Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20121

 1                          Tuesday, 22 January 2008

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          [The witness entered court]

 5                          --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, good morning.

 7            Madam registrar, could you call the case, please.

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

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

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, ma'am.

11            All the accused are present, all the Defence teams are present,

12    and today it's Mr. McCloskey on his own.  The US government

13    representative, Ms. Schildge, is also present.

14            Good morning to you, Mr. Butler.

15            THE WITNESS:  Good morning, sir.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome back.  What are your travel arrangements,

17    Mr. Butler?

18            THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure about travel; but certainly with

19    respect to scheduling, I have, in fact, checked and my schedule is clear

20    for me to be available for the Court here through Friday, the 1st of

21    February.  If it is anticipated I'll be here beyond that, I will have to

22    make some additional arrangements.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  I hope we won't keep you that

24    long.

25            THE WITNESS:  So does my wife, sir.

Page 20122

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Thank you.  So, in the meantime, I do

 2    encourage you to cut down on your cross-examination as much as you can,

 3    please.

 4            Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

 5                          WITNESS:  RICHARD BUTLER [Resumed]

 6            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                          Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:  [Continued]

 8       Q.   Mr. Butler, in the meantime, via the Registry, I forwarded the

 9    translation of the document that was missing yesterday, and I also

10    provided hard copies for both the Prosecution and the Bench as well, as

11    well as for you.  And I believe you were able to go through it in the

12    meantime.  My question will not go to the contents of the conversations

13    mentioned, which take the most part of the document.  My question, rather,

14    refers to the chronology.

15            You saw the intercepts being in chronological order between pages

16    3 or 4 until the end of the document.  Did you notice that between the

17    12th and the 19th of July, there is not a single intercept that would be

18    in that document?

19       A.   No, sir.  There's not a single intercept with respect to the

20    actual text of them.  Some of the material in these documents appear to be

21    analytical abstracts of that material, but, for example, there's no

22    verbatim text, as we're accustomed to seeing.

23       Q.   However, those pieces of text refer to a particular date; that is

24    clear from the document?

25       A.   Yes, sir.  Some of them refer to dates.  Some of them refer to

Page 20123

 1    events that are happening on the ground that, when you look at the context

 2    of the statement, it's clear where it originated from.

 3       Q.   Let us go back to the first paragraph of the first page again.

 4    Did you notice that there, the General Staff of the Army of

 5    Bosnia-Herzegovina state that all of the tapes they had in their

 6    possession, referring to the events, they forwarded to the Agency for

 7    Research and Documentation back in 1995?

 8       A.   Yes, sir, that's correct.  And to further clarify, now that I've

 9    read this document in English, I can tell you that I have seen it at an

10    earlier date, probably around 1997, 1998.  So I can confirm now that I did

11    have access and I did see this document at the early part of my work.

12       Q.   My last question pertaining to this document is this:  Did this

13    raise any doubts, this fact that the AID has not been forwarding any tapes

14    to you since 1995; although, they had them in their custody?

15       A.   Yes, sir.  In fact, this, among other information, was, in part,

16    why I was prepared fully to not accept the broader body of intercepts at

17    face value until the work of the OTP could independently corroborate them.

18    This is just one of the many reasons.

19       Q.   Thank you.  Let us have a look at some specific intercepts.

20            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] First, I'd like to go to Exhibit

21    P1144.

22       Q.   Please go through the text for yourself and tell me when you're

23    done so that I can put the question to you.

24       A.   Yes, sir, go ahead.

25       Q.   Based on this intercept, do you conclude that one of the

Page 20124

 1    participants, and this is the only audible participant, is looking from

 2    the other collocutor a list of those suspected of having committed war

 3    crimes in Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde?

 4       A.   Yes, sir. That is the apparent thrust of the intercept, that the

 5    individual named "Zile" is doing that.

 6       Q.   Can you see, from this intercept, that the request was being made

 7    so that those war crime suspects would be prevented from fleeing, as we

 8    can see from the text itself?

 9       A.   I don't know that it's necessarily fleeing, but it certainly

10    implies so there won't be a loss of near misses with respect to whether

11    it's fleeing or whether it's the screening process.  I see, and I also

12    take your point, up in the beginning, "We'll miss them and they'll get

13    away scott free."  You can read that as fleeing, yes, sir.

14       Q.   Would you be able to draw any conclusions, from the context of

15    this intercept, as to the participants in the conversation, and them not

16    knowing of any existence of a plan to execute all Muslim men which had

17    surrendered or which had been captured from Srebrenica?

18       A.   I believe that when I testified with respect to this intercept

19    before, my interpretation was that the individual going under the name of

20    "Zile," you know, believes that there is still going to be a screening

21    process and that they're looking for information to support that, and that

22    this particular individual is not aware at this time that there will, in

23    fact, be no screening.

24       Q.   Thank you.  Since you were able to see lists of many members of

25    the VRS and the Ministry of the Interior, and you were also able to

Page 20125

 1    identify some of them, could you draw any conclusions from this intercept

 2    as to who the person under the nickname of "Zile" is?

 3       A.   I believe I've noted prior that I believe the individual named

 4    "Zile" is General Zivanovic.

 5       Q.   Thank you.  In this particular intercept, we can see the time,

 6    which is 1829 hours; is that correct?

 7       A.   Yes, sir, that's what it says.

 8       Q.   Do you know what date it was?

 9       A.   Offhand, I don't recall whether this is dated -- has been dated as

10    the 12th or the 13th of July.  Memory is escaping me right now on that

11    one.

12       Q.   Our information states that the conversation happened on the 13th

13    of July, but I presume you cannot recall the date correctly, and I won't

14    insist on you doing so.

15            Let us move on to the intercepts pertaining to my client,

16    Mr. Popovic.

17            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]  Let's have a look at P1189A and

18    C.

19            First of all, let us go to page 2, line 3, since there is a

20    technical error in the transcript of the conversation; that is, the name

21    is spelled incorrectly.  It is page 20005, line 12.

22       Q.   The name stated there is "Rocevic."  However, if we look at line 3

23    of this intercept and of this page, perhaps you can confirm for us that

24    the name appearing there is "Rosevic."

25       A.   Given my poor command of the language, I would probably be the

Page 20126

 1    last person you would want to ask that question of.  I will certainly

 2    defer to your pronunciation of it.

 3       Q.   The name appearing in the third line is "Rosevic"; would you agree

 4    with me?

 5       A.   Yes, sir.

 6       Q.   It's not "Rocevic"?

 7       A.   As in the name of the town, correct, sir, yes.

 8       Q.   Thank you.

 9            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]  Let us go back to page 1, please.

10       Q.   You are quite familiar with this intercept, since it was referred

11    to on several occasions; therefore, there's no need to go through the

12    whole of it.  But on the face of it, it seems that it was intercepted at

13    1358; that is, two minutes before 2.00 p.m..  Would you agree?

14       A.   Yes, sir, that's what it says on the document.

15       Q.   Based on this intercept, you testified here that your conclusion

16    was that a request was being made for 500 litres of fuel and that it might

17    have to do with the transport of those captured at the school building at

18    Kula to the Branjevo Farm, where they were subsequently executed.

19            That was your testimony, was it not?

20       A.   Yes, sir, that is correct.

21       Q.   As a military analyst and expert, can you confirm that for you to

22    draw that conclusion, it is of great importance for you to know at what

23    time the executions at Branjevo actually took place?

24       A.   Yes, sir.  That's -- the context around what happened in that

25    entire village area of Pilica and the timing of that would be important,

Page 20127

 1    yes, sir.

 2       Q.   We have information, and it is based on a testimony of one of the

 3    participants of the shooting at Branjevo.

 4            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It is page 10972, line 21 of the

 5    4th of May, 2007.

 6       Q.   He said that the executions at Branjevo began at 10.00 a.m. and

 7    were completed at 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. that day.  Were you familiar with that

 8    information?

 9       A.   Yes, sir.  That's consistent with the testimony, as I understand,

10    that Drazen Erdemovic gave.

11       Q.   Looking at this intercept that was intercepted just prior to 2.00,

12    my conclusion is that the process of executions had been completed by that

13    time.  Would you agree?

14       A.   No, sir.  I mean, you've just told me, you know, going back to

15    Mr. Erdemovic's testimony, that they were completed at 4.00 p.m.  You're

16    showing me an intercept that's at 2.00, so obviously they're not completed

17    at this point, if one believes Mr. Erdemovic.  And, further, I would note

18    that while the intercept itself is dated as being intercepted at 1358

19    hours, we don't know at what juncture Colonel Popovic, at that location,

20    actually asked for the fuel.  So, no, I don't agree with your conclusion

21    on that.

22       Q.   Mr. Erdemovic said that the executions were completed between 3.00

23    and 4.00, not at 4.00 p.m.  But if the time you chose suits you best, then

24    I have no objection to that.  Another thing --

25       A.   I will even use your time at 1500.  We'll use the earlier time. My

Page 20128

 1    conclusion remains the same.  I don't think the 60 minutes makes a

 2    difference for why I've concluded what I have.

 3       Q.   In order for you to make that conclusion, is the distance between

 4    the school at Kula and the Branjevo Farm of any relevance?

 5       A.   No, sir.

 6       Q.   In other words, it is unimportant whether we are talking about

 7    three or 100 or 200 kilometres; is that what you're trying to say?

 8       A.   No, sir.  What I'm saying is that the distance, the relevant

 9    portion for me, as part of my analysis and placing Colonel Popovic in the

10    crime scene, is -- you know, has nothing to do with the relevant distance.

11    What it has to do with is the actual context of the activity that he's

12    involved in.

13            Whether Colonel Popovic needs 500 litres of fuel because of

14    distance or because of other variables, you know, I have no way of knowing

15    whether he needs it or not.  But for the context of my analysis, this

16    document, you know, places and puts Colonel Popovic involved in that

17    execution process in some manner.  That was the relevant part of it.

18       Q.   And you draw your conclusion on his participation from this

19    intercept; is that so?

20       A.   In part, not totally.

21       Q.   You have some additional sources of information that we don't?

22    Can we agree on that?

23       A.   No, sir.  In fact, the very next exhibit that I was shown by the

24    Prosecutor with respect to this intercept was, in fact, the fuel dispersal

25    log, which is not only a document that tends to heavily validate the

Page 20129

 1    authenticity of this particular intercept, but again in its own right

 2    reflects the fact that there is a specific request by Colonel Popovic for

 3    fuel.

 4            So, again, in part this, in part that particular fuel document, in

 5    part other evidence of intercepts and documents, and references within the

 6    IKM log of the Zvornik Brigade that show Colonel Popovic in that

 7    particular region on this day.  Based on all of that information, that's

 8    what I draw my conclusion on.

 9       Q.   Briefly put, based on that, you concluded that the fuel mentioned

10    was used to transfer the captured from the school to Branjevo?

11       A.   Sir, I don't know that the fuel was used primarily for that.  I

12    can't tell you that that fuel wasn't held up there and then the next day

13    used for the burial operation, and I'm sure some of it may well have been,

14    because the fuel ultimately wasn't returned -- or the remainder of the

15    fuel wasn't returned back to Standard until later on the 17th.

16            What I can tell you is that based on my analysis of all of the

17    other activities that were happening or were not happening in Pilica on

18    that day, particularly with respect to military operations, that that is

19    the -- the use of that fuel, in part, for the conduct of the crime, you

20    know, is the most logical explanation for it.

21            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us have a look at another

22    intercept.  It is 1D692.  It is Intercept 662.

23       Q.   It seems that we do not have it translated, and I will read it out

24    for you.  It is rather brief.

25            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us go back to the top of the

Page 20130

 1    page so as to see the date.

 2       Q.   This conversation was intercepted on the 16th of July, 1995, by

 3    the SDB in Tuzla.

 4            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]  Let us go down to the Intercept

 5    662 itself.

 6       Q.   It says: "On the day mentioned, monitoring the RR axis of

 7    Zvornik-Vlasenica, at 7.85 megahertz frequency, Channel 9 at 1355, we

 8    registered a conversation between two unidentified males, X and Y."

 9            The conversation went as follows:

10            X:  "90 litres, 100 litres now."

11            Y:  "Fuck it."

12            X:  "We did our math on the map.  200 kilometres one way and two

13    back.  I don't know.  What did you decide?"

14            Y:  "I don't know.  I thought of going via Kotromanjica."

15            X:  "Where is that?"

16            Y:  "It's there, Dobrun Grada."

17            X:  "That's the direction?"

18            Y:  "Yes.  Vito is going there, and he's going to stay in Uzice

19    for 15 days."

20            X:  "I don't have that much fuel.  Well, I don't know, I was

21    thinking of telling that guy that he should give us some, and then when we

22    are going to return, to know where to go."

23            Y:  "Well, if I am going to have any problems, then we should

24    forward the old one.  I'm not sure that's so far away."

25            X:  "Of course it is.  I was looking at the map with one of the

Page 20131

 1    people from the traffic section.  I'll see with my people whether I can

 2    secure that fuel; and if I do, we'll go together."

 3            Y:  "I only called you to tell you."

 4            X:  "It goes further by some 450 kilometres."

 5            Mr. Butler, have you seen this intercept before?

 6       A.   No, sir, I have not.

 7       Q.   Thank you.  The requested quantity of fuel, namely, 500 litres,

 8    plus one bus with a tank full of fuel, does this quantity tell you that

 9    the transport required ought to cover larger distances?

10       A.   Sir, I'm not really following the logical path of what you're

11    asking.  I have no idea if this particular intercept that you have read to

12    me has any relation to what we're talking about.  I mean, are you

13    attempting to use it to illustrate how much fuel or how far a bus -- one

14    bus should go, if that's, in fact, what we're talking about?  I mean, I

15    don't understand.

16       Q.   It is not my intention to tell you why I'm putting a question to

17    you.  Merely answer my question, if you can.  My question is --

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  He's telling you, "Your question, I

19    can't see clear," and you ought to either repeat your question in a

20    different manner that is intelligible for your witness, or else you move

21    to your next one.

22            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

23       Q.   Let me be quite clear.  You said that you haven't seen this

24    intercept before, and I'm not asking you to analyse it.  I'm going back to

25    the intercept you did see, and I will later on go back to the document

Page 20132

 1    requesting 500 litres of fuel plus a bus with a tank full of fuel.

 2            As a military expert and analyst, does this not lead you to

 3    conclude that such a large quantity of fuel would be used for

 4    long-distance travel?

