Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 37827

 1                           Monday, 17 August 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             No preliminaries were announced.  Could the witness be escorted

12     into the courtroom.

13                           [The witness takes the stand]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Dosenovic.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.  Good day.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that

17     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

18     beginning of your testimony.

19             Mr. Ivetic, I also put on the record that Mr. Mladic is back in

20     court, and you may continue your examination-in-chief and I think ten

21     minutes was what was left.

22             Please proceed.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, sir.

24                           WITNESS:  MILE DOSENOVIC [Resumed]

25                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 37828

 1                           Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

 2        Q.   Colonel, as you heard, we have ten minutes so I'd like to briefly

 3     touch on a few points that we still have remaining in our examination.

 4             In this case, this Chamber has heard claims that both channels of

 5     a duplex transmission of a voice conversation over a radio relay device

 6     were able to captured by either the ABiH southern or northern posts with

 7     the explanation given that when a participant does not press the headset

 8     against his ear, sound from the headset speaker travels to the microphone

 9     and thus is able to be transmitted on the same channel as speech into the

10     microphone.

11             Can you comment briefly on the technical aspects and science of

12     such a claim.

13        A.   Your Honours, they are theoretical claims.  I have never heard of

14     any practical or mathematical proof that that could happen.  The basic

15     thing is that it cannot go that way because there is a filter that

16     prevents the two from mixing, these two channels that is.

17             Secondly, military telephones, all military telephones, are

18     conducted in such a way that on the headset or on the receiver there is a

19     plastic frame and if the receiver is a few centimetres away from the ear,

20     it is no longer possible to hear the speaker well.  And then also there

21     is this transformer that separates the two, not only in terms of entering

22     VF but also every further level at radio relay devices.

23             MR. IVETIC:  If we could now take a look at the document from the

24     southern location, and it should not be broadcast.  It is 1D01081.

25        Q.   While we wait for it, I think we will see it is again a listing

Page 37829

 1     of equipment and listening stations that were at that location.  And in

 2     relation to the first two on the list which are work positions 3 and 4, I

 3     see that both have a parabolic and antenna, an SO 42 converter, and the

 4     various receiver and transceiver devices.  Is such an antenna, receiver,

 5     and converter setup suitable for listening to radio relay devices used by

 6     the VRS?

 7        A.   Your Honours, I see R100.  They could have received VH -- no,

 8     UHF, FM 200 that is.  The splitter, okay.  Then this SO 42, that would be

 9     superfluous because these are lower frequencies.  And this parabolic

10     antenna is not right for receiving.  The parabolic antenna I saw in the

11     photographs are for 2.5 gigahertz.  Whereas devices where the -- that the

12     Army of Republika Srpska had, had transmitters that work from 4.4

13     megahertz onwards.  So I do not see the point of a parabolic antenna,

14     either for 3 or 4, work station 3 or 4.  As far as I could see in the

15     photograph, too, where these parabolic antennae are, picture number 1,

16     this antenna is fixed to the pole and its degree is about 30 -- its angle

17     is about 30 degrees and that shows that it had a fixed route along which

18     it worked, if it did in the first place, and then this participant was

19     not --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I stop you there for a second.

21             Mr. Ivetic, the witness is referring to photographs.  It's not

22     entirely clear what photographs he is referring to.  They're not on our

23     screen at this moment.  And I don't know whether it has been established

24     that what we read here is in any way related to what can be seen on a

25     photograph.

Page 37830

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, he mentioned photograph 1 which I

 2     believe is photograph 1 from his report which Your Honour have marked for

 3     identification and it is on page 54 of the Serbian original.  As the

 4     photographs are only in the Serbian original not in the translation.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see where ... the witness said:

 6             "The parabolic antenna I saw in the photographs ..."

 7             So apparently there is more than one photograph involved.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  There's one on the next page as

 9     well.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So it's a reference to photographs he

11     commented upon in his report.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And then the second issue was whether those

14     photographs are linked to what is described here on paper.  Could you

15     perhaps also pay attention to that when either putting in between

16     questions or later on.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  If I could just see where we left off.

19        Q.   Sir, if you could just, please, complete your answer as to what

20     you were saying about the parabolic antenna before we go on to the next

21     point.

22        A.   I said that in photograph number 1, it is visible that the

23     antenna is fixed to the antenna pole and that its degree is about -- its

24     angle is about 30 degrees and 2.5 gigahertz.  There weren't such devices

25     in the Army of Republika Srpska.  And in view of the positions, the

Page 37831

 1     altitude held by the VRS, the antenna could possibly be in a negative

 2     angle, about 5 degrees.  So in my view, these antenna did not operate

 3     vis-ā-vis the VRS devices.  They were intended for something else, for

 4     receiving something from someone else.  That would be it.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's first deal with the SO 42 converter.  At this

 6     trial, Witness RM-279 on transcript page 13507 of our transcript said in

 7     relation to these converters as follows:

 8             "Our equipment was not professional.  First of all, we had to

 9     raise frequency to 16.000 megahertz, I believe, to use as a zero

10     base-line.  So it's not the same base-line for our devices and military

11     devices.  We had to raise the signal.  These are all makeshift

12     converters."

13             Sir, what is your professional opinion and comment as to what

14     this witness is saying here as for the need to use SO 42 converters?

15        A.   SO 42 converters are supposed to lower frequencies from a high

16     frequency to a lower frequency; never from a lower to a higher frequency.

17     And I need -- I see no need for this kind of converter here.  Actually

18     IC-R100 could just receive RRU-800 and the 200 device.

19        Q.   Okay.  Now, if we can turn to the next page in Serbian and it

20     will be page 3 in English, we will see three other listening posts, 5, 6

21     and 7, connected to two Yagi antennas and a quad antenna using the IC-2G,

22     the M.Kobac, and RUP-12 devices.  Can you tell us briefly, yes or no, can

23     these listening posts as configured listen in on radio relay unit

24     transmissions by the VRS again as configured?

25        A.   I'm sorry, I did not quite understand the question.

Page 37832

 1        Q.   Here for listening posts 5, 6 and 7 we see three devices, an

 2     IC-2G, an M.Kobac, and an RUP 12 which are connected to a Yagi, a Yagi,

 3     and a quad antenna.  Can these listening posts using this equipment

 4     effectively listen in on radio relay transmissions of the VRS, in your

 5     opinion?

 6        A.   In my view, these are devices to be used on VVF and also on

 7     single-channel equipment.  I did not find any material about intercepting

 8     VVF communications so the existence of this equipment does not really

 9     mean much to me.  And also you can see the Kobac set and you can see that

10     it was defective; that is to say that it was not being used.  RUP 12 with

11     an amplifier of 300 watt and this antenna and that was used for different

12     purposes.  20 to 70 megahertz.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I would tender the document at this

14     time.  Under seal.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D01081 receives Exhibit Number D1199,

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  D1199 is admitted under seal.

19             MR. IVETIC:  And one final area to address what Your Honours

20     raised.  If we can have D00308 in e-court.

21        Q.   And while we wait for that, sir, this is another photograph and

22     it is represented to be from the southern location as to whose documents

23     we have been -- as to whose document we have just had on the screen now.

24     And, sir, with respect to this parabolic antenna from that location, is

25     there anything to your prior answer that you need to add or describe now

Page 37833

 1     having the photograph of the actual antenna before us?

 2        A.   Your Honours, this is a parabolic antenna.  In some documents

 3     that I received from the lawyer, I saw that somebody stated that this was

 4     handmade, hand manufactured.  That is impossible.  This is a parabolic

 5     antenna and electromagnetic waves are received here and it further

 6     transmitted through the pole sticking out of the antenna.  The

 7     construction of the receiver on this antenna is quite heavy so good

 8     experts would have to work on these calculations and especially one would

 9     require very good machines to get this antenna in such a polished state

10     so that it can receive and transmit waves, so I doubt that this was done

11     by hand.  Why somebody said that, I do not know.

12             MR. IVETIC:  And Your Honours, for the record, it was at

13     transcript page 13596 that a witness described this as a handmade

14     parabolic device.

15        Q.   Last question.  If you could explain for us, in your prior answer

16     as to the use of parabolic antennas to listen to the VRS transmissions,

17     you indicated something about how a negative -- let me just get the

18     terminology right.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps when you are considering your next question.

20             Witness, do you have any knowledge about what machinery they

21     would have available to polish the parabolic antennas?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these concave dishes

23     or, rather, parabolic antenna, I did not see their actual manufacturing.

