Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16585

 1                           Thursday, 12 September 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  The Chamber was

11     informed that the Defence wanted to raise a preliminary issue.

12     Mr. Stojanovic.

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

14     Good morning to our colleagues from the Prosecution.  This Defence has to

15     point out for the record the problem we are facing in today's intention

16     to examine the witness who was planned for the first part of our session.

17     Just to remind you, Your Honours, in our submission from July 2013, after

18     your decision regarding our submission from April 2013, we pointed out

19     that this Defence believes today's testimony would not be according to

20     the rules.  Let me remind you of two rules that were quoted in the

21     submission.  First of all, this witness has to did testify about the

22     communication that happened during the court recess between the client

23     and his defendants; i.e., the communication which is privileged, which is

24     protected and which cannot be used in any proceedings whatsoever.  The

25     second reason and we remind you that we mentioned it in our submission,

Page 16586

 1     is the fact that today's witness is a prosecutor's office's staff member

 2     and, as such, at that moment she was in the courtroom and she was

 3     listening to the communication between the client and his counsel beyond

 4     and outside of the official part of the trial.  Bearing all this in mind,

 5     we believe that she would be in direct conflict of interest because she

 6     is a staff member, she is sitting on the side opposite to us in this

 7     courtroom and now she has been called to testify in order to prove the

 8     mens rea that our client possibly had.  These two arguments is something

 9     that we emphasised in July 2013 in our submission, and the reply is still

10     pending from you, and still, the hearing of this witness has been planned

11     for today.  We would kindly ask you to render a decision on that first

12     before the witness may be called into the courtroom.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Very briefly in

15     response, the position of the Prosecution is that Mr. Mladic waived his

16     right to that privilege by yelling the words across the courtroom.  This

17     was something that was put on the record on the 23rd of August, 2012, at

18     page 1482 where Mr. Mladic was warned that if he were to yell something

19     across the courtroom, he may be subject to that as evidence against him.

20     Furthermore on the issue of Ms. Karall being an OTP staff member, that,

21     we submit, goes to issues of credibility and not to admissibility.  Just

22     like with other OTP witnesses the Defence is free to challenge Ms. Karall

23     in cross-examination.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, any reply to what the Prosecution

25     just submitted.

Page 16587

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  I know what

 2     your position was with regard to everything that General Mladic has to

 3     say.  I would like to remind you that we were told that any communication

 4     during trial may be on post-it notes and what happens during the breaks

 5     is not part of your decision.  On several occasions, you suggested that

 6     the communication between us and our client should take part during the

 7     break, not during the trial.  If it has to be during the trial, it has to

 8     be on post-it notes.  It has to be at very low tone, and this

 9     communication happened between the client and the counsel once he left

10     the courtroom during the break and the witness who has been called to

11     testify today heard that communication, which was during the break.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just re-reading what happened on 23 August of

13     last year.  Do you have a specific line reference, Ms. Marcus?  I saw

14     that there was a --

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I was referring to page 1481.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's --

17             MS. MARCUS:  And where --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The transcript says 1482, perhaps --

19             MS. MARCUS:  It's line 19 where Judge Moloto commented on the

20     waiver of the privilege.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then one question, Mr. Stojanovic.  What is

22     the legal authority that if you shout audible for everyone but not in the

23     presence of the Bench, that that then suddenly that other rules would

24     apply?  And that you would not have given up your privilege if you shout

25     in the -- or yell in the presence of other persons than the Bench?  Is

Page 16588

 1     there any legal authority for that?  Or could you analyse the waiver of

 2     the privilege in such a way that it does only apply during court sessions

 3     and not if you do it anywhere else?

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the basis for this

 5     position on the part of the Defence is this:  First of all, it is our

 6     national legislation and the rules of the state from which the counsel

 7     come.  The law on legal representation and the code of conduct of lawyers

 8     regulates the issue of relationship between a client and his counsel.

 9     Everything that a client communicates to his counsel is privileged.

10     According to the code of conduct of Defence counsel, the counsel is

11     duty-bound to keep it to himself and cannot use it for any other purposes

12     save for his contacts with his client.  Second of all, it doesn't say

13     anywhere that the mere fact that that communication is aloud is proof

14     that there is a waiver on the privilege that exists.  Communication is a

15     communication.  Every day we are in a position to communicate with our

16     client and I don't think that it is at all in dispute that he has to

17     speak aloud because of his health problems, because of his condition.

18     This is as regards our relationship with our client.  We are accustomed

19     to it.

20             Second of all, you know, Your Honours, that our communication in

21     the Detention Unit is also considered privileged.  It is recorded but it

22     is not used for any purpose or in any stage of the proceedings in any

23     case.  And that applies across the board.  Irrespective of the fact

24     whether the communication is loud, at a high volume, on the border of

25     verging of misunderstandings on our part, but this is part of our job and

Page 16589

 1     we have to do it every day, literally, Your Honours.  That is why I

 2     believe that this was communication between the client and his Defence

 3     counsel, and that in that sense it was never meant to suggest that our

 4     client waived his right to privileged communication with his counsel.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for those further submissions.

 6             Same question for that OTP staff, if they hear anything, that

 7     they are not qualified any further to testify about it.  Is there any

 8     basis for that submission?  Any legal basis?  I'm not seeking an

 9     explanation but whether you have any legal authority for that position.

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  This could be

11     the basis that concerned the status of the lady who is supposed to

12     testify today.  We claim that she is in direct conflict of interest, and

13     this may be an argument for the cross-examination and for the credibility

14     of this witness.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Both the objections are denied.  The first objection

17     about the waiver of the privileged communication, the argument ignores

18     that by speaking very loudly, that the communication cannot be considered

19     to be confidential any further, and the accused has been warned about

20     that, or at least it has been brought to his attention.  For the second

21     issue, there is no conflict of interest.  The witness who will appear is

22     supposed to testify about facts, nothing more, nothing less, and I take

23     it, Ms. Marcus, that you'll keep that in mind.  The witness is not here

24     to establish any mens rea or things of the kind.  The witness is just

25     here to tell the Court upon being examined what she saw, heard or

Page 16590

 1     experienced otherwise.  She is a witness of fact.  Therefore, the -- both

 2     the objections to hear this witness are denied.  And the usher is

 3     requested to escort the witness into the courtroom.  As far as protective

 4     measures are concerned, there are no protective measures requested for

 5     this witness.  Nevertheless it may be necessary to go into

 6     private session if the content of the testimony is at risk to be

 7     prejudicial to other witnesses who testified in -- with protective

 8     measures.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I've planned it as such.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11                           [The witness entered court]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Ms. Karall.

13             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

15     make a solemn declaration.

16             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, I can't hear anything.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I restart.  Can you hear me now?

18             THE WITNESS:  Not through the ear-phones.  I can hear you without

19     them.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  But if others start speaking in a different

21     language --

22             THE WITNESS:  Okay, thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I'll restart.  Ms. Karall, before you give evidence,

24     the rules require that you make a solemn declaration, of which the text

25     is now handed out to you.  May I invite to you make that solemn

Page 16591

 1     declaration.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

 3     whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 4                           WITNESS:  MARIA KARALL

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Karall, you'll first be examined by Ms. Marcus.

 8     Ms. Marcus, as you most likely know already, is counsel for the

 9     Prosecution.

10             Ms. Marcus you may proceed.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12                           Examination by Ms. Marcus:

13        Q.   Good morning, Ms. Karall.

14        A.   Good morning.

15        Q.   Could you please state your full name for the record.

16        A.   My name is Maria Karall.

17        Q.   And what is your date of birth, please?

18        A.   The 5th of March, 1964.

19        Q.   Where were you born?

20        A.   I was born in Austria, my birth place is called Oberpullendorf.

21        Q.   Could you spell the location of your birth just for the

22     transcript, please?

23        A.   O-b-e-r-p-u-l-l-e-n-d-o-r-f.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness kindly speak closer to the

25     microphone, please?  Thank you.

Page 16592

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If you adjust the microphone a little bit further

 2     down, that might help.  Please proceed.

 3             MS. MARCUS:

 4        Q.   Ms. Karall, what language do you consider to be your mother

 5     tongue?

 6        A.   It's Croatian.  The area where I come from has a national

 7     minority, there are several Croatian villages, so I grew up in a Croatian

 8     village.

 9        Q.   Can you explain to the Chamber a bit about the kind of Croatian

10     which is your mother tongue?

11        A.   Well, the local dialect that we speak is a bit outdated.  The

12     minority that moved there 500 years ago still uses the language that was

13     used there 500 years ago so it is Croatian but it's archaic.

14        Q.   Did you ever have occasion to formally study B/C/S as well?

15        A.   Yes.  I had an education in school, in high school, for six

16     years.

17        Q.   What other languages do you speak fluently?

18        A.   I'm fluent in English.  Of course my best language is German

19     because it's the language I was educated in.  I'm fluent in English and

20     in Dutch.  I have a certain knowledge of French and Russian.

21        Q.   Ms. Karall, how long have you worked at the Tribunal?

22        A.   I've been here for more than 15 years, since the 1st of May,

23     1998.

24        Q.   And in what capacity?

25        A.   My job title is language reference assistant.

Page 16593

 1        Q.   Can you describe for us what that entails?

 2        A.   It's a whole range of duties.  I mainly started interpreting for

 3     the investigators.  I also do written translations, transcripts, lately

 4     I've been more into administration, and the last years I've been the

 5     witness co-ordinator for the Mladic team which includes contacting

 6     witnesses, organising that they come here on time, et cetera.

 7        Q.   In the course of your duties, have you been requested to

 8     transcribe B/C/S, which is spoken on audio or video?

 9        A.   Yes.  I've been transcribing interviews that the OTP did.  I've

10     been transcribing videos, intercepts, in B/C/S and in English.

11        Q.   Ms. Karall, as you know, you've been called as a witness before

12     this Chamber because of the events which took place in this trial's

13     hearing of 18th of February, 2013.  On that day, what was requested of

14     you by the Prosecution team?

15        A.   I was asked to be in court to monitor the accused in case he says

16     something that might offend the witness on the stand.

17        Q.   During what period of that day were you present in the courtroom?

18        A.   I was present from the beginning of the first session to the

19     middle of the break after the first session.

20        Q.   Did you, in fact, note down some words which you heard uttered by

21     the accused on that day?

22        A.   Yes, I did.  As soon as I heard them, I jotted down a few notes

23     in English in my notebook, and later on I put a formal note in an e-mail

24     to my team to inform the team, in B/C/S and with my translation.

25        Q.   How was it that you were able to hear the words spoken by the

Page 16594

 1     accused?

 2        A.   Well, I was sitting where now -- it was in the same courtroom.

 3     I would have been sitting behind Mr. McCloskey, although he wasn't

 4     present that day, and the accused is just across of me, and I can hear

 5     him very well because he speaks loudly.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Just to -- for the record, Mr. McCloskey is sitting

 7     one row before the interpreters' booth which is close to the door where

 8     the Judges enter the courtroom, and what the witness explains is that she

 9     was seated at the row closest to those booths.  Please proceed.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 30274

11     but not broadcast it to the public.  This is the e-mail which was sent by

12     Ms. Karall which she just referred to.  I've discussed this with

13     Mr. Stojanovic before the hearing, and he has said that he has no

14     objection to it being added to the exhibit list and used and tendered.

15        Q.   Ms. Karall, without reading any of the contents yet is this the

16     e-mail that you sent to the Prosecution team after hearing the words of

17     the accused on the 18th of February, 2013?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Could we have private session, please.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16595

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

Page 16596

 1             Ms. Marcus, we know where the witness was seated at the time,

 2     where the accused is is common knowledge between -- among everyone who

 3     sits in this courtroom.  Would there be any -- would it be good to

 4     establish approximately the distance or whether the parties would agree

 5     on the distance between the witness listening and the accused speaking?

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Would you like me to ask the witness to estimate the

 7     distance or would Your Honour like to --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  An estimate of the witness is fine.  I'd rather that

 9     you agree.  You can measure it before you agree so that there is no -- we

10     don't have to rely on a great talent or a bad talent in estimating

11     distances.

12             MS. MARCUS:  I'm sure we can measure it and agree from our

13     position, I'm sure.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we would like to hear from you after the next

15     break.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

17        Q.   Ms. Karall, thank you very much.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I have no further questions for the

19     witness, but I would like to make a bar table submission following the

20     end of her testimony with leave of the Chamber.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll hear from you after the examination of the

22     witness.

23             Mr. Stojanovic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Karall, you'll now be cross-examined by

Page 16597

 1     Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic, as most likely is known to you as well,

 2     is counsel for Mr. Mladic.  You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Karall.  Just a few questions

 5     that I want to put to you.  Before that day, the 18th of February, 2013,

 6     had you ever been in this courtroom during the Mladic trial?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Who tasked you to be in the courtroom on that day and follow or

 9     monitor the accused?

10        A.   Ms. Marcus.

11        Q.   At any moment during your many years of service at the Tribunal,

12     had you ever been given such a specific task from the Prosecution?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   During the first hour of the session, did you notice Mr. Mladic

15     addressing any words to the witness?

16        A.   No, not during the court session.

17        Q.   What was the specific task you received from Ms. Marcus?

18        A.   I was to listen to whatever the accused might say that might

19     offend the witness or also observe whether he does any gestures or

20     anything like that, and also listen to whatever he says during the break.

21        Q.   You did not notice any gestures during the first session on

22     Mr. Mladic's part directed at the witness, did you?

23        A.   No, not during the court session.

24        Q.   Observing him, did you notice on his face a redness of the skin,

25     any sign of anxiety, anything that would indicate his involvement in the

Page 16598

 1     trial?

 2        A.   No, I can't remember that.  I mean, he would not have liked

 3     whatever he said, but and he wouldn't have been smiling or anything like

 4     that or be relaxed, but, no.

 5        Q.   The words that you mentioned a moment ago, did Mr. Mladic utter

 6     them after all the three members of the Chamber had left the courtroom?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Those words, were they uttered by Mr. Mladic after the witness

 9     was ushered out of the courtroom?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Did he say that while sitting down, while he was standing up, or

12     at the moment when he was being taken out?

