150223ED

Page 32036

1 did you not hear that?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not hear anything, but I

3 believe that that goes without saying.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, first of all, then I repeat, good

5 morning to you.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And I wanted to remind you that you're still bound

8 by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your

9 testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

10 the truth, and Ms. Hasan will now continue her cross-examination.

11 Ms. Hasan, please proceed.

12 WITNESS: MILENKO JEVDJEVIC [Resumed]

13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Cross-examination by Ms. Hasan: [Continued]

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jevdjevic.

16 A. Good morning.

17 Q. Now we finished your testimony last week having looked at a

18 document and you had said you wished to explain a few things and I'll

19 give that you opportunity but I'll put to you a few questions before

20 that.

21 MS. HASAN: If we can call up 65 ter 31972, please.

22 Q. What you see before you here is an interim report from the

23 4th Radio Reconnaissance Platoon. It's dated the 12th of July, 1995, and

24 it's addressed to the Drina Corps Command Intelligence Department and the

25 forward command post at Pribicevac.

Page 32037

1 Now, it's passing on intelligence that electronic reconnaissance

2 has learned that a group of civilians from Srebrenica led by well-known

3 participants have entered a minefield. We see it's received on

4 12 July at 0745 hours, and the receipt is confirmed by Oliver Sekulic.

5 Now, did you receive this interim report?

6 A. This interim report is received by the encoder and then he sends

7 it on to the addressee. So the transmission of telegrams is only in the

8 hands of the encoder and then telegrams are sent to the addressees.

9 I have nothing to do with telegrams. I didn't even complete a

10 course in encoding, so I could not take part in any of that.

11 Q. Now when you -- when Oliver Sekulic received the interim report,

12 did he inform you that there was intelligence to be passed to the

13 Pribicevac forward command post?

14 A. Judging by the time and date of its receipt, he received this

15 report at the command of the Drina Corps in Vlasenica, not at the

16 Pribicevac forward command post. Because at the time when he received

17 this report, we and he personally were in Vlasenica, not at the

18 Pribicevac forward command post.

19 Q. And I think that goes to the explanation you wanted to provide,

20 but my question was: Did he inform that you there was intelligence to be

21 passed on to the Pribicevac forward command post?

22 A. He is not duty-bound to inform me. But since we were in

23 Vlasenica and out of all the officers from Pribicevac I was the only one

24 in Vlasenica then and the others were in the area of responsibility of

25 Srebrenica still, I do not rule out the possibility that perhaps he did

Page 32038

1 inform me that he had received some telegram for the forward command

2 post. But he is not duty-bound to inform me about the content of the

3 telegram. He just had the duty to inform me that he received a telegram

4 and that he has no one to give it to since the officers who were in

5 command at the forward command post remained in the area of

6 responsibility of Srebrenica.

7 Q. Did you inform the 4th Radio Reconnaissance Platoon that the

8 information could not be passed on because there were no officers at the

9 forward command post?

10 A. That was not my job and never my line of work.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you repeatedly now have told us what was

12 your job and who was duty-bound to do what. Apart from being duty-bound,

13 the first question is - and you only came later to that in your previous

14 answer - whether it happened. Sometimes things happen although persons

15 are not duty-bound to do what they did.

16 Therefore, could you please, if the question is whether you did

17 something not whether you -- not to answer whether you are duty-bound to

18 do a thing but whether you did it, and I have another question.

19 Do I understand where you said in your previous answer: "I do

20 not rule out the possibility that perhaps he did inform me that he had

21 received some telegram for the forward command post," is it that you

22 don't recall whether he did that but that you ...

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember. But according to

24 military logic, I allow for that possibility. It seems very logical to

25 me.

Page 32039

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And since you have no recollection of whether

2 it happened or not and you're talking in terms of logic, you also could

3 not rule out that he gave you even the detailed information on what he --

4 what he received, including content.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He does not dare communicate the

6 content to anyone. An encoder is not supposed to do that. He takes a

7 solemn oath when he completes an encoder's course. It is only for the

8 persons to whom the telegram is addressed.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's your logical conclusion rather than a

10 recollection of what has happened.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a rule that exists in the

12 military and that is the rule that exists for the work of encoders.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- then another question. Do you by any

14 chance know what the abbreviation for ZAG refers to, as we find it in

15 this document?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to decipher it and I really

17 do not find it clear. I don't understand any of this message. I don't

18 see what it could mean. It's put under quotation marks which means that

19 this group --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You don't know what ZAG stands for and that

21 was my question.

22 Please proceed.

23 MS. HASAN: May we have P7131. And I believe that's under seal

24 so it should not be broadcast.

25 And, Your Honours, if I could tender 31972.

Page 32040

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7133, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.

4 MS. HASAN:

5 Q. There is the document we've previously looked at from

6 General Zivanovic, received at 2350. Now, do you have a specific

7 recollection of whether this order from Zivanovic was brought to your

8 attention?

9 A. I don't remember.

10 Q. Okay.

11 MS. HASAN: Could we turn to page 2 in the English and we can

12 stay with page 1 in the B/C/S.

13 Q. Now, at the bottom of the page in B/C/S and the top of the

14 English, General Zivanovic orders:

15 "Until further notice, ensure that the forward command post is

16 taken over at all levels of command and control and monitor the situation

17 around the clock."

18 Now, given that you had dismantled the communications centre at

19 the forward command post, you could not comply with that order; is that

20 right?

21 A. This order primarily refers to all the brigades in the corps.

22 You can see a list of addressees and the reference is made to their

23 forward command posts. It was also sent to the forward command post of

24 the Drina Corps for reference only. However, the contents of the

25 telegram and the addresses refer to the forward command posts of the

Page 32041

1 brigades in the areas of their responsibility, not to the forward command

2 post of the corps.

3 Q. Let's turn to page 1 in the English because you're claiming here

4 that this was sent to the forward command post of the various brigades.

5 In fact, it was only sent to the forward command post of the Drina Corps.

6 A. This is not what I said. I said that this was sent to the

7 brigade commands. They had to be alert to the situation at their forward

8 command posts. It says so in bullet point 1, paragraph 2, of the order,

9 that all the brigades have to pay attention to the situation at their

10 forward command posts at the level of command. So the telegram refers to

11 the brigades and to their forward command posts.

12 It is true that one of the addressees is the forward command post

13 of the Drina Corps, but this would mean that the corps sent this

14 information to itself, but it was only for reference.

15 Q. Witness, I'll go back to my question and that is that it states

16 here that until further notice, ensure that the forward command post

17 monitors the situation around the clock. Given that you had dismantled

18 the Drina Corps forward command post, there's no way that this order

19 could be complied with.

20 A. This order - once again, I repeat - applies to the brigades in

21 the corps, and it could be complied with by the brigades. And for the

22 third time, I'm explaining the same thing. This refers to the forward

23 command posts of the brigades which had to be on duty 24/7 due to the

24 complexity of the situation because it was not known at the moment what

25 would be the direction of the breakthrough of the 28th Division from

Page 32042

1 Srebrenica.

2 Q. And, sir, I'll give you an opportunity now then to explain how it

3 is that this document sent to the forward command post was received by

4 your encoder at 2350 hours on 11th July.

5 A. I would like to see the telegram on the screen, the one that he

6 received.

7 MS. HASAN: Could we take a look at D289, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And perhaps while we're waiting for it, Witness,

9 your explanation would make it logical to talk about forward command

10 posts, in the plural, because you say it was for the brigades. Whereas

11 it is in the singular. It's mentioning -- unless there's any translation

12 issue there, it's mentioning that the forward command post is taken over

13 and should monitor.

14 Mr. Ivetic, I see you're on your feet.

15 MR. IVETIC: There may be an issue of translation although I

16 would defer to one of my colleagues who are more versed in B/C/S but the

17 parts in the section, if we focus on it here --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- let's first --

19 MR. IVETIC: -- on the Serbian. I think the --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think it would be have been sufficient

21 to say that there may be a translation issue.

22 Witness, could you answer my question or could you comment on

23 what I said, that you would expect forward command posts, in the plural,

24 if it was addressed to the brigades' forward command posts.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The order - and I'm referring to

Page 32043

1 paragraph 2 - refers to the forward command posts of the brigades, which

2 were beyond the command of those units where the breakthrough of the

3 28th Division was expected. The content of that sentence implies that

4 all the brigades had to have their forward command posts and that those

5 had to be manned 24/7.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, in paragraph 2, I read "unit commands," and

7 there we have a plural. Whereas in the part that was just read to you,

8 it is -- at least in English it is talking about the forward command post

9 and not the forward command posts, as you would have expected if it was

10 addressed to the brigades -- the forward command posts of the various

11 brigades.

12 Yes, let me see. Yes. Correction for the transcript. Page 17,

13 line 8, and I repeat, what I think I said is that at least in English it

14 is talking about the forward command post and not the forward command

15 posts, as you would have expected if it was addressed to the forward

16 command posts of the various brigades. Yes.

17 Any comment?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The telegram was sent to the

19 commands of the brigades. All the brigades had several forward command

20 posts in the area of their activity. At those forward command posts, the

21 brigades did not have teleprinter communication means. It was impossible

22 for them to send this piece of information to their forward command

23 posts. It was sufficient to send this order to the brigade commands and

24 to tell them what activities had to be undertaken in order to prevent the

25 breakthrough of the 28th Division from their encirclement. Under bullet

Page 32044

1 point 1 --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are switching from content of the

3 order, which I addressed, to to whom they were addressed. That's a

4 different matter. If you want to add anything, please proceed.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was just coming to that.

6 The brigade commands were sent this order to alert them to the

7 seriousness of the situation and to tell them that their forward command

8 posts had to be manned. That relevant officers had to be on combat

9 lines, on command posts, at facilities, not in the main commands and in

10 towns. That was the essence of this order.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I asked you about what I consider to be a

12 potential inconsistency between the text and your explanation, and I do

13 understand that you repeat your interpretation of this order rather than

14 to give the -- give an answer to the question I raised.

15 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

16 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, I don't know how he can give an

17 answer as to how it is translated into English. That doesn't seem to be

18 appropriate. If there's a problem with the English translation, I don't

19 think it's for the witness to bring reference to the mistranslation or to

20 better the English translation.

21 If we look at page 2, which we don't have on the screen, it was

22 read by Ms. Hasan, it says "the forward command post at all levels of

23 command and control," which would mean at all the different units that

24 level -- level -- all the different levels within the corps at which

25 command and control is exercised, meaning the brigades, the battalions,

Page 32045

1 et cetera.

2 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I don't think it is appropriate for

3 counsel to --

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to the next page?

5 MS. HASAN: -- provide their interpretation in front of the

6 witness.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can raise any translation issue,

8 Mr. Ivetic, or address matters you consider relevant in re-examination,

9 but this is not the way to address the matter. It was read as it was --

10 MR. IVETIC: I'm reading the question of Ms. Hasan. How is that

11 not appropriate to address? The question of Ms. Hasan in its essence

12 implies that there are different levels of command and control in the

13 corps, that they have corps command posts. In the English it's a nuance

14 but it's not really a mistranslation. There's -- even in the question if

15 it's translated that way --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --

17 MR. IVETIC: -- it says that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I talked about a potential inconsistency

19 and I leave it to the parties to explore whether there is or not. And at

20 this moment you're arguing, and if you think that the matter -- that

21 Ms. Hasan put a wrong question, then you put a right question to the

22 witness later, and I leave it to that at this moment.

23 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And if we want to deal with that matter in the

25 document, we should go back one page in the B/C/S and stay on the English

Page 32046

1 page.

2 MS. HASAN:

3 Q. Now, it's the Prosecution's position that it is a reference to

4 the Drina Corps IKM and I'd like you now to explain, as you had

5 requested, how it was that on the 11th of July at 2350 this telegram was

6 received when it's addressed to Pribicevac. Sorry, when it was addressed

7 to the Drina Corps IKM.

8 A. In order to better explain things, could we see page 2 in this

9 telegram on the screen, please.

10 MS. HASAN: Can we turn to page 2 in the B/C/S, please.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My explanation is as follows.

