which I didn't mention and which has arisen now, and

10     that's perhaps that the number of dispatches decreased.  So one

11     possibility is that the number of dispatches decreased because this

12     information might be erroneous, it might refer only to the last month.

13     Because as I said, we drew up or compiled reports for three-month

14     periods --

15        Q.   I'm sorry, let me stop you there.  I think you've answered the

16     question, and you're repeating your earlier answer, so let me go on to

17     something else.  I would like to show you Exhibit 65 ter 3189.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, Mr. Hannis --

19             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Excuse me, the previous documents, I don't seem

21     to be able to find it on your list.

22             MR. HANNIS:  P621 is one of the two documents that I referred to

23     in a separate mail --

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  In a separate mail, oh, sorry.

25             MR. HANNIS:  My apologies.  I should have alerted you to that.  I

Page 6951

 1     understand we're looking for 65 ter 3189.

 2        Q.   While we're looking for that, let me just ask you a general

 3     question about dispatches.  In the telegraph or Teletype documents I see

 4     sometimes, for example, Mr. Zupljanin's name spelled with Z-z at the

 5     beginning of his name or if we saw Mr. Stanisic's name it might be

 6     spelled S-t-a-n-i and then there would be s-s and i-c-c.  I understand

 7     that duplication of certain consonants is because there's no way to put

 8     the diacritic in a Teletype.  Do you understand?  Am I correct about

 9     that?

10        A.   Yes, I have the same assumption as you.  These signs -- the

11     letters that have diacritics, they are doubled usually.  I noticed that

12     as well.  That's how it was set up on the machine.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I understand that 65 ter 3189 is a --

15     there's a duplicate which is 65 ter 3100.  That may be the one that's in

16     e-court.  I understand it's the same ERN, and if we could bring that up I

17     hope that's the one I'm trying to show the witness.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You have a 50 per cent chance.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I hope I'm lucky today, Your Honour.

20             That appears to be it.  And if we could go to page 3 of the

21     document in the B/C/S.  I'm sorry, I need to go one more, page 4.

22        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, do you recall having taken a look at this particular

23     log-book during your interview and/or during proofing?

24             MR. HANNIS:  And if I may, because it's a big document, Your

25     Honours, could I hand him a hard copy?

Page 6952

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   Do you recall having looked at it before?

 4        A.   Yes, a day or two ago.

 5        Q.   And for purposes of getting to 1992, if we could go to the -- I

 6     think it's approximately page 100 in e-court.

 7             And for you, Mr. Rakovic, you see the -- you see the eight-digit

 8     number stamped at the top, if you could go to the one that ends in the

 9     last four digits of 2268, 2268.  So it's about 40 or 50 pages on for you.

10             Can you tell us what this appears to be?

11             MR. HANNIS:  And the page in English I think is 15, Your Honours.

12        Q.   Can you tell us what kind of log-book this is?

13        A.   This is the book of incoming dispatches.  Dispatches which

14     arrived and were received in our centre were entered into this book.  CSB

15     Banja Luka and I don't know from whom.  So I do apologise, this -- it

16     says here:  To whom it was addressed, from whom and for whom.  So sender

17     and addressee.  So it should be the Prijedor SJB and the sender, I see

18     it's CSB Banja Luka mostly.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Column 9 is to whom the listed documents are

20     addressed, and I see almost all those appear to be 11-12, which I think

21     you confirmed for me yesterday would be the SJB in Prijedor; is that

22     right?

23        A.   Well, based on what I saw in all these other documents, 11-12, we

24     didn't go on and put 01 and so on, but by this other figure, 12, in my

25     opinion to the best of my knowledge, that ought to refer to Prijedor from

Page 6953

 1     my previous experience and the documents I've seen so far.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And if you could look near the bottom of the page in the

 3     far left column are simply sequential numbers.  So would you look at 395,

 4     and for that --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   -- one we see in column 4 that 395 was a telegram and the number

 7     was 11-115.  That would be a document from your centre?

 8        A.   Yes.  I think that we actually saw it yesterday at one point, I

 9     think, as a document, separate document.

10        Q.   Yes, I believe that's correct.

11             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I would indicate that 11-15 [sic] is

12     the number carried on Exhibit P553 in evidence.

13        Q.   397 is document number 11-119.  Again that's a document from the

14     Banja Luka security service -- security services centre?

15        A.   This is just like 395.  It -- it's the same thing, 11-119, and up

16     there it was 11-115.

17             MR. HANNIS:  And, Your Honours, I would indicate that 11-119, is

18     the number carried on Exhibit P1002 introduced yesterday.

19             I have other examples, but at this point I would move to tender

20     this document.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1025, Your Honours.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

24        Q.   And lastly, the last thing I want to show you, Mr. Rakovic, is 65

25     ter 2399.  I think this is one you've seen before, it's a sort of

Page 6954

 1     schematic diagram of I think the telephone links in the MUP before the

 2     war began in April 1992.  And if we could -- on the B/C/S document if we

 3     could zoom in on the upper left quadrant.  Yes.  That's good.

 4             Do you recall looking at this?

 5        A.   I don't exactly remember; however, this is familiar as soon as I

 6     see it.  As soon as I see it, I know roughly what it's got to be.  It

 7     says here, Survey of the Organs of the Interior.  That's what it was

 8     called, internal telephone special network, that's what it says, right,

 9     because the centres are depicted here and the police stations -- or

10     rather, the public security stations that were linked up within that

11     former system.

12        Q.   Yes.  And the legend I have says that the circle with a small

13     circle inside that we see for Banja Luka indicates a nodal switchboard.

14     Am I using the correct term?

15        A.   Roughly, sort of -- yes, well nodal switchboard, if I can put it

16     that way, you can see here Jajce and -- it is like -- well, not a final

17     point -- I don't know how to call this.  This is not exactly my forte,

18     but it was -- well, Prijedor was linked to Banja Luka and then from

19     Prijedor these municipalities as depicted here, just like Jajce, Sipovo,

20     Mrkonjic, it was sort of a sub system, if I can put it that way.

21        Q.   Let me ask you a specific question.  We see a link between Banja

22     Luka and Prijedor, and then from Prijedor there are links to Sanski Most,

23     Novi, and Dubica.  It appears that there was not a direct telephone link

24     from Banja Luka to Sanski Most.  Was that the situation in 1992, if you

25     know?

Page 6955

 1        A.   According to this diagram, it seems that that is the way it was.

 2     I mean, I could not remember.  This primarily relates to the internal

 3     special network that the ministry of the then-Bosnia-Herzegovina had.  As

 4     I've said, when I arrived I didn't even have time to read up or anything.

 5     There were already cuts, and I don't remember whether there was a direct

 6     link.  However, I remember the directories that we had, so then we had

 7     the codes how you could call Jajce, Mrkonjic, et cetera.  However, by the

 8     time I was supposed to use it, half of it was cut off.

 9        Q.   Okay.

10        A.   Policemen -- or rather, there were all sorts of things going on.

11        Q.   Okay.  Let me stop you there.  I saw in one document a reference

12     to a coded telephone line.  Were you aware if in 1992 in CSB Banja Luka

13     there was a secure phone line or a coded phone line?  Do you know

14     anything about that?

15        A.   I don't remember that that was in Banja Luka in 1992 when I got

16     there, but people were saying -- I mean, colleagues who worked there,

17     that beforehand there had been this one line between Banja Luka and the

18     Sarajevo MUP.  And, in fact, that was cut off immediately.  There were

19     some protection devices, but anyway it was only the chiefs of the centres

20     and the minister who could have that kind of link, the republican

21     minister at the time actually.  I mean, I meant the minister of the

22     then-Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That's what I meant.  However, as

23     far as I know, no one ever mentioned that line, and no one ever used it.

24     In fact, I didn't know of it, and there weren't any interventions on our

25     part in terms of doing something about it.

Page 6956

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  My last question has to do with your -- any

 2     communications or co-ordination you had with the -- with MUP at the

 3     republic level.  Did you know a Dragan Kezunovic?

 4        A.   Yes, Dragan Kezunovic was my chief of administration up until --

 5     say, until 2000, so for about eight years.  I think he was pensioned off

 6     then, temporarily.  He became an advisor to the minister, I don't know

 7     who the minister was at the time, and then he was pensioned off, and he

 8     was the chief of administration after Sabic --

 9        Q.   In 1992 when you were working in Banja Luka, was he your superior

10     in your line of work?

11        A.   Yes, Dragan Kezunovic in my line of work at that time.  I'm

12     sorry, when I got there, I got there on the 1st of April.  So when I got

13     there Akif Sabic was my superior in my line of work.  But then when the

14     joint Ministry of the Interior fell apart, when the Ministry of the

15     Interior of the Serb Republic was established, then Kezunovic was my

16     boss.  But in the interim period from the 1st of April until I don't know

17     what date, then Akif Sabic was my boss.  I was actually supposed to go to

18     some meeting up there and nobody went and after the first conversations

19     we had, I didn't really speak to him afterwards.

20        Q.   Then after the creation of the RS MUP, Mr. Kezunovic was your

21     superior for the rest of 1992, correct?

22        A.   Yes, at that time.  When the MUP of the Serb Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina, later Republika Srpska, up until about 2000 Dragan

24     Kezunovic was my superior in my line of work.

25        Q.   Thank you very much.

Page 6957

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I don't have any further questions.  Thank you,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just give me a few minutes

 5     to organise my stuff.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Rakovic.  We met the other day

 8     briefly, but for the record my name is Dragan Krgovic, and on behalf of

 9     the Defence of Stojan Zupljanin I'm going to put some questions to you

10     today in relation to your testimony.  As opposed to the Prosecutor, you

11     and I speak the same language so I would like to ask you to listen to my

12     question carefully and then pause briefly before you start answering.

13             Mr. Rakovic, I'm going to take you back to a topic that you

14     discussed with the prosecutor.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So could the witness please be

16     shown P545.  Could we have it in e-court, please.  That is page 17 in the

17     Serbian version.  Could we see the first page first.  If I understand it

18     correctly, it's P545, or do I have the right marking actually?  Just a

19     second, please.

20             Maybe it's a mistake.  No, it's 595.  Sorry.  Sorry.  My case

21     manager writes 4s and 9s very similarly, so ...

22             This is the right document.

23        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, please have a look at this.  This is a report on the

24     work of the security services centre from the 1st of January until the

25     30th of June, 1992, and you talked about it to the Prosecutor.  It covers

Page 6958

 1     a peace time-period, if we can put it that way, January, February, March,

 2     and part of April, and then the period when the war conflicts broke out.

 3     So there is about three or three and a half months of peace and normal

 4     functioning, and you have about two and a half months of war operations

 5     in that period.  Do you agree with me?

 6        A.   I know that roughly that's the way it was.

 7        Q.   And on page 17 there --

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 17

 9     actually.

10        Q.   Last paragraph a certain number is given -- sorry, 03246781 is

11     the ERN number.  I've just been told now that the page numbers do not

12     correspond to the ones in e-court.

13             MR. HANNIS:  [Overlapping speakers] I think in e-court it's page

14     number 18 because the cover page --

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The last paragraph in the B/C/S

16     version.  In the English version it's the next page, the one after this.

17        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, on the basis of this I infer that this is the total

18     number of dispatches from that period of peace and from that period of

19     war; do you agree with me?