13        A.   I think he already stood up, he had called you to the Bench to

14     talk to his lawyers, I don't know whether you were present or Mr. Lukic

15     or it would have been Mr. Ivetic, I think, and he was talking to his

16     lawyers, and I think that you were all on your feet already and then went

17     out.

18        Q.   Those words, were they addressed to his Defence counsel whom he

19     had invited to approach a moment before?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Would you tell us if you remember who at that moment, apart from

22     the counsel, the security, you and General Mladic, was in the courtroom,

23     if anyone?

24        A.   Mr. Groome was here.  He was still sitting and making notes.

25     I think Ms. Marcus had left the room already.  There might have been an

Page 16599

 1     intern left, perhaps the court reporter.  I don't remember that.

 2        Q.   Were all the three Defence counsel present today present at that

 3     time, or was any of us missing then?

 4        A.   I don't remember.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,

 6     I should like us to see an excerpt, because there is a recording made

 7     available to us by the OTP, and the recording resulted from your prior

 8     order for General Mladic to be recorded, and I would like to play that

 9     part of the video.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do, could I ask one additional question?

11     When you told us who was still in court, you didn't mention

12     representative of the Registry, Chambers, assistant from Chambers.  Do

13     you have any recollection on whether those were still present?

14             THE WITNESS:  I don't remember but I think that everybody had

15     already left.  The security might have -- security guards might have --

16     would have been in the court but I think nobody from the Bench was still

17     here.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then, let's look at the recording.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, I should like to

20     ask only for one excerpt, 1:05:10 to 1:07:05.  There is no audio, just

21     the video footage, and then I will put my questions to the witness.

22                           [Video-clip played]

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Ms. Maria, after seeing this excerpt, precisely the moments that

25     you testify about, do you stand by your testimony to the effect that the

Page 16600

 1     words you just quoted were uttered by Mr. Mladic while standing up or

 2     sitting down, addressing the three of us?

 3        A.   I really can't say.  I don't know whether he was partly --

 4     whether he was sitting when he started to speak and then stood up.

 5     I can't say when exactly he said the words.

 6        Q.   In the words that you cited, it is said Mr. Mladic mentioned a

 7     photograph.  You don't know --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, if we come to the content of what

 9     was heard, out of an abundance of caution I would rather deal with that

10     in private session.

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.  I did

12     not mean to go much further, but out of caution, perhaps we should move

13     into private session.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps only for very short but we move into

15     private session.

16                           [Private session]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 16601

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           [Open session]

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Ms. Karall, after the break, did you return to the courtroom to

10     attend the second session?

11        A.   No.  I went up to my office to make a note about what I had heard

12     and to continue with my regular work.

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,

14     may I?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  You may consult, briefly and at a low volume, your

16     client.

17                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Did you report these words to Mr. Groome immediately after

20     hearing them, in the courtroom?

21        A.   Yes.  We went out and we talked about it right in front of the

22     courtroom.  I told him, and that's why it went into the record with a

23     slightly different translation than is in my e-mail.

24        Q.   That is what I want to ask you about, and that will be my final

25     question.  Did you put down the words you heard the same moment or did

Page 16602

 1     you have the opportunity to replay the recording perhaps and record what

 2     Mr. Mladic may have said?

 3        A.   No.  I had to do it from memory.  I only heard it once.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, as far as the Chamber is aware,

 5     there is no audio recording of the event at all, is there?

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know any more,

 7     Your Honours.  I cannot be sure.  We received only a video recording,

 8     without the audio, but I would not be surprised that sound is recorded as

 9     well.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It is not from this camera which was installed upon

11     the order of the Chamber.

12             Ms. Marcus.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, we reviewed the audio from the floor,

14     which did not capture anything that was said during the breaks so there

15     is no -- as far as I'm concerned, from our perspective, there is no audio

16     recording.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Then I can skip the

19     remaining questions because this was very important.

20        Q.   Let me ask you whether, in the e-mail message you sent that day

21     and the report that is marked 65 ter 30270, there is a slight semantic

22     difference between what is written in your original e-mail sent out that

23     day and the report that was made available to us.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, if Mr. Stojanovic is asking the witness

25     to compare, he should show her what he's asking her to compare, in our

Page 16603

 1     submission.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Stojanovic asked whether there is a slight

 3     semantic difference, which I think for a reader should be clear so I do

 4     not see -- of course, it could be shown to the witness.  If there are any

 5     follow-up questions, then please do so.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, he is asking the witness -- he quoted

 7     65 ter 30270 which is an information report which was put together after

 8     Ms. Karall and Ms. Sokola were interview by an OTP investigator.  So

 9     he's -- I believe he's asking Ms. Karall to compare what is contained in

10     the information report with what was contained in her e-mail, if I'm not

11     mistaken.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  If you want -- I mean, if the two documents are

13     there, everyone who can read can see any difference so, therefore, that's

14     a relatively useless question.  If, however, you want to further explore

15     that difference, then of course you should show it to the witness.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I hope that

17     Madam Prosecutor and I will agree there is a certain difference, and

18     I thought I would cover it only through a question as to how that

19     difference occurred because it's not in dispute that there is a

20     difference, but now we are receiving an answer from the Prosecution as to

21     how it occurred.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So you say you've answered the question, you

23     accept the explanation of how this -- what the origin of the difference

24     is on the basis of what Ms. Marcus just said.  You agree with that.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Correct.

Page 16604

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Any further questions, Mr. Stojanovic?

 2             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours I have

 3     concluded.  Thank you very much, Ms. Karall.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Judge Fluegge has one or more questions for you.

 5                           Questioned by the Court:

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Ms. Karall, we all watched the video without any

 7     audio.  First, we could see that Mr. Mladic was sitting, then he stood

 8     up, and then slowly left the courtroom.  If he had taken that -- that

 9     there are three sequences, what we saw in the video, at which time or

10     I should say at which sequence did he utter the words you have heard?

11        A.   It's half a year ago, I don't remember these details.  I saw the

12     video for the first time right now.  It's obvious that he addressed

13     Mr. Stojanovic because then Mr. Stojanovic -- while sitting, and then

14     Mr. Stojanovic -- because Mr. Stojanovic turned around and went to the

15     Bench.  And I think at some point after he stood up, he would have

16     continued with the few sentences.  There might have been a few seconds'

17     break between whatever he said.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was it while he was standing and addressing his

19     counsel, or was it during the time when he was at the exit door?

20        A.   It must have been that he started speaking while he was sitting,

21     he continued while he was standing up, but after he turned to the exit

22     door and faced the exit door, I wouldn't have heard him anymore.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one additional question about you talked

25     about the archaic language you used in your village, and then you said

Page 16605

 1     during second education you were taught normal Croatian.  Is that -- you

 2     said you learned it later.  Is that in school they didn't use that

 3     archaic dialect or --

 4        A.   Oh, yes, of course we started with the Burgenland Croatian.  It's

 5     an official language in Austria.  You can compare it to Afrikaans and

 6     Dutch, if you want to.  So Afrikaans being an earlier form or a -- yeah,

 7     of Dutch.  And then, of course, I had training in school, but then I also

 8     had training on the job before I started with the Tribunal, and when

 9     I started with the Tribunal I had to pass a language test.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Also, in the Croatian language?

11        A.   At the Tribunal, it was called B/C/S already, so it's not just

12     Croatian.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I see the point but in modern language and not the

14     archaic language?

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Have you had ever any difficulty in

17     understanding the nowadays Croatian language?

18        A.   Not since I've been with the Tribunal.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you -- you had or?

20        A.   Yes, while I -- before I started school and before I started

21     formal training in the official Croatian language.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the formal training you got in school

23     again?

24        A.   In high school, what we call gymnasium and I think -- I'm not

25     even sure whether I started with 10 years or with 12 years, whether it

Page 16606

 1     was eight years or six years that we had it in school.  But in elementary

 2     school, when I started reading, we had our first reading books in

 3     Croatian and in German, in parallel.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that Croatian, was that written modern

 5     Croatian?

 6        A.   Gradually.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Gradually.  So it's moved from dialect, from archaic

 8     to nowadays Croatian.

 9        A.   Yes, and the differences aren't that big.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Have the questions in the

11     cross-examination or questions by the Bench triggered any need for

12     further questions, Ms. Marcus?

13             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour, thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then this concludes -- Mr. Stojanovic, have the

15     questions by the Bench triggered any need for further questions?

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Then Ms. Marcus, you announced that you would seek

18     to tender more exhibits.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I have a bar table submission which I

20     can do after the witness is excused, with your leave.  I don't think it

21     would be contentious.  We discussed it before the session.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If that's the case, then we could already

23     release the witness.

24             Ms. Karall, thank you very much for coming.  I often have to add

25     "a long way to The Hague," but that might not apply to you.  But

Page 16607

 1     nevertheless, thank you very much for having come to this courtroom and

 2     having answered the questions that were put to you by the parties and by

 3     the Bench.  You are excused.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 5                           [The witness withdrew]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus?

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  The Prosecution seeks leave to

 8     tender into evidence portions of this synchronised video that

 9     Mr. Stojanovic played.  What we've done is we took -- it's a

10     synchronisation between the floor video of that hearing and the isolated

11     video that was focused on Mr. Mladic.  That is why you saw the isolated

12     video on the left side of your screen and a blank on the right because

13     that was not when the Chamber was in session.

14             So what we've done is we have synchronised them and selected very

15     few short clips from that video.  We sent the selection to the Defence

16     on -- the latest selection on Monday, the 9th, and Mr. Stojanovic and

17     I discussed this before the hearing began today.  And if Mr. Stojanovic

18     has no objections, as I understood, we would seek leave to tender into

19     evidence our selected clips.  If the Chamber wishes to see it, we can, if

20     not, I'm happy to just have it tendered into evidence.  We have

21     tentatively assigned 65 ter number 30273.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objection against it being admitted,

23     Mr. Stojanovic?

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Considering

25     that our clip is part of that video footage, then it would be pointless

Page 16608

 1     for us to tender just the clip we used in the sequence we mentioned.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And we looked at your selection from that clip

 3     that was when Mr. Mladic first was seated, then stood up, and then left

 4     the courtroom.  Is that the only portion, Ms. Marcus, where we do not

 5     have two simultaneous pictures?

 6             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.  The selection that we made, which

 7     is a total of about four and a half minutes, contains an introductory

 8     clip, just so that we can mark the date on which it happened.  It

 9     contains two very short clips from the hearing of that day, with

10     subtitles.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And there we would have the --

12             MS. MARCUS:  There you would have both, yes.  So it needs to be

13     admitted under seal, yes.  And then the last clips, clips 4 through 6,

14     show -- okay.  Clips 4 and 5 are the beginning of the break and the end

15     of the break.  The end of the break being relevant to the evidence of

16     Ms. Sokola, the other quote that was heard from Mr. Mladic.  And the

17     final clip, clip 6, is a very short piece from the beginning of the

18     second session, just before Mr. Mladic was removed from the courtroom.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, what was played is then the beginning of

20     the break?

21             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, that was from clip 4.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Clip 4 starting at I think it was 1 hour,

23     5 minutes, approximately.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, just a few seconds before that,

25     yes.

Page 16609

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Just a few seconds before we see on the picture

 2     1:05, 1 hour, 5 minutes.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, I included the exiting of the Chamber so we

 4     would be able to set the approximate time.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, although --

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:  When you're exiting.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- that is not what we looked at but that is part of

 8     number 4.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, this all having been now sufficiently

11     identified, Madam Registrar, to be admitted under seal under what number?

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 30273 receives number P2181,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted under seal.  If there is nothing

15     else at this moment, we'll continue after the break with the

16     cross-examination of Mr. Butler.  We take a break and we'll resume at

17     ten minutes to 11.00.

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  There was a preliminary matter to be raised by the

21     Defence?

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  With your

23     leave, we understand that before hearing the witness earlier today, you

24     had made a decision pursuant to our submission from July 2013, and you

25     rejected our remarks.  We would like certification and the right to

Page 16610

 1     interlocutory decision because we are of the opinion that this was

 2     privileged communication between the client and his Defence counsel.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, if you want a certificate, file a

 4     motion asking for a certificate.  That's what you have to do.  You don't

 5     have to announce that.  That's all understood.  You're entitled to --

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  That's

 7     correct.  Thank you.  I didn't know whether to address you in writing

 8     because we didn't receive your decision in writing.  So we would like to

 9     file a written request for certificate on your decision.  If that's the

10     case, we are going to send a written motion.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One second, please.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.  Next question, have the

14     parties agreed on the distance between the back row there and the

15     accused?

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  There was a joint measuring

17     working group with Mr. Blaskic and a tape measure and we came up with

18     15.5 metres and for Mr. Ivetic and myself the archaic 50.8 feet.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the parties agree that that was the distance

20     between the accused and between the witness, Ms. Karall, at the time.

21     Thank you for that.

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have a last matter.  In relation to

24     Mr. Butler, Madam Registrar meanwhile has provisionally assigned exhibit

25     numbers to documents he had consulted in preparing his report.  Have the

Page 16611

 1     parties received the list with the 65 ter numbers?  The provisionally

 2     assigned numbers are, Mr. Ivetic, P2148 up to and including P2160.  Is

 3     there any objection against those to be admitted?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Insofar as they have now been identified, no.  As

 5     you might recall, my objection was based upon referring to them as being

 6     in the binder.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, they have been identified.  No objections.

 8     Madam Registrar, none of them there is any need to have them under seal,

 9     I think.  Therefore, P2148 up to and including P2160, are admitted into

10     evidence.