12 Fifteen years ago, your investigator came and I told him exactly what I

13 have testified about so far. When it comes to the communications centre

14 of the forward command post, I returned from there to Vlasenica, to the

15 corps command around 2400 hours, i.e., 12.00 midnight. That was my

16 realistic estimate.

17 In view of the fact that we had dismantled the communications

18 centre at the Pribicevac forward command post on 11th July around

19 1900 hours, my encoder at the forward command post no longer had a

20 possibility to receive any written telegrams. It would be normal that

21 after that period another place was established to receive telegrams for

22 the forward command post waiting to be forwarded. Those telegrams were

23 waiting at the communications centre in the corps command in Vlasenica.

24 That evening, around 2400 hours, when we arrived from Pribicevac,

25 Srebrenica, and Bratunac in Vlasenica, the encoder, who was

Page 32047

1 Oliver Sekulic, went to the communications centre of the Drina Corps and

2 there, at the communications centre of the Drina Corps in Vlasenica, they

3 printed a telegram that had been waiting for him because it could not

4 have been forwarded to him in Pribicevac because the communications

5 centre did no longer exist there. That's why the time here is 2350. And

6 if we can now have the original version of the document which was signed

7 by General Zivanovic, you will see on the stamp that the encoder sent

8 that telegram to all the other brigades around 2220 hours, as far as I

9 can tell. Only for the forward command post in Pribicevac he was waiting

10 to give it to my encoder.

11 Furthermore, this telegram was printed on an entirely different

12 machine and that one was located at the communications centre in

13 Vlasenica. If you compare the original of this document with all the

14 telegrams which were received by the machine at Pribicevac, any expert

15 can tell you that we're talking about two different machines that printed

16 those two documents. Due to the damage of the levers, all the printing

17 machines show some idiosyncrasies in printing certain letters.

18 That would be my short answer as to how, why, and when this

19 telegram was received on the 11th of July.

20 MS. HASAN:

21 Q. Was it militarily acceptable for you to disengage the

22 communications centre at the forward command post without having received

23 an order from your superiors to do so?

24 A. Absolutely. In the military terminology and in our military

25 schools, that is known as a self-initiative or an officer's independent

Page 32048

1 initiative.

2 MS. HASAN: Let's call up P04895.

3 Q. You'd agree with me, Witness, that the JNA rules of the corps for

4 the ground forces from 1990 were operable at the time?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. HASAN: Could we have page 37 in the English and page 59 in

7 the B/C/S, please.

8 Q. In this section, which will just come up, under paragraph 121, it

9 explains that communications centre's purpose at command posts is to

10 secure communications with superior-subordinate and co-ordinate -- and

11 co-ordinate commands.

12 And then if we turn to paragraph 129 - and so this is page 38 in

13 English, page 60 in the B/C/S - there are two propositions that are put

14 forward, the first being that:

15 "The command moves from one command post to another following the

16 plan or in emergency, but always by decision of the commander and with

17 the approval of the senior officer."

18 You see that there?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And if we can turn to, in the B/C/S, page 62, it continues with

21 the second proposition which is:

22 "The time of the move is notified to directly subordinated

23 commands, the headquarters of Territorial Defence, neighbours, and, as

24 required, bodies of socio-political communities and organisations."

25 On page 39 in the English, in the third paragraph it goes on to

Page 32049

1 say that:

2 "Communications centres are dislocated in keeping with the

3 dislocation of command while securing uninterrupted communications."

4 Now, it is implausible that you would have done so, disengaged

5 the entire communications centre without orders from your superiors;

6 isn't that correct?

7 A. That was my estimate of the situation. That was my assessment.

8 The continuity of communications requirement was satisfied. Not for a

9 single moment did I leave any commander without a stable communication.

10 There was my soldier in the vehicle, he had a device, and there was

11 always continued communication with brigade commanders.

12 Furthermore, I had information that he intended to go to the

13 command of the Bratunac Brigade and there was a telegraph communications

14 means there. You personally, during one of my previous testimonies, you

15 showed me an intercepted conversation from the Pribicevac forward command

16 post. Around 1915 hours I informed my communications centre in Vlasenica

17 that I would discontinue the work, that I would switch myself off, and

18 that is in keeping with the regulations that you quoted, and that I would

19 come back to them from Badem. Badem was the secret code of the

20 communications centre in the Bratunac Brigade.

21 Q. We're going do get to that. Let's just stay with this issue. I

22 will come back to what you're referring to and we can go over that.

23 Now, at transcript 32006 to 32007, you testified that the

24 28th Division were far in the western part of the enclave on the night of

25 the 11th. And this is as they were regrouping to go -- to break through

Page 32050

1 Tuzla. You recall your testimony on that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where was it that they were regrouping?

4 A. According to our information, they were regrouping in the

5 north-western part of the enclave, far from Srebrenica and far from the

6 Srebrenica-Bratunac road, and they were preparing to break through in the

7 direction of Tuzla. That was our information.

8 Q. Did you pass on this key information about the whereabouts of the

9 28th Division in the north-west sector of the enclave to your superiors

10 or anyone, for that matter?

11 A. They knew it even before I did.

12 Q. Well, let's see what they knew.

13 MS. HASAN: Could we see P01509.

14 Q. This is a report from the chief of the Zvornik Public Security

15 Centre - it will come up momentarily - Dragomir Vasic, and it's dated the

16 12th of July. And it reads at item 2:

17 "A meeting with General Mladic and General Krstic was held at the

18 Bratunac Brigade Command at 0800 hours, at which tasks were assigned to

19 all participants."

20 Item 3:

21 "The military operation is continuing according to plan. The

22 Turks are fleeing towards Suceska, while the civilians have gathered in

23 Potocari (about 15.000)."

24 So we see here that on the 12th of July, that, in fact, it is

25 thought that the 28th Division was moving towards Suceska which is in the

Page 32051

1 west, isn't it, not in the north-west as you claim they had known.

2 A. When I say north-west, that is an axis leading from west to

3 north. That doesn't necessarily mean due north-west or 290 degrees

4 azimuth. It was in that sector that they were breaking through and

5 regrouping. I'm not going to consider whether this is correct. The

6 chief was far back. None of his men were participating in operation

7 Srebrenica so they couldn't know. However, Suceska is also in -- west or

8 in -- in the west or in the north. If I had a map in front of me, I

9 could show you exactly what sector I had in mind. Whether it was in the

10 west or in the north is irrelevant. It's in that general direction.

11 Q. Witness, in fact, there was a search operation taking place in

12 the area of Suceska where the Bandera triangle is, where they thought the

13 28th Division was and in fact they weren't there. It was only later on,

14 on the 12th of July, that it was discovered that the 28th Division was in

15 the north-west sector, moving in the north-west.

16 MS. HASAN: Now, let's look at P724. This is Borovcanin's report

17 from 11 July to 21 July, and we've seen this one before.

18 If we turn to page 3 in the English, and 3 in the B/C/S as well,

19 please, Borovcanin is reporting on events taking place on the 12th of

20 July. And he -- if we could just scroll up a bit in the English, please.

21 Q. He in the second paragraph, second line in the English, he

22 reports:

23 "In the afternoon hours, we received information from state

24 security employees that 12.000 to 15.000 able-bodied, mostly armed

25 Muslims were moving from Srebrenica towards Konjevic Polje, Cerska, and

Page 32052

1 Tuzla.

2 "I received an order from General Mladic to send half of my men

3 and the available technical equipment to that axis so as to block the

4 area and fight the aforementioned formation."

5 So, Witness, it was not known that the 28th Division was moving

6 in the north -- to the north-west until the afternoon of 12 July which is

7 why General Mladic issues an order then and not the day before as you

8 claim.

9 A. You're absolutely not right. Just like I'm holding my headphones

10 on my head now, that is exactly the same way in which on the 11th of

11 July, I had information about the intentions and positions of the

12 28th Division. General Mladic had that, General Krstic had that too.

13 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, I note the time, and it would be

14 appropriate as far as I'm concerned for the break.

15 JUDGE ORIE: You're fully right.

16 Before we take that break, I'm just trying to fully understand

17 your testimony. You say the reference to the -- all levels of command

18 and control when the order is issued in relation to forward -- the

19 forward -- a -- the forward command post means that it's addressed to all

20 forward command posts of the brigade.

21 You earlier testified that it was for the Drina Corps forward

22 command post only sent for reference. Now, if it deals with all levels

23 of command and control, what makes you believe that an order issued by

24 the corps command could not address the forward command post of that same

25 Drina Corps, because you more or less excluded that.

Page 32053

1 Do you have an explanation for that assumed exclusion?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously the interpreter made a

3 mistake. What I said was by way of information whereas the translation

4 here was archived, stored. That is to say, something that is no longer

5 valid. But I said to provide information so that the forward command

6 post of the corps would also be equally informed in terms of the orders

7 given to the brigades. So the interpreter interpreted the exact

8 opposite.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I read to you what is recorded as your previous

10 answer, which was:

11 "It was also sent to the forward command post of the Drina Corps

12 for reference only."

13 That's how your words were translated. And I do understand that

14 that is for information only. But if it addresses all levels of command

15 and control, why would the highest corps level be excluded? What makes

16 you believe that it was sent for information exclusively and whether the

17 manning of the forward command post of the Drina Corps itself would not

18 be covered by the order? That's my question.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At first, the interpreter made a

20 mistake again and he said that it has to do with the forward command post

21 of the brigade. And you said that it was the forward command post of the

22 corps. In military terminology and at military schools that I attended

23 and completed, when something is being communicated to someone by way of

24 information for reference, then it is placed as number one in terms of

25 all the addressees of that telegram. That does not mean that that person

Page 32054

1 is being excluded from that information. Quite simply, that person

2 should know. However, the essence of the order pertains to brigades.

3 And now what the commander of the corps ordered is something that the

4 person who was at the forward command post of the corps should also know

5 about. So it absolutely includes the forward command post of the corps.

6 However, since it cannot carry out these tasks, it can only be done by

7 the forward command post of the brigade. That is why I said by way of

8 reference, in order to inform them.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to that.

10 We'll take the break. Witness, you may follow the usher. We'd

11 like to see you back in 20 minutes.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes to 11.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

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

16 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness, I briefly deal

17 with one item, which is the admission of D848.

18 During Bosko Amidzic's testimony on the 9th of December of last

19 year, the Chamber marked the ICTY witness statement of Osman Selak for

20 identification as D848 pending a decision on admission.

21 The Defence indicated that it did not actually seek admission of

22 this document and that it would be sufficient to read the relevant

23 paragraph thereof into the record.

24 On 9th of December, and I refer to transcript page 29553, the

25 relevant paragraph was read into the record. In light of this, the

Page 32055

1 Chamber denies the admission of D848.

2 [The witness takes the stand]

3 JUDGE ORIE: I also inform the parties that the map as marked by

4 the witness and then remarked by the witness in a better colour pen,

5 which was marked for identification as D909, has meanwhile been uploaded

6 into e-court. And therefore D909, a map marked by the witness, is

7 admitted into evidence.

8 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

9 MS. HASAN:

10 Q. To follow up on His Honour's questions to you about D289, could

11 we just pull that up on the screen.

12 And, Witness, you're telling us that this document was received

13 by Oliver Sekulic not at the Pribicevac forward command post but in

14 Vlasenica, and you go on to say that this document was not addressed

15 directly to the Drina Corps forward command post but it was just for

16 their information.

17 Now, to be clear, if we look at page 1, and you can see that in

18 your language, it says:

19 "Attention commands: IKM Drina Corps."

20 Now let's be clear: There's no translation issue here; right?

21 It doesn't say "for information".

22 A. What you said is not correct. A moment ago the interpreter said

23 to me that I had stated that this document was not sent to the IKM of the

24 corps. I never said any such thing. This was sent to the IKM of the

25 Drina Corps. That is correct, and that is written here under number 1.

Page 32056

1 JUDGE ORIE: You are referring again to what the interpreter

2 said. I think there is no dispute that the testimony of this witness is

3 that it was sent. You said for information only. And then Ms. Hasan

4 verified with you whether the text expresses any such reservation that it

5 is for information only or whether you agree that the text doesn't

6 express that it is only sent for information to the forward command post

7 of the Drina Corps.