24     I'm not sure, however, that they would have that -- well, let's say they

25     could make an antenna, but this receiving part on the antenna for

Page 37834

 1     receiving the electromagnetic waves that are later transmitted, I am

 2     almost certain that they did not have the material required for that or a

 3     man who could do the right arithmetic.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What machines did they have?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know which machines they

 6     had, Your Honour.  I --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  So if you --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- if you say, It requires specific machines to do

10     it, and I doubt whether they had them, you just don't know whether they

11     had them or not.  Is that well understood?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the former

13     Yugoslavia, not a single factory machined these antennae.  All of them

14     were imported, primarily from Siemens in Germany and --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, that's nice as an explanation, but you just

16     don't know what machines they had to produce it themselves if they wanted

17     to do that, isn't it?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, that's right,

19     Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, does it look very much as an industry-produced

21     parabolic antenna?  Is this what you would expect if it comes from a

22     factory?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  This is how you would expect it to come from a

25     factory?

Page 37835

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   Now, in your prior answer, you talked about document --

 6     photograph number 1.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  So I think to have that on the screen, I think the

 8     original photograph is P01649.

 9        Q.   And, sir, in your answer you say:

10             "... that in photograph number 1, it is visible that the antenna

11     is fixed to the antenna pole and that its degree is -- its angle is about

12     30 degrees and 2.5 gigahertz.  There weren't such devices in the Army of

13     Republika Srpska.  And in my view, the positions, the altitude held by

14     the VRS, the antenna could possibly be in a negative angle, about 5

15     degrees.  So in my view, these antenna did not operate vis-ā-vis the VRS

16     devices.  They were intended for something else, for receiving something

17     from someone else."

18             Could you now explain for us what you meant when you said that in

19     view of the positions and altitudes held, there could possibly be a

20     negative angle.  Is what we see here a negative angle?  Could you explain

21     what you meant by that, that comment, sir?

22        A.   I said that such antennae, on the assumption that they can

23     receive something from VRS devices, over here it should be horizontal.

24     We know how high up this is, so because of the altitude difference there

25     has to be a bit of a negative angle because these antenna are very

Page 37836

 1     sensitive.  An angle of 5 or 6 per cent, that's not really a tolerance

 2     that exists.  That's what I was trying to say the first time as well.

 3     Now, who they could receive something from we can only go into

 4     assumptions.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could I ask you if you are expressing

 6     yourself on the angle, angle in relation to what?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the pole and the

 8     antenna make up an angle, primarily looking at this pole that is sticking

 9     out, so then the angle that it comprises with the antenna carrier, that

10     it is to say that it is attached to, the antenna itself.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you mean to say whether it's just above-horizon

12     directed or below-horizon directed or -- horizon, I should say, perhaps.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said it's a bit above

14     horizon.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Now, would you agree with me that the

16     impression you can have from such a photograph fully depends from the

17     angle under which it is photographed?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is how I see it

19     in this photograph.  I used a protractor to measure the angle and it's

20     about 25, 30 degrees.  If I take a zero axis or, rather, this pole at

21     90 degrees.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So I you think -- you do not think that the angle

23     under which is all photographed may deceive any measurement because it's

24     bringing three dimensions back to two dimensions?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the carrier and the

Page 37837

 1     antenna are under the same angle -- I mean, the photograph was taken from

 2     the same place and that is why that tells me that all of these angles are

 3     real ones.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  So I think if you measure the angle on a photograph,

 5     the outcome is exactly the same as you would measure the angle in a real

 6     three-dimensional situation?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   Colonel, I thank you for answering my questions.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, apart from tendering the marked for

12     identification report and any other of the figures that are contained

13     therein, we have no further questions for the witness at this time.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.  Mr. Ivetic, as far as the

15     SO 42 is concerned, you are aware that was quite a bit of a discussion at

16     the time about what is a normal SO 42, how it was used, et cetera,

17     et cetera.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, I believe that --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  All details which were unable, I take it, for this

20     witness, unless the witness has read that portion of the transcript, that

21     it was a rather complex matter which was reduced by you to what looked a

22     simple matter.

23             I leave it to that but just for you to know that that's what is

24     my recollection of the SO 42 discussion with the other witness.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I think the part that I read from

Page 37838

 1     the transcript actually was part of that discussion and --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, a very small part of a very complex discussion.

 3     I just leave it to that for this moment.

 4             Mr. McCloskey, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.  Good morning, everyone, Mr. President.  I

 6     hear the witness, I think, wants to make a comment.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  He's entitled to do so, but before he does,

 8     one second, please.

 9             First of all, in a minute, you'll be cross-examined by

10     Mr. McCloskey.  You find Mr. McCloskey to your right.  Mr. McCloskey is

11     counsel for the Prosecution.  But I do understand that you wanted to make

12     a short comment.  Would you please -- please do.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would only like to

14     make one correction to my testimony from Thursday.  I made a slip of the

15     tongue when you asked me from whom I got the information about the KZU-1.

16     It was not Zivko Dzenopoljac.  It was the man from whom I received

17     command, Mr. Suslevic.  He now works in Travnik in an installation for

18     communications.  I can explain this slip only by the fact that I had a

19     fit of kidneys from the previous night, from 10.00 at night to 5.30 in

20     the morning, and I really suffered a lot.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that may have affected the accuracy of

22     your -- only of this answer or in general of your answers?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my recollection, I

24     made only that one mistake.  I wanted to correct it immediately but then

25     I was under pressure.  Later I was terribly tired and I forgot.

Page 37839

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  For that explanation.

 2             Mr. McCloskey, you may proceed.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And if I could spend a very brief amount of time

 4     on parabolic -- if we could go back to P01649 on parabolic, yeah,

 5     antennas.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey:

 7        Q.   And good morning, sir.

 8        A.   Good morning, sir.

 9        Q.   Yesterday you may recall that on page 37802 of the transcript --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it was on Thursday, not yesterday.

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Oh, there was a weekend.  Yes, thank you.  Thank

12     you very much.

13        Q.   Judge Orie asked you this question when you were talking about

14     these antennas.  He said:

15             "Witness, could you tell us what would be the diameter needed for

16     a parabolic antenna intercepting any signal under 1 gigahertz, what size,

17     therefore?"

18             And your answer was:

19             "Technical calculations are made for that, but in my estimate, I

20     believe that the dish would need to be approximately 2 metres in

21     diameter, even 2.5 metres."

22             So you stand by that, I take it?

23        A.   Mr. Judge, it's 2.5 gigahertz not gigabytes.  Those are two

24     different units of measurement.  I did not make any calculations of the

25     diameter of these antennas, but I know from experience the diameters of

Page 37840

 1     the devices that can operate on up to 2.5 gigahertz and the diameters of

 2     ones we used in the JNA that are from 4.4 gigahertz.  And I did not

 3     present any precise values, I gave you the rough ones.

 4        Q.   Sir, my -- we don't want to be here forever, I just asked you if

 5     you stood by your answer to Judge Orie.  So the -- do you stand by that

 6     answer?

 7        A.   Yes, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   I'm just a lawyer so you don't need to refer to me as

 9     "Your Honour."  Though I understand.

10             Now, I want to take you briefly to a comment that one of the

11     supervisors of the interception sites said.  It happens to be in this

12     case at page 13623.  And he is talking about various things, and

13     intercepting with antennas, and he states on line 18, in part:

14             "We believe that this signal was received by reflection when it

15     bounced off mountains.  In other words, we were not within the beam where

16     this radio relay route would be dispersed."

17             And so is that correct, can they sometimes intercept a radio

18     relay communication that is bouncing off or reflecting off mountains or

19     other large objects?

20        A.   Sir, we have cases here that it reflects from an object on the

21     ground and features on the ground.  However, these beams usually

22     disperse.  Those that receive reflections are those that are reflected

23     from layers of the atmosphere.  They can be received well and they can be

24     separated clearly from these.  Those are the only signals at that

25     frequency that would be reflected from the atmosphere.

Page 37841

 1        Q.   Sir, it was a simple question.  Can sometimes radio signals be

 2     received if they bounce off mountains, not directly in the beam?

 3        A.   Sir, I said such signals cannot be received because they

 4     disperse.  Only if they would hit a large metal table would they be

 5     possibly well received.  The signals reflected from features on the

 6     ground could not be received because they would immediately disperse,

 7     disappear.