11             Mr. McCloskey.

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, and lastly we do, as you asked, now have a

13     surrogate sheet for the stabiliser fin photo.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  P2053.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, that will then be part of this

17     Exhibit P2053.  You may add that to the -- to e-court.

18             If there is nothing else, then could Mr. Butler be escorted into

19     the courtroom.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, while we are

21     waiting for Mr. Butler to arrive, I just had a conversation with

22     Mr. Lukic, and I realise that I didn't understand whether we are to

23     expect a written decision, or is it today that is the first day before

24     our deadline to submit a motion for interlocutory decision?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We will let you know later today or not certainly

Page 16612

 1     not later than tomorrow after having reviewed all the details of the

 2     submissions that were made.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Butler, you're still bound by the solemn

 6     declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony and

 7     Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.

 8                           WITNESS:  RICHARD BUTLER [Resumed]

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

13        Q.   Good day, sir.

14        A.   Good day, sir.

15        Q.   Before we take up at the topic where we left off yesterday,

16     I would like to revisit another topic.  I'd like to return to the meeting

17     that you testified about yesterday that you had with General Milovanovic,

18     and this would be the one that you either attended with Jean-Rene Ruez or

19     Barry Hogan, which we have established you do not recall being recorded.

20     Can you help us at all about the month or the year that such a meeting

21     would have taken place?

22        A.   No, sir, I just -- I just can't remember, recall at that point in

23     time.

24        Q.   Fair enough.  Can you recall at all where, what locale, this

25     meeting was held at; i.e. was it a military building, a hotel, a

Page 16613

 1     restaurant, private home?  Are you able to provide any details in

 2     relation to where the meeting would have been held?

 3        A.   I believe that it was in a conference room in a hotel in

 4     Banja Luka, if I recall correctly.

 5        Q.   Could it have been at the Krajina military hotel in Banja Luka?

 6        A.   I could tell you it wasn't the Krajina Corps headquarters.  It

 7     could have been the military hotel, but clearly you seem to know more

 8     about it than I do, so ...

 9        Q.   Let me ask you this, sir:  Do you recall how many times in total,

10     how many meetings in total, you would have had with General Milovanovic?

11     Was it just that one or were there other --

12        A.   It was just the one, sir.

13        Q.   And are you sure that this meeting had been requested by

14     General Milovanovic rather than being requested by the Office of the

15     Prosecutor?

16        A.   My understanding, as it was told to me, was that it was a request

17     of General Milovanovic.  Again, I received my information from the chief

18     of Prosecutions on this.  I'm sorry, the chief of investigations,

19     Mr. Ralston.  You know, I had no foreknowledge of any of these issues.

20     I was simply called into his office one day and said, You're going to

21     Banja Luka in several days and here is why.

22        Q.   Fair enough, sir.  I'd like to call up 65 ter number 19462.  And

23     to see if that can assist you with remembering details.  There we go.

24     Sir, these are notes or a record of a meeting, and it's dated -- well,

25     the typed version is dated the 26th of March, but then that's crossed off

Page 16614

 1     and it says 27 March 2001, and I can tell you these are notes that are --

 2     that purport to be from General Milovanovic, and I'd like to go through

 3     with you the introduction to see if you have knowledge of this meeting.

 4     As you can see it says there:

 5             "On 26," crossed off-hand, written "27 March 2001,

 6     General Milovanovic and his associates held a meeting with

 7     representatives of The Hague Tribunal at the request of the guests.  The

 8     meeting was attended by Mr. Barry Hogan, Mr. Richard Butler,

 9     Mr. Ken Corlett, and a translator on behalf of the Tribunal.  And

10     alongside General Milovanovic, Colonel Mikajlo Mitrovic,

11     Lieutenant-Colonel Darko Matijasovic, Mr. Zoran Cvetkovic, and Ms.

12     Branka Tanasic as a translator.  The meeting was held on the premises of

13     the Krajina military hotel in Banja Luka and commenced at 1000 hours."

14             First of all, sir, does this appear to be the meeting in question

15     or is it another meeting other than the one we were discussing earlier?

16        A.   No, sir.  This is the meeting in question, and I now recall that

17     Ken Corlett, who was the ICTY liaison to the RS, was present as well,

18     yes, sir.

19        Q.   Okay.  And if you would look with me at the fifth paragraph from

20     the top in the English and in the B/C/S, it is recorded here as follows:

21             "Mr. Hogan thanked for the opportunity to attend and began by

22     saying that he first wanted to clarify the circumstances under which this

23     meeting was taking place.  As far as he had understood,

24     Ms. Carla Del Ponte, she and Mr. Milovanovic had a conversation in

25     December," crossed out, handwritten, "October, and they talked about the

Page 16615

 1     possibility of Mr. Milovanovic giving an interview.  When she returned to

 2     The Hague and reported on this, Mr. Butler and he were assigned by the

 3     Tribunal to contact Mr. Milovanovic.

 4             "General Milovanovic went on to say that he considered the

 5     conversation informal, and that he had so far had similar conversations

 6     on the subject with Mr. Harland, Mr. Graf, and Ms. Del Ponte."

 7             Do you recall what Mr. Hogan is recorded as saying, does that

 8     refresh your recollection as to matters or is it news to you?

 9        A.   Again, sir, I never knew the circumstances behind what predicated

10     the meeting.  I was never given a back story.  I was just told to

11     participate, as such, and I can only again testify to what I was told

12     were the circumstances as to why I was selected to go on this meeting.

13             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can turn to page 6 of the English, and I

14     believe it's also -- should also be page 6 of the B/C/S --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, before we look at it any further, could

16     you give any information about the author of this, what seems to be a

17     record of a meeting?  Because it's not signed, not dated, not -- there is

18     no name under it.  Could you have any -- would you be able to give any

19     information as where it comes from?

20             MR. IVETIC:  I can, Your Honour.  I thought I had started off by

21     saying they purport to be the notes of Mr. Milovanovic.  That is what is

22     represented to me by the Office of the Prosecutor whose document this is,

23     and it was sent to me by the Office of the Prosecutor after the session.

24     And that's what it says in e-court, so beyond that I obviously can't

25     confirm.

Page 16616

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, I'm not saying that you should, but

 2     I'm just wondering where it comes from and what it exactly is.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, this has, my understanding, been disclosed

 4     long ago, but with the topic and with the many documents I just helped

 5     out yesterday and sent it on to the Defence.  I don't have independent

 6     recollection of it but I also had shown the Defence an interview with

 7     General Milovanovic where they begin the interview with a reference to

 8     this meeting and the fact that he is turning over a -- Milovanovic turned

 9     over this.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, I'm -- at this moment my simple

11     question was where -- oh, you would say -- you were about to say where it

12     came from.  I apologise for interrupting.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Sorry for being a bit Bosnian in my response, but

14     I meant to be -- at this interview Milovanovic provides his -- his notes

15     of that meeting, and that's all we have of the meeting.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I certainly would not have interrupted you if

17     you would have said, It was given to us during an interview by

18     Mr. Milovanovic.  That's --

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I don't recollect it, I'm just stating what's in

20     the recording of the meeting, and of course we have General Milovanovic

21     coming next so ...

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Ivetic, please proceed, and again

23     apologies.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

25        Q.   This is the second paragraph in the B/C/S, the first paragraph on

Page 16617

 1     the English, sir.  And please bear with me as I read it into the record,

 2     and then I'll have some questions about it:

 3             "General Milovanovic added that for the first testimonies of

 4     Serbian officers he requested written guarantees from Ms. Del Ponte, that

 5     these officers would not be arrested during or 48 hours after their

 6     testimony which was provided and that paved the way for the officers to

 7     testify.  After that, the response was better and better because the men

 8     realised that they were not being summoned to testify just because they

 9     were Serbs.  In 1999, as Minister of Defence of the RS, he was supposed

10     to pay an official visit to NATO and he asked NATO for a guarantee that

11     during his stay he would not be taken into custody by the Tribunal but he

12     received no guarantee.  Mr. Butler added that he often conducted

13     investigations and interviews with people from NATO and that they turned

14     out not to be good collaborators or the greatest of friends.  He firmly

15     believes that this letter did not even reach The Hague Tribunal.  As for

16     the Tribunal, much attention is given to the protection of witnesses.

17     Copies of the records of conversations are provided and no one should be

18     afraid of giving these testimonies.  Instead they should be used to help

19     the Court."

20             Does this writing correspond to any memories you have of the

21     meeting with General Milovanovic that you had discussed with us

22     yesterday?

23        A.   Yes, sir.  One of the issues that was discussed -- and again,

24     looking at the two paragraphs in context, I do recall that when we

25     started the process where the Republika Srpska government would make

Page 16618

 1     their officers available to members of the Office of the Prosecutor for

 2     interview, that they wanted guarantees that those individuals would not

 3     be immediately apprehended.  Obviously, you know, in hindsight, if one

 4     recalls the case of General Talic, who was attending a military meeting

 5     out of the country and was subsequently arrested, I believe, by the

 6     Austrians, not an unreasonable request by -- as I think it was in 1999 he

 7     was the minister of defence.  So one of the things that obviously I did

 8     discuss was the fact that, you know, we had obviously a process where the

 9     rules of the Tribunal, you know, put certain limits on witness statements

10     and testimonies, and individuals had to be warned, and I believe at the

11     time - I don't know if it is still the case - that in the case of an

12     individual who is suspect, that the transcripts or at least a recording

13     of the interview was provided to the individual in question.  So that was

14     from the notes that he's given.  It does talk about for the most part the

15     general areas that was discussed.

16        Q.   Now, at the time of this meeting, in March of 2001,

17     General Milovanovic is no longer an official within the government.  He's

18     a private citizen; is that accurate?

19        A.   I don't recall exactly what his status was in 2001.

20        Q.   Okay.  Do you know or recall why this meeting attended by four

21     Tribunal OTP staff and three VRS army officers and two other VRS

22     personnel -- pardon me, RS personnel, would not have been recorded or

23     documented, apart from the notes that are said to come from

24     General Milovanovic?

25        A.   Again, my understanding of it was that the primary purpose of the

Page 16619

 1     meeting was to deal with procedural issues, not to formally interview the

 2     general.  Again, I can't tell you why I even was selected to go on this

 3     other than presumably he was aware of me from my testimony related to

 4     General Krstic.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now I would like to go back to the topic that we had left

 6     off with yesterday in court.  As you might recall we had started talking

 7     about Kravica, and to make sure that we are all on the same page as to

 8     what we are talking about, I'd like to let you know that during the

 9     course of this trial, this Chamber has heard evidence of a Prosecution

10     witness, RM374, who gave testimony at transcript page 12775 through

11     12779, that he heard from a direct eye witness to the event at Kravica,

12     where the detainees being transported on a bus took over control of the

13     weapons of the guards after overpowering them on the bus, and that

14     shooting ensued between both sides, the Serb policemen guards on the one

15     hand and the armed detainees on the other hand that were on the bus, and

16     that he was not sure it was Kravica, although in one of his interviews he

17     had said it was Kravica.  Did your review of the evidence and research

18     include this type of occurrence, and is this what you understood when we

19     broached the topic late in the day yesterday?

20        A.   Well, again, to the degree of my research on Kravica, I don't

21     know whether it is in my narrative, I hope it is in my revised narrative

22     because we did -- if we got the information that soon.  But certainly I

23     have testified that there are medical records from the Bratunac medical

24     centre reflecting the fact that on 13 July 1995, two individuals -- one

25     individual was wounded who was a member of the Bratunac Red Beret, so I

Page 16620

 1     know that's in my narrative, and one RS police officer were killed from

 2     the Special Police, and a third RS police officer had his hand burned and

 3     was wounded and being treated.  And, of course, down the line, when

 4     Colonel Borovcanin who was present at that location explained that, so,

 5     I mean, I am aware of it, but, I mean, the older question or the broader

 6     question with respect to Kravica, whether it was a premeditated act or

 7     what, whether it was a reactionary act, as I've testified in the Karadzic

 8     case, I believe that what predicated it isn't as important as the

 9     outcome.

10             Even if I were to accept a premise that the shooting at Kravica

11     warehouse started as a result of an attempt by Muslims who were detained

12     there to escape, one, I am aware of survivor testimony from witnesses

13     there who talk about the executions occurring in waves over a space of

14     several hours, and I'm also aware of the casualties there, in the sense

15     that when one looks at the number of prisoners who were held at Kravica

16     warehouse and their outcomes; for example, if one takes an easy

17     mathematical number of a thousand being detained at the Kravica

18     warehouse, there are three known survivors.  There are multiple possible

19     outcomes for people held in the warehouse in -- when the shooting starts:

20     They are either instantaneously killed; they are wounded and die even

21     with medical intervention; they are wounded but will survive with medical

22     intervention; or they are unwounded or so slightly wounded that they

23     don't require medical intervention.

24             Just as a function of statistical probability, what you have is

25     out of a population of a thousand, you have 997 who are killed, and you

Page 16621

 1     have, on the other end of the spectrum, three who survive.  You have no

 2     members of the population group in the middle who were taken to Bratunac

 3     medical centre and died of their wounds or who were taken to Bratunac

 4     medical centre and survived their wounds.

 5             Consequently, when one looks at the outcome, my view is that the

 6     inescapable conclusion was that regardless of how the Kravica warehouse

 7     massacre started, at some juncture a decision was made that all of the

 8     people who were held at that location were going to be killed.  The end

 9     result of that can offer no other conclusion.

10        Q.   Is it your testimony that the decision that all of them would be

11     killed occurred after the attempted break through and the fire-fight?

12        A.   I don't know when that decision was made.  Individuals have

13     testified with respect to that.  I don't know when that decision was

14     made.  All I can do, again, is recount that at some juncture, the

15     decision had to have been made simply based on the results.

16        Q.   Okay.  Can the results of your investigation exclude the

17     possibility that the decision was made by those policemen physically

18     present at the Kravica site after the attempted escape and after the

19     fire-fight between armed detainees and the guards?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness says that he can't say whether it was

21     before or after, that means that he doesn't exclude the possibility that

22     it was after.  Mr. Ivetic, to that extent, the question has been

23     answered.  Further, the question was composite by including those who

24     would have made the decision, which was not yet part of the previous

25     testimony.  So if you want to further pursue that, at the same time if

Page 16622

 1     the witness doesn't know when the decision was taken, it's likely but you

 2     could further explore that who would have taken such a decision.  Do you

 3     know whether who took that decision?

