Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12452

 1                          Tuesday, 12 June 2007

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  So good morning, everybody.  Madam Registrar, could

 6    you kindly call the case, please.

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

 8    IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I thank you, ma'am.

10            All the accused are present.  From the Defence teams I notice the

11    absence of Ms. Condon and Mr. Ostojic.  I think that's about it.

12    Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.  Yes.

13            Are there any preliminaries before we bring in Mr. Rodic?  Okay.

14    I understand that some of you at least wish to address the Chamber later

15    on after Mr. Rodic has concluded his testimony, and you will have, of

16    course, the opportunity to do so, as much time as you require.

17            Could you usher in Mr. Rodic, please.

18                          [The witness entered court]

19                          WITNESS:  DJURO RODIC [Resumed]

20                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, to you, Mr. Rodic.  Welcome back.

22            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you for keeping your appointment with us.  I'm

24    sure that we'll finish with your testimony today and so you will be able

25    to go back home immediately after if you so desire.

Page 12453

 1            I'll swear you in again.  Madam Usher is going to hand to you the

 2    text of the solemn declaration.

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Please read it out aloud.  You know what it is all

 5    about.

 6            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

 7    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, sir.  Please make yourself comfortable.

 9            Mr. Vanderpuye was halfway through his cross-examination when we

10    suspended your testimony last time.  He will now continue and finish.

11            Mr. Vanderpuye.

12            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning to you.

13    Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning, counsel.

14                          Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

15       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Rodic.

16       A.   Good morning.

17       Q.   Thank you for coming back.  Mr. President is right; I'm just about

18    halfway through my examination of you, so please bear with me while we get

19    through it.  First of all, I'd like to ask you, did you discuss your

20    testimony or your report with anyone during the time that you'd been away

21    from the Tribunal?

22       A.   No.

23       Q.   And did you speak to anybody regarding the subject matter of your

24    testimony more generally?

25       A.   I meant I didn't discuss that subject during the break, but I did

Page 12454

 1    discuss some arrangements for my travel to Belgrade.

 2       Q.   Now, the last we left off we were talking about a map,?

 3            MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if I could have, please, 65 ter number 1468.

 4            All right.

 5       Q.   Do you see that on your screen, sir?

 6       A.   Yes, I see it.  It's a section of the map of the area that I

 7    worked on.

 8       Q.   If we could just go down to the area of Veliki Zep.  It should be

 9    on the bottom.  There it is.  That's -- that's fine.

10       A.   Yes, yes.  That's it.  That's Veliki Zep.

11       Q.   And now, is this the same section of the map that was shown to you

12    by Mr. Zivanovic a couple of days before you testified last?

13       A.   That is the location of the  station.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

15            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, because I interrupt my

16    colleague.  But I would offer this map to the witness so he could see it

17    much -- more clearly.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you have any objection to that, Mr. Vanderpuye?

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have no objection.  In fact I would just like

20    to identify that for the record, if it has an assigned number other

21    than -- other than what's displayed in e-court.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Madam Usher, if you would please first show it to

23    Mr. Vanderpuye to -- okay.

24            Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.

25            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The end radio relay station

Page 12455

 1    Vlasenica is shown on both maps in the same place.  The frequencies

 2  between the end relay station Vlasenica and Veliki Zep are identical on the

 3  map, 7805.00 megahertz, and 834.250 megahertz.  The location of Veliki Zep

 4  is the same on both maps, so it's radio relay direction R-800 between Veliki

 5  Zep and Vlasenica, between the command of the Drina corps in Vlasenica and

 6  the radio relay knob in -- hub, sorry, in Veliki Zep.  We see SMC direction

 7  to Veliki Zep, but I don't see it on the monitor.  If you can move the map

 8  towards the end point, it's this direction, SMC.  Then move the map to

 9  north-east, but -- but we don't see the full picture, but I know from the

10  map, the full one, that it first showed relay communications, that it's the

11  direction towards Cer, so the 120-channel radio relay axis Veliki Zep-Cer.

12       Q.   All right.  Can you tell from the map that you have in front of

13    you that's just been provided to you whether or not it is drawn from this

14    map that is in e-court now?  And if you can't, that's fine too.

15       A.   Well, on the basis of what I've seen so far, that's the map.

16    That's the right map.  But I would also like to see the one that I

17    analysed, the other directions, Zvornik-Gucevo, and

18    Gucevo-Cer, and Veliki Zep-Bratunac.  I would like to cover them all so I

19    am absolutely sure of my data.

20       Q.   Did you review any map before you testified last other than this

21    map that's now before you?

22       A.   I reviewed this map over two or three days when I came first to

23    The Hague and that's the information I have, the basis on that map.  I did

24    not receive any other information subsequently.

25            This direction going towards Bratunac, RRU-1, it's not so clear on

Page 12456

 1    the monitor, 252.275 megahertz, although megahertz is not written here.

 2    That's one frequency, since there is reception and/inaudible/should have

 3    been two, as on this map.  Then on the same line we see RRU-800 towards

 4    Bratunac with the frequency of 705.00.  I don't see it on the map.  We

 5    should move it to the right.  I suppose that's the other pair of

 6    frequencies, 805 MHz towards Bratunac.

 7       Q.   I don't need for you to compare every point in the map.  I just

 8    want to know, frankly, if you've seen the larger map prior to testifying

 9    the last time -- prior to testifying the last time you were in court.

10   That's the map that's on the computer. Have you seen that total map before?

11       A.   Yes, I believe so.  I believe that's the map.

12       Q.   So before you testified on the last date, you were shown the --

13    the map in total.  And if we could just zoom out for a moment so you can

14    see the entire map.

15            All right.  So prior to testifying last, you actually did have an

16    opportunity to see this entire map; is that right?

17       A.   Yes, yes.

18       Q.   And on that map you were able to see the locations that are

19    indicated for Vlasenica; right?

20       A.   Well, it's not very clear, but I believe it's Vlasenica,

21    Veliki Zep, Cer, Kuce -- Gucevo, and Zvornik.  That is the axis that I

22    analysed.

23       Q.   All right.  So that particular route as divided by those four

24    paths are clearly indicated on this map which you reviewed before you

25    testified last; right?

Page 12457

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   And in terms of their specific locations relative to the

 3    interception posts, those locations are accurate, aren't they?

 4       A.   Last time I stated that the position as drawn on this map, the

 5    position of Vlasenica is not exactly as I stated in my analysis.  Maybe

 6    it's a purely graphic matter.  And the same goes for Zvornik.  They are a

 7    bit different from my analysis and my information:  and the position of

 8    the nodes Veliki Zep, Cer and Gucevo, is the same as far as I can see.

 9       Q.   All right.  Just zoom in on the right-hand side of the map.  Yes,

10    right there.  Could you move that towards the middle please?  Yes.  The

11    location where Cer is.  On the right-hand side in the middle of the map.

12    Is it possible to centre that?  All the way on the right.

13       A.   This is the left side.

14       Q.   Other way.  Yes.  Okay.  Do you see where it says Ka Avali on the

15    right-hand side?  If you could just blow that up.

16            The location on the right-hand side of the computer at this time,

17    that represents the location of Cer, doesn't it?

18       A.   Yes, Cer.

19       Q.   Okay.  That indicates that there is a RRU-800 device that operates

20    on that line towards Gucevo; right?  Do you see -- do you see the number

21    800 on that line?

22       A.   I see 200 and 800 on this, and on the schematics that I had, and

23    according to the data of the Drina Corps, it was the route of -- for

24    RRU-800, Cer-Gucevo.

25       Q.   If we could just go down from Gucevo -- there it is in the middle

Page 12458

 1    of the screen just about, towards Zvornik and if you could blow that up,

 2    please.

 3            Okay, you have to come down a little bit on the screen.  No, other

 4    way.

 5       A.   That's enough.

 6       Q.   All right.  Do you see the line from Gucevo to Zvornik?

 7       A.   Yes, I see this route.  It has one frequency, 123 -- it's not

 8    quite clear.  823.00 megahertz.

 9       Q.   That's a frequency that corresponds to a RRU-800 device, doesn't

10    it?

11       A.   Yes.  It corresponds to the range in which RRU is capable of

12    working on that route.  I don't know whether the transmission is from

13    Gucevo or from Zvornik.

14       Q.   Well, consistent with the path that you analyse which indicates on

15    it that that particular path is -- is communication along a RRU-800

16    device.  Isn't that right?  That's what's in your report.

17       A.   On the route Zvornik-Gucevo, connection was established with

18    RRU-800.

19       Q.   And so with respect to the paths from Zvornik to Gucevo, Gucevo to

20    Cer, Cer to Veliki Zep, and Veliki Zep to Vlasenica, this map indicates

21    all of the correct devices that were in place according to your report,

22    doesn't it?

23  A. Those were devices that were in operation on the route Vlasenica-Zvornik,

24  or vice versa, Zvornik-Vlasenica, and only the Vlasenica-Zvornik and

25  Zvornik-Vlasenica communications took place along these radio-relay routes.

Page 12459

 1       Q.   My question is --

 2       A.   Sorry.  On Veliki Zep, it was possible to connect onto

 3   communications from the Main Staff of the VRS at Veliki Zep, as well as

 4    the connection with Bratunac established with RRU-1.

 5       Q.   My question is whether or not those devices are accurately

 6    depicted on this map as concerns the specific route that you analysed, and

 7    they are, aren't they?

 8       A.   As for schematics, the multiplex devices are missing there, from

 9    which we could see the capacities of these communications.  From the data

10    of the Drina Corps, I know that on the Zvornik-Gucevo route, and an

11    intermediate station existed on Gucevo to Cer, there were 12 telephone

12    channels.  As for the relay devices, it is depicted  correctly

13    in the sense that the route was operated by a RRU-800.  I do not claim

14    that the frequencies used on those routes as depicted here are correct.

15       Q.   I'm asking about the devices.  We can agree on that; right?  That

16    the devices in terms of whether it's a RRU-800 or RRU-1 device along the

17    particular paths is accurately depicted in this map.  Yes?

18       A.   I will repeat.  On the route Zvornik-Gucevo, there were a couple

19    of RRU-800 devices.  On the Gucevo-Cer, there were also a couple of

20    devices RRU-800.  On the Cer-Veliki Zep route, there was a double

21    transmitter, a pair of SMCC devices and on Veliki Zep-Vlasenica route

22    there was a pair of RRU-800 devices as well.

23       Q.   All right.  Now, you didn't have an opportunity to review this

24    particular map until after you'd written your report; right?

25   A.  No. I looked at the map here when I came here. Two or three days before

Page 12460

 1    the 23rd when I appeared here as an expert witness for the first time.

 2       Q.   All right.  So you didn't have the benefit of this map when you

 3    concluded in your report that the ABiH did not have information relating

 4    to the radio relay route that you analysed; right?

 5       A.   No.  That's why I drew some of my conclusions based on the

 6    orientation of the antennas when we intercepted the conversations, because

 7    these antennas from the physical locations of north and south were not

 8    directed towards the facilities that we are talking about here, especially

 9    not towards Veliki Zep where there was a strong concentration of

10    communication links which is visible from the angles, i.e., the azimuth,

11    that were represented in their reports for certain intercepted

12    conversations.

13            It arises from that, and it is only logical, that they simply did

14    not provide for the optimum direction of their antenna system towards the

15    facility that was the object of interception.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau.

17            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecutor has

18    asked the witness if his conclusions would have been the same if he had

19    had this map.  I think this question is relevant only if this map dates

20    from the year 1995, that is, from the relevant times.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  What's your observation on that

22    Mr. Vanderpuye?

23            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think it's a completely invalid objection

24    particularly to the extent that I haven't asked any question based upon

25    that other than whether the witness had the opportunity to review it prior

Page 12461

 1    to drawing his -- drawing the conclusions that were contained in his

 2    report.  My question goes to the accuracy of the report as opposed to the

 3    accuracy of the map.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  One moment.

 5                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau.

 7            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecutor has

 8    asked the witness whether his conclusions would have been the same if he

 9    had had the map, and I believe that it is relevant with regard to the fact

10    whether this map existed in 1995.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  We don't agree with you, Madam Fauveau.  Whether it

12    existed or not in 1995, it's not relevant.  The whole question boils down

13    to if he had this map available at the time he was drawing up his report,

14    his report would have been the same or would have been different.  So --

15    and I think in any case he's now been told that this map doesn't go back

16    to 1995 in any case.

17            So let's -- let's proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

18            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19            Could I have please 5D00123 on e-court, please.  If you could just

20    page down to the bottom of this.  I think there's also an English

21    translation.  Is there a translation that -- it's coming up or ...

22       Q.   All right.  Do you see that in front of you, Mr. Rodic?  This is a

23    report from the --

24       A.   Yes, I can see part of the document, actually.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  One moment.  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

Page 12462

 1            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  May we see the date of this document, please?