 5       A.   Okay.  Now I see where you're going.  As was the practice of the

 6    VRS, they would only provide enough fuel that a particular vehicle or a

 7    particular mission required to prevent that fuel from being siphoned off

 8    for non-military reasons.  I guess one conclusion that you can draw, if I

 9    guess this is where you're trying to go, is that you wouldn't issue that

10    much particular fuel unless you were planning to go a particularly long

11    distance.

12            I mean, I assume that's what you're trying to get through the

13    illustrative point of this intercept.  I mean, that's one interpretation.

14    Within the context of what we have been talking about, I don't think that

15    that's the particular interpretation I would give it.

16       Q.   Can you confirm or can you tell what the distance is between the

17    Kula school and Branjevo, where the executions took place?

18       A.   I have personally never been up to that particular area.  I have

19    seen it on a map.  I think we're talking about a distance of between five

20    and ten kilometres, if I recall correctly.

21       Q.   I know that the distance is far less, and I'm sure you know that,

22    too.

23            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection, Your Honour.  That's argumentative and

24    unnecessary.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Correct.

Page 20133

 1            Mr. Zivanovic.

 2            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 3       Q.   What I'm certain of, and what I'm inviting you to tell me, is can

 4    you link up the quantity of fuel requested with the short-distance travel

 5    involving one or two buses holding prisoners?

 6            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection, Your Honour.  That -- that hypothetical

 7    does not reflect the facts on the ground, and, as such, is not

 8    appropriate.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Zivanovic.  If we need to discuss this any

10    further, it will have to be in the absence of the witness.

11            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] No, no.  It's not necessary.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Then move to your next question.

13            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

14       Q.   The next issue I'd like to ask you about is the order for fuel

15    which you looked at, which is Prosecution Exhibit number--

16            THE INTERPRETER:  Can Mr. Zivanovic please repeat the number.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Zivanovic, could you kindly repeat the number.

18            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 291.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

20            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

21       Q.   Please look at the bottom of the document, the end of the

22    document, that is.

23            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please not broadcast the

24    document.

25       Q.   At the bottom right corner of the document, there's a name of an

Page 20134

 1    individual, stating that he received the fuel concerned.  Do you know if

 2    that individual was a member of the Command of the Drina Corps?

 3       A.   Which name are we talking about, sir?  If -- there are two names I

 4    see at the bottom.

 5       Q.   There is only one name in the bottom right-hand corner and a

 6    signature.

 7       A.   Okay.  So we're talking -- oh, yes.  No.  I don't know offhand if

 8    that individual is a member of the Drina Corps or not.

 9       Q.   Have you ever come to know who the individual is?

10       A.   No, sir.  I don't believe I've personally looked at who that

11    individual is.

12       Q.   Did you receive any information about this individual from the

13    OTP?

14       A.   I don't believe that I did.  I mean, I'm not aware of this

15    particular individual at all.  I mean, I assume he's a member of the

16    Zvornik Brigade, but I don't know that as a fact, either.

17       Q.   You didn't go looking for it?

18       A.   No, sir.  I didn't go interview this person.

19       Q.   Can you confirm that nowhere in this document can the signature of

20    Vujadin Popovic be found?

21       A.   I don't have a working knowledge of what his signature looks like,

22    so I can't confirm or deny that.  I don't know.  I mean, I don't know if

23    Colonel Popovic's signature is on this document or not.

24       Q.   In the translation of the document, can you perhaps find his

25    signature or any other signature that is unclear or illegible to you in

Page 20135

 1    this particular document?

 2       A.   Sir, I mean, I see his name listed.  I don't see a signature

 3    listed with him.  I mean, if you're telling me that he didn't sign this

 4    document, I will have no reason to doubt you.

 5       Q.   I don't want you to believe anything I say.  I just want you to

 6    look at the document and tell me if you see that signature or a place

 7    where the signature should be put.  If you don't know, that's fine.  I

 8    won't insist.

 9       A.   Yes, sir.  All I can tell you is I see his name written down there

10    in handwriting.  I don't see anything which I would purport to be his

11    signature.

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like us to go back to the

13    earlier document; namely, 1189.  That's an intercept.

14       Q.   Do you agree that at the time the conversation took place, from

15    Vlasenica to Zvornik, the quantity of two tonnes of fuel was being

16    dispatched?  Can this be concluded on the basis of the intercept?

17       A.   Could you please scroll down on the English language version?

18       Q.   Perhaps it's on page 2, but you can go through the entire

19    intercept if that's easier.

20       A.   I think what you're referring to is at the bottom of page 1, sir,

21    and it is a reference there, after, "Don't you have 500 litres of oil?"

22    The next sentence is:  "They're asking for two tonnes loaded."

23            I can't make that conclusion, only because the next sentence says,

24    from the Palma duty officer, "Well, I don't know."  The Palma duty officer

25    is certainly not aware that there is already two tonnes of fuel coming up

Page 20136

 1    to Zvornik.  Whether other members of the Rear Services Branch know or not

 2    is unclear, so I don't know the answer to that.  I can't say that it is.

 3       Q.   Very well.

 4            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us move on to the other

 5    document; namely, 1201, another intercept, and I'm interested in the items

 6    A and C.

 7       Q.   This is a conversation between Popovic, himself, and Rasic.  It

 8    was on the basis of this conversation that you concluded, on the basis of

 9    his words, that he had finished his business.  You concluded that he was

10    referring to him having finished the executions or completed the

11    executions.  Is that -- was that your testimony?

12       A.   In part, that's what I believe the testimony -- that's what my

13    testimony was concerning one portion of the intercept.  The first portion

14    of the intercept, I believe Colonel Popovic is talking about the fact that

15    he was up with Pandurevic.  He has discussed issues related to the column

16    with Pandurevic, and he's referring to Colonel Pandurevic's interim combat

17    report of 16 July.

18            I think the second part, where we start into, you know:

19            "... I finished the job."

20            "You finished?"

21            "I finished everything."

22            "Good."

23            "I'll come there tomorrow when I'm sure that it's all been taken

24    care of."

25            That, I conclude he's now talking about the murder operation.

Page 20137

 1       Q.   In view of the function held by Vujadin Popovic at the time, do

 2    you find his -- that his stay in Zvornik may have been related to the

 3    affairs that fell within his purview under the rules?

 4       A.   The implication that there's an ongoing counter-intelligence

 5    mission that requires his presence there?  I'm not aware --

 6       Q.   In addition to other matters.

 7       A.   I'm not aware of any other matters that he might be conducting,

 8    you know, within the context of the legal prosecution of his rules, you

 9    know, his purpose being there was to facilitate the murder operation.  The

10    fact that he was there and that General Krstic sent him out as the nearest

11    Drina Corps staff officer to find out personally from Colonel Pandurevic

12    what was happening and why is certainly within his competence to do.

13            I'm not aware of any other mission that he is performing that

14    would be strictly related to his counter-intelligence role as a security

15    officer.

16       Q.   You told us that at the time, the column which was retreating from

17    Srebrenica was posing a threat to Zvornik; do you agree with that?

18       A.   From the 13th and -- you know, the 12th and 13th, from where the

19    column was moving up, it did pose a threat particularly to the town of

20    Zvornik.  By 16 July, it was evidently clear to everybody, to include

21    Colonel Pandurevic, that there was no military threat to the town of

22    Zvornik at that time.  The threat was to the military units in the front

23    lines, and that was the predication for letting the column through.

24            So, you know, Zvornik is a large municipality.  If we're talking

25    about Zvornik town, the threat is greatest on the evening of 12/13 July,

Page 20138

 1    when the column would have had the ability to attack the town.  That

 2    threat didn't exist by the 16th of July, 1995.

 3       Q.   And what about the 14th of July?

 4       A.   Based on my understanding of where the column would have been the

 5    morning and afternoon of 14 July, I would say that there would be an

 6    outside possibility that they could have switched their direction and

 7    attacked Zvornik proper; but at that point, as far as the column was

 8    advancing in the other direction, it would have been a very, very

 9    difficult military task to do, probably beyond their ability.  But, you

10    know, in the abstract, I will grant them that they had that capability.

11       Q.   According to your estimate, the column was even farther away on

12    the 15th and was an even less a threat to Zvornik?

13       A.   The town of Zvornik, correct.  Conversely, since the army was

14    deployed west of the town, along the confrontation lines, that raised the

15    military threat to the Zvornik Brigade military forces.

16       Q.   You told us that mobilisation was declared in Zvornik.  You

17    probably can't recall when this occurred, in light of the earlier dates,

18    the other dates.

19            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]  I'll show another document, which

20    is 698.  It's in e-court.  We have the translation as well.

21            This isn't the document.

22       Q.   This isn't the document I was asking for, but I have a hard copy

23    and I'll ask you to look at it.

24            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have the B/C/S version.  I don't

25    know if it's possible to place both versions at the same time.

Page 20139

 1       Q.   This is the request sent by the commander of the Drina Corps,

 2    General Krstic, for non-assigned conscripts to be mobilised, and the date

 3    is the 15th of July.  I don't know if you've had time to look at it, but

 4    tell me, it arises from this that mobilisation was ordered on the 15th of

 5    July, or rather, this is a piece of evidence that mobilisation was sought

 6    on the 15th of July.

 7            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have a document here ordering

 8    it, which is document 697, and I don't think it's in the system either.

 9            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, that's correct.

10            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

11       Q.   It arises from this that on the 15th of July, mobilisation was

12    ordered in Zvornik, and it's on this basis that I conclude that there was

13    a threat to Zvornik.  Would you agree with me?

14       A.   Well, sir, I believe the key phrase in these particular documents

15    are "those conscripts that have not been assigned to the war formations."

16    As you will note, there was an earlier mobilisation order, in some units

17    as early as the 9th, as late as the 12th, which reflect the mobilisation

18    of all individuals assigned to the Zvornik Brigade who might have

19    otherwise been there.

20            Certainly, the fact that they want to now mobilise even more

21    individuals and have them report to the Zvornik Brigade reflects the

22    military situation at the time and their understanding of it.  Having said

23    that, we also know, from the other information, exactly where the military

24    threat is, because it's reflected by where Colonel Pandurevic is sending

25    the units.  They're not being sent to Zvornik town.  They're in fact being

Page 20140

 1    sent to the area of Baljkovica.

 2            JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Zivanovic, I want to let you know that they are

 3    in e-court.  You should put "1D" before the numbers.

 4            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] 1D697.  It is a document of -- it is

 5    an order for mobilisation of -- a request for mobilisation of the Drina

 6    Corps commander.  And 697 is order of Ministry of Defence.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  You didn't put "1D," so they could find it.  They

 8    are there.

 9            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  "1D," yes.

10       Q.   [Interpretation] We have the document in the system now as well.

11    Do you see that the mobilisation was ordered with a view to securing the

12    territory in the area of responsibility from infiltrated sabotage groups

13    and broken-up Muslim groups from Srebrenica, as the text says?  Is that

14    what paragraph 1 of the order says?

15       A.   That's correct, sir.

16       Q.   Tell me, please, are the security organs duty-bound, as part of

17    their duties, to detect such groups through counter-intelligence methods?

18       A.   In the abstract, they are, yes, sir.

19       Q.   Thank you.  Do you know if security organs have any duties

20    pertaining to mobilisation?

21       A.   I don't recall a specific notation of that.  However, given the

22    broader responsibilities of the security branch, I could foresee a

23    situation where, during particularly the initial screening of

24    mobilisation, where they're getting information from potential conscripts,

25    that there would be a reason to -- for security personnel to look over

Page 20141

 1    that to determine if any of the individuals might be potential security or

 2    counter-intelligence threats.

 3       Q.   Another question:  Since you had occasion to read a number of

 4    military rules applied in the VRS Army, did you have occasion to read the

 5    Rules of Mobilisation of the Armed Forces, called "PRAMOS," for short?

 6       A.   No, sir.  I don't believe that I did.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Zivanovic, yesterday you took three hours and 31

 8    minutes.  Your time will -- of five hours will expire at 10.30, so you

 9    need to finish by that time.

10            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] Okay.  Yes, I'll do that.  Thanks.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

13       Q.   Very well.  I will not be asking you, then, if you know whether

14    the security organs carry out the so-called securing -- or providing

15    security for mobilisation.

16            Tell me, why is it that you did not consider the stay of Vujadin

17    Popovic as the security organ in Zvornik as one required by his usual

18    duties?  Do you wish to state that he did not, in fact, perform his duties

19    at all?

20       A.   I considered the location of where Colonel Popovic was; but as you

21    will note, on the basis of the intercepts and other information, Colonel

22    Popovic wasn't in Zvornik on -- for most of the time on the 16th and 17th.

23    He was, in fact, up in Pilica.  Under your supposition that he's in

24    Zvornik somehow shepherding the mobilisation, the conscripts are being

25    mobilized at Standard and he's a dozen, 15, 20 kilometres to the north?  I

Page 20142

 1    don't make the connection that you do, sir.

 2       Q.   What about his counter-intelligence work?  Was he supposed to do

 3    that at Standard alone or in the field as well?

 4       A.   Colonel Pandurevic [sic], by function and responsibility, could

 5    have performed his counter-intelligence mission anywhere that he deemed

 6    necessary.  Again --

 7            JUDGE KWON:  "Popovic," you mean?

 8            THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, my apologies.  Colonel Popovic.

 9            But, again, I have -- I have come across no information whatsoever

10    that reflects a particular counter-intelligence threat that would have

11    warranted his presence up in Pilica at the time in question.

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

13       Q.   In your understanding, does counter-intelligence work or activity

14    take place only in a location where there is an attack or any combat

15    activity, or can it be performed at other locations as well?

16       A.   I agree, sir.  It can be -- it can be performed wherever it needs

17    to be performed.  Counter-intelligence has no direct correlation to a

18    particular military attack.  It doesn't even have a direct correlation to

19    an armed conflict.  It occurs in peacetime as well.

20       Q.   And you will agree that it needn't take place or be linked to the

21    same location where there is combat?

22       A.   Yes, sir.  I believe I just said that.

23       Q.   You testified here that the corridor at Baljkovica was opened on

24    the 16th of July and that Popovic was issued with an order to go and see

25    why that happened and to check whether it was done properly.  Do you agree

Page 20143

 1    with that?

