|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 8913 • {1/112} (1)Thursday, 22 March 2001 [Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.37 a.m. (5)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen; good morning to the technical booth; good morning,
interpreters, registry staff, counsel for the Prosecution and the Defence;
good morning, General Krstic.
Before we resume, if I remember well, our next witness is
(10)Ms. Frease who should testify. We wish to tell the parties that the
Judges have decided to authorise the Prosecutor to call an investigator to
testify on the statements made in his presence by the person that you know
and whose name I will not mention. This decision is without any prejudice
to the final ruling that the Judges will render regarding the admission of
(15)the statements in question.
The Judges expect the Prosecutor to provide all useful information
regarding the actual presence of that investigator and the conditions
under which the statements of the person concerned were taken. The Judges
also require that the Prosecutor provide them, before calling the
(20)investigator, the written transcripts of those statements, whatever the
form may be, and also that the Prosecutor have available the recordings of
those statements, if any exist, so that the Chamber and the parties in the
courtroom, that is, the Defence, may hear the parties regarding that
recording.
(25)So the procedure will be that the witness will be in the
(5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I should like to provide an explanation in connection with a statement we made yesterday, so I would request that we go into private session briefly.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let us go into private
session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, Ms. Stefanie Frease. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You are now going to read the
(25)solemn declaration given to you by the usher.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: Not necessary. WITNESS: STEFANIE FREASE THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the (5)whole truth, and nothing but the truth. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated. Try and sit as comfortably as possible. I think you're used to being in a courtroom. You will now be answering questions put to you by Mr. Harmon, and then questions from the Defence counsel, and finally the Judges. (10)Mr. Harmon, your witness. And thank you, Witness, for coming. • EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Good morning, Ms. Frease. Could you state your full name and spell your last name for the record. (15) • A.: Yes. Stefanie May Frease, F-r-e-a-s-e. • Q.: Can you tell us your educational background? • A.: I have a bachelor's degree from the University of Washington and a master's degree from Columbia University, both in international affairs. • Q.: Have you ever given sworn testimony in a court of law? (20) • A.: No, I haven't. • Q.: Now, were you employed by the Office of the Prosecutor? • A.: Yes, I was. • Q.: When were you employed by the Office of the Prosecutor?
• A.: I began working for the OTP April 26th, 1995, and worked for the
(25)OTP through July of 2000. I was then on a leave of absence and officially
• Q.: When you came to work for the Office of the Prosecutor, were you assigned to work on the Srebrenica investigation? • A.: Yes. It was roughly, I guess, three or four months after I (5)arrived that I first became involved in the investigation. • Q.: In what capacity? • A.: Initially I was a part of a team that conducted an assessment mission to Bosnia, for about four weeks, and then I was formally assigned to the team in January of 1996. (10) • Q.: Do you have an understanding of the B/C/S language? • A.: Yes, I do. • Q.: How would you rate your proficiency? • A.: I would say that I'm highly proficient in the language. • Q.: Reading, writing, and speaking? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, at some point in time while you were a member of the team investigating the events in Srebrenica, did the Office of the Prosecutor acquire a large amount of data relating to radio intercepted communications? (20) • A.: Yes, it did. • Q.: And for want of a better term, were you involved in what came to be known as the Intercept Project? • A.: Yes, I was. • Q.: Now, could you tell the Judges what the Intercept Project was? (25)
• A.: The Intercept Project involved collecting material, assembling the
• Q.: Now, was the -- did the material come to the Office of the Prosecutor in the English language? • A.: No, it didn't. It was all in the B/C/S language. (5) • Q.: Was there a large volume of this material? • A.: Yes, and the volume increased over time. • Q.: Could you describe to the Trial Chamber your work in the Intercept Project, starting first of all with what your role was in it. • A.: I was -- when we received the first material in, I believe it was (10)March 1998, we received printouts, and after receiving that material I put together a small group of people to begin to go through the material and translate it. After that we began to enter the data into a very simple database, and after that we began to work on -- after we acquired the notebooks, then we began to enter the material from the notebooks also (15)into this fairly simple database at that time and looked to cross-reference the material that we had received in written format with the material that we received in the notebooks. Then, of course, that also expanded to the tapes. So it was a constant process of cross-referencing all of the material that we received from -- first from (20)the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and then from the State Security Services of Bosnia-Herzegovina. • Q.: Now, did you continue to work on analysing the intercepted radio communication material until you left the Office of the Prosecutor?
• A.: Yes, I did. I worked on it almost non-stop from March 1998 to
(25)early July 2000. There were a few months in there where I was assigned to
• Q.: Now, in the project, were you assisted by others? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: Without naming the others, unless you're asked by either the Trial Chamber or Defence counsel, could you just describe what functions the other people had? • A.: Sure. Initially, we worked with a small group. When we first received the printed material we worked with a small group of translators (10)in the field, primarily, and then just to get a handle on what the information contained so that it could be shared with the team. Then when we started -- when we formed a very small group of people to work on this in-house, they -- I was assisted by language, people with language skills, only people who had language skills in the area, so interpreters and (15)language assistants. • Q.: Were you also at times assisted by the investigators themselves in attempting to locate persons or items that you deemed were important in continuing with your project? • A.: Absolutely. (20) • Q.: Now, just to give the Judges a sense of dealing with this material, is it something that is requested be analysed very quickly and turned around or is it slow, laborious, time-consuming process? Can I get your comments and your views on that particular issue?
• A.: It was a much more laborious process than I think we had
(25)anticipated, and it was more laborious and took, really, quite a lot of
• Q.: Now, was one of your objectives in conducting the intercept (15)project an attempt to determine whether this material was reliable and whether it was genuine? • A.: Yes, it was. • Q.: In pursuing that objective, did you, among other things, attempt to locate, identify, and interview the intercept operators who allegedly (20)had intercepted these communications? • A.: Yes, that came about a year into the project. • Q.: After some initial analysis, I take it, had been done? • A.: That's right.
• Q.: Now, was there an attempt by you and the other people involved in
(25)the project to attempt to corroborate the contents of these intercepted
• A.: Yes. • Q.: And in conducting your analysis and in attempting to determine whether these were genuine and reliable, could you tell the Judges what (5)factors you considered in assessing the reliability of the material that you had received and were analysing? • A.: Uh-huh. First we looked for internal consistency among the documents that we had been -- what we had received from the army and the police. And what I mean by "internal consistency" is that the printouts (10)that we received matched verbatim with the notebooks that we received. So that was -- that was one part. That was sort of the preliminary part of testing the internal consistency. But also having a knowledge of the case more broadly, it was possible to know and to ascertain that what was contained within the intercepts was consistent with what we knew about the (15)case. • Q.: Did you, for example, attempt to analyse materials that had come, that had been intercepted, from two different locations, Konjuh and Okresanica, to determine if at or about the same time a similar conversation had been intercepted? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Was that factor what led you believe that these were reliable?
• A.: Yes. It certainly contributed greatly to the reliability when we
learned that there were these two different sites and when we started to
find examples of the same conversation. It wasn't immediately clear to us
(25)why we were finding similar conversations or really the same conversation
• Q.: Did you also receive radio intercepted communication data from (5)different sources, the army and the SDB? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Did you make a comparison of those two bodies of information? In other words, did you compare the intercepts of the SDB against the intercepts of the army in order to attempt to determine whether similar (10)conversations were captured at the same time? • A.: Yes. Yes. We also did that kind of comparison. We -- really, what we used as the bases were the individual conversations. From those individual conversations, then we would cross-reference them with all of the other material. So all of the material that came from the Konjuh (15)site, all of the material that came from the Okresanica site and all of the material that came from the police and created a database that allowed us to cross-reference all of these sources. • Q.: So that was a factor, I take it, when you found -- was that a factor -- strike that. (20)Were your findings in relation to the consistencies between the two separate sources of intercept material a factor that led you to believe these were reliable? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Now, as a part of the exercise to determine whether or not these
(25)intercepts were reliable, did you then have interviewed the various
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Did you personally interview some of those operators? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: And based on what they had informed you about, did that contribute at all to your analysis of whether these materials were genuine and reliable? • A.: Yes, it did. It did very much, because we had an opportunity to ask them about the process and to understand the process that they used in (10)intercepting the material. • Q.: Now, as an additional measure of testing, I should say, these materials, did you at some point in time take a selection, small selection of these documents and attempt to verify the documents through third-party information, independent-party information? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you explain to the Judges what that project entailed?
