|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 8709 • {1/87} (1)Tuesday, 20 March 2001 [Open Session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.24 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth, the interpreters, the registry, the counsel for the Prosecution, the counsel for the Defence. Good morning, General Krstic. We will be resuming our proceedings today. (10)So Mr. Harmon, I see we have a new witness for today. MR. HARMON: That is correct, Mr. President. Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to my colleagues for the Defence. We have a witness who has appeared previously before this Chamber who provided testimony to the Chamber on the 23rd and the 26th of June (15)using the pseudonym BB. The purpose of him coming back is to examine certain exhibits, specific exhibits. We're not going to repeat his testimony and the procedures and the methodology of intercepting communications that was the subject of his testimony previously. So if I could, Mr. President and Your Honours, if I could have the (20)witness shown Prosecution Exhibit 748 and 788, and I could have copies of those exhibits distributed to Your Honours, then we will proceed with his examination.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Allow me to say a few words.
Witness BB, you are not going to take the solemn declaration, but
(25)I remind you that you are still testifying under oath, and I think you
MR. HARMON: While I'm waiting for these to be distributed to my colleagues for the Defence, let me just say, Your Honours, that Prosecutor's Exhibit 748 is a copy of a notebook, the original of which I (5)have. I have shown it to the Defence, they have inspected it, and it is available for Your Honours to inspect as well. I could pass this up, if Your Honours please, through the registrar, and ...
WITNESS: WITNESS BB
[Resumed] (10) • EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Now, Witness BB, have you had an opportunity to examine first of all Prosecutor's Exhibit 748, which is a copy of a notebook, and have you compared the copy of the notebook to the original notebook? Did you do that in my office? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And is the Prosecution Exhibit 748 an exact and true copy of the original notebook that you inspected in my office? • A.: Yes. • Q.: In addition, did you examine Prosecution Exhibit 788, which is an (20)extract from the notebook, and did you compare the extract which is found in 788 with an extract contained in the notebook? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And is the extract found in Prosecutor's Exhibit 788 an exact copy of what is found in the notebook Prosecutor's Exhibit 748? (25)
• A.: Yes.
(5) • A.: It was on the table in the room in which the receivers and recorders were situated, the equipment for monitoring conversations. • Q.: Was that in Okresanica? • A.: Yes. • Q.: How were you able to identify that notebook as having come from (10)Okresanica? • A.: Primarily because I was able to identify my handwriting and I was assigned to Okresanica. Also on the covers. • Q.: Now, do you recognise the handwriting of your fellow colleagues who were also assigned to Okresanica? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: I would like to return your attention to a specific conversation, and that conversation in the notebook is found at pages -- it starts at 00804463. So could you turn in the notebook to that particular page, the last two digits of which are 63. Do you have that in front of you? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And this conversation goes over two pages, ending at page 4465; is that correct? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: And I'm referring specifically to the conversation that starts
(25)with a frequency of 255.950, and then the next is, which is the time,
• A.: I recorded this conversation. (5) • Q.: And the notebook entry about this conversation, is that in your handwriting? • A.: It is. This is my handwriting. • Q.: Now, if you would turn to page -- turn the page over from the start of the conversation, I'm referring to 00804465. Do you see your (10)name at the end of this conversation? • A.: I do. • Q.: Now, I'm going to read for the record this conversation, and I'm reading from Prosecutor's Exhibit 788. And I'll start at the top: Frequency 255.950, time 9.50, participants General Krstic (15)(barely audible) - Obrenovic - X (Jevdjevic). (O.:) Obrenovic 02 from Palma. (X.:) Go ahead. (X.:) Good. Very good. (O.:) Very good. (20) (X.:) Yes. (O.:) Where is Zepa? (X.:) (Behind us). (O.:) /laughter/ (X.:) It's not yet ours...... (have to) we ... (25)
(O.:) What's going on, you gave up Yugoslavia, man.
(O.:) What? Hello? Hey operator, what's happening, did I lose the line? (K.:) Hello? (5) (O.:) Yes. (K.:) This is Krstic. Hello! (O.:) Yes. (K.:) Hey Obrenovic, Krstic here. (O.:) How are you, General, Sir? (10) (K.:) I'm great and you? (O.:) Thanks to you, I am too. (K.:) (You can say that?) And how's your health? (O.:) It's fine thank God, it's fine. (K.:) Are you working down there? (15) (O.:) Of course we are working?! (K.:) Good. (O.:) We've managed to catch a few more. (K.:) Uh-huh. (O.:) Either by gunpoint or on mines. (20) (K.:) Kill them all, God damn it. (O.:) Everything is going according to plan. (K.:) Don't leave a single one alive. (O.:) Yes? (K.:) Not a single one must be left alive. (25)
(O.:) Everything is going according to plan. Everything.
(O.:) Yeah, let them, let them. They know what they can listen to. (K.:) Right. Where is your boss? (5) (O.:) He went up towards you. (K.:) When, today? (O.:) Yes. (K.:) This morning? (O.:) Yes. (10) (K.:) OK. OK. Go on. We'll be in touch. (O.:) Can I talk to Jevdjevic for a moment? (K.:) Jevdjevic? (O.:) Yes. (K.:) All right. Since we are ... (15) (O.:) All the best, General. (K.:) I'll put him on. (X.:) Hello. (O.:) (Vitoje?) (X.:) Yes. (20) (O.:) Listen. (X.:) Yes. (O.:) Which road should I use to send a truck in your direction to pick up some cattle? (X.:) And where is that? (25)
(O.:) Well, I don't know. My boss told me to give you a call
(X.:) Well, the others have already grabbed everything. (O.:) And there's nothing left, huh? (X.:) Not really. (5) (O.:) The motherfuckers are worse than termites. (X.:) Even worse. Now their code-names are Cowboy 1 and Cowboy 2. (O.:) /laughter/ (O.:) Hey, listen ... (X.:) You'll only get some if your guys have caught some and (10)penned them up, no other way. (O.:) OK, then. Where are they? Someone told me somewhere near Milici, right? (X.:) They're in the place where Legenda often carried out searches, and then further up. (15) (O.:) Should I go to Milici? (X.:) (Podravanje and up to Stublic?) (O.:) Uh-huh, to Stublic. (X.:) You'll find them at Stublic. (O.:) OK. (20) (X.:) You know the frequency and there are lots of soldiers and lots of sets, so you can call. (O.:) Good. (X.:) That's it. (O.:) Good. (25)
(X.:) And how are you?
(X.:) So long. Let's get together sometime. (O.:) OK. Take care. (X.:) Bye. (5)And that ends the reading of the intercept, the translation of the intercept. That conversation's reflected in your notes in the notebook. Now, in this conversation, Witness, the parties identified themselves, one as Krstic, who's addressed as a General, and the other identifies himself as Obrenovic. Prior to intercepting this (10)communication, were you familiar with the voices of General Krstic and Obrenovic? • A.: At the time, yes. • Q.: And did the people who were speaking in this conversation, did you recognise those as the voices of General Krstic and as Obrenovic? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, in the conversation itself there are a number of places, and I'm referring to 788 where there are brackets, for example, at the time, next to the correspondent X, it says, brackets, "Jevdjevic"; and in other locations there also appear to be brackets, for example, on the 8th line (20)down, the words "have to," and further down in brackets, "You can say that?" Do the brackets signify anything? • A.: They signify that the intelligibility was low so that I'm not quite certain that what I wrote down is what was said.
• Q.: What about next to the name Jevdjevic; what do those brackets
(25)signify in that particular point in this intercept?
• Q.: Now, Witness, this conversation took place many years ago. Do you (10)have an independent recollection of this conversation or parts of this conversation? • A.: I remember parts of it. • Q.: What parts of this conversation do you remember, and could you tell the Judges why? (15) • A.: I remember the part when there is reference to the cattle for which they need a truck to load them onto, and then mention is made of cowboy or cow herd 1 and 2 which at the time sounded like a good joke to me, and that is why I remember it. It has stuck in my memory. • Q.: Now, in the course of this interception and the capture of this (20)conversation, you previously described writing, the procedure of writing these conversations down into notebooks. You also described a procedure of sending these by teletype, the content of these conversations, to Superior Command. Do you remember that testimony? • A.: More or less, yes. (25)
MR. HARMON: Could I have the next exhibit, which is Prosecutor's
• Q.: Now, Witness BB, do you recognise Prosecutor's Exhibit 786? • A.: Yes. • Q.: What is Prosecutor's Exhibit 786? (5) • A.: This document is in the form in which it was sent from Okresanica to the 2nd Corps command. • Q.: And could you turn to the conversation we've been discussing, which is on the second page of the B/C/S, and it starts again with the frequency of 255.950 and 0950 hours, and could you then turn -- follow (10)that conversation through to the last page, and you'll see two initials, two sets of initials that appear at the end of that conversation. Is one of the sets of initials your initials? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, let me go to the header on this document, and this document (15)indicates, does it not, the location where this conversation was captured? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And that is the word "Okresanica"; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And there's a date that appears on there, August the 2nd, 1995. (20)What does that date represent? • A.: The date represents the day when the conversation was intercepted and recorded and forwarded to the Superior Command.
• Q.: Now, if we could turn back to the Prosecutor exhibit which is 788
which is the excerpt of the conversation, at the top of the intercept,
(25)next to Participants and next to General Krstic's name, there's a bracket
• A.: It means that the participant who was introduced as General Krstic, that he was barely audible. The audibility was far poorer than that of the other participant. (5) • Q.: Can you explain to the Judges why in radio communications one speaker's voice may appear louder than another's? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you need a piece of paper? • A.: Yes. (10) MR. HARMON: You can put that on the ELMO, Mr. Usher, please. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence would like to object because, as far as I can see, Mr. Harmon intends to ask the witness about some expert opinion. We have heard an expert opinion on (15)these issues, and if this is going to be an expert opinion that is going to be solicited, then we need to see his report first and then hear him, because this is obviously an expert opinion that Mr. Harmon is going to ask the witness about. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, your response. (20)
MR. HARMON: I agree with my colleague that Dr. French did give an
explanation as to different frequencies causing different volumes in
voices. This witness has worked with radios since he was a ham operator
in his youth. He has worked extensively for many years with radios,
intercepting communications. I think he is in a position to provide an
(25)explanation to the Chamber based on his experience.