 2       A.   I testified that the information was that Colonel Popovic was

 3    directed to go out and find Colonel Pandurevic and get an explanation as

 4    to whether a corridor had been opened and why.  I think it's a foregone

 5    conclusion that it wasn't done properly, because no one on the Drina Corps

 6    Main Staff had directed it.

 7       Q.   You were shown a note, I believe, from the duty officer's logbook,

 8    and it states there that he was to go there.  Do you not understand that

 9    as an order that was given to him?

10       A.   Yes, sir.  I believe I've testified that he was -- he was directed

11    to go there, yes.

12       Q.   Did you know that the corridor was opened on the next day?  It

13    wasn't open and closed the same day, but it remained open for a period of

14    about 24 hours or a bit longer?

15       A.   Yes, sir, that is correct.  That is my understanding.

16       Q.   Do you link that to his words, when he said that he was going to

17    come the next day when he will be certain that everything is fine?  Did

18    you understand that to mean that he was to wait until the corridor was

19    closed and things completed so that he can submit his final report?

20       A.   No, sir.  I don't believe that that was the context that he was

21    talking about.

22       Q.   Why do you think he wasn't supposed to do that or that he did not

23    do that?

24       A.   His original purpose up there, as I've indicated, was to

25    facilitate the executions.  He was drawn off of that original purpose by a

Page 20144

 1    direct order of the Drina Corps, presumably General Krstic personally, to

 2    find out what was going on with Colonel Pandurevic.

 3            Once Colonel Pandurevic either reported back to Colonel Popovic

 4    what had happened, and in conjunction he had written his interim combat

 5    report of that day, explaining in great detail what he did and why he did

 6    it, General Krstic had the answers that he'd needed.  In context,

 7    obviously, so did the Main Staff, which resulted in the dispatch of a

 8    number of officers, on the morning of the 17th, from the Main Staff to

 9    inquire, themselves, what was going on.

10            There's no information that I'm aware of that Lieutenant-Colonel

11    Popovic was part of that inquiry process.  So, if he wasn't out at

12    Baljkovica, talking with Colonel Pandurevic and Major Obrenovic, and

13    either with Colonel Stankovic, Colonel Turkulja, Colonel Sladoje -- let me

14    pronounce that correctly, Sladojevic, I believe, the only other issue that

15    was again occurring at that time was the burial operation of the bodies at

16    the Branjevo Farm.

17            So because I could not place him at the legitimate military

18    activity, the information that I have, as well as other information,

19    places him up at Pilica during that period.

20       Q.   Mr. Butler, having in mind Mr. Popovic's position and duties, can

21    you explain, the way you see it as an expert, why was he supposed to be

22    singled out to assist the executions and assist the burial of the corpses,

23    rather than to perform his regular duties?

24       A.   Given the context of the large-scale crimes that were occurring -

25    and I take it as, you know, that even they recognised at the time, at face

Page 20145

 1    value, it was a crime - there was a vested interest in making sure that

 2    evidence of that crime was appropriately covered up.  That would require,

 3    in large part, you know, the ability to, you know, use military police,

 4    facilitate the use of engineers, things of that nature.

 5            The commanders obviously felt that the security officers would be

 6    the best individuals to either facilitate -- you know, to facilitate the

 7    executions as well as to ensure that there would be as little evidence

 8    around as possible after the fact.

 9       Q.   And in your belief, such a complex operation could only be

10    performed by person number 3 in the corps and that plain officers and

11    soldiers could not do such a thing, such as burying corpses and checking

12    whether they had been buried properly?

13       A.   No, sir.  I certainly hold open that possibility, and I believe

14    that the activity at other crime scenes reflects the involvement of those

15    individuals as well.  This was not an activity that Colonel Popovic

16    exclusively was in charge of or even did individually, but his role up

17    there at that location was to facilitate the accomplishment of that

18    particular mission.

19       Q.   Your conclusion, again, points to the fact, and perhaps you can

20    confirm this to us or not, that the duties that Popovic was supposed to

21    perform, and the only ones he could - this being counter-intelligence,

22    since he couldn't delegate those to anyone else - remained not taken care

23    of, since he was delegated to do other things.  Can you confirm that for

24    us?

25       A.   I'm not aware of what counter-intelligence tasks he was involved

Page 20146

 1    in at that particular time, so I don't know whether or not they were being

 2    taken care of or not.  I just don't have an answer to that question.

 3       Q.   From the mobilisation order, you saw that there was mobilisation

 4    precisely because of the terrorist groups that had been infiltrated, and

 5    counter-intelligence was there to locate and gather knowledge about those

 6    groups.  In your words, Popovic was not engaged in that, since he was busy

 7    burying corpses, in your words.  Is that your assertion?

 8       A.   I'm -- yes.  It's my assertion; although, I just -- I still don't

 9    understand the connection that, you know, the activity that was occurring

10    in the Zvornik Brigade zone of identifying these small groups of Muslims

11    who were either trapped behind the lines or things of that nature, how

12    that's a classic counter-intelligence function.

13            Colonel Popovic, you know, isn't beating the bushes, you know,

14    with operative sources looking for these individuals, and certainly

15    interviewing recently-mobilised conscripts isn't going to get him any

16    answers, either, as to where these people are located.

17            So I'm just not sure how a task that is defined as strictly a

18    counter-intelligence task is assisting the military situation at hand at

19    that moment.

20       Q.   From your answer, I conclude that detecting sabotage groups is one

21    of the tasks under the remit of security organs, and they have their own

22    counter-intelligence measures for that.  Do you stand by that, since I

23    never said that security organs set up ambushes or fight the groups?

24       A.   No, sir, but - and, certainly, I didn't mean to make the case that

25    you did - what I'm saying is that the Drina Corps and particularly the

Page 20147

 1    Zvornik Brigade at that time, you know, despite what they were labelled in

 2    this particular mobilisation order, you know, knew that the military

 3    threat was not what we would call a sabotage and terrorist group

 4    infiltrating the lines in order to conduct a specific act of sabotage or

 5    terrorist in an area.

 6            What the military threat was is dozens of groups who had been

 7    separated from the main body of the column, many of them who were armed,

 8    many who were presumably lost, who were wandering around the zone -- or

 9    the rear areas of the zone of Zvornik Brigade and, as such, posed a

10    potential military threat.

11            You know, as I indicated earlier, in -- given that that's the

12    context of the military threat, you know, I'm not aware how the classical

13    functions of a counter-intelligence officer assists in a military

14    commander getting a better handle on what that threat is and dealing with

15    it.

16            The only way that that particular officer would be able to provide

17    any information of relevance to someone like Colonel Pandurevic or Major

18    Obrenovic would be following the capture of individuals and their

19    interrogation in order to provide information from those individuals as to

20    the sizes and locations of other units of stragglers.

21       Q.   Are you stating that such matters cannot be ascertained via the

22    network of cooperatives that security organs usually have in place?

23       A.   For a situation where there was a source of information that may

24    have come from a cooperative at 2nd Corps or things of that nature on a

25    specific sabotage group, I concede that would have been a likely function,

Page 20148

 1    but that wasn't the situation facing the Zvornik Brigade on that

 2    particular day or the next.

 3            They didn't -- the VRS didn't have operatives with those straggler

 4    groups, collecting information on their intentions and things of that

 5    nature.  What they had, in fact, was, through their radio intercepts,

 6    through interviews with captured prisoners, as well as, you know, in the

 7    case of Colonel Pandurevic, the negotiations with Semso Muminovic - I hope

 8    I pronounced his name correctly - Colonel Pandurevic had a fairly good

 9    reading of what the military objective of the column was in that context.

10            So, I mean, I agree with your point, exactly what

11    counter-intelligence people can do; but in the context of the time and the

12    threat that we're talking about here, they weren't doing that.

13       Q.   In other words, you exclude the possibility that the security

14    organs were busying themselves with their counter-intelligence tasks

15    whatsoever?

16       A.   No, sir.  I mean, I never exclude possibilities, but I have no

17    information whatsoever which supports that possibility.

18       Q.   You will agree that such information is otherwise confidential and

19    they are not made public?

20       A.   No, sir.  I would agree and remind you that we're sitting on

21    approximately 350.000 VRS documents that are also confidential and state

22    secret that are not otherwise made public.  That goes for all military

23    documents; and in those documents, there are some security-related

24    material.  I mean, there -- again, we never exclude a possibility

25    analytically, certainly I don't, but there's just no evidence to support

Page 20149

 1    that.

 2       Q.   Thank you.  I have a general question concerning the intercepts

 3    you referred to.  You noticed that in certain places in those

 4    conversations, dots appear.  We were given information that if a part of a

 5    conversation was inaudible, such dots would appear.  That was the

 6    explanation given by the operators.  When interpreting such intercepts,

 7    how did you interpret such dots, in other words, the parts of those

 8    conversations which remained inaudible?

 9       A.   The same way you did, sir.  I mean, my understanding of the dots

10    was either that parts of the conversation were either inaudible or that

11    there was an indeterminate time delay where there was silence or something

12    else and then the conversation picked up again.  I mean, that's how I

13    understand that those symbols are used.

14       Q.   Did anyone tell you that those dots might be there to mark a

15    period of time, for example, a moment of pause in a conversation, when the

16    collocutor are not saying anything?

17       A.   I believe I've heard that once or twice, yes, sir.

18       Q.   The words that are missing and the words that we have dots

19    appearing instead for, can they change the thrust of a conversation, give

20    it a different direction or mean something that could influence your

21    analysis?

22       A.   Obviously, sir, words that are either unintelligible or otherwise

23    not included in intercepts certainly could change the context by which I

24    would read that intercept or read it for a specific piece of information.

25            I mean, as a matter of doing any form of analysis, you'd like as

Page 20150

 1    much complete information -- you know, you'd like to get the complete

 2    story behind it, the complete set of information.

 3       Q.   Mr. Butler, just one more question:  You were the Prosecution's

 4    expert in this case, which is completely fine; but to say it outright, I

 5    am one of the people who doubted your objectivity, since I believe that

 6    your close ties with the Prosecution and the investigation, as you took

 7    part of to a significant degree, compromised your objectivity.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Mr. McCloskey didn't like that.

 9            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Everything is fine except the personalising of it,

10    his view of it.  It's just not appropriate; it's never relevant.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  You're right, but Mr. Zivanovic, I'm sure, will

12    appreciate that.

13            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] This is my last question, fortunately.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Well, I could gather that.  I could gather that, but

15    go straight to it, please.

16            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17       Q.   Can you tell me this:  In your opinion, the close ties I just

18    referred to, did they have any impact on the objectivity of your

19    conclusions in this case?

20       A.   Well, sir, I am human, so I'm not going to tell you that I don't

21    have human characteristics, despite what some people will say about me.

22            As an analyst, I recognise there are dangers of bias creeping in.

23    As to my close ties, my close personal ties with these people, I would

24    also remind you that, you know, as a career military intelligence officer

25    in my own army, I have very close ties to the success or failure of the

Page 20151

 1    United States Army.  That doesn't mean that in serving my commanders, I

 2    serve them best by slanting information to the way they want to hear it.

 3            I am trained by profession to, as much as I possibly can, provide

 4    the information in as accurate a form as possible, because that's how I

 5    best serve the people who are in leadership positions over me.  Sometimes

 6    that means telling them things that they don't want to hear.

 7       Q.   Sometimes.  Thank you.

 8            MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] Those are my questions.  Thank you.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Butler can leave the courtroom, and

10    we'll have the break.

11            In the meantime, Mr. Haynes, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Zivanovic;

12    Mr. Zivanovic is the least concerned, even though this document is a"1D"

13    document.  Earlier on in the day, Mr. Haynes and Mr. Zivanovic,

14    Mr. Zivanovic made available the English translation of the document he

15    made use of yesterday, and I'm talking of 1D221.

16            You will recall he asked the witness whether he would agree that

17    there were no intercepts between the 12th and the 19th of July of 1995.

18    It's not that that I am referring to.

19            But under the entry of the 19th of July, 1995, page 7 in the

20    English version, we'd like you to look at the translation, Mr. Haynes and

21    Mr. McCloskey.  We only want to know whether you agree that the

22    translation is a correct translation, and that's it.  We don't want any

23    further comments.  We just want to make sure that this is a correct

24    translation of the original, and you can come to us at your convenience

25    later on.

Page 20152

 1            We'll have a 25-minute break now.  Thank you.

 2                          --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

 3                          --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Who's next?

 5            Mr. Ostojic.

 6            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

 7                          Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

 8       Q.   Mr. Butler, my name is John Ostojic, and I represent Ljubisa

 9    Beara.  Good morning.

10       A.   Good morning, sir.

11       Q.   Sir, I'm going to start by -- where my learned friend left off,

12    and that is with your curriculum vitae; and in reviewing that --

13            MR. OSTOJIC:  And for the Court, it's 65 ter 681 on the exhibit

14    list.

15       Q.   Sir, I note, in your educational background that you provide for

16    us, that you have no law enforcement education.  Is that correct?

17       A.   I'm not sure which version you're looking at.  I believe one of

18    them should -- that particular document, 2007, should reflect the

19    education at the Law Enforcement Centre in Glencoe, Georgia, where as an

20    intelligence professional now with law enforcement, I was required to

21    attend a six-week course.

22            I believe that will be on page 2 of the English version.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  At least on the page that we have on the monitor,

24    the third paragraph under "Professional Background," is "Six years of

25    combined military and criminal analytical ..."

Page 20153

 1            I was reading --

 2            THE WITNESS:  Page 3.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

 4            "Six years of combined military and criminal analytical

 5    intelligence support for international prosecutors and related law

 6    enforcement professionals, conducting investigations into violations," et

 7    cetera.

 8            Is that what you mean, Mr. Butler?

 9            THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  That reflects my work here.  What I'm

10    specifically referring to I believe is on page 3.

11            MR. OSTOJIC:  It's page 4, Mr. Butler.

12            THE WITNESS:  Is it page 4?  Okay, sir.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Then let's go to page 4, please.

14            MR. OSTOJIC:

15       Q.   Sir, my question, though, is:  This was a training course, was it

16    not?

17       A.   Yes, sir, a basic intelligence training course.  It was a six-week

18    course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centre.

19       Q.   Well, I'm talking specifically about your period prior to the time

20    that you came to work for the ICTY and the OTP.  Prior to that, you had no

21    education, no background, whatsoever, in law enforcement; is that correct?

22       A.   Yes, sir.

23       Q.   And prior to coming to work for the OTP, you also had no criminal

24    law education, to speak of; correct?

25       A.   Yes, sir.

Page 20154

 1       Q.   Now, let's stay with this page 4 for a moment.  And you list three

 2    training courses or seminars that you attended, including the one where

 3    you received the technical certificate, a technical certification course.