• A.: Yes. While we were in the process of analysing the intercepts,
when we came across information that appeared to be -- that appear as if
we could corroborate it independently, we put that information aside. We
(20)would make a separate photocopy and put it in a folder. Some of it was --
and then having worked on this material for quite a period of time, one
does become quite familiar with it, and then when you see new information,
other documents or aerial images or whatever, it was possible to go back
to that folder and to try to link things up independently from third
(25)sources.
• A.: I'm talking about documents, for example, that were seized from the VRS, documents that were received from the RS Ministry of Defence, (5)documents -- notes that were taken by third parties, by UNPROFOR officers, aerial imagery, phone numbers. • Q.: All right. MR. HARMON: Could the witness please be provided with Prosecutor's Exhibit 863, which is a binder. (10) • Q.: Ms. Frease, did you prepare Prosecutor's Exhibit 863? • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: Was this exhibit or the materials that are contained in this exhibit collected during the time you were analysing these intercepts? • A.: Yes, that's right. (15) • Q.: Okay. Now, could you take Prosecutor's Exhibit 863, which should be before you, and could you describe to the Judges and to counsel the contents of this binder in general terms? Give them an orientation of what's in this binder. • A.: Sure. The first page is an outline of the contents of the (20)material. You'll see that there are 12 tabs. Each tab contains two summaries. The first summary contains -- the first is a summary of one or more intercepted conversations, and the second summary summarises the material that corroborates the intercept or intercepts that are contained in that tab. (25)
• Q.: Now, does this represent the totality of your work in this area or
• A.: That is a sample. • Q.: All right. Could you kindly turn then to tab 1, to the first page (5)in tab 1. Is that the summary of the intercepted telephone communication or communications that will be analysed against independent third-party information? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Let's take tab 1, and let's turn to the next page. There should (10)be a summary, I'm sorry, an intercept dated the 11th of July, 1995. • A.: Right. • Q.: Could you explain to the Judges then this process that you went through using this intercept as an example. • A.: Sure. (15) • Q.: And tell the Judges, please, what these colours mean and the numbers mean and the like. • A.: Sure. Well, there are four features, I guess, of this intercept and of the corroborating material, and those are the date, the time, the parties who are conversing, and then 12 highlighted points in this (20)conversation. I would like to turn to the corroborating material. • Q.: That's fine. So the date is the 11th of July at 1800 hours, and this is a conversation between General Gvero and General Gobillard. • A.: That's correct. (25)
• Q.: This represents the substance of that conversation.
• Q.: Would you turn then to the corroborating material. • A.: Uh-huh. • Q.: That's found after your summary; is that correct? (5)
• A.: That's correct. I think it would be helpful, I mean, if it's
possible to look at both at the same time. I've taken the intercept out
of the binder to do this, but in the corroborating material, the same four
features are important, namely, the date, the time, the parties, and then
12 additional highlighted points.
(10)So in both conversations, both conversations are dated the 11th of
July, 1995. The intercepted conversation was recorded at 1800 hours. The
corroborating material notes a time of 1810, and the two people conversing
are General Gvero and General Gobillard.
With regard to the corroborating material, I should say that these
(15)are notes that were taken by General Gobillard's military assistant, a
Major Fortin. You will see his name at the bottom of the second page.
These were contemporaneous notes that he recorded from the UNPROFOR side
at the same time that this conversation was taking place.
So if we could just look at point 2, perhaps, and the highlighted
(20)section of point 2. I might just read through point 2 and point 3 and
then the remaining, I guess, ten points are very similar in their
content.
So looking at OTP Exhibit 350/A, which is the intercepted
conversation, point 2 says: "It is now clear to me that General Gobillard
(25)gave the order for the shelling of the Serb positions. And that he still
• Q.: Let's turn now to tab 2. Can you take us through the exercise again?
• A.: Certainly. Here we have -- the date on these conversations is the
11th of July. There are five attached intercepts and they all make
(25)reference to a Serbian flag being placed on a Serbian Orthodox church in
(15) • Q.: Could we turn to tab 3, and could you -- do you have something else to say on this? I'm sorry. I've interrupted you. • A.: That's okay. There's still actually two more photographs I'd just like to show, and these were taken on the 13th of July by a Serbian reporter, Zoran Petrovic. Again, it shows the same church on the first (20)photograph, and on the second photograph it's a close-up of the flag, in which you can see the cross in the middle which would have had four inverted Cs around it, the Serbian flag. • Q.: I'd like to turn your attention, please, to tab 3.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Excuse me for interrupting you,
(25)Mr. Harmon, but I think that we've already understood what you are trying
MR. HARMON: No. If the Court doesn't desire it, I'm perfectly (10)happy to move on to a different subject. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think that would be preferable, yes. Please proceed. MR. HARMON: All right. • Q.: Now, at the conclusion of this exercise, Ms. Frease, did this (15)exercise contribute to your satisfaction that the intercepts were genuine and they were reliable? • A.: Yes. • Q.: During the whole period of time you were analysing these intercepts, did you find any evidence whatsoever that these intercepts (20)were fabrications, were montages, were phonies? • A.: No.
• Q.: In your opinion, based on your work in this area of analysing
these intercepts, what is your opinion as to whether or not these
intercepts that you analysed and that have been tendered by the Prosecutor
(25)in this case are reliable?
MR. HARMON: Now, let me turn to a different topic, and if the Judges could have before them - I believe they may already - two exhibits that have been previously marked, Office of the Prosecutor Exhibit 364/1 (5)and 2, and if I direct your attention to 364/2, which is similar in what we're going to be talking about. • Q.: Ms. Frease, in the course of your analysis of these intercepts, was part of your project to attempt to date, with specificity, the intercepts that you were analysing? (10) • A.: Yes. That was a big part of the project. • Q.: Did you prepare the two exhibits that are now before you, Prosecutor's Exhibit 364, volume 1, and 364, volume 2? • A.: Yes. • Q.: There's an index contained in each of these exhibits. (15) • A.: Uh-huh. • Q.: These exhibits are dated. There's a tab with a date. And a number of exhibits, for example, that fall under the 15th of July have been identified, and then the 16th of July and the 17th of July, et cetera. (20) • A.: Right. • Q.: Is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, let's focus first of all on the index. Did you prepare this index? (25)
• A.: Yes, I did.
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, could we take a look at, first of all, two intercepts. Are (5)there changes that should be made in this index? • A.: Yes, there are. • Q.: All right. Could you just direct the Judges to those changes, and then I will ask you about them. • A.: I seem to be missing the index from the second binder. (10) • Q.: Perhaps -- if you'd like to use my index. • A.: Okay. • Q.: I could give you my ... MR. HARMON: And if I could have this returned. • Q.: Now, when you refer to the changes, if you just refer to the page (15)number first. And we're talking about volume 2 here, are we not? • A.: Right. • Q.: Okay. Could you refer to the page number and just make changes that should be made. • A.: Uh-huh. Page 6 of the index, the last entry, which is -- under (20)the tab it says 18 July/6. • Q.: Give the Judges just a moment to find that entry. Please proceed, Ms. Frease. • A.: The date should be the 17th of July rather than the 18th. • Q.: Now -- (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Harmon, you are talking
MR. HARMON: Volume 2. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] 2? 364/2, is that right, volume 2? (5) MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. MR. HARMON: • Q.: Ms. Frease, could you repeat exactly the page and the intercept that you're referring to that needs to be corrected? (10) • A.: It's on page 6 of 8, the last entry. The tab is 18 July/6. • Q.: Could you turn to the next -- • A.: And the date should be the 17th of July. On the last page, 8 of 8, the third entry down, 25 July/1 is an estimated date which we couldn't confirm with specificity but believe to (15)be in the range of a couple of days. The next entry -- • Q.: Wait just a minute so the Judges can make whatever notations they need to make. • A.: Okay. (20) • Q.: Please proceed, Ms. Frease. • A.: It's the next entry down. 30 July/1 should be 2 August. And the next entry, which is marked 30 July/2, is also not a confirmed date but is within a range of a couple of days.