 4             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  I mean, again I can catalogue who was

 5     there by rank and position but I cannot testify as to who made the

 6     decision.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 8             MR. IVETIC:

 9        Q.   Since you can catalogue who was there by rank and position, would

10     you agree with me that no officer of the VRS was present?

11        A.   Again, you're asking me now to speculate on an unknown.  I am

12     aware that many of the people there were police.  Certainly at least one

13     member of the Red Beret were there and I am aware of information that

14     other members of the Bratunac military police may have been there at some

15     point.  I can't -- again, I'm not aware of any VRS officers being there

16     at 1700 when or even shortly thereafter, when the massacre occurred, but

17     again I can't exclude that possibility simply because I just -- I'm sure

18     I don't know all of the facts related to that.

19        Q.   Do you know from your investigation, and can you confirm, that

20     prior to this event, prior to this date, there were no organised

21     executions?

22        A.   I would disagree.  I testified prior that I consider the

23     Jahorina -- sorry, let me try that one again.  The Jadar River massacre

24     to be evidence of an organised execution.

25        Q.   Perhaps we misunderstood each other.  In relation to Kravica,

Page 16623

 1     before this date, before --

 2        A.   I'm sorry, you're talking before 13 July?

 3        Q.   Correct, correct.

 4        A.   No, sir, the mass executions, there were no -- to my knowledge,

 5     there were no mass executions that occurred on 12 July.  So 13 July would

 6     be the beginning of the series of mass executions.

 7        Q.   And the -- you indicated a person from the Red Berets, I believe

 8     from your revised written narrative I remember reading something that he

 9     may have been travelling on the road, passing by Kravica, when he was

10     wounded?

11        A.   Again, from my narrative, I don't believe I speculate as to how

12     he got there, simply I note the fact that there is a document from the

13     Bratunac medical centre that places him there.  As I recall, we -- after

14     we learned about the fact that he was there, we did try to interview him,

15     and his -- if I recall correctly, what we discovered was that several

16     years after the war he perished in an automobile accident.

17        Q.   Would you be surprised if I told you that this incident in

18     Kravica does not appear in your narrative at all?

19        A.   Which one?

20        Q.   The revised narrative.

21        A.   The --

22        Q.   The most recent one.

23        A.   As I said, a lot of the information that we received pertaining

24     to the circumstances came after 2003, in my -- so again, as I've said,

25     some of the issues are in the narrative, some of them would be in other

Page 16624

 1     documents, but I have testified about that because I think a lot of that

 2     information came to light at the Tribunal after my departure and coming

 3     up to the trial of Borovcanin, who was part of the Popovic trial.

 4        Q.   I agree with you as to the dates and my question is, it's not in

 5     your narrative, you didn't testify about it during direct examination,

 6     how did you think that this Chamber was going to get that very important

 7     information to assess what actually is in your narrative if you don't

 8     offer it?

 9        A.   I'm confused by your question.  The information that is my

10     narrative is the most complete information that I had at the time of

11     publication.  As I've testified before, one of the techniques that the

12     Office of the Prosecutor uses is to introduce documents related to these

13     particular issues in my subsequent testimony.  Again, I don't control

14     what the Office of the Prosecutor does or does not choose to lead me

15     through my testimony.  It's his ten hours, not mine.

16        Q.   So would you agree with me that to get a full and as accurate as

17     possible picture of your knowledge and conclusions, it would be necessary

18     for myself, as I did, and for the Chamber, to review all of your prior

19     testimonies rather than to rely upon just the written reports and just

20     the direct examination in this case?

21        A.   Again, I would reply that that is entirely dependent upon the

22     ultimate determination of this Trial Chamber or any past Trial Chamber as

23     to how much to rely or not rely on the information that I provide as part

24     of their ultimate decision process.

25        Q.   But you will agree with me that for the Chamber to know what

Page 16625

 1     there is to rely upon they would need to know the entirety of it and that

 2     entirety is not in your reports?

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection, this is getting very vague and the

 4     references and speculative, and it's unnecessary.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  We have been talking about a specific incident.  We

 6     are talking about a specific incident that he's gone through in great

 7     detail.  It's not vague.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, would you not interrupt

 9     Mr. McCloskey, not only for Mr. McCloskey but also for the interpreters.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Understood.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, was it your intention to primarily draw

12     the attention of the Chamber that a report which is not updated in

13     respect of such new information, that that would be cumbersome for the

14     Chamber to rely upon?  Because if that was your intention, then you

15     succeeded.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I also would like then to

17     draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that it also goes towards the --

18     whether the person is an expert, whether they are -- whether they have a

19     bias.  And if they don't bring forward information and the Defence has to

20     pull it out of them I think that goes towards that consideration as well.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You consider that to be bias and that's what

22     you want to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  And if that's clear then I can

24     move on to a different topic.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It's clear that you've drawn the attention of the

Page 16626

 1     Chamber to it and that you consider it to be bias.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.  Now I'd like to look at the revised

 3     Srebrenica Military Narrative which is 65 ter number 4627 and I'd like to

 4     focus on page 6 in both languages.

 5        Q.   And, sir, from -- I apologise, page 1 in both languages - there

 6     we go - which is page -- page 1 in the text which is page 6 in e-court.

 7     Now I know where I'm going.

 8             Sir, this section that is entitled, "executive summary" goes from

 9     page 6 in e-court for five pages which should get us to page 11 in

10     e-court, and in this section there are no references to either intercepts

11     or documents or witness testimony that would support the assertions.

12     Would you agree with me, sir, that this is a different format and

13     different approach than for the other reports on the brigade, corps and

14     Main Staff levels which you authored for use at trial?

15        A.   No, sir.  Again, I believe I have executive summaries in all of

16     those products.  Part of my military background, the formats that we use

17     in reports are obviously to include an executive summary.  I certainly

18     recall being cross-examined by Mr. Haynes, I believe, for the better part

19     of a session as to why I did not footnote my executive summary.  And

20     I think at the end of the day my answer was that, I mean, it's a summary

21     of the information and that what I expect is that any reader of the

22     document would go to the base document or the base paragraphs in the

23     various sections of the narrative and the documents that I do cite in

24     those to rely on for certain issues.  An executive summary is just that,

25     it's a quick executive summary.  It's not a substantive component of the

Page 16627

 1     report.

 2        Q.   Would you agree with me from your military intelligence

 3     background that these executive summaries or situation reports or

 4     sit-reps are meant to apprise a commander of something without their

 5     having to read the entire remainder of the report and to urge a

 6     particular course of action in essence to advocate for the commander to

 7     accept the facts reported therein and act in accordance with a -- to

 8     adopt a course of action in accordance with the facts as set forth in the

 9     summary?

10        A.   Yes, sir.  The one thing I don't do, however, is I do not assume

11     that a general officer or a commander who is pressed for time is the same

12     as triers of fact and law who will, I take it, go through the entire

13     document because they are ultimately responsible for assuming the

14     decision of the guilt or innocence of an accused.  They are not going to

15     do that based off of a six-page executive summary of a 100-page document.

16        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now I'd like to move to some preliminary

17     methodological observations in reference to your

18     Brigade Command Responsibility Report, and that is 65 ter number 04624.

19             Now that we have it on the screen, if we could turn to page 4.

20        A.   I'm sorry, sir, you said the brigade or corps command report is

21     the one I'm looking at on the screen, sir.

22        Q.   I'm looking for the brigade report.  I apologise.  It should be

23     number 04625.  I misspoke.

24             And now if we can go to page 4 in both versions, and I'd like to

25     focus on the paragraph at the top, 1.0, it's at the top of both the

Page 16628

 1     original and the translation, and reads:

 2             "The Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 3     hereinafter referred to as the Army of the Republika Srpska or the VRS,

 4     was formed from the remnants of the former Yugoslav National Army (JNA)

 5     which remained in Bosnia following the announced withdrawal of all JNA

 6     forces in May 1992."

 7             Now, sir, would you agree with me that TO or Territorial Defence

 8     units, that in fact made up a considerable part of the

 9     Army of the Republika Srpska, especially at the brigade level, cannot be

10     referred to as remnants of the former Yugoslav National Army?

11        A.   I do not equate Territorial Defence units as being part of the

12     Yugoslav National Army in that sense.  My view, though, is that one looks

13     at the leadership and a significant components of the VRS, those

14     officers, the command structures, and even in the case of the

15     1st Krajina Corps being the former JNA 5th Corps, as well as the

16     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps being at least parts of the former JNA 4th Corps,

17     I believe that my conclusion is sound.

18        Q.   Your conclusion doesn't have this detail.  Your conclusion does

19     not in this paragraph mention the TO.  The TO doesn't factor until the

20     third paragraph where it appears out of the blue.  Would you agree with

21     me that as written, this portion of your report is at least misleading,

22     if not inaccurate and contradictory, as written?

23        A.   I guess if I'm talking about issues in sequence, the fact that

24     I mentioned the TO in the third paragraph versus the first paragraph, I'm

25     not exactly sure what your point is.

Page 16629

 1        Q.   Reading your report, someone who is relying upon your report --

 2        A.   I take it they will read the entire report in context and not

 3     paragraph by paragraph.  I mean, these reports are designed to be read in

 4     sequence and completely.

 5        Q.   If we can return for a moment to that first paragraph, and I'd

 6     like to read the remainder of that paragraph, or the next part of it,

 7     I should say.  Again the first paragraph is 1.0:

 8             "As organised at that time, it was comprised of five

 9     geographically based corps under the command of the Main Staff, a body

10     composed of a nucleus of senior Bosnian Serb officers from the former JNA

11     2nd Military District headquarters."

12             Is this meant to imply that the Main Staff of the VRS was in fact

13     the heart or nucleus of the JNA 2nd Military District headquarters

14     transplanted --

15        A.   What it is --

16        Q.   -- to a new organisation?

17        A.   I'm sorry.

18        Q.   To a new organisation.

19        A.   No.  What I'm saying is that many of the key officers who

20     ultimately stood up the Main Staff held correspondingly similar positions

21     from the JNA 2nd Military District when they were assigned there prior to

22     the withdrawal of the JNA.

23        Q.   I'd like to ask a few follow-up questions in that regard.  The

24     JNA 2nd Military District headquarters, when you make reference to that

25     body, would you agree with me that that body, when it existed, had over a

Page 16630

 1     hundred officers within its composition?  Maybe you as an expert might

 2     know the precise number, do you?

 3        A.   I would suggest that the best information I have and that I would

 4     have put forward on the 2nd Military District and their transition would

 5     be in the Main Staff report which was written seven years after this, and

 6     in some of those notes that I have there, it might have those documents

 7     that you're asking.  I don't recall off of the top of my head how many

 8     officers were in the 2nd Military District at the time of 1992.

 9        Q.   Okay.  I understand you don't know the specific number.  Do you

10     recall if it was over a hundred?

11        A.   Again, sir, if I don't know the specific number, I'd be

12     speculating if I knew it were over a hundred or not.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's not -- you can say, I don't know whether

14     it was 200 or 300, then you don't know the number, but nevertheless you

15     know that it was more than a hundred.  I leave it to that.

16             THE WITNESS:  Again -- yes, sir.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But the logic behind it is not compelling.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Would you agree with me that at the time of its formation, the

21     Main Staff of the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

22     later known as the VRS, was comprised of a total of 12 persons by way of

23     comparison, of whom five were generals?

24        A.   For the origin of the Main Staff I would not disagree with you on

25     that.

Page 16631

 1        Q.   Would you agree that during the entire duration of the 1992

 2     through 1995 period the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska never

 3     attained even half of the number of officers that were within the

 4     composition of the JNA 2nd Military District when it existed?

 5        A.   Again, I've never done a specific analysis comparing the manpower

 6     of that, but I wouldn't disagree with the proposition.  I mean, I know

 7     from my research historically that not only was the VRS Main Staff

 8     understaffed with the qualified officers that it needed, but almost all

 9     of the entity, the subordinate levels, suffered from a significant

10     shortage of appropriately skilled officers.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if the witness has testified that he

12     doesn't know how many officers there were in the 2nd Military District,

13     how could he possibly answer a question whether in the VRS the number

14     ever went -- never went to half of what is for the witness an unknown

15     number?  I mean, apart from putting your questions, listening to the

16     answers, might assist as well.  Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Do you recall during the time period of 1992 to 1995 what is the

19     highest staffing level of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska

20     attained in terms of officers?

21        A.   I don't recall a specific number.  I know that the

22     Office of the Prosecutor has those documents.  And, again, my memory

23     could be refreshed on that because I know that we do have several

24     documents which relate to the manning of the VRS Main Staff at certain

25     points in time during the war.  So that information is available.

Page 16632

 1        Q.   Did the VRS Main Staff ever attain a level of a hundred officers,

 2     50 officers?  Do you have any way of narrowing down that unknown number,

 3     again based upon your expertise?

 4        A.   Again, sir, it's been a while since I looked at that specific

 5     document.  I believe that it may be cited in my Main Staff report, but

 6     I just can't give you a number with any degree of confidence, whether

 7     it's 60, whether it's 75 or whether it's a hundred.  I mean, I know that

 8     they obviously had enough officers to do the job, as far as they were

 9     concerned, but I also know that from their own reporting, that they

10     didn't feel they had as many officers as they wanted.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I see I think we are either at or just

13     before the time period for the break.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  I think we are at the time of the break.

15             Could Mr. Butler be escorted out of the courtroom.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We will almost take a break.  Mr. Stojanovic, one

18     question in relation to the earlier request you made for -- the

19     announcement that you would seek a certificate.  Could you give us the

20     date and the page reference exactly where, as you said, after the

21     delivery of the decision of the Chamber, that you put that motion orally,

22     I take it, at the time to decide on the matter?  Could you give us a page

23     and line reference for that, and a date reference?  We may find it but if

24     you have available somewhere, then ...