8 Do you agree with her that the text does not say so, although you

9 understand it to be in that way?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not written in the document

11 because that is never written. However, I would kindly ask that you

12 allow me just to explain in two sentences.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You earlier explained that the first addressee --

14 that you would first mention the addressee to which it was sent for

15 information purposes only. That was your explanation. If you want to

16 add anything to that, you can do so now. If that is what you wanted to

17 again explain, there no need to do that.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know. I never

19 stated that what is first written are those to whom this is being sent

20 for information only. I never said that. I just said that it was first

21 written to the IKM of the Drina Corps because they are the most senior in

22 this hierarchy. And in this formulation, what is meant are the IKMs of

23 the brigades that are outside the zone of the Srebrenica operation.

24 Rather, these forward command posts of the brigades of the Drina Corps

25 are facing the front towards Tuzla, Kladanj, Gorazde, and Zepa. Those

Page 32057

1 are the IKMs that are meant in this document. The IKMs of the brigade

2 further away on the front line, not the IKM around Srebrenica.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Ms. Hasan.

4 MS. HASAN:

5 Q. Witness, you have confirmed that Oliver Sekulic, Bakmaz,

6 Vukosavljevic, and Plakalovic were at Pribicevac with you and that they

7 left for Bratunac together with you, save for Plakalovic who you say went

8 with Krstic.

9 MS. HASAN: Now, can we see 65 ter 32038. And Your Honours, his

10 testimony is found at transcript page 32002, lines 18 to 23.

11 We have the original of this document. It's the attendance

12 roster for the 5th Communication Battalion for the month of July 1995.

13 This is the wrong document.

14 31987. I apologise if I gave the wrong number.

15 Q. You're familiar with this document; right?

16 A. Yes.

17 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I'd offer to you have a look at the

18 original. I've shown it to the Defence already.

19 Q. The first entry that we see on this roster bears your name and

20 rank.

21 MS. HASAN: Could we just enlarge that?

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do we need the English translation? Perhaps it's

23 sufficient that we have the B/C/S version on the screen.

24 MS. HASAN: Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: There may be some disagreement among the Judges on

Page 32058

1 the matter.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I can't read anything. Even names, I can't read

3 in B/C/S. Can I have the English, please.

4 MS. HASAN: Actually, can we -- yeah.

5 Q. So we see Milenko Jevdjevic, entry number 1, rank major. And on

6 the remarks to the very right-hand side in the document, it records

7 Pribicevac and then Zepa. The columns on the top indicate the days of

8 the month, and in between 12 and 13 July, we see a thick black divider

9 line. That same divider line appears for Momir Bakmaz, Oliver Sekulic --

10 Bakmaz is entry number 10. Oliver Sekulic, entry number 20.

11 MS. HASAN: We can turn the page in the English.

12 Q. Under entry 2, we see Veljko Vukosavljevic, and entry 25,

13 Mirko Plakalovic.

14 For each of those persons who you said were with you, in the

15 remarks column we have Pribicevac, followed by Zepa. And for every one

16 of them we have a divider between the 12th and 13th of July. Now this

17 indicates, doesn't it, that all of those persons, including yourself,

18 were in Pribicevac until the 12th of July and it was only from the 13th

19 of July onwards that you moved to Zepa?

20 A. Soldier Mirko Plakalovic, this survey is not exactly correct. It

21 wasn't recorded with great precision in the relevant period so I cannot

22 consider it to be correct.

23 MS. HASAN: I'd offer 31987 into evidence.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7134, Your Honours.

Page 32059

1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.

2 MS. HASAN:

3 Q. Let us then stick and stay with your chronology of the events,

4 and you testified in relation to the meeting that you claim you attended

5 on the night of the 11th at -- in Bratunac, and this is at transcript

6 page 31974, lines 3 to 4, that:

7 "You remember very well that General Mladic said: No, no, no,

8 tomorrow everybody goes to Zepa."

9 Now, when you, according to your chronology, arrived at Krivace

10 at the forward command post for the Zepa operation on the 12th, did any

11 of the units taking part in that operation show up that day as Mladic had

12 ordered?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Who showed up?

15 A. I think it was the Visegrad Brigade, which had not taken part in

16 the Srebrenica operation but it did belong to the Drina Corps.

17 Q. And can you remind us who the commander of the Visegrad Brigade

18 is?

19 A. I think that in that period it was Major Radomir Furtula.

20 Q. Now, he attended the meeting at the Bratunac Brigade headquarters

21 with you; isn't that right?

22 A. I don't remember, but I know that almost all brigade commanders

23 were there. However, I cannot remember the details, but my general

24 impression was that all brigade commanders were present. And I think he

25 was there too, but I do not remember for sure.

Page 32060

1 Q. Let's see if this helps refresh your recollection.

2 MS. HASAN: Could we see 65 ter 32037, e-court page 15.

3 Q. This is an excerpt from your testimony in the Popovic case. And

4 at lines 17 to 18, in a question put to you about who was present at this

5 meeting, you answered at line 17:

6 "I remember that Lieutenant-Colonel Furtula was there also, he

7 was the commander of the Visegrad Brigade which had not participated in

8 the operation."

9 Do you stand by that testimony?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. So all those units, all those commanders who were ordered by

12 General Mladic at the meeting to go to Zepa tomorrow, nobody showed up

13 except for the Visegrad -- a unit from the Visegrad Brigade?

14 A. Yes. He had no word concerning Srebrenica and he immediately

15 returned to Visegrad. Already on the following day in my assessment --

16 or actually a lot before the other units, he came to the area awaiting

17 the operation in Zepa. With his unit.

18 Q. Now, let's have a look -- let's have a look at what actually did

19 happen.

20 MS. HASAN: Could we see 65 ter 25342, please.

21 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for it, Ms. Hasan, page 31,

22 line 24, the entry regarding Mirko Plakalovic was number 5 rather than

23 number 25 on that second page.

24 Please proceed.

25 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 32061

1 Q. What we see here is a regular combat report dated the 13th of

2 July. It's sent from the commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Radomir Furtula

3 of the 5th Light Infantry Brigade, which is the Visegrad Brigade, to the

4 command of the Drina Corps.

5 Now, in reporting to the Drina Corps command about the events

6 that took place on the 13th of July -- sorry, during the day on the

7 13th of July, he provides at paragraph 2, in English it's line 3:

8 "We sent one unit towards enclave of Zepa that would take part in

9 active combat operations," not as you say on the 12th of July.

10 So is this report of Lieutenant-Colonel Radomir Furtula also

11 wrong?

12 A. I remember that 12th, when I came to the IKM Krivace in the

13 broader area the Zepa, I certainly found the main communications officer

14 of that brigade, Bogoljub Zaric, and a group of people that we have a

15 special name for in the military; namely, people who are sent by every

16 brigade to prepare the area in order to receive the main units that are

17 coming in. So I'm sure that they had arrived before I did.

18 JUDGE ORIE: But the simple answer therefore is that the report

19 is wrong or is it not wrong?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This report is correct. I'm not

21 challenging it. However, it does not contain the fact that these advance

22 people haven't been sent in. I remember their encoder very well. And

23 this unit waited for the other units from Zvornik together with me for

24 one and a half days waiting for the Zepa operation. I remember that full

25 well and that is what I said during my previous testimony.

Page 32062

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

2 MS. HASAN:

3 Q. I'm going to move on to a communication that you earlier today

4 referenced and this is in a conversation intercepted by the ABiH.

5 MS. HASAN: Could we call up P01248, and this is an under-seal

6 document so it should not be broadcast.

7 Q. And this is an intercept - it should momentarily come up - where

8 it records Major Jevdjevic speaking to switchboard and you are record --

9 Jevdjevic is recorded as having provided:

10 "From now on, we are going to be at Badem, extension 385, and you

11 can reach Badem through Zlatar."

12 And as can you see here, this report is dated 12th of July.

13 Now, this would be you talking to the switchboard; that's

14 correct?

15 A. I allow for that. That is consistent with my entire testimony

16 until now. The time is 1850. But I would like to fully interpret this,

17 I would like to be allowed to fully interpret this report.

18 Q. And we'll get there.

19 Now, Badem is the code-name for whom?

20 A. Code-name for the communications centre of the Bratunac Brigade.

21 Q. And Zlatar?

22 A. Code-name for the communications centre of the command of the

23 Drina Corps in Vlasenica.

24 Q. And we see that the intercept operator records after that

25 intercept:

Page 32063

1 "At 1900 hours there is no carrier signal on frequency 255.850."

2 You see that there?

3 A. I see that. And that perfectly tallies with my testimony of

4 15 years ago that I left the IKM Pribicevac at 1900 hours.

5 Q. You'd agreed that the frequency 255.850 is a frequency for an

6 RRU device?

7 A. RRU-1, yes.

8 Q. And you see that that's recorded at the top of that intercept

9 there? Now, you don't contest this communication and ...

10 A. This communication? I allow for that as quite plausible.

11 Because that is according to the rules. If I'm closing down a

12 communications centre, then I'm provided information as to what my next

13 location is going to be and in this communication I assume everything is

14 correct. The only thing that is not written is the date when this was

15 recorded or intercepted. That was usually done by all members of the

16 BiH army. On each and every intercept they would write down the date

17 when the conversation was intercepted. However, that is missing here.

18 Q. Well, we see here that this is a report from the 12th of July,

19 1995. Do you see that on the top there?

20 A. That absolutely has nothing do with the time and date when this

21 conversation was intercepted. That absolutely has nothing to do with it.

22 It is only at the end of the day, or the following day, those who work at

23 interception stations, they sublimate all intercepted conversations.

24 They copy them from their notebooks and then they compile a report. The

25 date up here is the 12th of July --

Page 32064

1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, no foundation has been laid for your

2 knowledge exactly about this, how this all happened.

3 I take it, Ms. Hasan, that the chronology of the reporting is

4 something that has not escaped your mind. We also see that there's -- a

5 part of the report is redacted. I do not know what is under there. And

6 that may shed some light on the issue on which the witness seems to have

7 started arguing, whether the date is there, yes or no.

8 May I take it that you have paid proper attention to that? And

9 then to share with the Chamber what you took notice of.

10 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour. The intercept that's been redacted

11 is -- it's a separate intercept. It's dated -- sorry. It's timed 1712.

12 It's taken off a different frequency. And for the purposes of -- of

13 this, it's not, as far as I'm concerned, shedding any light on the

14 matter.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But of course whether reporting -- I mean, if

16 you report something on the 12th of July, it may have happened on 12th of

17 July but it could also have happened on the 11th or the 10th or the 9th.

18 It should be before the 12th of July if the date is accurately stated on

19 the report. Now of course often whether there is late reporting or not

20 can be seen from the chronology of the reports, and that may -- apart

21 from the portion which is blackened out, may shed some light on it.

22 Because the witness says this may have been done earlier. That's what

23 the witness tells us and that's the matter then we'll have to consider.

24 MS. HASAN: Now --

25 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it at this moment in your hands how to

Page 32065

1 proceed, whether you want to address this now or at any later stage or

2 leave it for argument, which is possible as well.

3 MS. HASAN: Now, just to address one thing on that matter. The

4 witness has described --

5 Q. You describe the way you think intercept operators produce these

6 reports.

7 MS. HASAN: And Your Honours will recall testimony given in this

8 trial as to how these reports were created and what dates were provided

9 at the top of these reports.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you would say -- you would at a later stage

11 refer our attention to other sources of evidence which give an

12 explanation which might not be fully consistent with what this witness

13 told us about the practices in the ABiH.

14 Let's proceed.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I do then refer you to the testimony of

17 RM279, transcript pages 13315 to 13316, as an instance where this is --

18 where this is explained. And I will take the time, since this is of

19 interest, to work through this report and why -- and the date and to

20 establish the date.

21 Q. Now, Witness, just to -- just as -- before going into that, the

22 communications centre at Pribicevac was linked to Veliki Zep with RRU-1

23 devices; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And the frequency 255.850, that was the frequency that was used

Page 32066

1 at this time; isn't that right?

2 A. I really am not in a position whether that was that position, but

3 it was within the frequency range that was used by that device.

4 MS. HASAN: Can we call up 65 ter 32040, e-court page 56, please.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give the number again.