• Q.: Now, Ms. Frease, are all of the other dates contained in the two
(25)indexes confirmed dates?
• Q.: Now, let's talk briefly about this important part of your project, which was dating these intercepts. Why was it important to date the intercepts? (5) • A.: We needed to -- we needed to know with certainty which events took place on which days. • Q.: And could you tell the Trial Chamber who assisted - or not who assisted you - how long it took you to fully analyse and date these particular intercepts and the methodology that you used in doing so? (10)
• A.: Uh-huh. It was something that we started from the beginning.
When we received the first material, the printouts, many of the printouts
were being translated, but at the same time we were entering them into a
table, and many of the printouts that we received from the army of
Bosnia-Herzegovina did not have dates on every page. So where we had a
(15)date that was firm, we would bold it so that we knew without question that
that took place on that date. Where we didn't have a firm date typed on a
page, then we would speculate as to the date in terms of where it came in
the sequence, but we would not bold it, and that way we knew what was a
firm date and what was not a firm date.
(20)When we received the notebooks, we went through a similar process,
but the notebooks were much more helpful in dating the material. So where
we found a date -- and I should say that we really focused initially,
because of the volume of material and the few number of people who were
working on the project, that we prioritised it and worked on roughly a
(25)ten-day period initially and then expanded that out. When we found a date
(5) • A.: A very, very small percentage. Really, the majority, the vast majority we relied upon -- upon the internal -- we relied upon the documents that we received that specifically related to this project. I mean also I should say that, you know, along the way, we asked ourselves whether this made sense, whether -- whether it all seemed to jibe. (10) • Q.: Now, then in conclusion, then the dates that have been inserted in these two indexes in Prosecutor's Exhibit 364, Volume 1 and Volume 2, other than the changes that you've made. What degree of certainty do you have that those dates that have been entered in these two indexes are accurate? (15) • A.: I have absolute certainty. MR. HARMON: I have no additional questions, Mr. President and Your Honours. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. (20)Mr. Visnjic. Perhaps we could have a break. What do you think? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. The Defence would like to use several exhibits, so I could use the break to check them with the Registry and prepare.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So we're going to have a
(25)20-minute break now. Thank you.
--- On resuming at 11.15 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, your witness for the cross-examination. Please proceed. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Good morning, Ms. Frease. Ms. Frease, you have explained to the Trial Chamber that the analysis of the material was a long-winded process, and as far as I was able to understand, it was laborious. It went on over (10)months and even years. Am I right in saying that? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: From your testimony, I was also able to gather that it was a process that was ongoing, a continuous process, and in that ongoing process, some things are added onto, supplemented, as you have indeed (15)shown us. Am I right in saying that? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: Ms. Frease, were all the conversations translated that were in your notebooks? • A.: No. (20) • Q.: How did you select the conversations for translation? Which criteria did you apply for that selection? • A.: We focused on the dates, on dates within a particular range.
• Q.: Ms. Frease, the conversations between the 2nd of July, for which
you had determined that they were from the 2nd of July until the 2nd of
(25)August, in that period - and I take this as a framework - were the
• A.: Yes. I would say that the majority were. The focus, however, really began on about the 10th of July. • Q.: The conversations that you focused on, was the time determined for (5)all of them, or at least the approximate time? And when I say "time," I mean the date and actual time when these conversations had allegedly taken place. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Ms. Frease, for the conversations, that is to say, for all the (10)conversations in that period of time, did you find corroboration in some other material from an independent source? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Ms. Frease, I won't be going through all the notebooks. I will just like to select some samples for which I would need your additional (15)explanations, and I assume that because you have worked so labouriously on these conversations, that you will be able to supply me with this additional information that I shall be requiring.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] I should now like to ask the usher
to show the witness Prosecution Exhibit 364/1, OTP 364/1, and I think the
(20)file, the binder, is the one that you have beside you.
Ms. Frease, may we focus on the date the 13th of July, and it is
conversation number 14.
I should like to ask the usher once again to place the document on
the ELMO, the English version of this conversation on the ELMO to
(25)facilitate the Trial Chamber to follow the discussion.
• Q.: The 13th of July, and it is conversation number 14. It is the conversation which was established that was held at 2010 hours. The participants are Deronjic and Karadzic. (5) • A.: Okay. MR. HARMON: This is an exhibit that is under seal, so if we could go perhaps into private session on this line of inquiry. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Is the whole volume under seal? MR. HARMON: No, but this particular insert is under seal. (10)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Let us move into private
session, then, please.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, please proceed. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Ms. Frease, perhaps I shall have to ask my questions more precisely. For all the conversations of the critical period, were the (10)dates confirmed, and possibly the fact that the conversation actually took place? • A.: For all of the conversations in the two binders, in OTP Exhibit 364/1 and 2, all of the dates of the conversations are confirmed, with the exception of the four that I mentioned earlier in my testimony. (15) • Q.: Was the content confirmed as well for those conversations, as you explained to the Trial Chamber with Exhibit 863? That is to say, were all the documents, 364/1 and 2, were they confirmed by the accompanying documents and material, as in the case of Exhibit 863, which you explained? (20) • A.: No, they weren't. • Q.: I assume that that is even less the case with the other conversations, which you were not focusing on by your investigation team and which are in the other notebooks which have been tendered as evidence by the Prosecution. Am I right in assuming that? (25)
• A.: I believe, as I stated at the beginning, we -- I did choose to
(5) • Q.: Ms. Frease, I should like to take advantage of your presence here in the courtroom to take a look at Prosecution Exhibit 364/2, Volume 2. It is the last conversation that I'm interested in in this particular exhibit? • A.: From the 2nd of August. (10) • Q.: Yes, that's right, the 2nd of August. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I'd like to ask Mr. Harmon or his assistance. Is this document under seal? MR. HARMON: Both are under seal. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, unfortunately, I have (15)to request that we go into private session briefly again, please.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You don't ask for it very often,
so let us move into private session for a few moments.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are in open session, so please proceed. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Ms. Frease, do we not have in front of us a copy, an example of a conversation in which some facts have been confirmed and others have not been confirmed? Am I right in saying that? • A.: Yes, that's right. (15) • Q.: Ms. Frease, I should now like to ask you to look at the next series of exhibits and to assist the Defence in determining a date, that is to say, to explain to us the methods you used for date determination for the individual conversations. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Could the Prosecutor, that is to say (20)to the usher to show the witness Prosecution Exhibit 290. The usher, please, not the Prosecutor. The usher. I apologise. MR. HARMON: Mr. President, this exhibit is also under seal.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Therefore, we shall go into
private session to examine this document, this exhibit.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let's move into open
(25)session.
• Q.: Ms. Frease, do we have an example of a conversation with the right date above that conversation, when the conversation took place? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: And that was an element on the basis of which you were able to determine this, the days when the conversation took place and all the other conversations, am I right? • A.: Yes. That should be the case. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I should like to use (10)Exhibit 289 now, please, and I assume that that exhibit is under seal as well, so we'll have a bit of difficulty in the time to come. THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter corrects herself. On line 36, it does not say he's "shaving," but he's "hiding." The word was "hiding," not"shaving." (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] There is one point that I haven't understood. The intercept that you read out, was it under seal or not? I don't think it was, because it was the first time that it was presented to the Chamber. Mr. Harmon. (20) MR. HARMON: The notebook from which -- that contains the intercept is under seal.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: The notebook. Okay.
[Int.] Okay.
Let us move into private session for the next intercept.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are in open session now. You may continue, Mr. Visnjic. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] (15)
• Q.: Ms. Frease, what was the last exhibit I was referring to? 289?
Ms. Frease, I'm referring to two telephone conversations on page
00801429. That is the beginning. And then they go on to page 00801432.
I apologise for the interpreters. I think they didn't receive the
beginning of this conversation, so will they be patient with me, please.