 4            Can you tell me how long -- you told us the first one in 2004 was

 5    a six-week course.  The one in 1997, how long was this advanced course

 6    that you took in Arizona?

 7       A.   The course is structured into two components.  The first component

 8    was roughly an 18-month curriculum that was a non-resident part.  The

 9    actual attendance part was a six-week curriculum.

10       Q.   And what about with respect to the 1988 course where you received

11    a technical certification course, as you put it?

12       A.   That was just a six-week residence course.

13       Q.   Now, now that we know that you had no law enforcement or criminal

14    law experience -- strike that.  Now that we know that you had no law

15    enforcement education and no criminal law education prior to coming to the

16    OTP, let's turn to your experience, sir.

17            Am I also correct that prior to coming to work for the OTP, you

18    did not have any law enforcement experience or criminal law experience?

19       A.   Correct, sir.

20       Q.   And on January 14th, when you first started testifying here - on

21    page 28, line 10 from my learned friends - you said something to the

22    effect as follows, quote, that you "learned techniques and tactics" while

23    you were dealing with law enforcement in your position with the OTP.  Do

24    you remember that?

25       A.   Yes, sir.

Page 20155

 1       Q.   Tell me what those techniques and tactics were that you learned

 2    with respect to dealing with law enforcement, since you had no education

 3    and experience in those areas prior to that.

 4       A.   Well, by virtue of having access to not only a world-class body of

 5    lawyers, but also investigators from both common law and civil law

 6    backgrounds, what I was able to do is, by watching them work, looking at

 7    what they were doing and what they were trying to accomplish with respect

 8    to their own investigations, it gave me the foundation to be able to look

 9    at what types of military information they would need to support their

10    investigative process.

11       Q.   I honestly don't know if I understand you.  Was that a technique

12    or a tactic that you explained to me?

13       A.   That would be a combination of both.

14       Q.   Well, list out any other technique, if you will, that you learned

15    relating to law enforcement while you were with the OTP, sir.

16       A.   Well, one technique I would use, and I still use today, is a

17    technique that many civil law investigators use, where, in an interview,

18    even if they believe that the subject is not providing accurate

19    information or is misrepresenting them, rather than initially confronting

20    the individual, they will allow the interview to go through an entire

21    statement, from beginning to end, and only at that juncture will they

22    intervene to ask specific questions.

23            Conversely, many of the particularly American and Canadian and

24    Australian investigators would not take that approach and would, in fact,

25    as soon as it became clear to them, they would intervene in an attempt to

Page 20156

 1    get the individual who they were interviewing to give information that

 2    they believe was more truthful.  So, I mean, that is an example of a

 3    technique that I learned while here.

 4       Q.   How about a tactic?  Share with me a tactic that you may have

 5    learned.

 6       A.   A tactic with respect to law enforcement that we would often use

 7    is that when we set up a particular interview mission, looking to confirm

 8    or deny specific facts, what we would often do is structure the targets

 9    that we were interviewing to start with the lowest-ranking person first in

10    order to establish not only what their own personal activities were during

11    a relevant period, but also to give us information as to what their

12    superiors were doing.

13            So we would take that particular tactic into account, so that when

14    we finally got to the point where we were interviewing the superior, you

15    know, by virtue of earlier interviews, we felt that we had a good idea

16    what this individual's activities were during a relevant period.  So

17    that's how I would define it as a tactic.

18       Q.   Okay.  Prior to working with the OTP, am I correct that you were

19    never involved in a criminal investigation?

20       A.   That's correct, sir.  As a US Army intelligence officer, I'm

21    forbidden by law to have been involved in criminal investigations in the

22    United States.

23       Q.   And prior to working with the OTP, am I correct that you never

24    authored a report with respect to your analysis to be used in a court of

25    law?

Page 20157

 1       A.   Yes, sir.  To be used in a court of law, that is correct.

 2       Q.   Or to be published anywhere?

 3       A.   I have authored a number of classified reports that were published

 4    that are not in courts of law.

 5       Q.   Prior to working with the OTP, sir, am I correct that you were

 6    never retained or requested to be a witness in a local, national, or

 7    international criminal proceeding?

 8       A.   Correct, sir.

 9       Q.   So the only experience you have with respect to testifying would,

10    in fact, be when it started here with the OTP; correct?

11       A.   Yes, sir.

12       Q.   I want to talk a little bit about -- we discussed independence or

13    you were kind enough to say you were human, as we all can see, and that

14    you may have certain biases.  Do you agree with me, sir, that you're not

15    an independent outsider?

16       A.   Yes, sir.

17       Q.   And would you also agree with me that you're not independent, per

18    se?

19       A.   That entirely depends on how you define "per se."

20       Q.   Okay.  Well, let's look at your testimony in the Blagojevic case,

21    pages 4755, lines 13 through 18, where you say, quote, you are not

22    "independent, per se," end quote.  Why don't you tell me, sir, what you

23    mean by "per se."

24       A.   Okay.  I am not independent insomuch as I work for the Office of

25    the Prosecutor; and in that context, the material that I am reviewing for

Page 20158

 1    the most part is within the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor.  I

 2    am independent insomuch as the purpose, the focus and the conclusions of

 3    my analysis.

 4       Q.   Okay.  We'll get to that shortly, I'm sure.  And you also describe

 5    yourself, sir, as being an integrated member of the OTP; correct?

 6       A.   I believe it was an integrated member of the investigative team.

 7    If I said "OTP," I certainly mean within the Srebrenica team.

 8       Q.   And you also describe yourself not only as being integrated but as

 9    a strategic member of the OTP, do you not?

10       A.   With respect to the Srebrenica team and investigation, yes, sir.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Butler, could you slow down a

12    little bit and allow a short pause between question and answer for the

13    interpreters, please.  Thank you.

14            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Butler.

15    I apologise.

16       Q.   Sir, let's talk a little bit about bias.  With respect to bias,

17    will you agree with me that one issue, analytically speaking, that remains

18    out there is the fact that there is a bias in one direction or another,

19    and it's because there may be a lack of information that an analyst may

20    look at?

21       A.   A bias is generally -- with respect to internal factors, I don't

22    view bias as an issue of a lack of information.  That's a completeness

23    issue.  A lack of information can lead to potentially a biased conclusion.

24    So, I mean, in that context, I agree with what you're saying.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, Mr. Ostojic.  Let's cut through this in

Page 20159

 1    a radical way.

 2            You're here as an expert witness brought forward by the

 3    Prosecution.

 4            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, that's correct.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  How do you understand your role or what do you

 6    understand your role to be now, as an expert, Prosecution expert witness,

 7    vis a vis the Trial Chamber and parties in this case?

 8            THE WITNESS:  Sir, as I've always understood my role when

 9    testifying before this Chamber and prior Chambers, I am a witness at the

10    disposal of the Court, not for the Prosecutor, not for the Defence, but to

11    provide whatever information that the Court deems necessary to make its

12    decision.  I'm not going to say I'm an independent arbitrator of facts,

13    such as an expert who's had no association with the Office of the

14    Prosecutor could say, but I believe that the way my reports are written

15    and my information is provided, that I am being as fair and as technically

16    accurate as I can for the assistance of the Court.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

18            Mr. Ostojic.

19            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And with all due respect

20    to Mr. President and Your Honours, I do not believe you are an expert,

21    Mr. Butler.

22       Q.   Let me read what you said in Blagojevic on November 17th, 2003, on

23    page 4692, lines 2 through 9.  Here's what you say when you were asked by

24    Defence counsel there:

25            "Well, Mr. Karnavas, with respect to my own personal feelings and

Page 20160

 1    opinions, I try to keep them out as much as possible.  However, with

 2    respect to bias, the one issue, analytically speaking, that remains out

 3    there is the fact that as -- myself personally, as an analyst, and all

 4    analysts engaged in this field, we are limited to the amounts and types of

 5    information that we have available to us at the time.  So if there is, in

 6    fact, a bias in one direction or another, it may very well be in fact

 7    because of lack of information."

 8            Do you agree with that?

 9       A.   Yes, sir.  I believe I've said earlier that a lack of information

10    can, in fact, lead -- you know, is a cause of bias.

11       Q.   Now, let's look at some information that you may not have examined

12    in evaluating and in preparing your report, if you don't mind.

13            Did you, sir, at any time review or request intercepts that may

14    have been received from other countries or taken by other countries for

15    the period in July of 1995?

16       A.   I am aware that the investigative team did request that

17    information, yes, sir.

18       Q.   And can you list for me the countries that they requested that

19    information from?

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

21            MR. McCLOSKEY:  We're getting into the area of Rule 70.

22            MR. OSTOJIC:  And, Mr. President, I'd like to be heard

23    specifically on that point, but perhaps outside the presence of the

24    witness.

25            Also, I would add --

Page 20161

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, go ahead.

 2            MR. OSTOJIC:  -- when we addressed this issue before, at the

 3    beginning of the case with another witness, the Court instructed me not to

 4    go further with those questions because a representative from the United

 5    States government was not present, and we complied.  We're grateful, and

 6    we do have a representative from the United States government here, so I'm

 7    sure that she can protect the interests, if it even borders on a Rule 70

 8    issue, which I don't believe that it does.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, but you are jumping to the conclusion that the

10    information was drawn from the US government, so --

11            MR. McCLOSKEY:  That's absolutely correct, and that would be Rule

12    70 protected.  And I can tell you that there's many countries involved

13    here; and the US, whether they are a country or not, is not an issue.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. McCloskey, I wouldn't like to proceed with this

15    discussion in the presence of the witness.  So if you are going to make

16    further submissions, then the witness must leave the courtroom, and then

17    we'll see.

18            I think you can safely move to your next question, Mr. Ostojic.

19            MR. OSTOJIC:  I think, Your Honour, I'd like to be heard,

20    because --

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course, but not in the presence of the

22    witness.

23            MR. OSTOJIC:  So should I wait or should the Court invite the

24    witness to leave?

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no.  I've already said that if you want to

Page 20162

 1    discuss this further, the witness must leave the courtroom.

 2            MR. OSTOJIC:  I would like to discuss it further, Your Honour.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  So the witness must leave the courtroom now.

 4                          [The witness stands down]

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

 6            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

 7            This witness, in prior testimony, specifically identifies that

 8    there were intercepts from other countries, and he says that they were

 9    from many other countries, and he identifies one country being the United

10    States.  So I don't know at that time why there wasn't an objection.

11    There was not.  I consider it to be waived at this point.

12            Nevertheless, since we do have counsel from the United States

13    government, we'd like to hear from her on that issue.  But I don't believe

14    that Rule 70 extends to the other countries as well.

15            We know and believe that there were other countries who were

16    trying to and did obtain intercept information that would be exculpatory.

17    We need to know when they were requested by the Office of the Prosecution,

18    if they received those intercepts, in order for the Court to get the

19    complete picture with respect to what the Prosecution has only offered

20    evidence of one side; namely, the ABiH intercept operators.

21            I can tell the Court I believe, it's my understanding, based on

22    understanding and belief, that the Croatian government also was conducting

23    intercept operations and have, from articles that we've seen from time to

24    time, suggested that they do have intercept material in connection with

25    July of 1995.

Page 20163

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

 2            Mr. McCloskey.

 3            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Regarding Croatia, Mr. President, we have provided

 4    intercept material related to the Croatian government that's nothing to do

 5    with Rule 70, and that is part of the information provided to the Defence.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Yes, anything else?

 7            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Well, and if -- I would like to be directed to

 8    where Mr. Butler has mentioned US intercepts in the past.  I am --

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Well, that I can't tell you.  What I can remember

10    vividly is that during his testimony here, he did hint or affirm that

11    apart from the intercepts that we've been talking about here, the ones

12    allegedly obtained or captured by the BiH, there were intercepts from

13    other countries.  That he did say, but he didn't specify the name of any

14    source or country as a source of these intercepts.

15            Anyway, let's hear what Mr. Bourgon has to say, and then we'll

16    decide.

17            Yes, Mr. Bourgon, in the meantime, if you can indicate to

18    Mr. McCloskey where the witness alleged or mentioned the US as a source of

19    information in relation to intercepts, please do so.

20            Mr. Bourgon.

21            MR. BOURGON:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22            Mr. President, the Prosecution's objection at this time highlights

23    a fundamental problem with the testimony of this witness.  Mr. Butler was

24    completely integrated into the Prosecution team.  He has had access to

25    everything that the Prosecution had access to.  Today, he's testifying

Page 20164

 1    before you, and we want to say that even though he had access to

 2    information, whether substantive or information in the sense of who was

 3    contacted, he cannot be -- we cannot say that today he cannot disclose

 4    this information as part of his testimony or else his testimony will be

 5    incomplete.  It's a fundamental problem.

 6            If the Prosecution elects to pick one of their own to testify

 7    before this Chamber, saying that he does not have a bias and that he is

 8    independent, he must be able to disclose all of the information in his

 9    possession.  My colleague from the Prosecution should have requested the

10    authorisation from any Rule 70 provider so that the testimony of

11    Mr. Butler can be complete.  If it cannot be complete, it should be

12    stopped right now.

13            Thank you, Mr. President.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.

15            Mr. McCloskey.

16            MR. McCLOSKEY:  He cites no authority.  There is none that

17    suggests that because the witness takes the witness stand, Rule 70

18    disappears.  Rule 70 is a crucial rule in order to obtain the assistance

19    of governments, and it is a rule that we must support.

20            Just going back in my memory regarding other intercepts, I think

21    one of the things Mr. Butler, I believe, was referring to was the JNA or

22    the VRS ability to take, to do intercepts and that they were intercepting

23    as well.  He made a reference to that.  But as for countries beyond the

24    former Yugoslavia, I'm not aware of any reference that has been made.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

Page 20165

 1            Mr. Ostojic.

 2            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

 3            I think Mr. McCloskey, my learned friend, misunderstands our

 4    question.  We support Rule 70 as well.  However, once the Prosecution

 5    decides to call a witness, we believe that anything and everything he

 6    reviewed should be provided to the Defence and should be open for

 7    discussion during, at the very least, cross-examination.

 8            Now, the Court's ruling was rather specific when we questioned

 9    Mr. Ruez, that the absence of a United States government counsel

10    restricted us from going further, and I believe my learned friend

11    Mr. Bourgon is correct.  This should have been anticipated, and I

12    discussed it, quite frankly, with Mr. McCloskey, among other issues

13    including aerial imagery, and I also discussed it with my learned friend

14    with the United States government, that I would be asking these types of

15    questions.  They should be prepared now to share their position on that.