 2            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I was just going to page up so that you

 3    could see the date.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you for that, both of you.  We see the date

 5    now, and it's 8/8/1995.

 6            MR. VANDERPUYE:  This isn't being broadcast, is it?  It is being

 7    broadcast.  Okay.  I think we -- I think maybe we ought not to.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I mean, we don't have a hard copy of that

 9    map, and we all think that it will be --

10            JUDGE KWON:  1468.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, 1468.

12            MR. VANDERPUYE:  A hard copy of 1468?

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, please.  Not now, later.

14            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I'll bring it down.

15       Q.   Okay.  Do you see this document in front of you, Mr. Rodic, that

16    it's dated 8 August 1995?

17       A.   Yes.  Yes.

18       Q.   Now, if we could just go down to the bottom of this document.  And

19    at the bottom of this document do you see an area which relates to the

20    locations and code-names relative to the VRS?

21       A.   Yes.

22       Q.   And are you familiar with those code-names and those locations?

23       A.   Well, as for the locations that were of interest to my analysis,

24    I'm familiar with them.  I was not interested in any others.  As for the

25    code-names, they didn't mean anything to me at all.

Page 12463

 1       Q.   All right.  If we could just page up to the first paragraph of

 2    this document.  Do you see in this --

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  For your information, there is no broadcast -- or

 4    was it broadcast?  It was broadcast.  So we have to redact that part

 5    because it shows the site, one of the sites.

 6            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, it does.  Thank you.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Just leave it in our hands.  We'll deal with that.

 8    Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 9            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10       Q.   Now, this document is in fact an order, isn't it?

11       A.   Yes.  That's what it says.  The radio surveillance order.

12       Q.   And there's a specific instruction to the radio intercept units to

13    direct their antennas towards Zvornik, Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, and

14    Srebrenica, Bratunac and Vlasenica.  Do you see that, corresponding

15    frequencies?

16       A.   I can see that, but I cannot interpret the same way you are doing

17    it.  It says here that radio surveillance should be carried out on the

18    frequencies 784.700 megahertz, Zvornik-Vlasenica-Han Pijesak.  That's one

19    frequency and these are three facilities, or three radio relay axes.  I am

20    not able to say about this radio frequency Zvornik, Vlasenica and

21    Han Pijesak are geographic at different coordinates.  In other words, I

22    cannot tie this frequency either to Zvornik or to Vlasenica or to

23    Han Pijesak, and especially in view of the light where Han Pijesak is.

24    According to what I have Han Pijesak is a place between Vlasenica and Crna

25    Rijeka and Veliki Zep, and I don't have Han Pijesak in my analysis because

Page 12464

 1    as far as I know no radio communication worked there.

 2            The second frequency, 654.000 megahertz, it says the radio

 3    surveillance should be done on route Srebrenica-Bratunac-Vlasenica.

 4            As radio relay person, when I take this territory into

 5    consideration, if the person who issued this order, that thought that this

 6    was a communication that was established, I did not analyse it, but I can

 7    confirm that due to the nature of the obstacles, the geographical

 8    obstacles -- obstacles, this radio relay route cannot function as such.

 9    In my view, this is a very undefined order, very vague order.  One

10    frequency with two routes and three facilities, it is very dubious as to

11    which route would this frequency relate to.

12            This is my approach.  I'm not entering into the matter of the

13    style of order issuing and the way the orders were drafted in the BiH

14    army.  I'm approaching the subject from the point of view of a radio relay

15    expert.

16       Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.  Now, your analysis of the radio

17    relay route in question, from Vlasenica to Zvornik, was based upon a

18    report that you looked at, which was dated in 1993; correct?

19       A.   Can you give me the number, please?

20       Q.   The number is 04314791.  You have it right there in front of you.

21    Do you see it?

22       A.   Yes, I've found it in the attachments 12 and 13.  This is a report

23    of the Drina Corps command to the Main Staff concerning the radio relay

24    communications.  They tell the Drina Corps, and the date is 2nd October

25    1993.

Page 12465

 1       Q.   All right.  In fact, one of the frequencies that's referred to in

 2    that document corresponds to the operation of a RRU-800 device between

 3    Vlasenica and Veliki Zep.  That's under Article 2 in that document; right?

 4       A.   Under item 2 in the document, as part of the attachment 12, so,

 5    it deals with the work and the time route Veliki Zep, 24-channel, right,

 6    the direction Veliki Zep, the Drina Corps, i.e., Vlasenica.

 7       Q.   All right.  And one of the corresponding frequencies on that path

 8    is 680 megahertz; right?

 9       A.   Yes, 680 megahertz, yes.

10       Q.   Now, if I could have P02822 in e-court, please.

11            MR. VANDERPUYE:  We're not broadcasting, are we?

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Madam Usher -- Madam Registrar?  Okay.

13            MR. VANDERPUYE:

14       Q.   All right.  First you see the date of this document.  This is 18th

15    November 1993.

16       A.   Yes, 18th.

17       Q.   And you can see this is a document that originated in the southern

18    site, or at least refers to the southern site; right?

19       A.   Yes, the southern site, yes.

20       Q.   If I could please go to -- it's the ERN number is -- ends 649, so

21    six pages forward.  If we could go down to the bottom of the page.

22            Now, with reference to this document, sir, do you see an

23    indication in the document as to the frequencies that are active?  Well,

24    maybe I can direct your attention to it.  In the document, you see in the

25    direction of Vlasenica, an azimuth of 115 degrees.  Do you see that -- do

Page 12466

 1    you see that on that document?

 2       A.   Yes, above the table.

 3       Q.   And you see that one of the active frequencies within the range of

 4    the operating RRU-800 device is 680.  That's on the left column, second

 5    from the bottom.

 6       A.   Yes, yes.

 7       Q.   According to your information, based upon the 1993 Drina Corps

 8    order, that call responds exactly to the frequency that was in operation

 9    along that specific route; right?

10       A.   That is the frequency.

11       Q.   And --

12       A.   The only thing that is missing is the fact that there were two

13    frequencies on the route from Vlasenica to Veliki Zep or from Veliki Zep

14    to Vlasenica.  So this is not very well-defined.

15            The second undefined thing is whether this is from Veliki Zep.

16    I'm talking about the document that is in front of me.

17            In the document that I used, that frequency was from Veliki Zep

18    towards Vlasenica.

19       Q.   All right.  Well, what's depicted on this particular document is

20    that it's from that direction and it corresponds to the frequency that you

21    say was in operation based upon a 1993 Drina Corps order; correct?

22       A.   Correct.  According to the frequency plan, this frequency was

23    operational from Veliki Zep towards Vlasenica.  This was according to a

24    Drina Corps order.  You're right.

25       Q.   So in 1995, it's apparent that the ABiH had information concerning

Page 12467

 1    the frequencies in operation that you claim were in operation since 1993,

 2    at least along that particular path.  Isn't that true?

 3    A.  For this particular frequency, I would say that that is the case, yes.

 4       Q.   And did none of the documents that you analysed concerning the

 5    intercepts that you looked at actually contained that specific frequency?

 6    Isn't that true?  In 1995.

 7       A.   True. But my calculation shows that they could not, here at the

 8    southern site, irrespective of the frequency, not even with the equipment

 9    they had, due to the relation of the angles of the radiation diagrams –

10    they could not intercept any conversations on that frequency.

11    Look at my calculation, please.

12       Q.   Your conclusion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the ABiH had

13    the information concerning an active frequency since 1993 that you claim

14    was in effect and in operation in 1995, and yet not one intercept that you

15    examined in relation to your analysis corresponds to a frequency that

16    they've known about for two years.  That's your testimony?  Is that what

17    your conclusion is?

18       A.   Based on the documents that I reviewed, that I had at my disposal,

19    that would be the case, which I confirm.  No document that I reviewed with

20    regard to this frequency --

21       Q.   All right.  This document wasn't one of the documents you reviewed

22    before you made your report.  Fair to say?

23       A.   No.

24       Q.   In fact, during the course of preparing your report you came

25    across no document that actually indicates that the frequencies you

Page 12468

 1    believed to have been in operation in 1995 were those frequencies that

 2    were in operation in 1993; isn't that true?

 3       A.   I reviewed the documents that are specified in my analysis.

 4       Q.   And there's no document specified in your analysis establishing

 5    the --

 6            JUDGE KWON:  Can I interrupt you for a minute?  It's a problem of

 7    a double-ended question, the previous series of questions.  You asked this

 8    document was wasn't one of the documents, and at the end you added, "Fair

 9    to say?"  The witness said no.  No to what?

10            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Fair enough.  Thank you.  Thank you,

11    Judge.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Judge Kwon.

13            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Judge Kwon.

14       Q.   This was not a document that you reviewed prior to preparing your

15    testimony?

16       A.   No.

17       Q.   I'm sorry, I didn't hear the --

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  He said ne.  I could hear him clearly say ne.

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:

20       Q.   And the only document that you were able to find concerning the

21    frequencies that were in operation in 1995 is in fact a document that is

22    dated in 1993.

23       A.   When it comes to the documents originating from the Drina Corps,

24    the answer would be yes.

25       Q.   You've reviewed no document or seen any document establishing what

Page 12469

 1    the frequencies in operation were in 1995 that's actually dated in 1995?

 2       A.   When it comes to the frequency, the answer would be no.  When

 3    we're talking about frequencies.

 4       Q.   You've reviewed no document prior to preparing your report which

 5    indicates that the frequencies were not changed between 1993 and 1995?

 6       A.   For the radio relay connections, I didn't.  As for the other types

 7    of connections, I saw a number of documents regarding various radio

 8    systems that changed very often.

 9       Q.   And part of your analysis you reviewed the technical aspects of

10    the equipment that was used by the ABiH; right?

11       A.   What I could collect as data, yes, and what I considered

12    sufficient for the level of the analysis that I was involved in.

13       Q.   And as part of your review of the technical aspects of the

14    equipment, you reviewed a list of equipment, an inventory as it were.

15       A.   Yes.  I had documents for the north and the south sites with jobs,

16    pieces of equipment for -- at various workplaces and some other

17    specifications specifying other equipment, i.e., the entire inventory for

18    both these sites which is auxiliary to radio equipment, antennas,

19    recording devices, and similar equipment which I did not specify in my

20    analysis because it is auxiliary equipment.  I just provide short comments

21    about those in my analysis.

22       Q.   Well, in particular in your analysis you provided some comments

23    about equipment that you were not sure what it was used for; isn't that

24    true?

25       A.   Yes, that's true.

Page 12470

 1       Q.   And in particular, you referred in your report to the use of a

 2    converter in the capacity of interception of one of the sites; do you

 3    recall having done that?

 4       A.   Yes.  This is on page 11 of my report.  A converter which

 5    converts a signal from a 150 to 18 megahertz.

 6       Q.   And in your report you indicated that you didn't know what it was

 7    used for; right?

 8       A.   As part of the interception of conversations on RRU-800 and RRU-1.

 9    I don't see a reason for this converter, because this converter converts

10    the frequency of 150 MHz to 18 MHz, and the frequency area of a RRU-1,

11    which is a lower area, is 235 to 270 MHz, and for RRU-800, 610-960 MHz.

12  So this converter cannot accept frequencies of these two pieces of equipment

13  and convert it into a lower frequency that would lend itself to analysis.  I

14    believe for that it is pointless for the interception of conversations by

15    these two pieces of equipment, and I don't know why it should be an

16    accompanying piece of equipment together with the RRU-800 and RRU-1.  And

17    especially the SMCC equipment which is within the range of 4.4 to 5

18    gigahertz, which is far beyond

19    this range.

20       Q.   Fair enough.  You made the same observation of a different

21    converter, S042; that's also in your report, right?  And you indicated

22    that it had no clear role.  That's in section 5.2.1b of your report.

23       A.   Yes.  That's in item b.

24       Q.   Now, with respect to your observations of equipment that you

25    couldn't make out what it was used for, did you consider the possibility

Page 12471

 1    that that equipment could have been modified and used in a function other

 2    than it was intended for?

 3       A.   I didn't have any information about any modification, because in

 4    that report the purpose of the equipment is not specified, and it's not

 5    specified which frequency area is input, which is output, there is no

 6    sensitivity indicated, or the level of output.  So from those elements

 7    that I had I could not analyse much.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau.

 9            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it was --

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Just a minute.  Madam Fauveau.

11            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to have to interrupt the

12    witness.  I believed that he had finished.  In fact, there is a little

13    mistake in the transcript that could be important.  It's on page 19, line

14    7, RRU-800 was mentioned twice, and the first one should have been RRU-1.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you for that, Madam Fauveau, but let's

16    make it a practice, if it's something that has to do with the transcript,

17    just let us see that you need to address us, but you should wait until the

18    witness has finished answering the question if he happens to have already

19    started.  But this time I quite understand, because even I understood that

20    he had finished his -- his answer basically.