6 MS. HASAN: 32040, please.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

8 MS. HASAN:

9 Q. This is -- this is your testimony from the Popovic case.

10 MS. HASAN: Page 56, please. If we can go down to the very

11 bottom of that page, line 25.

12 Q. You were asked about this intercept and in response, you said,

13 line 24:

14 "This conversation was conducted on 11 July at 1850 hours, and

15 just before I said that, I believe" - if we could turn the page, please -

16 "it absolutely, I believe the people who intercepted the conversation.

17 It was intercepted precisely at this time as stated here. And at the

18 bottom, the sentence that is very important is that at 1900 hours there

19 is no carrier signal or frequency 255.850, which was the one that I used

20 because the one who wrote it down, wrote it down as a very important

21 piece of information which indicates that he no longer had anyone to hear

22 at that frequency, that no signals were being emitted which means that

23 the device was switched off. And this happened on 11 July at 1900 hour,

24 which is what I told the Prosecutor yesterday."

25 Do you stand by that testimony and that this was, in fact, the

Page 32067

1 frequency you were using?

2 A. I absolutely stand by this. However, that device had a range, a

3 vast range of frequencies. I don't remember any one of them, but I will

4 allow that one of the frequencies that that device used was that one, and

5 I will allow that that conversation involved me and that, indeed,

6 happened. I can't remember whether that was precisely that frequency. I

7 simply can't remember them.

8 Q. And you can't remember that today but you -- you evidently

9 remembered that during your Popovic testimony.

10 A. That device did not have a visual display to show the frequency.

11 It just had switches A, B, C. We would occupy a channel, for example,

12 001 or 232, we didn't know the exact frequency number because the -- the

13 device did not have a frequency display. You could just choose a channel

14 by pressing on a switch, A, B, C. We were not aware of any of the

15 frequencies. So I will allow that was the frequency because it was

16 within the frequency range. I really am not in a position to claim that

17 that was the exact frequency. It was within that range but we did not

18 know what the exact frequency was. The device did not have a display.

19 You could do a calculation by using a certain switch and a certain

20 mathematical operation in order to arrive at the exact frequency.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you tend at this moment to repeat yourself.

22 You said now twice that there was no frequency display. You told us now

23 twice that you could switch from A to B to C. Could you please limit

24 your answers to telling us once what your position is.

25 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

Page 32068

1 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Could we please see 65 ter 22239a, please. This is the intercept

3 notebook from which this particular intercept at 1850 was recorded by the

4 operator. And could we see page 5 in the B/C/S and English, please.

5 Q. Now, to be clear, the notebook does not have a recording of the

6 date 12 July. We see 1850 at the bottom of the page, the conversation

7 that we have been discussing. Immediately above that, we see a

8 communication that took place at 1310 hours. And in that conversation,

9 we see that the two individuals are discussing five or six buses that are

10 coming down and that they should be refuelled.

11 You see that there, Witness?

12 A. Yes, up to Han Pijesak, that they should have 25 litres of fuel

13 each to last them until Han Pijesak.

14 MS. HASAN: And I note, Your Honours, that at the bottom of the

15 1850 intercept, it says at 1920 there was no carrying signal. I've

16 requested a revision of this translation. The original clearly indicates

17 1900 hours.

18 If we go back a page in both the English and B/C/S, we see an

19 earlier communication and it's timed at 1205 hours. It's between Brane 1

20 and 2. And this conversation, if we can just scroll down a little bit,

21 there's a discussion and then at the very bottom it says:

22 "Brane said that they are collecting trucks and buses to drive

23 from Srebrenica and that they are going to load 300 in each."

24 Q. You see that, Witness?

25 A. Yes. But it's not very legible. I see it kind of -- I don't

Page 32069

1 know whether this is the name Brane or a code-name Brane?

2 Q. Well, the -- this Chamber has heard a lot of evidence about the

3 mobilisation of buses to move refugees from Srebrenica. And you must

4 have known that this did not occur on the 11th of July, that buses were

5 mobilised on the 12th of July to move the refugees?

6 A. Yes. But there is a reference to some five buses to Han Pijesak.

7 I don't know how this has anything to do with Srebrenica, but perhaps you

8 do.

9 Q. I'm referring to this particular 1205 intercept which references

10 Srebrenica, that trucks and buses are going to be driving out from

11 Srebrenica.

12 MS. HASAN: Now, let's -- let's move to the next page. Actually,

13 can we skip to the intercept that immediately follows the 1850 hours

14 intercept. So this is going to be on page 6 of the English and B/C/S.

15 Your Honours, this is the intercept immediately after the

16 intercept in question that we've been discussing. And it's recorded at

17 2200 hours.

18 Q. And you see at the bottom there, you see it's a discussion

19 between an officer from Srebrenica and number 2, Raso, who is completely

20 inaudible. And we see that the officer from Srebrenica says:

21 "Well, it is. One group walked into a minefield over here and

22 about 20 of them snuffed it. But, anyway, it is very well blocked.

23 Anyway, 25.000 registered to go. Did you watch the news? Did you see

24 the boss amongst the Bule down in Potocari?"

25 And there's an indication there was some laughter. Do you see

Page 32070

1 that there?

2 A. To be honest, I'm finding it very hard to follow because of the

3 handwriting. You are reading just the fragments of this conversation.

4 Are you reading from the conversation that took place at 2200 hours? I

5 don't know on what date. In any case, it's not easy for me to follow

6 what you're reading because you're just reading some of the fragments and

7 it's hard.

8 Q. Well --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the question was whether you saw what

10 Ms. Hasan was reading to you, and if you want to further verify in the

11 original, that's fine, but that was the question.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I can see that.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

14 MS. HASAN:

15 Q. Witness, we don't have any film of the boss in Potocari on the

16 11th, but we do have film of General Mladic amongst the refugees, the

17 women and the children, on the 12th of July. This is a reference to

18 General Mladic being in Potocari on the 12th of July, is it not? Did you

19 see that footage yourself?

20 A. Perhaps I did, but I don't know when that happened.

21 Q. Well, let us move on to the next page.

22 MS. HASAN: In both languages, please.

23 Q. And you will see that the communication continues and it says:

24 "This morning at 1000 hours, we took Potocari. That was their

25 last big stronghold."

Page 32071

1 And this is clearly referencing 10.00, July -- 12th of July, when

2 Potocari was taken. We've seen those documents that confirm that. You

3 agree?

4 A. I do not see the date, the 12th of July, that is here. I don't

5 see that the conversation was recorded on the 12th of July in the way

6 this would have been done at an interception station.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, you said we've seen those documents that

8 confirm that. What exactly were you referring to? So for the witness to

9 be able to respond.

10 MS. HASAN: For example, we had a look at Borovcanin's report

11 wherein he sets out that Potocari was taken on the 12th of July. I think

12 the P number was P724, if I'm not mistaken.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. So that is what you draw the witness's

14 attention to.

15 MS. HASAN:

16 Q. Do you contest, in fact, that Potocari was taken on the

17 12th of July? I mean, we've been through this.

18 A. Potocari was not taken. It was abandoned on the 11th, and in the

19 afternoon none of the members of the 28th Division was in Potocari. It's

20 a notorious fact.

21 Q. [Microphone not activated] So what we've seen now is that the --

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone is not working.

23 MS. HASAN:

24 Q. What we see is that the intercept at 1850, wherein you indicate

25 that you have moved -- you can be reachable at Badem, is couched between

Page 32072

1 intercepts, both of which refer to events that took place on the

2 12th of July?

3 MR. IVETIC: I would object in that it misstates the evidence,

4 unless the Prosecution clarifies that this is their position of what the

5 evidence that we've seen actually illustrates.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Ms. Hasan intended to say that the

7 intercept at 1850, including that you can be reachable at Badem, is in

8 the position of the Prosecution couched between intercepts it interprets

9 as referring to events that took place on the 12th of July.

10 Do you have any comment on that?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is absolutely incorrect.

12 What I see before me are just fragments. The only thing that

13 would matter would be the original notebook from the interception station

14 if members of the BiH regularly kept the records of the date and time of

15 every intercepted conversations. This -- these are just fragments and it

16 really does not prove that the conversation that I, indeed, held was

17 recorded on the 12th. I'm sure that that conversation took place on the

18 11th, not on the 12th. I'm absolutely sure of that.

19 MS. HASAN:

20 Q. This is, in fact, the notebook of the intercept operator who took

21 down that intercept.

22 MS. HASAN: If we just turn a page in the English and B/C/S.

23 And, sorry, one more page. This is the same conversation that continues.

24 It's a fairly long conversation. And then the following page. And,

25 again, if we continue.

Page 32073

1 Q. We see that in the -- at the end of this communication that the

2 next date entry is 13 July 1995.

3 A. And perhaps this is just the beginning of the date for future

4 conversations. Those who intercepted conversations would enter the date,

5 the time, the device, the azimuth, and the interlocutors at the beginning

6 of each conversation. It seems to me that this refers to the

7 conversations that were to follow and that they're blurred, so that would

8 be the indication. That would be what the date and time entry refers to.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Hasan, the English version doesn't correspond

10 with the B/C/S.

11 MS. HASAN: Can we see the following page in the English, please.

12 Your Honour, it appears that you've picked up on another

13 translation -- or translation error, transcription error in this. We

14 will be sure that that's corrected as well.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Where exactly is that?

16 MS. HASAN: The 13th July date which is on the B/C/S page is not

17 recorded at the end -- in the middle of this -- in this page. So we see

18 here the conversation between Raso -- sorry. This is the next intercept,

19 so it should be in between this English page and the previous one we were

20 looking at, but that date is not recorded.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look. What we see at this moment in

22 the B/C/S original we are looking at a number which last three digits are

23 915. In the English version, I find a same reference in red and it's

24 916. So I'm wondering whether we're looking at the right page in

25 English.

Page 32074

1 MS. HASAN: So if we go back one page in the English --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

3 MS. HASAN: -- we see that the date, 13 July, is not recorded in

4 between the two communications.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let me -- could we then have the previous

6 page in B/C/S to see whether -- this is 914, by the way, not 915. So is

7 it possible that one full page is missing in the English version?

8 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour, I'm told that there is one page

9 missing and we'll be sure to correct that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's important, so that we can have a look at

11 it. It may well be that the 13th of July is mentioned there. I'm

12 slightly surprised by -- if this is so much at the core of your -- of

13 your examination, that these mistakes are still in the material. But --

14 well, puts the parties in some respects at an equal level.

15 Please proceed.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just ask a question, madam. We saw

17 that date, 13th of July, at the beginning of reporting of the activities

18 of the 12th. Is there no similar date like that at the top?

19 MS. HASAN: No, Your Honour, there isn't.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

21 MS. HASAN: Could we see 20933 under seal, please.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's a 65 ter number, I take it?

23 MS. HASAN: Yes, 65 ter 20933. And this is an under-seal

24 document, so it shouldn't be broadcast.

25 Q. And what we see here is a report from the ABiH. It includes an

Page 32075

1 intercepted communication at 2200 hours. It's dated the 12th of July.

2 And we see here that this is the same conversation that we were just

3 looking at in the notebook. You can see number 1 is recorded about the

4 middle of the page, where he says:

5 "Did you see the boss among the Bule down there in Potocari?"

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that also on the same page in the English?

7 MS. HASAN: Yes. Just approximately --

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I saw it, thank you.

9 MS. HASAN:

10 Q. Now this is the ABiH report, and you see the report number

11 07/1207 there, from the 12th of July, reporting this conversation at that

12 point.

13 MS. HASAN: If we turn to 65 ter 22208 and this is another

14 under-seal document.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, what would you like to do with the

16 document we just had on our screen.

17 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I intend to tender all the documents

18 that I've been referring to.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll wait for you to have -- when the

20 appropriate time is to do so.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the record, when introducing this

22 document, you said the date is the 12th of July. It is recorded the --

23 the 1th of July, so there's a 2 missing. It should be the 12th of July.

24 Is that correct?

25 MS. HASAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 32076

1 And 65 ter 22208 was an under-seal document and, Your Honours, we

2 still have not -- we still don't have the translation for this document.