MR. HARMON: That's correct. • Q.: Based on your experience alone, could you explain to the Trial (10)Chamber why there are speakers with different volumes, one speaker being more audible than another. And if you need to make a diagram on the ELMO, please proceed. • A.: For instance, we have a participant A and a participant B. The principle of communications was such that participant A is at one (15)location, participant B at another location. Number 1 is the frequency of the signal emitted from position A, and number 2 is the frequency from the location where participant B is situated. I, when monitoring, when I guide my antenna towards participant B, I adjust it to frequency 1, and then I hear -- I can hear quite well (20)participant A. As for participant B, I can hear much less well. Also vice versa; if I were to direct my antenna towards participant B and adjust the receiver to frequency number 2, then the audibility of participant B would be good and that of participant A much poorer.
MR. HARMON: Perhaps this could be marked as an exhibit. This
(25)could be Prosecutor's Exhibit 858.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, excuse me for interrupting. Witness BB, does that mean that you could choose the participant (5)that you wanted to hear better by adjusting your antenna? • A.: In most cases, yes. • Q.: But you could always only choose one of the two; is that right? • A.: Yes. If I had one receiver, only one participant. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please continue, Mr. Harmon. (10)Thank you. MR. HARMON: • Q.: Now, I'm going to play two tape recordings for you. You had an opportunity to listen to these in my office, but I'd like you to listen to them again in Court. (15) MR. HARMON: And if we could have -- these are two tape recordings of the same conversation, and if we could start, and we'll play these successively. We'll play the first conversation, which is already an exhibit. It has already been played in this Chamber. It is Exhibit 789. And for reference, this is tape 48 that was referred to in Dr. French's (20)report on page 5. So if we could play Prosecutor's Exhibit 789. There should be a transcript of that already available. It is 789/A and B. But the purpose of this exercise is just to listen to the volume. So if we could play, please, 789.
THE INTERPRETER: Do the interpreters interpret? Because we don't
(25)have the transcript.
(5) MR. HARMON: It's very soft. I'm not hearing it at all. JUDGE WALD: I'm not hearing it at all either. THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. The director just informed me that he can hear it, but obviously we can't, and he's adjusting that immediately. MR. HARMON: All right. (10) THE REGISTRAR: The director just informed me that the engineer is on his way and it will be less than one minute before it begins to play. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, can you leave that part of the testimony for the time being and we can come back to it later? (15) MR. HARMON: Well, at the conclusion of this -- THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: At the conclusion of this exercise, Mr. President, I was going to move to an entirely different conversation which will take me out of the area of this -- (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps we can act differently. We have been working for almost 45 minutes, so perhaps we can have a 15-minute break now and come back. I see positive signs from the technical booth, so let's have a 15-minute break and then we'll come back. (25)
--- Break taken at 10.01 a.m.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, I think that we are now able to hear the recording.
MR. HARMON: Yes. We'll play two recordings back to back. The
(5)first one will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 789, and if we could play that. MR. HARMON: • Q.: Witness BB, whose voice was louder in that tape, Obrenovic's or Krstic's? (10) • A.: On this tape, the voice of Obrenovic was louder.
MR. HARMON: Now if we could play the next exhibit, a new exhibit,
Prosecutor's Exhibit 835. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think we ought to interrupt at (15)this point because the question that is being asked here is -- let me say that the Judges aren't able to know whether the -- it is distortion from the technical booth or whether the distortion is on the original, so we're hearing this badly. And it's up to Mr. Harmon to tell us, was the distortion due to the technical facilities here or on the original? (20)
MR. HARMON: Quality, we have the original. We'll bring the
quality -- the original down here, and we'll put it on the machine and
we'll play the original, but that will take just a few minutes. I could
continue with my examination, but in the meantime if I can get a message
upstairs, we will get the original down here.
(25)I apologise, Mr. President. This was supposed to be a fairly
• Q.: Witness BB, have you heard the tape recordings, the two tape (5)recordings in my office? • A.: Yes, I have heard them. • Q.: And have you heard the originals as well as the copies? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Was one of the tapes that you heard of a different -- I'm sorry. (10)Were there differences between the two tapes? • A.: Yes, there were. • Q.: And were there differences in the volume of the voice of General Krstic in those two tapes? • A.: Yes, there was. (15) • Q.: Now, the tape where General Krstic had -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that question. Could you identify which of the two tapes was more likely to have come from Okresanica, after having listened to both the original version and the copy of the same conversation from two locations? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Which of the tapes were you able to identify as likely having come from Okresanica? • A.: The tape on which General Krstic's voice is less audible.
MR. HARMON: That would be, Your Honours, Prosecution Exhibit 789,
(25)which is again referred to in Dr. French's report at page 5.
• A.: Not to my knowledge. • Q.: Now, let me put to you a question. General Krstic has heard this (5)tape. He has asserted that this tape is 100 per cent montage. I'd like your comments on that proposition. • A.: At that point in time, in 1995, I heard that conversation and recorded it. Now, whether this concrete tape here is the tape that I actually recorded on, I can't say for sure. (10) • Q.: Now, are there factors that led you to conclude that it may be the tape that you actually heard and recorded? • A.: Yes, because the recording on this tape completely corresponds to my notes in my notebook. • Q.: All right. (15) MR. HARMON: Well, then, I will await the arrival of the tape, we'll put the original on, Mr. President. Again, I apologise for the delay. We'll now turn to a different subject, and if I could have -- if the witness could be given, please, a copy of Prosecution Exhibit 843 and 842/A and B. (20)
MR. HARMON: Again, Mr. President and Your Honours, Prosecution
Exhibit 843, as you will see, is a copy of a notebook, and 842 is a copy
of an excerpt from the notebook. The original notebook I have. I will
ask the registrar also to distribute that to Your Honours for inspection.
And in the notebook, the original notebook, you will see, Your Honour, a
(25)blue tab, and the blue tab is only to mark the location of the excerpt
• Q.: Witness BB, have you had an opportunity to examine the original notebook in my office and compare it to the copy, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 843, and can you tell the Judges if the Exhibit 843 is a true copy of the original? (15) • A.: Yes, it is. That is to say, I had occasion to look through it, and I agree that this copy is a true copy. It corresponds to the original. • Q.: And does Prosecutor's Exhibit 842, which is an excerpt of a conversation, correspond to, exactly to the entry that is in the notebook (20)that is found at page 01077793 and -94? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, after having inspected Prosecutor's Exhibit 843, can you tell me, is this a notebook from Okresanica? • A.: Yes, it is. (25)
• Q.: And on what basis do you make that conclusion?
• Q.: Whose handwriting? • A.: I recognise my own handwriting and some other handwritings of my colleagues who were with me. (5) • Q.: Now, let me turn your attention to Prosecutor's Exhibit 842 and ask you about this specific conversation which is found in the notebook at 01077793 and -94. Did you capture that conversation on tape? Did you actually record that conversation? • A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: And did you make the entry in the notebook relating to that conversation? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, can you date this conversation? Did we go through that exercise of attempting to date this conversation in my office? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Can you take a look at the notebook. If you need the original, we can pass the original to you. I think you may need the original, actually, to make the dating because there's ... If you refer to page 7770. I could assist you if -- if you turn to page 7770, which is the (20)cover, and you turn to page 7798. Do you see dates on those respective pages? • A.: Yes. • Q.: What is the date on 7770?
• A.: The 12th of July, 1995. And on page 0017798 it is the 14th of
(25)July, 1995.
• A.: I believe the conversation occurred between the 12th, therefore, and the 14th of July, 1995. (5) MR. HARMON: Now, let me briefly read this conversation into the record. I'll start reading: 785.000, Channel 5, at 2040 hours. (General Krstic X - Y (Borovcanin from the specials) (X.:) Hello, Krstic/here/. (10) (Y.:) Hello, Borovcanin/here/, General, how are you? (X.:) Well, where the fuck are you? (Y.:) I'm here at the command post. (X.:) How's it going? (Y.:) It's going well. (15) (X.:) Don't tell me you have problems. (Y.:) I don't, I don't. (X.:) And Krstic also ....., went somewhere towards you. (Y.:) That's exactly what I want to know. (X.:) ...... (20) (Y.:) Is there anything for us from you? (X.:) Work on this part -- and then "which" has a line through it -- ... (Y.:) Yes. (X.:) ... (25)
(Y.:) At the moment.
(Y.:) We'll continue that tomorrow. (X.:) ... (Y.:) All right, bud. (5) (X.:) OK, we'll be in touch. And that concludes the reading from Prosecutor Exhibit 842. • Q.: Now, in this conversation, General Krstic is identified as "General" and Borovcanin is identified by name. Let me ask you this question: In this conversation General Krstic's name appears in brackets, (10)as does Borovcanin. Can you explain those brackets, what they mean? • A.: At the beginning, when the conversation started, when I came, at the beginning of this conversation, the device for recording is switched on and we write in the participants, the particulars in the heading. So at that point I was not sure who the participants in the conversation (15)were, so I wrote in "X" and "Y." And later on, when I listened to the tape again, and when I recorded it in my notebook, I realised who the participants were and therefore put them in in brackets. • Q.: Now, let me ask you: In respect of the words "from the specials," what does that mean? What does that signify, if you know? (20) • A.: That means -- that refers to the special units.
MR. HARMON: I have no further questions, Mr. President. I have
received a note about this tape, but I would like if I could have a break
for a few minutes, or I could play it later or after the
cross-examination. I just needed to make sure that the correct sequence
(25)is found and played.