 8        Q.   And the witness goes on to say:

 9             "Perhaps to clarify further, in order to receive a quality

10     signal, we had to install a mountain antenna, a parabolic antenna, a huge

11     antenna of some two metres in diameter on the mountain."

12             So here we have agreement between you and the Muslim witness that

13     you would need a big two-metre parabolic antenna; correct?

14        A.   He must have gotten information from someone that he needs such a

15     large antenna to receive the frequencies they estimated were being used

16     by the VRS.  They must have gotten information from someone at which

17     frequencies the VRS worked.

18        Q.   The question is:  You and this man are in agreement about the

19     size of the parabolic antenna needed; correct?

20             MR. IVETIC:  Object to the question.  Needed for what?  Can we

21     have a ruling on the objection, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I think it was clear, but if you would again put the

23     question to the witness, Mr. McCloskey.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, the witness said yesterday at 37802 in

25     response to Judge Orie's question:

Page 37842

 1             "Technical calculations are made for that.  But in my estimate I

 2     believe that the dish would need to be 2 metres in diameter.  Even 2 and

 3     a half metres."

 4             And we remember the context that that was in.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And this was to receive any signal below

 6     1 gigahertz.

 7             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.  That's --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:

10        Q.   And so you both agree about the size of an antenna in this

11     context?  Yes.

12        A.   Well, we agree on the size of the antenna.  But I said, in

13     particular, for each belt you have to make a calculation of the dish and

14     especially the active element of the dish, the thing you see on the

15     photograph as a cylinder.  That has to be calculated with maximum

16     precision.

17             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Could we briefly go into private session.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 37843











11  Pages 37843-37845 redacted.  Private session.















Page 37846

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 6        Q.   And to try to be clear, you have not read any transcripts of

 7     trial testimony from this case from any Muslims, BiH, MUP?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I think I will again object because we're mixing

 9     transcripts and testimony.  As counsel is aware, in this Tribunal, in

10     this courtroom, transcripts are not the only type of testimony and so we

11     need to be rather precise to make sure that the witness understands the

12     question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No, there's no -- if there are other sources which

14     the witness may have read, that's fine.  But Mr. McCloskey is asking

15     about transcripts of trial testimony and that's clearly defined.  And

16     whether there's more evidence, that's a different matter.

17             Witness, did you ever read any transcripts, that is, verbatim

18     reports of what witnesses said in this courtroom in this court, that is,

19     before the ICTY?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, only from

21     Nedo Blagojevic.  No one else, neither from the BH army, nor the VRS.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:

24        Q.   Sir, you just told us -- you mentioned the battalion commander of

25     the Drina Corps.  Did you read his trial transcripts or something else as

Page 37847

 1     well?

 2        A.   I looked at it on a diskette, but only partly, when Jevdjevic was

 3     here.  Only a part of it, not the whole thing.

 4        Q.   So you read part of Milenko Jevdjevic, the commander of the

 5     Drina Corps communications battalion, you read part of his trial

 6     transcript but not the whole thing; correct?

 7        A.   Yes, yes.  I watched.  I did not read.  I watched the recording

 8     of the trial here on a diskette.

 9        Q.   And did you watch the cross-examination of Mr. Jevdjevic?

10        A.   Unfortunately, no.

11        Q.   That is unfortunate.  All right.  How about Veljko Pajic?  Who is

12     that?  Main Staff?

13        A.   I did not meet that man.

14        Q.   So you never reviewed any transcript of Witness Pajic or saw it?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   And roughly how many actual transcripts of intercepted

17     conversations did you review for your report and testimony?

18        A.   I can be sure about ten to 15, not more.

19        Q.   And what units were noted in those intercepts that had received

20     those interceptions?

21        A.   From what I saw, the names are mentioned of officers holding

22     positions in the Drina Corps and the Main Staff.  I once even read a

23     reference to the Bratunac Brigade, the Zvornik Brigade.  I did not really

24     pay attention to the units they were from.

25        Q.   Well, those are the units of the people talking on the

Page 37848

 1     intercepts.  What my question was:  Which unit actually took part in the

 2     intercepting?  Normally, on most of them, it's written on the top of the

 3     intercept.

 4        A.   If I understood you well, sir, you are asking me which unit

 5     organised and practiced the interception of the communications of the

 6     Army of Republika Srpska.  Is that the question?

 7             From what I see from the available materials, it was a

 8     reconnaissance company of the 2nd Corps of the BH army based in Tuzla.

 9        Q.   Well, that's a start, but my question was the actual intercepts

10     themselves.  Did you distinguish the actual unit that had received the

11     intercept?

12        A.   Sir, I wasn't looking for it.  I wasn't interested in whether it

13     was installation 1 or installation 2.  As for the other units, since I

14     was in the 2nd Corps, I knew they had units in the 5th Corps of the

15     BH army, but I didn't have the opportunity to see a single transcript of

16     their intercepts.

17        Q.   So you didn't notice if those intercepts you read were from the

18     2nd Corps or perhaps the state security of the MUP of Bosnia and

19     Herzegovina or perhaps the 21st Division of the Army of the BiH?

20        A.   These transcripts that I told you I've read, they certainly come

21     from the reconnaissance unit of the 2nd Corps of the BH army.  And the

22     first one I read concerning intercepts on the telephone at the very

23     beginning of the war, that was from the MUP, the Ministry of Interior,

24     because from what I could establish, only the MUP dealt with intercepts

25     of the Army of Republika Srpska.

Page 37849

 1             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I note the time, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Time for a break.

 3             Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes when we'll

 4     continue.  You may now follow the usher.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break and we'll resume at five minutes

 7     to 11.00.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, if you are ready, you're invited to

12     proceed.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   All right.  Sir, let's go to your report.

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  It's our number D1187, page 30 in the English,

16     page 43 in the Serbian or B/C/S.  And, yes, this is not to be shown as

17     with most of these things.  Thank you.  Thank you.  We don't need that

18     parabolic antenna anymore.

19        Q.   Okay.  I want to -- I'll read this slowly, it's short.  It's

20     paragraph 10.9.  And you say in your report, and I quote:

21             "The types of devices available to the BH army led me to the

22     conclusion that they were able to monitor all our radio and radio relay

23     communications maintained through RRU-800, FM-200, and through

24     single-channel devices."

25             Now when you say "single-channel devices," is the RRU-1 included

Page 37850

 1     in that description?

 2        A.   Sir, RRU-1 and RDM -- RRU-1 is Yugoslav made and the other one is

 3     Czech made --

 4        Q.   Sir, I'm going to interrupt you --

 5        A.   -- are the only radio relay pieces of equipment that are

 6     single-channel devices and --

 7        Q.   Thank you for answering my question.  But we only have so much

 8     time and the simple answer that you got to was:  Yes.  We didn't need to

 9     know who manufactured them and all that.  That's already part of it.  So

10     I know you're trying your best, but try to focus on the question and a

11     simple answer.  And when you need to explain an answer.  You will always

12     be allowed to do that, I think, almost always in this courtroom.  So,

13     anyway, that's just something to help get us through.

14             Okay.  So you stand by this paragraph in your report, don't you?

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. McCloskey, I'm not quite sure whether your

17     question was answered, does it include the RRU-1?

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I started interrupting him and camouflaged the

19     answer.  That's my fault.

20        Q.   Can you -- Witness, can you answer the Judge's question.  As

21     the -- does the single-channel devices referred to in this

22     paragraph include the RRU-1?

23        A.   Yes, yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:

Page 37851

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And I apologise for making that difficult.

 2             You go on to say:

 3             "Written documents transmitted by the mentioned devices were

 4     encoded so that they could not work out the content."

 5             Now, if written documents were sent via these radio devices and

 6     were not encoded, for some reason someone didn't do the coding correctly

 7     or decided to send it in the open, then they could -- those documents

 8     could be intercepted, could they not?

 9        A.   Sir, everything that that was sent through this equipment could

10     be listened to by those who had listening devices, coded and uncoded.

11        Q.   So a document that was sent through these devices uncoded could

12     be intercepted, you know, by the Muslim forces?

13        A.   Anybody can intercept it if they have devices with the right

14     frequency, Muslim side included.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's clearly distinguish.  Once intercepted, they

16     could directly read it if it was uncoded?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly.

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:

19        Q.   All right.  Now, let's go to 65 ter 32425, and as we're waiting

20     for that, as you have told us, you were the chief of communications for a

21     good while during the war at the 2nd Krajina Corps.  That's right?

