1 Tuesday, 24 February 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted into the
12 courtroom, I do understand that the Prosecution has at least one urgent
13 replacement of a translation in e-court.
14 If you could deal with that one and leave the others until later.
15 MS. HASAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, everyone.
16 This relates to the English translation for P1657 and P1658.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. HASAN: And there was a handwritten word, "Mladic," on the
19 top of the page that was missing from the translation, and the revised
20 English translation has been uploaded under document ID --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you're now dealing with 1657 or 1658?
22 MS. HASAN: Both.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Both, yes.
24 MS. HASAN: 0086-9333-A-ET. And if the Defence have no
25 objection, we'd request that this English revised translation replace the
1 existing one.
2 MR. IVETIC: We have no objection to the translation. We wonder
3 why we have two of the exact same in e-court. That's a matter for
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll have a look at it.
6 Madam Registrar, you're hereby instructed to replace the English
7 translation of P1657 and P1658 by the document just referred to by
8 Ms. Hasan, and I noted that the number accurately appears on the
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Jevdjevic. Before we continue,
12 I'd like to remind you again, hopefully for the last time, that you're
13 still bound by the solemn declaration given at the beginning of your
14 testimony. Ms. Hasan will now continue her cross-examination.
15 Ms. Hasan.
16 MS. HASAN: Could we take a look at P1397 under seal, page 2 in
17 the English and page in the B/C/S, please.
18 WITNESS: MILENKO JEVDJEVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Ms. Hasan: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jevdjevic.
22 A. Good morning to everybody.
23 Q. You'll recall that we were a looking at an intercept from the
24 2nd of August at 0950 hours in the morning. We'll just continue where we
25 left off.
1 And if you look at about three quarters of the way down the page,
2 and in the English, I think we left off where Obrenovic asks to talk to
3 Jevdjevic for a moment, and the -- the telephone is passed on to
4 Jevdjevic, and the communication continues.
5 Now, just towards the end of the English, we see Obrenovic say:
6 "Which road should I uses to send a truck in your direction to
7 pick up some cattle?"
8 I had asked you about what that was a reference to. And
9 Jevdjevic responds:
10 "And where is that?
11 "Obrenovic: Well, I don't know. My boss told me to give you a
12 call because you know where most of them are."
13 And if we turn in the page in the English, Jevdjevic responds:
14 "Well, the others have already grabbed everything."
15 "Obrenovic: And there's nothing left, huh?
16 "Jevdjevic: Not really.
17 "Obrenovic: The motherfuckers are worse than termites.
18 "Jevdjevic: Even worse. Now their code-names are Cowboy 1 and
19 Cowboy 2."
20 And then there's some laughter.
21 MS. HASAN: If we turn to page 3 in the B/C/S and stay with the
22 English, page 2.
23 Q. The conversation continues and at the top of that page, Jevdjevic
25 "They're in a place where Legenda often carried out searches."
1 And then further up, Obrenovic:
2 "So should I go to Milici?"
3 "Jevdjevic: Podravanje and up to Stublic."
4 And Jevdjevic confirms:
5 "You'll find them at Stublic."
6 So, Mr. Jevdjevic, do you recall this discussion about the
7 transportation of cattle that were in the Podravanje and Stublic area?
8 A. No.
9 Q. I have a document, 65 ter 32087. Let's see if this helps refresh
10 your recollection. What this is, is -- it's from the assistant commander
11 for logistics at the Drina Corps, Colonel Lazar Acamovic, and it's dated
12 the 5th of August, so a few days after the intercepted conversation. And
13 it's to be delivered to the Visegrad Brigade Bratunac, the Milici, and
14 the Vlasenica Brigades. You see that there?
15 A. As for the document on the screen, I can't see that list of
16 addressees. There's no Zvornik, Milici, and Vlasenica Brigade. It's an
17 authorisation issued to a person to do certain things, and the units that
18 you quoted are not mentioned in this document at all.
19 Q. Okay. Well --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps you are not on the right page of the
21 document. Please check that, Ms. Hasan. Oh, it's the wrong document.
22 MS. HASAN: Yes, it is. 32088.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then you misspoke.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: It said 32 --
25 MS. HASAN: I apologise.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- 087.
2 MS. HASAN: 087. I see that on the record. Thank you, Your
4 Q. Now looking at the screen I do that this is the correct one. And
5 what this is, it's a telegram -- it says:
6 "Pursuant to a telegram of the Main Staff from 4 August 1995,
7 send us information about the number and sort of collected cattle from
8 the areas of Srebrenica and Zepa by 0200 [sic] hours on 5 August 1995."
9 Do you see that there?
10 A. I see that, but this document is not related to the
11 Zvornik Brigade as you claim it is.
12 Q. If I had mentioned the Zvornik Brigade, then it's clear that this
13 is not one of the addressees. But in terms of the content, the subject
14 matter of this telegram where the Main Staff is requesting information
15 about the cattle gathered in the areas of Srebrenica and Zepa, do you
16 recall that?
17 A. No, I never had anything to do with the collection of cattle as
18 part of my job. My job was to deal with communications.
19 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, I'd offer 65 ter 32087 -- 88 into
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32088 will be Exhibit P7143.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. HASAN: And could we now have 32087 displayed.
1 Q. And this is the document we were looking at previously. And it's
2 from General Krstic, dated the 5th of August, and it's an authorisation
3 for Cvijetin Micic from the Zvornik Brigade to collect and transport to
4 Zvornik the abandoned cattle from the former enclaves of Srebrenica and
5 Zepa, and it's pursuant to the order of the commander of the Main Staff
6 and the commander of the Drina Corps 17 July 1995.
7 Now in the intercept at 0950 hours, Obrenovic is asking you about
8 where to send the truck to pick up the cattle. So do these documents
9 then now help you remember the discussion you were having with Obrenovic?
10 A. Please bring back the intercepted conversation on the screen.
11 You'll see that Obrenovic is talking to a person called Vidoje, not
12 Jevdjo. Bring back the conversation and you will see that clearly for
14 MS. HASAN: Could we look at P01397 under seal, and I would also
15 offer 32088 -- sorry, -87 into evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32087 will be Exhibit P7144.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
19 MS. HASAN:
20 Q. And we see here and you're referring to - B/C/S page 2, please,
21 and English page 2 - after Obrenovic says:
22 "Can I take to Jevdjevic for a moment?"
23 Krstic says:
25 Obrenovic says:
2 Krstic says:
3 "All right."
4 And he says:
5 "I'll put him on."
6 And then X, who is identified as Jevdjevic at the beginning of
7 this intercept, says:
9 Obrenovic then, and this is what you're referring to, says:
11 This is what you're referring to; right?
12 A. This is not a question. This is the way the person addresses his
13 interlocutor, by using his first name. It is in brackets with a question
14 mark, and my interpretation of that is this: My nickname was never
15 Vitoje, nobody ever called me that, which means that Obrenovic is calling
16 a person called Vitoje who says yes, and then he says listen, and the
17 conversation continues then. Since I do not remember that I ever took
18 care of any cattle, that I was never Vitoje -- even at previous trials I
19 testified that I don't remember that conversation as a conversation that
20 I was involved in.
21 In the same intercepted conversation intercepted from a different
22 location, and we mentioned the north and the south locations, entirely
23 different wordings are mentioned in respect of this conversation. The
24 same conversation was intercepted at the same time from a different
25 location and in that intercept it says that Obrenovic actually inquires
1 where he should bring a lorry full of cattle, whereas in this
2 conversation on the screen, it seems that he is asking where he can bring
3 a lorry to fetch the cattle. You can compare the two conversations or
4 intercepts, and the difference will become abundantly clear.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now you are engaging in analysing what you consider
6 to be the evidence. What we'd like to know is what you remember, and you
7 say, and that's clear, I was not the one -- at least you don't remember
8 to have conducted this conversation. That is good enough.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. HASAN: If we can just turn to page 1 in the English and 1 in
11 the B/C/S.
12 Q. You will see that this communication was picked up on frequency
13 255.950, which is within the range of a RRU-1. Now, this is the device
14 you were using at Zlovrh; right?
15 A. We were using that device, but I'm not sure about the frequency
16 and I've already said that several times.
17 Q. We have this intercepted communication on audiotape. We have it
18 from the northern facility, and we have it from the southern facility.
19 From the northern facility, we hear Obrenovic more clearly than the other
20 participants, and in the southern facility, we hear Krstic more clearly.
21 Now, I don't have much time to play both, but I will play the one
22 where we hear Krstic and Jevdjevic, which -- it's our position that
23 that's you in that conversation clearly on that tape.
24 MS. HASAN: So could we take a look at 65 ter 21235e.
25 Q. And there is an interception where all the participants are
1 picked up on the one frequency. And it's to address your testimony from
2 yesterday where you said that -- where both -- where participants are
3 picked up on one frequency, one participant is barely heard or cannot be
4 heard at all.
5 So let's listen to that audio.
6 MS. HASAN: Ms. Stewart corrects me. It's 21235f for that audio.
7 And, Your Honours, there is a transcript for the audiotape which can be
8 displayed on the screen. But for the purposes of the exercise of just
9 hearing the voices, I would request that we receive no interpretation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ivetic, I take it that for these purposes
11 it's acceptable that we leave out any interpretation.
12 MS. HASAN: And I would ask that the volume on the devices be
13 turned up as much as possible.
14 Q. And, Mr. Jevdjevic --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. Jevdjevic be assisted to have his volume
16 at the highest level. Or at least at a higher level.
17 MS. HASAN: Yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Him being a technician himself, he will be able
19 to --
20 Mr. Jevdjevic, if you would need higher volume or lower, then
21 you'll find the buttons there.
22 Please proceed.
23 MS. HASAN: And let me just put on the record the -- okay. This
24 is just the clip so I don't think we need the time code.
25 [Audiotape played]
1 MS. HASAN:
2 Q. So, Witness, were you able to hear the voices of all the
4 A. Not very well. I heard this conversation in 2000 or 2001 when I
5 testified in the Krstic case, and it seems to me that the quality of the
6 audio was better at the time. All of you who have listened to this
7 conversation now and who have been following my testimony would never
8 confirm that it was me speaking because now they know how I speak.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are -- again, you're not invited to
10 give your analysis of the evidentiary situation. You're here to answer
11 the questions put to you by Ms. Hasan, and you told us that you said that
12 the voices were difficult to hear.
13 Please proceed, Ms. Hasan.
14 MS. HASAN:
15 Q. Witness, this communication which was intercepted by the ABiH is
16 an authentic communication, isn't it?
17 A. I can't confirm that.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MS. HASAN: I'd offer 21235f into evidence.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you -- before that will be admitted, I
21 have a question for the witness.
22 Did you recognise any of the voices of the speakers we have
23 listened to?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really did not. There's a huge
25 modulation. I'm sure that you all heard that, a huge modulation of the
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You didn't recognise any of them?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only assume that it is the
4 two of them. But when I listen carefully, the modulation is huge, and
5 the voices are so distorted that they don't resemble anybody's voice.
6 The tone of their voices is so distorted, and I'm sure that you could all
7 hear that.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, has the transcript been verified by
10 CLSS? That would be my concern since we did not have translation of the
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MS. HASAN: I'm told that the transcript has not been verified by
14 CLSS ahead of time, but we could play it again.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I wonder whether it's the task of CLSS to do
16 this job on the spot. Therefore, I would suggest that you find a more
17 quiet way of -- for CLSS to verify the transcript.
18 Are there any specific concerns, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MS. HASAN: And --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Before I --
21 MR. IVETIC: To be honest, I can't open it here to be able to
22 check. That's why I asked. So I've been working without the transcript
23 of that intercept.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And why is it that it can be not opened? Is
25 it uploaded in e-court? And what then is the problem? Under what
2 MS. HASAN: It's the same 65 ter number which is 21235f.
3 MR. IVETIC: And that's what I've plugged in and it's not coming
4 up at my end.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see whether --
6 MR. IVETIC: With the caveat that I have been computer issues all
7 morning, so ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: On 21235f, I get an audio intercept, a B/C/S
9 translation and an English translation. If I open the English
10 translation, I get an English transcript text.