MR. HARMON: I'm informed it is ready, so this is the recording of
Prosecutor's Exhibit 835 from the original. (5) MR. HARMON: This apparently is not the conversation -- if we could have a few minutes, I'll make sure the correct selection on the master tape is found. I've concluded my direct examination. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So, Mr. Harmon, what you have just suggested was that we do the cross-examination now and then (10)afterwards you will play us this part of the tape. MR. HARMON: Yes. What I would suggest is since the purpose of playing the tape is for Your Honours to listen to the different qualities and the different volumes of the various speakers - in one case General Krstic is softer and in another case he's louder - it's only for purposes (15)of Your Honours' listening to the two tapes. We can do that with or without the witness present. At this point I've examined him about his having listened to both of these and his having made a selection as to which one was more likely to have been intercepted at Okresanica. He doesn't have to listen to the tapes themselves. But I'm at the Trial (20)Chamber's disposal as to how it wants to proceed. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic or Mr. Visnjic -- Mr. Visnjic, have you any remarks to make regarding the suggestion that we have just heard? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President, no comments. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you.
THE REGISTRAR: Yes. I just received a call from the booth, and both case managers apparently are in the booth and they've identified the correct portion, so we can begin. (5)
MR. HARMON: Fine. Then let's begin and finish this part of the
exercise. I'm happy to have it played now if it's ready and they have
selected the proper selection. MR. HARMON: May I be permitted to ask the witness a question (10)about this, Mr. President? • Q.: Now, you've heard this tape now which is Prosecutor's 835. Can you tell me which voice is louder and which voice is softer; General Krstic's or Obrenovic's? I'm sorry, which voice is louder; General Krstic's or General Obrenovic's? (15) • A.: General Krstic's voice is louder. MR. HARMON: And I meant to say Obrenovic. I think I promoted Mr. Obrenovic to the rank of General, so it should be "Obrenovic" and not "General Obrenovic." Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, Mr. Harmon. (20)Mr. Visnjic, your witness for the cross-examination. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic:
• Q.:
[Int.] Witness BB, could you please take Prosecution
Exhibit 748 and turn to page ending 00804463. In response to Mr. Harmon's
(25)question, you explained that the conversation beginning on that page was
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you please turn to page 00804465. • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: The next conversation that follows this one, was it recorded on the 7th of August, 1995? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Does that mean that between the 2nd of August and the 7th of August, 1995, no entries were made of intercepted conversations in this (10)notebook? • A.: That is right. • Q.: Does that also mean that there were no additional conversations taped on this tape between the 2nd and the 7th of August? • A.: No. (15) • Q.: Can you explain that? • A.: There were several notebooks being used simultaneously so that when the operator who was transcribing from the tape, he would take the first notebook at hand and transcribe a conversation in it, so that it was quite possible for nothing to be taken down in a particular notebook for a (20)day or two. • Q.: Did this happen often or rarely? How many notebooks did you have in front of you when you were working? • A.: There were several, let me say five at least, so that this happened quite frequently. (25)
• Q.: In answer to a question by my learned friend Mr. Harmon, you said
• A.: Whatever I took note of in addition to the actual facts, the information, what I heard, the brackets, question marks, full stops and (5)commas, with regard to the parts of the conversation that were less intelligible and comparing the recording with the transcript from those days, I established that the recording fully corresponds to the transcript in the notebook in terms of audibility and everything else. • Q.: You have testified in this courtroom on the 23rd and 26th of (10)June. Do you know why you were not questioned about this particular conversation? • A.: No, I don't know. I don't know why. • Q.: Would you please look at Exhibit 843, please. This is the second notebook, and will you look at the page beginning with 01077815. (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: This is a conversation which is said to have started at 10.51. Are we looking at the same page? • A.: Yes. • Q.: In answer to a question from the Prosecution, you said that you (20)recognised the handwriting of your colleagues. Do you recognise the handwriting of this person who took down this conversation? • A.: I couldn't say with certainty regarding the handwriting. I think I know the initials of the person who took it down and the initials of the signalsman. (25)
• Q.: You don't have to give us their names because of protective
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] For the transcript, I should like to read out this conversation because I have several questions for the witness afterwards. And this conversation is in Serbo-Croatian, so for (5)the transcript I should like to read it. 10 hours 51, X, Y, Bogicevic - General Zivanovic. (X.:) Hello. (Y.:) Hello. (X.:) Is Zivanovic there? (10) (Y.:) Yes, and who needs him? (X.:) Bogicevic from Belgrade. (Y.:) Just a moment, please. (X.:) Hello. Just a moment, General, you're wanted. (B.:) Hello. (15) (Z.:) Hello. (B.:) Zile, hi. (Z.:) Hi, Bogi. (B.:) Good luck. (Z.:) Thank you. (20) (B.:) Here I have the truck. Five tonnes of goods are here for you in Ljubovija. (Z.:) Yes. It's the same as if you were in Belgrade. (B.:) What should we do now? That is what Triso told me. (Z.:) I beg your pardon? (25)
(B.:) Triso told me to do that.
(B.:) Yes. (Z.:) If that is what he told you to do, report to him and then pass it on to me. (5) (B.:) We want to drive some stuff over there to you, but ... (Z.:) Where? (B.:) Over there where you are, up there. (Z.:) I am now in Belgrade. (B.:) Oh, I see. (10) (Z.:) I have liberated Srebrenica and now I have been given a new assignment. (B.:) Yes, yes, fine. (Z.:) How are you? (B.:) Very well. I am coming up there. (15) (Z.:) I have no home. (B.:) I'll come up there now to bring you some watermelon to cool off with. (Z.:) Do that. (B.:) Fine. (20) (Z.:) And how are my people, my Serbs? (B.:) Fine (Krile?) mine. (Z.:) Everything is fine. Say hello to the Serbs. (B.:) I will. Be well. We'll be in touch. (Z.:) Fine. (25)
(B.:) Bye-bye.
• A.: By looking at the dates in this notebook, I can say that the conversation took place between the 15th of July and the 18th of July, (5)1995. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Witness BB. Mr. President, the Defence has no more questions for this witness. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Harmon, any re-examination? (10) MR. HARMON: May I have just a minute to look at this document? Thank you. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Witness BB, would you take the document that you've just been examined on, and I'd like to refer you to page 01077811. And on that (15)particular page there is a date of July 15th, 1995; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And when you say the conversation took place between the 15th of July and the 18th of July, would you turn to page 01077846. Do you see a date of July the 18th, 1995? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, from July -- that date, at that entry point where that date is, the conversations that follow are the conversations that were intercepted on the 18th of July; is that correct? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: Now, and the conversations, turning back to page 01077811, are the
• A.: That is the first conversation that was taken down into this notebook, and it occurred on the 15th of July. (5) • Q.: Okay. Now, I've had an opportunity to look at many of these notebooks, and let me ask you this: Are the conversations that are intercepted, is there a time referenced in respect of each of the conversations that is intercepted? • A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: So if we turn to page 01077811, the first conversation that was noted in this notebook on the 15th of July occurred at 055 hours; is that correct? • A.: 5.54, yes. • Q.: 5.54 hours. I'm sorry. Okay. So that's early in the morning. (15)And the subsequent conversations -- can you go through this notebook, starting at this page where the first conversation is, and tell me when you believe the 16th of July is? • A.: The 16th of July could roughly have begun on page 01077819. • Q.: Can you tell the Judges why you believe the 16th of July could (20)start at that particular page?
• A.: Because the conversation prior to that that was intercepted has a
time indication of 11.02 a.m., and this conversation on page 01077819 has
the time 6.19 in the morning. So most probably the next day in the
morning. It could have been one of the first conversations, because the
(25)date is indicated. Probably the first conversation that day is contained
• Q.: Can you tell me where you believe to be the 17th of July, where that starts? • A.: The 17th of July I think begins on page 01077833. (5) • Q.: Why is that? And why is that that you believe it occurs on that page? • A.: The conversation on the previous page has a time indicated, 2203 hours, so that means in the evening. And then this conversation has a time noted as 7.57 in the morning, so that means the next day. (10) • Q.: And would you just look from that particular page which ends in 833, over to page 846, to see if the times that are noted in respect of each of the conversations continues to get later and later and later. • A.: Yes. Until the page 01077846, on which the date is indicated of the next day. (15) • Q.: Now, turning to the conversation about which you were examined, which is found at page 815 and 816 - I'm sorry - 815, yes, and 816, and having noted that before that is the date of the 15th of July, 1995, and after that, on page 01077819, you believe to be the date of the 16th, are you able now to more precisely give the Trial Chamber a view as to when (20)the conversation about which you were examined occurred? • A.: The conversation certainly occurred between the 15th and the 18th, of course, including the 15th, but it is my opinion that it could have occurred on the 15th. So it is my opinion that this particular conversation occurred on the 15th of July. (25)
MR. HARMON: I have no further questions, thank you.
• QUESTIONED by the Court: (5) JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Witness BB. Can you hear me? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: I just want to understand a few things from you. You mentioned in an answer to the Prosecutor that you were familiar with the voice of General Krstic and Obrenovic, and you said, "I was familiar with (10)their voices at the time." What made you familiar with the voices? Did you listen to them in tapes or on the radio, or meet them? What made you familiar with their voices? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I apologise, Judge Riad, for interrupting, but General Krstic needs to take a break, so with your (15)permission, can we take a 20-minute break and we'll reconvene for the Judges' questions. I apologise for interrupting you, Judge Riad. Let us take a 20-minute break. --- Recess taken at 11.15 a.m. --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] May we proceed? Judge Fouad Riad has the floor. JUDGE RIAD: Witness BB, I'll repeat my question. You mentioned that you were familiar with the voices of General Krstic and Obrenovic. How did you become familiar with their voices? (25)
• A.: In 1995 I worked as an operator on the monitoring of those
JUDGE RIAD: Just, can I just know the monitoring office where? • A.: [redacted] (5) JUDGE RIAD: So you always heard their voices through your interceptions? • A.: Yes, that's right. JUDGE RIAD: And was it always the same voice whenever you heard it? It was always the same voice? (10) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: It was never different? One day you would say, "Is it, is it General Krstic or not," because there was never a face-to-face or direct contact, was there? • A.: In case of doubt, I would usually make a note of that in my (15)notebook, and then I would consult my other colleagues if I wasn't quite sure myself. JUDGE RIAD: So there was a very important, very important means of verification? • A.: Yes. It was essential to verify the participants in a (20)conversation. JUDGE RIAD: And sometimes you mentioned that you would put the names between brackets. That would be in case of doubt?