20        A.   That's the way it should be, six months.

21        Q.   So in the next report up until September you have those three

22     months, you are only dealing with a period of war, right?

23        A.   That's the way it was.

24        Q.   You will agree with me that due to all of these problems that

25     were there in your work, there were less dispatches in the period of war

Page 6959

 1     than in the period of peace, isn't that right, that's only logical, isn't

 2     it?

 3        A.   Well, that's the way it seems.  However, we have a problem here.

 4     We need to have a clear-cut distinction between one period of three

 5     months and another period of three months; however, there is no such

 6     thing.  This way we fall into a trap.  9.000 for six months and 2.000 for

 7     three months, and we don't know whether there were 5.000 in the first

 8     three months or 7.000 or whatever, that's quite possible too.  I mean,

 9     these are just possibilities, options, assumptions.

10        Q.   You will agree with me that in a situation of war telegraphic and

11     teleprinter traffic was seriously impeded, which is only logical, so not

12     the same number of dispatches were sent in peacetime and in war time?

13        A.   I fully agree on that.  This number of dispatches presented here

14     went through our service only.  There is a possibility of this number

15     being lower because some of the communication did not go through our

16     service.  So perhaps that's the reason for the decrease -- it may be one

17     of the reasons.

18        Q.   You will see, as my learned friend Mr. Hannis said, the ratio in

19     this period is such that in percentage terms there are two and a half

20     times less dispatches in wartime than in peacetime; right?

21        A.   In -- here we see that it seems to be two and a half times

22     less -- I mean compared to the first six months if we look at the

23     percentages by months, on average.

24        Q.   That could be due to war operations and the inability to have

25     proper communication by teleprinter, telegraph, et cetera?

Page 6960

 1        A.   It also could have been due to a smaller number of dispatches

 2     going through us and the fact that we were not able to deliver them all

 3     to the proper addresses.

 4        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, at the very outset -- well, now we've had this

 5     clarification and this was the last topic that we discussed.  However,

 6     now chronologically I'm going to go back to the same order of topics that

 7     the Prosecutor dealt with.  You said that you came to this position on

 8     the 1st of April, 1992, if I understood you properly?

 9        A.   That's right.

10        Q.   If I understood you correctly, you went through all of those

11     conversations at the MUP -- or rather, tests at the MUP of Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina, and that happened in Sarajevo, right?

13        A.   I think I went three times there for medical examinations,

14     interviews.  Once I didn't manage to do anything.  I had to wait all day

15     and nothing.  And once I went for a medical examination, so I think I

16     went three times from 1991 onwards for these meetings.

17        Q.   And finally, you started working on the 1st of April, 1992?

18        A.   Precisely.

19        Q.   When you started working there in that department, you mentioned

20     that there were quite a few Muslims and Croats who were employed there,

21     right?

22        A.   Well, when I started that job I found the people who had been

23     working there.  That's the way it was.  I can say that the service was

24     headed by a Croat, and he retired around new year or at the end of

25     September in 1991.  But at any rate, I know that by the 31st of December,

Page 6961

 1     1991, he had already retired, the Croat --

 2        Q.   Sorry.  Was it 1991 or 1992?

 3        A.   I'm talking about 1992, when I came.  But I'm just saying now in

 4     addition to that that in 1991 --

 5             JUDGE HALL:  [Previous translation continues]...  for the

 6     interpreters to ...

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   You heard Judge Hall.  Perhaps we should slow down a bit, both

 9     you and I, Rakovic.

10        A.   That's fine.

11        Q.   Please go on.

12        A.   When I got there on the 1st of April, the head of the maintenance

13     department was Stipo Ojdanic, a Croat.  Mustafa Hasanovic was chief

14     engineer, he was a Muslim or a Bosniak as it's now called.  The chief of

15     the department for crypto protection was Zika Hadziselimovic, Zijad, a

16     Bosniak.  The communications officer was a Bosniak.  Then Milos Sakic, a

17     Croat, was working in maintenance.  When I arrived -- now, was it in May

18     or the end of May, Zeljo Sabic, a Croat, got a job there.  I think he

19     started working with us in the beginning of June, and he worked with us

20     throughout the war, I mean, all the time.  Babic Robert, a Croat, he also

21     started working on the 1st of April, but then since he was not on the

22     list of reservists he was on the list of the army, he went to the Army of

23     Republika Srpska as a signals person.  So then he went there, but during

24     the first period he worked here too.  So in the department where I

25     worked, both the professionals and those, I mean who had been working

Page 6962

 1     there up until then, had different ethnic backgrounds.  That is what I

 2     can say for sure.  I can give you all the names as well.  As far as I

 3     know, all those people were there in 1991, all of 1992.  I think that

 4     Stipo and Mustafa actually retired on the 31st of December, 1992.

 5        Q.   No one asked you to discharge these people or not to admit the

 6     Croat you referred to, as far as your department was concerned you have

 7     the right to propose on the basis of professional criteria who was

 8     supposed to work with you?

 9        A.   Of course.  There was a storage of personnel anyway and some

10     people had retired.  When I got there it was very favourable to retire in

11     1991/1992.  So people retired then, quite a few people retired then and

12     they got good pensions, so when I got there, there were quite a few

13     vacancies, and we had a shortage of personnel.  What I tried to do then

14     was to return some people from the reserve force.  I also talked to

15     people about their ethnic backgrounds to come and work there as

16     reservists.  They were a bit skeptical.  Others came, for instance.  For

17     example, Sunkic we mentioned him yesterday.  He started working straight

18     away.  Bojic Milorad, he started working as a pensioner.  Trmosljanin

19     Milan, a pensioner as well.  They were all asked to come in and work.

20     Professor Dr. Kolonic Dzemal was asked to come and help us because he was

21     highly professional.  The dean of the faculty of electrical engineering

22     actually sent a request not to ask him to come and work for us because

23     they wanted to keep him at the university, and then we agreed to that.

24     The professor works at the faculty of electrical engineering to this day.

25     That is what I'd like to say in relation to the personnel employed in the

Page 6963

 1     department where I was.

 2             Let me tell you one more thing.  At the same time, I tried to

 3     find out where there were professionals who could work with us.  I found

 4     a few people who worked for the railways and the telecoms, and so on in

 5     Rudi Cajavec as well, so I found some people and they were asked to come

 6     and join us.  Personnel affairs were my very own line of work in my

 7     department.  I could make proposals who should be employed there.

 8        Q.   The last gentleman you spoke of, Professor Dzemal Konjevic, he's

 9     a Muslim, right?

10        A.   A Bosniak, yes, hails from Prijedor.  He completed his own

11     studies in Banja Luka and stayed on in Banja Luka, and he was a minister

12     in the Government of Republika Srpska during the term of the last

13     government, if I'm not mistaken.

14        Q.   Some of the names are not in the transcript, the names of the

15     persons you found when you first started working there.  There were

16     Muslims and Croats, right?

17        A.   Yes, yes.  Dzemal Kolonic is his name, not Konjevic.  So could

18     the transcript please be corrected.

19        Q.   We have two answers recorded.  The persons we mentioned were

20     Croats and Muslims and your answer was yes -- and they rest you said

21     about Mr. Kolonic --

22        A.   I just wanted to have his last name changed because it was not

23     recorded correctly.

24        Q.   That's what I thought.

25             Mr. Rakovic, how should I put this, you needed people -- for

Page 6964

 1     example, you needed a teleprinter operator and they'd bring someone and

 2     then you would see that he was not really well-versed in this line of

 3     work and he you would take him in -- he was already there, rather.  And

 4     then say another organ, they did not meet professional requirements.  And

 5     then especially some of these people from the reserve force, say they had

 6     committed some violations beforehand.  So, in fact, they would come by

 7     way of war assignment in the MUP or the CSB, right?

 8        A.   They would get war assignment, and those people who received war

 9     assignments would be received there, yes.

10        Q.   And if you would want -- well, not you specifically but other

11     people too.  I mean for certain reasons, say because of lack of

12     discipline or some things that previously happened in their lives, or say

13     if they had a record beforehand, then these people would not remain

14     there, their war assignment would not remain the same, you would send

15     them back to the Ministry of Defence and then.

16        A.   Yes, that would happen.  I can tell you about what happened in my

17     service.  Say a man was taken in to work with Milos Sakic on maintaining

18     the switchboard because it was not enough to have just one person working

19     for 24 hours.  He came from the Bosna Hotel.  He worked on telephone

20     maintenance at the Bosna Hotel.  He worked in my service for a month.  He

21     was a good man, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't a thief or anything, but

22     he was not interested in his work.  He was not a good person for my

23     service.  He could not meet the requirements.  I wanted someone who would

24     be extremely agile, who would be there day and night, if necessary, to

25     work.  So since I had brought him, in fact, I said, "Sir, it would be

Page 6965

 1     best for us to go our separate ways like civilised human beings," and he

 2     signed a statement saying that he was leaving that job and thereby his

 3     war assignment stopped and his service with us as well, if I can put it

 4     that way.  So it is only natural that afterwards he got a different war

 5     assignment or got a different job, whatever, but it is only natural that

 6     a person who would bring someone in would talk to that person if there

 7     was a problem.  I mean, I don't want to have any problems created.  I

 8     mean, he didn't want to initiate any kind of proceedings or something, so

 9     yes.

10        Q.   And at the level of the Banja Luka CSB, who were the people

11     dealing with personnel and recruiting new employees, who did most of the

12     recruiting of employees, police officers, and so on for the CSB?

13        A.   Well, it was mostly people in the human resources department.

14     Mane Popovic I think was there for a while.  I think that for police work

15     it was even the chief of the police department, Djuro Bulic.  He is

16     deceased now.  And that's to the best of my knowledge.  That's what

17     people said.  They brought quite a lot of people to be reserve officers

18     to bring the force up to manpower level.  And this had to do with

19     telephone conversations, people asking for help, personal friendships.

20     That was my opinion because I thought that quite a few of the people who

21     arrived in this way were problematic.  When I got my job, I spent the

22     whole day being checked, going through medical checks, psychological

23     checks to prove that I was a normal person able to do that job.  But then

24     at that time nobody examined those people or checked them as far as I

25     know.  For the most part, they arrived just like that, the reservists I

Page 6966

 1     mean.

 2        Q.   And if it was established that these people did not meet certain

 3     criteria or had problems with discipline, then those people who had

 4     brought them there would send them back to the Ministry of Defence or put

 5     them at the disposal of the army; is that how it happened?

 6        A.   Yes, where I was working and from what I was able to see, that's

 7     how it was.  There was a story going around -- for example, I've sent him

 8     back to Vojo Dinic, that's what he would say, and Vojo Dinic was in

 9     charge of assigning people their wartime assignment, and he was in charge

10     of recruitment for the army for military units.

11        Q.   When you were asked by the OTP about the disciplinary commission,

12     you explained how issues of lack of discipline were dealt with in your

13     view, simply by being sent back to Vojo Dinic, is that it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, when answering the Prosecutor's questions yesterday

16     you spoke about the communications system, and you mentioned UKT stations

17     and mobile stations.  So just a question.  These UKT devices were not

18     used for communication between the CSB and the SJBs; is that correct?

19        A.   UKT traffic could be used, but the operative duty service had a

20     station it could use to contact any station on the territory of the CSB.