3 But for the purposes of this exercise, the content of it is not what's at

4 issue but rather that on the 12th of July in this report marked 04/1207,

5 we see communications that took place, 1205, between Brane and number 1;

6 1250, between 2 and 1; and 1310. All communications that we saw in the

7 notebook.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any question for the witness in this

9 respect?

10 MS. HASAN:

11 Q. So, Witness, you see here that these reports all put the

12 communications we just went through on the 12th of July. Now do you

13 still contest that the intercept at 1850 hours was on the 11th of

14 July and not the 12th of July?

15 MR. IVETIC: I object. Can counsel point to where each of these

16 three intercepts list the date the 12th of July. I don't see it in the

17 original.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, I think your last question was a bit

19 ambiguous, whether he contests that it was -- but please reread it and

20 could you further respond to what Mr. Ivetic just raised.

21 MS. HASAN: I think my point was - and I think I said that

22 clearly - that these reports all put these communications on the 12th of

23 July.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you're relying on the date on the report

25 and the earlier testimony you referred to.

Page 32077

1 MS. HASAN: Absolutely.

2 JUDGE ORIE: So that's the Prosecution's position.

3 Now, Witness, carefully listen, because Ms. Hasan will put the

4 question to you again.

5 MS. HASAN:

6 Q. Do you contest then -- do you still contest that the

7 communications that we looked at, and specifically the intercept from

8 1850 involving you, took place on the 12th of July?

9 A. Absolutely.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And Ms. Hasan specifically pointed at a number of

11 intercepts which she considers to have been taken on the 12th of July as

12 well and has pointed at the sequence and chronology of those intercepts,

13 and she specifically asked your attention for that before you would still

14 contest the 12th of July as the date for the intercept at 1850.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

17 MS. HASAN:

18 Q. You'd agree that in sending final reports by the interception

19 groups to their intelligence departments, that it would be critical to

20 accurately report when these communications took place?

21 A. Yes, but that's not the case here. In this courtroom, you showed

22 me some testimony or I read it. It comes from one of the members of the

23 BH Army who intercepted conversations, and he said that it was quite

24 customary that on the following day, in the morning, they would sublimate

25 the reports from the previous day and they would send that to their

Page 32078

1 superior command, that this was their customary procedure.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check. Is that what was read today to the

3 witness? Was is what was read to you today? Or did you read it in

4 preparation for your testimony?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Preparing for my testimony. But

6 beforehand and during previous testimonies and proofings, I saw a

7 document where members of the BH Army who intercepted conversations said

8 that it was the usual thing, that a report on intercepted conversations

9 would be sent in the morning for the previous day.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When did you review those testimonies and who

11 had given them to you?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it was even here that

13 I saw it in court, because I came several times, and I had the

14 opportunity to read that during one of the previous testimonies.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, parties can check whether that was the case or

16 whether -- but did you receive them to read also out of court?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, one second, please.

19 Well, on my previous answer [sic], you started by saying that it

20 was preparing for your testimony when you read them, which suggests that

21 you read them before you gave testimony, either earlier or now, and you

22 said ... okay. I leave it to that.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, at page 51, lines 13 to 17, you're quoted as

24 having said -- you're recorded as having said:

25 "Preparing for my testimony. But beforehand and during previous

Page 32079

1 testimonies and proofings, I saw a document where members of the BH Army

2 who intercepted conversations said that it was the usual thing, that a

3 report on intercepted conversations would be sent in the morning for the

4 previous day."

5 Now, they're not saying it would be drawn in the morning for the

6 previous day but that it is sent. We don't know when it was drafted.

7 Are you able to comment on that? The fact that it is sent the

8 following day doesn't mean it was drawn that following day.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sent that morning. Then up

10 here on top, there should be the date of that morning. And it contains

11 conversations that were intercepted ...

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, now you are telling us what should be

13 happening. All I'm saying is you were told they were sent the following

14 day. You were not told when they were drafted. And I'm saying they

15 could have been drafted either that morning, as you rightly -- as you

16 say, or it could have been the previous day.

17 So you are now supposing that because it is sent the following

18 day, therefore it is drafted the following day. But even if it is

19 drafted the following day, you can't say whether it is dated that same

20 day, can you? It could still be drafted the following day but dated the

21 previous day.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that possibility may be

23 allowed, but it is quite illogical from a military point of view.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is quite illogical to suggest that because

25 something is sent the following day, it is necessarily drafted the

Page 32080

1 following day. All I'm saying is what you were told, according to your

2 testimony, is when it is sent, not when it is drafted. That's the

3 gravamen of my point to you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I add to that -- I'm sorry. Yes. I add to

5 that when I asked you whether these documents were given to you to read

6 out of court, you said no. At the same time, you're referring to what

7 happened during proofing. Well, proofing is not in court, so it is still

8 puzzling me. If you have an explanation for that, I would like to hear

9 it. If you have no explanation for it, we'll take a break.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It happened -- well, my

11 recollection is that I saw that during one of my previous testimonies.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

13 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, our position is that these reports were

14 created on the day that these communications took place, save for perhaps

15 the communications that take place around midnight in which case the

16 correct date would be recorded.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that clarifies your position.

18 Witness, I read to you one of your answers. When I asked you did

19 you read that in preparation for your testimony, you said:

20 "Preparing for my testimony. But beforehand and during previous

21 testimonies and proofings, I saw a document," which squarely contradicts

22 the answer you gave later, that you did not see them out of court.

23 I leave it to that. You have repeated your testimony in this

24 respect and not given an explanation.

25 We'll take a break. You may follow the usher. We'd like to see

Page 32081

1 you back in 20 minutes.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the

7 courtroom.

8 MS. HASAN: Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Hasan.

10 MS. HASAN: I understand that I have 45 minutes left of the time

11 that I had estimated. And while I tried to be as accurate as I could in

12 my estimation, it has gone slower than I thought, and I would request

13 your leave to -- to take additional time to complete my

14 cross-examination. I will be moving on to communications.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much more time would you need?

16 MS. HASAN: One hour.

17 [The witness takes the stand]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Additionally.

19 MS. HASAN: Additionally, yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And the time you said that was left, 45 minutes,

21 that was what you received as information from the Registry?

22 MS. HASAN: That's correct.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

24 MR. IVETIC: We've already discussed this with the Prosecution

25 and advised that we don't have any objection. Therefore, it's up to

Page 32082

1 Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Your request is granted.

3 Please proceed.

4 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Your Honours.

5 Before I move on, could I tender into evidence 20933, under seal;

6 22208, under seal, and I suggest that one be MFI'd as the translation is

7 not yet uploaded.

8 JUDGE ORIE: At least one page.

9 MS. HASAN: And just a few more.

10 And 22239a. This is the notebook that also requires a revision

11 and I would suggest again that that be MFI'd.

12 And there's one more document and that's 25342, which was the

13 regular combat report from Lieutenant-Colonel Furtula that we looked at

14 before.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we start with 20933 would receive,

16 Mr. Registrar, number?

17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number P7135, under seal, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: P7135 admitted under seal.

19 22208 to be MFI'd under number?

20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI P7136, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ORIE: MFI'd P7136, under seal.

22 22239a to be MFI'd --

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check.

25 MS. HASAN: That's correct. It's 22239a.

Page 32083

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it appears correctly on the transcript.

2 To be MFI'd under what number?

3 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI P7137, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a public document?

5 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: That's public. P7137 MFI'd as a public document.

7 The last one is 25342, a regular combat report.

8 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be Exhibit P7138.

9 JUDGE ORIE: P7138 is admitted into evidence.

10 MS. HASAN:

11 Q. We have spent considerable time now addressing your recollection

12 of this meeting at the Bratunac Brigade command that you claim took place

13 on the 11th of July. Now, you have desperately tried to remove yourself

14 from this meeting which I put to you took place on the 12th of

15 July because on the 12th of July, there had been a day of separations in

16 Potocari. And on the 12th of July, there were men detained in schools

17 just down the road from where this meeting took place, and this is why

18 you sit here today and persistently claim that this meeting took place on

19 the 11th July. Isn't that so?

20 A. Just as I am sure that I walked in through that door a moment ago

21 and I'm sitting here and answering questions, I am that sure that then I

22 left the IKM, disbanded the communications centre, passed through

23 Srebrenica, Potocari, came to Bratunac, and attended that meeting on the

24 11th of July at 2200 hours.

25 Q. Let's move on to communications.

Page 32084

1 You have confirmed that there existed a radio relay link between

2 Veliki Zep and Han Pijesak, and this is at transcript page 31907, line 9.

3 What was the frequency that was used?

4 A. Between Veliki Zep and Han Pijesak, it was RRU-800 and it's

5 frequency range is from 610 to 960 megahertz.

6 Q. What was the precise frequency -- frequencies used for

7 transmission and reception along that route?

8 A. That I don't know. That I don't know. Otherwise, that radio

9 relay axis was not under the 5th Battalion of communications that I

10 commanded. Rather, it was under the 67th Regiment Communications Unit

11 under the Main Staff.

12 Q. And you're aware that there existed a route from Veliki Zep to

13 Pale?

14 A. From Veliki Zep to Jahorina, so there wasn't a direct radio relay

15 route from Veliki Zep to Pale.

16 Q. But there was a route from Veliki Zep to Pale, irrespective of

17 the communication going through some intermediary hubs; isn't that right?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Are you aware of the transmission and reception frequencies used

20 along the links of that route?

21 A. That radio relay route was under the regiment for communications

22 of the Main Staff, not the battalion for communications of the

23 Drina Corps that I commanded, so I have no way of knowing the frequencies

24 involved.

25 Q. Within the Drina Corps, there were radio relay links that existed

Page 32085

1 between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep; correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Veliki Zep and Cer.

4 A. That's right.

5 Q. Cer and Gucevo or Crni Vrh.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Gucevo and Zvornik.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Veliki Zep and the 5th Engineering Battalion at Konjevic Polje?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Veliki Zep and Bratunac.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Veliki Zep and, as we've seen, the Drina Corps forward command

14 post, be that Pribicevac or Krivace?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Veliki Zep and Strazbenica?

17 A. Yes.

18 MS. HASAN: Let's look at D00879, please.

19 Q. This is the document we were looking at during your direct

20 examination dated the 2nd of October, 1993. It is information provided

21 to the Main Staff chief of communications, and that would have been

22 Radomir Prole; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. We can agree that this list provided here as information to the

25 Main Staff is incomplete and does not cover all the radio relay paths

Page 32086

1 used by the Drina Corps.

2 A. It covers the radio relay routes for whose realisation the

3 Drina Corps is responsible.

4 Q. So it does not include the path between Cer and Gucevo. That's

5 not listed in this document; correct?

6 A. Yes. That is communication that is under the Main Staff of the

7 Army of Republika Srpska.

8 Q. Veliki Zep to Cer, that path is not listed in this document, is

9 it?

10 A. Yes. Again, the Main Staff or, rather, the communications

11 regiment of the Main Staff is in charge of that communication, not the

12 communications battalion of the Drina Corps.

13 Q. Now you previously testified that there was only an RRU-1 device

14 that moved depending on where the Drina Corps carried out its operations.

15 That's at transcript page 31891.

16 Now, you were referring there to the Drina Corps IKM, I take it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So between Veliki Zep and Bratunac an RRU-800 was used?

19 A. I think that during the last year an RRU-800 was used. Before,

20 there was a RRU-1, and afterwards I think that an RRU-800 was used.

21 Q. Sir, let's be clear: When is the last year where an RRU-800 was

22 used?

23 A. 1995. Maybe -- maybe later too.

24 Q. And that -- that path where an RRU-800 was used between

25 Veliki Zep and Bratunac is not listed in this document either, is it?

Page 32087

1 A. Only if you show me the second page of the document, too, and

2 then I can take a look.

3 MS. HASAN: Can we please turn to page 2 in the English and

4 B/C/S.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's not in this document.

6 MS. HASAN:

7 Q. Can you tell us what the frequencies were for the transmission

8 and reception for this path, Veliki Zep-Bratunac, which is within the

9 zone of the Drina Corps?

10 A. At the time, when the RRU-800 operated, it operated in the range

11 from 610 to 960 megahertz.