11 Mr. Ivetic.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which is the one that we have on the screen.
13 MR. IVETIC: Oh.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is. Let me see. Yes, it is exactly the
15 same as we have on our screens.
16 MR. IVETIC: Then there is an issue because there's a word
17 missing. It's the second-to-last line in the English that's on the
18 screen right now. It's not on the B/C/S, but the word that was spoken by
19 the individual on the tape at that point has not been recorded on this
21 JUDGE ORIE: You mean between "hello" and "yes"? Is that ...
22 MR. IVETIC: I believe so.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Could we scroll down in the B/C/S
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have to go to the next page.
1 MR. IVETIC: Next page.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Next page.
3 MR. IVETIC: And that should be the critical point that the
4 witness has pointed out, that another name was used.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's have a look.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Approximately at the middle of the page.
7 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Here the B/C/S is not giving any ...
9 So, therefore, if the Defence takes the position that although so
10 badly audible all of this, that this can be deciphered in audio terms,
11 then, of course, I take it that perhaps the Prosecution with one of the
12 language assistants and the Defence could sit together and see whether
13 they can fill in what is here recorded as inaudible. I take it that's
14 what the dots stands.
15 MS. HASAN: What that means is that the person who did this
16 transcript was not able to hear that. We can have them listen to it
17 again and verify that they can hear it --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we could ask the Defence as well. If they've
19 good ears and if your people have good ears, then you can sit together.
20 It's not necessarily that if one person of CLSS is unable to hear it or
21 decipher it that others could not assist in this exercise.
22 And, Mr. Ivetic, is it -- because you pointed at the dots in the
23 English version, whereas in the original it seems that it's declared more
24 or less by the person working on it as inaudible.
25 Did you have an opportunity or were you able or were one of your
1 colleagues able to hear what would have been said?
2 MR. IVETIC: Well, in listening -- in listening in court it
3 sounded to me like Vitoje, but of course I'm not a native speaker and I'm
4 not --
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is that the -- well, at least you have a --
6 MS. HASAN: Your Honour we can listen to it again with the
7 Defence and see if it's audible.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. HASAN: And --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's proceed like that. As matters stand now,
11 we have this version, which is made, I take it, to the best of the
12 abilities of the transcriber. We have to deal with this at this very
13 moment, and if there would be any better version in the near future,
14 we'll hear from the parties.
15 Now let me just check whether it --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: 21235f will receive number P7145.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P7145 is admitted into evidence. But the Chamber
20 explicitly states that if the parties agree on a better transcript
21 version, whereas, the audio is part of this evidence as well, that the
22 transcript, of course, that parties could apply for the transcript to be
23 replaced by a better one.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. HASAN: Could with take a look at 32120.
1 Q. Mr. Jevdjevic, in 2003, late 2003 and early 2004, the Office of
2 the Prosecutor interviewed Dragan Obrenovic, and a statement was
3 produced, a witness statement of his, signed witness statement. And if
4 we can look at -- we see the cover page appearing on our screen.
5 MS. HASAN: I think we're missing the B/C/S.
6 Q. There you see that's the cover page of Obrenovic's witness
8 MS. HASAN: If we can now turn to page 21 in the English and
9 page 30 in the B/C/S. Can we take a look at paragraph 157.
10 Q. You will see there's a heading. It says: "Intercept," dated
11 2nd August, 1995, between Krstic Obrenovic. And paragraph 157 states:
12 "I have listened to an intercepted conversation, dated 2
13 August 1995, at 0950 hours, between myself, General Krstic, and
14 Major Jevdjevic. The conversation was played as part of a videotape
15 which carried the sound of this intercept."
16 And then he goes on at paragraph 158.
17 MS. HASAN: If we turn the page in the B/C/S, please.
18 Q. "I have already listened to this intercept some time ago together
19 with my lawyers. I did tell them at that time and I ... confirm it now
20 again that this is my own voice and the one of General Krstic."
21 You see that there?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Do you still contest that this is an authentic intercept?
24 A. I'm speaking about the part of the conversation that has to do
25 with me. I do not remember it because it is not consistent with the
1 actual situation that I participated in. And my name is recorded as
2 something completely different in that conversation. That is the part
3 that I have been referring to. Even if that were so, I was not at
4 General Krstic's at the time. I was at the communications centre and he
5 was at the observation post at the forward command post, but I'm speaking
6 about the part of that conversation where I have allegedly taken part.
7 *Q. Let's move on. You testified about the Croatians's ability to
8 intercept VRS communications, and --
9 MR. IVETIC: We're in public session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think if we would go into any further
11 details, we may have to move into private session, Ms. Hasan.
12 MS. HASAN: Yes, I agree.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And we -- I don't know what details you further want
14 to address.
15 MS. HASAN: I think for the time being we can stay in open
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
18 MS. HASAN: Could we call up 65 ter 27618. This is an under-seal
20 Q. What will appear before you, Witness, is an intercept dated
21 16 July 1995 at 2235 hours. It is a conversation between General Mladic
22 and Milos Kostic. Now, if we just look at the beginning of that
23 intercept, we see M, General Mladic, saying:
24 "Good evening, Brother Kostic."
25 It's line 8 in the English.
1 *And this is a conversation where they are discussing Gorazde,
2 Zepa, amongst other things.
3 If we turn to page 2 in the English, and I'll direct you,
4 Witness, to about two-thirds of the way down the page, lines 32 in the
5 English, Mladic says:
6 "I understood you completely, Milos. You said all of it well;
7 the best thing would be that they give up on the Muslims and Croats."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So let's turn to the English page 3. The conversation continues.
11 And at line 16, this is Milos -- this is Milos Kostic speaking, and he
13 "That supposedly is the case. That's what these guys are
14 forecasting of the UN. Again, it was reported here that you stopped at
15 1.5 kilometres from Zepa but that is not the case, it seems. Has Zepa
16 been completed, Boss?"
17 Do you say that? It's towards the bottom of the page in the
18 B/C/S, just a few lines, about six lines -- six or seven lines from the
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mladic responds:
22 "Well, all right, one chases that around."
23 So -- sorry. Mladic responds:
24 "It has been completed, mate. There are just some smaller groups
1 *"Kostic: Well, all right, one chases that around."
2 "Mladic: Of course, you just do your job and do not worry."
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'm going to ask that you keep that in mind.
6 MS. HASAN: And we're going to turn now to P01658, please.
7 Q. Now, you'll see there's a communication -- this is a record from
8 the security service centre. It's an intercepted communication, and it's
9 the communication numbered 672. So the second one in the B/C/S.
10 MS. HASAN: And if we turn one page in the English, we will see
12 Q. And we see that it says:
13 "On the same day on the same frequency, and the same channel at
14 2250 hours, we recorded a conversation between Ratko Mladic and
15 Cvijetin Kostic, who was inaudible."
16 Now, this communication was picked up a bit later than that
17 picked up by the Croatians, but what they record is the conversation from
18 Mladic's side, and what they hear is:
19 "How are you Kostic?"
20 And if we look just two lines -- three lines down, Mladic says:
21 "The best thing would be to give up on the Muslims completely and
22 on the Croats as well."
23 The next thing we hear -- they hear Mladic say is:
24 "That's finished, bro. There are only some smaller groups left."
25 We skip a line, we go to the next one:
1 *"You just do your job and don't worry."
2 And Mladic continues.
3 So, sir, we have now looked at a communication that has been
4 intercepted by the Croatians and intercepted by the security service
5 centre on the same date at approximately the same time.
6 Now, you do acknowledge that the Croatians were able to intercept
7 communications, don't you?
8 A. Could you put that question more precisely, please?
9 Q. Well, we've just looked at two intercepts, and on the basis of
10 what you've seen here, was it possible for the Croatians to intercept
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan, you're asking the witness whether, on the
13 basis of what we see here, whether it was possible. Of course, that's
14 asking for a judgement or opinion of the witness.
15 The question is whether, having looked at this, whether it's
16 still your evidence that they could not intercept communications or do
17 you accept that they could?
18 I take it that that's the question, Ms. Hasan.
19 MS. HASAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please answer that question?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for the clarification.
22 In my testimony a few days ago, I said in my professional
23 assessment because of the specific position and the geographic location
24 of the relay communications of the Drina Corps, that I do not believe
25 that the Croats could successfully listen to these conversations. This
1 *is the Pale relay communication which is not in the zone and does not
2 belong to the communications of the Drina Corps, and I don't know what
3 was meant. The Pale route that was listened to by the Croats - that is
4 to say, the people from the Tuzla security centre - does not belong to
5 the Drina Corps. It is more towards Central Bosnia. That is to say, in
6 that schematic of the radio relay communications of the Drina Corps, you
7 will not find a Pale route anywhere.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all the microphones
9 please be switched off when the witness is speaking. Thank you.
10 MS. HASAN:
11 Q. Do you acknowledge that this intercept, which was picked up by
12 the Croatians, is authentic?
13 A. If it corresponds to the actual situation and if there are other
14 indicators, I'm not challenging it. I don't know what this is all about.
15 I am not well versed in what was going on, so I cannot assert that it is
16 authentic. If you have information stating that it is authentic, it is
17 probably authentic. However, it was intercepted outside the zone of the
18 Drina Corps and that is what I have been testifying about.
19 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, I'd offer 65 ter 27618 under seal.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: The witness has been unable to offer any evidence
22 about this intercept to either confirm, et cetera, and it goes -- it's
23 not been authenticated by other means, as far as I know, to be able to be
24 to be introduced at this time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
1 *MS. HASAN: Well, the witness has said that he doesn't challenge
2 the authenticity and said if you have information stating it is authentic
3 it's probably authentic.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Ms. Hasan, if a witness comes and says I
5 have no reason to challenge the authenticity, would that in itself be a
6 reason? Then everyone in this world who does not know anything about
7 this, and, of course, could not challenge the authenticity, not having
8 any knowledge, would be a good witness so as to introduce this document
9 through him or her.
10 Is that your position or is there more to be said about it?
11 MS. HASAN: Well, is he able to comment. I mean, he's been shown
12 and it's been compared to the -- the -- the same intercept being picked
13 up by the State Security Service, and that in itself he can opine and has
14 opined on the -- whether -- whether this is made up by the
15 State Security Service and the Croatians or not. And I can -- I can just
16 add that -- oh, I'll just leave it at that for now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: I think again it's a question of what this witness
19 has been able to confirm or add useable evidence as to, and I don't think
20 in relation to this document that the testimony we've heard here this
21 morning meets that standard.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The witness has at length
25 testified about possibilities for intercepts and has gone into some
1 *details in that respect. Now this is put to him and it is relevant
2 evidence, his comment on whether or not he is aware of any facts which
3 would challenge the authenticity of these documents, again, against his
4 background, his professional background.
5 The objection is therefore denied.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Can I then, at least for
7 the record, state something to make sure that you're not misrecalling the
8 evidence. The testimony elicited during direct examination was in
9 relation to communications from radio relay nodes in the Drina Corps of
10 which the witness has said that this is going through a node that is
11 outside the Drina Corps, so it does not relate to his prior evidence as
12 to what was possible and not, and I think that's what he's actually said
13 about ten minutes ago in relation to this. So I just wanted to make sure
14 that you had that in mind when making this ruling.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We had everything in our mind, including that
16 sometimes the witness testified about the zone of the Drina Corps,
17 sometimes he was testifying about the Drina Corps. He was sometimes
18 testifying about what you could listen -- what you could hear from the
19 various -- the various frequencies used.
20 It is a rather complex thing, Mr. Ivetic, and we'll certainly
21 keep in mind all the details of that testimony further on, and it is on
22 the basis of that testimony as a whole that the objection was denied.
23 Please proceed.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, therefore, the objection being denied,
1 *Madam Registrar, the number would be.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 27618 receives Exhibit P7146.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence, under seal.
4 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, just to be clear, if Mladic on the night
5 of the 16th is in Crna Rijeka, then the communication path is from
6 Crna Rijeka to Veliki Zep and Veliki Zep down to Pale.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's argument at this moment and we're
8 hearing the testimony of a witness.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Now you testified that one of UNPROFOR's members, and I'm moving
12 on to another area, was killed, you thought, on the 10th of July. And
13 this is at transcript 31971, lines 15 to 16. You recall that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, there's evidence in this case that it was on the 8th of
16 July that Private Rave Van Renssen, an UNPROFOR soldier, was killed. Do
17 you allow for the possibility that your recollection in respect of when
18 the UNPROFOR member was killed does not serve you well?