21     Because they had a stationary UKT station in their office, they still

22     have it, and they sent messages via the repeater.  But most of this

23     traffic was of local nature for the needs of mobile police patrols in

24     towns and maybe patrols doing their beat on foot in villages and towns.

25        Q.   Because this has a short range, this kind of device?

Page 6967

 1        A.   Yes, the ones that used a repeater via Kozara, they could use

 2     both stations in cars and stationary ones; but with the small device that

 3     we had you couldn't do that.

 4        Q.   During his examination-in-chief, the Prosecutor asked you quite a

 5     lot of questions about the functioning of the communications system, and

 6     I'm interested in what happened at the beginning of the war.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Do we still have Exhibit P595 on

 8     the screen?

 9        Q.   Could you please read it carefully.  That's the page that's open

10     now.  Just a moment.

11             Could you just explain one point.  You -- I will read out a

12     sentence to you.

13             "In view of the security situation, the reduced number of

14     professionals, the lack of fuel, it was not possible to -- to checks in

15     the SJBs, but mostly we focused on removing breakdowns, repairing

16     breakdowns, and placing stations where there had been none before."

17             So you mentioned the Donji Vakuf SJB, Bosanska Krupa, and Kupres,

18     which means that there had been no communication with those stations and

19     that you were actually setting up communications with them; is that

20     right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And secondly, due to combat activities there were constant

23     interruptions of telephone and telegraph communications in the SJBs.  You

24     mentioned the Kupres, Donji Vakuf, Bosanska Krupa, Glamoc, Bihac, Teslic,

25     Bosanski Grahovo, Drvar, Sipovo, Mrkonjic Grad, and others.

Page 6968

 1             I understand that there were constant interruptions with these

 2     stations I mentioned and others; is that correct?

 3        A.   Precisely so.  In this first part I said that there had been

 4     interruptions in communications, but I didn't mention the stations that

 5     were close to Banja Luka because we went there to repair things and

 6     improve things.  Now you've read out a larger number of stations.  Donji

 7     Vakuf, Krupa, Kupres, there were no communications with them.  I said

 8     that we went to Kupres several times and tried to get some sort of number

 9     where the police could at least report from a -- on a daily basis.  There

10     was a president of a municipality there, I don't recall his name, and

11     together with a man from the PTT we tried to say, "Well, let's set up at

12     least one line so that we from the police can use it sometimes, go there

13     to make a call, and so on."

14             And this large number of stations, all of them used to belong to

15     other larger centres, such as Livno, Bihac, or Jajce, and as this was cut

16     off there automatically special communications and telegraph

17     communications were cut off as well, and we were trying to establish

18     communications there, set something up.  There was power cut also no

19     electricity.  So Gradiska, Knezevo, Laktasi, those were places where we

20     were constantly having problems.  We would have electricity, they would

21     not have it.  There was a period when there was a power cut in Banja Luka

22     for two months.  I went down to the post office, they had two generators

23     of 250 Kilo-watts each, so they managed -- they barely managed to keep

24     going maintaining the minimum of telephone communications.  That's why I

25     said that it was very difficult with constant interruptions and sometimes

Page 6969

 1     it would take a comes man a whole day to send a dispatch to one station,

 2     and he would say to his colleague:  I've managed to send these but not

 3     those.  These are some police stations I couldn't reach, so you try to do

 4     it.  That's what I meant when I said there had been constant

 5     interruptions.

 6        Q.   Let me remind you, on page 87 you told the Prosecutor that when

 7     it came to Donji Vakuf it was in your communications system, but you had

 8     no contact with Donji Vakuf at all?

 9        A.   It's hard to remember everything, but that was a sort of isolated

10     oasis.  Sometimes when I spoke to some people who used to arrive from

11     there they had their own routes, their own means of reaching Banja Luka.

12     They didn't use the regular roads.  They went through forests and over

13     mountains.  There was no normal communication as there was with stations

14     closer to Banja Luka because Donji Vakuf used to be part of another CSB,

15     not Banja Luka.  That's why those communications had not been set up

16     earlier.

17        Q.   Let me just jog your memory.  At that time in that area Jajce was

18     in the hands of the Muslim and Croat forces, and that was where the

19     communications went?

20        A.   Yes.  The main road went through Jajce.

21        Q.   So quite logically the communications line went along the same

22     route?

23        A.   Well, yes, I suppose that's how it was.  I can't know every

24     detail about where the lines went.  There were cables up in the air, so

25     it was possible to cut them.  Those cables that went towards Vakuf and

Page 6970

 1     further on towards Sarajevo.

 2        Q.   And now I'll take you back to the previous, or rather, I'll take

 3     you to the next sentence.

 4             "In spite of these difficulties, bearing in mind the power cuts,

 5     the lack of fuel for generators, the fact that the generator batteries

 6     are spent, which is all introducing chaos into the communications

 7     situation, especially in telegraphic communications."

 8             So this is what the situation was at that time; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes, based on all of this I see clearly now that the number of

10     dispatches was reduced in the second and the third quarter.  If we could

11     see the overview for the first quarter, then we would have the complete

12     picture of what the situation was as regards sending dispatches.

13        Q.   I'll show you a document, P160.

14             Mr. Rakovic, this is a summary from a meeting held in Belgrade in

15     July.  I believe you didn't know about that meeting or about this

16     document, but if we could look at page 5 of this document.  I do

17     apologise.  Could we first have page 2 so we can see who the speaker is.

18     Here Stojan Zupljanin is describing the situation on the territory of the

19     Banja Luka CSB.  I just wanted to show you this, and then let's look at

20     page 5 and in English, it's page 8.  In e-court it's 03241855 ERN.  The

21     last paragraph on this page.

22             Here Stojan Zupljanin says:

23             "The functional communications system has been destroyed.  There

24     have been talks with representatives of Rudi Cajavec about acquisition of

25     equipment."

Page 6971

 1             Do you agree that this corresponds to what you wrote in your

 2     report that this is what the situation was in 1992 in those wartime

 3     months?

 4        A.   Yes, I can agree with that.  We are now talking about the

 5     functional system, and the functional system consisted of four

 6     subsystems.  When we talk about the functional system of communications,

 7     it was practically destroyed.  We only had parts of the subsystem, which

 8     sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.  If the telephone system is a

 9     special communications system, special telephone lines, I'm not saying

10     that it's something special.  It's just a closed telephone system with a

11     very shortened way of dialling, so that's why people thought it was

12     special.  It was simply an internal telephone system just as we now have

13     the internet, which is a global system, and some services have their

14     intranet, which is the internal system.  You might have your own intranet

15     here as well.  That's what it was.  So we say that the functional system

16     had been destroyed.  From 1991 onwards, everyone tried to grab as much as

17     they could for themselves, and nothing was invested in new equipment.

18     Everybody thought well the next person to come to power will do the

19     investing.  So no batteries, stations, vehicles, generators were bought.

20     And when I arrived, I was the first to feel the consequences because when

21     you come to work you pick up a telephone and its dead.  Well, it's as if

22     it wasn't there.  So to this very day when somebody calls me up and says,

23     "Rakovic, why is my telephone not working?"  I said, "Well, mine isn't

24     working either, it's not working because it's not working.  The

25     switchboard is out of order."  So work has to be done on putting it in

Page 6972

 1     order.  It has to be fixed.  I didn't have batteries for the existing

 2     stations, there were no new stations.  The chief of the centre and

 3     Cajavec went to see Dragan together, to see if there were any spare parts

 4     that might be used to maintain the stationary stations, the ones in cars,

 5     the hand-held stations.  I tried to get hold of anything I could.  We

 6     tried to establish contacts to procure equipment.  We even managed to get

 7     a hundred stations through Sarajevo, but somebody stole even those in

 8     Sarajevo.  We had held Motorolas -- we had Motorolas, a hundred, 200 type

 9     Motorolas that we managed to get.  The teleprinter system had been

10     destroyed.  Before we used to take teleprinters to Sarajevo to be

11     repaired, and from Sarajevo they would take them to Nis, but that was now

12     all destroyed.  There was nobody who could fix things, who could repair

13     them, and that's probably what I told the chief when I briefed him.  I

14     said, "I don't know what to do."  We know how to do the job but we can't

15     do it.  If I'm new here and there are things I don't know, that's

16     possible, but Musa and this other guy who have been there for 20 years,

17     he worked there throughout the war, an exceptional able engineer, all

18     those lads there, well they couldn't do anything either because they

19     didn't have anything to work with.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Rakovic, it's time for a break.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.

22             Before we take the break there's a point Judge Delvoie needs to

23     address.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, in the documents you tendered as a

25     package this morning, there is one document that could be a problem.

Page 6973

 1     It's document number 65 ter 10110.  I didn't notice it immediately

 2     because on your initial list it has a regular 65 ter number, I think it

 3     was 753, but 10110 indicates that it was not on your 65 ter list.  So I

 4     have the impression a little bit that it is sneaked in in that list.  I'm

 5     sure you didn't do it on purpose.  But it's a problem, don't you think?

 6             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I don't know the answer to

 7     that.  I see that on my list I did have a number 753, it's struck

 8     through, and now it has another number.  I don't know if that's one that

 9     was dropped previously and was subject to a motion to add it back in, but

10     if so I don't know when that motion was made, whether it's a pending

11     motion.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  [Microphone not activated]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It's not subject of a motion to give -- to get it

15     back in.  It was not on your motion -- on your last week motion to get

16     documents in, if I'm not wrong.  So it's simply not on the 65 ter list.

17             MR. HANNIS:  I see an e-mail now on my case manager's screen from

18     one of my colleagues, who's indicating that we sought to re-instate this

19     document in the motion filed last Friday.  It was previously dropped, and

20     he doesn't know why it has a 10.000 series number.  So I don't know if

21     the current motion has a request to re-instate 753.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  It doesn't.  Because if it -- if there would have

23     been such -- if it would be in that motion, I'm afraid it would have --

24     it would have the same fate as a few other ones.

25             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour, I'll do some research during the

Page 6974

 1     break and see what I can find out.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, I'm afraid -- I'm afraid this isn't

 8     your lucky day you hoped for a few minutes ago, because we did what

 9     Mrs. Korner told us a few days ago our team shouldn't do, that is,

10     double-check the numbers.  And we saw that two more documents and

11     documents with apparently normal 65 ter numbers, it is number 160 and

12     246, are equally not on the 65 ter list.  We have not been informed of

13     that, so there's another problem.  And now the problem goes to the fact

14     that it is -- that it seems that we can't rely on -- Mrs. Korner assured

15     us that we could rely on the fact that OTP would notify us when a

16     document was not on the 65 ter list and still used in court.  But

17     obviously we can't.

18             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, with the latest two you mentioned, I

19     have no information to give you at this time.  I had no reason to think

20     that they were not on the 65 ter list.  I relied on the information that

21     they were.  I'll do some further research on those.  Can I address

22     specifically 753 --

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We -- we now saw that it was in the motion, 753.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Yes --

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  But with the change of numbers, we didn't address

Page 6975

 1     it in the decision.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Yes.  May I address that?  To what I've been able to

 3     learn during the recess is that it was in the motion of last Friday.  It

 4     was in attachment or annex E, which is a list of documents that had

 5     previously been on our list, were removed I think in May of 2008 pursuant

 6     to a request or suggestion from the Pre-Trial Judge at the time that we

 7     try and reduce our list.  It was removed at that time.  Then there was a

 8     request to re-instate it.  I think the way it got the number 10110 was

 9     when one of our trial support persons was looking for 753, it didn't

10     appear on the list, so it was -- decided it needed to be assigned a new

11     number to indicate it was a new one.  That's where that number came from.