• A.: In case of doubt, I would place a question mark beside the name
which was in brackets. And names in brackets alone meant that when I
(25)listened to the tape again, they were written in, entered into the
JUDGE RIAD: Now, in one of your answers you mentioned that if you have one receiver you can hear only one person better, better than the (5)other. Now, what happens if you doubt the other; what do you do in that case? Do you adjust the receiver, or you can only be sure of one person, not the other? • A.: I could only be certain of one speaker. JUDGE RIAD: Now, in a case like, for instance, an interception (10)where one voice was clear, which we happened to have heard, and the other was not clear, what do you do in such cases? • A.: In cases of that kind, in my notes, in my notebook, I would denote that the other participant was not clear, not audible, and that is what I would do. I would make a note of it. (15) JUDGE RIAD: And then what is the follow-up? • A.: In any case, it was noted that some of the participants were heard less well or not at all. And if you cannot identify the speakers, then you say that you were not able to perform identification. JUDGE RIAD: Yes. I mean, would there be a chance of comparing it (20)with other interceptions? Would other interceptions be made at the same time and you try to find out? • A.: I was not in a position to do that. I could not do that. JUDGE RIAD: Was there somebody who does it? • A.: I'm not aware of that. I don't know. Maybe, but I'm not sure. (25)
JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
JUDGE WALD: Witness, at the time that you heard the intercept (5)788/A on August 2nd between General Krstic and Obrenovic and Jevdjevic, can you estimate how many times you had previously intercepted conversations in which General Krstic was a participant? Just a rough -- I mean, say, one, a dozen, a hundred; just how many conversations you had intercepted in which he had participated, you had heard his voice before. (10) • A.: I can't tell you exactly, but a number of times, perhaps several tens of times. JUDGE WALD: Okay. That's good enough. Thank you. Now, in both of the conversations that you have been examined about in which General Krstic is alleged to have been one of the participants, in both of the (15)conversations somebody identifies themselves as General Krstic. They say, "Hello, I'm Krstic," or, "Krstic here." When you were intercepting the conversations and later writing down your versions of them, did you rely more on the self-identification by the person who said they were General Krstic or on your voice recognition, or was it a combination of the two? (20)Which would you say you relied on more heavily; the fact that they identified themselves as a particular person or your independent recognition of their voice? • A.: I would rely more on their own self-introduction, although I used both for identification. (25)
JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, on the August 2nd conversation with
• A.: This second conversation, that is, the one that I did not record -- JUDGE WALD: Right. (10) • A.: -- was only a few days ago that I heard it. After so many years, it would be difficult for me to recognise the voices exactly, but at the time when I listened to those voices frequently, I was able to recognise them. JUDGE WALD: I understand that. My question was whether, even (15)recognising the voices at the time, you felt or heard anything different about the way in which the General spoke in that one intercept. Did he sound any different than he had sounded in other intercepts? • A.: I can't remember.
JUDGE WALD: All right. Now, you were asked what parts of that
(20)August 2nd conversation, or why you remembered it, and you told Mr. Harmon
you remembered the talk about the cattle and the cowboys. My question
is: The rest of the conversation, or another part of the conversation had
these phrases like, "Kill all the Turks," or whatever the phrase was,
"Don't let a single one of them stay alive." Did that not remain in your
(25)mind? Did there not seem anything unusual about that, that you would
• A.: Parts like that, conversations where killings were mentioned, I (5)had heard hundreds of times before that, and that was usual for me to hear that kind of thing, whereas the thing about the cattle and the cowboys seemed to me to be a good joke at the time and I remembered that part. JUDGE WALD: Okay. And my last question is in regard to the second conversation that you were questioned about between General Krstic (10)and Borovcanin. One thing -- I just want your comment on this. Again, the transcript says that General Krstic identified himself in the beginning, "Hello, Krstic here," and the conversation is very fragmented, with many dots. I mean, it's very hard to get much sense of what it's about. But were you not surprised, or what was your reaction to the fact (15)that in the middle of the conversation the person who is alleged to be General Krstic refers to Krstic; in other words, he refers to, if it is himself, in the third person. Would you not have expected him to have said "I" or "me" or "myself" rather than using the third person, and did that not raise any doubt in your mind in a conversation which is so full (20)of dots and so -- all the rest of it is -- for the rest of the page it's all dots; there's nothing else that's intelligible that's attributed to him? Did you think about that? Did it give you any concern?
• A.: There was doubt, yes. And everything that I doubted, that I was
not sure of, I either jotted it down or, most frequently, I would consult
(25)my other colleagues, who at that point had a little more experience on the
JUDGE WALD: Okay. So if that figured among your doubts, you would have gone and consulted with your colleagues and resolved the doubts in favour of attributing the conversation to him; is that right? (5) • A.: Yes, if my doubts were cleared up. But if the doubt remained, if I was still unsure, then I would denote that too. I would say that those facts had not been cleared up, and that is how it would go on to the Superior Command. JUDGE WALD: But we are then to infer from the fact that you (10)didn't record those doubts that your own doubts were resolved as far as this second conversation between Krstic and Borovcanin? You didn't send on anything to the Superior Command saying, "I've still got doubts, unresolved doubts, about this," did you? You didn't? You didn't send anything on? (15) • A.: No, I did not. JUDGE WALD: That's all. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Wald. Witness BB, I too have a few questions for you. The first question is the following: How long, how much time, had (20)you been working up until the time you listened in to this communication between supposedly General Krstic, Obrenovic, and Jevdjevic? How many times before that -- how long had you been working before that? How long were you working on intercepts before you intercepted that particular conversation? (25)
• A.: I was at Okresanica from about the beginning of May 1995, in that
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So in total, how much experience (5)had you had on these intercepts? • A.: I personally had been working for a little more than a year in work of that kind. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, thank you. So if I understand correctly, you were able to identify the voices because the (10)interlocutors either said the names, gave their names; but were there any other characteristic features which would lead you to identify a particular voice, and in particular, that of General Krstic? • A.: At that time each of the operators was able, to a fair degree of certainty, to recognise the voices of the participants, the ones we (15)focused on in the conversations, which means that all the higher officers of the army of Republika Srpska. And all the conversations that were recorded were listened to several times, a number of times, by the operator, and several times during the day. So these conversations were recorded and they were heard and played over again and again so that they (20)were the voices that the operators had been accustomed to, and then after several months of working in this way, you would be able to recognise the voices very well.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well, thank you. And now
another question. We have seen the notebook. Let me just find it. I
(25)think it was the Defence counsel that asked you a question with respect to
• A.: If I have all the notebooks that existed at that time in that locality in the field, I could with certainty ascertain the date of each conversation. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay, very well. Another question for you, Witness BB. You said that you knew the handwritings of your colleagues. Did you know them in 1995, or do you recognise them now, today? • A.: Some of the handwritings I can partially recognise today as well, (15)but the initials, the signatures and that kind of thing, I can certainly recognise today too because I had a lot of occasion to see them, and they have lodged in my mind.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] And now another point, another
question. In some of the intercepts we see -- for example, if we look at
(20)Exhibit 788, it is the intercept supposedly between General Krstic,
Obrenovic, and Jevdjevic, the text says, for example - and it says in
English, I'm looking at the English version - "The Turks are probably
listening. Let them listen."
Did you hear that expression or that idea several times, or was it
(25)very rare, if I can put it that way, to hear an expression like this used,
• A.: I did have occasion many times to hear that, especially from the operators and their signalsmen, and they would caution and warn that there was the possibility of tapping in, people tapping in to the conversation, (5)tapping in to the participants in the conversation. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] And another question, to wind up with, Witness. You gave an answer to Judge Wald a moment ago and said that the expression "kill them all" did not particularly grab your attention because you had heard that frequently. My question now is the (10)following: Did you hear that expression frequently - and you'll explain afterwards what you mean by frequently - coming out of the mouth and with the voice of General Krstic? Did you hear that expression from his mouth and in his voice? • A.: From General Krstic I did not hear that often, but I did have (15)occasion to hear on a fair number of occasions, and even when I worked as a signalsman, I would receive written documents where that was written. It would be written fairly frequently. And that is why, as I said, it had become -- I had become accustomed to it, to that type of information. But in concrete terms for General Krstic especially, no. As far as I can (20)remember, I could not hear that often, and perhaps that was the only time that I had heard him say that.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay, very well, Witness BB. We
thank you very much for coming back to the Tribunal, and we wish you a
safe journey back to your place of residence and to your work.
(25)I see Mr. Harmon on his feet. I suppose you're going to tender
MR. HARMON: That's correct. Yes, we would like to tender the following exhibits: Prosecutor's Exhibit 748, which is a notebook, we would ask that that be tendered under seal because of the name of the (5)witness that is included in it; 788 is an excerpt; we would submit 786 which is a printout, we would ask that that be admitted under seal because of the initials of the witness that are on that; 789, which is a transcript of tape 48 -- I'm sorry, which is tape 48 and the transcripts; Prosecutor's Exhibit 835, which is tape 32 and the transcripts; (10)Prosecutor's Exhibit 843, which is a notebook, we would ask that that be admitted under seal because of the names of people in it; 842, which is an excerpt from that notebook; and lastly, Prosecutor's Exhibit 858, which is the diagram drawn by Witness BB. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, any objections or (15)comments?