19 A. At that moment I had information that that had happened on the
20 10th when their check-point with four APCs in fear of the Muslims went
21 out to the area that was under the control of the Army of
22 Republika Srpska.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you're not invited to recount the whole
24 story but you were asked whether, where you said that you thought it was
25 on the 10th of July, whether you allow for the possibility that you made
1 a mistake and that it would have been on the 8th. That's the question.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have information that that was on
3 the 10th of July, and I cannot relate to any other date.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, thank you. And that concludes the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Just in time, Ms. Hasan, because I had just asked
8 for the time you had used which was, indeed, even a little bit over the
9 last time estimate you gave.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take a break, Judge Fluegge has one short
12 question for you.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Jevdjevic, earlier today, you were asked
14 about this intercept where the term "cattle" appears. Your answer to
15 related question on page 5, line 9 and 10, was, and I quote:
16 "No, I never had anything to do with the collection of cattle as
17 part of my job. My job was to deal with communications."
18 I understand that answer, but have you ever heard that sometimes
19 in communication, radio communication, terms were used which the idea --
20 terms were used other than those referring to the truth of -- or the real
21 content of the communication? Perhaps "cattle" referred to something
22 else. It was a coded name. Do you have any explanation for that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard different coded words that
24 actually referred to something else during the course of the war.
25 However, in this specific conversation, cattle, truck, loading, did not
1 associate me to anything from the relevant period.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That means you can't exclude that "cattle" stands
3 for anything else than cattle.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In terms of how the conversation
5 went. And the Prosecutor presented evidence to effect that cattle was
6 gathered as war booty. Perhaps in this case it was animals. Sometimes
7 perhaps there were some statements when people referred to the
8 population, the people there, as cattle, livestock, in a pejorative way.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I then would have one other question for you.
11 Are you aware of the Main Staff directly dealing with the details
12 of the transportation of war booty?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
15 We take a break.
16 Mr. Ivetic, your time estimate remains as it was.
17 MR. IVETIC: Yeah, I think about 40 minutes should be -- should
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll take a break.
20 Witness, you may following the usher, and we'll resume at ten
21 minutes to 11.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
25 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, could we go into private session very
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Hasan.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry, I missed you -- we move into private
5 session for a second.
6 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Before I give you an opportunity to re-examine the witness,
1 Mr. Ivetic, I would have one question for the witness.
2 Witness, at some length we have discussed whether you were the
3 interlocutor in that telephone conversation about the -- about the
5 Now, you also told us that there were other persons with the same
6 family name, Jevdjevic, you are familiar with, or at least you knew
7 about. Could you tell us, is any of those persons with the same family
8 name in a position that you could expect him to participate in such a
9 intercepted conversation? If so, please tell us who you are referring
10 to, what his position was, so that we -- so that we can consider that
11 when evaluating the evidence.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready.
14 MR. IVETIC: I am, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You may start to re-examine the witness.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
18 Q. Good day, sir.
19 A. Good day to you.
20 MR. IVETIC: I'd like to start by returning to P1153 in e-court.
21 Q. Sir, you were questioned about this order from the command of the
22 Drina Corps at transcript page 31980. Now -- and relates to the
23 movements of Legenda with his unit. During the time-period that this
24 activity was under way, where was General Zivanovic?
25 A. At the Pribicevac IKM.
1 Q. And where were you during this entire time-period?
2 A. Also there, at the Pribicevac IKM.
3 Q. What activities was General Zivanovic undertaking in the course
4 of these activities; that is, the movement of Jolovic and his unit?
5 A. He was in charge of the entire activity during the relevant
6 period of time.
7 MR. IVETIC: If we can now turn to P1417, page 10 in the English,
8 page 17 in the Serbian.
9 Q. Now, while we wait for that, sir, this is the statement of a
10 Prosecution witness, Mr. Franken, which was also presented to you, and it
11 was represented that the paragraphs from 38 onward relate to this
12 activity that was the subject of the prior order.
13 Now, you were asked about this yesterday -- the other day, and
14 Franken's statement talks of a main battle tank being used at the time at
15 Zeleni Jadar by the VRS. Do you recall if a main battle tank was part of
16 the VRS forces that took part that this activity of relocating from one
17 part to another in Zeleni Jadar?
18 A. I don't know anything about that.
19 Q. Okay. Now the document we just looked at, P1153, we don't have
20 to return to it, but it does not have any instructions for manoeuvring of
21 a tank. Would you expect if a main battle tank is utilized for the order
22 given for a particular activity to give instructions for the unit that is
23 utilizing a main battle tank?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to Prosecution Exhibit P2100, and
1 page 2 of the same.
2 Q. For your recollection, this is the post-action report that is
3 purporting to have your name on it, and I understand that you've already
4 said that the operation was conducted without a single bullet fired and
5 that therefore you would take issue with this part.
6 But if we see here in item number 3, this report says:
7 "We expended small amounts of ammunition and three Zoljas."
8 Do you believe it possible for a main battle tank round or rounds
9 to have been fired near the UNPROFOR check-point without being recorded
10 in such a post-action report?
11 A. This would be impossible.
12 Q. Now, given where you were while this was going on, do you believe
13 it possible for a main battle tank round to have been fired near the
14 UNPROFOR check-point without you hearing or knowing of the same?
15 A. I'm sure that I would have heard such an explosion.
16 Q. And Franken also mentioned some gun on a ridge as was presented
17 to you the other day. Do you think it possible that a gun on a ridge
18 could fire on that area in Zeleni Jadar without being heard by you?
19 A. A cannon round or a round fired from a cannon detonates in the
20 same way as a round from a tank and I'm sure I would have heard it.
21 Q. Now, sir, you have testified that this operation or this activity
22 was undertaken without a single bullet having been fired. In your
23 military career, how common of an occurrence was it for an operation to
24 be completed without a bullet fired?
25 A. I remember that the operation went that way. That's what I
2 Q. If could you please repeat your answer.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Which is, by the way, not an answer to the question,
4 Mr. Ivetic. I don't know whether you're seeking a repeated answer to
5 what you didn't ask the witness, then, of course --
6 MR. IVETIC: I believe there's something missing from the
7 question [sic].
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's the case, then --
9 MR. IVETIC: That's why.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- I better understand why you insist on a
12 Could you please repeat your answer.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my war career, I remember that
14 that operation was the only one which was carried out without a bullet
15 being fired, and this is what makes it memorable, as a matter of fact.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, I'd like to then move to the meeting that you've testified
18 about on the evening of the 11th of July, 1995.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, looking at the document, I think
20 the author is one of the issues very much discussed. Now, I noticed that
21 in the English versions it says "signature," whereas on the original I
22 see the stamp but not any signature.
23 Is that -- now this may happen more often, but especially perhaps
24 in this context it is relevant, that no reference in the English text is
25 to a signature which does not appear in the original.
1 Ms. Hasan, is that ...
2 MS. HASAN: Yes, Your Honour, I see that there, and we will be
3 requesting a revision of that to ensure the record is accurate.
4 MR. IVETIC: Again, I thought we had -- I think -- I thought one
5 of the Judges had already drawn our attention to that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then I must admit that I'd forgotten that. But it
7 could even be me and that I then suggested not to change it.
8 MR. IVETIC: In any event, it's welcome information and --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least I'm consistent on my mind then,
10 apparently. That's -- and if we at the same time said that there's no
11 need to have it corrected, then we leave it to that.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
14 Q. Now, sir, turning to the 11 July meeting you spoke of, are there
15 any other factors which stand out in your mind which lead you to believe
16 that the meeting indeed took place on the 11th of July as opposed to any
17 other date?
18 A. Yes, there are.
19 Q. Could you please tell us what other factors stand out in your
20 mind identifying that date as the 11th of July.
21 A. First of all, General Mladic, General Krstic, General Zivanovic,
22 and as far as I remember all the brigade commanders, attended the
23 meeting. And when I spoke to them, they all remembered that meeting. At
24 the end of the meeting itself, when General Mladic ordered me, and I
25 remember that order very well, he told me, "You, kid, I want you to set
1 up an IKM at Krivace for the operation in Zepa." That's how the meeting
2 ended. And a certain gentleman, Zvonko Bajagic, appeared on the
3 door-step. He had a platter in his hands with a fish, a carp I believe
4 it was, on that platter.
5 On the 11th of July, that was the last day of the long lent, and
6 Zvonko Bajagic [Realtime transcript read in error "Babic"] is a very
7 religious person. He was in the logistics of the Drina Corps. He wanted
8 to serve those officers food which was considered to be appropriate for
9 fasting. On the following day, we could eat anything. We could eat pork
10 or lamb or anything else. Any kind of meat. This is why I believe - and
11 I'm absolutely certain - that that meeting could have taken place only on
12 the 11th of July.
13 Q. And could you identify for us which religious holiday is at
15 A. Saint Peter's Day. In our language it is known as Petrov Dan.
16 On that day, is the day of the -- of a very long fasting period, and
17 after that, you can eat meat. On that note, us officers never received
18 fish. But Zvonko Bajagic is a very religious person, he observed the
19 fasting period, and that's why on that day, the last day of the fasting
20 period, he brought us fish for dinner.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. IVETIC: And for purposes of the transcript, page 30, line 25
23 I believe has "Zvonko Babic," whereas the witness has referred to
24 Zvonko Bajagic, and the remaining references from that point onward have
25 referred to Bajagic.
1 Q. Now, sir, I'd like to look at D289 with you.
2 MR. IVETIC: And if we could go to the second page in both
4 Q. Sir, this is the very urgent order from General Zivanovic dated
5 11 July, 1995, and you at transcript page 32046 gave us an explanation of
6 how and why you believe that this was signed by the individual with the
7 time and date indicated here in handwriting.
8 What is the bases or source of your belief that this document was
9 received in Boksanica at the Drina Corps command by Mr. Sekulic?
10 A. Because at that time the only place where that telegram could
11 have arrived was at the command post in Vlasenica at its communications
12 centre, because the Pribicevac IKM had been dismantled. Oliver Sekulic,
13 who was in charge of receiving telegrams and who was an encoder, told me
14 that personally.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. IVETIC: And if we can look at now at P7132.
17 Q. Again, this is dated the 12th of July, 1995, and we have the
18 handwritten received at 7.40 in the morning.
19 The first question I have for you, the Mr. Mirko Petrovic that is
20 listed in this order -- strike that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be shown to the public.
22 MR. IVETIC: Oh. I apologise.
23 Q. If I can ask you, sir, in relation to the handwritten part
24 indicating when it was received, what is the bases of -- the explanation
25 and your bases thereof of how it is that this document shows being
1 received at the date and time indicated?
2 A. At the time when my encoder received this document, we were at
3 the corps command in Vlasenica. My encoder, who was in charge of working
4 at the IKM, went to the communications centre and received this telegram
5 in the communications centre. He never switched on his teleprinter that
6 we were using at the forward command post. Up to the afternoon of the
7 12th of July, we were in Vlasenica and the communications devices and the
8 communications centre were there. The telegrams that were sent to us
9 were received directly from the sender, not through the communications
10 means. That's why I'm saying that this document was printed on the
11 teleprinter which was located at the communications centre in Vlasenica
12 and not on the teleprinter which was in the vehicle which was at the
13 Pribicevac IKM and later on in Zepa.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. IVETIC: If we could move along to P4895, and I believe this
16 one can be broadcast. And it will be page 38 in the English, page 60 in
17 the Serb, and paragraph 129.
18 Q. And, sir, you were asked about these regulations relating to a
19 forward command post in cross-examination.
20 The question I want to ask you: At the moment when you packed up
21 and moved the communications centre from the forward command post at
22 Pribicevac on the 11th of July, 1995, where were the commanding officers
23 of this forward command centre? Did any of them remain at Pribicevac
24 after you left?
25 A. None of them remained at Pribicevac. When I put together the
1 communications centre and started marching, they were already in the
2 Bratunac sector.
3 Q. Okay. And, sir, what is your understanding of the duty of the
4 forward command post communications centre when command officers have
5 moved elsewhere?