22        A.   From the beginning until the end, including a short break in

23     1992, the end of 1992 and beginning of 1993.

24        Q.   And you didn't do any work over in the Drina Corps' zone or over

25     in the area around Zvornik, Vlasenica, Srebrenica?

Page 37852

 1        A.   I never went there during the war.

 2        Q.   All right.  We see this document, and you can see the whole thing

 3     because it's all in the -- in the Serbian.  If we look at the second page

 4     in the English, we can see that it's from your commander, Colonel Boric,

 5     and let's go back to the first page.

 6             We see it's June 27th, 1992, 2nd Krajina Corps, and this is a

 7     general order.  And it states:

 8             "There is reliable information that the HVO forces, the

 9     Green Berets, and foreign military forces are intensively tapping all

10     kinds of radio-relay, radio, and radio-telephone lines.  They are also

11     tapping the lines going through the PTT system.  Thus, by electronic

12     reconnaissance and line tapping, the enemy reveals very important

13     intelligence on combat activities, firing positions of our artillery

14     weapons, manoeuvre, preparations for combat activities, morale of our

15     units, and similar information."

16             And the -- do you confirm that the enemy intercepting all these

17     sorts of communications was a real problem in June 27th -- in June 1992?

18        A.   Sir, concrete consequences, as a result of that, we didn't see

19     any.  However, it's always a problem if information leaks.

20        Q.   Yeah.  Sir, I didn't ask you if they were concrete problems as a

21     result of this.  I just asked you if it was a problem the -- the enemy

22     was intercepting your communications.  Do you confirm that this was an

23     actual problem as Boric says it was, or do you think he's wrong?

24        A.   Sir, orders are issued when it is noticed that there are such

25     occurrences, in order to prevent them from happening in the first place

Page 37853

 1     or perhaps be reduced to a minimum, because there's always people who do

 2     not observe each and every rule.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  What you're telling us is that the document shows

 4     that it was a problem.  Is that ...

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That it was noticed that there are

 6     cases that somebody speaks in the open through communications, but it's

 7     not that it's a massive thing.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, it says "intensively," doesn't it?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.  That's always to

10     be expected.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. McCloskey, I checked with one of my

12     colleagues.  The translation where it says "the enemy reveals very

13     important intelligence on combat activities" might need some attention

14     because what one would expect as logic in this context would be that the

15     enemy receives very important intelligence.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Or that there are investigations that reveal

17     that --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Or -- or --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- the enemy --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, whatever it is, but could you have the

21     translation verified because the understanding of document as it is now

22     creates at least some problems.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, I agree and understand.

25        Q.   Sir, my big -- my point was do you agree that this was a problem?

Page 37854

 1     Do you agree with what this document says?  We can see that the document

 2     says that they're intensively doing this but do you agree?  You were

 3     there, you were the comms guy.

 4        A.   Sir, that was not a major problem and it wasn't that this order

 5     was written on account of that.  There was certain things that happened

 6     and then an immediate reaction followed.

 7        Q.   This document --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's move on, Mr. McCloskey.  It's clear what the

 9     document says.  The witness says that it was -- you are discussing size

10     of the problem rather than whether there was a problem.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:

13        Q.   Was there a significant problem of the enemy intercepting the

14     communications of the VRS in 1995, in June of 1995, in your area, as far

15     as you knew it?

16        A.   From the very beginning until the end of the war, we knew that

17     the enemy and everybody else was always following our communications, and

18     our attention always focused on the prevention of information leaking

19     through our communications.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I would offer 65 ter, the last document,

21     32425 into evidence.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Given what Your Honours have said about the

24     translation, I think we should mark it for identification at this time.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Ivetic, perhaps you are in a position to

Page 37855

 1     already cast a first impression on whether there may be such a mistake or

 2     not.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Unfortunately I can't assist you with my degree of

 4     fluency in B/C/S.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then it will be marked for identification

 6     pending verification of the translation.  And if the translation is okay,

 7     Mr. McCloskey, then we'll further hear from you what the gist of the

 8     message then is.

 9             Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 32425 receives Exhibit Number P7499.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification.  Any need to have it

12     under seal?  Not.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I don't think so, no.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Could we have P07058 on the screen.

16        Q.   And, sir, this is -- the reason I asked you the question about

17     June 1995 is that we have, as you'll see, a document coming up that is in

18     the name of General Mladic from the Main Staff dated 17 June 1995.  And

19     we see that it's addressed to the commanders of the various corps,

20     including the 2nd KK, your corps.  And General Mladic says, in the

21     English, it should be -- B/C/S page 1, it's the first page of the

22     English, three paragraphs up:

23             "According to the information available, the enemy is

24     persistently and very effectively using secret military information

25     obtained by intercepting our radio and [sic] radio relay post, telephone

Page 37856

 1     and telegraph communications."

 2             Do you -- from your knowledge of what was going on at the

 3     2nd Krajina Corps and any study you've done, do you agree with

 4     General Mladic that this was a problem?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Object as to the context of the question.  The

 6     actual third paragraph provides the details which I think are fair to

 7     provide the witness with if they're going ask about what was being

 8     complained about because they are specified in that paragraph differently

 9     than the paragraph that was read by Mr. McCloskey.

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:  He has the full document.  He can take a look at

11     it.  It is a simple question, do you just -- do you agree with

12     General Mladic.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, apparently, let me see.  One second,

14     please.

15             The witness may answer the question.  If you want to give further

16     context and ask further questions, Mr. Ivetic, you have an opportunity to

17     do so in re-examination.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  Sir, once again,

19     could you please repeat your question.  I was reading the document so I

20     did not quite understand.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:

22        Q.   Do you agree with General Mladic that the -- that this is a

23     problem, that the Muslims are getting effective use of information that

24     is being given or received by them?  It talks about sloppy behaviours on

25     the part of the VRS, other things.  Just asking you:  Was this a problem

Page 37857

 1     that you saw in your corps?

 2        A.   Sir, as far as I can see in this document, it is public security

 3     centres that are mentioned so it's not only the military but also the

 4     population.  Communication through communications equipment.  That

 5     information was leaked that way.

 6             Now whether all of that was received, I mean, by the intelligence

 7     organs of the BH army --

 8             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That wasn't the question, whether it was received.

11     Could you please focus on the question.  Do you agree that -- with

12     General Mladic that the enemy is persistently and very effectively using

13     secret military information obtained by interception and whether that was

14     a problem.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It constituted a certain problem,

16     but not of proportions that would affect the combat readiness in the

17     units of the Army of Republika Srpska significantly.  It wasn't only the

18     BH army that was listening.  Others around the territory of the Army of

19     Republika Srpska were listening too, and information was provided to

20     those who needed it.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:

22        Q.   All right.  Let's go on.  Let's go back to your report.

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:  D1187, should be page 33 in the English, page 48

24     in the Serbian.  And this should not be broadcast.  I've got the English

25     correct but, I'm sorry, I don't have the B/C/S correct.  It must a page

Page 37858

 1     earlier.  It's ... there it is, yeah.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And it should not be broadcast.  Oh, yes, you

 3     said that.

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.

 5        Q.   And we see that, here, in your report, you talk briefly about the

 6     southern intercepting site and you, in your first paragraph, note that

 7     it's a mountain.  And you give the distances between various places,

 8     between Vlasenica, Veliki Zep, and other places we've heard.

 9             Next paragraph, you talk about decibels and another topic.

10             And then in that third paragraph, 10.16.8, you say:

11             "There is no optical line of sight between ... the southern site

12     and Zvornik, and there is no optical line of sight between the southern

13     point and Vlasenica.  The logical conclusion of the rule [sic] is that

14     where there is no optical line of sight, there is no interception."

15             Now, where do you get that information that there is no optical

16     line of sight between the southern site and Vlasenica, for example?

17        A.   Sir, this is not mere information.  This is a scientific finding.

18     Radio relay communications.  It would mean if you don't see me, you don't

19     hear me.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  That wasn't the question.  The question was:  On

21     what basis you present that there was no optical line of sight between

22     the two.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no optical visibility.

24     When you take a topographic map, when you monitor the altitude where the

25     facility in the south is and where this other location is, then you will

Page 37859

 1     see that there is no optical visibility and therefore there is no radio

 2     visibility either.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 4        Q.   Yes, and my question was:  Where did you get this conclusion, how

 5     did you come to this conclusion?  Did you do this calculation yourself?