(20)So the first conversation, at frequency 255.950, at 1300 hours,
the participant, Uran 2 - X - Colonel Cerovic (Obrad)
(X.:) Uran. Fine ...
(25)Uran: Hello.
• A.: If this isn't a part of the material that the Prosecution has presented, I don't have that material with me, but if I could -- if I could get some other material, I could likely provide you with a date. (25)
• Q.: You mean your working material; is that what you're referring to?
• Q.: May I ask you another question, and then we can get an answer from the Office of the Prosecutor. That is, after your testimony, you could provide us with the answer as to when you assume this conversation was (5)conducted, the exact time of it. • A.: Okay. • Q.: May I ask you now to look at the next conversation, frequency 259.675, at 1319, participants Colonel Cerovic and Djuric. • A.: I'm sorry. What -- uh-huh. Okay. Uh-huh. Okay. (10)
• Q.: The next conversation that follows on to this one. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, I see that the (20)Court reporter in English has difficulty in following you. Otherwise your intercept will not enter in the transcript, which I think is what you want, so please slow down.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.]
Cerovic: So there and in your area of responsibility.
(25)Djuric: Yes.
• A.: Try to date it? • Q.: Yes, try to date it, or rather a date after which that conversation must have taken place. (25)
• A.: Yes. What was the page number that we were on initially?
• A.: Right. This conversation would have taken place on the 25th of July, 1995. • Q.: Not after that date? (5) • A.: No, not after the date, because on page 00801438, there's the date of 26 July 1995. • Q.: In any event, if we go back to the time frame of the events in question, this conversation took place after the events that occurred in connection with the 28th Division and after the mass executions which the (10)Prosecution alleges occurred between the 12th and the 18th. Am I right? • A.: That's correct. I could add something about the context of this conversation. I do remember it. • Q.: Yes. Please do. • A.: There are -- I recall looking at other conversations of a similar (15)nature. Also in this period of time, which was the time when the Zepa enclave was falling, and there were similar -- I recall similar conversations in which an officer of the VRS Main Staff also issued a similar order that the buses, the convoy of people that were being deported from the Zepa enclave were to be treated well. (20) • Q.: Thank you, Ms. Frease. You have saved the Defence some time for future presentation of evidence.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the Defence will
suggest to the witness that she examine Prosecution Exhibit 293 now. It
is -- Mr. President, it is a conversation on page of this Exhibit 00801935
• A.: Yes. • Q.: This conversation was conducted on frequency 823.150 at 1955 hours. The participants are General Zivanovic and Colonel Ecimovic. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, this is a conversation, the reading of which would take some 15 minutes, so for the transcript, I should like to read an excerpt and then later on the Defence will prepare a transcript and a translation of the whole conversation. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. (10) MR. HARMON: It's difficult to consider the redirect examination without the benefit of an English-language translation. I find myself at a disadvantage under these circumstances. I can't read what's in this transcript, and if a portion of this is going to be selected, I can't review it to put the proper context of it, and so I am going to request (15)that prior to either the examination of this witness being concluded that we be provided with a translation of this or the court permit me an opportunity to recall Ms. Frease to examine her after I've seen the full English-language translation of the intercept. And that applies, frankly, to all of these intercepts that have not been translated. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. Do you agree?
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, I agree, and I have a
short answer for Mr. Harmon. These are Prosecution exhibits, and the
Defence rightfully assumed that they had been translated into both working
languages. We received these documents from the Prosecution, and I
(25)understand from Ms. Frease that some of these conversations were not
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. We will consider the possibility of recalling the witness in the afternoon, and I think that Mr. Harmon will have a chance to review the transcript in which there is already an English translation. So if Mr. Harmon finds it's necessary to review all the (10)transcripts to re-examine the witness, we will do that in the afternoon. So you may continue, Mr. Visnjic, please. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I should save Mr. Harmon some time. So I won't read the whole transcript to the witness. Just as information to the Trial Chamber, let me tell you that (15)it is a conversation in which General Zivanovic and Colonel Ecimovic discuss the provision of certain foodstuffs, agricultural produce for the Drina Corps, and what I wanted to ask Ms. Frease, because the Defence considers this exhibit to be important, because General Zivanovic said that he prepared those goods for the whole corps. So my question is: (20)Could Ms. Frease date this conversation?
• A.: Again, I would have to refer to the entire body of the -- of my
work, which I don't have here in front of me. I'd be happy to
double-check it. I mean it's clear that on this page that date is
indicated, I believe, but I would like to seen the original notebook as
(25)10/8/1995, so the 10th of August, 1995.
(10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Ms. Frease, may I try and assist you? • A.: You may. • Q.: On page 1928, there is indeed the date 19th of September, as you said. On page 1934 that follows that page, there is the date the 10th of (15)August, which is absolutely illogical -- • A.: Right. • Q.: -- as the notebook is filled in in order. Immediately after that on that same page, if you look at the same conversation, you will find the date the 11th or the 14th of October, 1995. That is the first following (20)conversation. The same page, 1934, a few lines later on, you have another date indicated.
• A.: Oh, yes. Okay. Uh-huh. Yes. I expect that what happened was
that the 10 and the 8 for the months were transposed, that in fact the
first date that appears on page 00801934 should be the 8th of October,
(25)1995. That would make sense with the sequence that we're dealing with.
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Thank you. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] May I ask the usher to show the witness Prosecution Exhibit 843 next, please. • Q.: Ms. Frease, in your examination-in-chief, you told us that in the -- you worked in the OTP until July 2000. • A.: That's correct. (10) • Q.: I think that the evidence was obtained by the OTP a little later. Is that right? • A.: Yes. That's my understanding. • Q.: I should now like to ask you to apply the same method you applied when you collected the corroborating material for one particular (15)conversation, and that conversation is on page 01077815. • A.: Okay. • Q.: The conversation took place on channel -- I think it says number 2, at 1051. • A.: To me it looks like channel 5, but ... (20)
• Q.: Possibly, yes. I have a poor copy. The conversation was between
X and Y, and they are Bogicevic and General Zivanovic. (X.:) Hello. (Y.:) Hello. (25)
(X.:) Is Zivanovic there?
(X.:) Ah, Bogicevic from Belgrade. (Y.:) Just a moment, please.
(X.:) Good day ... Just a moment, General, sir. Bogicevic
(5)is calling for you. Yes.
Zivanovic: Yes.
Bogicevic: Hello, Zile
[phoen]
Zivanovic: Hi, Bogi.
Bogicevic: Good luck.
(10)Zivanovic: Thank you.
Bogicevic: I brought the truck ... 5 tonnes of goods you
have here in Ljubovija.
Zivanovic: Yes. That's just the same as if you were in
Belgrade.
(15)Bogicevic: Well, what can we do now? That's what Triso
told me.
Zivanovic: What?
Bogicevic: Triso told me to do that.
Zivanovic: Triso doesn't understand anything about
(20)borders.
Bogicevic: Yes.
Zivanovic: If he told you, then inform him and give it
to him.
Bogicevic: We're going to take some over there up to
(25)you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Visnjic, I did not interrupt
you, but I think that you have already read this transcript for the
(25)LiveNote and I have remembered the date. I know the date. I'm not going
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, that is correct, but (5)I now have two questions to ask the witness. One is with respect to the date. The second is with respect to the contents, so I had to read it out again. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Please proceed. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] (10) • Q.: Ms. Frease, did you tell us the date, determine the date, although a witness has already done that. A Prosecution witness has already done that, but could you now determine the date of that conversation for us, please, again? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: I think it is page 10 -- no, 0107798. I think it says the 14th of July, 1995 on that particular page. Perhaps we can begin ... • A.: The number I thought you referred to was 01077794; is that correct? • Q.: No. 01077798. (20) • A.: Okay.
• Q.: Let me help you. I'm going to read the last three digits of the
page. 807. And on that page we have the conversation which took place at
2038 between General Zivanovic and Major Jokic, and in what we received
from the Prosecution, it was taken on the 14th of July, in the evening,
(25)at, as I say, 2038 hours.