21            Let's finish your answer first, Witness.  You had started

22    saying, "I didn't have any information about any modification, because in

23    that report the purpose of the equipment is not specified and it's not

24    specified which frequency area is input, which is output.  There is no

25    sensitivity indicated or output.  So from those I could not analyse much."

Page 12472

 1    And you were about to tell us something more.  If you could continue now,

 2    please.

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, quite simply in the report

 4    dealing with these workplaces, there is no rationale indicated for what

 5    the equipment was used and what the interceptors were using so I couldn't

 6    make any assumptions there.  And the primary object of my analysis was the

 7    receiver.  So I followed the signal from RRU-800 to the entry into the

 8    receiver.  What happened later was irrelevant to me.  Why?  Because in my

 9    calculations I indicated that if the receiver was not receiving a signal,

10    or was not receiving it in good quality, then it was irrelevant what later

11    happened in the technology, the analysis of signals, and whatever else

12    they used.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

14            MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go to the correction or mistake that

16    Madam Fauveau indicated.  We are at line 19 -- page 19, line 7.  And the

17    correction is to the effect that although we have in the transcript

18    RRU-800 mentioned twice, the first one should be RRU-1.  Is that correct,

19    Madam Fauveau?

20            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  And is that correct, Mr. Rodic?

22            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.  So there are two

23    different devices.  RRU-800 is one of them.  What I said about the

24    converters is that they are not necessary for that range at all.  In fact,

25    they cannot accept the signal from that – from those devices.

Page 12473

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

 3       Q.   You know, my question was, Mr. Rodic, whether or not you

 4    considered that.  That's about as simple as the question can be, and the

 5    answer should be a yes or no.  Can you tell me?

 6       A.   Whether I considered the converter S042.  Should I go back to it

 7    and remind myself?

 8       Q.   Whether or not you considered the possibility it could have been

 9    modified?

10       A.   No.

11       Q.   What about with respect to the antennas used?

12       A.   I cannot assume such things, and I never found in their reports

13    anywhere that they modified something or to which purpose they might have

14    modified this converter S042.

15       Q.   All right.  And you never reviewed any statements, testimony of

16    anybody or operator involved in the actual processing of these intercepts;

17    right?

18       A.   No, I did not take into account any previous testimony or witness

19    statement except maybe one that I will deal with later.  None were

20    presented to me.  And that one that I mentioned is not linked to this

21    case.

22       Q.   All right.  Now, of the intercepts that you actually looked at

23    that are indicated in your report, do you know whether or not you

24    considered all of the 213 intercepts that have been offered in this case

25    from those particular locations?

Page 12474

 1       A.   I took into account the intercepts for which I had some background

 2    information, the frequency, with which antenna it was intercepted.  I took

 3    into account the intercepts of which I had technical data about the

 4    process of interception.  I don't know how many documents were available,

 5    but I selected the intercepts that are here in my file, in my analysis.

 6       Q.   Well, are you aware that in your analysis the number of intercepts

 7    that correspond to the intercepts that have been offered in this case of

 8    the 213 is about 83?  Were you aware of that?

 9       A.   You mean included here, 83?  No, I did not reckon that.

10       Q.   Did you -- did you calculate in your report how many of those

11    intercepts, the ones that you -- that are actually -- that correspond to

12    the intercepts that have been offered in this case, how many of those

13    intercepts actually originated with the 2nd Corps units whose equipment

14    you analysed?

15       A.   I did not quite understand the question.

16       Q.   All right.  Are you aware that in the northern site there was more

17    than one interception unit in operation in 1995?

18       A.   According to the reports, I see that there was this one unit, and

19    there was also the State Security Service of Tuzla.  Those are the only

20    things I noticed.

21       Q.   Now, you didn't actually analyse the equipment that was used by

22    the state security services of Tuzla in your report, did you?

23       A.   I did not have occasion to see in any of the documents what kind

24    of equipment they had or to analyse it.  There was only one background

25    document which told me that they had a rotor -- a rotator in the northern

Page 12475

 1    location.  It was not in operation yet, and then it was stolen.  It was

 2    actually a security report speaking about the detection of the

 3    perpetrator.  I don't know if they were an operative unit, but in some way

 4    they were present with their equipment.  I don't even remember the date

 5    because it was irrelevant to me.

 6       Q.   All right.  But you're aware that they had equipment that was

 7    different from the equipment that you actually analysed.  Yes?

 8       A.   How would I know?  It was not stated anywhere.  They did not

 9    describe the kind of equipment they had in the information I had.  In

10    other words, I don't know because I did not have such documentation.  And

11    their reports are very peculiar.  They have a different format from the

12    other formats used by the BH army.  They are worded in general terms

13    without indicating who the participants in the conversation are.

14       Q.   So your report in general does not address the viability or

15    possibility of interception by the state security services operating out

16    of the north facility at all; right?

17       A.   No.  The only thing that I mentioned in my prior testimony is that

18    frequency, 630 megahertz.  In their reports, it was stated that it was

19    used somewhere in the area of Sarajevo, Lukavica, Rajlovac, and so on.

20       Q.   And you're also aware that in your report consideration of the

21    intercepts that you looked at you attributed certain intercepts that were

22    created by the state security services to the intercepts that were secured

23    in the southern facility.  Are you aware of that?

24       A.   Maybe.  I cannot tell now.

25       Q.   Now --

Page 12476

 1       A.   I cannot differentiate now between various numbers and who they

 2    belonged to.

 3       Q.   Well, when you organised your report did you take into

 4    consideration when you were attributing the possibility of intercepts to

 5    each of these two locations what unit was actually intercepting from those

 6    locations?

 7       A.   Well, in my report the focus is on which frequency exists on a

 8    certain location.  Everything else is auxiliary.  Which unit, whether it

 9    was the south or northern location, or whether it was state security or

10    somebody else.  The focus is on the fact that a certain frequency was

11    subject to listening.

12       Q.   Now, did you consider the fact that there was yet another, a third

13    unit operating from the northern facility, independently of the equipment

14    that you analysed?  Were you aware of that?

15       A.   You know what?  I can assume that there was a unit in the air,

16    that it was perhaps outside the borders of the area controlled by the BH

17    army.  I can assume anything, but my job was to analyse what the BH army

18    was doing.  I can make various assumptions, but I don't want to because it

19    would be less than serious.  I have some knowledge about how this is done.

20    A third person can intercept certain conversations, and they can be noted

21    in notebooks and transcripts can exist, but this is something I can state

22    only in general terms.  I cannot go into deeper analysis.

23       Q.   All right.  So the answer is no, you didn't consider the fact that

24    there was another unit operating from the northern facility in terms of

25    your analysis.

Page 12477

 1       A.   In my analysis, I did not take that into account because I did not

 2    have any documents to corroborate the existence of such units, except

 3    knowing that the state security from Tuzla was also intercepting

 4    conversations.  I knew that they had some equipment for it, but apart from

 5    their presence in the northern location, I cannot confirm that they

 6    operated from another location as well.  It's not in any of the documents.

 7       Q.   And you didn't consider the incidents where the frequencies that

 8    were monitored with respect to the possibility of interception were the

 9    same among all three units, did you?

10       A.   You mean that they recorded the same conversations on the same

11    frequencies, if I understood you correctly.  You mean the same transcripts

12    were made by the same three intercepting parties?

13       Q.   What I'm asking you is whether or not you considered that when you

14    looked at these intercepts that you analysed.  Did you look to see whether

15    or not there were incidents in which all three independent units recorded

16    on the same frequency, the same purported location?  Did you look for

17    that?

18       A.   No, I did not look for it because I was primarily interested in

19    whether on the frequencies that I knew, with communications between

20    Vlasenica and Zvornik, interception was technically possible in view of

21    the receiving frequencies.  I did not go deeper into analysis or

22    comparison.  Maybe I should have done.  Maybe that's a failure.  Maybe I

23    would have noticed some discrepancy in contents, but I didn't analyse that

24    bit.

25       Q.   In terms of the intercepts that you actually did look at, those 83

Page 12478

 1    intercepts, you can't tell us now how many of those intercepts actually

 2    relate to the route that you analysed, can you?

 3       A.   Not one.  Except that those two frequencies were unknown, and they

 4    are a possibility.  But they are only two out of 16 frequencies, and I

 5    don't have insight into two frequencies between Cer and Gucevo where

 6    possibly two out of 16 were from the northern or southern location.

 7       Q.   Well, what my question is, I suppose, is:  Is it possible that of

 8    the intercepts you examined that relatively few of them actually purport

 9    to have been captured along the route that you analysed?  Did you analyse

10    that possibility?

11       A.   Well, I've already said there were 16 different frequencies that

12    were listened to from the northern and southern location, and there were

13    only two unknown frequencies, the receiving and transmitting one between

14    Gucevo and Cer.  That alone tells us how many other problematic

15    frequencies existed, namely the intercepts I introduced in my analysis, of

16    course according to available documentation and especially the plan of

17    frequencies.

18       Q.   Well, the plan that you're talking about actually doesn't contain

19    two central frequencies to the route that you analysed; right?  Doesn't

20    that tell you that the plan that you analyse is incomplete?  All right.

21       A.   No, because it was within the jurisdiction of the Drina Corps to

22    monitor routes between Vlasenica to Veliki Zep and from Zvornik to Gucevo.

23    Other routes, Veliki Zep-Cer and Veliki Zep-Gucevo were within the

24    jurisdiction of the Main Staff.  That's why the Drina Corps did not report

25    to the Main Staff about these frequencies, because they were not within

Page 12479

 1    their area.  That's why they're not in the documents of the Drina Corps.

 2            You can see that also from other documents dealing with securing

 3    the equipment covering those radio relay routes, those communications.

 4       Q.   We have documentation from -- from Gucevo to Zvornik; right?

 5       A.   Yes.  We have frequencies Gucevo-Zvornik and Zvornik-Gucevo,

 6    because that's a radio relay route with which the Zvornik Brigade relied

 7    on Gucevo, and it had to have that information because the transmitting

 8    frequency towards Gucevo was the frequency on the RRU-800 in Zvornik, and

 9    the receiving frequency in Zvornik was the same as the transmitting

10    frequency from Gucevo.  That's why they have to have in their file both

11    frequencies but not Gucevo towards Cer.

12       Q.   You also don't have the frequencies for the back-up RRU-800 device

13    that you say was operating between Veliki Zep and Cer; right?  That's not

14    in the document that you -- that you referred to, is it?

15    A.  No. There were no frequencies. That equipment was in preparation.  The

16    purpose of the equipment was to be back-up when SMC for some reason is out

17    of use, so that the most -- selectively, the most essential communications

18    between Veliki Zep towards Cer, and Gucevo and Zvornik can be relayed.

19    So in principle, when you plan a route like that you secure a

20    workplace for it at the facility and antenna, and you wait until the

21    moment when it's necessary to use it, and that's when you determine the

22    frequency, because that switch can take place suddenly, but it may not

23    take place at all for many years.

24       Q.   Sir, you have no information whatsoever when, if at all, that

25    back-up RRU-800 device between Cer and Veliki Zep was ever in operation.

Page 12480

 1   Isn't that true?

 2   A.  In 1994 it was active when there were NATO airstrikes on Veliki Zep.

 3  So the SMC route Veliki Zep-Cer was not in operation, and that's when the

 4  back-up of RRU-800 was used. I don't have information about the frequencies,

 5  but I personally was involved in enabling the SMC route, and when the SMC

 6  route was enabled again then this back-up route was switch off, after

 7  covering the major communications between Veliki Zep and Cer for a while.

 8       Q.   We're talking about within the period of your analysis; right?

 9    Within the period of your analysis you have no information whether or when

10    that particular unit was in operation; isn't that true?

11       A.   The radio relay route covered by RRU-800 between Cer and

12    Veliki Zep had no need to operate because the capacity, as I showed in my

13    analysis, was realised between those two facilities using the SMC, which

14    has the double capacity of RRU-800, even when the latter is working at

15    maximum capacity.  It was senseless to use them both at the same time.

16    There also existed a secure communication route which I did not include in

17    my analysis because I did not have any information that there were any

18    communications from cryptographically protected routes.

19       Q.   The SMC device you're talking about is the one that you went to go

20    fix in August of 1995.  That's what you're talking about?

21       A.   No.  Yes.  Yes.  The device, yes.  But I didn't go to repair it.

22    It was regular technical check-up and assistance so that the whole system

23    including the SMC, the RRU-800 and all the multiplex devices that existed

24    there would be brought up to a good level.  And I already said that the

25    VRS did not have the staff for that, and that's why a team, including me,

Page 12481

 1    came to improve it.  It was not out of operation.  It's a double

 2    transmitter and receiver, unlike the others.  It has two radio devices,

 3    and it's very robust.  So when one radio is not working, the other one is,

 4    and the communication is of good quality.  But it's always better to have

 5    two transmissions over two radios on SMC, and the job of that team was to

 6    bring it up to snuff technologically, so that it can function as

 7    envisaged.  It was not broken down; it was a scheduled maintenance and

 8    assistance, and it was purely by chance that we found ourselves on that

 9    day at the facility at Veliki Zep.