12 Q. So you cannot give us the precise frequencies that were used to

13 transmit and receive communications in 1995 between -- on that path, can

14 you?

15 A. Really, I cannot say anything about that because there was one

16 device at Veliki Zep. And as for Veliki Zep, it is the communications of

17 the Main Staff that are in charge. And the other point was in Bratunac

18 and it is the communications chief of the Bratunac Brigade that is in

19 charge of that. So I wasn't really in -- it wasn't possible for me to

20 know that. I did not have an opportunity to know that.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, a simple no would have answered the question.

22 You just don't know. You don't have to justify -- unless further

23 questions are put to you, you don't have to justify whether you do not

24 know something or whether you could have known. That's all -- if

25 Ms. Hasan is interested in that, she'll ask you further questions about

Page 32088

1 it. Just keep it simple.

2 Please proceed.

3 MS. HASAN:

4 Q. If we look at item 6, you see information is provided about a

5 path between Bratunac and Veliki Zep, and it's an RRU-1. And there are

6 no frequencies recorded there. What were those frequencies?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. And we looked at some schematics as well from the Drina Corps and

9 you testified that, at transcript page 31886, lines 19 to 22, that in

10 relation to the schematic from January 1994 from the Crimen plan, you

11 said that it accurately depicted the organisation of the radio relay

12 communication within the Drina Corps.

13 Now we can turn to that map because I'd like you to show us where

14 this route is depicted -- sorry.

15 MS. HASAN: The route I'm interested in, if we could just look at

16 it before we turn. It's the route between -- can we turn to the next

17 page, please.

18 Q. You see here there's a route between Bare and Lokanj battalions

19 and Gucevo. Route number 1052. You see that there?

20 MS. HASAN: And if we can call up D --

21 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness could answer. Do you see what

22 Ms. Hasan is referring to? It appears under number 8, I think. Do you

23 see that?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you keep that in mind. Please proceed.

Page 32089

1 MS. HASAN: Can we turn, please, to D908.

2 Q. And this is the schematic that I mentioned you said accurately

3 depicted the organisation of the radio relay communications in the

4 Drina Corps. So please show us where that path is depicted on this

5 schematic?

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do we need both versions for this exercise?

7 MS. HASAN: As far as I'm concerned, we can look at just the

8 B/C/S version unless it assists Your Honours to see the English.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you expect it not to be there so

10 there's nothing to be looked at. Please proceed.

11 MS. HASAN:

12 Q. Witness, you confirm that it's not there?

13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just ... does that --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- relay connection not appear on this scheme?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it does not appear.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MS. HASAN: And if I can ask to go back to the first document,

19 D879, please. I think we need the English version.

20 Q. And I'd turn your attention to item 1. Item 1 says there is a

21 path between the Main Staff of the VRS and the command of the Drina Corps

22 radio relay direction 0674. That's incorrect, isn't it?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. Well, let's go back and look at the schematic, D00908.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In my view, the answer was ambiguous. Is it

Page 32090

1 correct that it is incorrect or what you are saying? Or is the document

2 incorrect?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct here. But what is

4 written here, the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, that means

5 that it is Veliki Zep, that it's the direction towards Veliki Zep,

6 because the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska was right at the

7 foot of Veliki Zep. So it is nearby. And that is the route that is

8 meant.

9 MS. HASAN:

10 Q. Witness, this is very clear. The next item 2 speaks of a -- of a

11 link between the Drina Corps and Veliki Zep. Item 1 says Main Staff of

12 the VRS and Drina Corps. It is not talking about Veliki Zep. So let's

13 go to the schematic. Unless you care to explain that now.

14 A. Of course. And thank you for having allowed me to do that.

15 The Main Staff, if it would be as you're putting it, would not

16 have radio relay communication with anyone, not with a single corps.

17 However, the Main Staff had all its radio relay communications through

18 Veliki Zep. And whoever it was that wrote that report, when he wrote the

19 Main Staff, the command of the Drina Corps, meant Veliki Zep, meant the

20 location of Veliki Zep. The location. That is where the Main Staff is:

21 Near Veliki Zep.

22 Q. So you're interpreting the document, then, for us. Because

23 that's not -- that's not what's depicted in the schematic. We see the

24 link 0674 between Veliki Zep and Vlasenica.

25 A. Veliki Zep is one and the same with the Main Staff. And not only

Page 32091

1 do I interpret but I also walked that road a hundred times. I know it as

2 the back of my hand. I know how things were.

3 Q. Well, we see Crna Rijeka there, and we see it is connected to

4 Veliki Zep with a wire so we're -- we seem to be talking about two

5 different things.

6 But let's move on. If we can go back to D879 and I'd like to ask

7 you, had there been a change in frequencies that prompted the Drina Corps

8 chief of communications to report to the Main Staff about the directions

9 and frequencies that existed?

10 A. I don't know. As far as I can remember, on one occasion we did

11 something to change a frequency between the command in Vlasenica and

12 Veliki Zep. That's the relay direction that we worked on. And this

13 document refers exclusively to the chief of communications of the corps,

14 and not me as the commander of the communications battalion.

15 Q. So you acknowledge, then, that frequencies were changed?

16 A. I remember that on one occasion we did change a frequency. On

17 just one relay direction between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep.

18 As far as I can see, there are about 20 frequencies here. I

19 remember that we did it once for some reason. I don't know why. Whether

20 we changed the frequency or restored the old frequency, I don't know.

21 But we did that and I remember it very well because things like that did

22 not happen every day.

23 Q. So you're saying here that at least for one, it may -- it

24 changed. And can you tell us when that was precisely or you have no

25 recollection?

Page 32092

1 A. To the best of my recollection, that must have been sometime

2 during -- in the middle of the war. In 1993, I believe. 1993 or 1994,

3 but it was sooner in 1993. In the middle of the war.

4 Q. So the remaining paths that are listed in this document to update

5 the Main Staff, why was that being reported? Was it also because those

6 frequencies changed in 1993?

7 A. I don't know. This report was based on an order of the chief of

8 communications of the Main Staff. If you have that order, you could tell

9 why he issued his order to submit this particular report, why this report

10 was submitted in the first place.

11 Q. Unfortunately, we don't have that Main Staff record.

12 MS. HASAN: Now, we have the original of this document and,

13 Your Honours, I think it would be helpful for you to have a look at it.

14 If we could have the assistance of the usher.

15 Q. And, Witness, you're familiar with this document and you can also

16 have the opportunity to see the original if you wish. But there are

17 corrections and amendments made to this document, and there are different

18 ink marks and there is frequencies written in pencil. Do you have any

19 knowledge of who amended this document and under what circumstances?

20 A. I know nothing about that.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only share my assumption with

23 you on the origin of this document.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do that, the Chamber puts on the record

25 that the handwriting on the document under number 2 and 3, apparently is

Page 32093

1 in ball-point writing. Under number 4, it is in pencil, but it seems

2 that there has been some erasing of previous text. Similarly to what we

3 find in 5, pencil, and apparently other text below that. The same true

4 for 7 and for 8. Although the 1, the 5, and the 2, in 8 are written in

5 ball-point, not in pencil. And at the top, the 156, is in ball-point

6 writing as it seems to the Chamber at this moment.

7 MS. HASAN: And I would only add to that, Your Honours, that it

8 appears that there is, in fact, two pens, ball-point pens being used --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we discussed that a second ago. It is unclear

10 whether the marking under 3, whether that is just writing that text two,

11 three, or four times, which may give a different impression of the pen

12 used. But the Chamber at this moment on purpose refrained from

13 suggesting anything that two different pens would have been used but also

14 does not exclude for that possibility.

15 Mr. Ivetic.

16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, my recollection is that the author of

17 this document was presented as a witness approximately -- I want to say a

18 month ago but maybe a little bit longer than that. At this time none of

19 this was presented by the Prosecution. I'm wondering how they can

20 present a position that they did not confront a prior witness who was the

21 author of the document for. If the Defence had done that, I think we

22 would have been prevented from doing so in cross-examination. So I'm a

23 little bit confused by this line of questioning since it was not

24 presented to Mr. Blagojevic at the time that he testified and now is

25 being presented with all sorts of suggestions and I'm assuming

Page 32094

1 conclusions being asked to be raised from the same. And so I'm wondering

2 what Your Honours' ruling would be on that.

3 JUDGE ORIE: If there's no application, there's no ruling.

4 But, Ms. Hasan, any explanation as to why this was not put?

5 MS. HASAN: My recollection, Your Honour, is that this document

6 was raised with that witness. Now, I'll have to go back and find -- to

7 see whether the precise reference to how this document came to be and I

8 can provide -- look into that and provide that as soon as possible.

9 JUDGE ORIE: We'd like to hear from you.

10 And then, Mr. Ivetic, if that triggers any further need to make

11 further submissions, then we'll hear from you after that.

12 This document can be returned to the Prosecution.

13 MS. HASAN: And I think the Defence hasn't had an opportunity to

14 look at it and if they wish to do so --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ivetic.

16 MR. IVETIC: That is correct. That's a document I've not seen

17 prior.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then could it be presented to the Defence.

19 MS. HASAN:

20 Q. So, Witness, leaving aside the radio relay links that are missing

21 from this document, you can't confirm today and you couldn't confirm that

22 these -- at the time that these, in fact, are the frequencies that were

23 being used. You have no knowledge of that?

24 A. That's correct.

25 MS. HASAN: Could we take a look at P7059, and this should not be

Page 32095

1 broadcast. This is an intercept from the ABiH and it's dated

2 18 November 1993.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you referring to the B/C/S or the English

4 version? They don't -- seem not to be the same.

5 MS. HASAN: Can we scroll up to the top of the English.

6 Yes, you're absolutely correct, Your Honour. This is an

7 intercept that's already been admitted, and it appears to be incomplete

8 as admitted. We will make a request to revise that and seek your leave

9 to replace the new version that accurately reflects the B/C/S. But as I

10 understand it, when this was originally used, the B/C/S was put in at

11 length just in order to show the date, but it should be reflected in the

12 English.

13 If we turn to page 2 in the English and page 7 in the B/C/S, the

14 ABiH is sending a list of active frequencies in the direction of

15 Vlasenica within the RRU-800 range.

16 Q. Now, save for the 680.000 frequency, the remaining frequencies

17 listed in that top table and the table you see in the B/C/S are not

18 reflected in the 1993 document, the 2nd October 1993 information report

19 that we were just looking at. Now, you allow for the possibility, in

20 fact, that these frequencies were in operation as the ABiH provides;

21 right?

22 A. I can accept only the possibility that only those frequencies

23 were active that the chief of the communications of the Drina Corps put

24 in his report, which he sent to the chief of the Main Staff. This is the

25 rule. And this is the only option I can accept. Changing frequencies is

Page 32096

1 an operation that has to be co-ordinated not only with the units but also

2 with the neighbouring states.

3 Q. Well, you've allowed for -- you've testified that some

4 frequencies were changed in 1993.

5 MS. HASAN: Let's look at 65 ter 06074, please.

6 Q. This is a 24 February 1994 report on the list of -- on a list of

7 frequencies, and it's addressed to Lieutenant Todorovic at the

8 5th Communication Battalion. Who was he?

9 A. Lieutenant Todorovic was one of the officers in my communications

10 battalion.

11 Q. And the chief of communications of the Visegrad -- the Tactical

12 Group Visegrad command provides:

13 "As per your verbal request to select the frequencies of the best

14 quality to avoid the interferences by the tone carriers in the TV

15 channels, please find attached the list of frequencies that are tone

16 carriers in the TV channels."

17 Under item 1 we see a list of frequencies.

18 And under item 2 it says:

19 "These channels have been respectively sequenced in the

20 frequencies from 37 to 68, which means that these are channels which

21 involve the range from 610 to 960 megahertz, the range of an RRU-800."

22 You see that?

23 A. Yes, this person, Miso Planojevic, informs Lieutenant Todorovic

24 about the frequencies used by the TV channels in the area.

25 Q. And Todorovic was looking to select frequencies and this is why

Page 32097

1 he was asking for this information. Isn't that the case?