 6     Are you relying on someone else?  You give no citation.  There's no

 7     footnote here.  There's no --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, for the fact of the absence of any

 9     line of visibility or for the conclusion?

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:  The conclusion that there is no line of sight

11     between Vlasenica and the southern --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Because we should clearly distinguish between the

13     fact, that is, whether there is a line of sight, and the other is what

14     conclusions can be drawn if there is no line of sight, but you're

15     focusing exclusively on the first item.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Absolutely.  Thank you.  The other one I will

17     probably leave to others.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:

20        Q.   But this basic, simple line of sight issue, how did you come to

21     it?

22        A.   Sir, what was accessible to me was the radio visibility between

23     the stations south and north and facilities where there were radio relay

24     stations and nodes and so on.  Now that's where this information comes

25     from and I also checked it myself on a map, 1 to 100.000, and there is no

Page 37860

 1     radio visibility, and also I have all the radio relay routes recorded as

 2     such.

 3        Q.   All right.  So is the elevation of the southern site and the

 4     elevation of Vlasenica important in determining whether there is, in

 5     fact, optical visibility between the two?

 6        A.   What's important is the fact whether there is any obstacle

 7     between them and also distance matters.  In this case, there is an object

 8     obstacle.

 9        Q.   Is the elevation of Vlasenica important as one of the things to

10     determine whether there's anything blocking it?

11        A.   Certainly.  If Vlasenica is lower than the obstacle between them

12     and the north installation, of course, there would be no visibility.

13        Q.   Okay.  So tell me, as you worked out your conclusion that there

14     was no optical visibility, what elevation did you give for Vlasenica?

15        A.   I don't know off the cuff.  But you can see on the map exactly

16     what the altitude is.  You can -- with an error of 20 metres minus or

17     plus.

18        Q.   And we see from the first paragraph in this report that you said

19     the southern mountain was at 1326, which is the position of the

20     Prosecution that is the height, but you can't tell me now the elevation

21     that you used for Vlasenica?

22        A.   I don't know off the cuff.

23        Q.   Now, let me then ask you.  You reviewed the report of a man

24     named -- a Serbian man named Rodic, Djuro Rodic.  He wrote an expert

25     report for the Popovic Defence that you have cited.  In this case, it's

Page 37861

 1     at 65 ter 1D05805.  He also had an annex to his report, 1D058 -- excuse

 2     me, 1D00322.  And he did this report back on the 23rd of April, 2007.

 3             Now, since you have -- you'll agree with me you've cited his

 4     report for various things?

 5        A.   I don't know about Djuro Rodic, whether he's a Serb or not.  I

 6     had access to his analysis but without any attachments.  And as can you

 7     see from my paper, in some places I referred to his analysis, to the

 8     facts that are accurate.

 9        Q.   So did you read his complete report?

10        A.   As far as I could read, I think it was entire.  But without any

11     attachments, without annexes.

12        Q.   Well, you cited Mr. Rodic's annex at page 22 in the English and

13     page 29 in the Serbian in your report.  In our footnote, it's called

14     "supplementary material."

15        A.   What's the question?

16        Q.   Sir, did you or did you not review Rodic's supplementary

17     material, his annexes?  We see you citing it in your report.  You just

18     said you didn't.  Which is it?

19        A.   What I received is connected into one, and it's certain that

20     there is another part called "annex."  I didn't say that I didn't read

21     that part but I said without attachments such as schematics, maps,

22     et cetera.

23        Q.   All right.  Let's move on.  Let's go to D1187, your report again.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  This time page 32, the page previous in English

25     and the -- it should be page 46, I believe, in the Serbian.  So let's go

Page 37862

 1     to 46 in the Serbian.

 2        Q.   So we see now we're talking about -- you're talking about the

 3     northern site.  And did you figure out the line of sight between this --

 4     the northern site and Vlasenica and other locations yourself?

 5        A.   I told you I looked at a map on a scale of 1 to 100.000, but

 6     there was no need for me to do that and to draw, in particular, because I

 7     received from the law firm the positions of all these radio work

 8     stations.

 9        Q.   My question again is:  As in what you've testified in the

10     southern site, did you figure this out yourself, line of sight, for this

11     site and the other locations, or did you rely on someone else's work?

12        A.   Sir, not exactly precisely 1 to 100.000.  But when I compared the

13     profiles received from the law firm, I did that precisely.  It's not

14     something I did for the first time.  I made profiles a hundred times in

15     my life.

16        Q.   So you did it yourself.  You didn't rely on Mr. Rodic?

17        A.   Whether these profiles I received were made by Mr. Rodic, I don't

18     know.  I don't think it's written on them.

19        Q.   The question was:  You did this line of sight for this northern

20     site yourself, you did not rely on Mr. Rodic; correct?

21        A.   I wasn't working alone.  I told you I relied on the documents

22     received by the law firm, but I don't know whether they were done by

23     Djuro Rodic or somebody else.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  There may be some confusion.  You said you received

25     documents from the law firm.  Did that include the profiles you are

Page 37863

 1     talking about?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't receive

 3     everything at the same time.  I would receive one piece now, another

 4     thing later.  Not -- not everything in a batch.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I didn't ask you whether you received it at the same

 6     time.  I asked you whether in the materials you received, whether the

 7     profiles were included.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Among other things, once when I was

 9     taking documents, I received also profiles.  But nobody told me who made

10     them.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, did you again, you yourself, do the same job;

12     that is, to create profiles independent from the profiles you had

13     received?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I checked one or two

15     of these profiles.  I told you, I had many profiles myself, hundreds, so

16     I didn't find it necessary to check all of them.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And how did you check the one or two you

18     checked?  Did you do that by constructing your own profile and then

19     compare them or by looking at the profile and then assessing whether or

20     not it would be okay, or in any other way?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the method I used for

22     checking whether it's accurate was by using a thread to see whether the

23     two points can be connected and whether there's an obstacle, whether

24     there's visibility.  That's how I -- that's how I checked the profile.  I

25     didn't check the whole profile.

Page 37864

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  On the basis of what documents?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said you connected the points and established

 4     if there's an obstacle or not.  What did you use to -- in order to

 5     establish this finding?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the map, I would connect two

 7     points there using a thread to see whether there was visibility.  There

 8     was no need for me make a new profile myself.  You can see that

 9     immediately.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you do that with respect to Vlasenica?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Using a ruler.

12             I did it for all radio relay routes mentioned in these documents.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if I could intervene.  We have at

14     line 24, the prior page, the addition of using a ruler which I don't know

15     where that relates to.  In the B/C/S that was used, but it was used in

16     relation to the prior answer, so I don't know that we have in the English

17     the full extent of the witness's answer to Judge Fluegge's question in

18     precisely the same order as it was given.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have received the answer I wanted to receive.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:

21        Q.   Sir --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I still am a bit -- you said you verified two of the

23     profiles, one or two, and you did it not by recreating the whole profile,

24     but you looked at a map and you thought it was okay, using a ruler.  All

25     the others, as you said, you did not verify.

Page 37865

 1             Now, I think the question of Judge Fluegge was:  Was the

 2     Vlasenica profile, had the connection with Vlasenica, was that one of

 3     the one or two that you verified or did you take it for granted that it

 4     would be okay?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I checked the routes about which

 6     they told me there was no optical visibility, which were said not to have

 7     optical visibility.  I didn't check the others.  And that's three or four

 8     radio relay routes mentioned.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's from one to two now to three or four.

10             But let's, Mr. McCloskey, I leave it in your hands.  And what I

11     do not fully understand is that we're talking about connecting one point

12     to another point from a certain elevation.  The other point at a certain

13     elevation as well.  And then to find out whether there's any obstacle in

14     between, an obstacle which, if it is on the top of the mountain, you

15     would expect from natural things rather than buildings, et cetera.

16             Why couldn't the parties agree on that, whether there is such --

17             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I didn't realise it was in dispute.  I

18     actually cut out a whole bunch of questions that I was going ask the

19     witness to demonstrate that for us on the belief that the Prosecution was

20     not contesting that there was no visibility from Zvornik and Vlasenica,

21     but it can be shown.  I mean, the witness can be asked and he can

22     demonstrate.  I think it's --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think you can do it yourself, I mean, and

24     show it to the Court.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

Page 37866

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, what you need is a map, you need the exact

 2     location of the one and the exact location of the other, and there may be

 3     a difference of 20 metres because the elevation lines on the maps may

 4     leave some margin.  And then draw the line and see whether there any

 5     elevation line which goes higher --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  With all due respect, you also need one other

 7     element which is the curvature of the earth.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  So there's another graph that needs to be used.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Only if the distance requires so.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Agreed.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  For short distances, not.  For longer

13     distances, that may be the case, but for the short distances not.  That's

14     a matter -- and it also, of course, depends on how high the mountains

15     are.  If the mountains are 10.000 metres high, then you have less

16     problems with the curve of the earth for certain distances.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Depending what's between them, yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I really do not see why we have to spend such

19     a long time where it seems to be a rather mathematical issue to be

20     resolved between the parties.  The witness is somewhat unclear at this

21     moment in what he did and what he didn't do.