10       Q.   Mr. Rodic, your report doesn't account for four potentially active

11    RRU-800 frequencies.

12       A.   Four.  You mean two.  Four are mentioned on the route

13    Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route, Zvornik and Gucevo, but there is no reference

14    to Gucevo-Cer.  Whereas on the route Cer-Veliki Zep, there was the SMC,

15    which is not within the frequency range of RRU-800.

16       Q.   Sir, you testified that there was a back-up RRU-800 device that

17    could operate between Cer and Veliki Zep.  That much is accurate; right?

18       A.   This means, and I repeat --

19       Q.   I just want a yes or no, if I could, please.

20       A.   The piece of equipment has its place.

21       Q.   Is that accurate or not?

22       A.   In the preparation without any specific frequencies.

23            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated] ... Already answered --

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

25            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  The witness already answered the question.

Page 12482

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Where?  Where?  Where did he answer it?

 2            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I can't see exact page, but he was asked about it.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think he can -- the question, previous question --

 5    let me freeze this.

 6            "Mr. Rodic, your report doesn't account for four potentially

 7    active RRU-800 frequencies."

 8            And he answered -- the first answer was, "Four.  You mean two.

 9    Four are mentioned on the route Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route, Zvornik and

10    Gucevo, but there is no reference to Gucevo-Cer, whereas on the route

11    Cer-Veliki Zep there was the SMC which is not within the frequency range

12    of RRU-800."

13            And then there was the next question where you interrupted:  "Sir,

14    you testified that there was a back-up RRU-800 device that could operate

15    between Cer and Veliki Zep.  That much is accurate; right?"

16            And then your -- he started answering, and we had your

17    interruption -- or intervention.  But the thing is it's being put to him

18    that indeed he has already made such a statement, but he is being asked to

19    clarify.  So let's continue.

20            Yes, Madam Fauveau.

21            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 29, line 9 up

22    to line 13, the witness answered the question, since he stated as

23    follows:  "[In English] The radio relay route covered by RRU-800 between

24    Cer and Veliki Zep had no need to operate, because as I showed in my

25    analysis, was realised between those two facilities using the SMC."

Page 12483

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  She could be right.  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2            MR. VANDERPUYE:  My question to him was whether it could operate

 3    as distinguished from whether it was in operation, and I think that's an

 4    important distinction in light of the fact that the witness is claiming to

 5    have personal knowledge that that it was never in operation during the

 6    period of time which he conducted his analysis.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Very well.  I think we can proceed.  Mr. Zivanovic.

 8            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  He answered this question too.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Where?  Where did he answer it?

10            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  At the same place.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  No.  At the same place he said --

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  It was [indiscernible] route.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  He "had no need to operate because as I showed in my

14    analysis between those two facilities using SMC which has double capacity

15    of RRU-800, even when the latter is working at maximum capacity.  It was

16    senseless to use them both at the same time.  There also existed the

17    secure communication route which I did not include in my analysis because

18    I did not have any information that there were any communication from

19    cryptographically protected routes."

20            Yeah, but the question is more precise than that, whether he has

21    knowledge, actually, that the RRU-800 was also used in spite of your

22    conclusion that there was -- it would have been senseless to -- to use it.

23    Yes.

24            What you testified earlier on is your conclusion, your opinion

25    based on your expertise that it wouldn't have made sense using the SMC and

Page 12484

 1    also the RRU-800, but can you exclude that the RRU-800 was indeed made use

 2    of?

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I exclude that possibility.  The SMC

 4    has a five-time bigger capacity than the RRU-800.  Not double the

 5    capacity, but five times the capacity of.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  He's your witness, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  We've overpassed the time for our break.  We'll have

 9    a 25-minute break, and we'll continue after that.  Thank you.

10                          --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

11                          --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

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

14       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Rodic.  You just indicated, I think, last before

15    we took the break that you exclude the possibility that the RRU-800

16    device, the back-up device on the path between Cer and Veliki Zep was in

17    use during the period of your -- the period of time that your analysis

18    covers.  That's between June and August of 1995.  Is that right?

19       A.   That's correct.  I don't see the logic.  If a 120-channel system

20    is operational between Cer and Veliki Zep, I don't see a logic of a

21    RRU-800 with up to 24 channels working at the same time.

22       Q.   Okay.  That's not part of the frequency plan that you reviewed

23    from the Drina Corps of 1993?

24       A.   There is no frequency for that path in the frequency plan that I

25    reviewed for my analysis, and that is actually part of my analysis.

Page 12485

 1       Q.   Now, you didn't -- you didn't obtain any other frequency plan

 2    other than that, the 1993 one from the Drina Corps?

 3       A.   No.  I don't have any other frequency plan, actually.

 4       Q.   And did you ask for any such frequency plan for 1995?

 5       A.   I asked for all documents relative to that period, and I received

 6    what I received.

 7       Q.   So your analysis was conducted in light of the documents that you

 8    had at your disposal and no other documents; is that right?

 9       A.   Of course.

10       Q.   And there is no document that's included with your report that you

11    otherwise relied on directly establishing the frequencies that were in use

12    in 1995 during the period of your analysis; right?

13       A.   When it comes to frequencies, there's none.  There are other

14    documents that I reviewed, quite a lot of them.

15       Q.   Part of your analysis that's concluded in your report relates to

16    having reviewed certain scouting or searching reports that were made up by

17    the ABiH.  That's in section 6 of your report.

18       A.   Yes.  I analysed reports on the search of frequencies.  Those are

19    frequencies that the BiH army searched at these two sites, but they are

20    not linked to any documents, or at least I did not find such documents

21    about the intercepted communications.  They just searched the frequencies

22    and their quality and that's what is stated in the reports.

23       Q.   So with respect to that aspect of your report, that analysis has

24    really nothing to do with the documents that you in fact analysed

25    concerning the intercepts -- the intercepts that are appended to your

Page 12486

 1    report?

 2       A.   I can't establish a link for two reasons.  Firstly, what I

 3    included contains a frequency, an azimuth, and a time.  Here there is a

 4    time, an azimuth, but it does not contain any contents, and I don't think

 5    that the purpose of that was to record intercepted conversations but just

 6    to record the spectrum, i.e., the frequencies that appear under a certain

 7    angle.

 8       Q.   Okay.  And with respect to the angles you analysed, those angles

 9    corresponded to a direction that was westerly from these facilities; isn't

10    that true?  The interception facilities, so that I'm clear.

11       A.   Yes, you can tell it's clear from the north side, 240 degrees

12    would be almost opposite to the facilities that I analysed.  For example,

13    this is under item 6.1.  Further on, under 6.2, again from the location

14    north, this is 286 degrees.  Again, this is even less favourable angle

15    with regard to the facilities that remained on a different side to the

16    maximum direction of the antenna where the reception of the intercepted

17    conversation is the worst.  274 degrees from the location south, this is

18    again a westward direction, and the facilities are mostly located in the

19    east or in the south-east.

20       Q.   And so the conclusion that you drew as a result of analysing these

21    searching or scouting reports is effectively that when the antenna is

22    turned opposite to the direction in which the radio relay route is, that

23    the reception is worse than when the antenna is turned toward that route.

24    Is that fair to say?

25       A.   Yes.  You can see this from any of the diagrams of the antenna

Page 12487

 1    direction.  We can look at the enclosure 30.  If the antenna is turned --

 2       Q.   Well, let me just ask it in a general way, because --

 3       A.   In general terms this is the least favourable direction.  I have

 4    the very correct diagrams of these antennas.  There is a slight variation.

 5    There is less favourable direction and extremely unfavourable direction.

 6       Q.   All right.  Now, with respect to the intercepts that you actually

 7    looked at, none of those intercepts correspond to any one of those

 8    scouting directions, that is either 240 degrees, 274 degrees, or 286

 9    degrees.  That's right, is it?

10       A.   That is right, because I have stated exactly under item 10 that

11    these intercepted conversations were done on the 135 degrees and 170

12    degrees of the antenna angle, or as they said it, from the south-east or

13    south direction.  Based on that, for the known frequencies, I carried out

14    my calculations under item 11.  For these specific frequencies for these

15    two facilities, for the frequencies that I had in the BiH army documents,

16    I carried out my calculations and represented them in the tables under

17    item 11 of my report.

18       Q.   Now, with respect to your calculations, it is true that the

19    ability to receive a given signal depends upon the angle in which it's

20    transmitted and the angle from which it's received; right?

21       A.   Absolutely right, because an antenna has a diagram of emission,

22    and in addition to the optical radio visibility and the distance between

23    the two points in addition to other parameters, the efficiency of the

24    antenna depends on that as well.

25       Q.   So the ability to hear a given frequency or receive one varies

Page 12488

 1    depending upon the angle that a receiving antenna or a transmitting

 2    antenna is turned; right?

 3       A.   That's one of the factors.

 4       Q.   Given the pattern of emission from any one antenna, either

 5    transmitting or receiving, the angle that the reception is -- from which

 6    there is reception can drastically affect the ability to receive a

 7    transmission; right?

 8       A.   Very drastically.  The angles can be such that the antenna cannot

 9    receive any signal, because it falls within the minimum range of antenna's

10    reception, which is more than 30 decibels.  This is a thousand times

11    lesser strength of reception at the receiver.

12       Q.   All right.  So given that, it's very important to be precise in

13    the angles from which -- from which reception can be gained in terms of --

14    in terms of analysing the ability to receive a given transmission?

15       A.   Yes.

16       Q.   You concluded based upon your review of the intercepts that are

17    referred to in your report that the direction of 180 degrees, rather, the

18    direction of south corresponded precisely to 180 degrees; right?

19       A.   For the south site it says in the reports 180 degrees, and for the

20    north it says south.  And since this south can be undefined, but I believe

21    that south in -- in respect of north would be best represented by 180

22    degrees.

23       Q.   That's fair enough, but that's an assumption that you made, isn't

24    it?

25       A.   An assumption, yes.

Page 12489

 1       Q.   Okay.  And you also assume that when you saw the direction of

 2    south-east that that meant -- that meant a degree direction of 135 degrees

 3    precisely; right?

 4       A.   When it comes to the south site, then the operator states in the

 5    documents 135 degrees.  In terms of the north site, he says south-east and

 6    I took 135 degrees as the most correct or accurate orientation.

 7       Q.   Fair enough.  But that's an assumption that you made, isn't it,

 8    because the exact degree angle is not indicated on the document; right?

 9       A.   It is not indicated, but I put it down to the style of writing.

10       Q.   All right.  You can agree that where the document indicates a

11    direction of south or south-east, it does not also indicate a direction of

12    180 degrees and 135 degrees respectively; right?

13       A.   It is not indicated for the location north.  It is not indicated.

14       Q.   So let's deal with the location north then.  With respect to the

15    location north, isn't it true that if the angle is precisely 180 degrees

16    that can affect the reception in a way differently than if the angle is,

17    say, 175 degrees or 185 degrees?

18       A.   Yes, of course.  In the case of these antennas, yes.

19       Q.   And wouldn't it be reasonable that within the actual corps itself,

20    the unit itself, that identifying a direction as south could be very well

21    sufficient enough to convey a precise direction?

22       A.   I'm afraid I did not understand your question.  What am I supposed

23    to say?

24       Q.   I'll rephrase the question.  The direction south that's indicated

25    on the documents that you looked at from the north facility wasn't created

Page 12490

 1    for the benefit of you or me or anyone else in here; right?  That's an

 2    internal document.

 3       A.   You mean the locations south and north.  Yes, I believe that this

 4    is an internal document.  If you want me to talk more precisely about

 5    these locations I can go on in order to avoid any confusion.

 6            The north location is to the north from the south location.

 7       Q.   Yes, that's true.  What I'm saying is that when the direction

 8    south is indicated in a document that was created by the north facility,

 9    that that indication is sufficient to convey a specific direction to the

10    people that are in that facility that are doing that job.  Would you agree

11    with that?

12       A.   If I were an operator, I would not use that.  If I knew the

13    location, I would provide a very accurate orientation of the antenna to

14    the last degree, and then I would have the best reception from that

15    facility if I did that.

16       Q.   Right.  So the precision of that angle is important to the ability

17    to receive.  Right?

18       A.   It is very important for the following reason:  The diagram of the

19    antenna reception is -- is dependent on the angle, very dependent on the

20    angle.

21       Q.   Right.  And so your analysis of the ability to receive based upon

22    the general direction of south is based upon an assumption of the accuracy

23    of the angle that you looked at, isn't it?

24       A.   When this comes to the northern site I would say so, yes.  If

25    we're talking about north, yes.  When it comes to the southern location,

Page 12491

 1    they provide very accurate angles there.