16            Perhaps the United States government does not object to this

17    question, and I would invite the Court to, if allowed, respectfully, to

18    hear the position from the United States government.

19            JUDGE PROST:  Mr. Ostojic, before we get to that, your question

20    didn't relate just to the United States government.  Your question related

21    to other countries, requiring the witness to then outline which other

22    countries, which could include a vast array of countries, as far as we

23    know.  So I think it's a bit premature to get to the question of the

24    United States.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Exactly, I couldn't agree more.

Page 20166

 1            MR. OSTOJIC:  But I should not -- and thank you, Your Honour.  I

 2    should not be prohibited in asking the question of what countries.  If in

 3    fact there were more countries, then it's the obligation, I believe, of

 4    the Prosecution to get Rule 70 clearance.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  But I think we are missing -- we are missing the

 6    most important point in this whole discussion; namely, if the Prosecution

 7    is telling you Mr. Butler, at the time he worked for the Prosecution, may

 8    have become privy to information and the sense that other countries

 9    outside the former Yugoslavia may have provided intercept information

10    relating to the July 1995 events, does not mean that the witness now, who

11    is a witness, an expert witness and no longer part of the Prosecution

12    team, is free to divulge that information if he couldn't divulge it at the

13    time he was working for the Prosecution because it was covered by Rule 70

14    privilege.  This is the whole point.

15            Does the fact that a witness who was part of the Prosecution and

16    who ceases to be part of the Prosecution and becomes an expert witness

17    here, even albeit a Prosecution expert witness, mean that he has no longer

18    the obligation to keep Rule 70 protected evidence protected?  This is the

19    whole issue.

20            MR. OSTOJIC:  And I agree, Mr. President, and that's the very

21    reason why his lawyer's in court today, and his lawyer from the United

22    States government can take that position, if they so desire, that it's

23    confidential and should remain confidential.  But the Court, I should

24    suggest, and certainly not the Prosecution, can make that ruling with

25    respect to this witness.

Page 20167

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Right.

 2            Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

 3            MR. BOURGON:  Mr. President, we believe that you have exactly --

 4                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, go ahead.  Sorry for interrupting you like

 6    this, Mr. Bourgon.

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

 8            We believe that the Trial Chamber has pinpointed the exact

 9    situation.  If the witness has had access to information, information

10    which is relevant to his expertise and information which he cannot

11    disclose today, for whatever reason, Rule 70 or another reason, then the

12    witness is not in the position to give a complete testimony in all

13    fairness to the accused in this courtroom; and, therefore, his testimony

14    should be stopped.

15            If my colleague wants to put a witness on the stand who has worked

16    before with the Office of the Prosecution, he should have obtained the

17    necessary clearance for the witness to be able to answer these questions.

18            Thank you, Mr. President.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Bourgon and Mr. McCloskey, and that

20    will be the end.

21            JUDGE KWON:  Just before hearing from you:  Mr. Bourgon, just a

22    brief question.

23            On your part, having known that the witness had access to whatever

24    material, why did you not ask for the access to it beforehand, before the

25    witness comes to the courtroom?  Why did you not bring the attention of

Page 20168

 1    the Chamber to that issue?

 2            MR. BOURGON:  Because the burden is not on us.  We don't know what

 3    the witness is testifying about.  We don't know what we will do, what we

 4    will cross-examine the witness on until we've heard examination-in-chief.

 5    It is not for the Defence, Judge, to identify the positions.

 6            JUDGE KWON:  That did not appear in the examination-in-chief, the

 7    intercepts, potential intercepts, by other countries.

 8            MR. BOURGON:  But one of the things the Defence will necessarily

 9    do, as part of cross-examination, is go to the sources that were used or

10    that were available to the expert to make his testimony.  If we have

11    information of material that was used, it is normal for the Defence to

12    take it for granted that the witness will be able to go back to these

13    sources and talk about them.

14            Today, we are surprised to hear that at the first question that is

15    asked about some material, about some of the sources, by my colleague

16    Mr. Ostojic, that we have an objection from the Prosecution saying the

17    witness can't do that.  It was for the Prosecution to seek the Rule 70

18    clearance if there is a Rule 70 issue.  The Defence is not in a position

19    to know whether there is a Rule 70 issue or not until it comes up.

20            It is for the Prosecution.  The burden is on the Prosecution to

21    identify these issues and to make it sure that the witness will be able to

22    give full and complete testimony in all fairness to the accused in this

23    courtroom.

24            Thank you, Mr. President.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

Page 20169

 1            Mr. McCloskey.

 2            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, as Judge Kwon pointed out, we have

 3    not elicited from Mr. Butler anything to do with intercepts from any

 4    countries aside from the former Yugoslavia, and there is no law supporting

 5    this outrageous argument that it is incumbent upon us to seek Rule 70

 6    clearance.

 7            There has been no suggestion by the Prosecution of any such thing

 8    in any country.  This is a fishing expedition on whether or not even the

 9    United States has a dog in this fight, and we cannot assume, by calling on

10    the United States, that they do.  That would be, in itself, a Rule 70

11    violation.  They're not here as Mr. Butler's personal lawyer.  They're

12    here to look after the interests of the United States, and I'm here to

13    look after the interests of Rule 70 in this case.

14            We have not used any such material.  This door needs to remain

15    closed.  We can't fish on whether or not any country has provided us

16    information that we're not relying on.  It's just inappropriate and goes

17    well beyond the scope of Rule 70.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

19            Mr. Bourgon, I said that --

20            MR. BOURGON:  May I add one short detail, Mr. President?

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Come on, and that's the end of it.

22            MR. BOURGON:  Mr. Butler is testifying because he was a former

23    employee of the United Nations and the Office of the Prosecutor.  Once

24    the -- the day that he is called as a witness, it is fair for the Defence

25    to assume that my colleague from the Prosecution has obtained the

Page 20170

 1    necessary clearance so that the testimony can be complete.

 2            Thank you, Mr. President.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Haynes.

 4            MR. HAYNES:  I'm going to make four points as briefly as I can.

 5            The first, I think, Mr. Bourgon has sought to make, and it's the

 6    answer to Judge Kwon's observation, is that the duty of disclosure,

 7    whether it be material supportive of their case or exculpatory of the

 8    case, is upon the Prosecution.

 9            The second point is this:  I don't think anybody here contends

10    that Mr. Butler today is not an OTP witness.  If Mr. McCloskey wants to

11    contend that, I will put before him an e-mail he sent me only a couple of

12    weeks ago in which he used the phrase, "We all agree Butler has his OTP

13    hat back on."  He's an OTP witness, plain and simple.

14            The third really goes to the substance of where we've got to.  The

15    point that Mr. Ostojic is seeking to make is a simple one, and I'm sure

16    we're all following it.  The point he's seeking to make is that

17    conclusions that Mr. Butler has come to in his narrative are necessarily

18    biased because he has ignored material that might have pointed him in a

19    different direction.

20            The objection that is made at this moment is premature.

21    Mr. Ostojic has really not got past first base, to use an expression he'd

22    understand.  It is not the question that is protected by Rule 70, it's the

23    material itself.  There's really a three-stage process.  Did the OTP ask

24    for it?  Did they get it?  Where from?  And what was it?

25            And so far, all Mr. Ostojic has asked is, "Was it requested?"  And

Page 20171

 1    I simply do not see how it can sensibly be contended that the answer to

 2    that question is in some way protected by Rule 70.  It may be that

 3    Mr. Ostojic cannot go to base 2 or base 3.

 4            But to make his point that Mr. Butler's conclusions are biased

 5    because he has been blinkered to material or been denied material, to use

 6    the words he used in the Blagojevic case, the answer to this question is

 7    not protected by Rule 70 and can't be.

 8            Those are the submissions I make in support of Mr. Ostojic's

 9    position.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

11            Do you wish to add anything, Mr. McCloskey?

12            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I'd just like to join to the submission.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

14            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Just in brief response to his honoured QC from

15    Mr. Pandurevic --

16            MR. HAYNES:  That is offensive, I'm sorry.  That is offensive, and

17    I want an apology for that.

18            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I'm sorry.  In my knowledge, I thought I was

19    paying you respect.

20            MR. HAYNES:  No.  I don't believe you did think that for a minute.

21            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I'm sorry.  I thought that was an appropriate

22    title.  I'm sorry if it wasn't.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Let's move.  I can understand Mr. Haynes

24    perfectly well, but it's probably the American approach, as distinct from

25    the English approach.  Two great countries divided by the same language,

Page 20172

 1    as they say.

 2            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I will seek his guidance on the appropriate --

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  You are usually --

 4            MR. HAYNES:  "Mr. Haynes" will do fine from now until the end of

 5    the trial.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  Usually, we have the same problem between husband

 7    and wife.

 8            MR. McCLOSKEY:  True.

 9            The question is:  Question 1, on whether or not Mr. Butler has or

10    the investigation has sought Rule 70 is not relevant, because question 2

11    can never be answered, because it must remain in secret if any country

12    responded in any way, because that answer provides the kind of

13    intelligence information that those countries do not want public.

14            So the first question is not relevant because the second part can

15    never be relevant.  You've got to get to first base before you get to

16    second base.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

18            Mr. Ostojic, do you wish to add anything, very briefly?

19            MR. OSTOJIC:  Certainly, I endorse what my learned friend Mr.

20    Haynes said.  But to just respond to what the OTP said earlier, when they

21    say that the United States government doesn't have a dog in the fight and

22    his analogy about fishing, really, if we look at the aerial images, we

23    know that they've asked for them.  They've produced them with no problems

24    with respect to Rule 70.  We were allowed to see that there were some

25    differences, and I'm going to inquire of that of Mr. Butler, as learned

Page 20173

 1    friend knows, as does my friend from the United States government.  So to

 2    suggest that is just not correct, and it's simply not true.

 3            We have a right to know this information.  It is not our

 4    obligation to ask them every day for materials that witnesses have relied

 5    on.  This Court has ordered it.  The Rules of this Tribunal require it,

 6    and they've simply fail to abide by both these rules and the Court's order

 7    in connection with producing all the materials in their possession with

 8    respect to witnesses.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Right.  But you're, again, singling out the United

10    States government, when the Prosecution has made it clear that we're not

11    talking of any one particular country, but possibly of multiple countries.

12            Yes, Mr. McCloskey, and let's finish it, please.  Let's bring it

13    to an end.

14            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Absolutely, Mr. President.

15            Mr. Ostojic now brings the discussion to aerial imagery, and

16    that's different.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  We're not dealing with aerial imagery here.

18            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I was just responding to that argument.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  You don't need to.

20                          [Trial Chamber confers]

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  So, Mr. McCloskey, before we proceed any further,

22    particularly before we proceed with any kind of decision, we would like to

23    know from you the following:

24            You've identified one country, that being Croatia, in respect of

25    which there are no Rule 70 restrictions.  We're only talking of possible

Page 20174

 1    intercepts.  Is there any other country that has imposed the Rule 70

 2    embargo in respect both -- or has asked for Rule 70 application, both in

 3    respect of the fact that they may have received a request from you for

 4    such information, from you, I say the Office of the Prosecutor, or that

 5    they may have supplied such information or has not supplied such

 6    information?

 7            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, just -- just to clear up Croatia

 8    briefly, they have provided us a body of intercepts which we have provided

 9    the Defence, and there's been testimony on them.  The actual workings of

10    how those intercepts were taken and all is currently part of another

11    investigative team, and they're dealing with, I think, some issues along

12    this line.  But as for the body of Croatian intercepts that are out there,

13    yeah, that's -- that's not Rule 70.

14            There are other countries.  There are multiple countries involved

15    in requests of these kind.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  And are you invoking the Rule 70 in respect of each

17    and every one of these other countries?

18            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Absolutely.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Absolutely.

20            MR. McCLOSKEY:  As was expected when requests of this nature are

21    made, they're made under Rule 70 and they don't go -- you know, we never

22    get involved in the -- in the requests, nor of course the responses.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

24            JUDGE KWON:  Any other country that has not put Rule 70 condition

25    in relation to intercept, other than Croatia?

Page 20175

 1            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Well, I don't want to suggest that there's any

 2    countries that have even, because that's really not appropriate.  But as

 3    for countries -- well, we had the RS and there's some intercepts from the

 4    RS, very few, but there's never -- there's been lots of requests, but I

 5    don't think they're saying or I've never heard them say Rule 70 in

 6    response to that.  That's a little more complicated issue.  But -- I'm

 7    sorry, let me look again at your question, Judge Kwon.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  The question is what Judge Kwon -- or I was going to

 9    say "Mr. Justice," because that's what I'm used to.  What Judge Kwon

10    highlights, very simply put, is the following:  You may have, when

11    approaching these countries yourself, indicated Rule 70 privilege.  What

12    he is suggesting is that, however, in providing you with information or

13    material, these countries may not have insisted on Rule 70 privileges.

14            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I'm not aware of any other -- any other

15    information relating to intercepts that's out there in a non-Rule 70

16    world.  None, not right now, and I'm trying to think if I'm missing

17    something, but, no.  Just that there's a few references to the RS, there's

18    one intercept we picked up in the Bratunac Brigade that had to do with

19    Naser Oric and Halilovic in 1992, which the Defence should have.  But

20    other intercepts out there or intercept information, I can't think of

21    anything right now, but I'll continue to think.  I can't think of anything

22    else.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

24            JUDGE KWON:  And the conditions of Rule 70 are such that whether

25    the country has been asked itself, the fact should not arise in the course

Page 20176

 1    of trial?

 2            MR. McCLOSKEY:  You know, I was thinking about that question as

 3    well.  Perhaps the question to test the Prosecution's -- well, have we

 4    done our homework, "Have you gone and asked for information out there in

 5    the Rule 70 world," I think that's probably, by itself, a fair question to

 6    test our ability or to test whether or not we've done what we should do.

 7            But anything, any inference related to that, aside from whether

 8    we've done proper investigative work, I don't think should be allowed; for

 9    example, who we ask such a question to, anything that would cause an

10    inference that a country did or did not have it, answered or did not

11    answer.  Because, of course, if we'd ask a particular country, someone may

12    infer that we knew something about that country that led us to believe

13    they had that information, which -- so in the intelligence world, the

14    question is sometimes as important, if not more so, than the answer.