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, not at this moment,

Page 16633

 1     Your Honours, but we'll try to do it immediately after the break by

 2     consulting today's transcript.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Today's transcript.  No, I'm mainly -- you said

 4     there was a pending issue because you introduced a motion on which we had

 5     not yet decided and then you said, Well, you have to decide now, we had a

 6     short -- when -- where exactly do we find that initial motion which you

 7     said was introduced after we had given our decision on whether or not the

 8     person could be added to the 65 ter list?  When exactly was that and what

 9     page, what line?

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We may have been talking at

11     cross-purposes, Your Honours.  In July, we submitted a motion to oppose

12     the testimony of this witness.  To this day we have not received a reply

13     to that motion.  We have -- we repeated that motion today orally in the

14     courtroom before the witness arrived, and you told us also orally that

15     our objections were denied and that the witness could indeed testify.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that a written motion you were referring to, the

17     motion you said you submitted?

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  That was a

19     response to the Prosecutor's motion.  That was our second response which

20     was filed in July 2013.  After the break, we can give you the exact

21     reference of that submission, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  What I have before me is a decision on the

23     Prosecution motion for leave to amend its Rule 65 ter witness list, which

24     responds to a motion which was filed on the 18th of March of this year,

25     and is it in the response to that motion of the 18th of March that you

Page 16634

 1     think that a new motion was filed or submitted?  Or was it after this

 2     decision?  I'm just trying to find exactly the basis for your

 3     observations.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  Immediately after the

 5     break, we will be able to provide you with the exact reference for our

 6     motion.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then we'll wait and hear from you.  We

 8     take a break and we resume at quarter past 12.00.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12             Mr. Stojanovic, do we already have a response to my question from

13     before the break?

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I hope so, Your Honour.  We are

15     talking about our submission which was filed on the 4th of July, 2013,

16     and this was a response to the Prosecutor's motion which was filed on the

17     20th of June, 2013.  In our motion we provided the same argument as we

18     did earlier today.  We have not received any response until this day;

19     i.e., we have not been aware of any decision that you may have made in

20     that respect until today.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just tell you how -- what my recollection of

22     the matter is.  You responded to a motion to add witnesses to the 65 ter

23     list.  Under arguments A and C, you raised that as an objection to adding

24     the persons to the 65 ter list.  In the decision of the 22nd of August,

25     the Chamber explained that this was not something which was relevant for

Page 16635

 1     the decision on the motion, and therefore was misplaced to introduce it

 2     at that point in time in that context.  Since then, we have not heard

 3     from you any further.  Therefore, the Chamber was not aware that there

 4     was anything pending, and therefore the Chamber this morning heard a

 5     brief submission and decided on that.  Please look carefully in our

 6     22nd of August decision.  If there is anything further to be said about

 7     it, then of course you're welcome to further raise the matter, but this

 8     is my recollection of the issue.

 9             The Prosecution is also invited, of course, to consider whether

10     this is an accurate reflection of the procedural history on this matter.

11             Then, Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready, please continue your

12     cross-examination.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Now, sir, I'd like to understand your report and testimony that

16     you gave just before the break where you said that many officers that had

17     been assigned within the 2nd Military District headquarters went to the

18     VRS.  Now, according to my lay person's knowledge, I have counted up the

19     members of the -- the 12 members of the Main Staff and I've come up with

20     five of those 12 who, according to my information, definitely were not at

21     any point in time members or assigned to the 2nd Military District of the

22     JNA in any capacity.  Can you confirm that as being the results of your

23     research?

24        A.   Are you going to give me the names?  I mean, I just can't give

25     you a five of 12, whether that's true or not true, I mean --

Page 16636

 1        Q.   Well, let's do it this way.  Why don't you tell me who you counts

 2     as the many within the VRS Main Staff who would have been assigned to

 3     significant positions within the JNA 2nd Military District.  Maybe that's

 4     a better way of approaching it.

 5        A.   Again, my memory is a little unclear on this, but I believe that

 6     General Mladic held a position on the 2nd Military District staff.  I

 7     believe he was Chief of Staff at one juncture.  I think General Gvero at

 8     the time or at that time he was a colonel.  I believe Colonel Tolimir was

 9     a member of that staff.  I know General Milovanovic at the time I don't

10     believe was.  And I believe at that time Colonel Skrbic, and

11     Colonel Djukic, who were logistics officers may have also been members of

12     the Main Staff at that --- or members of the 2nd Military District.  But,

13     again, it's been a while since I've looked at that, so I'm just trying to

14     recall off the top of my head.

15        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's take them one by one.  In relation to

16     General Mladic, would you agree with me that he only was transferred into

17     the 2nd Military District as Chief of Staff shortly before the withdrawal

18     of the 2nd Military District and was only appointed to replace

19     Commander Kukanjac approximately -- essentially one day before being

20     selected commander of the VRS Main Staff on 12 May 1992?

21        A.   I would agree with your first assertion, with respect to him

22     being appointed to replace General Kukanjac for a very short time.

23     I would offer that I know that the ascension of General Mladic to the

24     Main Staff or being appointed as the commander of the Main Staff is an

25     issue of analysis by other military analysts.  It was not an area that

Page 16637

 1     I particularly focused on simply because how he became the commander in

 2     1992 was not particularly important with respect to the fact that he

 3     still was the commander in July of 1995.  I know that for other aspects

 4     of the various investigations, the interactions between how he became the

 5     commander and the decision process is germane with respect to the crimes

 6     as charged in 1992 but those are not my area of expertise so I didn't

 7     look at that particularly closely.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I didn't want to interrupt when you

 9     consulted with Mr. Mladic.  The Chamber noticed that by gestures,

10     General Mladic in the -- during the testimony of this witness, expressed

11     agreement or disagreement with what the witness said.  Mr. Mladic should

12     refrain from doing that, and the appropriate way of expressing agreement

13     or disagreement would be by instructing counsel to put further questions

14     on the matter.  Would you please keep that in mind and would Mr. Mladic

15     also keep that in mind.  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

16             MR. IVETIC:

17        Q.   Well, sir, this issue of the 2nd Military District of the JNA and

18     the VRS Main Staff is a significant feature of several of your reports.

19     I'd like to focus a little bit more on that.  Did your research reveal

20     that in fact General Mladic came to the 2nd Military District of the JNA

21     on 9th of May, 1995, exactly three days before being named as the

22     commander of the VRS Main Staff?  Is this three-day stint what you're

23     talking about as him being assigned as Chief of Staff of the --

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You said 1995, Mr. Ivetic.

25             MR. IVETIC:  1992.  I apologise, 1992.  I apologise.  Thank you,

Page 16638

 1     Your Honour.

 2        A.   Yes, sir, I believe there is a document in my Main Staff report

 3     that corresponds to that.  It may, in fact, even be a copy of the

 4     appointment orders.

 5        Q.   Do you think that General Mladic, serving as a Chief of Staff for

 6     three days in a headquarters, that was in the midst of a chaotic

 7     situation where they were attacked upon withdrawing from their

 8     headquarters and attempting to leave the country, qualifies for him to be

 9     referred to as having been a nucleus of the 2nd Military District in any

10     real sense of the word?  Apart from name only?

11        A.   Well, again, sir, going back to my brigade command report, you'll

12     notice the section is topic background synopsis.  And as I've indicated,

13     and it had been indicated in the past when questioned about these issues,

14     how the Main Staff was formed in 1992, particularly with respect to the

15     brigade report, was not a matter of serious research by me.  The topic of

16     import for me was how the Main Staff functioned or did not function as it

17     related to the events of Srebrenica in July of 1995.  Again, as a matter

18     of the break down of the work by the military analysts, I am aware that

19     there were other areas that military analysts were studying that directly

20     corresponded to the formation of the Main Staff in 1992 and how that

21     related to the crimes as charged in that particular area.

22             So, again, I'm only providing enough of a background synopsis so

23     a reader can understand the issues in context.  I'm not seeking to be the

24     authoritative source of information on the origin of the Main Staff in

25     1992.

Page 16639

 1        Q.   Are you attempting to infer to the reader that the Main Staff, in

 2     terms of its organisation, authority and cohesiveness, inherited the

 3     organisation, authority and cohesiveness of the 2nd Military District of

 4     the JNA, which -- was that the intention?  Because that's how I read your

 5     reports.

 6        A.   No.  My purpose of documenting out the organisational structure

 7     of the 2nd Military District, how it was organised, is to note that the

 8     VRS Main Staff organised itself in similar lines with respect to how the

 9     staff were variously organised.  I believe as part of my Main Staff

10     report, I do discuss the fact that obviously many of the functions of a

11     military district command would not correspond to what a Main Staff, as

12     it was organised, was doing and many of those functions are assumed by

13     the RS Ministry of Defence.

14             That is the point that I'm trying to make, to be able to

15     correlate back that the functions that these officers had within the

16     context of their JNA service was not dissimilar to the functions that

17     they had when they created this entity known as the Main Staff.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you in that reasoning, is the focus on

19     the 2nd Military District of the JNA or is it more generally focused on

20     the JNA as it functioned?

21             THE WITNESS:  Again, sir, from my context of what I was looking

22     for, it is simply, it's not a focus on the 2nd Military District

23     specifically.  It's just part of the broader pattern of facts that I use,

24     one, to establish that the VRS adopted most, if not all, of the former

25     JNA command and staff processes and they did so primarily because, as

Page 16640

 1     serving JNA officers, many of them who had served in high-ranking

 2     positions such as General Mladic or General Milovanovic they did so

 3     because this is what was familiar to them.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Were both Generals Tolimir and -- pardon me, were both

 7     Colonels Tolimir and Salapura persons who you included in the reference

 8     to many from the 2nd JNA military district being appointed to the VRS

 9     Main Staff as a former nucleus of the 2nd JNA Military District?

10        A.   I am not sure at what point in time Colonel Tolimir or

11     Colonel Salapura got there or if Colonel Salapura was ever on the

12     military district staff.  I know that that information is available and,

13     in fact, in the case of Colonel Salapura he may very well have testified

14     to that.  I just don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.

15        Q.   Do you know if it would have been more than a few days' time?

16        A.   The circumstances as they were occurring in the early months of

17     1992, particularly as it deals with the issue of the Main Staff and JNA

18     officers being transferred in and transferred out, was very chaotic.  I

19     am aware that on a number of occasions, officers were getting transferred

20     in and out of various military district staff as well as corps positions

21     rather rapidly, but I can't tell you specifically how many days or how

22     many weeks Colonel Salapura or Colonel Tolimir might have been on the

23     staff before essentially the JNA ceased to exist in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24        Q.   How about Colonel Stevo Tomic?  Was he one of the many that you

25     identified as being the nucleus of the JNA 2nd Military District who

Page 16641

 1     later -- who then became part of the Main Staff, and how many hours or

 2     days was he at the JNA 2nd Military District?

 3        A.   I don't recall that particular name.  He may have been there but

 4     I just don't know that name off the top of my head.

 5        Q.   Would you be surprised that neither Generals Gvero, Manojlovic --

 6     Milovanovic, Maric, nor Colonel Beara, nor Colonel Grubor, nor

 7     Colonel Ilic, the remaining officers of the Main Staff, none of them had

 8     been assigned within the JNA 2nd Military District headquarters?

 9        A.   I know obviously the case of Milovanovic because I've heard his

10     testimony as how he came to be his position.  I understand Colonel Beara

11     at the time was a naval officer, so it would make sense obviously that at

12     that time he wasn't part of the 2nd Military District.  Colonel Ilic I

13     know was operating, he was associated early on with one of the brigades

14     of what would later be the Drina Corps, so I know he didn't join the

15     Main Staff until later.  Colonel Grubor I think ultimately became a corps

16     commander of Herzegovina corps.  I don't know his background prior to

17     that.

18        Q.   Okay.  In relation to the JNA 2nd Military District, do you know

19     how many of those officers would have been ethnically non-Serb and that

20     may have joined any of the other armed entities that were operating

21     between 1992 and 1995?

22        A.   I can't give you a percentage.  What I can tell the Court is as a

23     result of my research, I was able obviously to establish that through

24     middle of 1991 and 1992, the broader pattern that was occurring within

25     the JNA was that officers who were JNA or TO officers serving with the

Page 16642

 1     JNA, who were not ethnically Serb, were leaving JNA service in part

 2     because they no longer believed that the JNA represented their interests.

 3     So whether it was by design or whether it was by default, the end result

 4     was that coming into the early months of 1992, most of the key positions

 5     within the JNA with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina were held by

 6     individuals who were ethnic Serbs, either from Bosnia itself or I think

 7     in larger numbers, frankly, ethnic Serbs from Serbia.

 8        Q.   I'm trying to wrap my mind around your assertion earlier that the

 9     VRS and that the Serbs inherited all of the command processes and

10     structures of the 2nd Military District.  Would you agree that personnel

11     of other ethnicities who had been in positions within the

12     2nd Military District headquarters for longer than a few days, who had

13     been there for years or months, might also be considered to be a nucleus

14     of the 2nd JNA military district and, in fact, would have taken that

15     knowledge and expertise to the various armed forces that they joined

16     after leaving the JNA as you've now stated in the early months of 1992?

17        A.   I wouldn't disagree with you.  I don't see where that assertion

18     is inconsistent.  Obviously, JNA-trained officers from all the parties

19     are going to take their knowledge with them and attempt to use that

20     knowledge to the best of their ability.  What my position is is that the

21     VRS in general got the better of that deal because they were able to

22     operate, one, because by 1992, most of the JNA structures were ethnic

23     Serbian, again, by either design or default.  And that when you look at

24     the origins of many of the VRS corps commands particularly, they have

25     direct lineage back to previous JNA commands.  That is not something

Page 16643

 1     that, you know, in most cases, that the ABiH can lay claim to.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  One moment, Your Honours, if I may briefly consult.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You may briefly consult.  Keep the volume down.

 4                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   Now, sir, in relation to your conclusion that the VRS got the

 7     better of the deal, I'd like to ask a couple of follow-up questions.

 8     Generals Halilovic and Delic from the Armija BiH, had they in fact been

 9     at command positions within the structure of the 2nd Military District in

10     the JNA?