 2       Q.   Those angles that are indicated in the documents from the southern

 3    facility correspond to the general directions of south and south-east;

 4    right?

 5       A.   They correspond the way it is indicated.  180 is pure south, 135

 6  degrees is between 90 and 180 degrees, and this is pure, optimum south-east.

 7  And I believe they had the same views of the whole situation at the northern

 8  situation, but they put things on paper differently.  That's my opinion.

 9       Q.   All right.  Just bear with me one moment.  All right.  Could I

10    please have P02827 in e-court.  We're not broadcasting, are we?

11            Do you see this document in front of you, this report from the

12    2nd Corps?

13       A.   Yes.  From the southern facility.

14       Q.   And do you see a particular azimuth corresponding to the

15    direction, as is indicated, of Vlasenica?

16       A.   Just a moment.  Bear with me, please.

17       Q.   I'm just talking about what's on the screen in front of you now.

18       A.   Yes, yes.  The azimuth is 110 degrees.  Just a moment.  Let me

19    see.

20            Yes.  My azimuth is 113 degrees, 113.  I used the data for the

21    southern interception facility towards Vlasenica was 113 degrees and here

22    it is indicated 110, which is very close.  I was familiar with the final

23    location of this radio relay station Vlasenica is somewhat broader than

24    what I knew the location to be.

25       Q.   All right.  So it's clear from this document, by the way which is

Page 12492

 1    dated the 14th of February, 1995, that the direction, the azimuth, from

 2    the southern facility in the direction of Vlasenica is not 135 degrees or

 3    180 degrees; right?

 4       A.   I see 113 in my analysis.

 5       Q.   It's not in your analysis and the report which I'm referring to

 6    which should be on the --

 7       A.   Yes, yes.  But that azimuth I didn't find anywhere in the

 8    documents that I included in my analysis.

 9       Q.   So this document makes very clear that the southern facility was

10    perfectly aware of the azimuth that corresponded to the direction of

11    Vlasenica from its own position; right?

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

13            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately.

14            MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Could my colleague

15    indicate to us whether this document P2827, first, if this document is on

16    the Rule 65 ter list of documents of the Prosecution and whether this

17    document has ever been disclosed to the Defence and, if so, when the

18    document was disclosed.  Thank you, Mr. President.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

20            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I can pretty surely say it does not have a 65 ter

21    number.  I think it is responding to the direct examination of the

22    witness, and I can say that it was disclosed along with all of the other

23    intercept-related material, and so the Defence has access to that document

24    as well.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 12493

 1            Madam Fauveau.

 2            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm practically

 3    certain that this document has never been submitted to us, and I have a

 4    small reservation, but I'm practically sure.  The worst is that the

 5    document does not come from a -- comes from a protected witness and that

 6    this document should have given us.  It's in the EDS -- it's not in the

 7    EDS, in fact, but it's in a general collection, and that has many million

 8    documents.  So the very fact that it's in this collection doesn't mean

 9    that that document has been disclosed to us.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Can you be more -- Mr. Bourgon.  Before I give

11    you the floor, Mr. Vanderpuye.  Mr. Bourgon.

12            MR. BOURGON:  I'd just like to know, Mr. President.  I believe

13    this document here that we have was -- we were informed by the Prosecution

14    that they would use this document for cross-examination a couple of days

15    ago.  Now, our understanding is that the cross-examination of this witness

16    began long time ago and that all documents to be used in cross-examination

17    should have been given to us at that time and not in the second part of

18    the cross-examination.  Thank you, Mr. President.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

20            MR. VANDERPUYE:  This particular document was on -- was on the

21    list which was the subject of much debate the last time when

22    cross-examination began.  That was -- that was the list that was turned

23    over to Defence pursuant to --

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  It was already on the list on that occasion, in

25    other words?

Page 12494

 1            MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.

 2                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's proceed.  There is nothing for us to say if

 4    that is the case.

 5            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6                          [Prosecution counsel confer]

 7            MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  Could I have, please, P02822, please,

 8    shown to the witness.  Could we again turn to ERN number ending 649.

 9       Q.   All right.  Do you see this document before you, Mr. Rodic?

10       A.   Yes.

11       Q.   This is another document that was generated by the southern

12    facility back in 1993; right?

13       A.   I don't see the top.

14       Q.   All right.  This is a document that I showed you before, but we

15    can go to the first page if you need to see --

16            JUDGE KWON:  Tell us the number again.  2822?

17            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.

18            JUDGE KWON:  English page number 2.

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

20       Q.   Do you see the date there of November 18, 1993; right?

21       A.   I see the location and the date.

22            MR. MEEK:  Is there an English translation of this document

23    available?

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't know.  Yes, it is.  I see the assistant --

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Of the two relevant pages, yes.

Page 12495

 1       Q.   All right.  If we could, could we go back to page ERN ending page

 2    649.

 3            Okay.  Mr. Rodic, could you just about down to -- that's fine.

 4            Mr. Rodic, do you see an indication in that document as to an

 5    azimuth relating to Vlasenica from the southern facility of 115 degrees?

 6       A.   Yes.

 7       Q.   That's about 2 degrees off from your own calculation, isn't it?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   And this document also indicates that the ABiH knew very well what

10    direction from its facility that particular --

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Before you answer, Mr. Rodic.

12            Yes, Madam Fauveau.

13            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In fact, the Prosecutor just asked a

14    question, and I wanted to know which particular route is included, is

15    involved in this question.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

17            MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's indicated on the document.

18       Q.   Maybe you can just read the document.  That would maybe make

19    things a bit clearer, Mr. Rodic.  You see this chart at the bottom of the

20    document?  Can you read what the sentence is above it?

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Madam Fauveau.

22            One minute, Mr. Rodic.

23            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe it's much

24    more complicated than that because there are code-names which are totally

25    unfamiliar to us.  Perhaps the witness can tell us something about the

Page 12496

 1    route, but we cannot take the -- the Prosecutor's assumptions as a basis.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 3            MR. VANDERPUYE:  To be perfectly frank, I really don't understand

 4    the objection.  There don't appear to be any code-names that I'm referring

 5    to on this document, and -- and I'm not making any assumption.  I'm simply

 6    asking him whether or not the document reflects a direction of 115 degrees

 7    from the southern facility.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau first.

 9            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's really too much.

10    There is clearly the document code -- the code-name Barrier, Barijera, in

11    this document.  I would really like a clear answer if possible.  If not, I

12    think it's practically falsification of evidence.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

14            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  The azimuth is not 115 but 125 in this document,

15    and it is mistake.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  125.

17            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  And it was said 115 in -- at the page 44, line 5.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  But on the document that we have on the monitor, it

19    says "Vlasenica azimuth 115", and at the end --

20            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry, I saw 125.  Top of the --

21            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think perhaps we're not referring to the same

22    thing.  I'm referring to the bottom of that document.  I think it's very

23    clear what's written in the bottom of the document, and frankly, I don't

24    believe that it would be appropriate to represent that there's been a

25    falsification of evidence in this case.  The document is there for

Page 12497

 1    everybody to see, and it's -- I'm asking the witness, I'm directing his

 2    attention specifically to read a line that was above a chart that is

 3    depicted on the document.  The witness can read it, and I'm not putting

 4    any words in his mouth.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  One moment.

 6                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  We can't really follow the objection or understand

 8    it.  The witness is directed to the last line on what he can see on the

 9    monitor, which is "rezultati pretrage opsega", and whatever, ending with

10    "Vlasenica azimuth 115", and answered the question Mr. Vanderpuye put to

11    him, but then I think what Ms. Fauveau raised in relation to the beginning

12    of the document, the first part that's the Barijera, if the witness can

13    give us clarification on that we can deal with that too.  I doubt whether

14    he is in a position to do that because this document doesn't originate

15    from him in any case.

16            Yes, Madam Fauveau.

17            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I referred to the

18    conversation that is just above the passage to which the Prosecutor now

19    refers to, because that part was shown at the time when I made my

20    objection, and in fact that conversation there is the same azimuth and

21    that's where the reference to the code-name Barijera is.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Obviously, it seems we are talking about the latter

23    part or the bottom part of the document and not the first part.  So let's

24    concentrate on that and move ahead, please.

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 12498

 1       Q.   Mr. Rodic, could you just read that line that is -- well, read the

 2    line at the base of the document, if you could.

 3       A.   Towards the end.  "Scan results for the range 230-270 megahertz

 4    RRU-1 in the direction of Vlasenica azimuth 115."

 5            But I don't see the results.

 6       Q.   Could you read the lines that immediately precede the chart that

 7    you see in the screen in front of you now.

 8       A.   "We hereby submit to you the overview of active frequencies in the

 9    range RRU-800 of the frequency range 610-960 megahertz in the direction of

10    Vlasenica azimuth 115."

11       Q.   This document makes clear that the facility at the southern site

12    was perfectly aware of the correct azimuth from their location to the

13    direction of Vlasenica, doesn't it?

14       A.   Concerning the azimuth, yes, but as for frequencies there were not

15    that many frequencies in the whole area.

16       Q.   I'm asking only about the azimuth, and we can agree on that;

17    right?

18       A.   We can, that approximately that was the azimuth from the southern

19    location towards Vlasenica.

20       Q.   Now, you hadn't reviewed this document either before you prepared

21    your report; right?

22       A.   Yes.

23       Q.   And in your report you didn't find a single intercept that

24    corresponded to an azimuth of 115 degrees; right?

25       A.   I didn't have a single document indicating 115 degrees from the

Page 12499

 1    southern location.

 2       Q.   Would it be fair to say that none of those documents represent or

 3    purport to represent an interception occurring from that particular

 4    location; right?

 5       A.   According to the documents that I included in my analysis, yes.

 6       Q.   Now, with respect to the directions of 180 degrees and 135 degrees

 7    from the southern facility, you did not analyse whether or not those

 8    azimuths or directions corresponded to other radio relay routes or nodes?

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Meek?

10            MR. MEEK:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  Could we have a date for

11    this document, this purported intercept?

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

13            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Which document are you talking -- this, the one

14    that's on EDS right now?  On e-court?  Yes the document was read into the

15    record.  The date of it was 18th November 1993.  It's report number is

16    02-1811, and it's in a sequence of documents spanning a range from

17    02042643, ERN number, through 02042654.

18       Q.   All right.  All right.  I think my last question was, Mr. Rodic,

19    whether or not you analysed if the directions of 180 degrees or 135

20    degrees corresponded to radio relay routes or nodes other than the one

21    that you analysed.

22       A.   In my calculation I took into account the directions of

23    orientation of antennas from the northern and southern locations as

24    indicated in documents.  I did not adjust them to facilities.  I took them

25    as they were indicated in documents.  Whether they correspond or not, I

Page 12500

 1    don't know.  If they corresponded, then they had the maximum efficiency of

 2    reception, and that manifested itself.  And I have to add I made

 3    calculations for the four known locations from the plan frequencies.  I

 4    did not assume any other frequencies derived from documents.

 5       Q.   All right.  So you didn't analyse whether or not those routes in

 6    particular corresponded to the location of Pale, for example, or to

 7    Han Pijesak, for example?  Is that fair to say?

 8       A.   Pale, no.  That was outside the scope of my job.  For Han Pijesak,

 9    I didn't have any schematics, and I don't have the plan of routes towards

10    Han Pijesak.  In the plan of communications of the Drina Corps, I have no

11    routes from any point towards Han Pijesak.

12       Q.   Okay.  So you -- the answer is you never actually analysed that or

13    considered that in terms of trying to identify where those azimuths

14    connected, if anywhere.

15       A.   Well, I couldn't analyse something that's not in the schematic of

16    radio relay communications.

17       Q.   Well, you didn't ask for any other radio relay schematics, did

18    you?

19       A.   It was outside the scope of my job, of my assignment.

20       Q.   And the documents that you analysed that corresponded to the

21    directions of 180 degrees and 135 degrees, do any one of those documents

22    purport to have been -- to be intercepts from the locations that you

23    analysed?

24       A.   I cannot state that with any certainty now because -- I can only

25    say that the documents I included were not intercepted on the known

Page 12501

 1    frequencies between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep.  I did not analyse the

 2    broader radio relay network.

 3       Q.   So your report doesn't exclude the possibility that those

 4    intercepts could in fact be genuine and have originated from a radio relay

 5    route other than the one you analysed; right?

 6       A.   I did not analyse that, so I cannot confirm, and I cannot rule out

 7    the possibility.

 8       Q.   And the ones that you -- the frequencies that you claim rule out

 9    the possibility of interception along that radio relay route is predicated

10    on a 1993 Drina Corps document; right?

11       A.   Yes.  Yes.  Two sections, that is, four frequencies.

12       Q.   Your position is that between 1993 and 1995, the frequencies

13    relative to those radio relay paths never changed; right?