12             First of all, I'd like to assure Your Honour that I didn't do

13     anything like that intentionally.  And Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Zecevic is

14     not here but, I was in trial with them for two years previously, and I

15     think they will attest for my integrity in regard to something like this.

16     And before I learn the unfortunate news that apparently 160 and 140 are

17     now also a problem, I was going to make a pitch to you for 753 and say

18     this is not one that you decided on in your oral ruling because you

19     didn't know about it, but if I were able to make an argument to you at

20     this point I would ask you to consider allowing the Prosecution to add

21     this one.  We think it's relevant.  It goes to communications.  It's

22     particularly relevant to a point this witness made when he was talking

23     about the classification of urgency in documents.  Yesterday when he

24     described the categories from highest to lowest, he described very urgent

25     as the highest and he said he didn't think they ever sent one very urgent

Page 6976

 1     out of his centre.  This is one that is very urgent, so it's an example.

 2     It's one I guess I would use in the way that Judge Harhoff I think

 3     suggested to Ms. Korner on a previous occasion, is that just because

 4     we've ruled it can't come in, you might use it to confront a witness and

 5     ask him if it refreshes his memory or changes his mind about something,

 6     So I would propose to use that, but I would ask to use it -- and I would

 7     make an argument that in terms of one of the factors you consider in

 8     making a decision about that is prejudice to the Defence.

 9             This was a document that was on our list back in 2008, they've

10     known about it for some time.  We withdrew it.  So they might rely on --

11     I don't need to deal with it.  But now that we've added it, they have

12     some time to deal with it, and I would argue that in terms of prejudice

13     and -- one document as opposed to 23 is at least logistically less

14     prejudicial than the 23, and, therefore, it might be a reason for you to

15     make a decision about this one document.

16             I don't have anything to say about the other two yet until I do

17     some further research, and I apologise for this, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, we will now continue where we stopped.  You gave --

22     and we were starting to give a very long answer.  And you said, as far as

23     I can remember, that the special telephone line was broken down when you

24     talk about the functionality of the communications system, which in

25     essence was the most functional line for the operations of the MUP.

Page 6977

 1     Isn't that so?

 2        A.   Exactly.

 3        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, yesterday you spent quite a lot of time talking

 4     about the sending of dispatches or telegrams, and you said that on

 5     several occasions you would send some telegrams or dispatches on behalf

 6     of the chief.  So my question now will be you probably sent those

 7     telegrams which were part of your competence, of your line of work; is

 8     that so?

 9        A.   Exactly.  I pointed out yesterday, when we addressed somebody

10     with regard to the communications issues such as electricity or post --

11     postal services, then I used to send dispatches to directors or others in

12     order to try to make these lines secure so that we can operate.

13        Q.   And of course you had a right to do so in line with the staffing

14     plan and in line with the job descriptions; is that so?

15        A.   Yes, that's how I understood it, and that's what I did.

16        Q.   And these powers come out of the rule book on the public security

17     services, that is the name of your rule book?

18        A.   That was precisely so.  I never read anything special with regard

19     to my competences and powers, but that was inherited when I came, and

20     those people who did it before me, they informed me on how I'm supposed

21     to do it afterwards.  There were no other barriers, there were no

22     warnings in terms of something that I did wrong or beyond my powers.  If

23     I did anything, I always tried to notify somebody else.  I always

24     addressed my disposition to people who were supposed to know more about

25     it.

Page 6978

 1        Q.   In the CSB system of course there were other sectors and other

 2     chiefs who behaved in a similar way.  They all operated within their

 3     lines of work and within their competences, just like you?

 4        A.   Precisely so.  During the proofing and yesterday I looked at

 5     several dispatches which were titled -- which were addressed by the

 6     chief, and we saw also some signatures by other persons and even headers

 7     could have been or from other departments and not from the chiefs, as far

 8     as I can recall from looking at several dispatches yesterday.

 9        Q.   So in principle, when you have a teleprinter officer who is

10     supposed to type in a document, they first read a text and they put a

11     block signature.  At that point they're not able to put the addressee?

12        A.   They were only able to put what is written, so they copied it in

13     the -- exactly the same way.  Sometimes it was deputy of something, but

14     deputy is not an alternative, it's not what we would consider an

15     alternative.

16        Q.   And when you put -- when you ticket, you cannot put it in the

17     teleprinter?

18        A.   Yes, that can't be done.  If there is a document of that type,

19     then it was not done through our communications.  It could have been sent

20     through our communications, but it had to be some additional information

21     and some additional initials put on it.  But as far as our communications

22     network is concerned, we were not able to send it with a signature.

23     Maybe we were able to send a copy, but that was not usually done through

24     us because we didn't have a copy machine at that time.

25        Q.   And the receiving party was only able to see the so-called block

Page 6979

 1     signature; is that so?

 2        A.   Exactly so.

 3        Q.   I will now show you a document 2D02-1264.

 4             Mr. Rakovic, could you please take a careful look at this

 5     document.  You will probably remember I showed you the minutes from the

 6     meeting from the 11th of July.  This is from the 24th of July, 1992.

 7     Could you please take a look at the number.  It is related to your line

 8     of work.  It is number 11/104.

 9        A.   Yes, it's 11/104.  It seems that it was written in my department.

10        Q.   Could you please take a look at the signature?

11        A.   That's the signature of the head of the centre.

12        Q.   Which goes to say and supports what you said before, that it was

13     done on behalf of the head of the centre?

14        A.   Precisely so.

15        Q.   And could you please take a look at the substance of the

16     document.  It says that there should be maximum involvement in

17     maintaining the communications.

18        A.   We especially pointed out here KT connection communication, which

19     is interesting because it is independent from all other systems.  You

20     didn't need to have lots of different cables; you only needed to have a

21     KT station.  And that's especially interesting for radio amateurs, for

22     example.  We had people who were very well acquainted with radio amateur

23     connections and most police stations did have the KT station, but the KT

24     station was not used to transfer information.  That's the essence.

25        Q.   I would like to stop you here.  So you are trying here to say

Page 6980

 1     that that kind of system should be established?

 2        A.   Yes.  We want to establish that kind of system so that if there

 3     is some need, that we have this system to transfer some urgent

 4     information.  That's why we insisted to put in place these KT stations.

 5     I remember talking to a chief to prepare a code registry so that it can

 6     be distributed to everybody in the field so that information could be

 7     transferred through this system.  If the person has a code book, then

 8     they can decode a particular piece of information.  If it's transferred

 9     through the so-called free air.

10        Q.   So I assume that before this period this system did not work

11     because you're trying to establish it here?

12        A.   Well, it was as if it had existed, but we didn't have people

13     trained to use it.  In some stations, in some police stations, which I

14     pointed out in earlier interviews, in some SJBs we had people who were

15     not trained to work on communication issues, and that's why I was forced

16     on my own initiative to send some instructions, that when we recruit new

17     staff, that these people should be first checked by the SJB.  And I put

18     up, I set up, a committee.  I think there was several people in them so

19     that they can check whether these people had any previous experience

20     because we had cases when people would bring false documents, on which

21     signs they can use in Teletyping and so on.  That's why I wanted to have

22     this separate committee so that we can know that these people can use the

23     KT system.

24        Q.   So generally speaking, as far as I can see, you tried to set up a

25     communications system to the best of your abilities?

Page 6981

 1        A.   Precisely so.

 2        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, I have a general question with regard to the receipt

 3     of documents.  So when you would receive a dispatch or a telegram, then

 4     it would be registered in a registry book?

 5        A.   Yes.  It was a book of incoming dispatches.  At the centre itself

 6     we had four logs or four books due to a large number of dispatches, to

 7     incoming and to outgoing but logs, open and coded, one each.

 8        Q.   And dispatches that you received were addressed to different

 9     departments within your CSB?

10        A.   Exactly so.  If it was, for example, sent to all organisational

11     units and to -- and it could have been addressed to some other services,

12     such as police stations and so on.

13        Q.   And if a document or a dispatch would be addressed to you, then

14     you would get it in your service; if it had been addressed to uniformed

15     police, for example, then they would get it depending on who the

16     addressee was?

17        A.   During working hours we sent dispatches to all addressees.  In

18     the afternoon, which is after 3.00 p.m. up until 7.00 a.m., all

19     dispatches which arrived at this period of time, which were sent and were

20     operational in their nature, were sent to operative duty services.  And

21     then people from operative duty services, after having read at it, they

22     were able to see who should or should not be notified.  That's the way we

23     did it.

24        Q.   And dispatches were given to addressees through a certain type of

25     signature; is that so?

Page 6982

 1        A.   During working hours, employees would take over the dispatch and

 2     they would register it into logs and books.  In the afternoon if we

 3     didn't -- if we had, for example, a dispatch which was not urgent, we

 4     talked about different classifications, then we would keep a dispatch if

 5     it was not urgent and then we would send it in the morning.  Those which

 6     are operationally urgent, marked DX, these were sent to operative duty

 7     services.  And then operative duty services would enter these dispatches

 8     into their records, and that means that that was end of our part of work.

 9        Q.   And the State Security Service had a special log in which their

10     dispatches were recorded and sent?

11        A.   As far as I know, the principle was exactly the same.  We would

12     receive a dispatch, as from any other service, then we would send it to a

13     particular addressee; or we would receive dispatches from different

14     police stations, and we would forward it to the addressee.  And the

15     contact person was usually a secretary of the service, of the State

16     Security Service.

17        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, I have a dilemma that you might be able to help me

18     with with regard to two dispatches -- just a moment.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  Do you want to tender that document?

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Hasn't it already been admitted?  I

21     will -- I would like to tender it.

22             MR. HANNIS:  No objection.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  This will be Exhibit 2D50, Your Honours.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at 65 ter exhibit

25     478.

Page 6983

 1        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, this is a document from the package of documents

 2     shown to you by the Prosecutor.  It's document dated July the 6th, 1992.

 3     It was received but not the entire document was received.  I will give

 4     you the hard copy.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher.

 6        Q.   You can see here that there was some problems in receiving the

 7     document, and there is a part of the document missing as far as I'm able

 8     to see.

 9        A.   Well, it's difficult to say anything here.  Yes, it says 3 and 5

10     and there's number 4 missing.

11        Q.   I will now give you a hard copy of 65 ter 484 so that you can

12     compare these two.

13             Mr. Rakovic, could you please compare the two.  The method is the

14     same, a means of movement through the corridor.  It seems to me that it

15     is a dispatch which was not received to the full.  Could you please

16     compare the substance of the two documents.  So in principle it's the

17     same topic covered by the documents?

18        A.   Well, the only thing that I can see from the first document is

19     that upon the approval of the head of the centre, the head of the

20     communications department - which is myself, which is strange.

21        Q.   It was strange to me too.  There was probably a problem in

22     sending it and that's why a new telegram was sent later?