6 A. A communications centre and a forward command post follow the
7 battle order, and they follow their units and their commander. It would
8 be impossible and it would be stupid for them to stay behind because they
9 would not be effective. They would not be efficient at all.
10 MR. IVETIC: Now if we could briefly go into private session.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 32156-32157 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 MR. IVETIC: If we can now look at P7131.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is also under seal and should not be
7 MR. IVETIC: I hope it's the right document. Ah. Yes, yes, yes.
8 And if we could go to the end of the document, I'd like to focus on the
9 stamp in both versions.
10 Q. Sir, looking at the last line of the stamp which is the -- the
11 row that says "delivered," there does not appear to be any information
12 entered as to the day, date, and month, or the hour and minute, nor is it
13 signed. Can we draw any conclusions based upon the lack of any data
14 entered into this part of the stamp?
15 A. That means that this telegram was not delivered to all units at
16 this in point in time, 2250. It was not delivered to all the units that
17 it had been intended for.
18 Q. If it had been delivered to all the units, what would you expect
19 to be present?
20 A. Simply, the encoder is waiting for the right time to get in touch
21 with each and every unit. And then when even the last units has received
22 this telegram, then he records the time of receipt. Only when the other
23 side confirms to him with a QRV that that is when it was received, at
24 such and such a time, and then he signs it off.
25 Q. Now, if we return to the first page of this document. Yesterday
1 you were asked in relation to --
2 MR. IVETIC: Actually, I think the part that we want is on the --
3 oh, there it is. If we could scroll up on the English version. Down,
4 sorry, the other direction. It's on the next page in the English.
5 Q. You were asked here about the second sentence in part 1 of the
6 order that says:
7 "Until further notice, ensure that the forward command posts is
8 taken over at all levels of command and control and monitor the situation
10 Could you identify for us how many levels within the Drina Corps
11 had their own forward command posts according to their formation
13 A. Forward command posts, it is corps, brigades, and battalions that
14 had them.
15 Q. And in relation to the lower-level forward command posts of the
16 brigades and the battalions, who or what officer would establish the
18 A. One of the officers from that brigade is always designated, or
19 from these battalions, who was available at that point in time. Usually
20 it would be the operations officer or the chief of staff or the
21 deputy commander of the battalion, and so on.
22 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to look at P7134 with you.
23 And, sir, when you were asked about this document yesterday, you
24 highlighted Mr. Mirko Plakalovic and said you did not consider the
25 document to be a -- to be recorded with precision. Can you explain what
1 you meant.
2 A. Mirko Plakalovic was a soldier of mine. And with a mobile
3 device, he always escorted General Krstic in his vehicle, and he was with
4 him. It was only on the 14th of July when the other units were relocated
5 from the area of Srebrenica to the area of Zepa, it was only then, on
6 that day, that from the area of Srebrenica, he came to the area of Zepa.
7 So this information here about him, that cannot be correct.
8 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to move to P1397 - which should not be
9 broadcast - and I'd like to take another look at it with you so that
10 we're clear of what we're talking about.
11 Now, sir, in cross-examination, you testified as to having seen
12 other versions of this purported intercept which had different text. I
13 think you indicated one provided that the cattle was supposed to be sent
14 towards Krstic rather than towards Obrenovic.
15 I'd like to look together with you at P1663, which also should
16 not be broadcast. This is a report from the ABiH purporting to be dated
17 the 2nd of August, 1995. And if we look at the partial translation, the
18 part that's under zone 2, we have again a conversation between
19 General Krstic, Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel Obrenovic, and it is at the
20 time of 9.50 in the morning, and it is on the frequency
21 245.950 megahertz.
22 Now, the first question I have for you, sir: In August of 1995,
23 was Mr. Obrenovic a colonel or a lieutenant-colonel in rank as is
24 reflected on this document?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Do you have knowledge, sir, of what rank Mr. Obrenovic had during
2 the relevant time-period?
3 A. He had the rank of major.
4 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Now, if we could briefly look at
5 65 ter number 27518. And I think that one is only in the B/C/S. If we
6 could turn to page 6 of the same, this is the financial file of
7 Mr. Obrenovic, at least that's how it's identified by the Prosecution in
9 Q. If we look at the entries here, and I think even English speakers
10 can see the dates of the entries, but could you please read the effective
11 dates that Obrenovic was a major?
12 A. According to this, Obrenovic was a major until the 31st of
13 December, 1995, when he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel.
14 And then there's also the order number there, and again the date, the
15 31st of December, 1995, and the signature of the responsible person that
16 verifies that piece of information.
17 Q. Does this information as reflected in this document accord with
18 your recollection and knowledge of the dates of Obrenovic's various
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, I want to go back to P1663, which again should not be
22 broadcast. You have already in cross-examination told us about some
23 differences in the subject of the conversation, which can be compared
24 from the two documents. I'd like to focus on something you did not
25 mention, which is on page 2 in the English, and it is in the lower
1 quarter of the page in the B/C/S, where Obrenovic is recorded as
2 addressing -- and it says:
3 "Can I talk to Jevdjevic?
4 "K: Sure."
5 And then O says:
6 "Hello Jevdo?
7 Now, we see the reference is to Jevdo. What comment do you have
8 on the use of this nickname, which is different from the nickname in the
9 intercept that was referred to by the Prosecution, and it is the Defence
10 position that it is different from that which is on the audio recording
11 of the same. What comment do you have on the purported use of that
12 nickname by Mr. Obrenovic?
13 A. Two completely different nicknames.
14 Q. And did Obrenovic frequently use or ever use the nickname that is
15 reflected in the document before us now, Jevdo, when addressing yourself?
16 A. Everybody called me that, him included.
17 Q. Now, I want to move to the theoretical ability for both ends of a
18 conversation to be heard on one channel by way of leakage from the
19 headset to the microphone. You said at transcript page 32111 that this
20 was very complicated and required agreement of technical preconditions.
21 Did your answer to Ms. Hasan explore all of the technical difficulties
22 that would mitigate against such leakage resulting in a useable full
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
25 MS. HASAN: That question actually misstates the question I put
1 to the witness and the witness's testimony. In fact, the witness was --
2 testified about complicated and technical ways that two participants can
3 be heard on one frequency, and then we moved on to a very simple method
4 which was via the telephone set and the -- the voice moving into the
5 microphone and travelling through the one frequency, and the witness
6 agreed that that was a simple method by which both participants could be
7 heard on the frequency.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- apparently there's some difference of
9 view of what the evidence is.
10 Could you guide me to the relevant page and --
11 MR. IVETIC: 32111 is the one I have written down, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 32111, there is no question put by Ms. Hasan
14 to the witness. It was questioning by Judge Orie.
15 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, it's at 32112. The question begins at
16 line 7. Well, in fact -- yes, at line 7.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- just one second.
19 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, my mouse is malfunctioning, so I cannot
20 assist in terms of navigating, so I'm grateful to Your Honour and to
21 opposing counsel for assisting.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just re-read what the evidence was.
23 Yes, the answer is not entirety without ambiguity. After the
24 witness had explained what complications there were to make such an
25 intercept, it was put to the witness by Ms. Hasan that the leakage
1 system, if I could call it that, is a very simple explanation. And then
2 the witness praised Ms. Hasan by saying, well, you more or less summed it
3 up nicely. And in -- he then explained that it sometimes is difficult to
4 hear one of the interlocutors. And then he continued:
5 "If anybody wants to listen to technical explanations, I can give
6 them to you. It's not necessarily directly linked to the complex
7 situation in the technical intercepts."
8 That's what the evidence appears to be.
9 Could you please rephrase your question and be very precise as to
10 whether you want a technical explanation on the leakage or the
11 non-leakage intercept method.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. In relation to the leakage scenario presented, could you give us
14 a technical description of the power output levels of the receiver
15 headset as compared to the transmitting mouthpiece or microphone?
16 A. Could you please just repeat that question?
17 Q. In relation to the leakage scenario that was presented of audio
18 leaking from the headset into the receiver's microphone, could you give
19 us a technical description of the -- or comparison of the power level
20 outputs of the receiver headset as well as the ability of the
21 transmitting mouthpiece or microphone to receive sounds.
22 A. From a technical point of view, that is negligible power of the
23 transmission signal that comes from the headset because the weakening is
24 not limitless. It is a negligibly small quantity of the signal that gets
25 to the microphone, and then the microphone can transmit a negligible
1 quantity of signal further on.
2 In order to intercept such a conversation, the interception
3 station has to be very close to one of the transmission relays. There
4 has to be optical visibility, and the antenna has to be directed between
5 the two participants involved in order to use that tiny bit of power that
6 goes from the headset to the microphone that we ordinary users of
7 telephones cannot register at all.
8 Q. Now, you've said that an interception centre has to be very
9 close. Are you able to provide any more precision in terms of the use of
10 that term "very close," let's say, in terms of the optimal range of a
12 A. In the rules for intercepting radio relay and other
13 communications, the planning always is that the interception posts should
14 be as close as possible to the enemy and the enemy front line, because in
15 that way it is easier to intercept these conversations and immerse what
16 comes from their devices, because what is counted on is that the enemy is
17 also operating with devices with less power.
18 If I have already said that at all the radio relay routes that
19 are shorter than 20 or 25 metres [As interpreted], we always used half of
20 the power involved, and we had many such situations, that means that
21 electromagnetic waves in this technical range of 50 kilometres is halved.
22 So the interpretation post has to be very nearby in terms of kilometres.
23 It has to have optical visibility with the transmitter of the enemy, and
24 the antenna has to be directed at the beam between the two participants
25 in the enemy conversation.
1 Q. Sir, you have just been recorded as saying that for "radio relay
2 routes that are shorter than 20 or 25 metres, we always used half of the
3 power involved." Did you in fact mean 20 to 25 metres or some other
5 A. I said kilometres.
6 Q. Okay. My last few questions --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask a follow-up question here.
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes, sure.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm totally lost here, Witness. I understand that
10 the level, the volume level of the sound that reaches the microphone,
11 that that is very low. If it leaks somewhere, I have, however, great
12 difficulties in understanding how that influences the power of the radio
13 signal sent. Wouldn't it be that even if it's very difficult to hear it
14 that it would travel the guaranteed distance on the radio relay path?
15 Because you are -- as far as I understand, you say if the sound is very
16 low, that it would be the same if you would speak very softly. Would
17 that have any influence on where you could intercept that soft speech?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not the category of soft
19 speech. That is just part of the electromagnetic signal that comes from
20 the headset, because the weakening between the headset and the microphone
21 is not limitless; that is to say, there is not a total barrier because
22 electronic equipment is imperfect and the signal weakens from the headset
23 to the microphone.
24 So a small part of the signal that the human ear cannot hear
25 comes from the headset to the microphone, and then through the microphone
1 it goes to the transmission side; that is to say, when I'm speaking, they
2 hear me from out there, and then we they are speaking, again, with a very
3 weakened signal that comes from the headset and goes to the microphone,
4 it again is transmitted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I all understand that, but what I do not
6 understand that if it is then sent over the radio relay path, that it
7 would lose its -- its force, it would lose its power earlier than what is
8 properly and easily detected by the microphone. I -- I still have
9 difficulties in understanding that. Because at whatever level it reaches
10 the microphone, from there, it is sent with the same power as speech,
11 loud speech, soft speech, whatever, then I'm -- have missed the point and
12 could you please explain to me how that happens. And could you also
13 explain to me: You assume that the leakage is through waves, not being
14 sound. If I, for example, would use a system which would allow some
15 sound to leak off that could reach the microphone as well, would that be
16 impossible? These are my questions.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In essence - in essence - what
18 leaks is sound that then further on through the system turns into an
19 electromagnetic wave. And then if you are speaking softly -- or if you
20 are speaking more loudly, if you speak more loudly the other person will
21 hear you better. If you speak softly, then the other person will barely
22 hear you or - or - will not hear you at all.
23 Well, you have seen here. That's why --
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's all fine. But you say it leaks as sound.