14       A.   I don't have such documents.  I have no document indicating that

15    the frequencies had been changed.  All --

16       Q.   Sorry, go ahead.

17       A.   All I know is that within the radio relay network of RRU-800,

18    frequencies are rarely changed.  I know that from my service and

19    especially the last 10 years, because that is a very complicated job that

20    requires change of frequencies not only in the narrow area but in a broad

21    area as well, and that particular one would have required a change of

22    frequencies even in the FRY, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  Such changes

23    did not happen in that system of radio relay communications.

24       Q.   Okay.  But you also have no document indicating that the

25    frequencies remained the same.

Page 12502

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment before you answer.

 2            Mr. Bourgon.

 3            MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Mr. President, the

 4    Prosecution has been coming back on this issue on numerous occasions since

 5    the beginning as to whether the expert witness had some documents or

 6    information that would indicate precisely what was the situation in 1995.

 7    The witness has answered the question.  But my objection at this point is

 8    that the Prosecution should put its case to the witness.  Do they have

 9    documents that alter the situation presented by the expert witness?  That

10    would be the -- at least a fair position, a fair -- to allow the witness

11    to know if the Prosecution have a different case to put to the witness.

12    Do they have information that the frequencies were changed?  I think that

13    would be very important.  Other than that, the witness has answered on

14    numerous occasions that he has done his report on the basis of the

15    documents that were given to him.

16            Thank you, Mr. President.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Bourgon.

18            Mr. Vanderpuye.

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think the case has been put and the reason why

20    the case has been put is because the intercepts in question establish what

21    the Prosecution's position is with respect to the nature and the extent of

22    the frequencies that were in effect during the relevant period of time.

23    It is the witness -- the witness has been directly been confronted with

24    that position because he's analysed those documents.  His position is that

25    those documents don't correspond to the existing frequency scheme in place

Page 12503

 1    in 1995.  The Prosecution's case is, I think as Mr. Bourgon is well aware,

 2    that the intercepts themselves establish the frequencies that were in

 3    place during 1995, and the witness is well aware that that's what the

 4    position is.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

 6            MR. BOURGON:  With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. President,

 7    this is not the issue and this is not the question that I asked.  The

 8    question that was put by my colleague to the witness was:  "Do you have

 9    any information that would tend to show that the frequencies were modified

10    between 1993 and 1995?"  The witness has said, "On the basis of the

11    information that I have, those frequencies were not changed."  My position

12    is:  Does the Prosecution have any documents, does the Prosecution have

13    any information which would contradict the conclusion of the expert that

14    those frequencies were indeed changed.  Do they have any documents that

15    show that the frequencies were changed.  That's the issue, Mr. President.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I understand Mr. Vanderpuye, and of course I'm

17    not going to comment on his statement is -- that the evidence or the proof

18    that you are referring to is the transcripts of the intercepts themselves.

19    That's how I understand Mr. Vanderpuye's position to be but I stand to be

20    corrected, of course.

21            MR. VANDERPUYE:  That is correct, Mr. President.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  I am not reflecting your position as I understood it

23    to be.  On the other hand if you wish to add anything to what Mr. Bourgon

24    stated, you're free to do so.

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I don't.

Page 12504

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Then let's -- let's proceed.  I think it's

 2    clear enough that it's obviously for us to decide and try to make some

 3    sense out of all of this.  It is not easy.

 4            MR. VANDERPUYE:

 5       Q.   My previous question to you, Mr. Rodic, was you've indicated that

 6    you based your conclusions on a 1993 document because, in fact, you didn't

 7    have any other document establishing that the frequencies had in fact

 8    changed.  My question to you is:  Did you see any document indicating to

 9    you that they had not changed?

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau?

11            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this question has

12    been asked on several occasions.  I don't know how anybody can prove that

13    something doesn't exist.  Usually we can only prove things that do exist,

14    facts that are established.  If the Prosecutor has any documents to that

15    effect, let him show them to the witness.  I am in complete agreement with

16    my colleague Mr. Bourgon in that respect.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  We are trying to square the circle here.  So let's

18    proceed, please, Mr. Vanderpuye.

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Let's proceed.  I think we have exhausted this

21    part, and we have understood the respective positions in any case.

22            MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't think by pursuing your line of questions

24    you're going to get any further elucidation on this issue.

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 12505

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye, for understanding.

 2            MR. VANDERPUYE:

 3       Q.   Mr. Rodic, it's clear from your analysis that -- that there is --

 4       A.   Go ahead.

 5       Q.   It's clear from your analysis that there is -- you reach no

 6    conclusion as to the possibility of interception with respect to the RRU-1

 7    device.  Is that fair to say?

 8       A.   I did not analyse this because I did not have the concrete known

 9    frequencies at the concrete radio relay path, and I did not want to draw

10    conclusions based on any assumptions.

11       Q.   And therefore none of the intercepts that have been offered by the

12    Prosecution in this case corresponding to that device are in any way

13    affected by your report?

14       A.   And they have not been dealt with in my report up to the stage

15    that would allow me to draw concrete conclusions for the concrete radio

16    relay paths.

17       Q.   With respect to the intercepts that were purportedly obtained by

18    the state security services, you made no analysis of the equipment that

19    was used to obtain those intercepts?

20       A.   I did not have at my disposal any documents.  Their documents

21    covering intercepted conversations show a style very different to those

22    compiled at the locations north and south.  The data provided there is

23    very scarce, very general.  The few documents that I saw only provided the

24    essence of the conversations.  They did not record entire conversations.

25    They did not fully document the entire conversations.  They provided,

Page 12506

 1    rather, the summaries thereof.

 2       Q.   All right.  You didn't analyse their equipment, so you don't know

 3    what they were capable of receiving; fair to say?

 4       A.   I did not have any documents about their equipment, and I did not

 5    analyse it, and I'm repeating this for I don't know how many times now.

 6       Q.   I'm just going to ask you to answer the question, if you could,

 7    yes or no.  That will make things a little easier.  Did you analyse the

 8    equipment that was used by the 21st Division of the ABiH army?

 9       A.   I can't -- I don't know.  Could you please be more specific?  What

10    is the 21st Division?

11       Q.   Okay.

12       A.   I know about the units at the location north of the BiH army and

13    the location south of the BiH army.

14       Q.   Are you aware that the 21st Division also engaged in interceptions

15    that are part of the intercepts that have been tendered by the Prosecution

16    in this case?  You could answer that yes or no.

17       A.   I'm not aware of that.

18       Q.   So there's no distinction in your report between any equipment

19    that might have -- might have been used to gain those intercepts versus

20    the equipment that might have been used by the 2nd Corps?

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau?

22            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor should say it clearly

23    whether his today's position is as follows:  That the equipment used by

24    different units was different and in what sense, because I believe that

25    this is contrary to any evidence that we have heard so far.

Page 12507

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2            MR. VANDERPUYE:

 3       Q.   Did you examine any document other than 2nd Corps documents

 4    concerning the equipment that was used by them?

 5       A.   No, only the equipment at the locations north and south.  I don't

 6    even know the structure of the units.  I don't know who they belonged to.

 7    I was only interested in the locations where the conversations were

 8    recorded and what equipment was used to intercept those conversations.

 9       Q.   Were you -- were you made aware of the fact that the state

10    security services and the 2nd Corps operated independently of one another

11    in the northern facility?  Was that ever brought to your attention?

12       A.   Well, the very few reports I had and I read drafted by the state

13    security, I can say based on that their activities were absolutely

14    separate.  But as for their cooperation and possible interaction and

15    overlapping of their authorities, I wouldn't know anything about that.  I

16    never looked for that in those documents, and therefore I can't confirm

17    whether this was indicated in any of these documents.  I won't be able to

18    confirm that they acted separately or that their actions overlapped.  This

19    was simply not part of my brief.

20       Q.   So your report doesn't draw any distinction in that way between

21    those units; right?

22       A.   There was no way for me to establish any differences or

23    similarities in that respect.

24       Q.   Okay.  Now, you didn't examine any physical aspects relating to

25    the possibility of interception such as notebooks, tape recordings, things

Page 12508

 1    of that nature?

 2       A.   Tape recordings, no, but I did inspect some notebooks and written

 3    records.  I looked at the original notebooks and the typed texts that were

 4    typed subsequently, and I did see quite a few of such documents.  I never

 5    listened to any audio recordings.  I didn't have any tapes at my disposal.

 6       Q.   Based upon your conclusion in general, it would seem as though

 7    audio recordings would be nearly impossible based upon the signal levels

 8    that you've indicated could have been received from the interception

 9    sites.  Isn't that right?

10       A.   For what I calculated, I said it very accurately.  If you look at

11    the end of my calculation, page 43, bullet point 11.8:  The direction

12    Veliki Zep-Vlasenica, under the angle of 135 degrees and 180 degree, there

13    was poor reception at the northern location.  I did not therefore exclude

14    the possibility of listening to a conversation, but as for the frequencies

15    and the angles for these four frequencies, Vlasenica-Veliki Zep and

16    Zvornik-Gucevo, I did not analyse Veliki Zep-Cer because it would have

17    been pointless, there were no transcripts at a different range, and I

18    didn't analyse Cer-Gucevo because I was not familiar with the frequencies

19    there.  The sum results of the possibility of listening in to

20    conversations refers to the four known frequencies and the four known

21    facilities.

22       Q.   All right.  Well, you would agree that the existence of a tape

23    recording is relevant to the question of whether or not your calculations

24    are accurate if it purports to be from the intercept or from the radio

25    relay route that you analysed.  Wouldn't it be?

Page 12509

 1       A.   At these frequencies there are no documents, and it is not

 2    indicated what equipment was used to intercept.  I only knew the azimuths,

 3    and I did it for all the three types of equipment that were at the

 4    locations north and south.

 5       Q.   That's not my question, Mr. Rodic.  My question is whether or not

 6    the existence of a tape recording purporting to have been taken on the

 7    radio relay route that you examined, whether that's relevant to your

 8    analysis.  That's my question.  Can you answer that yes or no?

 9       A.   The existence -- well, if they did not exist, then you could not

10    prove the interception.  The existence of the equipment for interception

11    at north and south locations is important to intercept a conversation, if

12    I understood your question correctly.

13       Q.   I'll move to a different area.  The calculations that you made

14    with respect to the signal strength, that is, the strength at which a

15    given transmission is received was based upon your analysis of the

16    equipment that you believe was used; right?

17       A.   It is based on the equipment that emitted the strength and the

18    equipment that I had as having existed at the locations south and north

19    where the conversations were being listened in, and I had that indication

20    in the documents.

21       Q.   And your conclusions as to the possibility of interception are

22    based on the calculations that you made as a result of these signal

23    levels; right?

24       A.   Yes, on the calculations of the signal levels at the point of

25    entry into the receiver in respect of its reception threshold or the

Page 12510

 1    quality if that signal is higher than the reception threshold when any

 2    such reception was possible.

 3       Q.   All right.  And you're talking about the ratio or the comparison

 4    of the signal that is, for example, the voice communication against any

 5    background noise that may exist; is that right?

 6       A.   No.  I analysed whether the signal that arrives from RRU-800 to

 7    the listening-in device, and that was received through the antenna system,

 8    I analysed the quality with which the receiver could receive the signal

 9    under all these circumstances influencing the quality of the signal at the

10    reception end.  I did not analyse what happened later on through the

11    reception of the signal, the recording of the signal on the tape.  I can

12    comment only upon the written documents as to what happened, when the

13    reception of both interlocutors was clear; when one is clear, the other

14    only half clear; when one interlocutor is clear and the other could not be

15    heard at all.  This is something that you can find in the written

16    documents.  Such situations are documented.

17       Q.   One of the things that you concluded was that there was a certain

18    level beyond -- beyond which a signal couldn't be received if, for

19    example, what's called a squelch is activated.  Isn't that true?

20       A.   If it is activated, yes.  If it's not, then again yes, but it

21    cannot be done below the threshold of the receiver.  The receiver has a

22    threshold.  The sensitivity is indicated in the document for each

23    receiver, and it has been taken into account in my calculation for this

24    particular type of the receiver.

25            As for the squelch, this is a level below which reception is

Page 12511

 1    possible but the quality is very low, and it drops gradually down to the

 2    level where reception becomes absolutely impossible.

 3       Q.   All right.  So your calculation as to what could be received is

 4    predicated on your analysis of the equipment that was used to receive.

 5    Isn't that true?

 6       A.   Certainly based on the parameters that I was able to find, and

 7    this is primarily the sensitivity of the receiver, the evaluation of their

 8    reception threshold, the evaluation about the quality, i.e., when the

 9    quality is good, when the quality is excellent, and these are the three

10    parameters on which I base my calculations.  The parameter that is very

11    important is the parameter of the lowest possible level below which no

12    reception is possible.

13       Q.   All right.  This is a bit technical.

14            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I now have a break, please?  I

15    apologise.  Can we have a break, please?