11        A.   I -- I seem to recall General Halilovic, I don't know off the top

12     of my head whether General Delalic was or not.

13        Q.   Are we talking about Delalic or Delic?

14        A.   Delic, I'm sorry.

15        Q.   Now in reaching your conclusion, did you have the information or

16     take into account that the physical headquarters of the

17     2nd JNA Military District remained in the hands of the Bosnian Muslim

18     armed forces with the VRS relegated to Crna Rijeka near Han Pijesak which

19     was the rear command post of the district as well as the fall-back

20     command post of the JNA 2nd Army?

21        A.   Sir, with respect, the document that I relied on the most for

22     that, my conclusion, is the VRS's own analysis of their combat operations

23     for 1992.  The assertions that I raise with respect to how effective the

24     VRS was, particularly compared with the other armed entities are those

25     that the VRS themselves were telling their audience.  This is how they

Page 16644

 1     were -- this is the conclusion that they were coming to, not my

 2     conclusion.

 3        Q.   Well, I'd like to know about your conclusion which you just gave

 4     to us, and I'm asking you if you had this information available.  You're

 5     telling me what you relied upon, but did you disregard this information?

 6     Did have you it available to you?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I'm unclear which conclusion we are talking about

 9     from my listening here.  Are we still on that innocuous comment about the

10     nucleus of where the people came from or is it something else?

11             MR. IVETIC:  If I can assist, Your Honours.  It is at transcript

12     page 57 of the temporary transcript where the witness in giving his

13     answer says, "What my position is that the VRS in general got the better

14     of that deal because they were able to operate," and then he keeps going

15     on and on.  So if this is not the individual's position then I don't know

16     what to rely upon anymore.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let's re- read the portion you just referred

18     to.  You said page 56 -- 57.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Seven.  For the record, I do have to state the

20     Defence's position where an expert witness is concerned, I don't believe

21     there can be anything to be considered an innocuous conclusion.  All

22     conclusions are expert and are able to be cross-examined by the Defence.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you answer the question, your question.

24     The question is about the conclusion in terms of getting the better deal

25     of the former JNA officers.  What you relied upon and whether you

Page 16645

 1     disregarded the information, the information being summarised,

 2     Mr. Ivetic, as that much of the knowledge, experience and skills had

 3     flown to other armed forces.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  I mean, I don't disagree with

 5     Mr. Ivetic's general assertion with respect to the fact that particularly

 6     those two headquarters that he had announced as well as other former JNA

 7     garrisons fell under the control of the various warring factions, some of

 8     them that were not ultimately what would be the VRS.  There were

 9     thousands of former JNA weapons that found their way into the hands of

10     the other warring factions.  But I believe, again, when one looks at the

11     totality of the information, and again, the VRS concludes the same thing

12     in their own analysis, that they believe that they ended up in a much

13     superior position, as far as war fighting capabilities go, as they came

14     into the end of 1992 and early 1993.  And, frankly, one of the things

15     that they attribute to the success that they are having is their superior

16     abilities at the command and staff levels that allowed for a superior

17     employment of their own forces.  It was something that they noted that

18     they were doing quite well, that their adversaries were not doing as

19     successfully.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   Sir, are you here as an expert witness giving us expert opinion

22     or are you here to tell us what the VRS was pumping its chest about in

23     1992?

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection, argumentative.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, the witness explained on what, as you

Page 16646

 1     asked him, he based his conclusion.  Your question apparently is:  Have

 2     you considered the possibility that the VRS, in stating so, was

 3     exaggerating and was trying to show to be better than they really were.

 4     That is your question I take it, Mr. Ivetic?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  That would be my follow-up question, yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I don't understand the question that you put to

 7     the witness.  Could you please answer that question?

 8             THE WITNESS:  If one looks and reads the entire combat analysis,

 9     which in the English language runs somewhere I think around 150 pages,

10     the VRS talks about the things that they think they are doing very well

11     and it also talks about the things that they are doing poorly.  At the

12     end of the day, their own combat analysis of their battlefield

13     performance and the role of -- and how their army is performing is not

14     designed to be a public document.  It's designed to be a document for

15     their benefit as part of their self-analysis.  As professional officers I

16     don't think they would be inflating their positives and deflating their

17     negatives if the purpose of that report ultimately is to draw conclusions

18     on how to be more effective in the combat environment in the outlying

19     years.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   From your study and research and expertise, can you tell us how

22     many officers would be needed in order to have the VRS Main Staff

23     functioning at full strength as it was intended under the formative

24     regulations or structure of the VRS?

25        A.   Again, sir, as I've testified before, I know that the

Page 16647

 1     Office of the Prosecutor has those documents, and I've seen them in the

 2     past.  I don't recall a specific number that I can give you to answer

 3     that question at the moment.  I mean, I know the information is available

 4     out there.  It's something I probably knew and forgot years ago.

 5        Q.   Okay.  If we can look at paragraph 1.1 of the document which is

 6     up on the screen which is the VRS brigade Command Responsibility Report.

 7     We see here -- you again are focusing on the structures of the

 8     2nd Military District and its subordinate units including a corps

 9     command.  Do you consider that the prevalence of references within your

10     reports to the pre-existing structures of the 2nd Military District of

11     the JNA in terms of explaining VRS structures are at least misleading or

12     misplaced, given all these factors that we have discussed today?

13        A.   No, sir.  I don't.  If I understand your question correctly,

14     I think the implication is that because I relied very heavily on the JNA

15     corps related documents and extrapolated them up for the

16     2nd Military District, I'm somehow being inaccurate as to the total

17     picture.  I mean, is that what you're implying, sir?

18        Q.   No, sir.  I'm implying to the fact that this concept of the

19     2nd Military District and the nucleus of the same being inherited by the

20     VRS and that these comparisons between the VRS and the

21     2nd Military District imply that this finished, organised military entity

22     that had been in existence for some time was basically good to go and

23     ready and became the VRS.  And I'm asking you if, in fact, that rosy of a

24     picture is misleading given these factors that we have been discussing

25     here today.

Page 16648

 1        A.   I -- if that's the inference you're drawing, you're incorrect.

 2     I -- I -- in both the idea I tend to push in my reports and certainly

 3     I've testified to, is the fact that 1992 was a very chaotic time.

 4     Nobody -- it wasn't rosy for anyone let alone the situation where

 5     General Mladic is trying to effectively organise an army out of what was

 6     at that time in Bosnia a disparate group of municipal-backed military

 7     formations, paramilitaries and other entities, you know, conducting

 8     combat operations against each other without centralised direction, it

 9     seems, at least with respect to military centralised direction.  I don't

10     think I've ever tried to lay out the idea that somehow there was a magic

11     seamless transition from the JNA as it existed until its collapse and

12     when the VRS stood up.

13        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to move away from that topic and go to another

14     topic with you.  One thing I didn't ask you about in relation to your

15     background is the time period after the Office of the Prosecutor, and I'd

16     like to spend some time briefly going through that now.  In the course of

17     your employment within the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have

18     you remained at the same position or have you been promoted?

19        A.   I have -- when I started in 2003 with Immigration and Customs

20     Enforcement I worked out of the office of Atlanta with respect to dealing

21     with traditional criminal issues, specialising in human smuggling and

22     human trafficking.  I was promoted from that office and brought to

23     Washington, D.C., within a short time frame, in order to begin the

24     process of helping to establish for the agency what is now the

25     Human Rights Violators & War Crimes Centre.

Page 16649

 1        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to look at document 1D1233 with you.  Perhaps on

 2     the safe side we should maybe not broadcast the same.  I don't know --

 3     I haven't received any information to that effect but I think to be on

 4     the safe side, perhaps we should not broadcast the same.  Sir, this is

 5     dated 22 September 2006.  I believe it indicates that it originated from

 6     you.  Do you recognise this?

 7        A.   Yes, sir.  I authored this document.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And at this time you were an intelligence research

 9     specialist, human rights violators unit from Atlanta, Georgia.  Would

10     this have been before or after you were promoted to Washington, D.C.?

11        A.   This would be about the time I was going up there, so I couldn't

12     tell you if this -- you know, I was still sitting in Atlanta when I wrote

13     this memorandum and I can't tell you how shortly thereafter I got

14     promoted and moved to Washington.

15        Q.   Okay.  Looking at the subject of this document, and I guess I'll

16     read it into the record.  It says:

17             "Background primer on the genocide, crimes against humanity, and

18     war crimes associated with the capture of the UN safe area of Srebrenica

19     in July 1995 during the Bosnian war and associated ICE human rights

20     violations -- violation cases presently under investigation."

21             Now, this is a very legal sounding title, sir.  Did you have any

22     legal assistance in drafting this primer report?

23        A.   No, sir.  This is my document entirely.  The conclusions that

24     they were genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, in part, are

25     related to previous judgements of previous courts on the issue.

Page 16650

 1        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to ask you about portions of this 14-page report,

 2     but, first, if I may am, I correct that the work of your unit focused --

 3     at the ICE, I should say, focuses on prosecuting Bosnian Serbs who

 4     emigrated to America, or have you also worked on cases prosecuting ethnic

 5     Bosnian Croat or Bosnian Muslim suspects as well?

 6        A.   I can tell you that your perception is incorrect.  I can tell you

 7     broadly that we are investigating individuals of all of the ethnic

 8     groups, and a number of those have been brought to trial.  I obviously am

 9     not in a position to discuss before this Chamber ongoing investigations.

10        Q.   Are you in a position to tell us what portion of the all-time

11     case load of your unit have been ethnic Serbs as opposed to

12     Bosnian Muslims or ethnic Bosnian Croats?

13        A.   No, sir, I'm not in a position to do that.

14        Q.   All right.  Are you in a position to tell us how many criminal or

15     removal proceeding trials you have testified in against ethnic Serbs as

16     opposed to ethnic Croats and ethnic Bosnian Muslims?

17        A.   I can tell you that I have -- that the overwhelming majority of

18     the trials that I have testified in are related to ethnic Serbs from

19     Bosnia primarily because that is where my expertise lies.

20        Q.   Okay.  If we can turn to page 3 of this primer by you, and I'd

21     like to focus on some language in the middle of the first paragraph up at

22     the top that says:

23             "These locations and the associated offences have been

24     extensively investigated and documents by the ICTY and in almost all

25     cases, significant forensics evidence and witness testimony exists

Page 16651

 1     concerning these crime scenes.  In all cases, these crime scenes are well

 2     substantiated as being located outside the context of any ongoing

 3     military combat operations.  This precludes any potential defence by an

 4     accused that his acts are associated with lawful combat as opposed to war

 5     crimes."

 6             Are you wearing a prosecutor's hat when you're drafting this memo

 7     for your bosses at ICE, do you believe?

 8        A.   No, sir.  I'm wearing the hat of somebody who is capable of

 9     reading previous judgements on the subject and being able to relate what

10     they say.

11        Q.   And what are you relying upon when you are making an affirmative

12     statement that accused are precluded from any potential defences?  Is

13     that also what prior judgements would have to say about future defendants

14     or are you making a pre-judgment, sir?

15        A.   No, sir, I'm drawing a conclusion on the fact that there will be

16     cases in investigations where individuals will claim that their

17     activities were legitimate combat operations, which would mean that under

18     US immigration law it wouldn't necessarily mean that they were involved

19     in potential acts of persecution.  For individuals who were assigned to

20     various small military units that were engaged or that were somehow

21     associated with criminal acts related to Srebrenica 1995, they would not

22     be able to claim that, you know, based on the results of the forensics of

23     those grave sites, that they were involved in lawful combat operations,

24     and that was the point I'm trying to make.

25        Q.   If we can turn to the next page, I'd like to focus on the first

Page 16652

 1     half of the first paragraph which reads as follows:

 2             "Kravica warehouse massacre.  On 13 July 1995, several thousand

 3     Bosnian Muslim soldiers and male civilians who were retreating to

 4     friendly territory were captured by Bosnian Serb military units.  They

 5     were disarmed and collected at various locations."

 6             And I'd like to stop there and I'd like to turn to page 9 of your

 7     report, the last sentence of the page:

 8             "A much smaller group includes males who escaped by joining a

 9     column of BiH 28th Division soldiers that fought their way to friendly

10     lines after their capture," and then on the next page, "capture of

11     Srebrenica."

12             Sir, in both instances, are we talking about the same

13     Bosnian Muslim column, those that you first identify as retreating and

14     then those that you identify as fighting their way through enemy lines?

15        A.   You really lost me when you flipped back and forth.  I just don't

16     understand the context.  Could you try that again, sir?

17        Q.   Sure, if we could turn to page 4.  Page 9 was talking about males

18     who left Srebrenica after it was captured and joined a column of the

19     28th Division that fought their way through enemy lines.  Would that be

20     the same group of people that are on this page described as several

21     thousand Bosnian Muslim soldiers and male civilians who were retreating

22     to friendly territory?

23        A.   In the context of the first line of page 4, what I am talking

24     about are, as part of the larger column, the thousands of people who were

25     captured starting the evening of 12 July 1995 and through the 13th and

Page 16653

 1     14th who were captured by Bosnian Serb military units, so that's the

 2     group I'm talking about in that particular line.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4        A.   So I got that part.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And would you agree with me, militarily speaking, the

 6     descriptions of retreating and fighting through enemy lines are not

 7     identical?  They don't have the same meaning?  They are not very precise?

 8        A.   I'm again in the context -- if you can go back to the second

 9     notation you did so I can look at ...

10        Q.   Page 9, last line.

11        A.   Thank you.  I take your point with respect to that.  I mean,

12     I don't see any particular conflict with respect to the column retreating

13     from Srebrenica and fighting its way to friendly lines.  I understand

14     that you could, and again I take your point on that.

15        Q.   Will you also agree with me that irrespective of whether they

16     were retreating or fighting through enemy lines, that ambushes by Serb

17     forces upon the column would be considered legitimate and lawful military

18     exercises?