• Q.: Then we have another date, yes. And on page 811, and I'm quoting the last digits, we have the 15th of July, 1995. Am I correct? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: Following on from that logic, when was this -- when did this conversation take place? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I should like to ask the usher to prepare Prosecution Exhibit OTP 469 next, please, if he would. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, we have the logics (10)of it but not the answer. We haven't heard an answer yet. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes. We're waiting, Your Honour. I'm waiting for the answer too, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you. • A.: Okay. If you can wait just a minute until I finish. Thank you. (15)Yes. Okay. I found a date of the 18th of July on page 01077846 and have counted one, two days back. So 17, 16, this one dated on the 15th. So -- I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for the original number of the conversation we were looking at again. But it -- uh-huh. Yes. It (20)would have been on the 15th of July. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Ms. Frease, in this conversation, if you still have it in front of you, I'm going to quote a sentence. I'm going to quote one sentence from that conversation. (25)
• A.: Please, if I could just turn back to it. Could you give me the
• Q.: 815. • A.: Uh-huh. • Q.: In the second half of the conversation, at one point (5)General Zivanovic says the following: "I have liberated Srebrenica, and I have now been given a new assignment." Ms. Frease, you have in front of you a document, a Prosecution document. JUDGE RODRIGUES: 469. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] 469. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much. • Q.: Number 469. Could you turn to page 2 of the document. The first page is the accompanying letter for the documentation which the Government of Republika Srpska sent to the Tribunal, and page 2 is the decree of the (15)president of the Republika Srpska of the 15th of July, 1995, by which Zivanovic is placed at their disposal, Milenko Zivanovic. Ms. Frease, my question is: Does this document confirm the sentence "I have now been given a new assignment," and is it the same document you yourself used in preparing the documents for the OTP? (20)
• A.: To my -- the system that I used was to take in all of the relevant
material that I could collect and to look at that, all of that material,
for specific intercepts and to see whether there were any internal
discrepancies among the documents that -- among the corroborating material
that I would use, with internal inconsistencies based on a whole set of
(25)documents -- I mean, I guess a little bit of difficulty that I'm having is
• Q.: Ms. Frease, let us put the question another way. Is there any consistency between this particular conversation and the document? You (5)can give us a yes or no answer. • A.: I would like to read the intercept again. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Please go ahead. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I have the original. Perhaps the (10)original would assist the witness. I'm not sure how clear a copy she has. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Maybe that would be clearer. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: While you're looking for it, Ms. Frease, may I -- • A.: It's not the same notebook. (15) • Q.: May I put the question to you in another way? Does this document correspond to -- fit into the contents of the conversation? Does it fit into the contents and substance of the conversation? • A.: Yes. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you. Mr. President, the (20)Defence has no further questions for this witness. Thank you, Ms. Frease.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. Very well. I think this
is a good time to take a break. I think that Mr. Harmon will also have an
opportunity to look at the transcript during the lunch break, and then we
(25)can come back for any additional questions. I think we all need a break
MR. HARMON: Yes, that's fine. Thank you. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, how about you? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, yes, but I would just like to take advantage of this opportunity to clarify one point. Ms. Frease, is she here as a witness or as an expert? Bearing in mind what she is doing in the Office of the Prosecution, do we treat her as a (10)witness or in the same way that we treated expert witnesses? That is my question to Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: I can go right to the point. I will not have any contact with Ms. Frease between now and the time she resumes the stand. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. So you have (15)understood the sense of that question. We adjourn for 50 minutes. --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m. --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet. I suppose that you are going to communicate to us the result of the (20)homework that you've been doing. [In English] Not that you've been doing, but the witness has done.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, I know that I said
that I completed, but I would like to beg the Court's indulgence. I have
just a brief area. So would the Trial Chamber allow me to ask a few more
(25)questions, and I promise they won't be more than three or four minutes. I
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, we see that the (5)lunch hour is always very productive and fertile. Mr. Harmon, do you have any objections? MR. HARMON: I was going to ask you, "What lunch hour?" Your Honour, but I have no objections. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We know that you have a very (10)difficult and complicated lunch hour. But Mr. Visnjic, please proceed. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. I shall do my best not to abuse the trust you have placed in me. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: [Continued] (15) • Q.: Ms. Frease, when did you learn for the first time of the alleged statement of General Krstic, which is mentioned here under the "Kill them all" statement? • A.: Could you restate your question?
• Q.: Ms. Frease, the Prosecution has offered the Court a tape and
(20)notebooks, with a conversation which allegedly took place between General
Krstic -- with General Krstic, and which internally -- or which we have
become accustomed to calling, between the Defence and the Prosecution, the
"Kill them all" conversation or statement. I think you are aware of the
conversation I'm referring to. Now, when did you learn of that
(25)conversation first? Can you remember?
• Q.: What was your reaction when you heard about that conversation for the first time, that is to say, when you analysed the conversation? (5) • A.: Well, the first reaction was one of some surprise because it was new to us. We first heard it on tape and had not come across it in any of the written material. • Q.: When you came across it in the written material. And when was that? (10) • A.: That was shortly thereafter. Because we hadn't heard it in the material before, I thought that it must not have taken place in July, since most of the material that we had covered -- since the material that we covered focused on July. So I went through notebooks, I identified notebooks that contained transcribed conversations from August, and I (15)began to look through them, and that was how I found the written notebook, and it was shortly after hearing the tape. • Q.: Did you consider that to be significant evidence, one of the most important for the Prosecution case? • A.: I didn't. (20) • Q.: Why? • A.: Because there were a lot of conversations that were important. • Q.: What efforts did you make to identify the voice of General Krstic on that tape, and were you at all able to -- were you at all involved in those activities? (25)
• A.: Not in any sort of formal way.
MR. HARMON: I object to that question. We've presented to the Chamber an expert witness that represents our efforts to identify the voice - the Court has heard that witness, Dr. French - and they've heard (5)another witness, whose name I will not reveal, also in respect of that topic. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I will withdraw my question and rephrase it. Mr. President, I'll withdraw the question and (10)go on to my next question, actually. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No. Excuse me, please, Mr. Visnjic. I myself have a question. Did you hear several diskettes or reels? • A.: Yes. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] How many times, more or less, did you hear the voice of -- no. Let me rephrase that. Did you identify the voice of General Krstic? • A.: Can you be more specific? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Did you recognise a voice which (20)was could supposedly have been that of General Krstic?
• A.: I could not recognise General Krstic's voice independent without
there having been reference made within a particular transcript or --
right, within a tape recording or a transcript of who the conversants
were. A main part of my job did not involve listening to the
(25)conversations. That work was primarily carried out by the language
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. Mr. Visnjic, you may proceed. Thank you very much, Witness. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Ms. Frease, perhaps I should have put my question a different way. What efforts did the Prosecution take in the sense of confirming identification? But Mr. Harmon has already answered that question, and I just wish to clarify what I meant in asking that question. (10)Now, my following question is: Did you ask the people who conducted the intercepts about this particular conversation? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Was that the interview with Witness Z of the 21st of November, 1999, or sometime in that period? (15) • A.: I believe I know who you're referring to. It would make me more comfortable to see the name of Witness Z, but I did conduct a conversation with one witness regarding that conversation. • Q.: Can you remember whether it was in the autumn of 1999? • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: Do you happen to know why this conversation was not used in the main part of the Prosecution presentation of evidence? • A.: No, I don't.
• Q.: Why was this conversation not included into the evidence that you
prepared, and that is Exhibit 364 that you prepared for the main part of
(25)the presentation of the Prosecution's evidence?