2 A. I really wouldn't know. I have not seen this document before. I

3 find it unusual that at that time somebody should send a document to

4 Lieutenant Todorovic in the communications battalion, so I really cannot

5 comment upon this document. I can only see the frequencies used by the

6 local TV channels. That's all can I see.

7 MS. HASAN: I'd offer 65 ter 0607 [sic] into evidence.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7139, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence. Was it under seal? Is

11 it -- public document. Admitted.

12 Please proceed.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Hasan, is it 0607 or is it 06074?

14 MS. HASAN: 06074.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

16 MS. HASAN:

17 Q. And the frequencies did change in 1994, didn't they?

18 A. If there is a document or a report sent either by a superior unit

19 or a subordinated unit to that effect, i.e., to the effect that the

20 frequencies were changed, then I can agree with that. Because an action

21 like that had to be preceded by an order -- by an order and there has to

22 be a feedback. If there is a report to that effect, be it even from

23 1994, I will certainly confirm and agree with that document.

24 Q. You recall, Mr. Jevdjevic, that you were interviewed by the

25 Defence from the 2nd to the 5th of January of 2014 and that you signed a

Page 32098

1 statement for these proceedings on 23 July 2014. You recall that

2 statement?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. You were given an opportunity to review this statement before you

5 signed it; is that right?

6 A. Yes, I inspected it in detail when I arrived here for my proofing

7 session some ten days ago.

8 Q. Did you notify the Defence of any errors you found in that

9 statement before you signed it?

10 A. I informed the Defence about them while we were both perusing the

11 document during my proofing.

12 Q. And what were the errors that you noticed in your statement?

13 A. I noticed that in one of the paragraphs as I was trying to

14 remember when that one frequency was changed on the relay direction

15 between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep, I said that to the best of my

16 recollection that was in 1994. However, there was a typo in that because

17 in my previous testimonies and in my previous statements, when I was

18 talking about the change of frequency, I said that it was sometime in --

19 in 1993, in the middle of the war. And this is an error that I pointed

20 to the Defence when I arrived here for my proofing session.

21 Q. So in your statement, your signed statement, you indicated that

22 frequencies changed in 1994 and that you pointed out to the Defence that

23 this was erroneous. Do I understand you correctly?

24 A. It was either a typo or something like that. But as soon as I

25 arrived here, as soon as I had an opportunity to read my statement, I

Page 32099

1 pointed to the Defence that I probably mentioned the year 1993 when I

2 gave my statement.

3 MS. HASAN: Now we can move on, but I -- the Prosecution would

4 appreciate that if the witness is providing new information during

5 proofing, that we be informed of that information in proofing notes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, any comment on what Ms. Hasan just said.

7 MR. IVETIC: My recollection is that two proofing notes were sent

8 for this witness, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber usually doesn't receive proofing notes

10 unless they become relevant for the -- for understanding the testimony.

11 And, of course, this witness was -- was initially introduced as a 92 ter

12 witness, whereas he was then changed into a viva voce witness. I think,

13 from what I -- my recollection is without further explanation as to the

14 why of that. So the Chamber, I think, has not focused in any way on the

15 statement. I think that I even -- I'm now just speaking for myself. If

16 I receive a 92 ter motion, I not always immediately start reading the

17 statement. If somewhere halfway it is announced that the witness will

18 not testify under Rule 92 ter but viva voce, that, I think in this case,

19 would be a reason for me not to read the statement at all including any

20 proofing notes because we are then expecting the evidence to be elicited

21 viva voce, which then should be the source of knowledge of this Chamber.

22 And I'm --

23 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, the witness's -- this is a signed

24 witness statement and for every witness signed -- previous signed

25 statements are relevant. And the witness provides in that statement that

Page 32100

1 frequencies changed in 1994 which is material information and if -- if

2 the witness's correct information is that, in fact, they didn't, then we

3 should know this. Unless I am to be corrected that this is in a proofing

4 note I haven't seen.

5 MR. IVETIC: It is --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think we have to -- yes, Mr. Ivetic.

7 MR. IVETIC: If can I provide the information. On the

8 16th of February at 6.10 in the evening, I sent the second proofing note

9 of this witness personally addressed to Ms. Abeer Hasan, in addition to

10 other Prosecution counsel, specifically identifying that correction --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

12 MR. IVETIC: -- in paragraph number -- if I can just have a

13 moment for the computer to co-operate with me.

14 JUDGE ORIE: But it's clear, Mr. Ivetic, you say this information

15 resulting from proofing was disclosed to the Prosecution.

16 MR. IVETIC: Correct. Paragraph 2b of the proofing note in

17 relation to paragraph 36 of the statement.

18 MS. HASAN: And I don't doubt Mr. Ivetic's submission and I

19 apologise if I took some time on that.

20 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I see that a copy was even

21 received by Chamber staff and that this clearly -- this demonstrates that

22 the issue was raised.

23 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.

24 MS. HASAN: If we can move to another area now.

25 Q. If we consider the oral communications between the Drina Corps

Page 32101

1 with its subordinate brigades, the communications were through open lines

2 that were not secure; isn't that right?

3 A. Some were protected and secure; some were not.

4 MS. HASAN: If we can call up 65 ter 32037, please. Page 68.

5 And if we turn -- go down to the bottom.

6 Q. This is testimony you gave in the Popovic case and Mr. Bourgon

7 asks you:

8 "And if I look at oral conversations between the Drina Corps

9 command or the Drina Corps IKM with its subordinate brigades, the same" -

10 and can we turn the page, please - "thing applies. That is, we have an

11 open line going through radio relay but there was no secure means for

12 oral communications [sic]; is that correct?"

13 Answer --

14 JUDGE ORIE: It reads "conversations."

15 MS. HASAN: Conversations, thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. "A. Yes. We did not have the encryption device for the radio

17 relay lines from the corps to the brigades."

18 Do you stand by the testimony you gave in the Popovic case?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. This applies, then, equally to oral communications between the

21 IKM and the corps command which were not encrypted either; isn't that

22 right?

23 A. That's correct, yes.

24 Q. So a conversation between somebody in Vlasenica at the

25 Drina Corps command and the Drina Corps IKM at Pribicevac or Krivace

Page 32102

1 could be intercepted at the Drina Corps IKM Veliki Zep radio relay path;

2 isn't that right?

3 A. From the theoretical point of view, there was such a possibility,

4 yes.

5 Q. Alternatively, that communication could also be intercepted

6 between Veliki Zep and Vlasenica, on that path; isn't that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. A communication between someone at the Bratunac Brigade speaking

9 to another at the Zvornik Brigade over the radio relay network could be

10 intercepted on any one of those sections and any one of the links between

11 these two brigades; isn't that right?

12 A. The answer to that question is very complex. The complexity

13 reflects in the location where the interception group should be located

14 in order to be able to enter the range and intercept a conversation that

15 is taking place. This is already the matter of analysis of our radio

16 relay routes and the possibility for somebody to intercept them.

17 Communications were open, i.e., not secure, but I cannot explicitly claim

18 that they could physically be intercepted if you don't give me at least a

19 rough idea of where interception groups were located. Theoretically that

20 could be done if you have your interception group in the very specific

21 and right location.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, could I just seek clarification. The

23 questions, including the last one, were you focusing on whether

24 encryption would have been an obstacle to interception and that you were

25 not talking about the technical problems that might arise as far as the

Page 32103

1 position of the intercepting station is concerned?

2 MS. HASAN: Precisely. And perhaps my question wasn't very well

3 posed.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you exclusively focused on encryption as

5 a -- as an obstacle. And I think the witness has now confirmed for all

6 of the relay routes you mentioned to him that encryption was not the

7 problem but there may have been other problems.

8 I see the witness -- you agree with that?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

11 MS. HASAN:

12 Q. You knew that the ABiH had an efficient system for intercepting

13 communications; right?

14 A. I didn't know that. Or I did not know to the right degree. We

15 always assumed that, but we did not have accurate information, whether it

16 was efficient or not, and, if so, to what extent. We always made

17 assumptions that that was possible. And that is how we protected our

18 communications. That is to say, we always proceed from our assumption

19 that they are listening in, but I did not have any accurate information

20 to that effect.

21 Q. Let's turn to P00338, and what will come up is the analysis of

22 the combat readiness and activities of the Army of Republika Srpska in

23 1992, a document dated April 1993 and approved by General Mladic.

24 MS. HASAN: If we turn to page 41 in the English and 37 in the

25 B/C/S, please. We will be -- what we see is the section and it's

Page 32104

1 relating to electronic reconnaissance and counter-electronic operations

2 units. And under that heading, if we turn the page to page 42 in the

3 English and 39 -- sorry, 43 in the English and 39 in the B/C/S, the

4 second paragraph in the English, approximately four lines down, it reads:

5 "A special problem is the large number of privately owned means

6 of communication in the brigades and lower tactical units" --

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you should direct the witness to the

8 relevant portion where you're reading from.

9 Or did you find that, Witness?

10 MS. HASAN:

11 Q. It should --

12 A. I haven't. Could you please tell me which paragraph this is and

13 could you then put your question.

14 Q. It should be the first full paragraph. And it should be about

15 midway through that paragraph: "A special problem" --

16 Do you see it? It begins:

17 "A special problem is the large number of privately owned means

18 of communication in the brigades and lower tactical units, the so-called

19 Motorolas which cannot be controlled ..."

20 Are you following?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. "... as well as the undisciplined radio communications of

23 operating staff in intelligence centres and VRS signals units. So far we

24 have registered nine enemy interception groups, exceptionally well manned

25 and equipped."

Page 32105

1 Do you agree with that?

2 A. This paragraph was probably written by the chief of the

3 communications of the Main Staff and that is his knowledge.

4 Q. Then let's turn to --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we get an answer to the question.

6 Are you in a position to confirm this as accurate information or

7 are you not in a position to do that? Not whether you are duty-bound,

8 not -- but can you confirm it or can you not confirm it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I cannot say yes or no. I'd

10 rather say yes, because it was written by the chief of the communications

11 of the Main Staff, but I did not have that knowledge. Directly.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

13 MS. HASAN:

14 Q. But you knew that the enemy was monitoring and intercepting all

15 of your communications, didn't you?

16 A. I've already answered that two questions ago. That is to say, we

17 always operate as if the enemy is listening in. However, I did not have

18 any accurate indicators that they were actually listening in. That goes

19 without saying. But from where, which communications, and so on and so

20 forth, all this exact information, we did not have that. Had we had

21 that, we would have enhanced the security of our communications even

22 more.

23 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I note that it's break time.

24 JUDGE ORIE: It is break time.

25 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may now

Page 32106

1 follow the usher.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at a quarter to 2.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 1.44 p.m.

6 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, in the interests of time, can I ask to

7 call up 21210c, please. This is an under-seal document. And that's

8 65 ter 21210c.

9 [The witness takes the stand]

10 MS. HASAN: Can we just flip the B/C/S. Thank you.

11 Q. Witness, we see here an intercepted communication. It's dated

12 the 26th of July.

13 MS. HASAN: And if we turn to page 2 in the B/C/S. That would

14 not be the correct ...

15 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently a different document --

16 MS. HASAN: That's the previous document. Thank you.

17 Q. This is a communication at 0807 hours. It's intercepted on the

18 frequency 255.950, and it's between a Major Jevdjevic and Vinko. Would

19 that be you and Lieutenant-Colonel Vinko Pandurevic?

20 A. If I may be allowed to read the conversation and if I find it

21 consistent with the actual situation, I will be able to respond.

22 Q. Please do so.

23 A. I've read it. I don't remember the conversation, but in view of

24 what is being treated here, I allow for the possibility that this is an

25 authentic conversation.

Page 32107

1 Q. Well, let's turn to your testimony in the Popovic case to see if

2 that helps you.

3 MS. HASAN: 65 ter 32039, please. E-court page 79.

4 Q. And at lines 3 to 13, you were asked about this communication and

5 your response is:

6 "I remember parts of this conversation. If it was intercepted in

7 its entirety that's possible. I remember some parts of it. The

8 conversation resembles the usual sort of conversation I would have then,

9 a logical conversation between General Pandurevic and myself. The

10 situation reflects what I knew at the time [sic], that is, that

11 negotiations were under way, that the guns had been silent for two days,

12 that there was probably agreement that civilians and soldiers alike would

13 [sic] be evacuated from Zepa. I remember that that had been agreed on

14 and that the rest of the conversation is probably something that I need

15 not doubt. Although, some things I find unclear, but as a whole the

16 [sic] intercept seems familiar to me."

