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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 accordingly. Thank you.
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
6 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE HALL
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE HALL
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
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
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
22 JUDGE HALL
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.
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
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
25 Q. Well, you're still in the same job you had back in 1992, and I
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
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:
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
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
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?
1 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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
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
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
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,
24 from Banja Luka
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
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.
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
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
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.
1 MR. HANNIS: I don't have any further questions. Thank you,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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
1 than in the period of peace, isn't that right, that's only logical, isn't
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?
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
22 Before we take the break there's a point Judge Delvoie needs to
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.
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
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
1 break and see what I can find out.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
4 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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.
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
1 Q. In the CSB
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
16 Q. And when you put -- when you ticket, you cannot put it in the
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
24 Mr. Rakovic, the basis of the communications system of the
25 Ministry of the Interior is the dispatch system and the teleprinter form
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
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,
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,
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?
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
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.
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
1 remained under Serb control.
2 A. Precisely. The centre of Bosnia-Herzegovina had Sarajevo
3 main node --
4 Q. Just deal with it slowly.
5 A. The following nodes: Sarajevo
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
15 Q. So when there was such communication it was through the post
16 office in Sarajevo
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.
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 --
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
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
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
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
25 A. To the best of my recollection I can't say whether it was 1992.
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
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
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
13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I have six notes, so that would be 15
14 minutes to 20 minutes.
15 JUDGE HALL
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
19 JUDGE HALL
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
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Microphone not activated]
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 7018-7020 redacted. Private session.
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
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.
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
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
9 [Private session]
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
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,
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
10 MS. KORNER: I've had the --
11 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE HALL
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.