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the Defence opposes
the admission of these exhibits regarding the notebooks on the grounds
given by Mr. Petrusic in his previous statement and which are to be found
on pages 4718 to 4723 -- 4711 to 4723, so as to avoid repetition. These
(20)are reasons that this Trial Chamber has been informed of by Mr. Petrusic.
Also regarding tapes and excerpts of conversations from those
tapes, the Defence particularly objects to those exhibits, the reasons
having been given in our motion for the exemption of these exhibits from
the rebuttal case as we feel that they are not appropriate for rebuttal.
(25)Those would be, in brief, our objections.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Your Honour, our objections regarding authenticity of these exhibits are based on the grounds given by (10)Mr. Petrusic on pages 4718 to 4723. These relate to the written documents. As for the tapes, themselves -- JUDGE WALD: Right. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] -- our objection is again based on lack of authenticity, or rather, inadequate evidence to prove (15)authenticity, and also that that type of evidence, and bearing in mind the criterion of authenticity which would be adequate for the Court, we feel that they should not be admitted. So our objection regarding authenticity applies to all these exhibits, both tapes and written documents. JUDGE WALD: But just to make sure I understand: Putting (20)authenticity aside, you are still objecting that they shouldn't have come in on rebuttal or you're not? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, Your Honour. Yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
Mr. Harmon, anything new to add, having heard what Mr. Visnjic has
(25)just said?
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] That was my mistake, Your Honour. (5)The objection does not apply to that exhibit.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Just a moment. Now let me
confer with my colleagues.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I think there is no doubt
(10)regarding Exhibit 858, so that exhibit is admitted into evidence.
With respect to the other exhibits, they are linked to the
decision that the Chamber took yesterday. In other words, when the
Chamber decides on the Defence motion, then these decisions will be
considered in the same context, and I take advantage of this opportunity
(15)to inform the parties that we have felt some doubts regarding our decision
yesterday - rather, that certain clarifications are necessary - and that
is why we're going to review that decision and perhaps tomorrow give you
explanations and possibly also to give you a decision in writing. So in
any event, we will communicate to you tomorrow.
(20)There are some things that are already clear in yesterday's
decision, but there are others that may be under doubt, and we felt that
the parties needed some clarification, and we are going to clarify that
decision tomorrow and possibly, as I have already told you, give it to you
in writing so that the time for the appeal will be counted as of the time
(25)the written ruling is issued, if there is one. So for the moment that is
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, I think there are some exhibits from yesterday. Perhaps we could take advantage of the time (10)to clear up certain things, to clean up any outstanding issues. So could you tell us what they are, please? MR. HARMON: Yes. I'll have my colleague, Mr. McCloskey, address the Chamber. MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. We do have some (15)exhibits. One would be Dr. French's C.V., which is 840; Dr. French's speech report, 839; and his audio report, 838. We would ask that 839 and 838 be entered under seal because of some of the information and people it contains. And then Exhibit 841, which was the C.V. of Witness EE, we would (20)ask for under seal, and as well as the diagram of Witness EE, which I would also ask be entered in under seal. And as far as I see, that is all the exhibits. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, and the diagram of Witness EE, it is Exhibit -- what is the exhibit number, please? (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: 847.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we have no (5)objections. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. So Exhibits 838, 839, and 841 will be admitted into evidence under seal. The other exhibits, 840, 841 - no, sorry - 840 and 847, those two will be admitted also into evidence. (10)Have I forgotten anything? Have I left anything out, Mr. McCloskey? MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. That's fine. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you very much. Mr. Harmon, I don't know whether you would prefer to have a lunch (15)break now or should we begin? Perhaps let's begin, yes. MR. HARMON: Yes, we can begin. We have another witness, protected witness, so we will have to lower the blinds while he comes in. I can tell Your Honours this will be Witness Z, and Witness Z testified before the Trial Chamber with protective measures on the 22nd of June, (20)2000. Again, he will be a protected witness. In his testimony today he will have face distortion and he will continue to use the pseudonym.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Harmon, you're telling us
that those will be the same protective measures that the witness had in
June.
(25)Is there any objection by the Defence? Mr. Petrusic?
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] In that case, the Chamber grants
and maintains the same protective measures. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good afternoon, Witness Z. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes. Good afternoon. I hear you very well. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You remember being here on the (10)22nd of June? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] And you also remember taking the solemn declaration? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So I wish to remind you that you're continuing to testify under oath. You know what that means. So you may be seated. THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You will now be answering (20)questions by Mr. Harmon, whom you know very well, and he is standing to your right. Mr. Harmon, your witness.
WITNESS: WITNESS Z
[Resumed] (25)
MR. HARMON:
• A.: At a location near Banovici called Konjuh. MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 747 and 787 shown to the witness, please, and distributed to the Trial Chamber. For the (10)record, Your Honours, Exhibit 747 is a copy of an original notebook which has been shown to the Defence, which has been shown to the witness, and which I have here in my possession. I'd like to pass it up to the Chamber for their inspection as well. • Q.: Witness Z, did you have an opportunity in my office to examine the (15)original notebook and the copy of that notebook which is marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 747? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Based on those comparisons, can you tell the Judges whether the Prosecutor's Exhibit 747 is an exact and true copy of the original (20)notebook? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Is it? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: And did you also examine Prosecutor's Exhibit 74 -- I'm sorry,
(25)787, which is an extract of a conversation from the notebook 747?
• Q.: And is the conversation and the pages that are found in Prosecutor's Exhibit 787 exact copies of what are found in the notebook? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: Now, having identified and having examined the notebook, both the original and the copy, can you tell me at what intercept site that notebook was filled in? • A.: At the location of Konjuh. • Q.: And on what do you base that opinion? (10) • A.: I base it on the fact that this is certainly my handwriting, I recognise it, and I know that in that period I was at that location. • Q.: Now, if I could turn your attention, please, to the notebook pages 00804430 and -431. • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: We see a conversation in the notebook that starts out with -- • A.: Yes. • Q.: -- frequency 245.950, taken at 9.50 hours, with participants General Krstic and Obrenovic. • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: Is that your handwriting? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Did you record the conversation? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Did you then make a notebook entry relating to that conversation
(25)in this notebook 747?
• Q.: Now, let me read for the record the translation of the notebook entry. I'll start now: Frequency: 245.950. Time: 9.50. Participants: General Krstic (5)- Obrenovic. (K.:) Hello Obrenovic, Krstic here. (O.:) How are you, General, sir? (K.:) I'm great and you? (O.:) Thanks to you, I am too. (10) (K.:) Way to go chief. And how's your health? (O.:) It's fine thank God, it's fine. (K.:) Are you working down there? (O.:) Of course we are working?! A few have been caught by gunpoint or on mines. (15) (K.:) Good. Kill them all, God damn it. (O.:) Everything, everything is going according to plan. (K.:) Don't leave a single one alive. (O.:) Everything is going according to plan. (K.:) Way to go chief. The Turks are probably listening; Let them (20)listen, the motherfuckers. (O.:) Let them. They know what they can listen to. (K.:) Right. Where is your boss? (O.:) He went up towards you. (K.:) When, this morning? (25)
(O.:) Yes.
(O.:) Can I talk to Jevdjevic? (K.:) Sure. (O.:) Hello Jevdo? Which road should I use to send a truck in your (5)direction to pick up some cattle? (J.:) And where is that? (O.:) Well, I don't know. My boss told me to ask you where most of them are. (J.:) Well, the others have already grabbed everything and there's (10)nothing left. (O.:) The motherfuckers are worse than termites. (J.:) Yes, now their code-names are Cowboy 1 and Cowboy 2. If your guys have caught some ... (O.:) OK then, where are they? From Milici ... (15) (J.:) They're in the place where Legenda often carried out searches ... (O.:) So, I should go to Milici ... (J.:) ... Podravanje and up to Stublic. You'll find them there. You know the frequency and there are lots of soldiers and lots (20)of sets, so you can call.
(O.:) Good. Bye.
And that ends the reading of Prosecutor's Exhibit 787.
Now, in this particular intercept, Witness Z, the parties identify
themselves. One identifies himself as Krstic, and Obrenovic asks, "How
(25)are you, General, sir?" Before you intercepted this conversation, were
• A.: Yes. • Q.: And how were you familiar with their voices? • A.: Because we had been listening in to those frequencies for some (5)time, and somehow the voice modulation enters your ear and one gets to be able to recognise them, because, after all, those people were important for us to listen in to. • Q.: In addition to these parties identifying themselves by name, were you able independently to recognise the voices of the speakers in this (10)conversation? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And did you recognise General Krstic's voice based on the fact that you heard General Krstic before on a number of occasions? • A.: Yes, many times before that. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Excuse me, Mr. Harmon, but I think you are putting two questions at the same time. Could you divide it up. MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] How many times did you hear him (20)before, and whether you recognised him. So please do that. MR. HARMON: Yes. • Q.: Prior to intercepting this conversation, are you able to estimate today how many times you had heard General Krstic before this conversation was intercepted? (25)
• A.: I couldn't give you a number, but many times, several times.