15            So the question, the broad question, "Have you gone besides your

16    own investigation, you know, and asked outwardly," I think to test whether

17    we've done a proper job, is okay.  So, in that respect, I would pull back

18    a bit from my more definitive position, but it needs to be general.  It

19    shouldn't be directed to one country or another, because inferences should

20    not be drawn in that context, in my view.

21                          [Trial Chamber confers]

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  So let's go back a little bit in time to page 39.

23    There were two questions put by Mr. Ostojic.  One was a generic one, which

24    has been answered and which we would have allowed, anyway:

25            "Did you, sir, at any time review or request intercepts that may

Page 20177

 1    have been received from other countries or taken by other countries for

 2    the period in July of 1995?"

 3            The witness answered:  "I am aware that the investigative team did

 4    request that information, sir."

 5            Then it's the second question that we will not allow:

 6            "Can you list for me the countries that they requested that

 7    information from?"

 8            Our decision is that the witness, because of Rule 70 restrictions

 9    that have been indicated by Mr. McCloskey, should not be in a position to

10    identify countries that may have been asked or provided or not provided

11    such information.

12            I need to discuss one further point with my colleagues.

13                          [Trial Chamber confers]

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  We also decide, I just wanted to make it clear, that

15    we are unanimous on this, that as a follow-up to Mr. Ostojic's first

16    question and the witness's answer, namely, that: "I am aware that the

17    investigative team did request that information, yes, sir," it's perfectly

18    legitimate for Mr. Ostojic to put a further question, namely:

19            "Does that mean that you had at your disposal other intercepts

20    from other countries?"

21            The witness can answer that question, but the matter stops there.

22    You cannot proceed any further with asking questions which would tend to

23    identify one or more of these countries that we have the assurance of the

24    OTP are covered by Rule-- or information which is covered under Rule 70

25    protection.

Page 20178

 1            Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

 2            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Could you perhaps explain that to Mr. Butler so

 3    it's clear to him?  He knows about the Croatian intercepts and will

 4    probably want to respond to that.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Probably, if there were others, he knows about

 6    theirs as well.  Okay.  All right.  I will, Mr. McCloskey.

 7            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I think he knows about the Croatian.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 9            Let's bring Mr. Butler back in, please.

10                          [The witness entered court]

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome back, Mr. Butler.

12            THE WITNESS:  Sir.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  At the end of the day, you would have had more

14    breaks than we have.

15            You were asked a question by Mr. Ostojic some minutes ago, which

16    was the following: "Did you, sir, at any time review or request intercepts

17    that may have been received from other countries or taken by other

18    countries for the period in July of 1995?"

19            To which you answered:  "I am aware that the investigative team

20    did request that information, yes, sir."

21            You did not answer whether, in fact -- you did not state whether,

22    in fact, you had at your disposal and reviewed and consulted other

23    intercepts possibly provided from or by other countries.  So if you are

24    asked that question, you are requested to answer it, whether you did

25    consult other intercepts from other countries.

Page 20179

 1            However, if you are asked to give an indication or to list which

 2    are these other countries that provided such intercepts, with the

 3    exception of Croatia, you're not allowed, you're not permitted to mention

 4    or identify any other country.

 5            Is that clear?

 6            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 8            Mr. Ostojic.

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

10       Q.   Sir, I'll put the question the Court permits.  Did you -- first

11    let me ask you this:  You mentioned that the investigative team requested

12    that information, and certainly you were part of that team; correct?

13       A.   That is correct, sir.

14       Q.   Who, in particular, requested that information?

15       A.   That information was all bundled into the request and done so

16    under the direction of Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez, the investigation team

17    commander.

18       Q.   And we'll talk about the commander in a little bit, but did you

19    have at your disposal, in order to review, these other intercepts from

20    other countries?

21       A.   No, sir.  I never had that material at my disposal at all.

22       Q.   Now, we were discussing the material that you haven't received or

23    reviewed, which would, for lack of a better term, as you put it, create

24    some bias in your report.  We covered the intercepts for now, and we'll

25    come back to them.

Page 20180

 1            What about the documents from the ABiH Army?  Did you obtain and

 2    review all the documents with respect to the ABiH military from July 1995?

 3       A.   No, sir.  I did not do a comprehensive review of all of the

 4    documents from the ABiH Army.  The -- we did review, for the month of

 5    July, material that we were able to obtain in a subsequent search of

 6    2 Corps that the Office of the Prosecutor did, as well as some ABiH Army

 7    documents that the VRS Zvornik Brigade had by virtue of their capture of

 8    the 28th Infantry Division records at Srebrenica.

 9       Q.   Did you review any records from the ABiH Army in connection with

10    the period of July 1995 to determine their strategic, operational, or

11    tactical orders from the ABiH Army?

12       A.   Yes, sir.  From the context of the documents that I just

13    described, that was one of the reasons why I did look at them, yes, sir.

14       Q.   And can you tell me, sir, if you reviewed documents which would

15    reveal the military strength of the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in July

16    of 1995?

17       A.   Yes, sir.  I believe some of those documents did give either in

18    broad terms or actually troop lists.

19       Q.   And what was the number that you saw?

20       A.   I don't recall, off the top of my head, what the end strength was

21    for the 28th Infantry Division from those documents.  You probably could

22    refresh my memory, but I just don't recall offhand.

23       Q.   What about the weapons that were smuggled into Srebrenica in

24    1995?  Did you get a comprehensive list or data from the ABiH Army with

25    respect to that?

Page 20181

 1       A.   The material and my understanding of that is again from the

 2    documents that we've discussed.  Investigatively, we didn't go to the ABiH

 3    and ask for a laundry list accounting of that material.

 4       Q.   Let me turn to another subject, and that's aerial photographs.  We

 5    discussed it briefly with Mr. Ruez, your commander, as you put it.  Did

 6    you receive aerial -- or did you request and receive aerial photographs as

 7    to how many Muslim soldiers or combatants made it to Tuzla in July of

 8    1995?

 9       A.   No, sir, not to my knowledge.

10       Q.   Did you ever request --

11       A.   I don't know how you're going to get that, but okay.

12       Q.   Tell me your understanding of what an aerial photograph is.

13       A.   Overhead aerial imagery, that's either taken from what we call

14    air-breather platforms, which would be aircraft, or non-air-breathing

15    platforms, which is satellite imagery.

16       Q.   And is that done on a continuous basis, do you know, in July of

17    1995, or was that done sporadically?

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  That is covered by Rule 70, Mr. Ostojic.

19            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20       Q.   Sir, help me with this:  Did you analyse the aerial photographs?

21       A.   The overhead imagery that was provided to the Office of the

22    Prosecutor, I did, in fact, look at and used it as a component of my

23    analysis.

24       Q.   And we'll call it an overhead imagery, if you'd like, although we

25    were asked to call it, I thought, an aerial photograph.  But just so we

Page 20182

 1    understand from looking at the transcript, that we're talking about the

 2    same thing.  This overhead imagery that you looked at, was that given to

 3    you in hard copy or on disc or CD?

 4       A.   It was provided to us hard copy.

 5       Q.   Now, was anyone able, including Mr. Ruez, to remove any of the

 6    data that was on this hard copy of this aerial photograph or overhead

 7    imagery that you referred to?

 8       A.   I don't think that was possible, no, sir.

 9       Q.   And why wouldn't it be possible?

10       A.   The -- well, I mean, for the same reasons, you know, on any hard

11    copy product, if you start trying to modify or change a hard copy imagery

12    product, like a photograph, there's going to be, you know, presumably

13    noticeable marks on that.  You know, I guess there's, you know, with newer

14    technology, obviously the possibility of scanning hard copy and making a

15    digital copy, doing the Photoshop and then spitting it out that way.  But,

16    I mean, to my knowledge, the substance of the images were not altered by

17    Mr. Ruez for any reason.

18       Q.   And now, sir, do you remember if these overhead imageries that you

19    reviewed, whether they had the symbol from NIMA, which is the National

20    Imaging and Mapping Agency of the United States?

21       A.   I don't recall whether they had them on the original hard copies

22    that were provided under Rule 70 or not.  They may have.  I just don't

23    recall at the time.

24       Q.   Each and every one of them would have had it?

25       A.   Each and every hard copy was labelled with respect to basic

Page 20183

 1    information as to what the title of the image was, as well as with respect

 2    to which direction north was so we could orient it.  I remember a stamp

 3    saying, "Property of the United States Government, Rule 70," but I can't

 4    recall at this juncture whether a particular image had a particular agency

 5    reference on it.

 6       Q.   And what about dates?  Did they have dates that were in a block

 7    that were on the overhead imagery at all?

 8       A.   I believe, on the original overhead imagery, it did give us a date

 9    block, yes, sir.

10       Q.   Did it give you a description of what it is that is purportedly

11    reflected in the imagery?

12       A.   The original Rule 70 ones, there was an analyst description, one

13    or two lines, as to what the analyst believed the -- a particular part of

14    the image described.

15       Q.   I want to go back -- and we'll come back to the aerial imagery a

16    little later, but I just want to cover this other material that perhaps

17    was not in your possession or you didn't review.

18            How about documents from the Main Staff?  Do you, sir, think that

19    you got a complete list of all the documents from the Main Staff?

20            The reason I ask you that, just to put it in context:  On January

21    16th, 2008, well, during your testimony here on page 11 through 12, you

22    stated that you don't recall if you have any records relating to the Main

23    Staff duty officer.

24            So my question to you is:  Did you obtain a comprehensive group of

25    documents from the Main Staff?

Page 20184

 1       A.   I'm not aware that the OTP has ever obtained a comprehensive list

 2    of documents from the Main Staff.

 3       Q.   Do you know, sir, if at any time you reviewed a vehicle log or

 4    vehicle logs from the Main Staff?

 5       A.   No, sir.

 6       Q.   Did you ever endeavour to search and obtain such information?

 7       A.   Yes, sir, we did; and, in fact, that was the genesis of a future

 8    OTP search at the RS Ministry of Defence.  As part of that search, we also

 9    talked to individuals who allegedly had information about Main Staff

10    related documents, and those particular individuals were not able to tell

11    us where the Main Staff archives, as we used to call them, were located.

12       Q.   So you never obtained them; correct?

13       A.   To my knowledge, we still do not have a comprehensive collection

14    of material that we call the Main Staff archives, no, sir.

15            THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Please pause between

16    question and answer.  Thank you.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Did you hear the interpreters asking you to pause

18    between question and answer?

19            MR. OSTOJIC:  Rather clearly.

20            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Please comply.

22            MR. OSTOJIC:

23       Q.   Sir, you also state, in your prior testimony and I think here

24    during your testimony in this case, that you also don't, as a general

25    rule, cite or attribute substantive information to witness interviews.  Is

Page 20185

 1    that correct?

 2       A.   Yes, sir, that is correct.

 3       Q.   And the reason you don't is because you're being brought here as

 4    an analyst for the OTP to provide context behind the documents and the

 5    intercepts, not to pass value judgements as to whether or not you believe

 6    or don't believe a witness and whether you can corroborate or not

 7    corroborate such witness's testimony.  Would that be fair?

 8       A.   I'm not sure if that's the -- the complete accurate of what I'm

 9    trying to say behind this.  My view is:  It's not my job, with respect to

10    these proceedings, to comment as to whether or not a particular witness is

11    accurate or is not accurate or is complete.

12            As an analyst, my ability to make a determination as to the full

13    truthfulness of an individual who's given a witness statement is limited,

14    particularly in the more advanced stages of our analysis, when, you know,

15    there was an understanding that we would be going into court in the

16    General Krstic case.

17            You know, as a matter of practice, I didn't want to be in a

18    position where I was relying for substantive issues on statements of

19    individuals who I was aware that the Office of the Prosecutor was going to

20    call as a witness and that, in that context, you know, the Court would

21    make the determination as to the information and to the usefulness or

22    veracity of it.

23       Q.   Thank you, Mr. Butler.  And let me just try to end before the

24    break, if it's still at the same time.  You know, people have called you a

25    military expert, an intelligence analyst; but the truth of the matter,

Page 20186

 1    isn't it, Mr. Butler, that the report that you're giving here today and

 2    that you gave is more of as a historical analyst, is it not?

 3       A.   In the particular context of the crime scene that we are working,

 4    yes, it is a historical analytical report.  I am not being asked to do

 5    predictive analysis.

 6       Q.   So --

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  In respect of the rest --

 8            MR. OSTOJIC:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I wasn't looking at

 9    Mr. President.  Was that directed to me?

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no.  It was directed to Mr. Butler.

11            THE WITNESS:  I don't understand what you're asking, sir.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  What I'm asking is and the question was: "Isn't it

13    correct, Mr. Butler, that the report you're giving here today and that you

14    gave is more of a historical analyst, is it not?"

15            Then you said:  "In the particular context of the crime scene that

16    we are working, yes, it is a historical and analytical report.  I'm not

17    being asked to do predictive analysis."

18            In respect to other sectors of your report?

19            THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  My report obviously deals with a fixed

20    point in time, either with respect to the crime base of July of 1995; or,

21    with respect to the command reports, the past practices and rules and

22    regulations of the VRS as they were applied in July of 1995.  In that

23    context, they're historical.

24            However, as I've noted in the context of my very first report,

25    it's not designed to be a historical overview.  There are many political,

Page 20187

 1    there are many military, there are many diplomatic issues that are

 2    obviously related to these things that are beyond my ability to analyse

 3    and intelligently comment on.

 4            So, in that respect, you know, I go back to the original purposes

 5    of my report, which were to set the framework for the military context and

 6    how they related to the crime bases that were being investigated, with

 7    respect to the actual linkage of military units to crime scenes and the

 8    actual roles and responsibilities of individuals designated as commanders

 9    or other members of those units with respect to their roles and

10    responsibilities under the VRS rules as they applied.

11            By design, that is where I limited my analytical focus to.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  That's clear enough.

13            Mr. Ostojic.

14            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15       Q.   Sir, let me ask you, before we go on this break, with respect to

16    Rule 68, are you familiar with that rule?

17       A.   Yes, sir, I am.

18       Q.   And you were familiar with it when you were working for the OTP

19    for those six years; correct?

20       A.   Yes, sir.  I mean, beyond even my own analytical practices of

21    keeping other options open, particularly as we got into the situation

22    where individuals were indicted and subsequently apprehended, and

23    particularly in the case of General Krstic, where he was interviewed and

24    did articulate some of these various other -- I don't want to say -- I

25    mean, in short, the fact -- yes, it is.