22             Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey.

23             One second.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And, Mr. President, that is the theme of my

25     cross.

Page 37867

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and your focus was to find out from this

 3     witness what he exactly did and what he didn't do.  Okay.  And that's

 4     clear.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 6        Q.   And you've said that "they" told you.  I don't see exactly where

 7     it was now, but you said "they" told you that -- what sites had optical

 8     visibility and you didn't look at those.  When you say "they," who are

 9     you referring to?  Who told you about optical visibility?

10        A.   I don't remember using the word "they," but I wrote exactly here

11     between which points there is no optical visibility, and that is sure.

12        Q.   Sir, you said in line 18, page 37:

13             "I checked the routes about which they told me there" --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Could you please speak closer to the

15     microphone.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:

17        Q.   "I checked the routes about which they told me there was no

18     optical visibility, which was said not to have had optical visibility.  I

19     didn't check the others."

20             So who were you referring to when you said "they" told you?

21        A.   Sir, I say again, I didn't say "they."  I said the points about

22     which I saw from the profiles I received, there is no optical visibility.

23        Q.   All right.  Let's just briefly look back at your document.

24             Now, did you receive Rodic's report from the Defence or did you

25     get it somewhere else?

Page 37868

 1        A.   I already made that statement.  I received all the documents from

 2     the law firm and the information about the resources I got from the

 3     Internet.  Those are my only sources, apart from general knowledge from

 4     various rules, encyclopedias, et cetera.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you receive Rodic's report from the Defence?

 6     That was the question; nothing else.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Don't hold it against me, but if

 8     you include the law firm in that, then, yes.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What you did mean by "law firm"?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Lukic, and

11     the others who work there.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We refer to them as Defence.  You received

13     Rodic's report from the Defence.  Yes?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:

17        Q.   And let's see what's in front of us now where you cited Rodic's

18     report.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We need to go to the next page in the Serbian.

20        Q.   And looking at paragraph what's called 10.16.4, you conclude:

21             "From the radio-relay interception stations [sic] at the northern

22     site, there is no line of sight towards Vlasenica and Zvornik, which

23     makes interceptions of communication on that route impossible.  From the

24     station at the northern site there is optical and radio visibility

25     towards the nodes at Veliki Zep, Cer, and Crni Vrh."

Page 37869

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. --

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Sorry.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Redaction, please.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 9        Q.   For the northern site, did you do the northern site towards

10     Vlasenica yourself or did -- are you relying on Rodic as you did the

11     northern site to Veliki Zep?

12        A.   Sir, I did not do a single complete profile myself.  Only on the

13     map I drew a line using a ruler from one point to another, and I can

14     notice immediately whether there are any obstacles or not.  I am very

15     well-versed in this.  I had done that a hundred times.

16        Q.   Yeah.  Sir, my question was:  Did you rely on Rodic to do that,

17     as you cite him here for this particular paragraph?

18             MR. IVETIC:  I'm going object to the question as being vague.  He

19     went from a specific question to now a vague question.  He has been

20     talking about Vlasenica, Zvornik, Crni Vrh, Veliki Zep, and the last one

21     which I can't think of off the top of my head.  We've heard that the

22     witness did verify some and some he did not.  So if we want to have an

23     answer that will be meaningful --

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection for the argument.  I will try to

25     rephrase it.  I was trying to save a little time.  I think it's evident

Page 37870

 1     from in front of what we're talking about, but I will rephrase it.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Well, it's not.  You say this particular --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please, please, please.  The objection is moot

 4     because Mr. McCloskey has offered to rephrase his question.

 5             Please proceed.

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 7        Q.   And looking at paragraph 10.16.4, looking at the last sentence,

 8     you state:

 9             "From the station at the northern site there is optical and radio

10     visibility towards the nodes at Veliki Zep, Cer, and Crni Vrh."

11             And you cite to Rodic.  So are you relying solely on Rodic for

12     that conclusion or did you do it yourself?

13        A.   No, not myself, not alone.  Based on Rodic's work.

14        Q.   In fact, for your opinion regarding the southern site and

15     Vlasenica, you relied on Rodic as well, didn't you?

16        A.   Correct.  But I checked myself as I mentioned before.

17        Q.   Okay.  And as I think you'll agree with me, the -- as you already

18     have, the elevation in Vlasenica is very important for this analysis, and

19     you've said you checked the map to get that elevation of Vlasenica.  What

20     part in Vlasenica did you use to get the elevation?  What section of

21     town?

22        A.   According to the statement of the commander of the communications

23     battalion who told me at one meeting where the radio relay station in

24     Vlasenica was, but whichever part of town were it to be located, and it

25     wasn't in town, you can't have radio relay communications because there

Page 37871

 1     are obstacles that are much higher, including more than several dozen

 2     metres higher.

 3        Q.   Sir, you just said you had a meeting with who?

 4        A.   On one occasion, I met Jevdjevic at -- in Banja Luka, at the

 5     office.

 6        Q.   In preparation of your report?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Was the Defence with you?

 9        A.   Mr. Lukic Jr. was there; Sasa.

10        Q.   And how long did this meeting last between you, Jevdjevic, the

11     former commander of the Drina Corps communications battalion, and

12     yourself?

13        A.   I wasn't alone with Jevdjevic.  There were other people.  And I

14     don't know all the people from the Defence.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  How long did this meeting last?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About two or three hours.

17             MR. McCLOSKEY:

18        Q.   And was there -- did you see someone taking notes at this

19     meeting?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   And did Jevdjevic tell you where the building in Vlasenica --

22     where the radio relay site was in Vlasenica during the war time?

23        A.   Not specifically, but I asked where his position was.  He told me

24     approximately.  I don't know Vlasenica, but in any case, wherever you

25     placed it in Vlasenica, you cannot have communications.  There is no

Page 37872

 1     visibility.

 2        Q.   Did he tell you it was on the building of the Drina Corps?  Did

 3     you tell you how high the building was?

 4        A.   No, no.  Nothing specific.  He just said it was in Vlasenica.

 5        Q.   So you don't know where in Vlasenica the radio relay node was and

 6     you don't know if it was on a building and you -- or where -- or how high

 7     it was mounted, do you?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   So without those -- that data, how can you figure out line of

10     sight to the southern location?

11        A.   I know for sure in Vlasenica there is not a single feature that

12     would be higher than the obstacle between the installation and Vlasenica.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is the basis of this knowledge?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I passed through

15     Vlasenica.  I know there are no features that would be higher than

16     50 metres, which is the difference in altitude on the route towards

17     Vlasenica.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  When did you pass through?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I passed through before the war.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  All right.  Just --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, I'm looking at the clock.  I think

23     it's time for a break.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Gives you a chance to reorganise your thoughts as

Page 37873

 1     well.  Perhaps you inquire about the 50 metres after the break.

 2             Witness, we take a break.  We'd like to see you back in

 3     20 minutes.  You may now follow the usher.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 20 minutes past midday.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey.

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:

11        Q.   And, sir, just to stay briefly, I hope, with this topic of the

12     Vlasenica.  Now, do you know Vlasenica well enough to know that

13     there's -- in the vicinity of the town it rises as much as 50 metres from

14     the town -- inside the -- the elevations of the town?  Do you know that?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We didn't hear the answer.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Okay.

17        Q.   Sorry, the interpreters didn't hear the answer.  So do you know

18     Vlasenica well enough to know that it rises as much as 50 metres from one

19     end of town to the other?

20        A.   I don't really know that.

21        Q.   And so to get an accurate elevation of the radio relay station,

22     you'd need to know what part of town the radio relay was in, wouldn't

23     you?

24        A.   At any rate, the altitude of the station has to be determined

25     with precision.