• A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: Now, do you have any doubt about that? • A.: No. • Q.: Now, let me next turn to Prosecutor's Exhibit 859, and if that could be distributed. And while this exhibit is being distributed, let me ask you, from Konjuh, were important conversations transmitted to the (10)Superior Command? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And how were they transmitted to the Superior Command; by what means? • A.: As the operator would take down the conversation from the tape (15)into the notebook, the notebook was given to an operator on a computer who would type in the text and, by standard procedure, would send it on to the database. • Q.: Would you take a look, please, at Prosecutor's Exhibit 859, which is the exhibit which was just presented to you, and if you take a look at (20)the B/C/S version, does this, Witness Z, appear to be similar to the types of printouts that were sent from Konjuh to the higher command? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you see the conversation that is mentioned in your notebook reflected in Prosecutor's 859, in the printout? (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: I recognise the type of device, the frequency, the participants. (5) • Q.: And if you go all the way to the top of the printout itself -- • A.: Ah, you mean up in the corner. • Q.: Yes. • A.: Yes, yes. • Q.: What is the location? (10) • A.: The location is Konjuh. • Q.: And there's a date next to the location, August 2nd, 1995. What does that date signify? • A.: That date signifies the day when it was recorded, typed out and sent on. (15) • Q.: Thank you. Now, at what frequency did you intercept this particular conversation? • A.: The frequency was 245.950 megahertz. • Q.: Did you have an opportunity, Witness Z, in my office, to listen to two tapes of the same conversation? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And in one of those tapes was the voice of General Krstic louder than the other tape? • A.: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours, I can play those -- I
(25)can ask that those tapes be played once again, or alternatively, I can ask
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps, Mr. Harmon, I think (5)that we've already heard them. MR. HARMON: That's fine. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are able to compare. MR. HARMON: So I will not replay those tapes if ... JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If I understand correctly, they (10)are the same tapes. MR. HARMON: That's right. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. I understand. I don't think it is necessary to play them again. But let me hear the viewpoint of the Defence. (15)How does the Defence feel about that, Mr. Visnjic or Mr. Petrusic? As the tapes are the same, do you feel the need to have us hear them again or may we proceed? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence considers that there is no need for us to hear the same tapes if the (20)witness has heard them. And quite obviously, this has been borne out by Mr. Harmon, so we may proceed. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. Mr. Harmon, please proceed. MR. HARMON: (25)
• Q.: Did you hear one tape version of the conversation where General
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, of the two conversations that you heard, the two versions, (5)which of the conversations do you believe was intercepted from Konjuh? • A.: I can only assume which one. • Q.: Which one do you assume was intercepted from Konjuh? • A.: I assume it was the stronger conversation that was intercepted at Konjuh. (10) • Q.: When you say "the stronger conversation," do you mean the stronger -- I'm focusing on General Krstic's voice. • A.: Yes, yes. Both were stronger. • Q.: All right. Now, let me then -- could you explain to the Judges why you believe that the stronger conversation, where General Krstic's (15)voice is stronger, may have come from Konjuh as opposed to Okresanica? • A.: The reason was that Konjuh is about 400 metres higher, a higher elevation feature than Okresanica. That is the basic prerequisite for us to hear better on those wavelengths. The reception is better with those -- at that altitude. (20) • Q.: Does a greater altitude give you better reception? • A.: Based on my experience as a radio ham as well, I can conclude that yes, it does. • Q.: Now, are conversations, the same conversations, carried over different frequencies? (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: It would happen that on one frequency the signal is weaker and on the other stronger because the equipment has a bearing capacity. It is a (5)telephone signal and has this bearing capacity, and I think it is about 10 megahertz, the scale. And the difference is always felt, was always felt. • Q.: Yesterday we had a witness testify in Court - Dr. French - who analysed the tapes, and his testimony was that after a word at the beginning of a conversation -- at the beginning of the tape, after the (10)word "momenat," there was a click, and the word "halo," "hello," was missing, and then the conversation picked back up and carried through the rest of the conversation. Can you explain to the Judges your practice when you intercepted conversations about putting pause buttons -- depressing the pause button? (15)
• A.: Yes. The tape recorder was always switched on with the pause
button, and you can hear the voice from the tape recorder or you could
hear it via the headsets, the earphones, if they were switched into the
device. And when we hear a signal, we stop the scanner, that is to say,
the device that scans the frequencies, or it stops automatically; depends
(20)on how it is set. We then approach the tape recorder and, at the
beginning of the conversation, we lift the pause and start recording. But
if the operator on the -- connecting the participants, if he needs more
time on the switchboard to connect them, or if it is busy, then we depress
the pause button again and wait for the real participant to make himself
(25)heard.
• A.: We did that first because we were able to listen to the tapes again much quicker, and the pause would sometimes take as much as half a minute, depending on the switchboard. And also, we did not have enough (5)tapes, and to be able to get in as many conversations as possible on one tape, that's what we did. • Q.: Now, were the tapes on which these conversations were recorded, they were reel-to-reel tapes, weren't they? • A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: Were they reused? • A.: Yes. • Q.: So when you say you didn't have enough tapes, was the reason why you were depressing the pause button at certain points in order to conserve space on the tapes? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, let me put a question to you. General Krstic has heard one version of the tape-recorded conversation that we've been talking about, and when he heard the version of the tape-recorded conversation, he indicated that it was a hundred per cent a montage. Let me put that (20)proposition to you. Can you comment about that? • A.: All I can say is that that is impossible. MR. HARMON: I have no further questions. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic for the cross-examination. (25)
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Thank you, Mr. President.
• Q.: Witness Z, my name is Nenad Petrusic. I am the Defence lawyer and I'm going to ask you a few questions. And good afternoon to you, before I go ahead. (5)Exhibit 747, and it is the notebook that you have before you, bearing in mind -- taking a look at the first page -- take a look at the first page of that notebook, that is to say, the page numbered 00804344. It has the date, the 24th of July, 1995, written in in handwriting. Can you determine, looking at that date, within what time period (10)did the conversation take place which was quoted to you by the Prosecutor? • A.: At all events, it was after this particular date. • Q.: In this notebook, can you say for certain at the end of the notebook or in any other part of the notebook, can you say -- can you determine the following date, the next date? (15) • A.: Can I have a look? • Q.: Yes, please do. • A.: It says here the 25th/07, and the page is 00804355. Page 801371261 [as interpreted], 26th of July. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, I think there (20)has been a slight mistake. You can confirm that, perhaps. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: To economise with the time, Witness Z, at the end of this notebook, is there a date, the date when the notebook was completed? • A.: I can't find the date. (25)
• Q.: So there is no date at the end of the notebook when the notebook
• A.: I was not able to find the date, no. • Q.: Thank you. Witness Z, in the heading when you did your work as an operator, did you introduce the frequency, the time, and the participants (5)in the conversation? Did you include that in the heading? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Can you explain if in this conversation in Exhibit 787 we have three undisputed participants - General Krstic, Obrenovic, and Jevdjevic - why then in the heading for this conversation you do not have the name of (10)Major Jevdjevic? Why is it not included? • A.: Because they were the participants when they called up. Jevdjevic appeared later on, so we didn't go back to the beginning. • Q.: When you transcribed the conversation, that is to say when you put it down on paper, did you listen to it again? (15) • A.: Yes, we would listen to it again and put it down on paper. • Q.: Would it be usual for you to introduce the name of the third participant? • A.: No, it wouldn't be usual or customary. • Q.: Witness Z, how long did you monitor these conversations before the (20)2nd of August, 1995; for how much time? • A.: I came to the location sometime in the spring of 1995. I can't tell you the exact date for these conversations. • Q.: Could you be more precise? You say in the spring of 1995? • A.: Well, the spring could have meant May or June 1995. (25)
• Q.: Up until this particular conversation, can you remember whether
• A.: Yes, we heard him a number of times. • Q.: What do you mean when you say "a number of times"? (5) • A.: Well, General Krstic would call up on the phone frequently, and there were a lot of conversations, ones that were trivial. He would ring up sometimes and just say that he was calling, that he would introduce himself as General Krstic, and then he would wait for the connection, so we could hear him a number of times. But those conversations were not (10)considered important, so some of them we didn't even put them down on paper because they had no particular substance. He would just call up, wait, that kind of thing. • Q.: Did you hear General Krstic in a previous conversation of any kind talking to -- having this -- a conversation with this type of content or a (15)similar content? • A.: Well, I don't know about this content because it was only when I came here that I actually saw this particular conversation, and I don't remember. It was a long time ago. • Q.: When did you first see this conversation? (20) • A.: I saw it when I came here the first time, when I came to the Prosecutor the first time. • Q.: Was that in June last year?
• A.: No, since last June up until a few days ago. I wasn't able to see
it again, nor did I ask to see it again, nor did I remember that it
(25)existed.
• A.: Well, I had forgot that it existed at all. • Q.: Witness Z, did you at one time talk to Mrs. Stephanie Frease? (5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you recall that conversation? • A.: I remember having had the conversation, but not the actual conversation. We signed some papers, something like that. She asked us to be witnesses, to give our consent because of some things that could ... (10)
• Q.: Do you remember, Witness Z, that on that occasion the lady that
worked for the OTP brought to your attention this conversation, and to
that you answered the following: "Then Mr. Z was asked," and I quote, "to
leaf through the photocopy of notebook 103 on pages 46, 53 to 55, 64 to
72B, 86 to 89, and to identify his handwriting. After having identified
(15)his own handwriting in notebook 103 on page 87 and 88, he was asked to
read the transcript. The time of the conversation, 9.50, the frequency,
245.950, and it was between General Krstic and Obrenovic.
[redacted]
said that he remembers the recording of the conversation from the tape and
the exact sentence, and the concrete sentence, `We're working. Yes, we
(20)are. Someone gets caught on a mine or a barrel.' The witness recalled
that conversation because at that time he knew that in the forest there
were a lot of Bosnians who had difficulties in finding the road, the way
to the free territory. The witness also confirmed that he had written the
word `Wednesday' which appears before the beginning of that particular
(25)conversation."
• A.: Correct. • Q.: Therefore on that 21st of November, 1999, you -- this conversation was brought to your attention by the representative of the OTP? (5) • A.: Yes, it was brought to my attention. • Q.: After that time, as you say, up until two or three days ago, you did not have occasion to either hear or read through the transcript of that conversation; is that right? • A.: Yes, that's right. (10) • Q.: Do you have an explanation? Do you know why you were not asked about the contents of that conversation? • A.: Well, I had no explanation for that, no. At the time when Ms. Stephanie was there, it was just recognition of the handwriting, but the actual matter -- I didn't -- I just simply forgot those things. (15) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has no further questions. Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you very much. Just a
moment, please. We wish to confer. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, any re-examination? We shall try to finish with this witness prior to the lunch break, so please proceed. MR. HARMON: I have no questions, thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Judge Fouad Riad,
(25)please.