23        A.   Yes, this is the 14th of July and the next one is on the 24th of

24     July.  Probably, but I'm not sure, is that the first document was

25     supposed to be copied.  And then I received an information that it should

Page 6984

 1     be revised.  So probably upon the approval of the head of the centre I

 2     signed it so that the employee could send it.  So probably, I assume, the

 3     employee sent the entire document, which is the second one.  I don't know

 4     what happened with the first one.  Maybe there was a part missing or

 5     there was a part that needed revising.  Maybe they didn't receive the

 6     entire document and they requested an amendment.  First time it was

 7     coded, then it was crossed, then some parts were missing.  So probably

 8     people didn't know what was going on and they wanted a new document to be

 9     sent, and I assume I had to contact some people, and from what I learned

10     over the phone I just initialled it, and an employee of mine probably

11     forwarded the entire document afterwards.  Because the substance is the

12     same, aside from the point 4 in the first one.

13        Q.   That's how I understood it.  It's a repeated dispatch or dispatch

14     which was re-sent because the first part was missing?

15        A.   Yes, the first part was missing.  I never saw these dispatches

16     before, neither during the interview nor during the proofing.  This is

17     the first time I have a chance to look at it.

18        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, the Prosecutor showed you a document that you spoke

19     to.  That's P1102 -- 1002.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have this document

21     on the screen, so P1102.

22        Q.   Could you please look at the first paragraph.  Now the chief is

23     talking about illegal actions from some police officers, and there was an

24     event here when a police officer was arrested for murder.  There are two

25     police officers mentioned in here.  Since you've been shown this from --

Page 6985

 1     by the Prosecutor, do you know anything about this event, and do you know

 2     anything about events when police officers were arrested?  In paragraph

 3     2, policemen mentioned are Robert Barasanin and Zeljko Bursac?

 4        A.   I don't know anything about this event.  Maybe it was just an

 5     event in a range of different events.  But if you're asking me whether

 6     these things were happening, yes, they were.  We did have occasions, I

 7     know that, but I have no paperwork which would confirm this case, this

 8     specific case.  As I said earlier on, dispatches was something I didn't

 9     read.  I only read dispatches that were sent to me, where I was the

10     addressee.  This is a classic, an ordinary dispatch.  You can see it was

11     sent from our centre, you can see that some actions were taken with

12     regards to the text during pre-questioning.  I just looked visually at

13     the dispatch to see it was derived from.  I don't remember the specific

14     case, if that's what you wanted to know.  But the actions that were taken

15     were definitely taken.  For example, I remember a case from Banja Luka.

16     There was some criminals, with regard to which I talked to somebody and

17     said that criminal does -- goes beyond boundaries of faith or ethnicity.

18     There was a crime that was committed by a Bosnian, Croat, and three

19     Serbs, and I talked to some of ours and I said, "You can see what crime

20     is.  Criminals will not fight.  They will fight only for the money, not

21     for any other reason."

22        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, in 1992, I'm interested in that part,

23     Stojan Zupljanin never issued instructions which were not compliant with

24     the law or your professional views and principles; isn't that so?

25        A.   Precisely so.  I performed my activities, which were nothing out

Page 6986

 1     of the ordinary.  I didn't have any special requests or any special

 2     instructions that I had to follow.  Everything that I did and everything

 3     on which we co-operated was on a technical level that I used to perform.

 4     I never got any instructions.  We always agreed on what's supposed to be

 5     done.  That's how it's done even today.  I don't take orders from

 6     anybody.  That's who I am.

 7        Q.   Did you ever get an instruction or an order to hide or not show a

 8     dispatch?

 9        A.   No, no, it never happened.  Maybe somebody would tell me that the

10     dispatch was not right, then I would re-send it to be sent back to me in

11     the revised manner.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Rakovic.  That completes my questioning.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher for

14     his assistance.  Please give the witness this binder.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Rakovic.  I'm

17     Slobodan Cvijetic, attorney-at-law, and I'm co-counsel of the Defence

18     team of Mr. Mico Stanisic.  I will try to be as brief as possible, and I

19     will try to see what your basic positions are on the communications

20     system in 1992.  My foundation for this is what you said during your

21     interview and during your testimony yesterday and today.  Could you

22     please keep your comments to whether you agree with what I'm stating or

23     not.

24             Mr. Rakovic, the basis of the communications system of the

25     Ministry of the Interior is the dispatch system and the teleprinter form

Page 6987

 1     of communication; am I right?

 2        A.   You're right as far as --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the type of

 4     messages concerned.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Please pause briefly between question and answer.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Witness, repeat --

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   You will have to repeat your answer because you hurried.  So

10     could you please repeat it.

11        A.   The basis was the transmission of a certain type of messages --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

13     speak into the microphone.

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   All other alternative types of message --

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Rakovic, the interpreters ask that you speak

17     more directly into the microphone because they have a difficulty in

18     hearing what you're actually saying.  Thank you.  I hope you're

19     comfortable, otherwise the usher will assist you.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, that form of communication, during 1992, you did not

22     actually have it with the centre of security stations?

23        A.   As far as I know, we did not have that system with the ministry

24     of Republika Srpska, the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

25        Q.   Alternative types of communication, such as UKT, KT, telephones,

Page 6988

 1     and courier cannot make up for the absence of this basic type of

 2     communication if there are problems in their functioning, and you already

 3     spoke about that; am I right?

 4        A.   Well, yes, you're right.

 5        Q.   These types of communication, as far as you're concerned,

 6     functioned for the most part at local level when they could function,

 7     right?

 8        A.   Yes, that's right, especially for UKT communications.

 9        Q.   The basic shortcoming, as far as such communications are

10     concerned, is the lack of security involved; am I right?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   An additional problem in 1992 in terms of the functioning of the

13     system of communications with the centre of the ministry lay in the fact

14     that the seat of the centre often moved.  So you personally sometimes

15     didn't even know where the centre and the ministry were.  Am I right?

16        A.   You are 100 per cent right.  During my term I actually never went

17     to the first territory -- or rather, Bijeljina was the first territory

18     that I went to in terms of where the seat was.

19        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, yesterday you looked at a document from the

20     beginning of December 1992, I think it was the 5th of 6th of December.

21     In this document you were asked to give information about the situation

22     regarding the communications system and the problems therein so that an

23     annual report could be compiled at ministry level about the work involved

24     and, among other things, the communications system.  Do you remember

25     seeing that document yesterday?

Page 6989

 1        A.   I cannot remember exactly which document you're referring to

 2     exactly.  However, the principle involved was the following.  Always on

 3     the eve of the new year there would be a request, or rather, a dispatch

 4     stating that organisational units, primarily centres of security

 5     services, should prepare a report for the ministry.  And the centres of

 6     the security services sent this down to their own organisational units so

 7     that they could also carry out preparations for compiling an annual

 8     report.

 9        Q.   All right.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness

11     please be shown -- or rather, could we see in e-court P625, P625.

12        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, it's number 1 for you.  Right.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at page 36 in

14     B/C/S in e-court.  In English it is page 25 and 26.  If we cannot have

15     both on the screen at the same time, could we start with 25 and then move

16     on to 26, please.

17        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, it is page 32 for you.  It's not the same page

18     number like in e-court.

19        A.   I can't see the page numbers, F ...

20        Q.   Towards the bottom, it's the regular way you mark page numbers.

21             Don't look at the ERN number, it will just confuse you.

22        A.   Usually you put page numbers on the top of the page, and now I

23     see it here at the bottom, and it's on the left-hand side.

24        Q.   But have you found it?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 6990

 1        Q.   I suggest that we deal with this paragraph by paragraph.  Do you

 2     see what is stated in the first paragraph, "bearing in mind the three

 3     basic elements of work of communications and cryptographic data

 4     protection."  Please be patient and hear me out.  "(Personnel technical

 5     equipment, and documents).  It can be said that this segment of the

 6     Ministry of the Interior was among those which initially had the most

 7     organisational problems."

 8             Is this correct?

 9        A.   It is most certainly correct.

10        Q.   Please read the next paragraph -- I will actually tell you what

11     it's about.  There was a lack of personnel, technical equipment.  There

12     weren't proper documents to work with.  Response from communications

13     staff was very low, and I think that you talked about that today?

14        A.   Precisely.

15        Q.   So do you agree with this statement made in the report?

16        A.   I agree and I spoke of it myself today.

17        Q.   Very well.  Now, somebody raised the question of these nodes.  So

18     just skip a paragraph now and move on to number 4.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we have the next page in

20     English on our screens.  It says:

21             "Of the central nodes in the MUP ..."

22             Have you found it?

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   As far as I can remember there's a reference to nine nodes, and

25     it says that it was only the CSB nodes in Banja Luka and Doboj that

Page 6991

 1     remained under Serb control.

 2        A.   Precisely.  The centre of Bosnia-Herzegovina had Sarajevo as the

 3     main node --

 4        Q.   Just deal with it slowly.

 5        A.   The following nodes:  Sarajevo was the main node; then there was

 6     Gorazde, as far as I can remember; then Tuzla; Zenica; Doboj; Banja Luka;

 7     Livno; Bihac; and now I cannot remember whether Bugojno was there or not.

 8     Was there a node there?  Now, out of all of these nodes the MUP of

 9     Republika Srpska had under its control only the Doboj node and the Banja

10     Luka node.  Later on, though --

11        Q.   That's fine.  That will do.  In that same paragraph it says that

12     "with the disintegration of the single teleprinter link, the system of

13     cryptographic data protection for written communications in the organs of

14     internal affairs on the territories under our control also

15     disintegrated."

16             Is this true?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Please skip the KT paragraph.  You already discussed that.  Let's

19     move on to the next one that says:

20             "There are problems with the UHF network were the lack of radio

21     sets and difficulties ..." et cetera.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S could we have the next

23     page, please.

24        Q.   I'm not asking you to repeat what you said about UKT and KT.  I'm

25     just asking you to confirm whether this is correct, what was stated about

Page 6992

 1     UKT and KT communications.

 2        A.   Exactly, and I already spoke about that.

 3        Q.   Again, if you'd just skip a short paragraph, you have the final

 4     statement.

 5             "A particular problem for the communications system was the move

 6     of the MUP from Vraca to Lukavac, then to Pale and then to Bijeljina."

 7             So it was hard to establish a definite communications system

 8     until the ministry finally stayed put because it's not easy to move

 9     communications system.  Am I right?

10        A.   Yes, absolutely.  In fact - how should I put this? - we had a

11     system that sort of started operating only when they moved to Bijeljina

12     in 1993, and that is what it says here as well.

13        Q.   Thank you.  In this same document, please don't look at the

14     page --

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have to say this to the

16     Trial Chamber.  It is in Serbian page 32 and in English 23.

17        Q.   It's going to be page 28 for you.  The page number is at the

18     bottom.

19             The paragraph starts with the following words -- or rather, it's

20     the fourth paragraph in B/C/S -- and perhaps Tanja could help me now and

21     tell me which paragraph it is in the English version.  I think it is the

22     second paragraph.  It is statistics about the total number of dispatches

23     received at the ministry headquarters, it doesn't say from which centre,

24     but this is the total number.  I would just like to deal with the

25     following:

Page 6993

 1             If the average daily number of dispatches received was 15,

 2     bearing in mind that this came from five centres, bearing in mind the

 3     fact that there were two services, namely, the public security service

 4     and the national security service, and that they had to send daily

 5     reports.  So for all other lines of work within the ministry, there would

 6     be one dispatch per day.  You will agree with me that in war time when

 7     things happen very quickly, this is truly insufficient, very little if

 8     you bearing in mind that your equipment was overtaxed anyway?