Page 37874

 1        Q.   Yes.  And let me read you something that Milenko Jevdjevic said

 2     in this courtroom in response to Mr. Ivetic on February 18th, page 31909:

 3             "This radio relay route between Veliki Zep and the elevation

 4     here, it's called Viselac, above the town of Vlasenica.  In Vlasenica

 5     that's where the corps command was, in the centre of town, and on the

 6     building of the corps command, that is to say, on the roof of that

 7     command building, we had an antenna and equipment.  Whoever it was that

 8     drew this map went here, about a kilometre and a half to the west, and he

 9     thought that we had a relay equipment here but we actually had it here in

10     town on the roof-top, on the roof-top of that building."

11             So according to Mr. Jevdjevic, the radio relay station was on the

12     top of the building in the centre of the town of Vlasenica; correct?

13        A.   I don't know that exactly.

14        Q.   In any event, if the radio relay station was on the top of a

15     building located in the centre of town, you would want to know where in

16     the centre of town so you could determine the ground location, and you

17     would want to know the height of the building in order to know how high

18     up in the air the machines were located.  Both those things would be

19     important in figuring out line of sight.  Correct?

20        A.   Certainly one does have to know exactly what the altitude is,

21     taking into account -- well, if it's over 20 metres, say, a pole, a

22     building, that has to be taken into account, if it's that tall or taller

23     than that.  But below 20 metres, no, when elaborating the profile of the

24     radio relay route.

25        Q.   Okay.  I think we can go on.  Now, let's go to your report again.

Page 37875

 1             MR. McCLOSKEY:  1187, page 46.  Should be in the English --

 2     excuse me.  Page 46 is the Serbian version and English should be 32.

 3        Q.   And we'll note in the English, of course, they did not reproduce

 4     the map so you just -- you can see the reference under the map, under

 5     document number 3, map of disposition of interception stations of the

 6     ABiH 2nd Corps.  We see the actual map.

 7             Now, sir, that's the map that -- isn't that the map that

 8     Mr. Ivetic showed you yesterday?  He didn't show you a part that was

 9     connected to your report.  He just showed you the map perhaps for

10     simplicity, but that's the same map that Mr. Ivetic showed you.  Correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And this is what -- partially what some of the things you said

13     about it at page 37804, line 18:

14             "And this is definitely a map that was part of the documents that

15     were received by the commander of the southern facility, and you can see

16     that certain zones were set there, zone number 1, number 2, going from

17     the left to the right, 1, 2, 3, and 4."

18             If you go on the next page, and line 8, you'll say:

19             "So this was -- you could see that it wasn't done very precisely.

20     On the example of the Veliki Zep node, 1 centimetre on the map is

21     actually 1 kilometre actually in the field.  So when you look at it here,

22     you could see that the stations are at least 2 kilometres away from each

23     other, but that's not true because all of them were actually clustered at

24     Veliki Zep."

25             The next page, 37806.  No, actually, I think that's enough.  You

Page 37876

 1     agreed with me that yesterday you were critical of this map, of its -- of

 2     what it -- of how it was created.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Last week.

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Sorry, last week.  Time.

 5        Q.   So, sir, we -- let me ask you again.  Do you recall - and perhaps

 6     you had a chance to think about this because you heard what I said last

 7     week - do you recall that this map was actually a map that was part of

 8     the -- Rodic's appendix in his report, which is in this record at

 9     65 ter 32891?  Do you remember that?  That's where you pulled this map

10     from?

11        A.   I said that I got the map from the law office and not within the

12     analysis of Djuro Rodic.

13        Q.   But you'll agree with me that you had a chance to review Rodic's

14     full report and you actually cited the annexes in your report.

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   And, sir, this map coming out of the annex that you cited, if one

17     looks carefully at this map and the other maps in the entire record, it's

18     clear, from the Prosecution's view, that this map was actually created

19     and the handwriting on it is Mr. Rodic's, and that is not a map of the

20     Muslim forces.

21             Now taking into consideration that this was a map created by

22     Mr. Rodic, do you want to change your comments regarding this map?

23        A.   I don't change my opinion, sir.  I said that this was part of an

24     order to the commander of this southern facility and I stand by that.

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  All right.  Well, then, I -- having marked

Page 37877

 1     Rodic's reports, Mr. President, we'll decide whether we offer those into

 2     evidence on this point.  But in any event, I will go on.

 3        Q.   Now we've already talked briefly about when written documents are

 4     sent over the radio relay devices, if they're encoded, as you've said,

 5     they could not be intercepted, and if they went out in the free they

 6     could be.  Let's go to -- I want to now show you some intercepts to get

 7     your view on some of these intercepts.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  65 ter 32834.  And this is under seal.

 9        Q.   And, sir, what this is, as you can see, it's from the Army of the

10     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  It's entitled a report, and it's

11     sending the information which in this case is -- are the two different

12     transmissions.  The first one we can see was intercepted on the

13     14th of March at 2151 hours at a frequency of 785.000, and we note that

14     it appears to be a document to the Drina Corps command,

15     Captain Novakovic.  And it about UNHCR convoys, and it's under the name

16     of Mile Maksimovic.  And 785.000, that would be a RRU-800 communication;

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes.  Or FM-200.

19        Q.   Okay.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Now let's go to another document, 65 ter 32833.

21     I'm told it's not there.  If we could get a second, Ms. Stewart might

22     help me.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  When it does come, is it also under seal?

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  No.

25        Q.   Sir, it should be appearing soon.  But you'll see it's a document

Page 37878

 1     that we actually picked up from one of the document collections which we

 2     have an original of.  It's from the Zvornik Brigade.  It's practically

 3     identical, as you can see, to what was intercepted.  And even the time

 4     received is 2150, and the intercept noted time of interception 2151.  So

 5     would you agree with me that the ABiH was able to actually intercept this

 6     communication and get the full document or get the document as we see it?

 7        A.   I do not know on the basis of this document what radio relay

 8     route was used for intercepting this.  As you said, however, if it was

 9     open, then certainly it can be read this way.  Had it been encoded, that

10     would have been impossible.

11        Q.   And the intercept of the previous page does not give the relay

12     route but it does give the frequency, 785.000.  So is it fair to say if

13     this is an actual intercept by the Muslims, then it would show that they

14     were able to intercept at frequency 785.000?

15        A.   Radio relay frequency of 785, that is FM-200 and others, whether

16     it was encoded or not, it doesn't matter.  It can certainly be heard.  If

17     they know how to decode it, fine; if not, they cannot.  But I don't see

18     the frequency here.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Let's go back to 32834 which is not -- that one

20     does -- should not be broadcast.

21        Q.   So I'm sure you see the same text and you see the actual

22     frequency and time at which it was intercepted.

23             Okay.  So just to -- you agree with me it was the frequency

24     785.000, that was where they were, according to the Muslims, picking this

25     up so ...

Page 37879

 1        A.   If that's what they claim, then that's the way it is.

 2        Q.   Well, how could they have faked this?

 3        A.   I'm not an expert in that field.

 4        Q.   All right.  And let's go to the next page in this document, this

 5     report, and the next page, there's a note at the top and it says:

 6             "This same telegram intercepted on 10 kilohertz."

 7             And then it has another long -- this time a long intercept that

 8     says "UNPROFOR" on it.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And could we go to the next page of this

10     intercept.  And the next page.  And the next page.  Okay.  And we see

11     it's under the name of Milovanovic.  Now, let's go to -- and I'll offer

12     this --

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Let's first go to the last page in B/C/S so that

14     the witness has the chance to see it.

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16        Q.   Yes, and there can you see it's Milovanovic.

17             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I will offer this packet in a group.

18             All right.  So now that we've seen that intercept, can we go to

19     65 ter 24784.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I'd like in English as well.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently there's some problem in opening.  Is that

23     the English version which is not ...

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Let's try 65 ...

25                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 37880

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  There we are.

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Okay.

 3        Q.   Sir, here is another -- this is an original Main Staff -- that we

 4     have the original Main Staff document.  It's what we call a convoy report

 5     that we've got from our collections that, as you can see, it closely

 6     resembles the intercept that we just saw, and we note that it -- up in

 7     the left-hand corner under Main Staff it says "text in clear."

 8             What does that mean, "text in clear?

 9        A.   The person who processes the document is the one who says whether

10     it's going to be encoded or not.  We can see here that the person

11     processing the document asked that it not be encoded, that it be open.