19        A.   Again, as I've testified many times before, the column as

20     constituted, despite the fact that the mixed character of the column, in

21     my view the column constituted a legitimate military target which meant

22     that it was subject to attack by ambush.  Again, ultimately it will be

23     for the Court to conclude whether that was a lawful exercise or not.

24                           [Defence counsel and Accused confer]

25             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise to the witness and to Your Honours for

Page 16654

 1     attending to my client without first seeking leave.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  That's no problem.  Mr. Ivetic, just to understand

 3     your line of questioning, are you saying the witness has ignored more or

 4     less that there may have been a lot of combat casualties and ignores that

 5     in this document?  Is that what you are about to establish?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  No, I was trying to establish what we just discussed

 7     that whether or not they were retreating or fighting through, that it

 8     would -- the ambushes upon them would still be a lawful exercise which

 9     I think the witness has just answered.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:

12        Q.   If we could turn to page 4 of the document again, I'd like to

13     take up where we left off, in the first paragraph.  And it says:

14             "One of these locations was the Kravica warehouse, approximately

15     8 kilometres from Bratunac.  At around 1700 hours on 13 July 1995,

16     Bosnian Serb Special Police, and Bosnian Serb soldiers, some identified

17     from the Bratunac Brigade, began shooting prisoners in the warehouse."

18             Now, sir, yet again, another report authored by you, this one

19     well after you would have known about the facts of the attempted escape,

20     the wounding of one Serb policeman, the killing of another, does not make

21     mention of that.  Do you think that you're being entirely accurate or is

22     this portion of your report misleading the reader as to the genesis of

23     this event?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey.

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  That is a conclusion that has not been

Page 16655

 1     established by the facts of this case, that this is a fact.  This is an

 2     allegation that's been made by some people.  There are certain facts

 3     related to it.  But to treat the story of the burned hands as if it's a

 4     fact that is established, is incorrect, is not borne out by the record.

 5     It can be stated much simpler the account of the burned hands or the

 6     account of the shooting or the account of something.  Why aren't you

 7     taking that into account?  Fine.  But to establish it as some sort of a

 8     fact is wrong.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what Mr. Ivetic apparently is seeking is to

10     know from the witness why nothing has been said about the burned hand

11     issue, which, as you said, Mr. Ivetic, the witness was aware of by then.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you answer that question?

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  I mean, first of all, with respect to

15     this particular document, again, as I've discussed in my prior testimony,

16     the issue of Kravica warehouse being a crime scene is the ultimate fact

17     in question that I'm trying to draw the reader -- and, again, my readers

18     in this particular document would be agents who have no familiarity

19     whatsoever with the events that occurred in Srebrenica in 1995.  I've

20     talked at length about my issue of the Kravica warehouse.  Whether or not

21     it was predicated by an escaping Bosnian Muslim prisoner or whether or

22     not it was predicated by an order by the people there at the time to

23     shoot everybody, I again go back to what I said previously:  At some

24     point clearly the intention was to kill everyone who was stored in that

25     warehouse.  That ultimately has been the finding of various

Page 16656

 1     Trial Chambers, and, again, I rely on those legal issues and legal

 2     findings for this memorandum.  Not my own personal views on issues.

 3             MR. IVETIC:

 4        Q.   This memorandum has no footnotes; correct, sir?

 5        A.   Correct, sir.  This memorandum was an internal document for our

 6     investigators to give them a basic context of how the programme is

 7     conducting these investigations.  The fact that I've been cross-examined

 8     about it a number of times doesn't exclude the fact that it was always

 9     meant to be an internal document, it was never meant to be disclosed, and

10     it was never meant as a -- to be a public document with respect to an

11     authoritative source.  It was -- as the business goes, this is internal

12     work product.

13        Q.   And was it intended to give officers who were working on

14     investigations a full picture or was it meant to advocate a particular

15     position?

16        A.   It was neither.  What it was meant to do was to give officers who

17     had absolutely zero knowledge on east Bosnia in general or Srebrenica

18     specifically enough background information so that they would at least

19     understand why they were conducting these investigations in the first

20     place.

21        Q.   And wouldn't such a -- strike that.  And with no citations to

22     footnotes, no citations to, for instance, this set of accounts from

23     Kravica that are of importance, that they could only find by looking

24     through their testimony which I'm sure that they would not have had

25     access to or know how to easily find without more assistance, don't you

Page 16657

 1     think that you're being unfair to the officers doing the investigation by

 2     giving them one side of the facts rather than an impartial picture of

 3     both sides?

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  The judgements that he's referred to

 5     where this incident has been repeatedly concluded is a strong indication

 6     that this is not a one-sided version.  And I don't normally go to

 7     judgements but that question, ignoring the judgements, suggesting

 8     otherwise is absolutely inappropriate.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I'm sorry, is counsel's position that this trial is

10     inappropriate?  Does he stand on his objection?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you serious, Mr. Ivetic?  Are you serious in

12     that question?  Tell us.

13             MR. IVETIC:  I'm asking --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no.  My question is are you serious when you put

15     that question to Mr. McCloskey?

16             MR. IVETIC:  I was reacting to Mr. McCloskey's objection,

17     Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm asking whether you were serious.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I was reacting to Mr. McCloskey's question, Your

20     Honour, I said that.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You refuse to answer the question.

22             MR. IVETIC:  I take exception, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider how seriously it should be

24     taken.  Whatever the case is, you have put approximately seven questions

25     in one with a lot of suggestions.  Could you perhaps put clear questions

Page 16658

 1     to the witness.  If this would be about a subject matter you wanted to

 2     touch upon, please do so, but in a different format.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honour, then I need guidance from the

 4     Chamber.  I'm reciting back to the witness his testimony that he's

 5     already given.  Do I need to ask him again if there are no footnotes and

 6     citations?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's not the same question you asked before

 8     because you implied a lot of other observations in there.  But, then, now

 9     the question simply is:  Whether there are no footnotes and citations, it

10     seems that looking at the document, Mr. Ivetic, I see no footnotes on

11     none of the pages.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  And then the witness has said

13     there are none.  So I'm asking where is the compound part of my question.

14     I need your guidance to know how to break it up, since I was only

15     reciting the witness's prior testimony.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Just take them one by one.  And that's my guidance

17     at this moment.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

19        Q.   Is it correct, sir, that there are no citations and footnotes in

20     this document?

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This question is already answered.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Next question, please.

23             MR. IVETIC:

24        Q.   So with your testimony that there are no citations and footnotes

25     in the document, don't you think that it would be unfair to the officers

Page 16659

 1     investigating this -- these matters, not to give them a full account but,

 2     rather, giving them one side of the account?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  There is one thing implied in this question, that is

 4     by not giving footnotes, you are not giving them a full account but a

 5     one-sided account.  Now, a full account and a one-sided account is not --

 6     are not two opposing matters.  You have a full account and an incomplete

 7     account, and you have a neutral account and you have a one-sided account.

 8     So therefore the question from an analytical point of view, Mr. Ivetic,

 9     may need some further explanation, but let's try to take it one by one.

10     By not adding footnotes, have you given not a full account of the events

11     you describe?

12             THE WITNESS:  I agree, sir.  This is a -- by design this is a

13     summary account, not a one-sided one.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That -- the first question was simply whether

15     it was a full account or not.  You say it is summary.  The next question

16     is whether it is a one-sided account, whether you wanted to highlight one

17     side rather than both sides.

18             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  My intention was to, I hope, correctly

19     summarise the facts of the previous judicial findings in these matters.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You say it's not one-sided in respect of the

21     judgements you want to summarise here.

22             THE WITNESS:  I don't believe so, no, sir.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then the next question is by giving this summarised

24     account without footnotes, would you consider this to be unfair to the

25     readers, the officers, who would read this document?

Page 16660

 1             THE WITNESS:  Not only would I not consider it to be unfair, the

 2     officers who were involved in these cases thanked me for providing enough

 3     background information so they had, at least beginning their portion of

 4     the investigations, enough knowledge to be able to understand what the

 5     department level and what the agency level leadership was looking for in

 6     these investigations that we were asking them to conduct on a

 7     case-by-case basis.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand your reasoning.  Would you agree

 9     with me that if it would have been a misleading account, that they might

10     have praised you nevertheless because they were not aware of the

11     misleading character of the information they received and they thanked

12     you for?

13             THE WITNESS:  That is a conclusion that -- obviously when you're

14     giving information to people who are completely ignorant of a particular

15     situation, yes.  I mean, I obviously take your point that the fact that

16     they were praising me doesn't mean that I was giving them accurate

17     information.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Ivetic, we'll first take a break.  The

19     guidance you were further seeking is contained in the few questions I put

20     to the witness.  I hope that will assist you.

21             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and we will resume at 20 minutes to

24     2.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 1.20 p.m.

Page 16661

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness will be escorted into the courtroom.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  [Microphone not activated] thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Sir, when drafting this document, and in particular the paragraph

 7     that we still have up on the screen, did you anticipate and expect for

 8     the investigating officers to undertake on their own to go back and check

 9     the transcripts of all your prior testimony, to learn about, for

10     instance, the Kravica account of detainees having overtaken guards and

11     having engaged in a fire-fight leading to casualties on both sides?

12        A.   No, sir.  All I -- my expectation was that simply was with this

13     information, if they interviewed an individual who stated that he was at

14     Kravica, that the investigating agent would simply have enough background

15     information to know that that might be of some significance.

16        Q.   Do you know, sir, that one of the individuals who was removed

17     from the United States as a result of the work of the unit based upon

18     this report was exonerated by the state court of BiH this year?

19     Mr. Nedjo Ikonic?

20        A.   Yes, sir, I am aware of that.  He's not the only one.

21        Q.   How many have been exonerated?

22        A.   I believe there was an individual who was removed in 2005, since

23     he was exonerated, I don't know that I want to give his name in open

24     court.  That's obviously a discretionary matter for the Court.  But --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not -- the Chamber does not insist on

Page 16662

 1     mentioning the name.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I don't either.  I'm asking numbers.  I'm happy

 3     with numbers.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Again, our position is when -- recognising those

 6     issues, you know, the fact that as far as the United States government is

 7     concerned, our equity in investigating these issues has circles around

 8     whether or not the individual was truthful to the United States

 9     government as part of his process to becoming a refugee into the

10     United States.  We do not have jurisdiction over these actual war crimes

11     simply as a restriction of the laws that are or were in place in the

12     United States.  So, again, I take your point that he was acquitted in

13     Bosnia but he did acknowledge his guilt in the United States for

14     misrepresenting material facts on his immigration applications to come to

15     our country.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could I ask you something?  You earlier

17     used the word "was exonerated," is that the witness used "acquitted."

18     That's not exactly the same.  Did you intend to refer to being acquitted?

19             MR. IVETIC:  I did, Your Honours and I apologise.  I was

20     translating the B/C/S into English and it sometimes comes out wrong.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I just wanted to seek clarification of the use of

22     those words.  Please proceed.

23             MR. IVETIC:

24        Q.   If I could turn to page 6 of this document, just a few more

25     questions and then we can move on to another topic.

Page 16663

 1             The middle of the second paragraph of this paragraph reads as

 2     follows:

 3             "Notwithstanding the general co-operation between the ICTY and US

 4     government, the specific names of over 11.000 Bosnian Serb military

 5     personnel assigned to units associated with the Srebrenica crimes was not

 6     made available to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement until

 7     July 2003."

 8             Now, I note, sir, that this is, I believe, just before you left

 9     the OTP.  Were you involved in the transfer of this information or do you

10     have any knowledge of the same?  Apart from what's written here?

11        A.   Yes, sir.  I was involved in the transfer of that information.

12     The United States government was investigating the case relating to

13     Marko Boskic, who was a member of the 10th Sabotage Unit in July 1995.

14     Their investigators were here at -- for a point in time investigating

15     that.  They made a request with respect to the Office of the Prosecutor,

16     if they could get additional names of individuals associated with Eastern

17     Bosnia in July 1995.  And since I was travelling back to the United

18     States on home leave, I was designated by the chief of investigations to

19     hand carry that list and deliver it to the immigration authorities.

20     Again, at that time, I was a UN employee and at that time I did not even

21     have an application in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  So in

22     that capacity, I was operating strictly on orders from the OTP.

23        Q.   Did that information that you provided assist you in getting

24     hired by ICE?

25        A.   No, sir, it did not.

Page 16664

 1        Q.   Okay.  If we can turn to page 10, I have just one more section

 2     from this and one more question to ask you about.  The second to last

 3     sentence on the page reads as follows:

 4             "All ICE requests should be forwarded to IRS Butler who will

 5     co-ordinate them and ensure no duplications of requests or efforts."

 6             Now, here, they are talking about requests of immigration and

 7     naturalisation to the ICTY.  Can I assume that IRS Butler refers to you?

 8        A.   Yes, sir, that's correct.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And am I understanding this correctly that you in your own

10     memo are volunteering or appointing yourself as official liaison between

11     the US immigration service and the Prosecutor of the ICTY?

12        A.   I don't know that I appointed myself into that motion, but the

13     decision was taken that in light of the OTP's position that they didn't

14     want to be bombarded by requests, and our position that we did not want

15     dozens of agents in disparate communities doing different investigations

16     to bombard them with requests, a decision was made by my agency that the

17     request would come through me and that I would at least organise them.

18     I would also add that while it's not visible in this memorandum, again

19     our requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement particularly in

20     these days did not go directly to the ICTY but also had to go through the

21     legal attache office at the US embassy.  So, again, part of this was to

22     ensure that the established process by which various organs of the

23     United States government communicated with the ICTY and the

24     Office of the Prosecutor, which are tracked by the Department of State,

25     are maintained and we did not get into a scenario where an individual

Page 16665

 1     case agent would try to pick up the phone and directly call people at the

 2     OTP.

 3        Q.   Okay.  I forgot one other critical point, if we can turn to the

 4     last page of this document.  And while we are waiting for that, sir, you

 5     list and direct for among other information sources that the officers

 6     should look at the Karadzic and Mladic case.  So I have to ask you:  Do

 7     you believe a conviction of Mr. Mladic would further the efforts of your

 8     office in prosecuting people in the US for crimes that you say occurred

 9     in Srebrenica?