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further (5)questions. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Harmon, we are now going to see how productive exactly your lunch break was. Any additional questions? MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you. I do have some. (10) • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Let me turn first of all, Ms. Frease -- MR. HARMON: The witness should be provided with Prosecution Exhibits 364/1 and 364/2. • Q.: Do you have those in front of you, Ms. Frease? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: You were asked about a conversation that is found in Volume 1 at July 13th, tab 14. Would you turn to that tab, please. This is a conversation that is intercepted at 2010 hours on channel 5B, bottom code-name. It starts at the top with that. (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you have that conversation in front of you? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: The question my that colleague Mr. Visnjic asked you was was this
conversation confirmed or corroborated, and what I would like to do,
(25)please, is I'd like to go through this conversation in light of the
• A.: I believe that to be a gentleman by the name of Miroslav Deronjic, (5)from Bratunac, who at the time had been appointed as the civilian commissioner to Srebrenica. • Q.: And indeed, this conversation deals with civilians, in part, does it not; or Muslims, in part, does it not? • A.: Yes, that would be my interpretation. (10) • Q.: And, independently, are you aware that Miroslav Deronjic was in fact in Bratunac on the 13th of July? • A.: Yes, I am. • Q.: Are you aware of that based on film that you have seen of negotiations -- I'll take that back. Strike that. (15)How are you aware that Mr. Deronjic was in Bratunac on the 13th? • A.: Through film footage. • Q.: Is it also -- actually, let me then ask you to go to the next area where it says: [As read] "Deronjic: The president is asking how many thousands," and the next reference is: "About 2.000 for the time being." (20)On the 13th of July, are you aware that there were Muslim prisoners being detained in Bratunac? • A.: Yes, I am.
• Q.: And is the figure, the reference that's made in this intercept
that there were at least "2.000 for the time being" consistent with your
(25)knowledge of the events on the 13th of July?
• Q.: Okay. Now, let me ask you -- then go down to the bottom, two sets, where it says: "Deronjic: The president says all the goods must be (5)placed inside the warehouses before 12.00 tomorrow." The next line: "Deronjic: Right. Deronjic: Not in the warehouses but somewhere else." Are you aware that on the 13th of July, Muslim prisoners who were (10)being detained in Bratunac were moved from Bratunac to locations elsewhere? • A.: Yes, I am. • Q.: And where were those individuals moved in? • A.: They were primarily moved to schools. (15) • Q.: What location? Outside of Bratunac? • A.: Outside of Bratunac, yes. In the Zvornik municipality in general, and also, I guess, Pilica is -- well, that was later. • Q.: Therefore, in looking at this intercept, when my colleague asked you if this conversation has been corroborated, are there elements (20)contained in this conversation that have been corroborated by independent investigation conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor? • A.: The information in here is consistent with what we have found in the investigation, yes.
• Q.: All right. Let me turn now to Volume 2, if I could, and refer you
(25)to in the last conversation, a conversation dated the 2nd of August. Do
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, this is a conversation that has a telephone number in it; correct? (5) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: And you said on your direct examination that one of the ways that you considered attempting to verify whether or not these documents were genuine was by consulting a number of sources, including telephone books; is that correct? (10) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: In the Prosecutor's Exhibit 863 that has been shown to you earlier and that you prepared, there is in fact one tabbed item where there's a reference to a telephone book; is that correct? • A.: That's correct. (15) • Q.: Now, are you aware of whose telephone number is mentioned in this particular intercept? • A.: It appears to be General Krstic's telephone number. • Q.: Are you aware that General Krstic, on the 1st of November, 2000, when asked by my colleague, Mr. McCloskey, about whose telephone number (20)that was, confirmed indeed that that was his telephone number? • A.: I wasn't aware of that. MR. HARMON: And that, for Your Honours' reference, is found at pages 6814 and 6815 of the Prosecutor's - I'm sorry - of the English language version of the transcript. (25)
• Q.: Now, let's examine this just a little bit further. You're
• A.: Yes. • Q.: But General Krstic in his cross-examination has confirmed the (5)telephone number that is contained in this particular intercept, this being his own. • A.: Uh-huh. • Q.: Is that a factor that -- how do you weigh that factor? • A.: I would consider that -- I would consider it very strong (10)corroborating material for this intercept. • Q.: Now, let's turn to another item that was referred to by my colleague, and it is found in OTP Exhibit 289. • A.: I don't have that exhibit. MR. HARMON: Could that exhibit, please, be furnished to the (15)witness. • Q.: Now, the conversation I'm directing your attention to is found at the page that has the ERN number with the last four digits 1429. • A.: Okay. • Q.: Okay. Now, this is a conversation -- actually, I'll withdraw that (20)question. Can you date this conversation? Are you able to date this conversation by looking at any other notes that you may have? • A.: The material that I wanted to obtain during lunchtime is voluminous and hasn't been printed out, so I'll just try to look at the notebook and see if I can find a date. (25)
• Q.: Well, if you go to 1416 --
• Q.: And if you go to 1438 -- • A.: Right. • Q.: -- you will see two dates. (5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And just, then, if you don't have your other materials based on at least your preliminary analysis of comparing the dates and the location of the conversation in respect of those dates, are you able to give us at least a tentative answer as to when this conversation occurred? (10) • A.: Yes. On the 25th of July, 1995. • Q.: Now, were events occurring in Zepa on the 25th of July, 1995? • A.: Yes, they were. • Q.: Were civilians who were in Zepa being evacuated by bus? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: I can't read the language, but I have obtained a copy of the LiveNote, and I'd like to read you a portion of what has been interpreted in the LiveNote. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, perhaps for the benefit of the Defence, you could give us the page number, and for our (20)benefit as well, of course.
MR. HARMON: Let me -- unfortunately, I can't read this, but I
have the translation. I can direct my colleagues, perhaps, to the
sentence and they can find it in the -- I think it will be
actually -- actually, I believe it will be on page with the last four
(25)digits 1430.
(10) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And to your knowledge, by the 25th of July, was that -- were the people in the VRS aware that the world was now focusing on the events related to the takeover of the enclaves? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: Now, then the sentence that I've just read to you, that "We should behave in a civilised manner so we don't have a repetition of the problems we had before," in light of the events, the date, are you able to give us any view at all as to what this may refer to? • A.: Yes. Am I also able to draw upon other material that I remember (20)reading in the intercepts? • Q.: Please.
• A.: As I mentioned earlier, I recall a conversation in which a VRS
Main Staff officer, I believe, mentioned it was -- it was a similar
conversation, but at a higher level, and there was an order given to the
(25)effect -- the line was, "Not a single hair must be missing from their
• Q.: Do you remember any intercepts at all dealing with -- about CNN paying attention to these events, if you recall? • A.: I don't. I don't recall that. (10) MR. HARMON: All right. I have no additional questions, Your Honours. Thank you very much. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. Judge Fouad Riad, do you have any questions? (15) • QUESTIONED by the Court: JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Frease, good afternoon. • A.: Good afternoon. JUDGE RIAD: Can you hear me? • A.: Yes, I can. (20)
JUDGE RIAD: I have just a general question to start with
concerning what you call the labourious process to deal with the
material. Now, when you have to question or to verify that the document,
a tape, has to meet with certain requirements of reliability, and these
requirements are not fulfilled, do you discard it completely or do you
(25)still keep it in case of doubt?
JUDGE RIAD: All right. Suppose, for instance, you have a tape where the voice is not clear or where the names are not mentioned, and you gave us several tests. You said you have to -- the intercepts should be (5)consistent with what you knew about the case and with other -- with information coming from other sites, and there should be no internal -- there should be not be -- there should be no internal inconsistencies and so on. In case of -- if there is an internal inconsistency or difficulty to, let us say, to compare and so on, do you (10)still maintain the document or the tape? • A.: Absolutely. Absolutely. We listened to everything, we analysed everything, we read everything. And, you know, especially at the beginning, but even throughout the process, there were times that we didn't understand what we were hearing or what we were reading, that there (15)was just something that was new to us that would come up. Everything was processed -- the material was processed in the same systematic pattern. We didn't make any judgements about the content of the material; we just processed it all. And then, of course, as the investigation continued and as we learned more, sometimes what might have seemed to be irrelevant at (20)one moment made sense in the light of other things. JUDGE RIAD: There, in fact, the final decision of all the documents - I'm quoting you - the final decision of all the documents that were included was not your own, but were you still seriously involved in assessing, in the assessment of the documents? (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: It wasn't necessarily what wasn't up to the standard. It was -- I mean we included -- as I said, we included everything. So I'm not quite (5)clear what ... JUDGE RIAD: Why did you mention that you have got several factors in assessing the reliability? If these factors are not met with, what do you do? • A.: I'm still not sure that I understand your question. (10) JUDGE RIAD: You have to verify the reliability or not?