Page 20188

 1       Q.   You are familiar with it?

 2       A.   Yes.  I mean, the fact that we held that open, those possibilities

 3    open, specifically because that was part of meeting our Rule 68

 4    obligations.

 5       Q.   I'm just talking about you right now.  We'll come back to Mr. Ruez

 6    and other people on this investigative team.  But is it true that in the

 7    Krstic case, you were primarily used by the OTP as a vehicle to provide

 8    information that was believed to be Rule 68 in that regard?

 9            MR. OSTOJIC:  Just so my learned friends have the cite, November

10    17, 2003, page 4717.

11       Q.   Is that correct?

12       A.   I'm sure that during the Krstic case, that there were times that I

13    did testify about material that was deemed to be Rule 68, and my presence

14    in the courtroom made it a mechanism to do that, yes, sir.

15       Q.   Were you the person who's in charge and used as a vehicle to

16    provide information which was believed to be Rule 68?

17       A.   I was not in charge of Rule 68, no, sir.

18       Q.   Who was on your investigative team while you were there?

19       A.   The lawyers collectively were the ultimate arbitrators of whether

20    or not information was Rule 68.  The analysts and the investigators, when

21    they recognised information that might fall into that category, we brought

22    it to the trial attorneys.

23       Q.   And what was the mode of communication that you brought it to the

24    trial attorneys; written, oral, or any other type?

25       A.   Usually, I would park in their office and explain it to them.

Page 20189

 1       Q.   And you would not keep a memo of it or record contemporaneously

 2    that you thought document X, Y, and Z may potentially be Rule 68?

 3       A.   Those discussions that may exist would be relevant to e-mails --

 4       Q.   No, no.

 5       A.   -- yes.  So, I mean, there are, I'm sure, written references to

 6    it.  I know, from my own purposes, there were notes and everything else

 7    that I would be keeping; and if there were issues that I believed -- or

 8    discussions on Rule 68, I would note that.  So, certainly, notes do exist.

 9       Q.   And that's from every member of the team; correct?

10       A.   I can't speak for every member of the team.  I can only speak for

11    the military analysts who were working for me.

12       Q.   Did you, sir, you yourself, ever assemble or gather materials that

13    may be deemed Rule 68 for any of the accused in this case?

14       A.   In this particular case, with respect to Colonel Pandurevic, yes,

15    simply because he was someone who we had indicted early on.  After leaving

16    the OTP, my ability to do that, you know, to rifle through document

17    collections and things of that nature, was considerably more limited.  So

18    I can't say that I specifically went through the volume collections

19    looking for Rule 68 information.

20       Q.   How many military analysts were there with the OTP on this

21    investigative team that was led by Mr. Ruez?

22       A.   Myself; my partner, Ms. Amanda Brettell; my research assistant or

23    our research assistant, Ms. Sally Lattin; and a group of either

24    translators or language assistants who would rotate through.

25       Q.   Who in that group was in charge of gathering materials that may be

Page 20190

 1    deemed Rule 68 for Mr. Ljubisa Beara?

 2       A.   I don't know the answer to that.  I mean, my understanding, in the

 3    case of Beara, was that I was gone by that time, so I can't answer the

 4    question.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Shall we continue after the break, Mr. Ostojic?

 6            MR. OSTOJIC:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 8            We'll have a 25-minute break.  Thank you.

 9                          --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

10                          --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic.

12            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13  (redacted)

14  (redacted)

15  (redacted)

16  (redacted)

17  (redacted)

18  (redacted)

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 20191

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4       Q.   What about the dates that may appear on these various images?  Was

 5    that ever altered or erased by Mr. Ruez?

 6       A.   No, sir.  The dates, no.

 7       Q.   Right.  I wouldn't expect it to be, because that would even - we

 8    can agree on this, I'm sure - that would be not only unethical.  It would

 9    be wrong, biased, and it would be something that is not comprehensible;

10    correct?

11       A.   Like I said, I mean, you know, there were issues where we went

12    through and tried to determine better times and everything else; but I'm

13    not aware that on US government imagery, that a date was arbitrarily

14    changed by the Office of the Prosecutor to reflect what day it was.

15       Q.   How about erased?

16       A.   I don't know what the imagery products look like in this trial, so

17    I don't know whether they were erased or not.  I mean, I know that in

18    previous trials, as a practice, we did not erase dates.  When we made

19    products for court, we asked for the unannotated versions from the US

20    government, and then the dates were put on by the Office of the

21    Prosecutor.  They reflected the same dates.

22       Q.   But to change or alter or to erase dates, to answer the question

23    that I posed earlier, would you consider that to be unethical?

24            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  This was dealt with Mr. Ruez, the

25    person that was involved with this, and that's the appropriate place to

Page 20192

 1    deal with it, not to -- not having Mr. Butler speculate on products that

 2    were made for this court.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  And the witness has already agreed with Mr. Ostojic

 4    in any case, so let's move to your next question, please.

 5            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6       Q.   Let's look, if you don't mind, on Exhibit P02103, which is a photo

 7    book that was used and provided by Mr. Ruez in his testimony of the 18th

 8    of September, 2006.

 9            MR. OSTOJIC:  And I'd like us to look at image number 236, if we

10    can.

11            Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Butler?

12       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

13       Q.   Great.  Now, you see the emblem on the box in the centre of the

14    image on the left side?

15       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

16       Q.   And that's from NIMA; correct?

17       A.   It's a little small, but I'll take your word for it.  If you want

18    to blow it up, I can confirm it, but I don't believe it's necessary.

19       Q.   I don't believe it is, but we can confirm it if you have any

20    doubt.

21       A.   I can confirm it, sir, yes.

22       Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that.  Now, did every -- since you received

23    these aerial images in hard copy, to the best of your recollection, did

24    every aerial photograph or imagery contained this emblem?

25       A.   From the material provided by the US government for the -- part of

Page 20193

 1    the investigation, I don't recall whether it did or not.  No, sir, I don't

 2    know.

 3       Q.   Did it include the little box right under the emblem with the date

 4    or was that something that was placed there by the Office of the

 5    Prosecution and their investigative team?

 6       A.   No, sir.  The captions that are encircled in white are placed by

 7    the United States government.  Any annotations to the image, at least was

 8    the policy that -- when I was here, annotations to the image in yellow are

 9    those that are placed by the Office of the Prosecutor.

10       Q.   Help me with the white box on the lower right-hand side, where I

11    believe it's, "February 1st, 2000," or maybe I'm misreading it.  But it

12    has some digital numbers and then it has the "1" and then space, two

13    zeros, and then "FEB."  Do you see that?

14       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

15       Q.   Having worked with the United States military, can you tell us

16    what that means?

17       A.   No, sir.  That particular sequence number is not a number that is

18    normally associated with products like this.  I don't know what it means.

19       Q.   Well, what sequence -- what sequence numbers would be associated

20    with products like these if this is isn't one --

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

22            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I think we've gone far enough into something he

23    doesn't know, and this is obviously trying to break the veil of Rule 70.

24            MR. OSTOJIC:  Mr. President, if I can just be heard briefly, and I

25    know we probably -- I've probably exhausted your patience on this, and I

Page 20194

 1    apologise.

 2            These were the very same questions we asked of Mr. Ruez on the

 3    14th of September, 2006, and I can give you the page cite.  They objected

 4    and said, "We'll wait," and the Court said, "We'll wait and we can get

 5    those answers when there's a US government attorney here."  So --

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  But independent and irrespective of all that,

 7    the witness has told you he hasn't got a clue.  So if he hasn't got a

 8    clue, what that means, how can you proceed with your next question, the

 9    one that you put?

10            Mr. McCloskey is right.  I mean, you can't ask a second question

11    when the witness has told you, "I haven't got a clue."

12            MR. OSTOJIC:  I think if we read his answer -- I won't debate it

13    with the Court.  I'll just move on, but we may come back to it.

14            Thank you, Mr. President.

15       Q.   Can we now look, sir, at, in this same group of exhibits, P02103,

16    Exhibit 122.

17            MR. OSTOJIC:  And just to help, it should be the Bratunac city,

18    Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the pages might be off by one, as we've

19    learned during the break.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  I can't help you there.

21            MR. OSTOJIC:  Yes.  It would be --

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Is it what you were looking for?

23            MR. OSTOJIC:  No, no, Mr. President.  The very next one, I think,

24    and they're getting it.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Is it the right one?

Page 20195

 1            MR. OSTOJIC:  Yes, it is.  Thank you, Madam Usher and Registry.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

 3            MR. OSTOJIC:  And am I correct, just for the record, that it's

 4     "123"?  Would that be correct?

 5            "121", you're right.  "121", just so we have a clean record.

 6       Q.   Sir, this is another aerial image.  Do you see it?

 7       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

 8       Q.   Now, in this aerial image, the NIMA emblem does not appear;

 9    correct?

10       A.   That is correct, sir.

11       Q.   And the digitalised information that we saw in the prior exhibit,

12    236, on the lower right-hand corner does not appear as well; correct?

13       A.   Yes, sir.

14       Q.   How is that?

15            THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Please pause between

16    question and answer.  Thank you.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

18            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  Those kinds of questions are not

19    authorised by the United States, as far as I know.  How things are made,

20    why things like that are on the net is an area that I'm fairly clear is

21    something that is not part of the Rule 70 clearance.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Madam, do you want to intervene?

23            MS. SCHILDGE:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  We just need a confirmation or otherwise.

25            MS. SCHILDGE:  Yes, I am not exactly -- excuse me.  I'm not

Page 20196

 1    certain where counsel is going with this, but I think we have been quite

 2    clear with the Court and the Defence counsel as to the conditions under

 3    which the images were provided to the Office of the Prosecutor and

 4    authorised for use in court under Rule 70.

 5            I think we submitted two letters to Mr. McCloskey on November 3rd,

 6    2006 and August 13th, 2007, that explained how we provided the images.

 7    The process of what the Office of the Prosecutor did with those images

 8    after they were provided, we did make clear, in a letter that we

 9    authorised Mr. McCloskey to share with the Court, that the OTP was

10    authorised to use the imagery to produce materials for use in court,

11    including applying markings that would be clearly distinguishable from the

12    original US government markings.

13            However, we are not or the United States is not in a position to

14    provide any further information about these images.  They were provided

15    under Rule 70.  I think we have been quite forthcoming about the process

16    by which we provided them.

17            I also do not believe Mr. Butler would be in a position to speak

18    to the US process for providing these images and authorising them for use

19    in court.  I understand he was working with the OTP, so he may be in a

20    position to speak to the OTP process for dealing with them, but certainly

21    not with the US government side of it.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

23            MS. SCHILDGE:  Thank you.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

25            MR. OSTOJIC:  Shall I continue?  I guess not.

Page 20197

 1                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  Once more, we are fine tuned, and this is a

 3    unanimous decision:  You pointed out, Mr. Ostojic, to the witness, and

 4    actually asked him:  "And the digitalised information that we saw on the

 5    prior 236 on the lower right-hand corner does not appear as well?"  In

 6    this one, I mean one-to-one.

 7            He answered:  "Yes."

 8            Then you asked him:   "How is that?"

 9            That is not the kind of question that we can allow.  You can

10    rephrase it in the sense of asking the witness whether the Office of the

11    Prosecutor did any alterations on one-to-one to the extent of removing any

12    such digitalised information that shows in other exhibits, like Exhibit

13    236.

14            Am I clear or do you want a further explanation?  Okay.  Thank

15    you.

16            MR. OSTOJIC:  Quite clear.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  And the witness has understood what I said?

18            THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

20            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

21       Q.   Now, my learned friend from the US government said that the OTP

22    was instructed that they can apply markings, but, sir, I'm really focusing

23    on eraser of markings from documents given to the OTP by the United States

24    in their original form.

25            The Court put that question to you, sir:  Was there anything

Page 20198

 1    erased by the OTP?

 2       A.   I don't know.  I was not involved with the process of imagery with

 3    respect to the presentation or anything of that nature.  I can't tell you

 4    what happened, why it happened, or what the motivations were.  So, I mean,

 5    the short answer is I don't know.

 6       Q.   Okay.  Well, help me with this.  Who would know?

 7            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  Mr. Ruez has spoken specifically to

 8    this issue.  I don't know if anyone remembers it, but it was a long time

 9    ago, and we're getting pretty far afield with this witness.

10            MR. OSTOJIC:  Well, again I have to go back; and if the Court

11    looks at the testimony, we were prohibited from asking Mr. Ruez these very

12    questions, Your Honour, specifically --

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Can you answer the question that has been put to you

14    by Mr. Ostojic, in any case?

15            THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  I mean, I was out of the Office of the

16    Prosecutor in November of 2004.  I have no idea what might or might have

17    transpired post that date.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So let's move to your next question,

19    Mr. Ostojic.

20            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

21       Q.   Sir, with respect to the requests that were made for these aerial

22    images, do you know if they were date-specific or were they general

23    requests?

24       A.   The initial collection of aerial images that were provided to the

25    OTP were already here before I had arrived.  I don't know the genesis of

Page 20199

 1    the request behind that.  I know that when we came across a specific piece

 2    of information with respect to the investigation, that we felt, for

 3    example -- you know, something obvious that we felt that maybe there could

 4    be assistance on, like a mass grave or a particular location, we would ask

 5    for imagery product of a specific geographic area.

 6            What the United States government or what anyone else provided,

 7    and the dates surrounding that, were outside our control.  We didn't go by

 8    date.

 9       Q.   Looking at this exhibit from P02103, number 121, do you see the

10    box immediately below the word "Bratunac" on the top left-hand or near the

11    top left-hand corner?

12       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

13       Q.   Now, is that a box, to the best of your knowledge, that contained

14    a date at some time?

15       A.   Sir, to the best of my knowledge, it's a box.  I have no way of

16    being able to tell you what was in there.

17       Q.   You don't know if, in that box, there was a date and a time?

18       A.   No, sir, I don't.

19       Q.   As an analyst, did you ever see or do you know why your

20    investigative team would remove dates from the box, if at all?

21            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  Same objection.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, objection sustained.

23            Mr. Ostojic, your next question, please.

24            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

25       Q.   Help me with this, with your logic, if you will, Mr. Butler.  If a

Page 20200

 1    date can be removed from a box such as this on 121, it can be also

 2    replaced with a different date and time, can it not?