JUDGE RIAD: Witness Z, good morning. You can hear me? • A.: Good morning. Yes. Yes. JUDGE RIAD: I have just one question, or perhaps one and a half. (5)In one of the conversations which we have just seen, and the Prosecutor's Exhibit 859, there is General Krstic saying, or allegation, "The Turks are probably listening. Let them listen, the motherfuckers." Now, in case -- in such cases, did you ever notice at any point in time that some of these conversations appeared later to be meant to (10)mislead your party since they knew that you were listening, that your party was listening? Did you discover afterwards that they were fake, as sometimes it is done when people know that others are listening? What's your experience? • A.: Your Honour, my job was to copy down from the tape and to send it (15)to superiors, because they were the people over there who were to study these things and decide. We didn't give much thought to these things ourselves. JUDGE RIAD: And now, you seem to -- you said you had been listening to the frequencies of the voices and you started knowing them. (20)Whenever you heard the voice of General Krstic, did you immediately know that it was him or you waited to know -- to have him announce himself?
• A.: We had the frequency of his telephone, and if our device stopped
at that frequency, we would tape the conversation. If he introduced
himself, fine; if he didn't, then we'd take down the frequency and forward
(25)it on, and then they would probably know who it was. It was up to us to
(5) JUDGE RIAD: Did it happen at any time that you would point out that it was a certain person and then the experts would find out that it's not the voice? • A.: For some persons, for persons that we were not sure of, we would put a question mark. We would never put names down just like that, (10)because we would be lying to ourselves and then to everyone else. That was not our aim. Our aim was to report the information correctly. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad Riad. (15)Madam Judge Wald, no questions. Witness Z, I have a few questions. I shall try to be quick. You told the Prosecutor, with respect to the idea of a montage, as expressed by General Krstic, your answer was that that was quite impossible. Why do you say that that was quite impossible? (20)
• A.: Because I was there, because I know what we were doing. That is
one reason. And secondly, I don't think any one of us had sufficient
knowledge or skill to make such a montage. It never occurred to anyone.
There was a war on. What was important was to listen in, to intercept,
and convey the information if it could assist our people. That was our
(25)aim. We didn't know that this would happen. If we had known, then we
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Another point: Could you take the notebook - the number I see on it is 103 - and tell us on which page you see the date of the 26th of July. (5) • A.: Page 804371. THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So it is indeed page 371 at the end, because the transcript said, 58 -- line 12, on page 58, line 12, that the pages -- that the three last numbers were 261. So it is 371, is that (10)right, the last three numbers? • A.: Yes, 371. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. A final question from me, Witness Z. You told my colleague, Judge Fouad Riad, that there were brackets that you used as a kind of code, that it had a definite (15)meaning. Did your colleagues apply the same procedure? Did they use the same brackets? • A.: Each one of us had his own methods. We never made any agreements. But simply when the operator took down these tapes, he had his own way to mark things that would assist him should anyone ask him (20)about it, so he could give an explanation, and it would be easier for him to take down the recording. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, Witness Z. You have completed your testimony. Thank you very much for coming. I think that Mr. Harmon has some documents to tender. (25)
MR. HARMON: Yes. I recognise that the Court was going to defer
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If I understood you correctly, there are three exhibits. Is that right, Mr. Harmon? MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, then. Mr. Petrusic, I think you have the same position as you took with (10)respect to the other exhibits. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. The Defence abides by the objections made earlier on.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So the Chamber also maintains
its position, so we will defer the time for deciding on the admission of
(15)these exhibits.
So now, Witness Z, thank you very much for coming. I'm going to
ask the usher to pull the blinds so that you may leave. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So let us have the lunch break now. Can we come back at 2.00? Yes, 2.00. So we'll resume work at 2.00. --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.
--- On resuming at 2.04 p.m.
MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon, counsel. Your Honours, the next witness is Witness W. Witness W testified (5)previously with protective measures; face distortion, voice distortion, and a pseudonym. He testified on the 20th and the 26th of June, 2000. I have discussed reimplementing the same protective measures with my colleagues from the Defence, and they have no objection. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic. (10) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, Your Honour, no, Mr. President, we have no objection to the protective measures. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The Chamber grants the right to this motion, and the same protective measures will apply as applied earlier. We now have Witness W. (15)Witness W, do you remember being here on the 20th and 26th of June, 2000? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You took the solemn declaration at the time, so we consider that you are still under oath, and I'm sure (20)you know what that means. Mr. Harmon, your witness. MR. HARMON: Yes, thank you
WITNESS: WITNESS W
[Resumed] (25)
• EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon:
• A.: Good afternoon. MR. HARMON: If I could have Prosecutor's Exhibits 855, 856, and 857 distributed to the witness and to the parties and to the Court, then I (5)can proceed. • Q.: And while I'm waiting for the distribution of these particular exhibits, just to refresh the Court's recollection, when you testified previously, Witness W, you testified that you had formed an interception group that was stationed at Okresanica; is that correct? (10) • A.: Yes. We could put it that way, although I formed it at the initiative or following orders from my superiors. • Q.: And your group, your intercept group was associated with the State Security Service and not the army; is that correct? • A.: Yes, yes. We worked in the State Security Service. (15) • Q.: I'm going to wait until you receive the exhibits before I continue with my examination. Witness W, could you inspect Prosecutor's Exhibit 855, and when you've finished, just let me know when you've finished inspecting that particular exhibit. (20)Witness W, I'm interested in the conversation on Prosecutor's Exhibit 855 which is numbered 988. • A.: Yes. I have just seen it.
• Q.: Having inspected this exhibit, Witness W, can you tell from your
inspection whether or not this is an intercepted communication that was
(25)intercepted by the State Security Service, by your intercept group?
• Q.: Witness W, in the upper left-hand corner there is a header at the very top left-hand corner that says the army of the Republic of Bosnia and (5)Herzegovina and indicates a date, a location. Do you see what I'm talking about? • A.: Yes, yes. I'm looking at it. • Q.: And then you will see a dotted line in the upper third of the conversation, and then you will see below that the initials or the letters (10)CSB-SDB Tuzla, the date, and a number. Can you explain what those two different portions of this document mean? • A.: Yes, I can. It's a document which we gave over to the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we spoke about this last time. I hope that we don't have to go into the exchange of documents at Okresanica. (15)They took over the document, they recorded it, assigned it a number, and the authenticity of the report compiled by my unit. • Q.: Now, focusing your attention on the portion that says CSB-SDB Tuzla, the date of the August 1st, 1995, and then a number, what does the date represent? (20) • A.: This is the date -- this date represents the time when the conversation took place and the number under which it was registered in the records book, recordkeeping book.
• Q.: So turning your attention to the conversation number 988, on what
date was that conversation intercepted? When I say "988," Witness W, I'm
(25)still referring to Prosecutor's Exhibit 855.
• Q.: Now if you could turn your attention to Prosecutor's Exhibit 856. (5)I'm specifically interested in the conversation that is numbered 998. First of all, inspect the document, and when you finish inspecting the document, let me know. • A.: Yes, I've already seen it. • Q.: Is this a document that was intercepted by your unit from (10)Okresanica? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And can you tell the Chamber on what date the conversation that is numbered 998 was intercepted? • A.: It was the 1st of August, 1995, and of course at 2245 hours (15)exactly. • Q.: Now, if I can direct your attention to the last exhibit in this series. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 857. And I'd like you to focus on the conversation number 999. • A.: Yes, I've seen it. (20) • Q.: Do you recognise this intercept as one that was intercepted by your unit from Okresanica? • A.: Yes, that's our document. • Q.: And do you know the date of this particular intercept?
• A.: I think it is a continuation of the other document, the previous
(25)document, because it's on the same frequency at such-and-such an hour. We
• Q.: And so would that conversation also have been intercepted on the 1st of August, 1995? • A.: Yes. According to this, it would be -- that would be it, but I (5)can check it out. • Q.: Can you check it out here, while you're here? • A.: Yes. I have it with me somewhere in the diary that we kept and where these documents were recorded, registered. • Q.: Would you check it out, please. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic. You're on your feet. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I will be objecting, but I think the witness will be able to answer. That is to say, is this document that the witness is looking at now his personal document or is it (15)an official document in which he introduced certain data, that is to say, an official document of the service to which he belonged, all as a function of the job he did? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, are you going to ask those questions? (20) MR. HARMON: I'll be glad to. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. MR. HARMON: • Q.: Let us finish this question, which is: Can you tell us the date when the conversation that is numbered 999 was intercepted? (25)
• A.: I have it here. That is, it says the file, and the file was coded
• Q.: Now, do you recognise the formatting in each of these intercepts as being the formatting that was used by your organisation at the time these conversations were intercepted? • A.: Absolutely. Everything is as it was recorded by us, the (10)formulation at the beginning of the text and so on, the type of lettering, the type of print, and everything else. And I spoke about that last time. I don't think you'll be needing it again. • Q.: Witness W, my colleague raised a question as to whether or not you personally intercepted these conversations. Can you answer that question? (15) • A.: I apologise. I didn't understand it to be -- that to be the question. I don't think they asked me that. But of course I did, yes. MR. HARMON: I think, Mr. President, that hopefully answers my colleague's questions. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I don't think so, but, (20)Mr. Petrusic, perhaps you could ask that question in the cross-examination, because the question was the nature and the provenance of the document that the witness is using. Your question was along those lines. But I think, Mr. Petrusic, that you could ask those questions yourself when you come to the cross-examination. (25)
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] I completely agree with you,
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Perhaps I'll leave that to my colleague to cross-examine on, but I have no further questions. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, very well. Mr. Petrusic, you will have the opportunity now of going ahead with your questions. Ask (10)your own questions. You each have your salaries, so you do your work, Mr. Harmon does his work. Please proceed. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President, but none, of course, here are acting solely with our salaries in view. I think that is undisputed. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, I was joking. You're right. We are here to achieve some far more important objectives than that, and thank you for reminding me of that. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, that was not my intention at all, but I accept what you said as a good joke. (20) • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Petrusic:
• Q.:
[Int.] Good afternoon, my name is Nenad Petrusic. I
have several questions for you in connection with your testimony, so let
us start with the objection that the Defence made regarding this notebook.