• A.: Well, as an entire -- as an entire set, for example, first we used
the printouts. Those were the documents that we were given first by the
army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There were some 500 and -- almost 600 pages.
On each page there would have been mostly more than one -- more than one
(15)conversation, sometimes several conversations. So we went through that
entire process of entering those within a specific date range. Actually,
all of those were entered because they were within July of 1995. Then we
went back to the notebooks and we started processing the notebooks. From
the notebooks then, we tried to match the notebooks up to the
(20)conversations that we had already entered into our database and got
matches. And so every time we had a verbatim match of a document, a
printed document of what the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina said was -- what
they told us had been transcribed, when we found it with the notebook,
then we would match those up.
(25)Additionally, when we received the material from the state
JUDGE RIAD: I understood that was your process. Now you have to
wait, of course, until you identify it.
You categorise, let's say, the reliability of your documents after
(25)that? You say this is the first class reliable. The other one is -- in
• A.: No, we -- JUDGE RIAD: -- after awhile? (5) • A.: No. The database contains all of the information. There was never anything that was eliminated. JUDGE RIAD: Yes. Now, would you take anything on its face value? For instance, in a tape, an intercept, they say, for instance, "I am Mr. So-and-so talking to you. " Would you take that for granted or you (10)tried to verify if it corresponds to the truth?
• A.: This is where speaking with the intercept operators was very
helpful. Excuse me. They -- we had questions about that, but we noticed
that in looking at the material, if a person's name was mentioned in the
conversation, if one person addressed another person by their name or by
(15)their rank or in some way, then -- this depended a little bit on the
operators, but generally what they would do is in the heading where you
have the participants they might say "X" but put the person's name in
parentheses.
I'm hesitating a little bit, because in other cases I believe, and
(20)now it's been many months, almost a year since I've been doing this, but I
believe they might have written the name. If they got the name from the
conversation as a person directing a comment to someone else by their
name, then they would have written that name up in the header of that
conversation, and this is what we noticed. This is what I noticed from
(25)the work that we conducted as well. If there was ever any doubt as to who
JUDGE RIAD: May I just ask a peripheral question. Before coming to the OTP, were you involved in the same kind of work? (10) • A.: No, I wasn't. JUDGE RIAD: Because you have a Master's Degree from the School of International Affairs. • A.: That's right. JUDGE RIAD: That's a school where I was a professor. We did not (15)used to teach this kind of thing. • A.: No, in fact. JUDGE RIAD: So what experience did you have before that? • A.: Well, I didn't have any experience in dealing with intercepted communications, certainly. My background is in international affairs, and (20)I worked in the field in the former Yugoslavia for a couple of years during the war. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
Riad, and especially for your testimony too.
(25)Madam Judge Wald.
• A.: We translated -- when we first received the material in March of 1998 - that's the printout material - we translated everything, all of the (10)pages, every conversation. JUDGE WALD: Now, when you were translating all the conversations, and you said you put them all into the database, but then you also told us that you kept sort of corroborating files like the one that you showed us, for some or all, or how did you pick the ones that you kept corroborating (15)files? Just that you happened to come upon corroboration? • A.: No. It was mostly based on the content of the conversation, whether it appeared as if a particular piece of information within that conversation seemed as if it was something that we might be able to corroborate, like phone numbers or -- (20)
JUDGE WALD: Right. When you came upon particular conversations,
some might immediately, I assume, stand out in your own mind or anyone
else's as being important. In fact, you said that one reason that you
didn't consider the "Kill them all," one to be as important as others, I
think is what you said, but when you found those ones you did think were
(25)important, did you have any system for immediately bringing them to the
• A.: There wasn't a system per se, but we spoke every day. (5) JUDGE WALD: So in other words, if you came upon something that you thought was really hot stuff, then you would communicate with somebody in the task force. • A.: That's correct. JUDGE WALD: So you ended up having files for some -- (10)corroborating files for some but not for others; is that right? • A.: That's right. JUDGE WALD: Did you have a corroborating file for the "Kill them all"? • A.: No. (15) JUDGE WALD: So you didn't think that was even important enough or you didn't come across any corroboration? • A.: That's right. JUDGE WALD: One or both of the answers I proffered. • A.: Right. That conversation didn't seem to contain anything that we (20)could corroborate independently.
JUDGE WALD: There were a lot of specifics in it. It was past the
two weeks that you said you concentrated on, but there were a lot of
specific things in there.
You said that you found it not as important as other conversations
(25)that you came across in the intercepts. Can you, offhand, remember any
• A.: I think and I hope I said that I didn't consider it to be more -- necessarily more important than other conversations. (5) JUDGE WALD: You just said, I think -- I don't have your quote, but the impression left with me is you didn't think it was a top-level, important conversation. You used the phrase: "There were others that were more important." • A.: Okay. (10) JUDGE WALD: I think. • A.: Okay. I mean for me it fit within a sort of bundle of conversations that were important. I can -- I can remember a few of them. JUDGE WALD: Well, even one or two, just so I get -- (15) • A.: Sure. The 16th of July conversation in which at 1358 in the afternoon, I think it was, in which 500 litres of D2 fuel were being ordered to Pilica village, Lieutenant Colonel Popovic. There were the conversations between -- on the 15th of July between Colonel Beara and General Krstic which I considered to be important. There were a couple of (20)conversations later. There was one conversation later in the day, I think at 2116 on the 16th, in which Lieutenant Colonel Popovic tries to report back to General Krstic, who is unavailable, and therefore leaves him a message that the work has been done or that the job is finished, I think were the words. (25)
JUDGE WALD: So is this a correct impression I'm getting, that is,
• A.: You know, one thing that I thought was that it could have just been military talk, people in the field. I mean I'm not in the military. I've then been in the military. JUDGE WALD: But you must have heard a lot of military intercepts (10)in your work. Okay. So in other words, just to get rid of that particular -- you didn't do any prioritising of that in terms of you didn't report that immediately to one of your investigative teammates and say, "Hey, we've got kind of an important one here. You should listen and take care of (15)it"? • A.: No. I mean we reported it right away. JUDGE WALD: Well, I mean you put it in the database, I know, but you didn't single it out for any kind of special attention or you did? • A.: Well, yes. We talked about it because it wasn't -- I mean, what (20)was unusual about it was, you know, the specific content of that conversation. So, yes, we talked about it right away.
JUDGE WALD: Okay. On a more general topic, you told us that your
corroboration file or you would try to put together in a file sometimes
things that corroborated stuff that was in the intercept itself and then
(25)sometimes you would evaluate the intercept in terms of "Whether it was
• A.: I never felt that there were any inconsistencies within the material. There were certainly things that we didn't understand within (10)the material, and -- JUDGE WALD: But in all these intercepts, you never found any one that you thought: Gee, this is odd. It just doesn't seem to gel with what we know about what else is going on? • A.: No. (15) JUDGE WALD: Okay. Were you -- when I asked you before, you know, you were on the alert, obviously, for communications which would provide evidence of what the team was investigating. What about if you came across something, and did you ever come across something, that went the other way, I mean, that seemed to be, if anything, exculpatory? (20) • A.: Yes. JUDGE WALD: Yes what? • A.: Yes. Yes. Well, I mean, there were some things -- for example, there was earlier mention of where -- of General Zivanovic's whereabouts. JUDGE WALD: Yes. (25)
• A.: And that was something that, you know, was sort of -- that we
JUDGE WALD: Would you discuss that? If you came across something and you thought: Gee, you know, this -- (5) • A.: Yes. JUDGE WALD: You would go to your mates -- • A.: Absolutely. JUDGE WALD: -- your mates, and you'd say, "Well, gee, you better be aware that there's this around --" (10) • A.: Absolutely. Absolutely.