12        Q.   So would that mean if the Muslim intercepters are able to enter

13     the beam of this communication, they could get this document as they did?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And so if this intercept is true, the Muslims -- Muslim forces in

16     the intercept that we just looked at, at 32834, said it was captured at

17     frequency 897.000.  That would also then be an active frequency used by

18     the VRS for sending this kind of document; correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   All right.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  So I would offer 32834, which is the intercept

22     report with both the intercepts, and then the document of the shorter

23     intercept, which is 32833.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Can we see the last page of the B/C/S of this one?

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And lastly --

Page 37881

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Oh, I'm sorry.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic asked to be able to see the last page of

 4     this document in the original.

 5             Mr. Ivetic, no objections.

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:  All right.  And then finally the document 24874,

 7     which is the actual UN convoy document that matches that intercept.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 32834 receives Exhibit Number P7500,

10     Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted under seal.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 32833 receives Exhibit Number P7501.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Document number 24784 receives Exhibit Number

15     P7502, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted.  And that last one should also not be

17     under seal.

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the witness raised his hand.  He wants to say

20     something.

21             Please.

22             MR. McCLOSKEY:

23        Q.   Yes, sir.

24        A.   Sir, this document was not sent through radio relay

25     communications of the Army of Republika Srpska.

Page 37882

 1        Q.   And how do you know that?

 2        A.   Because it has a stamp.  And that cannot be sent that way.  Only

 3     by fax.

 4        Q.   Okay.  That's a good point.

 5        A.   Or it was obtained in some other way.

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Let me go to 65 ter 32887.  And we don't have an

 7     English for this, Mr. President, but it is, as you can tell,

 8     fundamentally this -- the same document.

 9        Q.   And, Witness, can you now look at this document and let's look at

10     the end of it.  This is an actual teletype, isn't it?

11        A.   As far as I am familiar with the shape of the lettering, this was

12     typewritten on a typewriter, not a teleprinter.  At least not a VRS

13     teleprinter.

14        Q.   Well, I think we'll leave it at that.

15             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I would offer this into evidence as well.

16             MR. IVETIC:  On this one, I think I will object since we haven't

17     had any, I think, substantive linkage of this to the testimony of the

18     witness.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  This is --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  The witness rightly pointed out that the first

22     document I showed him was a signed and -- a signed document that we

23     received and so this is the same document, as you can tell, and it's the

24     Prosecution's position that this is a teletype.  And so it's directly

25     related to responding to the witness's appropriate comment and gives the

Page 37883

 1     Trial Chamber the kind of information they need when looking at these

 2     intercepts.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  The last section of this document, at least in my

 4     reading of it, is not the same text as was the last section of the

 5     document we just looked at, so I would take issue with that.  I just

 6     glanced at the last paragraph on the last page --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Last paragraph, paragraph 13, Mr. --

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honours, on the previous document which

 9     has now been admitted as P7502.  My quick glance at that does not seem to

10     comport to the text that is contained on this document.  Nor does the

11     signature appear to have the same text that was in that document.  So for

12     counsel to represent that it's the same document is, I think, a

13     foundational leap that we're not at this point --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can have them --

15             MR. IVETIC:  Side by side.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- in B/C/S side by side.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I hope so.

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And, Mr. President, we know an original document

19     gets sent to the teletypist and he will type that into -- we've learned

20     this before, type that in the decoding teletype machine, and they may not

21     and they have not always been identical when we have originals versus

22     what gets tapped into the machine.  But any careful look at this - and

23     I'm sorry we don't have it in English - will show that this the --

24     basically the same --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have --

Page 37884

 1             MR. IVETIC:  There's a difference --

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  -- convoy document --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  There's a difference between basically the same, the

 4     same, identical, we've gone full circle now.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Now we're not talking finger-prints here.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we look at the last page in the B/C/S version

 7     which is on the right-hand side.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  No, the one on the right, sorry.  And then --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and now we would like to go back to the

10     original one to the left-hand side we saw first.  That's the teletyped

11     version.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which is 65 ter 32887.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, and to assist Your Honours, there's the part

14     that starts "napo nema."  That I believe is not present in the version

15     that we are now calling up, so in the large capital --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, let's see ...

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Where is "napo nema"?  It's just --

18             MR. IVETIC:  It's the third line from the end of the text,

19     Your Honours.  It's in capital letters and says:  "NAPO NEMA," and that

20     text is missing from the copy on the left as is --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, whether it's missing or not, it's not

22     legible --

23             MR. IVETIC:  It's not -- it's not legible.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  It's clear -- it's clear that there are a few lines

25     following which have very bad legibility.  To say that it's missing is

Page 37885

 1     perhaps one step too far because the line before "napo nema" seems to be

 2     there.  I see a number, 4889, still being there.  And you can see that

 3     there is some text illegible there.  And then as far as the signature is

 4     concerned, we see that on the -- what is claimed to be the teletyped

 5     version, we see Manojlo Milovanovic, and that's seems to be approximately

 6     the same as what we see under the stamp under the signed version.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Not really.  On the signed version there is two

 8     additional lines of information that are not visible.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, are not visible, not visible, but what is

10     visible --

11             MR. IVETIC:  Yeah.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- seems to be similar.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  And for the teletyped

15     version, we're waiting for the translation therefore it will be MFI'd.

16             Madam Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 32887 will receive Exhibit Number P7503,

18     Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification, pending translation.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:

22        Q.   All right.  Back to your report.

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:  D1187.  Should be page 31 in the English, page 45

24     in the Serbian.  Not to be broadcast, I think, just to be on the safe

25     side.

Page 37886

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have English on the right-hand side of the

 2     screen again.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 4        Q.   And, sir, what I wanted to ask you about is this -- the

 5     paragraph that starts:  "Most of the Drina Corps communications ..."

 6             Which I hope is on the --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It's in the middle of the page.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, it's --

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you.

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 37887











11  Page 37887 redacted.















Page 37888

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 37889











11  Pages 37889-37898 redacted.  Private session.















Page 37899

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 6             We'll resume at quarter to 2.00.  Whether we'll then turn into

 7     private session again, yes or no, is still uncertain at this very moment.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey, you know how you're going proceed or

11     not?  Or did you discuss the matter with Mr. Ivetic?

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We did, and I think we have a general idea aside

13     from chaos which we know is always lurking behind us.  But the --

14     regarding the disclosure, any disclosure issue, the original info report

15     was this phone conversation where we -- Mr. Blaszczyk interviewed the

16     person over the -- Kostic over the phone.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I was mainly interested in how you would

18     proceed in court and --

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Well, the idea was that there's a couple of

20     points which I don't think are really very contested by the Defence that

21     this person tells us in both the info report and the statement that have

22     to do with the authenticity of the intercept.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And you put to the witness.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yeah, and I'm not going to offer the documents

25     into evidence, just the -- but some of the key information in it.

Page 37900

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  That's what we discussed and I can clarify that

 3     there were several information reports and the reference to the statement

 4     only came in the last one which is dated 11 August 2015.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is that substantially different from what is in

 6     the information report?

 7             MR. IVETIC:  The statement, there are some differences, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  There are, yes --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  But that's the statement --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  My question was not whether there are some

11     differences but whether it's substantially different.  But you say on

12     details or.

13             MR. IVETIC:  On details.  I have not gone through it line by

14     line, Your Honours.  We were trying to figure out how to get this going,

15     but I think we can proceed in the manner that Mr. McCloskey has

16     indicated.  That's what I think is the main thrust for us at this point.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's do that.

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. McCloskey.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, so if we could have this statement on the

21     board, 65 ter --

22             MR. IVETIC:  We're in open session.  I don't think if that makes

23     any difference.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I don't -- perhaps since we started in private we

25     should just continue.

Page 37901

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then we'll again move into private session.

 2                           [Private session]

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 37902











11  Pages 37902-37907 redacted.  Private session.















Page 37908

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

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

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

Page 37909

 1             I'm addressing the Defence in this item.  Mr. Lukic, prior to the

 2     summer recess the Defence has informed the Chamber that it had about

 3     40 witnesses left to be called.  We're therefore approaching the end of

 4     the Defence case, and the Chamber hereby sets a deadline of the 18th of

 5     September for the Defence to file any remaining evidentiary motions,

 6     including Rule 92 bis or quater motions, that are not directly connected

 7     to the testimony of the upcoming witnesses.

 8             The Chamber also invites the Prosecution by the same date to give

 9     a provisional indication of whether, what kind, and how much rebuttal

10     evidence it intends to present.

11             We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the

12     18th of August, 2015, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

13                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.12 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of

15                           August, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.