The notebook that you just took out of your bag, is it a working
(25)notebook that you used while doing your job at the interception centre at
• A.: Records of all dispatches received and sent had to be kept somewhere, and we registered them in this logbook, so it is an official document and not a private one because all documents that were sent from (5)the communication centre, or, rather, from that location were taken note of when they were received and when they were sent out. So this is an official document, not a private one. • Q.: Did my learned friends from the Prosecution or the investigators who interviewed you have a chance to have insight into your notebook when (10)determining the timing of the conversation, or, rather, the timing when it was dispatched to the computer centre? • A.: They didn't ask me for it. If they had, I would have let them look at it. May I just add, I can't even remember. Perhaps some of the pages were taken from me, because after all, it was a long time ago when (15)we had our conversations. • Q.: Witness W, when did you start working at this interception centre? • A.: You mean at Okresanica? • Q.: Yes. • A.: It was at the end of 1994. (20) • Q.: From that interception centre, did you have occasion, you personally, to hear General Krstic?
• A.: I hope you will understand me. I had occasion to hear many
people. Among them, he was certainly one of them. But there was a great
deal of work to do, and we were very few, so I couldn't tell you now that
(25)I heard Krstic or Mladic or anyone else on such and such a day. We
• Q.: Witness W, in your statement dated the 20th and the 26th of June you said, among other things, that the heading or the header that you (5)prepared was of standard format, and the header would include a number, the direction, the frequency, the channel, the time, and the participants in the conversation that was being recorded. Am I right when I say that? • A.: We mostly tried to have the header always contain the same elements. Sometimes it may not have been necessary, as in the case of (10)this document, 999, because it is pointed out that it is a conversation between the same two individuals. • Q.: However, in this document, Exhibit 855, 857, and 856, in the header one of the standard elements that you would register is missing, and that is the direction of the route of the intercepted conversation. (15)Am I right, sir? • A.: No, you are not. No, no, you're not. • Q.: In Exhibit 855, registered under number 988, your number 988, it says, and I quote, the header, on "Frequency 779.000 megahertz, channel 13, at 1002 hours, we recorded a conversation between Jevtic (J) from (20)Serbia, and Stevo (S) and Ljubija Beara (B) from the Main Staff of the so-called VRS." So in this registered conversation, the route is not indicated.
• A.: May I explain, the frequency 779 is actually the route. Once we
determine that frequency 779 is on the route such and such, it doesn't
(25)have to be repeated, though it can be. But in this case the frequency
• Q.: Witness W, I showed you Exhibit 305 to 310 that you testified about in June 2000, but if you can remember now -- but I would like the usher to give you copies of those exhibits. These are exhibits from 305 (5)through to 310. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, if I understand you correctly, you would like to show the witness Exhibits 305 up to 310 so that the witness can refresh his memory. Is that right? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President, precisely. (10) • A.: I don't see here the versions in the Bosnian language. THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. • A.: I can't see A and B, or rather B and C. This is A in English. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Maybe we can save time, Mr. President. (15) • Q.: My question, Witness W, in brief, is that in these exhibits, from 305 to 310, that you testified about, the direction is mentioned in the header. There is indication of the route. However, in these exhibits, 855, 856, and 857, that you testified about today, no such indication is included. Do you have an explanation for that, please? (20)
• A.: I cannot remember which direction frequency 779 - I think it was
that we were talking about - had, but maybe it is missing. Maybe it is
lacking. But the frequency determined the direction, and we would record
it when we knew it. Perhaps in my own log book I could look for it. It
may be recorded somewhere which direction corresponds to which frequency,
(25)and if you wish me to, I can look it up.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Petrusic. (5)Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: I have no questions. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Judge Fouad Riad? No? Judge Wald? JUDGE WALD: Could I just ask Mr. Harmon a question? It may be my (10)faulty memory, but have these exhibits, have they -- I know they've been introduced, right, before? MR. HARMON: The previous exhibits, I believe, have been admitted. JUDGE WALD: Yes. That's what I thought. Can you tell me in relation to what? I mean, was it part of the Butler testimony or what? (15)I'm just trying to put it in some kind of context and I'm having trouble. MR. HARMON: It was in relation to his testimony that he gave on the 20th and 26th of June. JUDGE WALD: Okay. But that's where -- that's the only place where it came up? (20) MR. HARMON: We have many exhibits of the same throughout imbedded in the transcript and the Court proceedings. JUDGE WALD: Yes. MR. HARMON: I'm aware at this point, and I can check in a few minutes. (25)
JUDGE WALD: No, no, no. I just would ...
JUDGE WALD: Right. Right. So they're in the book of intercepts. MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Just to clear up a point. When Mr. Harmon and Madam Judge Wald were talking about these exhibits, you were talking about Exhibits 305 to 310; is that right? MR. HARMON: That's correct. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Fine. Because there are many (10)exhibits here. JUDGE WALD: I was talking about -- I'm sorry. I was talking about, no, the main exhibits: 856, 857, and 858. MR. HARMON: I apologise, Your Honour. I didn't understand it. JUDGE WALD: I should have given the numbers. (15) MR. HARMON: These are new exhibits -- JUDGE WALD: Right. MR. HARMON: -- that we're now tendering through this witness. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Just tendering them. MR. HARMON: At this point, and we'll move to admit them at the (20)conclusion of Your Honours' questions. JUDGE WALD: Will they ever be sort of tied to the narrative, or we'll take them at their face value, assuming they're admitted, assuming they're admitted?
MR. HARMON: Initially I asked you to take them at face value. I
(25)think Mr. Butler, who was planning to testify later on --
MR. HARMON: -- may well be coming in to connect these. JUDGE WALD: I said: Are they going to come up in the -- have they come up or are they going to come up in the Butler testimony? (5) MR. HARMON: They may come up in the Butler testimony. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you. • QUESTIONED by the Court: JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So you see, even when speaking the same language, one may be referring to two different things. (10)So before we conclude with the testimony of Witness W, Mr. Petrusic asked you some questions about this direction. At one point you said that if Mr. Petrusic wanted to know the direction, you perhaps had an indication of it in your log book, notebook, or whatever. Can you check that, whether you have taken note of the direction in that log book? (15) • A.: I can. Do you wish me to do that? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Yes, please. Please do that.
• A.: I apologise. Could somebody just remind me? Was it 779 or 799?
I think it was 779. I have it noted down in the log book. The frequency
(20)836 has its duplex 779, and it is 90 degrees azimuth in relation to the
location where we were situated. So as far as I am able to remember,
because it really was a long time ago and we have to bear that in mind,
that direction was the direction Pale, Han Pijesak, I think Zvornik. I
cannot guarantee this a hundred per cent. This is as far as I can
(25)remember.
(5) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No. No, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Fine. Witness W, we have no further questions for you. We wish to thank you once again for coming here and we wish you a safe journey home and success in your work. I will ask the usher to accompany you out. (10) THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Harmon. Just a moment, usher. Just a moment, please. MR. HARMON: We would move to -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please proceed, Mr. Harmon. I (15)was giving the usher a sign, not to you. MR. HARMON: We would move to enter Prosecutor's Exhibit 855, 856, and 857. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, I see your position is the same. (20) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. The Defence objects to the admission of these exhibits.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So the Chamber will take the
same position, that is, we will decide when we make a ruling about the
other relevant issues relative to this.
(25)Witness, please wait a moment for the usher to bring down the
JUDGE WALD: I have a question. I understand the ongoing dispute about the -- which we will decide tomorrow, about the grounds on which the (5)Prosecutor proposes to admit the intercepts that we discussed the last two days, and specifically they -- one of the grounds is that they are in -- they are collateral evidence to impugn credibility of General Krstic when he actually was on the stand. But I don't understand what link has yet been made about these (10)intercepts being rebuttal evidence since they haven't, to my knowledge, been connected to any testimony of anybody so far, nor do I accept -- from my general knowledge of the case, have an idea what your theory that they're rebuttal, and I know you're going to connect them with Butler later, but he hasn't appeared yet so I don't know whether that connection (15)is a valid one yet. So I'm not sure -- the reason I bring it up, I'm not sure that all of them at this point fall under the same theory. MR. HARMON: I agree. Perhaps it's premature for me to move these into evidence. They will be connected. These are exhibits that are background evidence to put into context with another witness. (20) JUDGE WALD: I understand. Since we're in rebuttal -- MR. HARMON: And --
JUDGE WALD: Since we're in rebuttal, it does seem to me that the
theory of rebuttal as enunciated by the Appellate Chamber here in the
recent Celebici case is, you know, there has to be some rebuttal to
(25)something that arises out of the Defence case, and as of yet, we don't
MR. HARMON: I think I will withdraw my application for admission at this point in time. (5) JUDGE WALD: And do it later. I think that will be better. MR. HARMON: And when these are linked up with -- then we will demonstrate the purpose of the rebuttal, and then I'll move to admit these. Thank you very much.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So now, yes, you may bring down
(10)the blinds, Mr. Usher. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Mr. McCloskey will present the next evidence and the next witness. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Yes, but perhaps it's only -- it's already ten to three. Perhaps it's not worthwhile beginning now just for ten minutes. I think we will adjourn there now. There's no point in beginning this testimony now. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I was planning to address an issue (20)that Judge Wald has mentioned in the first five minutes of this testimony. Mr. Harmon and I went slightly out of order with these witnesses because of the order, but I can -- I am prepared to address exactly the issues that she was asking about, and I can do that now, if you please. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, please do. (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: This last witness and the witness that is about to
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, let us go into private
session for a few minutes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think that for today, we have no other issues to address, so we will adjourn until tomorrow at 20 past 9. So the hearing is adjourned. (5) --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 2001, at 9.20 a.m. |