 9        A.   Yes, that is the way it seems.  Yes, if you look at the number

10     15, et cetera.

11        Q.   And a normal number, that system would have been -- that number

12     would have been much higher if the system were in a different condition?

13        A.   Most certainly.

14        Q.   Could the witness now please be shown document P1010.  The 65 ter

15     number is 1264.

16             Have you found this document in your binder?  I'm sorry, I'm

17     afraid I've forgotten the number.  You'll recognise it from what you see

18     on the screen and then you can find it in your binder.  It's number 2.  I

19     think it's number 2, the very next document, and then if not -- no, no.

20     4, 4.  Have you found it?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Take a look.  It's not that you're unfamiliar with it.  You saw

23     it yesterday.  Isn't that right?

24        A.   Yesterday we made some comments in relation to this.

25        Q.   Please just give me yes or no answers.  Mr. Rakovic, this is not

Page 6994

 1     a dispatch; am I right?

 2        A.   Something like this could not be called a dispatch in view of the

 3     signatories and --

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please now have the

 6     following document:  P1004.

 7        Q.   Have you found this document?  You looked at it yesterday.

 8        A.   I can see it on the screen.

 9        Q.   Well, I think it's 15 or 16.  I may have got the numbers mixed

10     up.  So you saw this document yesterday.  Please look at the date, the

11     4th of May, 1992.  Look at it up there.

12        A.   I've seen it.  I've seen it.

13        Q.   And now let's move on to page 2 of the document.  You have the

14     signature of Mico Stanisic here.  You say you've never seen his

15     signature, but his name is typed there.  You will agree with me that this

16     is not a dispatch either.  This is a hard copy like the one you see.

17     It's a document, not a dispatch; am I right?

18        A.   Yes, yes.  We refer to this as a document.

19        Q.   Yes, I agree.  That's the proper term.  Now, let's have document

20     P1003 on the screen, please.

21             Mr. Rakovic, Mr. Zupljanin evidently received this document, such

22     as it is, refers to it -- he referred to it and then forwarded it to the

23     public security stations; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And the date is the 13th of May, 1992, assuming that

Page 6995

 1     Mr. Zupljanin, so to say, responded in the usual way and that it took,

 2     let's say, 24 hours for this document to be forwarded.  Then it can be

 3     seen from this that the document travelled for some eight or nine days;

 4     is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes, precisely so.

 6        Q.   I don't want to speculate how the document could have arrived

 7     within nine days in that period, but I will put something to you and

 8     please listen to me.  Don't look at the document anymore.

 9             In that initial period in May when there was fighting around the

10     corridor before it was definitely closed, it was possible for someone --

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, I'm -- how do you conclude that

12     this document was nine days travelling before it reached its address?

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if Mr. Stanisic

14     compiled it on the 4th of May, 1992, and Mr. Zupljanin responded to it on

15     the 13th -- can we continue?

16        Q.   Well, I am speculating, but let's say somebody managed to carry

17     this physically by hand, risking passing through battle-fields, over

18     mine-fields, and so on and so forth, and now Mr. Zupljanin is forwarding

19     this document, you are forwarding it by means of communication to the

20     SJBs.  Along with the problems you had at the local level, or rather, in

21     view of these problems, you certainly would not be able to receive a

22     response within 24 hours, especially not from those SJBs where you had to

23     use alternative means of communication?

24        A.   Yes, that's how it would be.

25        Q.   So you will agree with me that the route followed by this

Page 6996

 1     document emanating from the minister would be one where it would take at

 2     least a month for a response to take place?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Well, then you will agree that for the functions of a Ministry of

 5     the Interior in war time the loss of a month is practically an eternity.

 6     It means that communications are not functioning; am I right?

 7        A.   Well, it's not up to me to say that.

 8        Q.   All right.  I'll just put another general question.  I won't show

 9     you any more documents.  Setting up telephone lines from time to time and

10     establishing communication was done by the postal code service, not by

11     you.  You didn't have direct telephone lines with Jahorina, Pale, I'm

12     referring to the MUP; is that right?

13        A.   Well, communications of that sort went through the post office,

14     yes.

15        Q.   So when there was such communication it was through the post

16     office in Sarajevo, and it was insecure because in Sarajevo it could be

17     wire-tapped and it could be cut off; am I right?

18        A.   Yes, you certainly are.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I have

20     no further questions.

21             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Before we finish today, I

22     do have some additional information about the two documents for

23     Judge Delvoie.

24                           Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

25        Q.   Mr. Rakovic -- let me find my notes here.

Page 6997

 1             At page 15 today Mr. Krgovic was asking you about the total

 2     number of dispatches referred to in the six-month report for the first

 3     half of the year.  You remember that number was something just less than

 4     10.000.  And then the number for the three-month period between July and

 5     September and that huge difference.  And he pointed out the fact that the

 6     first three months and maybe another week at the beginning of 1992 were

 7     during peacetime, and that may be part of the reason why the number for

 8     the first six months was so big.  Do you remember that discussion?

 9        A.   Yes, I remember that that's what we said today about that topic.

10        Q.   And would you agree with me if we had in hand the log-book for

11     received dispatches in Banja Luka, we would be able to look and see how

12     many were received in the first three months of the year and how many in

13     the second three months, and then we'd know precisely what the division

14     was between peacetime and war time during the first half of the year.

15     Would you agree that's where we could find that information?

16        A.   Well, I wouldn't agree that that information would be evident

17     from those books.  What books?  The dispatch books pertained only to our

18     station.  We didn't have those from other stations, so we would have to

19     look at all the dispatches in all the SJBs, collect all this information

20     and --

21        Q.   No, no, let me stop you.  I'm only talking about dispatches

22     received in the centre in Banja Luka.  Wouldn't that information be in

23     the log-book in Banja Luka?

24        A.   Yes, our dispatches should be there if the books were for the

25     whole year, yes.  Well, you know, sir, just let me tell you something --

Page 6998

 1        Q.   No, no, I'm sorry, I have limited time.  Let me stop you.  I

 2     think we did show you one log-book from Banja Luka for received

 3     documents, but it only starts on 27 November 1992.  Do you know whether

 4     or not there still exists in the centre of Banja Luka the log-book for

 5     received dispatches in 1992 prior to November 27th or where it might be

 6     kept today?

 7        A.   I don't think that such books are still in existence.  They are

 8     kept for only a short time because they only serve to prove that we sent

 9     or received certain dispatches, and later on they're useless.  If we were

10     to keep them, we would have a whole room full of books with no value,

11     containing no useful information.

12        Q.   Fair enough.  Thank you.  You mentioned a number of non-Serbs who

13     were working in the centre in Banja Luka in 1992.  Did you know about the

14     body called the ARK Crisis Staff, the Crisis Staff for the Autonomous

15     Region of Krajina, in 1992?

16        A.   I only heard about it like I'm hearing from you now.  I never

17     knew anything about the existence of this staff or its headquarters.  We

18     keep mentioning various staffs.  They said there's a staff up there, but

19     it wasn't the staff actually, it was a ministry which had its certain

20     administrative offices and employees.  It wasn't a staff.

21        Q.   Let me ask you, were you not aware of an ARK Crisis Staff

22     decision that called upon the various private and the various business

23     enterprises as well as governmental organisations, including the MUP, to

24     remove non-essential non-Serb personnel?  Did you not know about that

25     decision?

Page 6999

 1        A.   I really don't know about that.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3        A.   It would be impossible for me to work with some such people, for

 4     someone to remove them while I was receiving them.  I don't know.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6        A.   Or rather, employing them.

 7        Q.   You were asked at page 33, line 19 today, about the sending of

 8     dispatches or telegrams.  Did you personally send dispatches or

 9     telegrams, actually sit down at the machine and type them up?

10        A.   Never, never.

11        Q.   Okay.  You said that you used to send dispatches -- for example,

12     on communication issues, such as electricity or post, you said you used

13     to send dispatches to directors or others.  In the MUP and Banja Luka

14     centre, did you have a link to a teleprinter with postal services or any

15     other enterprises in town that were non-MUP?

16        A.   We didn't have such links.  We had a telephone link with military

17     headquarters -- or rather, switchboard.  We had some with the Territorial

18     Defence in town that was something that was special in our switchboard.

19     We had the Municipal Assembly we could contact, the defence department or

20     whatever it was called.  We had five or six local telephone lines linked

21     to our switchboard.  We could communicate with the military switchboard,

22     the local post office, and that was to save money.

23        Q.   Did you have any Teletype, teleprinter connections with the

24     military or the TO with the VRS or the TO?

25        A.   No, we did not.  Our teleprinter system was a closed system.  It

Page 7000

 1     was not linked up to any external system, any system of another user.

 2     Only the Ministry of the Interior.

 3        Q.   At page 35, line 11 today you were saying:

 4             "But as far as our communications network is concerned, we were

 5     not able to send it with a signature.  Maybe we were able to send a copy,

 6     but that was not done through us because we didn't have a copy machine at

 7     that time."

 8             Do you mean in your unit, in your communications section, you

 9     didn't have a printer?  Or did you mean in the whole of the centre of

10     Banja Luka CSB?

11        A.   In the centre the only system we had was a fax machine, 39155 was

12     the number.  If we sent a document by fax, there would always be a trace

13     to show what fax the document had some from.  Yesterday I viewed several

14     documents here which had no such trace on them.  They had a signature on

15     them, but no trace of being sent by fax.

16        Q.   My question is:  Did you have copier machines in CSB Banja Luka

17     even though you might not have them in your unit's section in the

18     building?

19        A.   Well, to tell you the truth, in our communications centre we

20     never had copy machines and we still don't.  Sometimes when I have to

21     make a copy --

22        Q.   Okay, stop.  But didn't you have them in CSB Banja Luka,

23     someplace where you could go and make a copy in the CSB Banja Luka in

24     1992?

25        A.   To the best of my recollection I can't say whether it was 1992.

Page 7001

 1     We later had a copy unit downstairs in a small room where people came to

 2     get identity cards.  There was a copy machine bought and placed there,

 3     and the documents would be sent down there for copying.  But when I

 4     arrived, I really don't remember anyone having a copy machine.  I'm sure

 5     if someone had had one we would have known about it.  In our

 6     communications centre there is no copy machine there to this day.

 7        Q.   Are you saying to the best of your memory you never made a copy

 8     of a document in 1992 while working at the CSB Banja Luka?

 9        A.   I'm saying that my staff members and I never had occasion to make

10     a copy of a document.  I don't know whether there was a copy machine

11     somewhere else in the building.  Perhaps there might have been one in the

12     state security sector where I never went --

13        Q.   Okay --

14        A.   -- but in the parts of the premises where I went, I never saw

15     one.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Could we show the witness Exhibit 2D250.

17        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, this is one that was shown to you by Mr. Krgovic,

18     page 35, line 18 today.  And you'll see the number is 11-1/04-76.  I

19     think you've explained to us that the 04 means it came from you or your

20     unit, your section.  Correct?