JUDGE WALD: So did -- my last question: Did you at some
point -- you were keeping -- you were putting everything in the database,
you were occasionally talking to your -- well, maybe more than
occasionally talking to your investigative mates about things that
(15)particularly aroused your attention, good or bad, as they came through the
process. Now, at the end of the process, when decisions were being made,
I guess, about what evidence might be culled for the proceeding, did they
ever come back to you? I mean, what did you do with your corroborative
files as they moved along? Say you had an intercept on day one, you put
(20)it into the file -- into the database; as time went on, you found
collaborating evidence coming in, you kept a file on that, evidence coming
in. At some point did you input that cumulating knowledge back into the
investigative team so they could help evaluate the intercept, in light of
what you knew about it? They might know about it, but they might not know
(25)all the same things you knew about it?
JUDGE WALD: It's a very complicated question. You put the material in the database as you translated it, you kept an ongoing corroborative file so that if new information came which might have (5)corroborated that, it went into your corroborative file; right? • A.: No. Actually, it was that we would keep -- the file consisted of material within the intercepts that looked as if it might be possible to corroborate, and not the reverse, if I've understood you well. JUDGE WALD: Okay. But even if, even if -- yes. Even if that's (10)true, you would -- sometimes your file would develop as you went along. I mean, you would file some new -- find some new intercepts that corroborated the old ones or the telephone. • A.: Uh-huh. JUDGE WALD: So did you ever, at the end of the process, after you (15)had the corroboration files, go back to the team and give them the benefit of that corroboration so that they could put it into their evaluation of the intercepts? • A.: No. JUDGE WALD: You just kept them, the corroboration file, on the (20)shelf, or what? • A.: Well, you see -- right. THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please pause before giving an answer to give the interpreter's a chance.
JUDGE WALD: It's such a privilege for me to speak to somebody in
(25)my own language. Go ahead.
JUDGE WALD: Let me just sum up in the final question. Did they, the other members of the investigative team - the investigators, the lawyers, whoever else who were going to finally put together the case, did they ever come back to you on the intercepts and say, "Well, we're (10)planning to use certain intercepts. We want to ask you about certain ones" or once you'd gotten them into the database it was all done with, from your point of view? • A.: Well, I guess I helped to identify those that were most pertinent to the case. (15) JUDGE WALD: Okay. All right. Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
Wald. You're really privileged, because you can speak your own language.
I never have that chance.
Ms. Frease, I too have a few questions for you. So at the
(20)beginning there was your project of intercepts, with certainly objectives
in mind - organise the material, translate it, file it - and you had a
series of resources to do it. You mentioned translators in the field. I
must admit that I don't quite understand who those people were and what
they did for your project. "Field translators," could you explain the
(25)concept, the notion, who they were?
(10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. Another question. You mentioned, in connection with certain problems that you felt, you said two or three conversations which were not the same but which were recorded by different operators. Could you please explain a little the type of situation you are referring to? (15) • A.: Certainly. There were -- the 15th of July there was a conversation between General Krstic and Colonel Beara, and that conversation was recorded, I believe, by three different operators. Each conversation varied slightly, but there were enough elements in those conversations to allow us to say with certainty that it was the same (20)conversation but recorded by different operators and from at least two locations, from two locations. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] And how did that situation fit into your objective of corroborating the conversations or to make sure that they were consistent? (25)
• A.: I'm not sure I understand your question.
• A.: One conversation might provide more information, an additional name that another operator wasn't able to hear that someone else could hear. You know, what we were most interested in was just ensuring that we (10)had matched everything up together. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So could it be said that at the end, the fact that they were not absolutely identical could prove to be a test of the content because one provided something that the other did not? Am I understanding you correctly, Ms. Frease? Very well. There's (15)another question. You spoke about the State Security Service in Tuzla. You spoke about the SSB [as interpreted] in Tuzla. You also spoke about the SDB in Tuzla. I don't know what that is. It is on page 31, line 10 of the LiveNote. What are they? SDB, what is the SDB in Tuzla? • A.: It's the State Security Service in Tuzla. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The same thing? • A.: It is. CSB generally refers to a larger area that might contain several SDBs, but yes, it's the same. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So this is one situation where three things apply to the same thing, tell us the same thing. (25)
• A.: Right.
(5) • A.: We did it in phases, because we weren't sure how long the process was going to take, and so that was a place where we did prioritise them. So approximately from the 10th of July to the 20th of July, but it might have even been the 10th to the 18th. I don't exactly remember. After we processed all of that material, then we expanded the whole process to (10)include all of July, from the beginning of July through -- through the beginning of August, especially after, you know, after we discovered the conversation from the 2nd of August. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If we try to establish a relationship between those dates and the indictment, how would you see (15)it? If we compare the dates that you focused on and the indictment, what link could you establish, if there is any? • A.: Could you tell me what you're referring to in the indictment? I don't -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The indictment, as you know, (20)mentions dates. There is a time, a time period when the facts occurred. So my question is whether the dates that you focused on have anything to do with the dates referred to in the indictment, the dates when the crimes were allegedly committed.
• A.: Yes. We focused on -- as I said, July, but then for the situation
(25)of the reburials we looked at notebooks from that period of time to see
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Another question, (5)and that will be the last. You had this lengthy experience with the processing of intercepts. You worked on the establishment of co-relations among documents and their corroboration, and if I were to ask you to fabricate a message like this one, "Kill them all," what would you do? How would you go about it, make a montage of such an intercept? I'm (10)asking you to do that, and then I'm asking you how you would go about it. • A.: That's a -- well, I'd have to start back at the beginning with the typed records and with the notebooks, and I guess, you know -- I mean, you would have to fill an entire notebook with fabricated material. In terms of making a recording, I don't have any of that kind of background, so I (15)really -- I -- I don't know how I would do it. I don't know how it would be done. Cutting and pasting, I guess, things together, but I -- it's not really the area that I -- it's not my area of expertise. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So in any event, you would have to de-codify a message. If you were to have to work in the opposite (20)direction, how many persons or what kind of expertise would you need to do it? Or you don't even want to think about it? It wouldn't interest you? • A.: Well, I don't -- I don't feel qualified to know how to do that, since I wasn't someone who was actually participating in the transcription, in the listening, in the recording, and all that. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. But there is a
JUDGE RIAD: Ms. Frease, it is just an answer which you gave to the president which I would like to understand more and have the benefit (5)of your experience. You mentioned, in particular, three conversations between General Krstic and Beara, and each conversation varied slightly from the other. Would that be considered as a sign of inconsistency or of authenticity? How would you take it? • A.: As internal consistency. (10) JUDGE RIAD: Internal consistency? • A.: Mm-hmm. JUDGE RIAD: Now then, in that case they should be the same as the same day, same hour? • A.: Very close. (15) JUDGE RIAD: What should you check typically because you said they are varied, they are different? • A.: Right, but usually off within a minute or two, a couple of minutes. JUDGE RIAD: The variation would be what, in words, in -- or just (20)in the time, as you said?
• A.: It would be in the time but it would also be in the substance of
the text, because depending on where the operators were recording, where
they were listening from, sometimes one signal came in stronger than
another signal. And so some people would hear one part of a conversation
(25)better than they would hear another conversation. And by putting these
JUDGE RIAD: So that's what you call the internal consistency? • A.: Right. I mean, knowing that -- having people, the same people (5)identified, having the same subject matter discussed, on the same day, at the same time. But we were always extremely sure before we made these kinds of -- before we would confirm that it was the same conversation, we had to be absolutely sure that it was the same conversation, and never made a match that we were unsure about. If we were unsure about it, we (10)didn't match it. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much. • A.: You're welcome. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Ms. Frease, you have just completed your testimony here. Thank you very much for your contribution, (15)which has assisted us a great deal, both us, the Defence, and the Prosecution, and we wish you a safe journey home and success in your work. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, I think you have some documents that you wish to tender. MR. HARMON: That's correct, Mr. President. We would move for admission Prosecutor's Exhibit 863.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] And the Defence. Mr. Visnjic,
(25)what is your comment?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So Exhibit -- Prosecutor Exhibit 863 is admitted into evidence. Mr. Harmon, what next? (5)
MR. HARMON: My next witness is Mr. Kruszewski, and for that,
Mr. President, I would ask for a closed session. I will explain in this
private session the reason why I'm making that request.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Let us move into private session
(10)for a few moments.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.12 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of (25)March, 2001, at 9.20 a.m. |