10        A.   No, sir.

11        Q.   Okay.  Then we can leave this document behind and move on.

12             You testified during direct examination for the Prosecution on

13     the topic of the ABiH intercepts.  Would you agree with me that the ABiH

14     intercepts figure prominently in your conclusions and your reports,

15     especially in the narrative Srebrenica report?

16        A.   I do agree that they are catalogued in the report, and clearly

17     I do rely on them, as well as my other -- the other documents to form my

18     conclusions, yes, sir.

19        Q.   Now, at transcript page 16116 on last Tuesday you said that you

20     were personally very skeptical about the intercepts themselves,

21     particularly since their source was the other party opposed to the Serbs,

22     until you verified them.  Now, first of all, when you say intercepts,

23     I would like to make sure we are talking about the same things.  Are

24     we -- are the intercepts that you are talking about limited to those from

25     the ABiH 2nd Corps and relating to Srebrenica and July 1995 and the

Page 16666

 1     surrounding area, or do your comments and review relate to intercepts

 2     from other sources relating to other areas and other time periods?

 3        A.   What I'm relating that comment to are the intercepts that I have

 4     had an opportunity to review as part of the first part of my

 5     investigation, when I was actually here, which includes those -- I

 6     believe they are commonly called the ABiH 2 corps intercepts, which we

 7     received from various collection sites and ABiH 2 corps itself.  I've

 8     testified in the past about what I think the OTP refers to as tactical

 9     intercepts.  They are not in my reports because the OTP obtained them

10     after my departure here.  But, I again, the same situation is applied.

11     I mean, I look at them skeptically at first but I have come to believe

12     that they are authentic, and that is why I testified to them in certain

13     cases.  I know that there is a broader body of intercept information that

14     encompasses 1993, 1994, and from other sources.  I don't believe I've

15     ever reviewed that particular information, so obviously I'm not in the

16     position to corroborate anything outside of the collections that I just

17     spoke of.

18        Q.   And in relation to these intercepts, at transcript page 16119 of

19     this trial, you have testified that there are two aspects to apprising

20     the reliability of these intercepts which you and other analysts were

21     involved in.  Before we get to those two aspects themselves, can you

22     please identify for me who apart from yourself was involved in this

23     verification process of the intercepts?

24        A.   Well, with respect to the military analysts, again my primary

25     assistants were Ms. Amanda Brettle and Sally Latin.  I understand and

Page 16667

 1     obviously was involved in part of the process with authentication which

 2     Ms. Stefanie Frease undertook as part of a member of the Srebrenica team.

 3        Q.   Did you consider yourself personally to be qualified to perform

 4     this type of analysis?

 5        A.   I would tell you yes.  The reality is that as an intelligence

 6     officer, I am required, as part of my position, to analyse incoming raw

 7     information, as it were, and make determinations as to the reliability of

 8     that information.  The fact that I was doing it here -- again, I've done

 9     it in other locations for the US government.  So I'm not unfamiliar with

10     not only the capabilities but also the limitations of information that

11     intercepts can bring.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, at page 16119 of the transcript, you say that the

13     first prong of analysis is that you look at the technical perspectives to

14     see if a party had the technical capability of intercepting the

15     communications.  And if I understand you correctly, your testimony is

16     that in your opinion, the ABiH did have the technical capability to

17     intercept these communications.  Am I correct?

18        A.   Yes, sir.  I mean, I've actually in the course of the

19     investigation, I recall visiting at least one of the collection sites

20     where the equipment was.  I know that I have looked at various maps

21     pertaining to where the individual collectors or their antennas were

22     located and verified that appropriate line of sight existed.  So, you

23     know, they weren't trying to collect through a mountain.  I mean,

24     obviously you have to be able to have some line of sight to the various

25     radio emitters that you're seeking to select on, that the equipment that

Page 16668

 1     they had was technically capable of doing that, and that the operators

 2     themselves had enough of an understanding of the target environment in

 3     order to understand what they were collecting.

 4        Q.   Now, I'm sure, based upon what you've just told us, that you

 5     sound like you've logged quite a number of hours sitting in front of an

 6     RRU-800 radio device of the type used by the VRS.  Can you please tell us

 7     how often you've had occasion to utilise such a device in the US army to

 8     send and receive such communications?

 9        A.   None.  But then again my qualification is not talking on a

10     particular radio.  My qualification is reading and analysing what is

11     captured from those particular radios by intelligence collectors.

12        Q.   In the course of your duties as an intelligence officer with the

13     United States armed forces, have you had occasion to personally

14     participate hands on in the technical aspects of signal interception of

15     communications carried over an RRU-800 radio relay network?

16        A.   I am about at the limit of what I can discuss with respect to my

17     specific work with signals intelligence.  So at this point I don't

18     believe I can comment any further.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  What does impose that limit?

20             THE WITNESS:  Sir, I would be at the risk of potentially

21     disclosing classified information, or at least information my government

22     considers classified with respect to the capabilities and limitation of

23     our own collection equipment.  Again, as I've testified, and I can

24     testify, I obviously was not involved with intelligence collection

25     related to Bosnia in the pre-war years or even, you know, through the

Page 16669

 1     conflict.  But I cannot exclude the possibility obviously that some of

 2     the equipment he is discussing I've not had some involvement with in

 3     other environments in the world.  So I don't know how to get past that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If we take out the reference to the specific

 5     equipment, then the question would remain whether, in the course of your

 6     duties as an intelligence officer with the United States Armed Forces,

 7     whether you had occasion to personally participate, hands on, in the

 8     technical aspects of signal interception.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I can answer that question affirmatively, yes, sir.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

12        Q.   I'm going to try and phrase this in a careful enough way to see

13     if you can answer this one.  Am I correct, sir, that your duties at the

14     US army that we went through the other day, generally speaking, dealt

15     with analysis of SIGINT that others had intercepted rather than actually

16     personally intercepting such communications?

17        A.   Correct, sir.  It was not my primary duty.  It was simply, again,

18     as a focus of an analyst's ability to understand the limits of

19     intelligence collection and the conditions that it's done under because I

20     have to understand that in order to pass a judgement as to whether or not

21     the information is reliable as a component of my own broader analysis.

22     So, again, just like, you know, not only in the SIGINT field but in the

23     HUMINT field I am called upon to make judgements pertaining to the

24     ability, the reliability of various intelligence collection methods and

25     means as part of relying on them.

Page 16670

 1        Q.   Now, as to your conclusion that the ABiH had the technical

 2     capability of intercepting communications from the VRS, did you rely

 3     solely upon your own knowledge and experience or did you rely upon any

 4     other technical experts, either within the OTP or external to the OTP?

 5        A.   I relied on, one, the testimonies and, first the statements and

 6     the testimonies of many of the individual collectors.  I relied on

 7     looking at analysis of the information and cross-indexing it against

 8     other facts that we knew to exist, such as documents and orders or other

 9     events that occurred on the ground that would tend to confirm or deny

10     that the intercepts were valid.  I am aware that we had several

11     individuals who were -- or at least one individual who was a member of

12     the -- I think it was Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau in the

13     United States who was an expert in audiotapes because the Tribunal or the

14     OTP had obtained audiotapes of some of these intercepted conversations

15     and we went to the degree of looking at those audiotapes in order to

16     determine if they were also authentic.  So those are the resources that

17     I used.

18        Q.   Can you tell me, sir, were you able to physically review the

19     actual radio equipment that the ABiH 2nd Corps were using or their

20     antenna setup that they were purportedly using to intercept VRS

21     communications in situ?

22        A.   Well, again, not in a contemporary setting.  I did go to one of

23     their collection sites.  I did see their and antenna array and get a

24     description of the antenna array that they used in 1995.  They did bring

25     out for us some of the short-wave or radio equipment that they were using

Page 16671

 1     in 1995.  But, again, what they were using in 1995 at that site and what

 2     they were using when we inspected in 1998 was different.  So we could see

 3     the equipment but we couldn't actually see it working because it was a

 4     live site.

 5        Q.   And when you say that you got a description of the antenna array

 6     and the equipment and they brought out short-wave or radio equipment,

 7     were you relying upon the written documents from 1995 as to what the

 8     technical capabilities of both the DX radio [Realtime transcript read in

 9     error "video"] equipment and the antenna arrays attached there to were?

10        A.   I was relying on my discussions with the various individuals at

11     that one site.

12             MR. IVETIC:  One correction to the transcript, page 85, line 12,

13     should be "DX radio equipment," unless I misspoke, which is shorthand for

14     short-wave.

15        Q.   But, sir, in relation to the radios themselves and the antennas

16     themselves, did you visually examine them?  Did you take any -- take

17     anything apart or perform any technical test to determine the

18     capabilities of those pieces of equipment, or was it solely based upon

19     these discussions that you just mentioned with the various individuals at

20     that one site?

21        A.   No, sir.  I did not take any equipment apart or conduct any

22     technical tests of that nature.

23        Q.   Were the short-wave radios that were shown to you at this time in

24     1998 civilian or military models?

25        A.   They were civilian models.

Page 16672

 1        Q.   Okay.  Would you agree that --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one thing?  How do you see the

 3     difference between a civilian model radio equipment and military?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Most -- the radio frequency spectrum in most

 5     countries are divided between frequencies that are available for the

 6     general public's use, frequencies that are available for government use,

 7     frequencies that are available for commercial use.  It mattered because

 8     obviously off-the-shelf civilian equipment normally does not have the

 9     crystal or the frequency setting in order to reach up into -- or to

10     monitor frequency waves that are dedicated government or military use,

11     particularly if they are from a certain country.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I understand that answer.  Is it on the

13     basis of documentation of that equipment or by type numbers that you

14     established whether it was civilian or military?

15             THE WITNESS:  My personal observation, I can see that it was

16     civilian, and of course that is what predicated my question in the

17     discussion with some of the radio operators, which was how they were able

18     to use civilian equipment to essentially intercept frequencies that were

19     authorised or used by military and government forces in that particular

20     region, which then led to the discussion about how they were able to

21     modify the radios in order to reach those particular frequencies.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So they were modified civilian models?  Is

23     that how I have to understand it?

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, as it was discussed with me with the two

25     radios that I saw what they said is they basically were able to go in and

Page 16673

 1     using crystals or other circuits that they were able to obtain abroad,

 2     outside of the former Yugoslavia, they were able to modify these civilian

 3     radios to be able to listen to frequencies that correspondingly the VRS

 4     was using during the conflict.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:

 8        Q.   The two radios that were presented to you, were you able to

 9     visually see any modifications to them or did they look like stock,

10     off-the-shell, civilian models?

11        A.   They looked like off-the-shelf civilian models.  I could not

12     visibly ascertain anything from the outside.

13        Q.   RM279 identified the receivers, civilian receivers in question as

14     being a Kenwood 450 and ICR-100, and that's at transcript page 13553 of

15     this trial.  Did you, in fact, at any point in time, attempt to review

16     the technical manuals published by the manufacturers and find out the

17     technical specifications in relation to those devices?

18        A.   No, sir, I did not.

19             MR. IVETIC:  If we can look at P1646 briefly in e-court.  If I've

20     got my numbers right this should be a photograph.

21        Q.   Sir, this has been represented to be one of the radio receivers

22     used by the ABiH 2nd Corps.  Does this look like one of the ones that was

23     presented to you on this occasion, at this location -- at one of the

24     locations in 1998?

25        A.   It may have been.  I mean, I have a memory of one of the radios

Page 16674

 1     being white.  It may have been one of the ones they showed me or not.  I

 2     don't recall.

 3        Q.   That's fair enough.  At this time I would like to ask you, sir,

 4     what is your understanding of the types of radio communications equipment

 5     that were in use by the VRS at the various echelons of the Main Staff,

 6     the corps, the brigade and the battalion echelons on the territory of

 7     Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, et cetera, in July of 1995?  Did you have

 8     that?  I mean, I'm not asking you to recite them now.

 9        A.   I appreciate that.  I could answer that.  Boy, I knew that

10     question dead on back in 2000, obviously because one of General Krstic's

11     primary defences was that the intercepts were essentially fake or in

12     their entire body and that we had to go through an entire drill to

13     validate that.  I can say generally, you know, what the VRS was using was

14     what most militaries use which is a standard ultra-high frequency

15     multi-channel radio relay setup.  I believe that many of the documents

16     that the OTP has actually lays out the entire communication schematic of

17     the VRS.  The key thing for me, frankly, was that this particular network

18     operated what we call in the clear or in the red, which means that they

19     were not operating this network in an enciphered mode.  For whatever

20     reason they were either unwilling or unable to obtain the necessary

21     cipher from the FRY.  I don't know the reason behind that.  But they were

22     operating the radio equipment, the encryption -- it was not encrypted,

23     and as a result it could be intercepted because the frequency spectrum

24     that it operated on lended itself to be intercepted.

25        Q.   Was it your understanding that none of the radio communications

Page 16675

 1     equipment of the VRS was being operated in encrypted mode?  Is that your

 2     understanding of the circumstances?

 3        A.   No, sir.  I mean, clearly when one looks at the teletype messages

 4     that are going back and forth, those are encrypted, and as a result, the

 5     ABiH was not able to collect against them.  I'm sure some of the tactical

 6     communications among key officers would have been encrypted by encryption

 7     devices that you might find, for example, on the RU 12 or things of that

 8     nature.  But in July of 1995, in at least the portion of the VRS

 9     communications backbone that was in Eastern Bosnia on the multi-channel

10     network, those communications were not encrypted.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock -- Mr. Ivetic,

12     yes.

13             MR. IVETIC:  We can take the break for the day.  Sorry.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Butler, I again would like to instruct you

15     that you should not speak or communicate in whatever way with whomever

16     about your testimony, whether already given or still to be given.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And we would like to see you back at 9.30 tomorrow

19     morning in this same courtroom.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow,

24     Friday, the 13th of September in this same Courtroom I at 9.30 in the

25     morning.

Page 16676

 1                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,

 2                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day of

 3                           September, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.