25 Now, whether sound is leaking or whether sound is produced by a voice at
1 that point in time, does it make any less sound which is caught by the
2 microphone? And you explain to us that in order to intercept that, if I
3 could say that sound which is relatively weak, you need to be closer to
4 the sending relay station, which I do not understand because the voice or
5 any sound leaking into the microphone would have no impact. The volume
6 of that would have no impact on the path itself, unless you would accept
7 that the strength of the signal would already diminish considerably on
8 short range, but that would affect -- that would affect soft speaking as
10 And I did understand that the -- that the equipment would
11 guarantee for a more or less quality relay over the distance for which it
12 qualifies, which you said could be down at half, but I do not understand
13 why that sound would be more difficult apart from that it is at a
14 different volume that you would need to be closer for an intercept than
15 any other sound that would reach the microphone.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very simply, the power of the sound
17 determines the range or the distance it will go. The power of the signal
18 does that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever a microphone catches is sent at the level
20 of power the equipment allows for. Would you agree with that?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would. If you speak aloud, then
22 you use more decibels, more power, the range is bigger. And then if you
23 speak softly, then you use less decibels, you use less power, and the
24 distance the sound travels is shorter, obviously.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I do understand that the quality of the
1 signal is guaranteed over the distance the equipment is made for. That
2 means soft speaking or sound leaking into the microphone would be equally
3 difficult to hear at the distance of 5 kilometres, 10 kilometres, 20
4 kilometres, depending on the power used in sending that signal. Would
5 you agree with that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sound that leaks from the
7 receiver to the microphone cannot be even called soft speech because we
8 can't hear it. It goes to the microphone as a signal that is inaudible
9 to the human ear. But the microphone is also an amplifier. It amplifies
10 it and sends it to the receiving end. The amplification, however, is not
11 good enough so as to be heard at all ranges.
12 If the interception station is close enough, it can pick it up
13 and it can hear it. If not, then no. That's why there are a lot of
14 intercepted conversations where it says the other speaker is not heard,
15 the other interlocutor is not heard. We've had that in this courtroom as
17 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to that for the time being.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see that we're at or beyond the time
20 for a break. I have one area of -- a handful of questions. Two
21 questions, I think, is the number.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And that would take approximately how much time?
23 MR. IVETIC: I think five minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I leave it in your own hands whether you want
25 to use these five minutes and then to conclude your re-examination or --
1 and perhaps also having consulted with your client.
2 MR. IVETIC: My client has greed to proceed. I don't know about
3 the booths if they have a problem.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Ms. Hasan, how much time as matters stand now,
5 you would need? If no surprises come up in the next five minutes.
6 MS. HASAN: Approximately 30 minutes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Approximately 30 minutes. Then it still may be good
8 to finish this so that Ms. Hasan is better able to organise her --
9 MS. HASAN: Your Honour, just on that matter, I have a medical
10 appointment that's been planned for about two months that I have to make.
11 Now, I'm prepared to stay if you would like me to do the re-examination.
12 We've spoken to the Defence about Mr. McCloskey doing any -- sorry,
13 re-cross, and the Defence has agreed. But I'm in your hands as to
14 whether I have permission to leave or whether I should stay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As long as you guarantee that Mr. McCloskey
16 also stays within the 30 minutes. That's -- that would be more of a
17 concern than any other matter at this moment. If there's a commitment,
18 but ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is aware that Mr. McCloskey has been
21 present during the whole of the examination of this witness, as far as we
22 remember, and for that reason the Chamber does not object to it.
23 MS. HASAN: Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ivetic, if you would finish your
25 re-examination in the next five minutes, then we'd take a break after
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes, sir.
3 If we can have P338. And when we get there, it will be page 43
4 in the English, page 39 in the Serbian.
5 Q. You were asked about the second full -- the first full paragraph,
6 the second paragraph on the page in English, and you were asked about a
7 special problem:
8 "Is the large number of privately owned means of communication in
9 the brigades and lower tactical units the so-called Motorolas which
10 cannot be controlled as well as the undisciplined radio communications of
11 operating staff?"
12 Now I want to ask you, in so far as this refers to the brigades
13 and lower tactical levels, does this apply to radio relay devices or
14 radio devices?
15 A. Radio device, ham radios; not military devices. We used to call
16 them Motorolas in our military jargons, or UKT devices.
17 Q. Now as to radio devices within the Drina Corps, were the
18 frequencies of those changed during the war?
19 A. Those frequencies changed. It depended on the units because
20 those devices were used by a lower-ranking tactical units. Everybody
21 changed frequencies as they planned, and they worked within a different
22 frequency spectrum in comparison with radio relay devices.
23 Q. And in relation to the standard radio device used at the tactical
24 level, what was the range of transmission for, let's say, a RUP-12?
25 A. There's no such thing as a RUP-80. Any other interpretation of
2 Q. RUP-12.
3 A. The range of a RUP-12 that we most commonly used at lower
4 tactical levels was it between 12 -- 2 and 12 kilometres.
5 Q. Sir, I thank you for answering my questions. I have no further
6 questions for you at this time.
7 A. I thank you as well.
8 MR. IVETIC: Then, Your Honours, one thing I do have to put on
9 the record: We looked at P1633, the intercept that had the
10 Lieutenant-Colonel Obrenovic and had the Jevdo nickname. I want to bring
11 to Your Honours' attention that P1662 purports to be the same intercept,
12 again referring to Obrenovic as lieutenant-colonel or colonel and the
13 Jevdo nickname, and also P1661 is again that version of the intercept
14 without any rank for Obrenovic but still using the Jevdo nickname;
15 whereas, P1398 and P1397, which the Prosecution has used, neither have
16 the rank in issue nor the nickname but they all purport to come from the
17 same source, the ABiH, and to be drafted in August of 1995. It has been
18 and remains the position of the Defence that the ABiH doctored and/or
19 fabricated intercepts after the war to suit their needs. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the record.
21 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow
22 the usher.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes past 12.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We very briefly move into private session.
3 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jevdjevic, you'll -- as you may have understood
1 from what happened before the break, you'll now be further examined by
2 Mr. McCloskey.
3 Mr. McCloskey, you may proceed.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY:
5 Further cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
6 Q. Colonel, good afternoon. It's been some time.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. I'd like to take us to 65 ter 04328, and I'll remind us of the
9 August 2nd intercept which was P0137, that's the conversation with
10 General Krstic saying "kill them all" to Obrenovic and the Cowboys. I
11 think we'll recall that Obrenovic said in that intercept that:
12 "We've managed to catch a few more, either on gunpoint or on
14 And with that mind, I hope we'll see this document which should
15 be the day before the intercept. It's a regular combat report from the
16 Zvornik Brigade. It's in the name of -- excuse me, of Pandurevic, which
17 we can't see in the English but I think we can take my -- hopefully my
18 word for that.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Why don't we go to the second page. Okay. And
20 let's go back to the first page.
21 Q. And I would refer us all to the third paragraph under point
22 number 1 -- sorry. Paragraph number 1 -- point number 1, paragraph 3.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MR. McCLOSKEY:
25 Q. And it should say:
1 "In the early hours of the morning, a small group of enemy
2 soldiers stumbled into an mp ..."
3 Is that minefield?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. "... in front of the 7th Infantry Battalion's trenches in the
6 Pandurica area, where a few Muslim soldiers were left dead and wounded."
7 So that roughly corresponds to the intercept of the following
8 day, does it not?
9 A. Yes, it is about the same situation.
10 Q. Was it a practice to leave wounded soldiers on a minefield to
12 A. I personally didn't practice that and I never heard from anybody
13 that something like that happened in other units. It all depended on
14 whether they were accessible. In any case, I never heard about that
15 being common practice.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'd offer that into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter 04328 receives number P7147.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY:
22 Q. You spoke briefly about Zvonko Bajagic and that he was a devout
23 person that was at this dinner that you've talked about, and that he
24 brought fish to the dinner at the Bratunac Brigade. And I can tell you
25 it's the Prosecution's position that there was fish served at the
1 Bratunac Brigade at that dinner; however, as you understand, it's the
2 Prosecution's position that that dinner happened on the 12th. Now, let
3 me read you a question and an answer that Zvonko Bajagic gave in the
4 Popovic trial, and the Prosecutor --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that transcript on the screen?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: If possible. We just dug this up. I didn't know
7 it would be this quick -- I'd be able to do it this quickly. It seems
8 like a long time ago. And this was in March 2009. If we could down,
9 there we go. That's it.
10 Q. We see, and this the Prosecutor, Mr. Mitchell, saying:
11 "Sir, it's the Prosecution's position that we've proven beyond a
12 reasonable doubt that this meeting and the dinner at the Bratunac Brigade
13 headquarters happened on the evening of the 12th of July, and that you
14 are not telling the truth as you sit here today."
15 This is Mr. Bajagic's answer:
16 "You say what you want. How could it have been on the 12th? On
17 the 12th was the day when you were supposed to eat meat. This would be
18 like not eating meat on Christmas or asking me if I eat meat at Christmas
19 or not, if I eat fish at Christmas."
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's at page 32535.
21 Q. So he says that you're supposed to eat meat on the 12th, not
22 fish, I take it, and -- but isn't it very possible, sir, that in this
23 situation, on the 12th, fish was served?
24 MR. IVETIC: I would object. It misstates the evidence both of
25 this witness and the evidence that's being presented from the Popovic
1 case as to it not being the 12th, so ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but let me just -- one second, please. Well, I
3 don't see any misstatement of the evidence. I re-read it. The question
4 simply is: Even if you would expect to eat meat on the 12th, wouldn't it
5 still be possible to eat fish? That's the --
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: The Prosecution's position.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It's the Prosecution's position, and you're invited
8 to comment on that.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be totally against our
10 customs. The fasting period is several weeks long, and then on the 12th
11 we serve meat like we do on Christmas, so it would be completely contrary
12 to our Orthodox customs to have somebody serve fish on the 12th.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. So you're saying it's not possible that you had fish on the 12th?
16 A. I personally did not eat fish. As soon as General Mladic gave me
17 my orders --
18 Q. I'm not asking you --
19 A. -- I went through the door and --
20 Q. I don't have much time left. You've gotta -- I'm just saying, is
21 it not possible that they had fish on the 12th, is that what you're
22 saying, because of your customs?
23 A. I don't have a clue what happened in Srebrenica on the 12th
24 because I left Bratunac at 2300 hours on the 11th.
25 Q. So you would be very surprised if I showed you a video of
1 Zvonko Bajagic hosting General Mladic and others on the 12th of July,
2 Saint Petrov's Day, with a huge tableful of fish. That would surprise
4 A. That would be totally contrary to our customs.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the trial video P01147. I'll try to
7 make this short. It's V000-9266. We'll start at 00:30:09.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Do you recognise the church in Vlasenica?
11 A. No, I was not paying too much attention to the interior, but I do
12 recognise Zvonko Bajagic.
13 Q. Can you tell us where he is in this -- in this shot?
14 A. He is in the middle of this frame and he's holding a cake in his
15 hands together with one of the church dignitaries.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's keep playing.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was at 30 -- 30:09.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll try to skip ahead a bit.
22 Q. Do you recognise the person with the hat?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who is it?
25 A. General Zivanovic.
1 Q. All right.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's keep watching. At 00:31:16.3.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MR. McCLOSKEY:
5 Q. And he's to our back, but did you see Zvonko Bajagic come into
6 this shot?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that's his back facing us now at --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- 00:31:31.1.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. It's the Prosecution's position that that's fish.
14 A. It looks like fish to me too, but I'm not sure.
15 Q. So perhaps Zvonko Bajagic isn't as religious as you thought?
16 A. In the Orthodox faith, on two days in the week, on Wednesday and
17 on Friday -- if that 12th of July was either a Wednesday or a Friday --
18 there are two days a week when non-meat food is served during religious
19 ceremonies. So if the 12th of July 1995 was either a Wednesday or a
20 Friday, and if that was shot on that day, that may be the explanation.
21 That's the only explanation I have.
22 Q. It's the Prosecution's explanation that you are lying, that
23 Bajagic is lying, that Krstic was lying, that Andric lied, that all the
24 commanders that went to this meeting are lying about this for the reasons
25 stated by Ms. Hasan because of what was going on in Bratunac on the 12th
1 of July. Do you consider that perhaps you are just mistaken because you
2 weren't there, or do you want to join this lie for your final time?