17 Do you stand by that testimony?

18 A. Of course.

19 MS. HASAN: I'd offer 65 ter 21210c into evidence under seal.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7140, under seal, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted, under seal.

23 MS. HASAN: May we now take a look at 65 ter 22204.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast either, I think.

25 MS. HASAN: That's correct. Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 32108

1 There should be an English with this as well.

2 Could we try again, please. Thank you.

3 Q. This is an intercept. It's dated 29 July 1995 at 1325 hours.

4 It's intercepted at two -- frequency 255.950 and it's between

5 Major Jevdjevic and number 1, indicated number 1 with a question mark.

6 I'll -- if can you just read that intercept before I put questions to

7 you.

8 A. I've read it.

9 Q. Again, this Major Jevdjevic referred to here, that's you; right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you recall engaging in this communication?

12 A. Yes, I remember that during one of my previous testimonies too.

13 I remember that communication.

14 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I'd offer 65 ter 22204 under seal into

15 evidence, please.

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]

17 MS. HASAN: And ...

18 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Relevance is not entirely clear to me

19 yet, but perhaps that is still to come? I mean ... I mean, the witness

20 said that he participated in the communication but what it is about?

21 Okay --

22 MS. HASAN: I can go into that as well.

23 Q. Witness, who are you speaking to in this communication?

24 A. I think that it was someone from the command or one of the

25 communications officers from the Visegrad Brigade. I don't know exactly

Page 32109

1 who it was, but I know that this conversation related to someone from the

2 Visegrad Brigade.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, is it about frequencies that you want to

4 tender this, or is it about the content of the conversation?

5 MS. HASAN: Primarily about the interception of the

6 communication.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The fact that it was intercepted.

8 MS. HASAN: Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you could have -- when I asked about the

12 relevance you could have said that, then I would have had no further

13 problems. It's about the potential to intercept communications.

14 Mr. Registrar, the number would be?

15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7141, under seal, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: P7141 is admitted under seal. Please proceed.

17 MS. HASAN:

18 Q. You'd agree, then, that it is possible to intercept a frequency

19 and to hear both participants on that frequency; isn't that right?

20 A. Only I am heard here, and the other participant can barely be

21 heard. You can see that from the context of the conversation. But I

22 always allowed for that possibility. If the interception group is at a

23 good location, then unprotected radio relay communications can be heard.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Jevdjevic, I draw your attention to the last

25 lines of this document. The unknown person says: "Just tell me, who am

Page 32110

1 I talking to?"

2 The answer was: "Major Jevdjevic."

3 And then, again, the other person: "Okay."

4 It indicates that both participants in this communication have

5 been heard; correct?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. But my comment

7 pertained to the beginning of the conversation, where there are these

8 dots, that is how that was usually marked. Places -- or, rather,

9 sections that cannot be heard.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that is about the whole of the beginning

12 of that conversation. Both sides. From after the dots, there's nothing

13 I can find which would indicate that one of the two interlocutors only

14 could be heard. It seems to be a relatively logical conversation in

15 which both parties are heard. They may have some problems hearing each

16 other, but apart from that -- would you agree with that?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. But if you knew

18 Serbian, then --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes please.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you knew the Serbian language,

21 from the context of the conversation, you would see that there is a lot

22 of repetition that indicates that they can barely discern what they are

23 saying, that both of them have trouble understanding the other person.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the issue is not whether the interlocutors

25 can understand each other. The issue was whether both parties could be

Page 32111

1 heard in this intercept. I would say they didn't ask for repetition in

2 order to facilitate the interceptors.

3 Please proceed.

4 MS. HASAN:

5 Q. So we're clear, then, that both participants were heard on

6 frequency 255.950. You agree with that?

7 A. They managed to hear each other.

8 Q. Were you aware --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Again, that's the question. The question is whether

10 the interceptors could listen in, both parties, on this one frequency.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's a highly professional

12 explanation here as to how two participants in a conversation can be

13 heard on a single frequency because this device also operates on two

14 separate transmitters and receives. This frequency 255, 57 [as

15 interpreted] megahertz, that is one of the transmitting frequencies. But

16 the other participant was operating on another frequency. So the radio

17 relay device -- devices, in this case as well, have separate transmission

18 and receiving. So it is best, simply, if one listens in to two

19 transmissions. That's best for the technical group. But from a

20 technical point of view, it is possible to intercept communications at a

21 single frequency. That is very complicated and that requires agreement

22 of technical preconditions.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's not elaborate on that.

24 Please proceed.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One clarification for the record. In your

Page 32112

1 answer, there's a reference, at least in the English interpretation:

2 "This frequency 255, 57 megahertz ..."

3 But is that what you said or did you say 255.950 megahertz?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 255.950 is what I said.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

6 MS. HASAN:

7 Q. And you described that it's very complicated to do -- to do this.

8 However, there is also a very simple way to hear both participants on the

9 same frequency, isn't it? That the voice of the recipient, for instance,

10 in that communication -- sorry. The voice of the transmitter can leak

11 into the microphone of the hand-held device and be transmitted into the

12 second frequency such that both participants' voices travel on the one

13 frequency; isn't that right?

14 A. Well, you more or less summed it up nicely. In such cases, the

15 other interlocutor cannot be heard or he can be barely heard. If anybody

16 wants to listen to technical explanations, I can give them to you. So

17 one of the participants in the conversation can barely be heard or cannot

18 be heard at all, but it all depends on the location of the interception

19 group.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, can I just -- whatever the technical

21 difficulties may be, it is so that in this particular case, both

22 interlocutors could be heard by the interceptor; is that correct.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think that's what is important.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

Page 32113

1 MS. HASAN:

2 Q. Without revealing, if you know, where the ABiH had their

3 interception facilities, I'd like to know if you knew that at that time.

4 So my first question is, to put it clearly, were you aware of where the

5 ABiH's interception facilities were?

6 A. I didn't know that.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]

9 MS. HASAN: Could we call up 65 ter 04743. And this is -- should

10 not be broadcast.

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MS. HASAN:

13 Q. And, Witness, I'll just caution you to not mention the names of

14 the facilities but we have depicted on a map here where the two ABiH

15 radio relay interception facilities were. You see the southern -- the

16 more southern site and the northern site, both of which are marked with

17 green circles. Do you see that there?

18 A. Yes, I can see them.

19 Q. And you were not aware that these facilities were at these

20 locations during the war time?

21 A. No, I was not.

22 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I'd offer 65 ter 04743 into evidence

23 under seal.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

25 MR. IVETIC: I don't see that this witness has provided the

Page 32114

1 information that's listed in here, so as long as it's just being

2 presented as demonstrative -- he is saying he doesn't -- he is not aware

3 of these facilities, I mean ...

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. IVETIC: Is that enough for a document to come in?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, may I take it that what you intend to

7 demonstrate with this is that when the witness says, "I didn't know that

8 they were there," that at least we know what the answer related to, not

9 to in any way could that be understood as a confirmation of the

10 listening-in post being at those locations, especially where the witness

11 says he doesn't know.

12 Is that well understood?

13 MS. HASAN: Yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, under those circumstances, would you

15 have any -- it clarifies what the witness testified --

16 MR. IVETIC: It clarified. It clarifies and then we're in

17 agreement then.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7142, under seal, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted under seal.

21 MS. HASAN:

22 Q. During the Stupcanica-Zepa operation, the IKM moved from Krivace

23 to Godjenje and then to Zlovrh; is that right?

24 A. Yes, Krivace, Godjenje, and finally Zlovrh. That was the

25 movement.

Page 32115

1 Q. You were at the IKM in Zlovrh after the Zepa population had been

2 transported out of the enclave; isn't that right?

3 A. I was at the Zlovrh IKM, yes.

4 Q. And so was General Krstic?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. HASAN: Could we see P01397 and this should not be broadcast.

7 Q. Now, what's coming up here, it's an intercept from the 2nd of

8 August and this we know from the intercept report and it's captured at

9 9.50 in the morning on frequency 255.950. The participants,

10 General Krstic, and it's noted barely audible, Obrenovic, and X, and in

11 brackets Jevdjevic.

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Now Obrenovic begins, and he identifies himself as Obrenovic 02

15 from Palma. Can you --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Ms. Hasan, just having a first

17 glance on this one, is it transcribed completely? And I'm especially

18 pointing you at the English version, approximately the seventh line after

19 the line: "Where is Zepa?"

20 The next line reads: "(Behind us)"

21 In the original it seems to me that there's a question mark,

22 which does not appear on the English transcription.

23 You see that?

24 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour, I do see that. And --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we are going into all kind of details, then

Page 32116

1 this should be carefully reviewed.

2 For the time ... so whenever you read any portion of it to the

3 witness, we'll be very -- we'll try to monitor very well whether there's

4 any discernible difference between the original and the English, and I

5 take it that the Defence, who is even better able to do so, will also be

6 very attentive.

7 Please proceed.

8 MS. HASAN: Thank you.

9 Q. So back to the question I posed, which is Obrenovic starts and

10 says: "Obrenovic 02 from Palma."

11 Can you explain to us what that means?

12 A. 02 Palma is the secret code of the communications centre of the

13 Zvornik Brigade. Whereas 02 in our jargon, which was not a generally

14 accepted rule but was however applied, 02 could have been the Chief of

15 Staff or number 2 man. It was not a military rule but I remember

16 conversations of that kind.

17 Q. He's speaking to the operator and the third participant X is

18 marked as Jevdjevic and is asking where Zepa is. And about a third of

19 the way down, we have, in the English, Obrenovic saying:

20 "What" --

21 MS. HASAN: Next page in the B/C/S, please.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The B/C/S is -- now we are at the lowest third part

23 of the English translation. We are now at --

24 MS. HASAN: In fact, the reference I was making is to B/C/S

25 page 1, where Obrenovic says: "What" --

Page 32117

1 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go back to page 1 in the B/C/S.

2 You start with: "What? Hello?"

3 MS. HASAN:

4 Q. "What? Hello? Hey operator, what's happening. Did I lose the

5 line?"

6 And Krstic then says: "Hey Obrenovic, Krstic here."

7 You see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. HASAN: Now, if we can turn to B/C/S page 2 and stay with the

10 English page 1, Obrenovic reports to Krstic at the very bottom of the

11 English:

12 "We've managed to catch a few more."

13 Krstic says: "Uh-huh."

14 And if we turn the page in English, Obrenovic says:

15 "Either by gunpoint or on mines."

16 Q. Are you following along?

17 A. I am following.

18 Q. And about a third of the way through, Krstic says, on this page:

19 "Way to go, chief. The Turks are probably listening. Let them

20 listen, the motherfuckers."

21 Obrenovic says:

22 "Yeah. Let them, let them. They know what they can listen to."

23 And before they are discussing that this conversation is being

24 listened to, we have in the English on the second line, when Obrenovic

25 has told Krstic that they have caught a few more, we have Krstic saying:

Page 32118

1 "Kill them all, god-damn it."

2 Obrenovic saying:

3 "Everything. Everything is going according to plan."

4 And we have Krstic saying: "Don't leave a single one alive."

5 Obrenovic: "Yes?"

6 Krstic: "Not a single one must be left alive."

7 Obrenovic: "Everything is going according to plan. Everything."

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And about halfway down in the English, Obrenovic asks to speak to

11 Jevdjevic for a moment. It says: "Can I talk to Jevdjevic?"

12 And Krstic says: "Jevdjevic?"

13 Obrenovic says: "Yes."

14 Now, that's you, isn't it?

15 A. I am Jevdjevic.

16 Q. And you -- and it goes on and you have a discussion with

17 Obrenovic, who you have told us you knew very well, that -- about some

18 cattle. And Obrenovic is asking you which road he should use to send a

19 truck to pick up the cattle.

20 Now you're familiar with this discussion you had with Obrenovic?

21 A. No.

22 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, I note that I have gone over the time

23 for the day.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you have, and I have not paid sufficient

25 attention to it.