Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 32121

 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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

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

Page 32122

 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

 9     transcript.

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.

Page 32123

 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

24     says:

25             "They're in a place where Legenda often carried out searches."

Page 32124

 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.

Page 32125

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- 087.

 2             MS. HASAN:  087.  I see that on the record.  Thank you, Your

 3     Honours.

 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

20     evidence.

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.

Page 32126

 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

13     yourself.

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:

24             "Jevdjevic."

25             Obrenovic says:

Page 32127

 1             "Yes."

 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:

 8             "Hello."

 9             Obrenovic then, and this is what you're referring to, says:

10             "(Vitoje?)"

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

Page 32128

 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

Page 32129

 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]

Page 32130

 1             MS. HASAN:

 2        Q.   So, Witness, were you able to hear the voices of all the

 3     participants?

 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

Page 32131

 1     voices.

 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

11     audio.

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

Page 32132

 1     number?

 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

20     transcript.

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

24     version.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have to go to the next page.

Page 32133

 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

Page 32134

 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.

Page 32135

 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

 7     statement.

 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

Page 32136

 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

16     session.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

18             MS. HASAN:  Could we call up 65 ter 27618.  This is an under-seal

19     document.

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.

Page 32137

 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

12     says:

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

19     bottom.

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

25     still."

Page 32138

 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

11     that.

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:

Page 32139

 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

11     communications?

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

Page 32140

 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.

Page 32141

 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

Page 32142

 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,

Page 32143

 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

Page 32144

 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

 6     cross-examination.

 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

Page 32145

 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

18     suffice.

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

Page 32146

 1     briefly.

 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]

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [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,

Page 32147

 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

 4     cattle.

 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.

Page 32148

 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

Page 32149

 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

Page 32150

 1     remember.

 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

11     repetition.

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.

Page 32151

 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

Page 32152

 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

14     issue?

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.

Page 32153

 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

 3     versions.

 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

Page 32154

 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

Page 32155

 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]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 32156











11  Pages 32156-32157 redacted.  Private session.















Page 32158

 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

 6     broadcast.

 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

Page 32159

 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

 9     around-the-clock."

10             Could you identify for us how many levels within the Drina Corps

11     had their own forward command posts according to their formation

12     structure?

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

17     same?

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

Page 32160

 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.

Page 32161

 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

 8     e-court.

 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

19     ranks?

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

Page 32162

 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

23     conversation?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hasan.

25             MS. HASAN:  That question actually misstates the question I put

Page 32163

 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

Page 32164

 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

Page 32165

 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

11     transmitter?

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.

Page 32166

 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

 4     measure?

 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

Page 32167

 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

Page 32168

 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

 9     well.

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

Page 32169

 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

16     well.

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 --

Page 32170

 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

Page 32171

 1     that.

 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

Page 32172

 1     that?

 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.

Page 32173

 1                           --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We very briefly move into private session.

 3                           [Private session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21                           [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

Page 32174

 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

13     mines."

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:

Page 32175

 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

11     die?

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

Page 32176

 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

Page 32177

 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.

13     Impossible.

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

Page 32178

 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

 3     you?

 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.

Page 32179

 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

Page 32180

 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

Page 32181

 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

16     church.

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.

Page 32182

 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

12     that.

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.

Page 32183

 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

Page 32184

 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

 7     heard.

 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

Page 32185

 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

Page 32186

 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

Page 32187

 1     anyone else.  It is only when I release that channel, then I can hear

 2     others.

 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.

Page 32188

 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

Page 32189

 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

 9     holding.

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

Page 32190

 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.

Page 32191

 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

Page 32192

 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

11     submitted.

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

Page 32193

 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

Page 32194

 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

 6     presented.

 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

Page 32195

 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

11     Tribunal.

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 --

21     oh.

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,

Page 32196

 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

16     identification.

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 --

Page 32197

 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

Page 32198

 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

 7     12th.

 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.

Page 32199

 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

10     identification.

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

17     everybody.

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

Page 32200

 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.

Page 32201

 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.

Page 32202

 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

Page 32203

 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

Page 32204

 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

 4     evidence.

 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

23     quote:

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."

Page 32205

 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

 8     admission.

 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.

Page 32206

 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

25     Chamber.

Page 32207

 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,

Page 32208

 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.

Page 32209

 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

Page 32210

 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.

Page 32211

 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.

* 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.

* 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.