21        A.   Yes, precisely so.

22        Q.   And number 76 would mean that was the 76th dispatch for 1992 from

23     your section, correct?

24        A.   Yes, correct, correct.

25        Q.   And on this document we see handwritten at the top the name Milos

Page 7002

 1     Jankovic.  Did you know him in 1992; and if so, where did he work and

 2     what did he do?

 3        A.   I knew the gentleman from Cajavec where I worked in 1978.  In

 4     Prijedor he was chief of the department for communications and

 5     cryptographical protection or encryption.  It had a department somewhat

 6     smaller than our unit.  So I assume when the dispatch arrived there

 7     because it was addressed to the chief that the Prijedor chief or someone

 8     who received the dispatch wrote on it that it should be addressed to

 9     Jankovic because he was in charge of encoding in Prijedor.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Hannis, how much longer do you think you would

12     be?

13             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I have six notes, so that would be 15

14     minutes to 20 minutes.

15             JUDGE HALL:  So we'll take the break and come back in 15.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Again, for the record, as a matter of courtesy to

20     counsel, I would explain that we were not lollygagging during the

21     extended break, we were working on administrative issues.  Thank you.

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Just for the record, good

23     afternoon.  Mr. Zecevic has joined the Stanisic Defence.  Thank you very

24     much.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 7003

 1             MS. KORNER:  Actually, I was going to sneak in unnoticed, but

 2     actually I'm here as well.  Joanna Korner joining Mr. Hannis.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MR. HANNIS:

 5        Q.   Mr. Rakovic, at page 38 today you were being asked about the

 6     operative duty services, and that reminded me.  We had seen a few

 7     dispatches where the number from the Banja Luka security centre --

 8     security services centre was 11-01/0D and then a number.  Now, I know in

 9     Serbian there is a word spelled "o-d" which I understand means from.  But

10     in the context of a number on an outgoing dispatch I understand OD can

11     mean operative duty.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Operative duty service, yes.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Krgovic was asking you about 65 ter 478.

14             MR. HANNIS:  If we could put that up on the screen for the

15     witness quickly.

16        Q.   I think this is a document from July the 6th, and it had some

17     information about the opening of the corridor and procedures to be used

18     in connection with that.

19             The handwritten part in the upper right, I wasn't clear, is that

20     your signature?

21        A.   Yes, it's my signature.

22        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  I just wanted to verify that.  And you know

23     there was a -- we looked at a second document that was sent out that had

24     basically the same content as this one, but it had a different number.  I

25     think that was 11-1/01-15.  If you're re-sending a document, would you

Page 7004

 1     use the same number, or did you give it a new number?

 2        A.   We had already sent a document which was probably not in good

 3     order.  And as we sent this the next day, of course the number would be

 4     different.  That's why we gave it another number because this document is

 5     missing a paragraph, paragraph 4, as far as I can see, which is why I

 6     even added something on here which means that the employees in my service

 7     had re-typed the entire document and probably forwarded it under another

 8     number.

 9        Q.   My question, though, is if -- I can understand that if the new

10     document was different, changed, modified, amended, adding something

11     different from the original document, that it should get a new number.

12     If you're simply re-transmitting the exact same document, would it keep

13     the old number, or would that also get a new number?  Do you know what

14     the practice was?

15        A.   Evidently that was the practice.  Had the practice been

16     different, I probably would have sent it under the same number, but I

17     couldn't send it a few days later with the same number when other numbers

18     had come in between.  And of course the document is not identical because

19     an entire passage is missing.

20        Q.   And for -- are you saying for the rest of it, it's identical?

21        A.   As far as I can see, yes, it is.  But the fourth paragraph is

22     missing.  That's what I was able to see when I had it before me on the

23     desk, both documents, that is.

24        Q.   All right.  Well, we have the documents in.  We can take a look

25     at them.  I want to move to page 42, line 10 today.  You were asked if

Page 7005

 1     Mr. Zupljanin ever issued any instructions that weren't compliant with

 2     the law or your professional views and principles.  You don't know what

 3     orders Mr. Zupljanin may have given to other individuals or other units,

 4     do you?

 5        A.   Precisely so.  I know that I never received any orders, either

 6     oral or in writing, that might mean I had to do something not in

 7     compliance with the law.  However, whether he gave any such orders to

 8     anybody else, I don't know.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned at page 45, line 4, that Bijeljina was

10     the first territory that you went to in terms of going to the seat or the

11     centre of the RS MUP.  Do you recall approximately when it was that you

12     went to Bijeljina?

13        A.   I can't recall when it was.  All I know is that my first visit to

14     the MUP line of work where we had a meeting organised by Mr. Dragan

15     Kezunovic, and it took place in Bijeljina, but what month this was I'm

16     not sure.  It was probably 1993 because I think that's when the MUP

17     headquarters were moved to Bijeljina.

18        Q.   And that meeting was with Mr. Kezunovic?

19        A.   He was the chief of the administration for communications and

20     encryption, and he was the one who convened the meeting.  I know I

21     attended that meeting.  I remember that Mr. Kezunovic had a bed in one of

22     the offices where he slept, and we practically had our meeting in his

23     bedroom.  The colleagues from the other centres would come there and

24     that's where we had our meetings.

25        Q.   Sounds like another STA I know.

Page 7006

 1             But where -- what was the purpose of this meeting, do you know?

 2        A.   Well, it was the usual sort of meeting about the situation as

 3     regards communications; about procurement of equipment, whether one could

 4     get something somewhere; how to improve communications.  That first

 5     meeting was also for me to introduce myself to other people and get to

 6     know them.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  At page 48, line 16, today you mentioned -- or

 8     you agreed that one of the particular problems for communications systems

 9     was the move of the seat of the MUP or the centre of the MUP from Vraca

10     to Lukavac and then to Pale and then to Bijeljina.  Did you have any

11     mobile units with Teletype or teleprint machines in them?

12        A.   You mean in the MUP headquarters?

13        Q.   Well, first of all, I mean in the MUP, whether it was in Banja

14     Luka or at the SJBs, anywhere in the MUP, did you have that kind of

15     equipment?  Did you have mobile units which included Teletype machines,

16     teleprinter, Teletype machines?

17        A.   I don't fully understand the question.  We -- whether we in our

18     headquarters had all this, we did, but in the headquarters of the MUP,

19     which was in Lukavica or Pale.  As I didn't go up there, I don't know

20     whether they had -- what equipment they had.  I didn't see it myself.  We

21     had what we had.  And in the annual report of 1992 we, like all the other

22     stations, sent our report.  So we said we have a teleprinter, TG1 and so

23     on and so forth.

24        Q.   I understand.  The point that I'm trying to make is that the MUP

25     in 1992 did possess mobile communication machines -- mobile communication

Page 7007

 1     units, which included Teletype/teleprinter machines; is that right?  You

 2     may not know how many or exactly where they were located, but they did

 3     exist within the MUP in 1992, do you agree?

 4             MR. HANNIS:  I he see Mr. Cvijetic on his feet.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.  I think

 6     that it's a leading question.  It is leading.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Technically Mr. Cvijetic is correct, but I don't see

 8     a problem with the question.

 9             Mr. Hannis, please proceed.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

11        Q.   Did you understand my question, sir?  Did you have that kind of

12     equipment in the MUP in 1992?

13        A.   You know what, you asked me whether the ministry had such

14     equipment.  The ministry did, and we were part of the ministry.  Now,

15     whether the ministry up there in headquarters --

16        Q.   I understand --

17        A.   I mean, as I say, I didn't even know where it was, I don't know

18     that.

19        Q.   Are you aware that there was a mobile unit with a Teletype

20     printer in Prijedor?

21        A.   Prijedor, yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Just one or two final questions.  At page 50 today, I

23     think Mr. Cvijetic showed you a document, 65 ter 1264.  That was the

24     document from Mr. Gajic, I believe.  Do you recall that one?

25        A.   I do recall it was shown yesterday and today.

Page 7008

 1        Q.   And you were asked if that were a dispatch.  You said:

 2             "No, something like this could not be called -- could not be

 3     called a dispatch in view of the signatories," but that document is

 4     something from which a dispatch could be prepared, was it not?  It had a

 5     number, it had a date.

 6        A.   Well, according to all of that, it might have, but the way it was

 7     done, it does not look like a dispatch.  I pointed out yesterday that I

 8     didn't even know that there was that kind of department, a department for

 9     mobilisation at the centre.  It said there that he was head of some

10     department, this or that, whatever.  I know for that reason that that

11     kind of thing could not pass as it were because it did not exist.

12        Q.   Well, as far as you know it didn't exist, correct?

13        A.   Yes, as far as I know.

14        Q.   Could we look at P1004, 1004.  This is the last document I'm

15     going to ask you about, sir.  Mr. Cvijetic showed you this and asked you

16     what this was, and you indicated that it was a -- it was not a dispatch.

17     You said:

18             "We referred to this as a document."

19        A.   Precisely, because I had a look at the first and the second page.

20     If I were only to look at the first page -- well, I mean, just a piece of

21     paper on which something was written.  It might be a dispatch had it been

22     delivered through our system, however it could not been sent through our

23     system.  I did not see a stamp, a signature.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Could we go to the second page or the last page of

25     this document.

Page 7009

 1        Q.   Now, is there any reason that if this had been presented in the

 2     communications centre in this form, that it could not be converted to a

 3     dispatch?  You have a number, you see who it's coming from, you see who

 4     it's supposed to go to.  It simply needs to be mechanically transposed

 5     into a document that can be sent out on the Teletype, right?

 6        A.   I'm saying once again, this kind of text, I mean to put it on a

 7     teleprinter machine and to re-type it, it would be a dispatch and it

 8     would leave without a signature.

 9        Q.   Right.

10        A.   Now, I'm saying it's not a dispatch for the following reason

11     because probably --

12        Q.   No, I understand.  Thank you.  You've answered all my questions.

13             MR. HANNIS:  I'm finished, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise.

16     However, during the re-direct on page 54, page 7, the witness started

17     answering a question and then the Prosecutor interrupted him.  I think

18     that it would be right to allow the witness to finish that answer.  Could

19     the Trial Chamber allow me to ask the witness so that he could finish

20     giving the answer because it has to do with what we've been discussing

21     today.  So may I be allowed to put that question?

22             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed, Mr. Krgovic.

23                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Rakovic, when you were answering the

25     Prosecutor's question and when he asked you whether you could establish

Page 7010

 1     the number of received dispatches only on the basis of log-book in Banja

 2     Luka of dispatches received and sent, you said that in order to answer

 3     you would have to have the books from the public security stations; is

 4     that right?

 5        A.   Precisely.

 6        Q.   Sorry, we have a time problem.  So this number of 9.000 that is

 7     mentioned here, that is the total number of received and sent dispatches

 8     for all the public security stations and the centre?

 9        A.   Precisely, in the territory of Banja Luka.

10        Q.   And when we're talking about received and sent dispatches, some

11     of them are recorded at the public security station as received, and at

12     the centre they're registered as sent, but they're actually one in the

13     same dispatch; is that right?

14        A.   That's right, precisely.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  That is

16     all I had.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis, on document exhibited as P -- about

19     P1004, the last document you were asking questions about to the witness.

20     If I understood well the witness said, this is not -- you said, sir, this

21     is not a dispatch, and I can't recognise this as something that was

22     processed through our service.  Is that right?