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Certainly, Mr. Rodic, and please feel free to ask us

17    that any time you need.  We'll have a 25-minute break.

18            How much more do you have, Mr. Vanderpuye?

19            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Probably 10 minutes.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  So we'll have a 25-minute break,

21    and then we'll finish with the witness.  Thank you.

22                          --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

23                          --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, thank you.  Mr. Vanderpuye.

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 12512

 1       Q.   Okay.  Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic.

 2       A.   Good afternoon.

 3       Q.   I just have a few more questions for you really.  Now, of the 83

 4    intercepts that are referred to in your report, you did not take account

 5    of how many of those intercepts relate to the RRU-1 device and how many of

 6    those intercepts relate to the RRU-800 device; is that fair to say?

 7       A.   No.  Everything relates to RRU-800, i.e., whatever was intercepted

 8    from the locations north and south and documented in my report is relative

 9    to the RRU-800.  I did, where the fields were measured, but no documents

10    in the form of transcript are present.  Whatever is indicated under

11    chapter 10 is relative to the intercepts from the RRU-800 device.

12       Q.   All right.  You were aware, of course, that of the 213 intercepts

13    that have been offered in this case by the Prosecution, 148 of those

14    intercepts relate to the RRU-800 device.  Are you aware of that?

15       A.   I don't know the figure, but I introduced those conversations for

16    which I had the indication of the frequency, or I recognised the

17    frequencies from the documents, and I knew under which conditions they

18    were recorded, under which azimuth and at which location.  I may not have

19    recognised the facility for all the conversations, and I may not have

20    recognised the azimuth and the equipment for all the conversations, but I

21    did for most of them.

22       Q.   All right.  And you're aware, of course, that the remaining 65

23    intercepts correspond to the RRU-1 device for which -- or toward which

24    your report is not addressed in any respect; right?

25       A.   Again, I don't know the exact figure, but there are quite a number

Page 12513

 1    of intercepts from the RRU-1, but I have not taken them into account

 2    because I didn't know the frequencies, so I could not do my calculation

 3    because I did not have all the parameters.  Also, I did not have the end

 4    locations of the interlocutors in those conversations.

 5       Q.   And I think you indicated at the beginning of your testimony that

 6    generally, it was possible for the ABiH to intercept communications.

 7       A.   Yes.  This is what I stated with regard to the equipment that

 8    covered the frequency range of the RRU-1 and RRU-800.  Under certain

 9    circumstances, it could intercept conversations.

10       Q.   And those circumstances would have to do with the direction of the

11    antenna and, of course, the distance and the frequency.

12       A.   There are several other parameters.  There's strength and so on

13    and so forth.  But mostly it is the direction of the antenna, the

14    distance.  When I say the direction of the antenna, it also refers to the

15    direction between the RRU-1 and RRU-800 devices, as well as the direction

16    of the antennas from the interception stations to the -- to the

17    interception object.  And there is also the profile of visibility.  In

18    other words, there are no geographical obstacles.

19       Q.   Okay.  And so you've identified from both the north and south

20    facilities relay points that are within their radio and optical

21    visibility?

22       A.   Yes.  I analysed that from the north and south facilities, both

23    the optical and radio visibility to all the points on route

24    Vlasenica-Zvornik, on that path.

25       Q.   And the locations that have both optical and radio visibility with

Page 12514

 1    both the north and the south facilities including Veliki Zep, Cer, and

 2    Gucevo; is that right?

 3       A.   Yes.

 4       Q.   And but for the fact that the antenna orientation on the documents

 5    that you've examined does not correspond to the best direction or best

 6    field to receive transmissions from those points, your conclusion is that

 7    it would otherwise be possible; right?

 8       A.   It's a possibility, but we need to calculate.  Because it's not

 9    only the direction of the antenna and the intercepting station but also

10    the orientation of the antenna on the radio relay section at the point

11    where the communication is taking place, and of course the distance

12    between the critical station, that is the object, and the intercepting

13    station.

14       Q.   And the calculations that you did in this case related to 83 of

15    148 RRU-800 intercepts?

16       A.   The calculation I did, I did for the four known frequencies, and

17    that relates to the documents that are contained in, I believe,

18    paragraph -- or chapter 10 of my report.  In fact, the analysis relates to

19    that, whereas the calculation relates precisely to the object on both

20    intercepting stations with the azimuths specified in the documents.

21       Q.   And when you say azimuth, you mean both the particular direction

22    as is indicated on the documents from the southern facility, and the

23    general directions as is indicated on the documents from the northern

24    facility; right?

25       A.   Speaking of the southern facility, there are two known azimuths

Page 12515

 1    for the direction of the antennas, and for the northern one I said the

 2    north was 180 degrees and south-east was 130 degrees.  That's the most

 3    precise correlation between north and south, in my opinion.

 4       Q.   All right.  All right.  So based on your assessment, but for the

 5    fact that the documents that you reviewed indicated azimuths which didn't

 6    correspond directly to the points on the radio route you analysed, the

 7    position of the facilities, in relation to the three points you indicated

 8    which had radio and optical visibility, made it possible to intercept

 9    communications on that radio relay route?

10       A.   Generally speaking, yes, but in that specific case, in the

11    specific case I would have to make a calculation for the specific

12    frequency and specific orientation.  I am an engineer, and I allow the

13    possibility that interception was possible but I would have to calculate

14    as I did calculate for some known frequencies.

15       Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Rodic.  I have no more questions for you?

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Zivanovic.

17            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18                          Re-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

19       Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Rodic, let us clarify just a few points that

20    were brought up in cross-examination.  Could you first tell me -- let's be

21    clear first of all.  These communications between the Drina Corps, on the

22    one happened, and the Zvornik and Bratunac Brigades on the other side,

23    were they through RRU-800, and could they be intercepted and listened to

24    from another radio relay facility from Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Bijeljina,

25    some of the installations that are indicated on the map shown you by the

Page 12516

 1    Prosecutor, and that was not included in your analysis?

 2       A.   I think I've said that already.  No, briefly, because those

 3    communications were effected only through

 4    Vlasenica-Veliki Zep-Gucevo-Zvornik route.  They didn't use other routes,

 5    and that's why they couldn't be listened to from other radio relay routes.

 6    A conversation for instance between Vlasenica and Zvornik took place only

 7    on this route and could be listened to only on this route from the

 8    installations that covered this route, and strictly on the frequencies

 9    allocated to that route.

10       Q.   You've just answered my second question as well.  Just one more

11    thing.  In the documentation that you reviewed, is there any indication

12    that some of the devices, RRU-800 of the Drina Corps, were on some other

13    locations apart from Vlasenica, Veliki Zep, and all the others, ending

14    with Zvornik?  The Prosecutor asked you if they could have been mounted on

15    trucks or other vehicles, and that's perhaps why you didn't analyse them.

16       A.   From what I analysed in the documents of the Drina Corps, I didn't

17    find any such information.  There's one document, 03 --

18            THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness be instructed to say this

19    slowly, the numbers.

20            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

21       Q.   Excuse me.  The interpreters cannot follow you.  Could you please

22    repeat the numbers.

23       A.   0437-6584 and 0437-6538, dated 24 July 1995.

24            It says:  "The Drina Corps has at its disposal a total of two

25    RRU-800 devices.  In view of the existing schematic of communications of

Page 12517

 1    RRU-800, it's logical that one of these devices was in Vlasenica where the

 2    corps command was stationed, and the other one was in Zvornik, in the

 3    Zvornik Brigade.  Thus units of the Drina Corps with which communication

 4    existed.  In light of this, I conclude that the other RRU-800 device did

 5    not exist in the Drina Corps."  And I have a copy of this document.

 6       Q.   Thank you.  I'm going to skip some questions because you've

 7    already answered them.  I just want to go over some documents that you

 8    have been shown, and that will be the last part of my examination.

 9            The Prosecutor asked you if you had occasion to see all the

10    documents.  In other words, he asked you what documents you were shown by

11    the Defence, and it could be inferred from that that we had made a

12    selection.  I want to show you one letter given us by the Prosecution

13    advising us of some documents.

14            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D330.

15            THE REGISTRAR:  The document is not in the system.

16            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Put it now at the ELMO, please.

17       Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Rodic, I suppose you see the document now.

18       A.   I see several documents within one.

19       Q.   This document is in English.  It's actually part of the

20    correspondence between our Defence team and the Prosecution requesting

21    some documentation related to radio relay devices RRU-800 and RRU-1, and

22    generally the documentation that was necessary for your analysis.  This

23    document was not translated into B/C/S, but still I would like you to pay

24    attention to the numbers and tell me whether in drafting your report you

25    had occasion to see these documents and whether you used any of them in

Page 12518

 1    your analysis.

 2            The first document -- or, rather, the collection is

 3    0426-7022-0426-7130.  It's a collection of documents from the so-called

 4    Shield Operation of November 1995.  Did you find in this documentation

 5    anything that you used in your analysis?

 6  A. From this first part of documents in attachment 5, I used 0426-7034. It's

 7  appended to my report, attachment or annex 15.  We analysed this several

 8  times and it's a schematic of radio relay and personal communications of the

 9  Drina Corps. This confirmed the existence of a RRU-800 route in combination

10  with an SMC, right, Vlasenica-Veliki Zep-Cer-Gucevo-Zvornik route through

11  which the Drina Corps communicated with the Zvornik Brigade from Vlasenica,

12  and it could also use it to communicate with the Main Staff of the VRS.

13       Q.   Did you use anything else apart from this schematic out of this

14    collection?

15       A.   It's a rather large collection, and I didn't use the other

16    documents because they do not relate to radio relay communications; they

17    were not relevant to my analysis.  Most of them are documents concerning

18    radio communications and radio frequencies that significantly differ from

19    RRU connections, and they were not pertinent to my report, and they were

20    not within the scope of my assignment.  And if I may say, some of them

21    include orders to establish communications, schematics of encryption codes

22    of documents, et cetera, things that were not pertinent to an analysis of

23    radio relay communications.

24       Q.   Could you please look at this other collection, 0444-3355 to

25    0444-3372, also from November 1995.  It's practically a report that the

Page 12519

 1    Drina Corps forwarded to the Main Staff on the same subject.  Did you use

 2    perhaps any documentation from this collection?

 3       A.   Well, they're almost the same documents, slightly smaller in

 4    volume.  It's a schematic diagram of the radio relay wire communications

 5    of the Drina Corps.  It is identical to what I had previously said about

 6   it. That is why I didn't need to include it as a duplicate in the analysis.

 7       Q.   Let us look at the next collection, 0431-4759 to 0431-4959.  It's

 8    a total of 200 pages, documents dating from 1992 to 1996.  Did you use any

 9    of them?

10       A.   Yes.  I used them.  For instance, 0431-4791 and 0431-4792.  That's

11    precisely the plan of frequencies that we discussed so much today.  And

12    the second one is dated 2nd October 1993.

13            In annex 1, it's appendices 12 and 13.  And it was precisely from

14    these documents that I established the frequencies from the two routes

15    that I indicated and made my calculations.

16       Q.   Did you see in that collection any other documents that you used

17    in your analysis?

18       A.   As far as I remember, the other documents were not pertinent, and

19    they related mainly to some documentation that was seized from the

20    Bratunac Brigade, as well as various code-names used in some

21    communications, the table of signals for encrypted maps, lists of

22    officers, orders to establish communications, schematic of communications

23    that I was not interested in because it's a totally different area, the

24    schematic of encryption, the schematic of radio stations and all the other

25    things that accompany an order to establish communication.

Page 12520

 1    Q. Let us look at the penultimate collection. That's, then, 045646 -- 4625

 2   to 0456-4902. Let me remind you, those are the maps. There are – there were

 3   quite a few maps there.  Did you use any of these documents in your report?

 4       A.   I have looked at the maps, but I did not use find schematics of

 5    wire connections.  They related to certain military operations, units

 6    mounting attacks, defence positions, encrypted maps, et cetera.  Mainly

 7    they are encrypted maps, and I do not understand anything about that.  I

 8    could not understand.  I didn't find anything relevant to wire connections

 9    in those maps.

10       Q.   Let us look at the last document, 0437-6353 to 0437-6710.  Did you

11    find in this collection any relevant documents?

12   A.  I found one document - it's very important - called the file of data on

13   the combat readiness of the 5th Battalion, dated 24th July 1995, indicated

14   with ERN 0437-6581 to 0437-6587. It's about the 5th Signals Battalion.

15            I've already said something from that document, and in one of the

16  attachments of the Drina Corps from that date in July 1995, it is stated

17  that...the existing situation, the situation with this combat readiness. It

18  has two RRU-800 relay devices. The other documents relate to other branches,

19  artillery, engineering, et cetera, and they were not pertinent to my report.