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would object to this question as
4 it's phrased, especially the last part. At this point, Mr. McCloskey is
5 harassing the witness. He is compounding the question with asking
6 allowable questions and disallowable questions, and I think it's a highly
7 inappropriate manner of questioning this witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, I think there is some merit in what
9 Mr. Ivetic brings to our attention. If you would adopt the style used by
10 Ms. Hasan, you might be just as effective. And since you are replacing
11 her, I would suggest you do so.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can't even try to do that, Mr. President, but I
13 think we can go on to another topic.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We stopped at 32:02.1.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think no -- has a question been put to the
17 witness at this moment? No.
18 Wait for the next question, Witness.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. Do you have another -- an explanation you want to give?
21 A. I'm not going to adopt your style and I'm not going to tell you
22 if you are lying when you say that I am lying. I'm just --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please refrain from those kind of
24 comments. I think, based on the objection by Mr. Ivetic, we took care
25 that you'll not be harassed or intimidated, if that was the case. Would
1 you please refrain from using that language towards one of the counsel in
2 this courtroom. Just not acceptable.
3 Please proceed.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said what I knew about the
5 interpretation of that possibility. If the 12th of July was either a
6 Wednesday or a Friday, it is possible that the church dignitaries who
7 were fasting on that day were served fish irrespective of the fact that
8 it was still a fasting period. It is a common practice in the Orthodox
9 faith that people eat fish or, rather, they don't eat meat on Wednesdays
10 and Fridays, and this is my only explanation, the only one that I've had
11 throughout my whole testimony.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. Did you recognise this to be inside Zvonko Bajagic's house and
14 not the church property?
15 A. No. At the beginning, you asked me whether I recognised the
17 Q. Okay. Let's go on to another topic.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question.
19 We've seen in the footage a certain ceremony in the church.
20 Would that ceremony be the ceremony of Saint Peter's Day or would that be
21 a ceremony which was held at the last day of the fasting period?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That ceremony is typical of
23 Saint Peter's Day, that is also the day of that church in Vlasenica, and
24 when that is celebrated, there's usually a typical cake which is broken
25 by people in the church.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, do I understand, then, that the -- your
2 recollection that fish was eaten doesn't mean that it wasn't a fasting
3 period but it could well be after the fasting period, for example, on
4 Saint Peter's Day?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 11th of July is the last day of
6 fasting and fasting had to be observed. On all other days, true
7 Christian Orthodox believers, even if it is not a fasting period related
8 to a big holiday, they will always eat fish or at least no meat on
9 Wednesdays and Fridays.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, them eating fish would still
11 allow for the possibility if the 12th of July was -- no. I leave it to
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. All right. There was some discussion about this idea or this
16 process where the sound coming in to the earphone of a telephone can leak
17 or go into the mouthpiece. Is this more likely to happen if you're
18 holding the telephone away from your head so that the earphone is not
19 tightly up against your head?
20 A. That has nothing to do with it.
21 Q. All right. I want to show you a -- a video-clip of
22 General Mladic. He's speaking on a -- I believe it's a RUP device. It's
23 not a RRU-1 or an RRU-800, and I'm not attempting to confuse the two, and
24 I know they're operating differently and they're intercepted differently.
25 This is a simplex machine.
1 But you'll see when you see the video that he is holding the
2 telephone away from his head and he is speaking into it, and we're
3 watching a video and we're hearing the sound of General Mladic speak, and
4 we're also hearing the sound of -- of the person that's speaking into the
5 earphone -- or speaking out of the earphone to General Mladic. It's --
6 it's Colonel Andric, as a matter of fact. So I want to show that to you
7 and see if this is what we're talking about.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have 65 ter 26123a. It should be very short,
9 but ...
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. All right. Well, that's -- we don't
13 have the complete piece, so I think we'll just to have leave it at that.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you play it again.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sure.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: So we just saw that. I don't know if we can
18 still that picture. Okay.
19 Q. Now, if the camera that's filming this can pick up the earpiece
20 that Mladic has got near his ear, can't we conclude that if the video
21 camera picking up the sound coming out of that earpiece, can't we
22 conclude in that case the mouthpiece that General Mladic would be
23 speaking into would also pick up that sound?
24 A. This is a completely different operating principle. It's called
25 simplex. It would mean that while I'm speaking, you're listening. When
1 I finish, then I let the button go, and it is only then that my ear piece
2 can be activated so that I can hear the other side. This sound
3 absolutely cannot be transmitted because simplex communications
4 absolutely imply that only one participant can be heard and nobody else
5 can be heard within that network for as long as one participant is
6 speaking. For as long as he keeps the button pressed, no one else can be
8 Q. I agree with you and I'm not asking about that. If this was
9 duplex where you don't have to say "over and out," that two people can
10 speak at the same time, over each other sometimes, if that's the case,
11 can't the sound coming out of the earpiece go right into the mouthpiece
12 just like it's going into the video machine that we can hear?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: I would object that there's been a lack of
15 foundation laid as to whether this is the same set-up that would be
16 expected from a duplex machine.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's not the -- I think Mr. McCloskey clearly
18 explained that that's not the issue. The simple question is, I think --
19 yes, the objection is denied.
20 The simple question is whether if this camera can catch audible
21 sound at such a distance, whether that would not be possible to be caught
22 by a microphone at a similar distance. That means incoming signals being
23 audible even at this distance with this equipment.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This equipment is constructed in
25 such a way that it is impossible from the signal from the receiving end
1 to go further. Otherwise, you can hear that from here to where you are.
2 Not only I, but you and everybody in the courtroom can hear that so well.
3 It's so audible, so loud. But the equipment is constructed in such a way
4 that on the other side, nothing can be relayed. Nothing can be
5 transmitted. This is a completely different piece of equipment.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY:
7 Q. Yes, and as I said, I agree with that. And that's the safety
8 device for the simplex built in. But when you're speaking on a similar
9 telephone, from a RRU-800, it's a different system, isn't it?
10 A. So what is your question?
11 Q. It's a different -- RRU-800 is different. You can -- you don't
12 have to say "over and out," and it could go from the earphone to the
13 mouthpiece, as I think I've already testified in previous testimony?
14 A. This sound does not go to the microphone through the air. It
15 goes electrically through the interior of the -- of the receiver, and
16 then it is amplified and goes further on.
17 Q. Okay. I'm told we can see the clip, which I think will help us a
18 bit more.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could try to find that clip. Thank you.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. It's the same video. We'll just start
22 from 00:20:30.0.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. I think we stop at 00:20:53.8.
25 Q. And could you hear the -- the voice of the person coming out of
1 Mladic's earphone?
2 A. Yes. That is characteristic of simplex communications.
3 Q. Yes. And so if the microphone and the videocamera that caught
4 this, the -- the -- the -- the mouthpiece of the telephone would also
5 have caught it; correct?
6 A. No. As if we were using this equipment here in court, we would
7 all hear both participants, both interlocutors. There is no microphone
8 there. It's just like these police devices. You had the opportunity of
9 seeing that in town. When one policeman is talking to another one, you
10 never have an opportunity to hear the other policeman until the one that
11 you see releases the button and gives him that possibility. Until he
12 frees the transmission, if you will. Because there is no separate
13 channel for reception and separate for transmission. It's just one
14 channel: Simplex. And it's busy while one person is talking. Once he
15 releases and when he releases the button, it is only then that the other
16 person can speak.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask one question.
18 How do you know that what we just saw in the video that that was
19 simplex communication?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I know what the device is
21 and according to which principle it works. I learned that at school. It
22 is a RUP-12, and it's range from 2 to 12 kilometres, and it's up to
23 1.8 watt and so on and so forth. So I know the principles of how it
24 operates. It operates like police equipment: While one person is
25 speaking, nobody else can speak. While I'm speaking, I cannot hear
1 anyone else. It is only when I release that channel, then I can hear
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understood that. Let me put one additional
4 question: Does the duplex communication look differently from what we
5 saw in the -- in the video?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Duplex is what you and I are
7 involved in now, that we're speaking. We can hear each other as we
8 speak. And simplex is you cannot say anything to me while I'm talking.
9 I simply cannot hear you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question. Could you see in the
11 video that this was simplex and not duplex communication? Could you
12 see --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. Because when
14 General Mladic is communicating his order, then he releases the button.
15 He frees the channel so that he can get a response. Focus on his hand.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Does that --
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: There's no disagreement.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Does the device look differently? I'm not
19 talking about the movement of the hand of Mr. Mladic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a completely different kind
21 of device.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These of are very small power
24 and --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that I'm getting a bit lost, and I'm just
2 verifying with you, Mr. McCloskey, whether I understand your line of
3 questioning well, that it's exclusively focusing on whether you can hear
4 sound coming in on an earphone or at least an ear part irrespective of
5 any other technical aspects of the communication. Is that what you were
6 asking about?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Absolutely. Because I agree with everything else
8 he's saying. We can see it's a simplex, we know it's a simplex, it's --
9 JUDGE ORIE: There's no --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: So, Witness, the only matter that was raised by
12 Mr. McCloskey was whether if you use an earphone in whatever situation
13 whether sometimes what is the incoming sound is audible at some distance.
14 Here I think it is approximately 1 or 2 metres. Audible sound. That was
15 the issue raised. Do you agree that that is possible?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is absolutely possible.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then I would like to -- yes, no, I will
18 leave that for a later moment, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. Sir, if I showed you a photo of a -- well, you'll agree with me
21 that a RRU-1 can be held on the back and is portable like you've already
22 said; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And would you agree with me that the telephone for the RRU-1 is
25 close to or identical in appearance to the telephone that we just saw in
1 Mladic's hand?
2 A. That device does not have a telephone. It just has a
3 micro-telephone combination; however, this here is a RUP-12 through which
4 General Mladic is speaking. That was in the photograph that was shown a
5 moment ago.
6 Q. Sir, I got a photograph of a RUP-1 and the phone to me looks
7 exactly like the one Mladic is holding. Isn't the one right now --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we get it up so we can see what Mladic is
10 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you'll keep track on what you're
11 showing us.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. So here we at 00:20:39.9. This -- let's call it a -- I don't
14 know what you call it. A hand -- a handpiece. It's green on the bottom
15 and black at the top. Is this pretty much the way the phone or the
16 handpiece from a RRU-1 looks like?
17 A. This is not a telephone. This is a micro-telephone combination
18 that is connected to equipment. This is not a telephone. You and other
19 people who don't know this call this a receiver. This is a
20 micro-telephone combination, professionally speaking, and it is attached
21 to this equipment. You see it up here. There's no telephone here.
22 There's just this combination.
23 Q. Is this micro-telephone that Mladic is holding the same
24 micro-telephone -- does it appear be to the same on a RRU-1?
25 A. They are similar but RRU-1 operates in duplex, and you can
1 never --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's not the issue raised by
3 Mr. McCloskey at this moment.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay.
6 Q. You earlier in your testimony suggested that we could do a
7 forensic analysis of the printouts from the Pribicevac forward command
8 post from your machine that you carried around with you and the machines
9 at the Drina Corps. Well, we -- we did that years ago, and I have a -- I
10 have a report that I've provided the Defence, and it has somewhat of a
11 conclusion, and I -- at this point, I'm not sure I want to argue with you
12 about it.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, I don't know if you're interested
14 in hearing anymore about it, but I do have an expert report. I could
15 read in the conclusion or I'm also at -- we'll see what Mr. Ivetic has
16 got to say about this issue.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: I'm inquiring if you have one that is signed? The
19 one that you gave me yesterday is unsigned, so...
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: My guess we do have a signed report, and it is an
21 official expert report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. On the basis of that assumption, yes, I leave
23 it to you, Mr. McCloskey, how you want to proceed. Of course, the
24 Chamber is always interested in receiving whatever evidence that improves
25 our ability to -- to evaluate the evidence.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I will leave that -- yes. If I could try
2 to read the conclusion, and it's 65 ter 32125. And this is -- can be
3 complicated, so I don't expect us to be able to resolve anything in our
4 question and answer, but I think it will be helpful. And at the end
5 where it says "assessment of the evidence." And this is a situation
6 where this person was given the originals of the materials that came from
7 the Pribicevac forward command post and some examples that came from the
8 Drina Corps.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: If I can correct, Mr. McCloskey. I believe that the
11 individual in question complained about the fact that one of the
12 documents was a copy, not the original.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: One -- yeah, that's true. One was a copy.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Yes, did that lead to any conclusion
15 that it could not be examined in such a way as to draw conclusions?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think that's what she said about that one
17 but --
18 JUDGE ORIE: That one, okay.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: And many others, and I think we'll get the gist
20 of this.