23        A.   Precisely.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Doesn't it follow from that, Mr. Hannis,

25     that this document could not be admitted through this witness?

Page 7011

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Not at all, Your Honour.  This is -- this is

 2     inextricably intertwined with the dispatch from Banja Luka CSB which was

 3     forwarding the contents of P1004, and it made explicit reference to it by

 4     date and by number.  Now --

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  My argument is --

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I've got your point.  I've got your point.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Yeah.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  I'm satisfied.  Thank you.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

11                           [Questioned by the Court]

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Rakovic, thank you for your testimony.  The

13     core of your testimony yesterday and today has been to give us an

14     impression of the possibilities of the CSB in Banja Luka to communicate

15     with the SJBs within its area.  And you have told us on the one hand that

16     the communication lines were extremely difficult, at certain times even

17     impossible.  And in your many answers to the questions put by the Defence

18     counsels, you have testified that during the war, that is to say after

19     the breakout of armed conflict in April 1992, it was at times extremely

20     difficult to communicate from the CSB to the SJBs around in the region

21     because of the telephone lines were broken, because of the cuts in power,

22     no electricity, because of the danger of travelling by road to have a

23     person transmitting the message, and because of also the malfunctioning

24     of your equipment.  What you had at your disposal was simply not working

25     and had needed to be repaired and fixed all the time.  So all of this

Page 7012

 1     together made communications extremely difficult.

 2             Yet, the Prosecution has told us and has shown and you have

 3     confirmed that, that a great number of communications were actually

 4     transmitted, at a minimum I think about a thousand communications every

 5     month, even at the minimum, sometimes perhaps even more.  So there seems

 6     to be a contradiction somehow between the two parts of your testimony,

 7     and this is what my question is about.  How are we to reconcile the fact

 8     that on the one hand, in fact, a great number of communications were able

 9     to get through the lines, and yet on the other hand your testimony that

10     communications were impossible?

11             So can you clarify exactly to give us a better impression of the

12     ability of the CSB to follow what was going on in the SJBs and the

13     ability of the SJBs to report back to the SSB [sic] of what was happening

14     on the ground?

15        A.   It is correct.  Both things that I said were correct.  I said

16     that it was made more difficult, yes.  It became more difficult because

17     of all the reasons that you mentioned and there was yet another one.

18     There were usual directions in which communications evolved, and those

19     were cut off.  And it's not only that.  For example, all the western

20     Krajina municipalities were -- became part of the SJB, and they were

21     connected only with Livno and Bihac.  Telecom and PTT lines did not exist

22     there, cables and the like, and that created a problem for us.  It is

23     correct that we did manage to establish quite a few communications with

24     stations that were closer to us and that remained intact, if I can put it

25     that way.  Then the equipment, the transmission equipment was there,

Page 7013

 1     relatively speaking.  Sometimes we'd have devices without having

 2     documents.  We did not have documents that were coming in regularly.

 3     There were old documents that became unusable because they were printed,

 4     they were made for the old system.  So we could not even use some of the

 5     existing documents.  Therefore, it was not only a question of lack of

 6     equipment.  It was also a lack of documents, of directions, cables,

 7     et cetera.  I remember when the PTT were placing relays on different

 8     elevations and then our communications became combined, partly radio

 9     relay, partly cable.  And then again only cable, and that is how these

10     communications went.  It is true that, for example, for a few days there

11     wouldn't be telephone connections with some destinations; however, time

12     was required to establish communications and to get this done.  If we say

13     1.000 dispatches for about 20 stations that were covered by Banja Luka in

14     30 days, that doesn't really mean anything, two or three.  For example,

15     there would be one dispatch by way of regular information.  That was

16     really not much of a number, as would be required in view of all the

17     things that were happening at that time.  Therefore, I can claim that the

18     communications system was collapsing.  That is a fact.

19             I told you yesterday as well, and I'm saying it again today, we

20     would establish communication in the morning.  We could work but then we

21     could not work because the station that we were supposed to send the

22     dispatch to had no electricity.  When they would get electricity, then we

23     would have no electricity.  That kind of thing happened.  Then the

24     dispatch would not arrive on time.  The destination would be written on

25     the top of the document, it would say "to all police stations," but

Page 7014

 1     perhaps only five would receive it.  Once they arrive in the territory,

 2     they're treated as 20 arrived dispatches.  Every station gets one

 3     dispatch, and we would just be sending one dispatch but it would go to

 4     five different destinations, for instance.  I don't know.  I mean, I

 5     don't see that there is any kind of special collision involved.  I mean,

 6     you can ask me something specific if you like.  From all these reports

 7     and the report of the ministry that we looked at a few moments ago, you

 8     can see what the situation actually was.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I didn't mean to suggest that you have been

10     contradicting yourself.  The question that I put to you was merely that

11     the two parts of your testimony would seem to be somehow at odds, and I

12     was actually just asking you to explain, and you have given a good answer

13     to my question.

14             Could I clarify by asking you what possibilities were available

15     to you if you were trying to send an important dispatch to an SJB

16     somewhere within your area of responsibility and you discovered that you

17     couldn't do it because the recipient had no power?  What would you do

18     then?  Would you then try to send the dispatch to another SJB nearby and

19     ask them to see if they could bring it over to the final destination

20     somehow, or how did you cope with these things, with these shortcomings?

21        A.   Well, precisely just as you put it.  Sometimes we could not send

22     it.  Sometimes the machine would break down at the receiving station.

23     That kind of thing happens to this day.  Then we would of course ask the

24     nearest police station where the equipment was functioning to receive the

25     dispatch and then for them to send it on.  We can say that there were

Page 7015

 1     such cases, yes, and then sometimes we would wait.  I told you, for

 2     example, in the morning we would try to send it.  It would be logged in

 3     in the book in the morning because it says "to all SJBs."  And then he

 4     would tick off the ones that he managed to send them to and then his

 5     colleague would come for the next shift and he would say, "See, these

 6     dispatches could not have been sent."  Now if these were urgent

 7     dispatches, then he would have to inform the sending party of the

 8     dispatch that the dispatch had not actually been sent, and we don't know

 9     what would happen after that.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Were you aware of situations in which urgent

11     dispatches never left -- never got out of this -- of your department in

12     the CSB?  In other words, were there situations where something that

13     should have been sent out, in the end never was sent out because for one

14     or the other reason it turned out to be impossible and in the end the

15     dispatch was never sent?  Were there such situations?

16        A.   I assume that there were such situations.  However, as for myself

17     personally, since I had a head of department for information transmission

18     and for crypto protection, that person worked more on that kind of thing.

19     Sometimes he would not even inform me about it.  He would contact the

20     party sending the dispatch, contact them directly.  So it's not that

21     something special would happen.  I mean, then he would tell me about it

22     too if there were a standstill.  But this kind of thing happened every

23     day, so they had to deal with such problems on a daily basis.  There was

24     the person in charge of dispatches who took care of all these dispatches.

25     I mean, I never came close to that kind of thing.  No one would come and

Page 7016

 1     tell me and say, "A dispatch to such and such a place was not sent."

 2     That would be a very special situation that they would call me and that I

 3     would have to look into the matter.

 4             I mean, the man in charge there, he would look at it and he would

 5     see whether there was any other possibility, he would inform the sending

 6     party that it was impossible to send this dispatch, things like that.  If

 7     I tell you that there was no need for me to go there, I mean, I'd go

 8     there very rarely.  Basically I didn't even walk in there where they

 9     worked on dispatches.  Sometimes I went there to see who was there

10     but ...

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, sir.  I have no further questions.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Rakovic, for your assistance to the

13     Tribunal.  You are now released as a witness and we wish you a safe

14     journey back to your home.  The usher will escort you from the courtroom.

15     Thank you.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Hannis.

19             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, sir.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  We in the meantime understood that the two last

21     documents we were talking about, that there was only an error in

22     numbering or a problem in numbering, but they were actually on your 65

23     ter list.

24             MR. HANNIS:  I think that's correct.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yeah, so that problem is solved.

Page 7017

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Okay.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  As for your -- for the document 10110 --

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Or 753 --

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  -- or 753, whatever, we took into consideration,

 5     the Trial Chamber took into consideration your application.  And we

 6     decide that in the interest of justice it may be added to the 65 ter list

 7     so that we don't have to do anything special about the exhibit list.  It

 8     stays -- it is exhibited and it stays exhibited.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much, Your Honour, and I appreciate

10     that.  And for the record I would just add in terms of evaluating

11     prejudice to the Defence, it was one of the 14 documents I notified them

12     I wanted to seek to admit and there was no objection.  I'm not trying to

13     sneak that past them, but that was just a fact.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

15             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much.

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I think we need to go into private

17     session for the administrative matters that now arise.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Private session.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7018











11 Pages 7018-7020 redacted. Private session.















Page 7021

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15                           [Open session]

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there's something I

17     wish to raise, but it can be done in open session.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in connection with a

21     witness who was discussed in closed session, on the 19th of February,

22     2010, the OTP sent an e-mail asking for replacement of certain

23     documents --

24             MS. KORNER:  You do realise we're in open session?

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

Page 7022

1             MS. KORNER:  And you want to discuss a witness who testified in

 2     closed session --

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Just the documents, not the

 4     witness.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Well, I'm sorry, Your Honour, I think if the witness

 6     testified in closed session, then we ought to have this discussion in

 7     closed session.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  We'll go into closed session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7023

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mrs. Korner, you through the misunderstandings

22     and the difficulties about documents being on the 65 ter list or not, the

23     Trial Chamber is of the opinion that it would be very useful if we could

24     have a consolidated 65 ter list with all the indications of what's on and

25     what's off, et cetera.  We would like this list -- we would like to agree

Page 7024

 1     an Excel format with your services for this list on the basis of the list

 2     you used for -- to notify documents to use with each and every witness

 3     with some suggestions we might have.  Could it eventually be possible

 4     that someone of our team meets your case manager to see what can be done

 5     and what would be too much to ask?

 6             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honour, I'm not quite clear on that.  We

 7     can certainly indeed -- it's something we ourselves, you won't be

 8     surprised to hear as a result of the last few witnesses we're

 9     considering -- we are going to give Your Honours an electronic version of

10     the 65 ter list without all the -- this was taken -- ours at the moment

11     looks -- it has entries saying this was taken off, this is being

12     re-instated.  We think ourselves it would be useful for Your Honours, and

13     we will provide it to the Defence as well, to have a complete electronic

14     list.  Is that what Your Honour is asking for?

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Yes, but we have maybe some suggestions for that

16     list, how it could be improved.

17             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Well, Your Honour, we're always happy to

18     entertain anything that helps us not have these considerable discussions

19     about it.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

21             MS. KORNER:  If Your Honours' Legal Officers make an

22     appointment -- not make an appointment, arrange, we'll do it with the

23     case manager.

24             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  May we be included in that communication as well,

Page 7025

 1     in a sense that we at least know in --

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Of the list or of the --

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Of the list, yes --

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  -- format and the improvement of the list?

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Or the improvement of the list as well.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, we might as well deal with this now.

 8     We've got five minutes.  Can we get back to private session, please.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

10             MS. KORNER:  I've had the --

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7026

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 7027

 1                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

 2                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of

 3                           March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.