20       Q.   I apologise.  If I understand you well, this document belongs to

21    the 5th Battalion of the Drina Corps, and it says that it only had two

22    RRU-800 devices; is that correct?

23       A.   Yes.  That is exactly the case.  I have the document in front of

24    me.  And when it comes to that issue, there is a table about the radio

25    relay devices, and it says that they have two RRU-800 devices.  That is

Page 12521

 1    the situation on the ground.

 2       Q.   Thank you very much.

 3       A.   You're most welcome.

 4       Q.   Mr. Rodic, I apologise.  I have omitted to ask you just one more

 5    question in reference to my learned friend's question, and it has to do

 6    with the map that you looked at that was drafted by the 2nd Corps of the

 7    BiH army.

 8            Let me can you this:  First of all, based on this map were you

 9    able to conclude when it was drafted, when it was drawn?

10       A.   No, I wasn't able to do that.  The dates here are when the date --

11    when the map started being used and ended being used, but there is no

12    other dates for certain routes or relations.

13       Q.   Can you tell us based on your inspection of this map when the

14    inscriptions were made on the map, markings, frequencies, and everything

15    else?

16       A.   I had an opportunity to be in charge of such maps, and every data

17    that is entered into the map should bear the date when the situation was

18    recorded or when the situation was discontinued.  When it comes to radio

19    relay directions, that means when a radio relay route was established and

20    when it was discontinued.

21       Q.   Let me ask you something about the similarities or possible

22    differences between this map on the one hand and what you found in your

23    analysis on the other hand.  First of all, was there a RRU-800 direction

24    between Vlasenica and Veliki Zep, both in this map and in your analysis?

25       A.   Generally speaking, the map confirms my findings.  It encompasses

Page 12522

 1    the Vlasenica-Veliki Zep route which was established through the RRU-800

 2    device which exists in my report.

 3       Q.   Does it also confirm the SMC route between Veliki Zep and Cer?

 4       A.   I've already spoken about that earlier today.  The radio relay

 5    route between Cer and Veliki Zep, this route is entered into this map so I

 6    can confirm that.

 7       Q.   Does this map also show the RRU route between Veliki Zep and Cer?

 8       A.   No, it doesn't.

 9       Q.   Let me ask you another thing:  In your analysis you have found

10    that there was a route between Veliki Zep and Bratunac which was

11    established through a RRU-1 device.

12       A.   Yes.

13       Q.   This map shows me that there is a RRU-800 connection.  I believe

14    that this map depicts frequencies as well, the frequencies from that

15    RRU-800 device.

16            My question to you is this:  Did you find anywhere in the

17    documents that you inspected certain conversations that were recorded on

18    that route that was purportedly on these frequencies recorded on this map?

19    A.  The schematic diagram is not drawn the way radio-relay communications

20  are drawn in similar diagrams. Nevertheless, there is a route here between

21  Veliki Zep and Bratunac where the RRU-1 and RRU-800 are drawn using symbols.

22  My interpretation is this: This was the author's discretion of depicting

23  this as two routes. From the documents analysed in my report, it arises that

24  there were a couple of frequencies, 705.000/805.000 megahertz for the RRU-

25  800, and these frequencies I could not register and I did not register in

Page 12523

 1  the documents that I introduced into my analysis.

 2       Q.   One more question.  In any of the documents issued by the VRS

 3    army, to be more precise Drina Corps, did you find anywhere the existence

 4    of a route RRU-800 between Bratunac and Veliki Zep?

 5       A.   I find it in the schematic.  0426-7034, dated November 1995, and I

 6    have recorded that this was the Operation Stit or Shield.  There is a

 7    dotted line, which means that that route may have existed in the

 8    preparations for that operation, but I don't have any data on the

 9    frequency plan showing that any communication was established along that

10    route, i.e., that it ever became active.

11       Q.   In other words, you did not find it in the frequency plan of the

12    Drina Corps.

13       A.   That is correct.  I never found it there.

14       Q.   When you say that this route is indicated in a dotted line in the

15    schematic, does this mean that before November 1995 it existed at all even

16    as a dotted line?

17       A.   According to the rule of maintaining these schematic or maps, it

18    was not active.  It did not become active during that period of time.

19       Q.   Mr. Rodic, thank you very much.  I have no further questions for

20    you.

21       A.   Thank you.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Any other of the Defence teams that wish to

23    address some questions to the witness?  Mr. Bourgon.

24            MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I only have one question

25    for the witness.

Page 12524

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

 2                          Examination by Mr. Bourgon:

 3       Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Rodic.  I'd like to refer you to an answer you

 4    provided this morning to my colleague and that was on page 15, line 7,

 5    where you spoke about the two missing frequencies on the route from

 6    Vlasenica to Veliki Zep.  Do you remember testifying about those two

 7    missing frequencies?

 8       A.   Yes.  Those two frequencies were on the radio relay route

 9    Cer-Gucevo.  I don't have them.  I did not find them in any of the

10    documents.  Those are the two frequencies for the RRU-800 device.  I was

11    talking about the frequencies covered by the RRU-800 device.

12       Q.   Now, my question is, Mr. Rodic, given the number of frequencies

13    that were identified by yourself and used for your report, and given the

14    fact that only these two frequencies were missing, my question is what are

15    the possibilities that there were indeed conversations intercepted on the

16    two missing frequencies?

17       A.   I cannot exclude the possibilities that no conversations were

18    intercepted on these two frequencies and that they are part of the

19    framework of my analysis.  However, with regard to the 16 frequencies from

20    these two facilities, I'm excluding the remaining 14 that I have

21    introduced into my analysis based on the documents that I produced.

22       Q.   Thank you very much, sir.  I have no further questions.

23            MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.  Is there anyone else who

25    wishes to put questions to the witness?  None?

Page 12525

 1            Mr. Rodic, that means that your testimony finishes here.  For a

 2    moment I thought we were going to continue tomorrow, but it went okay.

 3            On behalf of the Trial Chamber, I wish to thank you for having

 4    come over again to continue with your testimony, and I also wish you a

 5    safe journey back home.  Thank you.

 6            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would also like to thank you, the

 7    Prosecution, the Defence.  I have tried to contribute to the extent I

 8    could under the circumstances, and I hope that my evidence has been clear,

 9    and thank you very much.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  I can assure you that we are all

11    appreciative of your efforts in a rather complicated sphere of activity.

12    Thank you so much.  You will now receive -- you will be escorted out of

13    the courtroom, and you will receive the assistance you require.  Thank

14    you.

15            We have these options, Mr. Vanderpuye, and Defence teams.  I know

16    that the Defence teams wish to address the Trial Chamber on another issue.

17    If we do the tendering of documents now, I don't think we will have time

18    for the submissions.  On the other hand, Mr. Haynes, the submissions

19    that -- are they going to engage us for a long time or --

20            MR. HAYNES:  I would have thought that the 10 minutes now is

21    better used for the tendering of documents which could be completed in

22    that time.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  I thought so as well but I just wanted to make sure

24    first.  And the understanding is that tomorrow before we start with the

25    new witness we'll go through this topic that you wish to address the

Page 12526

 1    Chamber --

 2            MR. HAYNES:  Thank you very much.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So let's do the tendering now.  Yes,

 4    Mr. Bourgon.

 5            MR. BOURGON:  Just as information to the Trial Chamber,

 6    Mr. President, one of the submissions that we will be making tomorrow

 7    relates to the fact that six of the Defence teams in this case are of the

 8    view that unless a decision has been taken with the joinder of

 9    Zdravko Tolimir, the newly arrested person, that we should not proceed

10    with any further witnesses until a decision has been made on the joinder

11    motion, and we will be arguing this tomorrow.  I just thought it would be

12    important to give you notice and also to give notice to the Prosecution

13    that this will be argued tomorrow.

14            Thank you, Mr. President.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye -- thank you so much

16    for giving that prior notice to us and to the Prosecution.

17            Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

18            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Documents.

20            MR. VANDERPUYE:  I would think that on direct they would tender --

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, yes, yes.  Exactly.

22            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Prosecution -- Defence teams.  Mr. Zivanovic.

24            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Your Honours, we submitted our list of documents

25    for tendering into evidence, but I'd like to add three documents, three

Page 12527

 1    more documents mentioned by the witness during his testimony.  So it will

 2    be very, very good if we can do it later or tomorrow morning.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  I assume that what he's referring to is some

 4    document -- I haven't -- I haven't at my disposal anyway.

 5            Are you -- Mr. Zivanovic, are you referring to a document you

 6    handed over sometime back which listed four documents?

 7            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  No?

 9            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I refer to --

10            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

11            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry.  I refer to the documents 04376581 to 6585,

12    then document 04314801, and 04267034.

13            JUDGE KWON:  I don't follow.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  I can't follow you either.

15            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

16            THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel.

17            MR. ZIVANOVIC: These documents were mentioned by the witness

18    during his evidence.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think we've got the right document now.  So we're

20    talking of the expert report itself, which is 1D321; correct?

21            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Then Confidential Annex I and Confidential Annex II

23    attached to the expert report which are respectively 1D322 and 323, then a

24    map marked by the expert witness, which is 1DIC119.  Then the e-mail

25    correspondence with Janet Stewart, 1D330.  Then the four -- the three --

Page 12528

 1    the documents that you mentioned a minute or two ago.  That is ERN

 2    04376581 to 6585 in part.  That is pages 6584 and 6585.  And then ERN

 3    number 04314801, and ERN number 04267034.  Correct?

 4            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  That's correct.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  These, I take it, do not include the additional

 6    three documents.

 7            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Additional.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  They do include the additional three documents.

 9            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No, no, these are these three documents.

10            JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Zivanovic, are these three additional documents

11    ones that attached to the e-mail Prosecution sent to you?

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  Yes.  All three documents are among these

13    documents.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Judge Kwon, and thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.

15    What I wanted to know is this:  That when you stood up, you mentioned,

16    inter alia, that in addition to the existing list that you had circulated,

17    you wished to add three new documents that the witness had made use of.

18    These are the -- they are listed already in this one?

19            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  I was not aware that it was sent to you

20    already.  Thank you.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

22            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thank you.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  In addition, I am also being told, Mr. Zivanovic,

24    that during his testimony the witness also used a diagram which he put

25    markings on and which he signed on the 24th of May, which was given the

Page 12529

 1    number IC120, this one.

 2            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  It should be put at the list also.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Any objection on the part of the Prosecution

 4    for any of these documents?

 5            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  We do object to -- I believe

 6    it was 1D330.  That is the e-mail correspondence between members of our

 7    staff and the -- and the Defence attorneys.  I don't think that it's a

 8    relevant document particularly to the extent that all of the information

 9    that was elicited in it with respect to the documents that were looked at

10    by the witness, the ERN ranges, et cetera, are already part of the record.

11    It just seems superfluous, and as a policy issue I don't think it would be

12    entirely appropriate to have the names of our staff, particularly not

13    material to our case, as part of the record in the case and that's

14    essentially the nature of the objection.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  What's the purpose of the tendering of those

16    documents -- of that document, 1D330?  That is the correspondence, e-mail

17    correspondence with --

18            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I'd like to show that the Defence presented to our

19    expert just those documents presented to the Defence by the Prosecution,

20    that's all.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Would you agree to have this kept under

22    seal just to protect the identity of -- of your member of your staff, of

23    the member of your staff?  I don't see any big deal in this matter, to be

24    honest with you.

25            MR. VANDERPUYE:  And it's not.  I think that's fine.  I think

Page 12530

 1    that's fine.  The only issue is that it's not clear that the testimony of

 2    the witness establishes that that's the only case, but that's fine as a

 3    procedural issue.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  But that's argument.  Okay.  So let's keep it under

 5    seal.  And since I myself I think mentioned the member of the OTP staff

 6    earlier on, I think that will need to be redacted.  When I -- when I

 7    referred to the -- to 1D330, when I was going through the list, I think I

 8    mentioned the name.  No?  All right.  Okay.  Okay.

 9            Anyone else from the Defence teams objects to any of the documents

10    of Mr. Zivanovic?  None?

11            Any other Defence team wishes to tender any documents with this

12    witness?  None.

13            Mr. Vanderpuye.

14            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  We would like to

15    tender P02827, P02822.  And I understand that the map is already in

16    evidence.  5D123 is already in evidence.  And that's it.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objections?

18            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No, Your Honour.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  So they are so admitted.  We're talking of 2827,

20    2822, and 5D123, which is already in evidence in any case.

21            My attention is being drawn to the fact that these three documents

22    we decided not to broadcast, so I think that they will stay in the records

23    under seal.  All right?

24            MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, thank you.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  We need to adjourn now so as not to take more time

Page 12531

 1    from the Prlic case.  We'll meet again tomorrow in the morning.  Please be

 2    prepared to deal with the matters that you would like to make submissions

 3    upon, to wit the joinder -- joinder issues.  Thank you.

 4                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

 5                          to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day

 6                          of June, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.