21 "Assessment of the evidence. The assessment of the evidence I
22 have found in this case depends upon whether it has to be considered that
23 any ETL-1 printer that was produced with a similar typeface to the
24 questioned and specimen documents submitted could have been used to
25 produce the questioned typescript, or whether only the printers at
1 Pribicevac or Drina Corps Command could have been used.
2 "In the former scenario, the evidence is such that whilst there
3 are similarities between the questioned typescripts (in both original and
4 copy form) and the specimens from Pribicevac printer number [sic] 1,
5 these defects are insufficient to show that it was this printer rather
6 than any other similar ETL-1 printer that was used to produce the
7 documents in question. There is, however, in my opinion some limited
8 evidence to show that this printer was responsible. In addition, there
9 is some evidence to show that the questioned documents were not produced
10 by the printers at the Drina Corps Command whose specimens had been
12 "If, however, only the printers at the two sites could have
13 produced the questioned documents, then the questioned typescript
14 corresponds more closely with the specimens from Pribicevac printer
15 number 1, especially the specimens dated 11/7/95 and 12/7/95, than those
16 from the Drina Corps Command and thus there is in my opinion strong
17 evidence that this printer produced the questioned documents."
18 And she goes on at the end of her report where she has four
19 grades basically for her assessments. One is conclusive evidence, this
20 may be positive or negative; two is strong but not conclusive evidence,
21 this may be positive or negative; three, limited evidence, this may be
22 positive or negative; four, inconclusive.
23 Q. Can you give any brief comment, if you can? It's the
24 Prosecution's position that this is fundamentally saying there's evidence
25 that that the items that came out of the Pribicevac, according to the
1 Prosecution, 11 and 12 July, came from one printer, your printer, and
2 that it didn't look like it was the Drina Corps printer, but it's not
3 conclusive. What's your comment on that?
4 A. In order to carry out any kind of valid expertise an expert,
5 first of all, has to have original documents. Every copy disrupts the
6 letters as typed on the teleprinter, and there has to be a sufficient
7 number of documents in order to carry out a valid analysis; that is to
8 say, copies are absolutely out of the question.
9 Furthermore, one should focus on the following. In the command
10 of the Drina Corps, we had three or four printers, but at the IKM only
11 one. I still maintain and I'm absolutely certain that the teleprinter
12 that was used at the IKM is not -- actually, that those documents, those
13 two documents that you showed me during the cross-examination were not
14 printed there, and I'm certain of that from many aspects. And my entire
15 testimony over the past 15 years has attested to that, starting with the
16 one that I conducted with your investigator Ruez.
17 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I have nothing else.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President I would offer this into evidence.
19 It -- well, I won't -- have another one. It's a signed version, so
20 we'll -- it's being uploaded now, I guess, and it's 32125a.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC: If it's being presented as an expert opinion to the
23 truth of the matters asserted therein, I believe its tendering right now
24 is in violation of Rule 94 bis. The Defence would object to it being
25 tendered through this witness, and we would -- and would request that the
1 Rule 94 bis procedure be adhered, and in this case it would require the
2 Prosecution asking to reopen their case to present positive evidence of
3 their position which has now been succinctly stated by Mr. McCloskey and
4 that we be given appropriate time to -- to deal with the 94 bis procedure
5 and to address that expert opinion that has not been previously
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, primary objection: Violation of Rule
9 94 bis.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, Mr. President, as you -- as we all saw,
11 this witness under the questioning of -- of Mr. Ivetic is the one that
12 made the very unusual comment and basically asked us or suggested to us
13 that we do this test, and that it would show a particular result. This
14 is called kicking the adversarial door wide open, and once do you that
15 then the Prosecution can bring forward this kind of material. I believe
16 in this Tribunal, you -- it is in the discretion of the Trial Chamber
17 under 54 bis and other Rules that in this particular very unique context,
18 you can bring this in and it's a matter of weight. And this has been
19 something that was brought up by them. I -- and so we're filling in the
20 gap that they created. There was no objection to getting this far with
21 it. The objection comes after all the testimony comes in. Any objection
22 should have been before this, not that we have now seen this evidence. I
23 think now it's incumbent upon the Trial Chamber to be able to look at
24 this evidence and study it if they want or cast it aside.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, if I could ask you one question in
1 this context: You're arguing that Rule 54 bis would be the -- would give
2 the Chamber power to order anything. So, for example, is it your
3 position also that we could deviate from Rules of Procedure and Evidence
4 adopted by the Judges for trial just by using 54 bis, for example, to
5 say, well, we -- tomorrow we'll accept a 92 bis statement without an
6 attestation or going to the act of and conduct of the accused? Would
7 that be possible, in your view, under Rule 54 bis?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Not under the examples you just gave. But -- and
9 I'm not suggesting this is the catch all, I would not do that, that
10 would, of course, not be correct, it would damage the Prosecution and the
12 Though I have seen, and I think justifiably so, that 92 [sic] bis
13 has not disallowed portions of particular statements to come into
14 evidence, for example. And that has, I think, been done under the
15 discretion of Trial Chambers in this institution for quite a while, and I
16 wouldn't limit myself to 54 bis. I'm sure there are other Rules and
17 cases that I could get you and to help -- help clarify this issue. But I
18 do think when unique situations like this come up, that it provides the
19 Trial Chamber with a unique ability to do what they think is most fair.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if I could only just add one thing --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, before I give you an opportunity to add
24 something, the Chamber is about to invite the parties to make written
25 submissions on the admissibility of expert reports as presented today,
1 and would mark the expert report for identification for the time being.
2 Does that --
3 MR. IVETIC: That obviates the need for me to make any further
4 submissions at this time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That doesn't fully surprise me.
6 Then the parties are invited to make written submissions within
7 14 days on the admissibility of the expert report in the way it was
8 presented in this courtroom.
9 Now, one final -- yes, a number should be assigned.
10 Madam Registrar.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is the signed one uploaded?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Two minutes is the estimate.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then if you reserve a number for it, and then
15 the signed version will be uploaded soon and is then marked for
17 Under what number, Madam Registrar?
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number would be P7148.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And under what number would the signed version
20 be uploaded?
21 THE REGISTRAR: As far as I understand, Your Honours, it would be
22 3125a, but I kindly ask that it --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that seems to be confirmed.
24 Now I have a final question for the parties: Is there any
25 agreement on the day of the 12th of July, 1995? Whether that was a --
1 which day of the week it was.
2 MR. IVETIC: I have checked, and perhaps counsel can also check
3 and confirm, but I have it as a Wednesday, according to unofficial
4 sources, of course, but ...
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'll check. We haven't checked. I have no
6 reason to doubt --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I should be fully transparent. I looked at a
8 calendar in -- on the Internet which also dates the 12th of July as a
9 Wednesday, 12th of July, 1995.
10 Just on the basis of this assumption, I have another question for
11 the witness.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you argued in quite some detail that the
14 fact that you ate fish during that meeting that that demonstrates that it
15 must have been within the fasting period of which the last day was the
16 11th of July. Now, if the parties would agree on the 12th of July being
17 a Wednesday, would that deprive most of the -- of the compelling
18 character of concluding that it must have been the 11th because you ate
19 fish, because on the 12th, if that was a Wednesday? I do understand it's
20 quite traditional to eat fish as well.
21 A. Yes. At the meeting which was on the 11th, they had fish because
22 it was part of the obligatory fasting. As for the ceremony, personally
23 Bishop Kacavenda was present. I met him, I know him. He was --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking you not whether you ate fish on the
25 11th. I'm asking you whether what you presented to us as a compelling
1 logic that it must have been the 11th because you ate fish, that that has
2 lost quite some of its compelling character because it would be as
3 traditional to eat fish on Wednesday, the 12th.
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm afraid that I do not understand why the
6 fish would still point at the 11th and could not have been eaten on the
8 A. The religious fasting, which lasts for several weeks, ends on the
9 11th. Everybody eats fish on that day. However, the most devout
10 believers, like Bishop Kacavenda and others, also eat fish on Wednesdays
11 and Fridays, as a matter, of course, even outside of the fasting periods.
12 That's why I assume, since Bishop Kacavenda was in the gentleman's house
13 for lunch, that he could eat fish after the 11th only if those -- if that
14 was either a Wednesday or a Friday, and I'm very pleased that you have
15 now confirmed that that day, indeed, was a Wednesday.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Are you aware that you're changing your testimony?
17 Earlier you said it was unimaginable that someone on the 12th would eat
18 fish and that was at the basis of your conclusion that it must have been
19 the 11th. And now you're explaining to us that you're quite happy to
20 hear that the 12th was a Wednesday on which religious people would
21 certainly -- would possibly eat fish.
22 Are you aware that this is a switch, that this is a change in
23 your -- what you presented as compelling logic? I'm just asking whether
24 you're aware of it. A simple yes or no would do.
25 A. I'm not aware of that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: We got the number slightly wrong or the Registry
4 did. It's 32125a.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you said you needed two minutes? Two
6 minutes are over.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's there. Then 32125a is the document now
9 uploaded, the signed version of an expert report which was marked for
11 Mr. Jevdjevic, this concludes your evidence in this court. I
12 would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for
13 answered all questions that were put to you, many questions put to you by
14 the parties, put to you by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home
15 again. You may follow the usher.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And good-bye to
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would prefer to proceed after the break
21 with a few court agenda items rather than to start the testimony of the
22 next witness. If that is not --
23 MR. IVETIC: Then can I ask for him to be released through VWS?
24 Is that -- I understand?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- at least, unless there are compelling
1 reasons to start his testimony today, that's --
2 MR. IVETIC: I would defer to Mr. Stojanovic because he's the one
3 working with that witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is nothing.
6 I would just like to release the witness with our apologies because he's
7 been here since 11.00 this morning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it would indeed be good to apologise
9 to the witnesses on whomever's behalf, there's no one guilty, perhaps,
10 but it's a pity that he had to wait for such a long time.
11 We will take a break, we'll resume at ten minutes to 2.00, and
12 we'll then deal primarily are procedural matters, agenda items. I have a
13 long list.
14 We take the break.
15 --- Recess taken at 1.32 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.50 p.m.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few agenda items I'd like to get rid of.
19 But perhaps before I start with the first item, a matter was raised by
20 Mr. Ivetic this morning about the handwritten words "Mladic" added in the
21 English version of P1657 and P1658. I tried for myself to clarify
22 whether the original B/C/S was part of both of these exhibits. I had
23 some doubts.
24 If the Prosecution would please have a look at it to see whether
25 there is any possible error involved.
1 Then I -- my first item is an instruction regarding a colour
2 version of Exhibit P999.
3 On the 18th of February, 2015, the Prosecution informed the
4 Chamber and the Defence via e-mail that it had located and uploaded into
5 e-court a colour version of P999 tendered through Nermin Karagic on the
6 21st of February, 2013. The Chamber hereby instructing the Registry to
7 replace the black-and-white version of P999 with the colour version
8 uploaded under document ID 0216-6225-A.
9 The next item deals with P6682.
10 On the 15th of January, the Prosecution informed the Chamber and
11 the Defence, again via an e-mail, that it had received B/C/S translations
12 for P6682, a document which had been admitted into evidence on the
13 17th of December, 2014. Further, the Prosecution requested that if the
14 Defence was in agreement, the Court Officer should be instructed to
15 attach the translation and that the document be admitted.
16 I do not know whether there's any objection from the Defence side
17 to these translations.
18 I hear of no objections, and there's always a possibility to
19 revisit the matters within 48 hours. But the Chamber refers the parties
20 to its decision on admission of P6682, which was delivered in court on
21 the 17th of December of last year and the relevant instruction to the
22 Registry contained therein, and this can be found at transcript pages
23 30029 through 30031.