 3            MR. McCLOSKEY:  The same objection.  This issue has been dealt

 4    with by Mr. Ruez.  He was allowed to ask questions and answer questions on

 5    that.  Now he's bringing Mr. Butler in just to speculate.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  And Mr. Butler can only speculate, having already

 7    stated that he doesn't know what could and what couldn't be done.  He's

 8    also explained to you that maybe if there is a scanning and a reproduction

 9    of a hard copy, then one can play around, but that's as far as he could

10    get.  So your next question.

11            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

12       Q.   Sir, it's our position that not only were the dates in the boxes

13    able to be manipulated or erased, but also the data that's contained in

14    the center larger box that you see from members of the investigative team.

15      My question to you is, sir:  Do you know if the investigative team had

16    that capacity to do that?

17       A.   I have no idea whether they would have or not after my departure.

18    I don't know the answer to that.

19       Q.   Let me ask you this question:  Do you know if they had the

20    capacity to do it, sir, the technical wherewithal to do it?

21            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  We've talked about that.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Again, we are just in a purely speculative mode

23    here.  So let's move, Mr. Ostojic.

24            MR. OSTOJIC:  He didn't answer my question.  He answered it --

25                          [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 20201

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  To us, a question asked and answered.  So let's move

 2    to the next question, Mr. Ostojic.

 3            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 4       Q.   Mr. Butler, my learned friend at the Office of the Prosecution

 5    said that you're kind of an expert or an analyst with respect to documents

 6    and that you could really kind of -- when you look at something like, for

 7    example, an intercept, that you can determine whether or not it's

 8    authentic, or reliable, and things of that sort.

 9            Do you remember giving that testimony in your direct examination

10    on January 14th, 2008?

11       A.   I'm quite sure that -- I don't think I ever said I could look at

12    an intercept and determine whether it's authentic and the source of a

13    document expert.  So I mean --

14       Q.   For the sake of time, you are not a document expert; correct?

15       A.   In a forensic/technical sense, no, sir.

16       Q.   In any sense, sir?

17       A.   My expertise is the ability to look at the documents and to

18    determine what they mean contextually on the basis of this crime scene.

19    That's it; that's all I advertise.

20       Q.   And you can't tell, by looking at either the aerial images or the

21    intercept, whether or not those documents, from a forensic standpoint,

22    have been altered, modified, changed; correct?

23       A.   I can't look at a particular image and tell you, with any degree

24    of reliability, whether it's been altered, doctored, changed, or

25    otherwise.  No, sir.  It's not my technical field of expertise.

Page 20202

 1       Q.   Now, in trying to give us this objective review, historically,

 2    that you're analysing for us, wouldn't that be something that you would

 3    consider in your purported analysis?

 4       A.   That the national providers of these images might have altered the

 5    information in order to make it appear as other things?

 6       Q.   Not quite.

 7       A.   Okay.

 8       Q.   For example, if members of the investigative team that you worked

 9    with did that, would that be helpful for you?

10       A.   It clarifies it, but, no, I did not consider the fact that for the

11    use of my analysis and what I used the images for, that that was a

12    problem.

13       Q.   Did you ever discuss with Mr. Ruez or inquire about this empty box

14    or the ability to remove things from a box on an aerial photograph?

15       A.   I have not spoken with Mr. Ruez for the better part of two years,

16    sir.

17       Q.   So that means that you have not talked to him at all while you

18    were here, up until November 2004, and subsequent to that, up to the last

19    two years that you've spoken to him, about these empty boxes and the

20    ability of the OTP to alter or change them; correct?

21       A.   That is correct, sir.

22       Q.   Now, let's talk about the intercepts for a moment.  You mentioned

23    them in some of your reports.  You didn't obtain any information as to

24    whether or not any of the intercepts that you reviewed were modified,

25    altered, or changed in any way; would that be correct?

Page 20203

 1       A.   By members, I assume, of the investigative team, as opposed to the

 2    provider of the material?

 3       Q.   We can start there.

 4       A.   Well, which one is "there"?

 5       Q.   The investigative team.

 6       A.   No, sir.  I received no information from members of the

 7    investigative team that they were deliberately altering the content of

 8    intercepts.

 9       Q.   What about from the provider, the Bosnian Muslim intercept

10    operators, did you obtain any such information?

11       A.   The -- as part of the authentication process, when there were

12    questions as to whether or not there were discrepancies between the

13    versions that were what we call the printout versions or the handwritten

14    versions, I understand that the investigative team and Ms. Frease and her

15    people went out and resolved them.

16            So we knew that there were always going to be minor discrepancies.

17      We've had numbers of occasions where two or three different intercepts

18    appear for the same date and there are discrepancies.

19       Q.   Yes.  Well, how would you define a major discrepancy?  Being this

20    analyst, what would constitute a major discrepancy to you?

21       A.   A major discrepancy with the -- with the intent of an intercept

22    would be, for example, where we would have two or three versions of the

23    same intercept and that not only would there be missing gaps, which could

24    be explained by an intercept site not having access to the full component

25    of the transmission, but would be an entirely different context of the

Page 20204

 1    discussion.  So, in that context, that's what I would call a major

 2    discrepancy.

 3       Q.   Would you also call a major discrepancy if a letter identifying,

 4    purportedly, one of the participants was changed or modified on a couple

 5    of occasions, so that it would be a different initial or different

 6    initials as opposed to the one in its original form?

 7       A.   I am aware that the names, in Serbo-Croatian, the same last name

 8    can be pronounced or even spelled a little bit differently for cultural or

 9    parentage reasons, but I'm not aware of a situation where initials that

10    are attributed to correspondence are being arbitrarily changed.

11       Q.   Okay.  That information is something that you've never come

12    across; correct?

13       A.   I may have come across it, but I'm not aware of a situation that's

14    standing out at the moment.

15       Q.   Okay.  And it's certainly not included in any of your reports, is

16    it, that you said:  "Well, this intercept may not be as reliable or

17    authentic because the provider altered or modified, on a couple of

18    occasions, the identity of the purported speaker"?

19       A.   Sir, the short version is if I believe that that was the case, it

20    wouldn't be in my report.

21       Q.   It would not be?

22       A.   Yes.  If I believe that that was the case, it would not be in my

23    report.

24       Q.   That analysis or that intercept?

25       A.   That intercept.  I wouldn't reference it and I would not count on

Page 20205

 1    it for any particular reason if the origins -- if I understood that the

 2    origins were questionable or if there had been a deliberate attempt to

 3    alter it or modify it for the purpose of changing my analysis or steering

 4    me somehow.

 5       Q.   And that would be Rule 68 material, would it not, in your opinion?

 6       A.   I suspect that misconduct on the part of the Office of the

 7    Prosecutor would qualify as Rule 68 if it were done by the investigators.

 8       Q.   We're speaking of the provider, with all due respect now?

 9       A.   I believe that if the investigative team had information that

10    providers had altered it, that it would fall under the rubric of Rule 68,

11    because it would call into question parts of the authenticity process.

12       Q.   Now, I just want to cover a couple more aerial images, and then

13    we'll move from this topic for the day.

14            MR. OSTOJIC:  That would be if you'd look at aerial image I

15    believe it's 249, if we have the correct numbering system.

16       Q.   Sir, you have that image now in front of you; correct?

17       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

18       Q.   Okay.  And just to make sure I have my complete record on this, we

19    know there's no emblem there and nothing on the lower right-hand side

20    that's digitalised.  There's not even an empty box underneath the broader

21    box identifying the area purportedly; is that correct?  You don't see a

22    blank box there, do you?

23       A.   No, sir.  I don't see a blank box.

24       Q.   Now, do you know how, in this specific aerial image, there is no

25    date that's below the description?  Do you know?

Page 20206

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

 2            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  That's asking him to speculate on the

 3    provider in this particular area, and that's not appropriate.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Necessarily, I think he either knows or he doesn't.

 5    If he doesn't, we move.  If he's in a position to give us information

 6    related to OTP only, not to the US government, then I think you can safely

 7    proceed.

 8            THE WITNESS:  The answer is, no, I have no idea why there or is

 9    not one there.

10            MR. OSTOJIC:  Let's look, if we may, at - and I thank you for your

11    patience, Your Honour, on this, and the Registry and the Usher - Exhibit

12    27 of this collection.

13       Q.   You have that in front of you, do you not, sir, this image 27,

14    which is of purportedly a bus convoy at Nova Kasaba?  Do you see that?

15       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

16       Q.   And the box below that has both the date and what seems to be the

17    time.  Do you see that?

18       A.   Yes, sir, I do.

19       Q.   Do you know, looking at now these four or five pictures, why

20    they're different, in the sense that some pictures have the emblem, some

21    don't; others have a box which is empty, some have only the date, and some

22    have the date and the time on the specific photograph?

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. McCloskey.

24            MR. McCLOSKEY:  As that material is referenced to the black and

25    white, that's US material, and why it's on one and not on the another, is

Page 20207

 1    not appropriate.  He can ask him all day long about the yellow markings.

 2    That's not a problem.

 3            MR. OSTOJIC:  With all due respect, I don't know that

 4    Mr. McCloskey is here testifying that the black and white is necessarily

 5    US material.

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  He doesn't have to specify on that.  If he makes a

 7    statement, that's enough.  If he makes a statement to that effect, and I

 8    think we have heard it also from Mr. Ruez, that's enough.

 9            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Absolutely.  That is part of the explanation we

10    gave way back when.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  It's not testimony.  So let's move to your next

12    question.  And in any case, it's a question which has been already put and

13    answered.

14            MR. OSTOJIC:  I'll have to look at the transcript for that,

15    Your Honour, but thank you for that.

16       Q.   Sir, being a historical analyst, let me ask you:  How many reports

17    did you generate with respect to the Srebrenica issues?

18       A.   The first report was the --

19       Q.   Just give me the number, if you don't mind.

20       A.   I think related to Srebrenica, a total of five.

21       Q.   Okay.  And one was the brigade command structure; correct?

22       A.   Well, one was the corps command report; one was the brigade

23    command report; the original version of the Srebrenica military narrative;

24    the revised version of that, which came out several -- well, two years

25    later; and, most recently, the Main Staff report.

Page 20208

 1       Q.   Would you agree with me, sir, that when you describe yourself as a

 2    historical analyst, that that would really be what the two Srebrenica

 3    narrative reports are?  They are simply your historical analysis of the

 4    events; correct?

 5            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  We've been through this.  This is

 6    asked and answered.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  At least in relation to what he is testifying and

 8    the report that we have in this case, it has certainly been asked and

 9    answered.

10            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll look to the

11    transcript for your guidance on that.  Thank you.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  He also specified which part of the report he

13    considers to be historical, a historical account.  I put a question in

14    addition to yours, too.

15            MR. OSTOJIC:  And that's what I -- excuse me.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  So let's move to your next question.

17            MR. OSTOJIC:  That's precisely why I was following up, but we'll

18    look at it again.  Thank you.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

20            MR. OSTOJIC:

21       Q.   Sir, with respect to your testimony on the 14th of January, 2008,

22    on the military prosecutor's office, on page I think it's 19607, you state

23    the following - and just in the moments that we have here, I want to get a

24    better understanding- you state, "In 1992, at the time this memorandum was

25    published..."  I think we're referencing 65 ter 28, and that was what I

Page 20209

 1    added to your statement.

 2            "In 1992, at the time this memorandum was published, the military

 3    prosecutor's office, the military court system, were under the

 4    administration of the VRS.  At a later point in the war, those

 5    responsibilities were relinquished by the army and, in fact, picked up by

 6    the Ministry of Defence."

 7            Do you remember giving that testimony, sir?

 8       A.   Yes, sir.  I don't know if I used the phrase -- if I used the

 9    phrase "relinquished."  It's more accurately they were transferred.  But

10    yes, sir.

11       Q.   I was just quoting you verbatim, but that's fair if you want to

12    use the word" transfer."  Help me with this:  When was it exactly this

13    period that you refer to at a later point in the war?

14       A.   If memory serves, it was sometime either in late 1993, early 1994.

15    It was after the Banja Luka mutinies.  I know that there is a considerable

16    amount of documents related to that.  It's hopefully somewhere in a binder

17    where my desk used to be, but I can't tell you exactly, offhand, what the

18    date is.

19       Q.   You had a group of binders with you here last week, and I did

20    notice you don't have them this week.  Are those binders available to you

21    to bring tomorrow, so that we could see specifically the rule or the

22    reference that you made, that in 1993 and 1994, these responsibilities

23    were transferred and/or relinquished by the VRS to the Ministry of

24    Defence?

25       A.   The material won't be in those binders, because those are only the

Page 20210

 1    exhibits that were tendered or asked by the Prosecutor for me.  I don't

 2    think that that was an issue that was one that was going to be tendered

 3    through exhibits or anything else like that, so I don't think that there's

 4    going to be a document that says that.

 5       Q.   In the minute or two or three that we have, can you identify the

 6    document more precisely for us?

 7       A.   There should be - and I'm reaching back on this one - some form of

 8    either a Main Staff directive that notes that or an Official Gazette

 9    directive that talks about the military prosecutor's office, under the

10    Ministry of Defence, as opposed to the army.  I mean, I know the

11    information's out there, but I'm just drudging back through old memory on

12    that one.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic, Mr. McCloskey, can you reach a

14    stipulation on this?

15            MR. OSTOJIC:  I'm sure we can, Mr. President.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, but it takes two.

17            MR. OSTOJIC:  We're always willing.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  It takes two to tango.

19            MR. McCLOSKEY:  I will look for the documents.  It's not something

20    I recall off the top of my head, either, but I know there's documents that

21    Mr. Butler is referencing, and we can start looking.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

23            MR. OSTOJIC:  If we can break now for the day, Your Honour, I'm

24    about to go on to another subject area.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

Page 20211

 1            MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  We'll continue tomorrow morning at 9.00.

 3            Mr. Butler, thank you so much.

 4            Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

 5            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Just logistically, Mr. President, while it's

 6    always hard to tell how long Mr. Butler will go, but if we go with the

 7    estimates, he's going to run out of cross-examination at our deadline

 8    date, and we still have Mr. Vasic, these DNA people, and one other short

 9    witness that you had approved.  So we need some planning guidance.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, we're thinking about that, Mr. McCloskey.

11            Yes, Mr. Meek.

12            MR. MEEK:  If it please the Court, I'd just like the Chamber to

13    know that we are attempting to reach a stipulation which would allow the

14    Prosecutor not to have to call Mr. Vasic.  We don't know if we can do

15    that.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.

17            We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.00.  Thank you.

18                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

19                          to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd day of

20                          January, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.