24 Next item is an issue remaining from the testimony of
25 Slobodan Zupljanin.
1 On the 2nd of February 2015 during the testimony of
2 Slobodan Zupljanin, P7090 was marked for identification pending receipt
3 of the official English translation. This can be found at transcript
4 page 30966.
5 The Prosecution informed the Chamber on the 3rd of February via
6 e-mail that a revised translation had been uploaded into e-court under
7 doc ID number 0041-5655-ET and requested that, first, the Chamber
8 instruct the Registry to replace the existing translation with the
9 revised version; and, second, to admit P7090 into evidence.
10 The Defence informed the Chamber on the 7th of February via
11 e-mail that it objected to the revised translation. The Chamber reminds
12 the Defence that it can seek verification of the translation with CLSS,
13 if it still objects to the translation. The Chamber hereby admits P7090
14 into evidence, and instructs the Registry to replace the current
15 translation of P7090 with the document bearing document
16 ID number 0041-5655-ET.
17 I repeat that if there's still other problems with the
18 translation, of course they can be addressed.
19 The next item deals with evidence which potentially overlaps with
20 agreed facts.
21 On the 19th of November, 2014, the Defence filed 92 ter motions
22 for Bosiljka Mladic, Radovan Popovic, Biljana Stojkovic, and
23 Zarko Stojkovic. The Prosecution does not oppose the motions.
24 On the 19th of January of this year, the Chamber asked the
25 Defence to indicate why it deemed it necessary to present evidence from
1 witnesses in relation to facts that have already been agreed between the
2 parties pursuant to the joint submission on agreed facts dated the 4th of
3 June 2013; namely, the accused's whereabouts between the 14th and the
4 17th of July, 1995.
5 The Defence advised the Chamber that there are three items in
6 dispute: First, whether or not the accused had any means of
7 communication by which he was able to command his forces; second, the
8 time of the accused's return to Republika Srpska; and, third, the
9 accused's whereabouts on the 16th of July, 1995. And this can be found
10 at transcript pages 30156 through 30158. Following the Defence's
11 submissions, the Chamber has reviewed the four 92 ter motions and is
12 satisfied that the Defence intends to present evidence that has not been
13 dealt with in the 4th of June, 2013 filing.
14 I move to my next item dealing with the issue remaining from the
15 testimony of Vojo Kupresanin. I should say "issues" rather than "issue."
16 During the testimony of Vojo Kupresanin in December 2014, the
17 Prosecution tendered various lengthy documents which were marked for
18 identification pending agreement between the parties as to the excerpts
19 to be admitted.
20 On the 26th of January of this year, the Prosecution advised the
21 Defence and the Chamber, via e-mail, that it had uploaded excerpts of
22 P6997, P7000, P7002, P7003, and P7005 under 65 ter numbers 08469a,
23 05995a, 02335a, 02337a, and 02345a respectively.
24 On the 7th of February, the Defence advised the Chamber and the
25 Prosecution via e-mail that it did not object to the admission of these
1 excerpts. The Registry is hereby instructed to replace P6997 with
2 65 ter 08469a, P7000 with 65 ter 05995a, P7002 with 65 ter 02335a, P7003
3 with 65 ter 02337a, and P7005 with 65 ter 02345a and admits them into
5 In relation to the remaining associated exhibits for
6 Vojo Kupresanin, the Chamber invites the Defence to respond to the
7 Prosecution's filing of informal communication regarding this witness's
8 associated exhibits no later than the 27th of February.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the time-limit I just said was drafted at least
11 a couple of days ago, and it therefore is extended by one week. So not
12 the 27th of February but then somewhere early March, one week later.
13 Then the next item deals with remaining issues with regard to
14 Exhibit D613 and 65 ter 30651.
15 On the 23rd of January of this year, the Chamber inquired in
16 court whether the Defence had, first, an update regarding the translation
17 of Exhibit D613; and, second, any objections to the admission of
18 65 ter 30651.
19 The Chamber notes that this inquiry was made after a number of
20 e-mails were sent from Chamber's staff to the Defence. I refer to the
21 9th of December, the 16th of December, and the 17th of December.
22 On the 23rd of January, Mr. Ivetic advised the Chamber, and I
24 "It's not one I'm working on, but I think a short deadline should
25 suffice and I'll make sure it gets done."
1 The Chamber then set a deadline for the following Monday, the
2 26th of January, and this can all be found on transcript pages 30502
3 through 30503.
4 As of today's date, the Defence has not updated the Chamber
5 regarding Exhibit D613, nor has it objected to the admission of
6 65 ter 30651. The Chamber interprets the Defence's continued silence
7 with regard to 65 ter 30651 to mean that it does not object to its
9 The Chamber hereby admits 65 ter 30651 into evidence, but a
10 number still has to be assigned.
11 Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 65 ter 30651 will receive
13 Exhibit P7148.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: P7148 is admitted into evidence.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Correction, Your Honours: 7149.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 7149, hereby corrected; that is, 65 ter 30651 is
18 admitted under number P6149 -- 7149. It seems that if you make one
19 mistake, you make many.
20 The Chamber hereby instructs the Defence to upload into e-court a
21 translation of Exhibit D613 no later than the 23rd of March -- I
22 apologise, the 3rd of March, and instructs the Registry to attach the
23 translation to the Exhibit D613.
24 The next item deals with the remaining issue from the testimony
25 of Cedo Sipovac.
1 On the 12th of November, 2014, during the testimony of
2 Cedo Sipovac, D767, D768, and D769 were marked for identification. This
3 can be found at transcript page 28220.
4 On the 3rd of February of this year, the Defence submitted that
5 although it may use these documents with another witness, it would like
6 to tender them through Sipovac to which the Prosecution objected. The
7 Defence then stated that it would consider the admission of these
8 documents through another witness and that it would respond later. This
9 can be found at transcript page 31043.
10 And the Chamber asks the Defence whether it is now in a position
11 to respond.
12 MR. IVETIC: At this moment, we're not. I -- Mr. Lukic, I
13 believe, did that witness. I am transmitting a message to him as we
14 speak, but I don't anticipate that we'll have a response for you today.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'll expect a response from Mr. Lukic
16 this week.
17 Now irrespective of any decision on admission, according to an
18 e-mail of the Defence of the 21st of January, 2015, the translations of
19 D767, D768, and D769 have been uploaded into e-court under the following
20 document ID numbers: 1D19-0739 for document D767; 1D19-0983 for document
21 D768; and 1D19-0997 for document D769.
22 The Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the
23 translations to the corresponding exhibits -- documents.
24 I move now to my next item which expresses a concern of the
1 The Chamber again notes, with serious concern, the reoccurring
2 errors made by the Defence in relation to some of its 92 ter motions.
3 The Chamber will not take the time to discuss every instance but will
4 instead give a few relatively recent examples.
5 First, there are inconsistencies between the numbers of
6 associated exhibits referenced in the body of the motions and those
7 mentioned in the request for relief or listed in the annexes. These
8 errors can be seen in the 92 ter motions for Milenko Karisik and
9 Milenko Zivanovic.
10 Second, the description of the subject areas of testimony are
11 inaccurate and even sometimes relate to a witness who is not subject of
12 the motion. This can be seen in paragraph 10 of the 92 ter motion for
13 Rajko Kalabic, which appears to include content related to
14 Witness Boro Tadic.
15 Third, the relationship between facts, evidence, and protective
16 measures from other cases and this case are not adequately explained or
17 provided in a timely manner. For example, during the testimony of
18 Vinko Nikolic, a belatedly circulated concordance chart contained errors,
19 including references to adjudicated facts that do not exist in this case.
20 Many of these errors are consistent with the kinds of mistakes
21 that are made when pasting content between motions without subsequently
22 reviewing the text. In this respect, the Chamber again urges the Defence
23 to pay closer attention to the accuracy and completeness of its motions.
24 The Chamber also reminds the Defence that primary witness statements or
25 transcripts from previous proceedings, tendered pursuant to Rule 92 ter,
1 are not associated exhibits and should not be listed as such.
2 Lastly, the Chamber reminds the Defence that it should not tender
3 exhibits which are already in evidence.
4 My semi-last item deals with the remaining issue from the
5 testimony of Witness Ratko Milojica.
6 On the 30th of September, 2014, the Defence filed a 92 ter motion
7 for Ratko Milojica tendering his statement and four associated exhibits,
8 and I mention the 65 ter numbers, they are: 1D03628, 1D03024, 1D03625,
9 and 1D04969.
10 On the 14th of October, the Prosecution filed its response not
11 opposing the admission of Milojica's 92 ter statement but opposing the
12 admission of two of the four associated exhibits - namely, 65 ter 1D03024
13 and 1D03025 - as English translations of these two documents had not been
14 uploaded into e-court.
15 On the 1st of December, the Chamber put on the record that the
16 two translations had since been uploaded into e-court. This is to be
17 found at transcript pages 29101 to 29102. The Chamber notes that the
18 Defence did not seek admission of the four associated exhibits in court
19 on the 1st of December.
20 Could the Defence indicate whether this was an oversight or
21 whether the Chamber should consider these associated exhibits to be
22 formally withdrawn?
23 And if no immediate answer would be available, we'd like to hear.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we believe that we
25 will be ready to answer your question already tomorrow.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you tomorrow.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: With the indulgence of the interpreters and all
4 those who are assisting us, I'd like to get a clean slate for myself by
5 reading an oral decision which is the last agenda item.
6 The Chamber will now deliver its decision on the expertise of
7 Ewa Tabeau in regard to the exhumation of the Tomasica mass grave.
8 On the 26th of August, 2014, the Prosecution filed a notice of
9 disclosure of Ewa Tabeau's expert report related to the Tomasica mass
10 grave pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
11 On the 18th of September, the Chamber granted the Defence request
12 of the 8th of September for an extension of time to file its Rule 94 bis
13 (B) notice. The Defence responded on the 22nd of December, objecting to
14 the Prosecution's notice of disclosure of expert report related to the
15 Tomasica mass grave, and the Prosecution replied on the 5th of January of
16 this year.
17 The Defence does not make a specific challenge to the competency
18 of Witness Ewa Tabeau but challenges her reports as unreliable,
19 methodologically unclear, and reaching erroneous conclusions. With
20 respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence, the Chamber
21 recalls and refers to its 19th of October, 2012 decision concerning
22 Richard Butler.
23 On the basis of Tabeau's curriculum vitae, the Chamber is
24 satisfied that she has specialised knowledge in the field of
25 demographics. Such knowledge may be of assistance to the Chamber in
1 understanding issues related to the evidence on the exhumation of the
2 Tomasica grave-site. In this regard, the Chamber also notes its decision
3 of the 7th of November, 2013, recognising Tabeau as an expert, a decision
4 which can be found at transcript pages 18874 to -875.
5 With regard to the Defence request to cross-examine the witness,
6 the Chamber notes that the Prosecution plans to call Tabeau as part of
7 its reopening case. The Defence will therefore have the opportunity to
8 cross-examine her.
9 As for any of the arguments raised by the Defence related to the
10 methodology, reliability, and exceeding of expertise of Tabeau's report,
11 the Chamber considers that these are matters that can be and should be
12 addressed during the cross-examination of the witness. The Defence will
13 also have an opportunity to fully explore the witness's alleged bias in
14 the course of cross-examination or can address it by means of an expert
15 opinion in reply.
16 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94
17 bis that Witness Tabeau may be recalled to testify as an expert witness
18 and shall be made available for cross-examination by the Defence and
19 denies the Defence request to disqualify Ewa Tabeau as an expert. The
20 Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the report and its
21 annexes to the time of the witness's testimony.
22 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
23 Having thanked all those assisting us who granted five additional
24 minutes, we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday,
25 the 25th of February, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
3 February, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.
* The bold and italicised text was previously confidential pursuant to a redaction order of the Chamber. The status of this redaction order has been changed from confidential to public per Chamber's oral decision of 11 March 2015.
* The bold and italicised text was previously confidential pursuant to a redaction order of the Chamber. The status of this redaction order has been changed from confidential to public per Chamber's oral decision of 11 March 2015.
* The bold and italicised text was previously confidential pursuant to a redaction order of the Chamber. The status of this redaction order has been changed from confidential to public per Chamber's oral decision of 11 March 2015.